NRA says Biden only interested in infringing gun rights


PDA






Silent Bob
January 10, 2013, 05:45 PM
Wow, what a shock:

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/01/10/biden-nra-wildlife-gun-control/1823511/

If you enjoyed reading about "NRA says Biden only interested in infringing gun rights" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
horsemen61
January 10, 2013, 05:50 PM
Can't say I am surprised :fire:

razorback2003
January 10, 2013, 05:50 PM
The NRA needs to keep speaking the truth and putting the pressure on the politicians to leave our guns, ammo, and accessories alone.

Skribs
January 10, 2013, 05:54 PM
We've been coming up with tongue-in-cheek jokes about all the other anti positions. Do we have any on, "I'm a gun owner, but..." or "I support the 2A, but..."?

wow6599
January 10, 2013, 05:55 PM
NRA says Biden only interested in infringing gun rights

That has always been their agenda. Meeting with the NRA was nothing more than a facade.

M-Cameron
January 10, 2013, 05:56 PM
"There has got to be some common ground, to not solve every problem but diminish the probability" of mass shootings, he said. "That's what this is all about. There are no conclusions I have reached."

i just love that...they claim they want to reach a "common ground".....but they are completely unwilling to yield on any of their views.

essentially what he means is, " we want to force our stance on the issue, we well call it 'common'...."

c4v3man
January 10, 2013, 06:01 PM
Hopefully they'll go all the way and make it illegal to carry/possess any firearm anywhere, with criminal intent. That'll reduce gun violence!

While they're at it, make it illegal to use a gun for suicide, and make the punishment death by firing squad.

Onmilo
January 10, 2013, 06:05 PM
Glad to see our Lawmakers working so hard on "Common Ground" issues such as trillion dollar fantasy coins to solve the deficit and gun control which has long been proven to NOT reduce crime and ignoring the little things like the deficit, rampant inflation, job losses on the increase, a stagnant economy, getting the troops out of stupid places, our own roads, infastructure, and school system failures...

fxstchewy
January 10, 2013, 06:06 PM
ALL they are concerned about is the limiting of our rights, this is what i truly believe. they got caught with Fast & Furious so the Sandy Hook deal fell right in their lap, just what bho & eric with-holder was waiting on, wonder why he decided to stay on? while i do think we need to make sure people are not preyed upon by madmen, limiting MY Rights will never change that, I am never going to do those things. I feel this regime is going to split this country. :(

wild cat mccane
January 10, 2013, 06:13 PM
Holy hell. We are in a circle of only like minded people, peeps. Sandy Hook was a big deal in American history.

I for one welcome conversation.

robhof
January 10, 2013, 06:14 PM
Their latest is back ground checks for ammo; lets see box of 50 22's $1.55 plus bg check $25, that'll be $26.55 or $.53 per round of 22. Also the great 0 wants to use executive power to get his way and not wait for congress!:cuss::cuss::fire::banghead:

rtz
January 10, 2013, 06:15 PM
How can we get Biden, Feinstein, and Obamy removed from office? These crazy fools are unfit to lead. We can't have morons like that attempting to run this country.

A petition? A vote? A request? Cash payment?

481
January 10, 2013, 06:19 PM
My favorite quote from the article linked above:

"There is a surprising, so far, recurrence of suggestions that we have universal background checks," Biden said.

It seems that if Obama, Biden, Feinstein, Pelosi, and Schumer repeat themselves enough, they can claim that they've found a surprising amount of agreement with their opinions.

The only "common ground" these liberal elitists have is with one another.

KMatch
January 10, 2013, 06:19 PM
Am I the only one disturbed by the involvement of Walmart in these discussions? I can't engage my brain to figure out where Walmart has a horse in the race, or a voice for that matter. Sure, they sell guns. A few more than the guy up the road from me, but likely nowheres near some of the specialty big name vendors. Huh?

On a slant, here's another EO comment tossed out there. Something struck me on a positive note that maybe they'll use an EO to tighten up lapses in punishment for gun related crimes. Nah... That almost makes sense. Scratch that. We could only hope!

joeschmoe
January 10, 2013, 06:43 PM
Walmart is the single largest gun retailer on earth. So yeah, what they think does matter. They will certainly cave, just like they have in the past.

