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 3
acidhead

Obama signs 23 Executive Orders on GunControl

91 posts in this topic

I find it ironic... So very ironic.

That Obama is using executive orders and bypassing Congress and our Constitution.

The enabling act, which was passed on March 23rd 1933 provided (Article I: Federal laws may be enacted by the government [the cabinet] outside of the procedure provided in the Constitution . . . .) (Article II: The laws decreed by the government may deviate from the Constitution . . .) (Article III: The laws decreed by the government are to be drafted by the Chancellor and announced in the Reichsgesetzblatt.)

Hitler then used the powers from this act to mandate a prohibition of military rifles in the hands of the public.

This then was followed by him disarming "enemies of the state"; communists, gays, Jews. Remember that "communist" was a euphemism for those who weren't National Socialists. The German public were then offered to join the SS. Those who joined the Nazi Party or were in the SS or military were permitted in keeping their arms, but of course they themselves were instrumental in disarming and killing millions later targeted by Nazi Germany's reformed gun laws in 1938; those darn "communists" and Jews. The same gun law that then made it easier for Nazi civilians to get and keep handguns with a hunter's license.

Those who didn't join these state-run organizations and kept weapons were then killed.

So then having guns didn't stop their government?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So then having guns didn't stop their government?

All civilians joined the SS or were overly supportive of Hitler. They didn't try to stop their government.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd like to discuss some of the executive orders issued by president Obama today.

Order #5 Law enforcement shall “run full background check” before “returning seized guns”

So they are going to seize some guns? AKA, the guns that were perfectly fine and legal before they arbitrarily decided they weren't?

Order #7 Launch a national safe and responsible gun ownership campaign

So anti-gun propaganda? Great.

Order #15 Attorney General report on ‘gun-safety technologies’

Biden seemed interested in smart technology; like guns not being able to be used except by the buyer of the gun.

And our AG the guy who said he wants to brainwash people about guns in the same way they did about cigarettes.

Guess we know what Order 7 is for.

Order #16 Under Obamacare, doctors can ask patients about “guns in their homes"

This provides the basis of people being interviewed to see if they can own a gun or not.

That is, if you're in line with the liberal ideology of the government.

Order #17 Orders a letter to health care providers reminding them to “report threats of violence” to law enforcement

So the Obamacare doctors are encouraged to snitch on those who might differ in ideology, eh?

The "enemies of the state" will now be known as the mentally ill.

Order #20 Clarify mental health coverage under Medicaid

It seems mental health is the focus of the effort and definitely won't be abused as a loophole to assault people's rights.

Order #23 ‘National dialogue’ on “mental health” w/ HHS Sec. Kathleen Sebelius & Ed. Sec. Arne Duncan

So the head of the Department of Education wants to educate me on mental health? Orwellian doublespeak at it's finest.

More like the Department of Misinformation. This Department needs to go.

Edited by Eonwe
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All civilians joined the SS or were overly supportive of Hitler. They didn't try to stop their government.

The biggest argument against gun control is that assault weapons are needed incase the government decides to take over. This is such a tired and poor excuse for average citizens to have that kind of weapon. Is an assault weapon really going to stop the government?

The only citizens using assault weapons are gang bangers and mass murderers. I know most of the legal gun owners out there are respectful, law abiding citizens and should be able to own a gun if they are able, but there is no reason for any civilian to own an assault weapon, so then why not try to get rid of all of these weapons from the streets?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All civilians joined the SS or were overly supportive of Hitler. They didn't try to stop their government.

or you know, only a third of the population actually voted for him.

and it's a bit disengunuous to say they all supported Hitler, more like they saw what was coming and shutup for safety's sake or had the crap kicked out of them by the SA and later the SS and Gestapo.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The biggest argument against gun control is that assault weapons are needed incase the government decides to take over. This is such a tired and poor excuse for average citizens to have that kind of weapon. Is an assault weapon really going to stop the government?

The only citizens using assault weapons are gang bangers and mass murderers. I know most of the legal gun owners out there are respectful, law abiding citizens and should be able to own a gun if they are able, but there is no reason for any civilian to own an assault weapon, so then why not try to get rid of all of these weapons from the streets?

The thing you call a poor and tired excuse is something many Americans have died for so that you have a choice not to exercise said right.

Justified revolution is only justified when all other available options are exhausted and the government continues to take ground unconstitutionally.

