41 replies to this topic

[and then]

http://www.foxnews.c...-safety-groups/

If crazy uncle Joe is correct in his estimation of Oby's planned use of an EO to regulate guns then the fight is ON.  The EO will not stop Newtowns from occurring in future and it will solidify opposition in ways he can't even imagine.  The thing about unbridled arrogance is that it eventually does you in... always...  The secret service just got a little more tense as well.

[questionmark]

Wellguys,it is really quite simple, either the gun lovers offer a secure plan or the gun haters will. And guess which one we will like less?

[Sir Wearer of Hats]

yeah, even spesking as someone who thinks tht you lot need stricter controls (such as the "everyone gets background checked" being aplied to gun shows) this is too much for a represenatational system of government to take.

[Legaia]

questionmark, on 10 January 2013 - 09:32 AM, said:

Wellguys,it is really quite simple, either the gun lovers offer a secure plan or the gun haters will. And guess which one we will like less?

Who is "we" exactly?

[libstaK]

pfft.  Well if Faux News is reporting it, it must be so.

[questionmark]

Legaia, on 10 January 2013 - 09:49 AM, said:

Who is "we" exactly?

I guess you hate guns, else you would not ask.

[Sir Wearer of Hats]

Legaia, on 10 January 2013 - 09:49 AM, said:

Who is "we" exactly?

"we" the peopl I presume, as the moment they take away the guns it's a short slope to not having any roghts at all.

[Legaia]

questionmark, on 10 January 2013 - 10:15 AM, said:

I guess you hate guns, else you would not ask.

I genuinely didn't understand what you meant. Got ya!

[and then]

libstaK, on 10 January 2013 - 10:02 AM, said:

pfft.  Well if Faux News is reporting it, it must be so.

http://www.cbsnews.c...control-agenda/
http://www.cnn.com/2...control-battle/

Both of these articles confirm the statement about the use of E.O.s to change the rules.

[Hasina]

Here's my question: I know executive order's have been used in the past, sometimes even over reaching the executive branches actual powers (example would be Bill Clinton with the Kosovo War, later Congress gave it's approval, but it was started with an executive order), getting to the question, has an executive order ever amended an amendment to the Constitution? The Executive branch seems to enjoy side stepping Congress.

[questionmark]

Hasina, on 10 January 2013 - 12:19 PM, said:

Here's my question: I know executive order's have been used in the past, sometimes even over reaching the executive branches actual powers (example would be Bill Clinton with the Kosovo War, later Congress gave it's approval, but it was started with an executive order), getting to the question, has an executive order ever amended an amendment to the Constitution? The Executive branch seems to enjoy side stepping Congress.

Yes, the 18th amendment was rendered ineffective by Roosevelt in 1933, later that same year the 21th amendment repealed the 18th. If you now wonder what the 18th was about: It was about banning alcohol in the US.

[Hasina]

questionmark, on 10 January 2013 - 01:56 PM, said:

Yes, the 18th amendment was rendered ineffective by Roosevelt in 1933, later that same year the 21th amendment repealed the 18th. If you now wonder what the 18th was about: It was about banning alcohol in the US.

Thank you Questionmark~! Is this a good use of the power is my next question?

[questionmark]

Hasina, on 10 January 2013 - 01:59 PM, said:

Thank you Questionmark~! Is this a good use of the power is my next question?

In the case of the prohibition: yes. That was rendering the US into the most lawless place on earth. But then again, it should have never been law to start with.

Now: do I think that executive powers should be limited to cases of emergency? Quite so, and no executive order should stand for longer than 90 days without legislative approval. But I guess that is another one of my battles against windmills.

Edited by questionmark, 10 January 2013 - 02:02 PM.

[Hasina]

questionmark, on 10 January 2013 - 02:02 PM, said:

In the case of the prohibition: yes. That was rendering the US into the most lawless place on earth. But then again, it should have never been law to start with.

Now: do I think that executive powers should be limited to cases of emergency? Quite so, and no executive order should stand for longer than 90 days without legislative approval. But I guess that is another one of my battles against windmills.

Why do you think it shouldn't have been a law? Because it constricts a certain a freedom?

See, now that makes sense, executive order only used in extreme cases of emergency and reviewed in three months time. I don't have to ask this question but I'll form it into one, are guns and the availability of them an extreme emergency? This is a question for everyone.

[questionmark]

Hasina, on 10 January 2013 - 02:06 PM, said:

Why do you think it shouldn't have been a law? Because it constricts a certain a freedom?

See, now that makes sense, executive order only used in extreme cases of emergency and reviewed in three months time. I don't have to ask this question but I'll form it into one, are guns and the availability of them an extreme emergency? This is a question for everyone.

Because you can't get people away from their habits. Anybody with 3 functioning brain cells could have told you that if people can't buy booze they will make their own, smuggle it or buy it from those who make their own or smuggle it.  The German imperative ("what is not allowed cannot be happening") only works in Germany (in very few cases). And many more people use booze than drugs, and drugs already create a gigantic crime problem.


While well intended it was very ill thought through.