Skribs
January 10, 2013, 06:46 PM
481, a lot of regular joes believe we need to regulate FTF sales as well. I wouldn't call them antis, but I don't think we should regulate guns unless we also regulate every potentially deadly weapon (cars, sports equipment, cooking utinsils, etc). It would be far simpler to just put people we think should not have guns into prison.

browneu
January 10, 2013, 06:53 PM
481, a lot of regular joes believe we need to regulate FTF sales as well. I wouldn't call them antis, but I don't think we should regulate guns unless we also regulate every potentially deadly weapon (cars, sports equipment, cooking utinsils, etc). It would be far simpler to just put people we think should not have guns into prison.

Or keep them in prison.

Sent from my SGH-T999 using Tapatalk 2

joeschmoe
January 10, 2013, 07:02 PM
Too many republicans and independants voted for Obama...thus the gun bans Walmart will just pull their guns as they had been doing.
No. Obama does not make the laws. Congress does. Thus... no gun bans.
Walmart is private and can get out of gun sales if they want. Capitalism says another retailer will benifit. So Cabelas or Big 5 will make the profit rather than Walmart.

ATBackPackin
January 10, 2013, 07:03 PM
Is it just me or does it look like Joe is threatening someone with his "finger" gun? Perhaps we should suspend him.

Skribs
January 10, 2013, 07:03 PM
Brown, read the last sentence you quoted.

22-rimfire
January 10, 2013, 07:06 PM
The NRA needs to keep speaking the truth and putting the pressure on the politicians to leave our guns, ammo, and accessories alone.

Yes, but each of us need to contact our representatives. That is as important as the NRA's efforts.

Biden has been a gun grabber from way back. This is his big moment. Neither he nor the President need to be re-elected, so they are going for it. I doubt Biden would ever win the Democratic nomination for President in 4 years.

fxstchewy
January 10, 2013, 07:08 PM
I don't buy any firearms from wal-mart anyway, on camera, three people watching you walking you out with a manager so you don't pull out the deer rifle and load it with ammo? makes me feel like spending my hard earned dollars somewhere else. No Thanks.

Apachedriver
January 10, 2013, 07:14 PM
Yes, but each of us need to contact our representatives. That is as important as the NRA's efforts.

If not even more important.

Alaska444
January 10, 2013, 07:22 PM
Yes, Biden states that they have reached a consensus on banning assault rifles and hicap magazines along with background checks. That means no more private sales which means the govn't knows who buys guns and who doesn't from now on.

Like as if we didn't know this was coming as soon as the great one won reelection. If folks own guns and voted for this administration, they own a big part of the blame. Just as the Dems are in meltdown looking at their paychecks this week, those same people that love their guns will now see the real side of this administration and he hasn't even been sworn in yet for his second term. This is all still on his first go round.

It will be a very LONG 4 years.

bhk
January 10, 2013, 07:25 PM
I also saw something about Biden's statement earlier in the day when he was talking about common ground (10 round limit, universal background checks, etc.) and was surprised that an assault weapon ban was not mentioned.

wild cat mccane
January 10, 2013, 07:27 PM
wrong.

They don't track what you buy. Just track the background check. which is destroyed very quickly.

Nice try.

browneu
January 10, 2013, 07:44 PM
Brown, read the last sentence you quoted.

Oops my bad

Sent from my SGH-T999 using Tapatalk 2

Alaska444
January 10, 2013, 07:51 PM
wrong.

They don't track what you buy. Just track the background check. which is destroyed very quickly.

Nice try.
Yeah right, no permanent record created at all. Sorry, if you wish to believe that they do not track these things so be it. They have files on my elementary school records somewhere in cyberspace and they allegedly just let these documents go down the shredder. Sorry, but I don't believe that at all despite what they tell us. Sorry, but the govn't hasn't inspired a lot of confidence in honesty and integrity the last few years.

http://www.atf.gov/forms/download/atf-f-4473-1.pdf

fxstchewy
January 10, 2013, 07:58 PM
Like as if we didn't know this was coming as soon as the great one won reelection. If folks own guns and voted for this administration, they own a big part of the blame. Just as the Dems are in meltdown looking at their paychecks this week, those same people that love their guns will now see the real side of this administration and he hasn't even been sworn in yet for his second term. This is all still on his first go round.

It will be a very LONG 4 years.

Yep, i have to agree....:(

22-rimfire
January 10, 2013, 08:01 PM
What info is actually provided as part of the NICs check?