So, no, owning an "assault weapon" is constitutional. There are over 2,000 gun control laws and a ban on fully automatic guns. Unfortunately, semi-automatic guns are being targeted unfairly, even though there is verified police footage of the police finding the Sandy Hook shooter's gun in the trunk of the car; he never left the school once he went inside - so his weapons were four pistols. This demonstrates the length the government is willing to go - and shows that it has been waiting to implement this political strategy: construe the sane as mentally ill, propagandize and "educate" people about guns, keep a national database on all of us, and potentially return the formerly legal guns they plan to unconstitutionally seize.

If you try to get rid of all the guns only the government, police, and criminals will have guns.

Plus people would violently revolt in response to guns being seized.

Since our government, as proven by Operation Fast & Furious, supply the guns to the criminals, I'd say that leaves us in a pickle.

Edited by Eonwe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

or you know, only a third of the population actually voted for him.

and it's a bit disengunuous to say they all supported Hitler, more like they saw what was coming and shutup for safety's sake or had the crap kicked out of them by the SA and later the SS and Gestapo.

Fair enough.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Obama signs 23 Executive Orders on Gun Control

Jan. 16, 2013 http://us.cnn.com/20....html?hpt=hp_c1

130116122807-obama-signing-0116-c1-main.jpg

Washington (CNN) -- President Barack Obama on Wednesday proposed background checks on all gun sales and bans on military style assault weapons and high-capacity magazines as part of a package of steps to reduce gun violence in the wake of the Newtown school massacre last month.

continued...

*****

Just curious...

Weren't the 'birthers' roundly criticized for wanting to do 'background checks' on Barack Obama?

Seems hypocritical of him to want back ground info on YOU but for him to become POTUS he didn't have to provide you with his own information(except an autobiography novel, of course) And now he just sign an executive order with the use of force to provide back ground checks on YOU!

I know, I know... the same ole people will say, "If you have nothing to hide or fear you'll pass the tests... er, I mean back ground checks......

Weird how this President continues to get a free pass at every turn.

Good job Barry.

oi REDNECK, you don't need a gun. Wake up and handle life without one or watch these tragedies happen again and again. Americas Gun laws are the most pathetic little i am scared of the world sh*& i have ever seen.... grow the Fu%* up... go chat with your neighbor rather then keep him at bay. Your own paranoia, created by fear of your neighbors and loss of your pathetic material possessions, is your own self destruction.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So anti-gun propaganda? Great.

And this is why you can't have any progress. When something reasonable gets proposed such as a campaign to encourage safe and responsible ownership, it's immediately vilified as propaganda.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

oi REDNECK, you don't need a gun. Wake up and handle life without one or watch these tragedies happen again and again. Americas Gun laws are the most pathetic little i am scared of the world sh*& i have ever seen.... grow the Fu%* up... go chat with your neighbor rather then keep him at bay. Your own paranoia, created by fear of your neighbors and loss of your pathetic material possessions, is your own self destruction.

You don't have to own a gun, but you most certainly would be able to save your life one day if you own one.

American gun laws exist, but aren't really enforced; similar to our immigration laws. Again, there are over 2,000 gun laws.

260,000,000 people were killed by government from 1900-1999. Their dead bodies would circle the Earth more times than I'd care to mention.

Make up your own mind.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And this is why you can't have any progress. When something reasonable gets proposed such as a campaign to encourage safe and responsible ownership, it's immediately vilified as propaganda.

Considering the man who said he'd like to brainwash Americans about guns is involved in this effort, it's hard not to be skeptical.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The biggest argument against gun control is that assault weapons are needed incase the government decides to take over. This is such a tired and poor excuse for average citizens to have that kind of weapon. Is an assault weapon really going to stop the government?

The only citizens using assault weapons are gang bangers and mass murderers. I know most of the legal gun owners out there are respectful, law abiding citizens and should be able to own a gun if they are able, but there is no reason for any civilian to own an assault weapon, so then why not try to get rid of all of these weapons from the streets?

Okay Piers.

Should, as history has proven, the GOV becomes tyrannical and the citizens decide to take up arms over the GOV the fight will become a guerilla style warfare.... urban warfare. Those who do not have a military assault style weapon will wish they had because the GOV will be using them.

Maybe you don't see the need for them right now. But when it does matter you'll wish they had. Use recent history of Libya or Syria for example.... The so-called rebels have been given assault style weapons to fight their GOVs... And who sent them there? Our own western GOV's.

Only an ignorant individual brings a knife to a sword fight.............DUH

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Considering the man who said he'd like to brainwash Americans about guns is involved in this effort, it's hard not to be skeptical.

