96 replies to this topic

[Yamato]

Tiggs, on 22 January 2013 - 05:41 AM, said:

I have.

Since he doesn't actually name any of the Executive Orders in the video - has Rand Paul since come up with a list of which of those Executive Orders he deems to be unconstitutional?

It doesn't matter what Rand Paul deems.  What matters is that we the people defend our individual rights while we still have them to defend.   If you're interested in my opinion or other posters' on this site, rifle (pun intended) through the many discussions on the 2nd Amendment that have been active in the past month and try on some debate against what the UM community has already deemed there.  I've represented my position pretty clearly.   But whatever, this isn't some shut and dry case that we shouldn't question now, and just wait until everyone's definition of Infringed is satisfied, and only then say something about this.

[Tiggs]

Yamato, on 22 January 2013 - 07:13 AM, said:

It doesn't matter what Rand Paul deems.

Unless someone can actually point to anything that is unconstitutional in the President's executive orders, then I'd say that it's fairly obvious that the entire "Obama's a king / Impeach him" argument is pretty much dead on arrival, given that it hinges on unconstitutionality.

Quote

If you're interested in my opinion or other posters' on this site, rifle (pun intended) through the many discussions on the 2nd Amendment that have been active in the past month and try on some debate against what the UM community has already deemed there.

I've already on record as saying that I think that the proposed ban on assault rifles would be a Bad Thing™.

I don't, however, see anything in the executive orders that I'd classify as such.

[preacherman76]

Tiggs, on 22 January 2013 - 09:01 AM, said:

Unless someone can [size=4]actually point to anything that is unconstitutional in the President's executive orders, then I'd say that it's fairly obvious that the entire "Obama's a king / Impeach him" argument is pretty much dead on arrival, given that it hinges on unconstitutionality.

Every part of his EO is unconstitutional. Guns are not a subject the federal, or state government have authority to even talk about. What part of "shall not be infringed" dont people get? That means you dont get to tell people what they can sell, how they can sell it. You dont get to tell people how many bullets you are allowed in a clip. You for damn sure cant tell me I cant give my guns to my children when I die.

Edited by preacherman76, 22 January 2013 - 12:01 PM.

[Tiggs]

preacherman76, on 22 January 2013 - 12:00 PM, said:

Every part of his EO is unconstitutional. Guns are not a subject the federal, or state government have authority to even talk about. What part of "shall not be infringed" dont people get?

The whole regulated militia part, apparently.

Quote

That means you dont get to tell people what they can sell, how they can sell it. You dont get to tell people how many bullets you are allowed in a clip. You for damn sure cant tell me I cant give my guns to my children when I die.

Which of those do you believe are covered in his executive orders?

[Babe Ruth]

Tiggs

I absolutely agree that Obama will not be impeached.  Cripes a'mighty, the "loyal opposition" in Nancy Pelosi would not impeach Bush, and his crimes were, in a certain sense, much more obvious than Obama's crimes.

It ain't gonna happen, no matter what Obama does about gun control.  Obama and his predecessor serve the very same masters as the Congressmen do.

[Tesla II]

Talk is cheap... Obama is just a puppet too those behind the eagle curtain... Goldman sachs is the problem of US... and Obama appointed Tim Geithner a former CEO of GS to US treasury, the guy doesn't really have a good past, he too is rich and has avoided the same TAX LAW that Obama spoke about so yea the guy is very cunning and smart, he is loyal to money alone not to you the people.. This year will be hell i know it already,,

http://online.wsj.co...3629378119.html

The funny thing is i took a look at US treasury website and there he's described as a good guy...again an example of Offical lie vs. recorded fact...same as that CPI lie that Yamato presented.. for short US government is like a serial lier...they are not to be trusted with!

EDIT: I said i hate bloggers and i do..they simply aren't credible... but see this one. Probably only one i'll ever link

Edited by Nuke_em, 22 January 2013 - 03:39 PM.

[Tiggs]

Babe Ruth, on 22 January 2013 - 03:12 PM, said:

It ain't gonna happen, no matter what Obama does about gun control.  Obama and his predecessor serve the very same masters as the Congressmen do.

I presume Clinton didn't, then?

[Tesla II]

Another good example of how Assange was chared with a crime he didn't commit just because he is a threat to US.. That is how your system works... on lies and false pretentions.

[HerNibs]

questionmark, on 19 January 2013 - 09:01 PM, said:

You need to understand that either those who like guns help to solve the current untenable situation or the liberals will.

Or one of those gun toting liberals will have to step in with some sense.