Alaska444
January 10, 2013, 08:08 PM
How did the FBI know where Cho bought his guns for the Virginia Tech Massacre if there are no permanent records. Cho filed off the serial numbers on his guns and the gun shop owner was notified by the ATF that he sold the gun?

It was not until late Monday afternoon that Markell learned that his store had sold Cho the weapon largely responsible for the largest mass murder in U.S. history. That's when three agents of the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms showed up at his weathered store, which shares premises with a pawn shop and a beauty parlor in this out-of-the-way corner of Southwestern Virginia.

Read more: http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1611948,00.html#ixzz2HcYCxIEg

Sorry, I truly do not believe that there are no permanent records kept anywhere.

481
January 10, 2013, 08:26 PM
481, a lot of regular joes believe we need to regulate FTF sales as well. I wouldn't call them antis...

I would. I am tired of law-abiding, gun-owning Americans having to put up with this nonsense.

Some piece of two-legged waste commits a heinous act and we (law-abiding gun-owning Americans) have to sacrifice another portion of our Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms just so the liberal thugs in DC can feel good about "doing something- anything". Keep acquiescing to this and we will see the incremental elimination of our Second Amendment right.

The problem is that mindset and to whom the liberal thugs are "doing it". Regulation of FTF sales is not the answer to what happened (the suspect murdered his mother, then stole her guns as she lay dead in her bed)- and anyone who is calling for further restrictions against law-abiding citizens in response to the acts of this monster is not "for" us. They are against us if they are willing to see our Second Amendment rights infringed upon any further as an answer to what happened in Sandy Hook.

12gaugeTim
January 10, 2013, 08:34 PM
"Diminish the probability that children are at risk in our schools."

I don't see how any human being, which is qualified by being capable of reason, can reasonably see guns as the problem of children not being safe in their schools. Most of the high schools in my area have a few resource officers (armed in some schools, some not) per hundreds and hundreds of kids, and a 99% guarantee that nobody else on campus has any way of defending themselves. Usually just one resource officer at elementary schools. THAT'S the reason why kids aren't safe at school. Not guns.

Queen_of_Thunder
January 10, 2013, 08:48 PM
Our schools say you have to sign in at the office if you wish to visit. Thats their defense measures.

12gaugeTim
January 10, 2013, 09:08 PM
Unenforced gun free zones are good enough for the children of America but not for the courthouses and other state/federal buildings.. Hmm.. Why do they need metal detectors and armed guards at every entrance when the kids don't get that?

KTXdm9
January 10, 2013, 09:23 PM
I also saw something about Biden's statement earlier in the day when he was talking about common ground (10 round limit, universal background checks, etc.) and was surprised that an assault weapon ban was not mentioned.
He knows they don't have the votes. He's quietly trying to lower expectations for their "subjects."

Trent
January 10, 2013, 09:29 PM
Wow.. the NRA goes to a meeting with the chief gun grabber of the country and they're upset at his attitude.

I'm shocked. Truly shocked, I tell you!

No, really, I am.

:)

J.J.
January 10, 2013, 09:32 PM
I don't buy any firearms from wal-mart anyway, on camera, three people watching you walking you out with a manager so you don't pull out the deer rifle and load it with ammo? makes me feel like spending my hard earned dollars somewhere else. No Thanks.

I am loathe to admit that I work as a Manager @ a Walmart. I am by no means defending the crap company and crap job I have. However, I am one of the guys who walks you out. It's a crappy policy but, what you said is a blatant falsehood. No one watches you on camera like that.

joeschmoe
January 10, 2013, 09:48 PM
Yes, Biden states that they have reached a consensus on banning assault rifles and hicap magazines along with background checks. That means no more private sales which means the govn't knows who buys guns and who doesn't from now on.

Like as if we didn't know this was coming as soon as the great one won reelection. If folks own guns and voted for this administration, they own a big part of the blame. Just as the Dems are in meltdown looking at their paychecks this week, those same people that love their guns will now see the real side of this administration and he hasn't even been sworn in yet for his second term. This is all still on his first go round.

It will be a very LONG 4 years.
Biden doesn't write the laws. Congress does.
Obama doesn't write the laws. Congress does.

It doesn't matte what Biden says. VP has no power.

Elections for Congress is in 2 years.

The sky is not falling.

Alaska444
January 10, 2013, 10:27 PM
Biden doesn't write the laws. Congress does.
Obama doesn't write the laws. Congress does.

It doesn't matte what Biden says. VP has no power.