Can you provide me with a quote of him saying that, because youve lost all credibility with your other post.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The thing you call a poor and tired excuse is something many Americans have died for so that you have a choice not to exercise said right.

Justified revolution is only justified when all other available options are exhausted and the government continues to take ground unconstitutionally.

So, no, owning an "assault weapon" is constitutional. There are over 2,000 gun control laws and a ban on fully automatic guns. Unfortunately, semi-automatic guns are being targeted unfairly, even though there is verified police footage of the police finding the Sandy Hook shooter's gun in the trunk of the car; he never left the school once he went inside - so his weapons were four pistols. This demonstrates the length the government is willing to go - and shows that it has been waiting to implement this political strategy: construe the sane as mentally ill, propagandize and "educate" people about guns, keep a national database on all of us, and potentially return the formerly legal guns they plan to unconstitutionally seize.

If you try to get rid of all the guns only the government, police, and criminals will have guns.

Plus people would violently revolt in response to guns being seized.

Since our government, as proven by Operation Fast & Furious, supply the guns to the criminals, I'd say that leaves us in a pickle.

I appreciate those people that had to die for us. I also understand that we have the right under the constitution, but, do you honestly believe that Jefferson and Co would have written the 2nd amendment exactly the same today? You can't deny that time changes things, makes them outdated, even obsolete. Muskets aren't even in the same realm as a semi-auto, or even a colt .45.

Just because it is in the constitution doesn't make it right as is. Remember, these are the same men who didn't have the foresight to give women voting rights, or abolish slavery and they, and their constitution, were not perfect and they knew this.

I'm not disputing the right to own a gun, I am questioning what you should be able to own.

As far as the AR-15, I'm not into conspiracy theories. Where is this footage? And do you think the gov't needs to exploit the children to get a ban on assault weapons?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can you provide me with a quote of him saying that, because youve lost all credibility with your other post.

Of course. I can provide you several quotes.

[media=]

[/media]
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I appreciate those people that had to die for us. I also understand that we have the right under the constitution, but, do you honestly believe that Jefferson and Co would have written the 2nd amendment exactly the same today? You can't deny that time changes things, makes them outdated, even obsolete. Muskets aren't even in the same realm as a semi-auto, or even a colt .45.

Just because it is in the constitution doesn't make it right as is. Remember, these are the same men who didn't have the foresight to give women voting rights, or abolish slavery and they, and their constitution, were not perfect and they knew this.

I'm not disputing the right to own a gun, I am questioning what you should be able to own.

As far as the AR-15, I'm not into conspiracy theories. Where is this footage? And do you think the gov't needs to exploit the children to get a ban on assault weapons?

I believe Jefferson, if he were here today, would heavily criticize our government, and then criticize the people for not being vigilant.

Yes, the Constitution can be amended - but it is no easy process.

[media=]

[/media]

Simply answered? Yes. They exploited 9/11 to get universal approval to invade Iraq; an exploitation based on a lie about weapons of mass destruction. Germany exploited the burning of the Reichstag to take away civil liberties and wage a war against "communists"; people who were not National Socialists, or who did not align with the ideology of the state.

Edited by Eonwe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course. I can provide you several quotes.

[media=]

[/media]

If you're going to call that brainwashing, then you may as well call everything brainwashing. Infact, all those "mothers against drunk driving" commercials are then just anti-drink and drive brainwashing and should be removed, right?

Why is portraying violence and guns as cool, exciting and necessary considered ok, not propaganda, but portraying them as uncool is considered anti-gun propaganda worthy of fighting against?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I appreciate those people that had to die for us. I also understand that we have the right under the constitution, but, do you honestly believe that Jefferson and Co would have written the 2nd amendment exactly the same today? You can't deny that time changes things, makes them outdated, even obsolete. Muskets aren't even in the same realm as a semi-auto, or even a colt .45.

That's a poorly thought out argument because the weapons you just described were the same type of weapons the GOV was using at the time the 2nd Amendment was written..

Had Jefferson and Co. written the 2nd amendment today they would acknowledge that the weapons of today should be included in the 2nd Amendment for all citizens.

How many times must it be said that the 2nd amendment wasn't written so people could go hunting? Everybody hunted back then.

The 2nd amendment was written so the citizen had a military style weapon at home and could join a militia to stop an invading force from taking over America... And yes that includes a tyrannical GOV from within America.... A GOV infiltrated by foreigners. There is zero difference.

Edited by acidhead
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unfortunately, semi-automatic guns are being targeted unfairly, even though there is verified police footage of the police finding the Sandy Hook shooter's gun in the trunk of the car; he never left the school once he went inside - so his weapons were four pistols.

