Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2
and then

Obama Set to Use His Imperial Pen Again

42 posts in this topic

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/01/09/vice-president-to-meet-with-gun-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.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who is "we" exactly?

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18563_162-57563152/biden-obama-may-side-step-congress-on-parts-of-gun-control-agenda/

http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/09/politics/gun-control-battle/

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

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

I personally think that you'll see a similar issue with a ban on assault rifles, if that's enacted. If you're already at the stage that you believe you require one for your safety, then you're not going to want to give it up. With their availability at both borders, any outright ban will just increase criminal activity.

The gun genie is already out of the bottle. You'll never get it back in. The only thing you can do is make them essentially obsolete.

If we want to protect children from guns, then we should throw research money at nanotechnology, to create nano swarms on school premises that destroy bullets when fired.

Not to mention the ridiculous military advantage it would give to the country that first invented it...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I personally think that you'll see a similar issue with a ban on assault rifles, if that's enacted. If you're already at the stage that you believe you require one for your safety, then you're not going to want to give it up. With their availability at both borders, any outright ban will just increase criminal activity.

The gun genie is already out of the bottle. You'll never get it back in. The only thing you can do is make them essentially obsolete.

If we want to protect children from guns, then we should throw research money at nanotechnology, to create nano swarms on school premises that destroy bullets when fired.

Not to mention the ridiculous military advantage it would give to the country that first invented it...

Naturally banning this or that type of weapon leads nowhere, the only thing that does is to hold people responsible for the damage their guns do, whether they have done it themselves or carelessly contributed to it.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Naturally banning this or that type of weapon leads nowhere, the only thing that does is to hold people responsible for the damage their guns do, whether they have done it themselves or carelessly contributed to it.

I find it interesting that guns aren't registered in the same way that cars are, but as always - things out here vary wildly from state to state.

While I think standardizing registration requirements would be a good thing (as well as mandatory reporting when they go missing) - guns are commonplace enough that anyone who wants one will be able to steal one. If you're at the mental stage where you're about to go on a mass murdering rampage, then adding a couple more to the body count up front in order to acquire those weapons isn't going to be a showstopper, per se.

If you're using your fully loaded assault rifle to prop open your front door, then, sure. You're kind of asking for trouble. That's like leaving the alcohol cabinet unlocked while you go away for a week and leave your teenage son to look after the house.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I find it interesting that guns aren't registered in the same way that cars are, but as always - things out here vary wildly from state to state.

While I think standardizing registration requirements would be a good thing (as well as mandatory reporting when they go missing) - guns are commonplace enough that anyone who wants one will be able to steal one. If you're at the mental stage where you're about to go on a mass murdering rampage, then adding a couple more to the body count up front in order to acquire those weapons isn't going to be a showstopper, per se.

If you're using your fully loaded assault rifle to prop open your front door, then, sure. You're kind of asking for trouble. That's like leaving the alcohol cabinet unlocked while you go away for a week and leave your teenage son to look after the house.

You would be surprised where all you can find guns in any "amateur gunslinger's" home. Under the pillow is just the most obvious place.

Guns, like all dangerous implements, should be somewhere it is difficult to get at when not under the control of the owner. And failing to do so should at least make the owner liable to the pecuniary damage caused.

Edit: and if the Australian experience is anything to go by, since mandatory registration is required the gun thefts have been reduced to 1/3.

Edited by questionmark
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Edit: and if the Australian experience is anything to go by, since mandatory registration is required the gun thefts have been reduced to 1/3.

no s,,t lol, they have 1\100 of guns they have before, and only 1\3 of thefts, that is very bad.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Prohibition doesn't work.

How much proof does one need?

Edited by Yamato
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You would be surprised where all you can find guns in any "amateur gunslinger's" home. Under the pillow is just the most obvious place.

Guns, like all dangerous implements, should be somewhere it is difficult to get at when not under the control of the owner. And failing to do so should at least make the owner liable to the pecuniary damage caused.

Edit: and if the Australian experience is anything to go by, since mandatory registration is required the gun thefts have been reduced to 1/3.

What evidence do you have for this latest BS stereotype of the day today? Who's going to come in our homes and enforce where "difficult" is for gun owners to put their guns now? We're going to have gun free zones in our houses now?

Is that what matters today in the daily spin room? Where the "amateurs" keep their guns in their house? Because that's not what you've been whining about for weeks on end already.

Edited by Yamato
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I personally think that you'll see a similar issue with a ban on assault rifles, if that's enacted. If you're already at the stage that you believe you require one for your safety, then you're not going to want to give it up. With their availability at both borders, any outright ban will just increase criminal activity.

The gun genie is already out of the bottle. You'll never get it back in. The only thing you can do is make them essentially obsolete.

If we want to protect children from guns, then we should throw research money at nanotechnology, to create nano swarms on school premises that destroy bullets when fired.

Not to mention the ridiculous military advantage it would give to the country that first invented it...

The country? How about the scientist? How about the individual? People invent things, not countries. Though if you can't leave your country on pain of death I suppose that nationalist perspective is easy enough. What ridiculous military advantages have caused disarmament in the past? If I make a time machine that can go back in time and prevent hundreds of millions of human deaths by democide, imagine the ridiculous advantage that would create for the sad disarmed people not to be slaughtered by their own military. It's governments that pour their time and energy into building a better kind of gun. It's war that drives the technology of mass death. Individuals want to use their phones and computers and find someone to love. They're not interested in finding people to have bureaucratic disagreements with so they can move their giant metal machines into their land to kill them.

I actually do want to protect children from guns. Not just some children from American civil society. Not just some children that we're in close enough proximity to, to be in our faces enough to give a damn about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Still cant have my guns :gun:

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So basically, if the government says "high powered assault weapons are now illegal" you'll happily go to gaol?

I'm impressed by your dedication.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.