Elections for Congress is in 2 years.

The sky is not falling.
Where in your view of the US is the Executive Order. Certainly it is NOT in the constitution but it is a fact of life. If you don't think it is going to be a very LONG 4 years, then I am not sure where you have been the last 4 years.

In addition, have you seen the 6000 new regulations Obama put into effect since the election. There are more ways to mess up this country than just through legislative action. In addition, Obama continually ignores constitutional provisions and requirements such as reporting those pending regulations or submitting a budget every year. No, I stand by my statement, it is going to be a very LONG 4 years.

blkbrd666
January 10, 2013, 10:29 PM
Unenforced gun free zones are good enough for the children of America but not for the courthouses and other state/federal buildings.. Hmm.. Why do they need metal detectors and armed guards at every entrance when the kids don't get that?

Probably because they are in the business of "bending you over" and don't want any retaliation...same reason useless and his followers want to disarm the population.

Hapworth
January 10, 2013, 11:26 PM
Where in your view of the US is the Executive Order. Certainly it is NOT in the constitution but it is a fact of life. If you don't think it is going to be a very LONG 4 years, then I am not sure where you have been the last 4 years.It doesn't have to mean a four year (or more) wait; there are many way to effectively counter an E.O.:

1) Congress can pass laws undermining it.

2) Congress can withhold funds needed to enforce it.

3) It's legality/Constitutionality can be challenged in court, requiring the E.O. to be put on indefinite hold until a court's decision.

goon
January 10, 2013, 11:28 PM
Honestly, I wouldn't be opposed to background checks on every sale and making it possible for private people to run them on each other. I keep a bill of sale when I sell a gun to a private guy anyhow, so why not also write an approval number on it?

I know some disagree with me on this and I can see their point... criminals will get guns anyhow.
But you could also use that rationale to sell a gun to known criminal. He's the criminal. He is the one who is going to rob old ladies with the gun. By selling him a gun, you don't really make the situation any worse because he would have got a gun anyhow.
Still, I wouldn't sell a gun to a criminal knowingly. I am a fan of a background check on every transfer (immediate family could be excluded) and updating/modifying the system so the average guy can run a check on another average guy.

jhb
January 10, 2013, 11:34 PM
This was just a dog and pony show. Whitehouse already knows what they want to do. Feinstein already had the legislation. All that was left was pretending to do a study, to appease those who are easily duped. Bringing the nra but not inviting the saf, goa, etc.....says it all. It wasn't meant to be serious discussion of ideas....it was a pr stunt so they can say...we tried to work with that evil nra but they refused.

Course this is all my opinion and nothing more.

Alaska444
January 10, 2013, 11:41 PM
It doesn't have to mean a four year (or more) wait; there are many way to effectively counter an E.O.:

1) Congress can pass laws undermining it.

2) Congress can withhold funds needed to enforce it.

3) It's legality/Constitutionality can be challenged in court, requiring the E.O. to be put on indefinite hold until a court's decision.
If you look up the history of EO's, only a handful have been overturned by congress or courts. In fact, court rulings have made it even harder to over turn an EO.

To date, U.S. courts have overturned only two executive orders: the aforementioned Truman order, and a 1995 order issued by President Clinton that attempted to prevent the federal government from contracting with organizations that had strike-breakers on the payroll.[8] Congress was able to overturn an executive order by passing legislation in conflict with it during the period of 1939 to 1983 until the Supreme Court ruled in Immigration and Naturalization Service v. Chadha that the "legislative veto" represented "the exercise of legislative power" without "bicameral passage followed by presentment to the President."[9] The loss of the legislative veto has caused Congress to look for alternative measures to override executive orders such as refusing to approve funding necessary to carry out certain policy measures contained with the order or to legitimize policy mechanisms. In the former, the president retains the power to veto such a decision; however, the Congress may override a veto with a two-thirds majority to end an executive order. It has been argued that a Congressional override of an executive order is a nearly impossible event due to the supermajority vote required and the fact that such a vote leaves individual lawmakers very vulnerable to political criticism.[10]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_order

According to the wiki, that is only a handful EO's overturned in all the history of EO if this is an accurate rendition of the facts.

Yes, it will be a long 4 years and beyond since these EO's have a life of their own.