Nibs

[HerNibs]

Can anyone honestly think that if President Obama has done anything that would be an impeachable offense there wouldn't be an army of layers, Republicans, lipstick wearing hockey moms and a plethora of others lining up?

So far there is only angry rhetoric with nothing substantial behind it.

Nibs

[Yamato]

Tiggs, on 22 January 2013 - 09:01 AM, said:

Unless someone can [size=4]actually point to anything that is unconstitutional in the President's executive orders, then I'd say that it's fairly obvious that the entire "Obama's a king / Impeach him" argument is pretty much dead on arrival, given that it hinges on unconstitutionality.

I don't, however, see anything in the executive orders that I'd classify as such.

Let's look out the windshield when we're going forward not the rear view mirror.

Defending liberty is about stopping the infringement before it happens, not after.   We've got 23 orders from the President about guns that our derelict Congress in all likelihood wouldn't have been able to pass and they arguably do smack of legislation when they could have just as easily been introduced in a Bill from the House or Senate and voted on by the representatives of our people, not just the partisans who support every steaming turd that Obama comes up with, and not just the majority either.  I think it's safe to assume that Obama knows he can't get his orders done through the legislature so he's shirking them and doing it himself.    Asking people who are defending the Constitution where infringement already is doesn't get the point.    It hasn't even been legally argued yet what smacks like legislation and what doesn't, but it should be and will be thanks to good statesmen like Rand Paul.   No this isn't some simple minded in-and-out process that's already been decided, just because Congress is so derelict in its duty as Rand Paul pointed out.   We're not going to satiate anyone's need for instant gratification on these fundamental legal matters.   We are going to debate this behavior in this country in the weeks and months ahead, whether there's an executive order hand-crafted by Obama that's attached to it or not.  It's going to be a shame if we need the Congress to clean up after the President for doing what they wouldn't have been able to agree to.  It's more likely that Obama's legal oversteps will be slapped down in court.   Maybe it's hard for some people to understand how wrong it is when a President does something unilaterally that the rest of the government couldn't have agreed on for whatever the reason, but it provides an honest exercise in upholding the separation of powers whether we can appreciate it or not.

And yes if someone comes up with anything that is unconstitutional in Obama's administration, that would be grounds for legal action against him.  Like banning guns that people suddenly don't have the right to bear anymore.  If someone doesn't think that's infringement, I don't know what pipe they're smoking but they can keep it to themselves.   The Constitution doesn't tell you what kind of guns we're allowed and what kind we're not.   Problem?   Then obey the rule of law and amend it.   There's a lot of rich targets to choose from here.  Unconstitutionality like Libya.   Like the Patriot Act.  Like the NDAA.    We have a very clear process for going to war in this country. I don't care to hear another change of subject to some other President, at some other time, doing some other thing, to compare it to Obama today because these rhetorical political games don't matter.   Comparing factoids between Presidents doesn't provide a valid reason not to debate the Constitutionality of our government.    We've been plagued by abusive Presidents for decades now and there's no better time than the present to take the power back from these unilateral wannabes.

[Yamato]

Tiggs, on 22 January 2013 - 03:39 PM, said:

I presume Clinton didn't, then?

The extent of our bad precedent doesn't excuse our future abuse.  It makes it even more important not to.

[Yamato]

Tiggs, on 22 January 2013 - 02:30 PM, said:

The whole regulated militia part, apparently.




Which of those do you believe are covered in his executive orders?

If the whole regulated militia part is what you're having problems with, then you don't understand the 2nd Amendment at all.  Replace the regulated militia part with "the US Army, US Navy, US Air Force and US Marines" and then read it again.

[Tiggs]

Yamato, on 22 January 2013 - 07:24 PM, said:

I think it's safe to assume that Obama knows he can't get his orders done through the legislature so he's shirking them and doing it himself.    Asking people who are defending the Constitution where infringement already is doesn't get the point.    It hasn't even been legally argued yet what smacks like legislation and what doesn't, but it should be and will be thanks to good statesmen like Rand Paul.   No this isn't some simple minded in-and-out process that's already been decided, just because Congress is so derelict in its duty as Rand Paul pointed out.   We're not going to satiate anyone's need for instant gratification on these fundamental legal matters.  

So - in short - you've got absolutely nothing.

[Yamato]

Tiggs, on 22 January 2013 - 07:58 PM, said:

So - in short - you've got absolutely nothing.

If you can't stop looking in your rear view mirror then yeah, what I said above means absolutely nothing, to you.

Speaking of "absolutely", were you not being "absolutely clear" a week ago about not wanting to discuss anything with me "ever again"?