NRA offensive exposes deep U.S. divisions on guns

VacationGuy234 said:
I don't think that rises to the level of impeachment. He has the right to do it, I believe.
Click to expand...

nope. the reason why he delayed this issue twice is because he's trying to get around with it. he has an entire legal department including US Attorney General working for him to figure it out.
 
VacationGuy234 said:
An executive order is completely within the law. It is there to help enforce the law. If he signs an order to put gun checks in federal hands, there is nothing illegal about it.

Remember, we already have laws on the books for gun control.
Click to expand...

not really. an executive order can be illegal..... like Nixon.
 
VacationGuy234 said:
If there was a law stating that it is required that any tattoo must be yellow, he can create an executive order as to how that will be enforced.

I could be wrong, but I think that is the way it works. He doesn't make new laws... he enforces existing laws in a way he sees fit.
Click to expand...

yes very wrong. what do you think why 5 Attorney Generals resigned under President Bush? 5!!!!!!!! this is almost unheard of since 100+ years ago! Most Presidents have gone thru at least 2 Attorney Generals but... 5 under Bush!!! FYI - there were 6 Attorney Generals under Bush but 5 resigned.

a very simple answer - quite a handful of Bush's executive orders was unconstitutional, unethical, and legally questionable.

just a suggestion - I think it's best if you make sure you know exactly what you're talking about before you speak. just a suggestion.
 
Jiro said:
yes very wrong. what do you think why 5 Attorney Generals resigned under President Bush? 5!!!!!!!! this is almost unheard of since 100+ years ago! Most Presidents have gone thru at least 2 Attorney Generals but... 5 under Bush!!! FYI - there were 6 Attorney Generals under Bush but 5 resigned.

a very simple answer - quite a handful of Bush's executive orders was unconstitutional, unethical, and legally questionable.

just a suggestion - I think it's best if you make sure you know exactly what you're talking about before you speak. just a suggestion.
Click to expand...
No, to me it sounds like an insult. :lol:
 
VacationGuy234 said:
The President can conduct military activity for 90 days per the War Powers Resolution. He cannot declare, but he doesn't have to.

To be more specific 60 days with 30 days for withdrawal(however you define withdrawal).
Click to expand...

many Presidents have ignored it.

while Congress can't do anything about it... they can simply just not fund it but they cave in because by not doing so... they will get painted as unpatriotic Americans and lose their jobs. John Kerry remember?
 
CrazyPaul said:
I can't stop laughing. Would our own government attack us like Libya/Syria governments did to their people? Not in a million years.
Click to expand...

they did. in New Orleans. and Kent State. and Civil War.
 
Here are the executive orders:

All they do is facilitate how to enforce laws on the books.

Here Are The 23 Executive Orders On Gun Safety Signed Today By The President - Forbes

There is nothing about banning any weapons here. However, what it will do is take away the NRA ability to stifle data on gun violence, and that is pretty damaging for that group.

It will also help to track the mentally ill and hold people accountable for giving them weapons.

For the most part, I'm in favor of these changes.
 
If I had to state a reason that the U.S. could possibly delve in to civil war, I'm afraid gun control would be the reason.

I could think of nothing else that would come close.
 
I have a couple of questions that anyone is free to answer to help me understand the "anti-constitutional" side of the gun control debate:

1. If there is non-restrictive belief in the constitutions wording "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed", does this translate to meaning that any citizen of the US has the right (and can) purchase and/or have anything from knives to nuclear bombs?
2. Is the argument against gun control really based on being anti-constitutional? As I understand it, the Framers set up the constitution in a way that allows for amendments which, in turn, can be further amended (or even reversed/removed). So how are those who wish to possibly adjust or amend the 2nd amendment being "unconstitutional"?
3. If the argument on the right to bear arms is based on what the founding fathers intended regarding the amendment, why is the NRA's place in this so large? The NRA was founded and set up to "promote and encourage rifle shooting on a scientific basis". Is it valid to argue one thing based on the founders intent and not the other?

I have thought about these questions for a long time now and cannot come up with any clear answers myself. Any feedback, one way or the other, would be appreciated. :)
 
VacationGuy234 said:
Here are the executive orders:

All they do is facilitate how to enforce laws on the books.

Here Are The 23 Executive Orders On Gun Safety Signed Today By The President - Forbes

There is nothing about banning any weapons here. However, what it will do is take away the NRA ability to stifle data on gun violence, and that is pretty damaging for that group.

It will also help to track the mentally ill and hold people accountable for giving them weapons.

For the most part, I'm in favor of these changes.
Click to expand...

I hope you are kidding.

Also, note, as predicted those Obamacare electronic records now have a window to enter. :ugh:
 
Journey said:
I have a couple of questions that anyone is free to answer to help me understand the "anti-constitutional" side of the gun control debate:

1. If there is non-restrictive belief in the constitutions wording "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed", does this translate to meaning that any citizen of the US has the right (and can) purchase and/or have anything from knives to nuclear bombs?
2. Is the argument against gun control really based on being anti-constitutional? As I understand it, the Framers set up the constitution in a way that allows for amendments which, in turn, can be further amended (or even reversed/removed). So how are those who wish to possibly adjust or amend the 2nd amendment being "unconstitutional"?
3. If the argument on the right to bear arms is based on what the founding fathers intended regarding the amendment, why is the NRA's place in this so large? The NRA was founded and set up to "promote and encourage rifle shooting on a scientific basis". Is it valid to argue one thing based on the founders intent and not the other?

I have thought about these questions for a long time now and cannot come up with any clear answers myself. Any feedback, one way or the other, would be appreciated. :)
Click to expand...

It becomes unconstitutional only when trying to create a law that goes against the constitution. Nothing wrong with amending the constitution, however. The founders allowed for that, However, in their wisdom they made that process very difficult.
 
VacationGuy234 said:
If I had to state a reason that the U.S. could possibly delve in to civil war, I'm afraid gun control would be the reason.

I could think of nothing else that would come close.
Click to expand...

Yup, and gun control done by executive order makes things worse. The fact that this comes on the heels of having Obamacare forced on us, and during an economic mess makes this a very interesting situation to say the least.
 
VacationGuy234 said:
Here are the executive orders:

All they do is facilitate how to enforce laws on the books.

Here Are The 23 Executive Orders On Gun Safety Signed Today By The President - Forbes

There is nothing about banning any weapons here. However, what it will do is take away the NRA ability to stifle data on gun violence, and that is pretty damaging for that group.

It will also help to track the mentally ill and hold people accountable for giving them weapons.

For the most part, I'm in favor of these changes.
Click to expand...

Yup, that what I posted in other thread.

I think that Obama's executive order is reasonable and he has no authority to renew the federal assault weapon ban because it require an approval from the congress.

Hardcore, anti-Obama will have a lot of bad things to say, beyond to moderate views because they simply don't like Obama.
 
TXgolfer said:
It becomes unconstitutional only when trying to create a law that goes against the constitution. Nothing wrong with amending the constitution, however. The founders allowed for that, However, in their wisdom they made that process very difficult.
Click to expand...

Ok I am following what you said but then why are people saying gun control is unconstitutional if what it is wanting to do is possibly amend the 2nd amendment (basic or general example: the right to have a gun as long as you do not have a criminal background or mental health issue)?
 
Back
Top