Alaska444
January 10, 2013, 11:46 PM
This was just a dog and pony show. Whitehouse already knows what they want to do. Feinstein already had the legislation. All that was left was pretending to do a study, to appease those who are easily duped. Bringing the nra but not inviting the saf, goa, etc.....says it all. It wasn't meant to be serious discussion of ideas....it was a pr stunt so they can say...we tried to work with that evil nra but they refused.

Course this is all my opinion and nothing more.
+1, it is all for show this week since they "already have a consensus." They already knew what they were going to do a long time before the election. This is just falling into their plans anyway.

2ifbyC
January 10, 2013, 11:51 PM
They had two of the pro-gun rights people on Hannity tonight that attended Bidenís meeting. This was supposed to be a committee on safety for our school children. They said the item was not even discussed. Biden controlled the meeting and cut off discussions with which he did not agree.

They said they and the NRA are ready to do battle when the report goes to the POTUS next Tuesday.

AlexanderA
January 10, 2013, 11:56 PM
goon wrote:

Honestly, I wouldn't be opposed to background checks on every sale and making it possible for private people to run them on each other. I keep a bill of sale when I sell a gun to a private guy anyhow, so why not also write an approval number on it?

Still, I wouldn't sell a gun to a criminal knowingly. I am a fan of a background check on every transfer (immediate family could be excluded) and updating/modifying the system so the average guy can run a check on another average guy.

In theory, I would agree with you. I would be OK with background checks on sales between non-licensees, provided it could be done in such a way as not to create de facto registration. As a personal choice, I always go through an FFL when selling a gun.

However, the antis are really after much bigger things, such as banning the effective modern weapons (military-style semiautomatics and large-capacity magazines). This really is a "slippery slope." Therefore, as a matter of strategy, we can't concede anything. Let them try to take it from us, inch by inch. If there are concessions, they should be at the last minute, not at the outset of negotiations.

esheato
January 11, 2013, 12:14 AM
This was just a dog and pony show. Whitehouse already knows what they want to do. Feinstein already had the legislation. All that was left was pretending to do a study, to appease those who are easily duped. Bringing the nra but not inviting the saf, goa, etc.....says it all. It wasn't meant to be serious discussion of ideas....it was a pr stunt so they can say...we tried to work with that evil nra but they refused.

My thoughts exactly.

poboy6
January 11, 2013, 12:15 AM
Biden said that his proposal might also bolster the ability of the federal government to research gun violence, suggesting he may look for a way to relax rules that prohibit the release of information from the ATF firearms-trace database to anyone other than a law enforcement agency or prosecutor in connection with a criminal investigation

This is what troubles me. Yeah, we know all the other stuff they want accomplished. But why in the world could they possibly want anyone other than LEOs or prosecutors to know who has which firearms?

Apachedriver
January 11, 2013, 12:27 AM
OK. Here's the solution I can live with and it's based on this phrase I've been hearing and seeing for years.

"The Second Amendment is my carry permit."

Now the solution. Everyone is issued a national carry (or 2A) permit automatically when they attain the legal age to be determined...let's say 21. The permit gets automatically reissued periodically, say every three years, upon automatic verification that no disqualifying (criminal or certain psychological) conditions have come into existence during the interim.
You want to sell a firearm, ask to see the card. No card, no sale. Background check is already guaranteed.
You don't want a firearm for carry or at all. Fine. Leave the card at home and don't use it. It's your right after all.

This would be something that can be supported by everyone. Oh except for one small thing...It's not about our rights or safety, it's about their yearning for unquestioned power and control.

And so we fight on.

BLB68
January 11, 2013, 12:30 AM
How did the FBI know where Cho bought his guns for the Virginia Tech Massacre if there are no permanent records. Cho filed off the serial numbers on his guns and the gun shop owner was notified by the ATF that he sold the gun?


Read more: http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1611948,00.html#ixzz2HcYCxIEg

Sorry, I truly do not believe that there are no permanent records kept anywhere.

Well, filing off the serial numbers can be hit or miss. (Mostly miss.) It's possible for forensics to bring them back up. If they have the serial number, I'd suppose they could use that to trace which store was sold that serial number.