The police confirmed fairly early on that a shotgun had been retrieved from the car.

Connecticut State Police Lt. J. Paul Vance, speaking at an afternoon news conference, said "the weapon that was utilized most of the time during the crime was a [.223 caliber] Bushmaster rifle."

Lanza also carried a 9mm Sig Sauer and a 10mm Glock, both handguns, he said, adding that one of the handguns had been used by the assailant to take his own life.

Vance said the death of the shooter's mother, Nancy Lanza, had officially been ruled a homicide. She was shot and killed by her son at her suburban home before his rampage at the Sandy Hook Elementary School. Earlier Sunday, Connecticut Medical Examiner Wayne Carver said that Ms. Lanza had been shot multiple times in the head.

Vance said "all weapons had multiple magazines and ammunition," adding that each of the magazines had a capacity of approximately 30 rounds. Asked by reporters how many rounds there were in total, he replied: "hundreds."

Vance said a fourth weapon, a shotgun, had been recovered in the vehicle Lanza drove to the school on the day of the attack. Earlier, officials had suggested that weapon was recovered from the home the assailant shared with his mother.

Source: NPR

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you're going to call that brainwashing, then you may as well call everything brainwashing. Infact, all those "mothers against drunk driving" commercials are then just anti-drink and drive brainwashing and should be removed, right?

Why is portraying violence and guns as cool, exciting and necessary considered ok, not propaganda, but portraying them as uncool is considered anti-gun propaganda worthy of fighting against?

Eonwe just proved Holder said brainwashing when you accused him of making it up and now you change your argument to justify using the word?

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The police confirmed fairly early on that a shotgun had been retrieved from the car.

Connecticut State Police Lt. J. Paul Vance, speaking at an afternoon news conference, said "the weapon that was utilized most of the time during the crime was a [.223 caliber] Bushmaster rifle."

Lanza also carried a 9mm Sig Sauer and a 10mm Glock, both handguns, he said, adding that one of the handguns had been used by the assailant to take his own life.

Vance said the death of the shooter's mother, Nancy Lanza, had officially been ruled a homicide. She was shot and killed by her son at her suburban home before his rampage at the Sandy Hook Elementary School. Earlier Sunday, Connecticut Medical Examiner Wayne Carver said that Ms. Lanza had been shot multiple times in the head.

Vance said "all weapons had multiple magazines and ammunition," adding that each of the magazines had a capacity of approximately 30 rounds. Asked by reporters how many rounds there were in total, he replied: "hundreds."

Vance said a fourth weapon, a shotgun, had been recovered in the vehicle Lanza drove to the school on the day of the attack. Earlier, officials had suggested that weapon was recovered from the home the assailant shared with his mother.

Source: NPR

So where is the Ar-15 Piers Morgan and others have said was used in Connecticut?

Was Piers lying?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you're going to call that brainwashing, then you may as well call everything brainwashing. Infact, all those "mothers against drunk driving" commercials are then just anti-drink and drive brainwashing and should be removed, right?

Why is portraying violence and guns as cool, exciting and necessary considered ok, not propaganda, but portraying them as uncool is considered anti-gun propaganda worthy of fighting against?

"And what we need to do is change the way in which people think about guns, especially young people. And make it something that's not cool, that it's not acceptable, that it's not hip to carry a gun anymore." - Eric Holder

"One thing that I think is clear with young people, and with adults as well, is that we just have to be repetitive about this. It's not enough to have a catchy ad on a Monday and then do it every Monday. We need to do this every day of the week and just really brainwash people into thinking about guns in a vastly different way." - Eric Holder

So, when he says the word brainwashing, and says the definition of brainwashing, "thinking about guns in a vastly different away", after he says brainwashing, that's not enough evidence to prove to you that he intends on brainwashing people about guns. And now that there is a national campaign federally mandated about guns, you don't think they might try to "make it into something that's not acceptable"?

Edited by Eonwe
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Eonwe just proved Holder said brainwashing when you accused him of making it up and now you change your argument to justify using the word?

What he's proposing isn't considered brainwashing any more than MADD is brainwashing. That's exactly why I asked him for proof of his claim, because as I thought, it was a vast exaggeration of what he actually said.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What he's proposing isn't considered brainwashing any more than MADD is brainwashing. That's exactly why I asked him for proof of his claim, because as I thought, it was a vast exaggeration of what he actually said.

Read Holders quote s-l-o-w-l-y to yourself.

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 3

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.