Alaska444
January 11, 2013, 12:40 AM
Well, filing off the serial numbers can be hit or miss. (Mostly miss.) It's possible for forensics to bring them back up. If they have the serial number, I'd suppose they could use that to trace which store was sold that serial number.
True, but I still really doubt all of that data just disappears. Just my own speculation, but why would they give up that type of information when they go to such lengths via the "patriot act" to gain other information. If they monitor all emails and telephone calls, then do you really believe that this very involved form goes completely absent after you pass the check? Yes, they can recover numbers with forensics but a bit of computer space is easy to find to store that same information.

joeschmoe
January 11, 2013, 12:50 AM
Where in your view of the US is the Executive Order. Certainly it is NOT in the constitution but it is a fact of life. If you don't think it is going to be a very LONG 4 years, then I am not sure where you have been the last 4 years.

In addition, have you seen the 6000 new regulations Obama put into effect since the election. There are more ways to mess up this country than just through legislative action. In addition, Obama continually ignores constitutional provisions and requirements such as reporting those pending regulations or submitting a budget every year. No, I stand by my statement, it is going to be a very LONG 4 years.
No. EO cannot ban those things.

EO's are a legal way to direct the executive branch. That's it. They do not make law.

Alaska444
January 11, 2013, 01:09 AM
No. EO cannot ban those things.

EO's are a legal way to direct the executive branch. That's it. They do not make law.
You are assuming he will follow the dictates of law when I have already listed a few of the many instances where he has gone beyond the dictates of the constitution many times over.

Mark Levin: We're In A "Post-Constitutional America"

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2012/01/19/mark_levin_were_living_in_a_post-constitutional_america.html

hso
January 11, 2013, 02:17 AM
I find it interesting that they'd have a meeting with an organization that was assured of telling the public about the topics discussed, themselves mention what was discussed and in the face of Senator Feinstein holding her AWBII until the 22nd.

We knew that the Biden Commission was going to recommend further restricting firearms owners. Why is anyone surprised that this is "leaked"?

As pointed out, Congress makes laws, Congress-critters vote on them, Congress-critters need to be elected every 2 or 4 years, tell your Congress-critters specifically that if they vote YES to any magazine ban, firearms ban, ammunition ban, or any restriction or regulation of any magazine, firearm or ammunition purchase, that you will dedicate your time and money to putting them out of office in their next election. Instead of bombast about spilling your blood on the barricades convince them that you'll spend your time and money personally sending them home to serve themselves if they don't serve us regardless of who runs against them in the primary or general election. REGARDLESS. We will punish them by getting as many people as possible to vote against them. We will hoste community luncheons and teas and dinners and keggers if we need to to put their opponent in their office. We will put handbills for their opponent in every door in our neighborhood and every neighborhood we can. We will talk their opponent up in every venue as if they were the smartest, the funniest, the most honest, the most hard working, the most dedicated person to ever sacrifice their time to serve the American public while we twist and defame everything the politician that votes YES to restrictions on gun owners has ever done. Make them understand that if their one and only failing in office is to make this mistake it will not save their position. They will be punished by being replaced. "Anyone but that jerk that voted for restrictions" should be repeated over and over to them. Perhaps then they'll get the message in a language they understand.

joeschmoe
January 11, 2013, 02:31 AM
You are assuming he will follow the dictates of law when I have already listed a few of the many instances where he has gone beyond the dictates of the constitution many times over.

Mark Levin: We're In A "Post-Constitutional America"

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2012/01/19/mark_levin_were_living_in_a_post-constitutional_america.html
No. It doesn't matter if he tries to exceed his power. It has no meaning. They are smart, they know there would be negative repercussions for going to far. They will go as far as they think they can get away with, but that's it. He can't just "ban stuff" or "confiscate" or order you to bow and kiss his feet. There are 2 other branches of government and a huge federal government that knows he isn't a king.

Would you bow and kiss his feet if he ordered it? Do you think he can enforce that order? Do you believe that a million federal employee's would treat that order as valid? That the 2 other branches of government would quietly accept it without complaint?

Alaska444
January 11, 2013, 02:38 AM
No. It doesn't matter if he tries to exceed his power. It has no meaning. They are smart, they know there would be negative repercussions for going to far. They will go as far as they think they can get away with, but that's it. He can't just "ban stuff" or "confiscate" or order you to bow and kiss his feet. There are 2 other branches of government and a huge federal government that knows he isn't a king.

Would you bow and kiss his feet if he ordered it? Do you think he can enforce that order? Do you believe that a million federal employee's would treat that order as valid? That the 2 other branches of government would quietly accept it without complaint?
Sorry, the history of the last four years does not bear up that allegation. Obama has again and again and again superseded constitutional restraints and yes, there has been barely a whisper from the other two branches of our government.

joeschmoe
January 11, 2013, 03:10 AM
So you would bow and kiss his feet if ordered. Got it.

Can you cite any of these "superseded constitutional restraints"? Like abolishing a fundamental right?

Shadow 7D
January 11, 2013, 03:18 AM
google dream act

How can the president order the LE NOT to enforce a law
the dream act was shut down in congress, so he just ordered DHS and Justice to just not enforce the law.... and not a peep

RX-178
January 11, 2013, 03:35 AM
Actually, Shadow 7D, that's basically what is being said when we say that an Executive Order can only apply to existing law, passed in Congress and signed.

His EO is simply to tell the agency exactly how to enforce existing laws. His order CAN be to look the other way, and for them to put their resources towards anything else.

Alaska444
January 11, 2013, 03:48 AM
So you would bow and kiss his feet if ordered. Got it.

Can you cite any of these "superseded constitutional restraints"? Like abolishing a fundamental right?
Dear Joe,

Sorry, but you are just plain pugnacious. Who said I would bow down to anyone and kiss his feet? Keep the scope of my statement in context my friend. Your comments are out of place and not based in the history of the last four years.

If you wish to think that Obama is a constitutional supporter, go for it, no sense trying to argue with you otherwise. In fact, he is the greatest scholar and supporter of the US constitution we have ever had in office, yeah, that's the ticket, he LOVES the constitution, yeah, that's the ticket, he LOVES the constitution.

In any case, have a great day and yes, it is going to be a very LONG 4 years if we are fortunate for him to give up his kingdom in only 4 years let alone his plane.

Alaska444
January 11, 2013, 03:56 AM
Actually, Shadow 7D, that's basically what is being said when we say that an Executive Order can only apply to existing law, passed in Congress and signed.

His EO is simply to tell the agency exactly how to enforce existing laws. His order CAN be to look the other way, and for them to put their resources towards anything else.
You have heard of creative accounting, well he can take just about any prior law and redefine it in creative ways we have yet to consider. I would not underestimate the damage he can do unilaterally to this nation. He has already placed us in great jeopardy just in his first four years where he was constrained by reelection.

Thinking that the power still remains solidly with the people is to fail to understand how fragile our current situation really is. No, we are no longer a united America, but instead split into multiple special interest groups and demographics. If you asked what is an American 50 years ago, there would be a wide consensus. Today, you will get a 100 or more answers that question. No, we are a seriously divided nation and we are reaping that politically today. The gun control debate is only a symptom of the underlying sickness in our nation.

Isaac-1
January 11, 2013, 04:28 AM
Ok, here is the common ground I would be willing to concede IF it was done in such a way to maintain anonimity.

An optional free flag printed on drivers licenses that the person has been pre-screened for gun purchases, which could be used in place of a NICS background check for all transactions FFL, FTF or Online with no tracking / reporting of purchases required for average individuals (FFL's still required to log) for as long as the drivers license is valid. If someone is convicted of a disqualifying felony they can be forced to turn in their drivers license and / or get an updated one printed with the Gun OK flag removed. In exchange for this, require NICS background checks on all gun transactions where people do not show a Gun OK license. It may not be a perfect system, but I personally don't want to sell a gun to a guy with a violent felony record and as the systems stands now I have no easy way to check.

Westfair
January 11, 2013, 04:38 AM
It seems to me that if we simply passed a law declaring murder illegal that it would solve all these issues. We could also declare the entire USA a "Murder Free Zone."

/sarcasm

Kiln
January 11, 2013, 05:35 AM
I'm not amazed. Biden and Obama both have very little respect for the constitution and have been waiting for the best time to try and introduce a new AWB since they took office.

Deanimator
January 11, 2013, 06:42 AM
i just love that...they claim they want to reach a "common ground".....but they are completely unwilling to yield on any of their views.
There's as much "common ground" between us and anti-gunners as there was between Mordechai Anilewicz and Juergen Stroop.

What's the "compromise" between extermination and survival? Between slavery and freedom?

Hapworth
January 11, 2013, 08:34 AM
If you look up the history of EO's, only a handful have been overturned by congress or courts. In fact, court rulings have made it even harder to over turn an EO.Which is why I enumerated methods that don't involve directly overturning an E.O., but instead circumscribe it.

Al Thompson
January 11, 2013, 09:31 AM
Too much bickering.

If you enjoyed reading about "NRA says Biden only interested in infringing gun rights" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!