Page 15 of 84 FirstFirst ... 513141516172565 ... LastLast
Results 141 to 150 of 838

Thread: Biden: Obama Considering 'Executive Order' to Deal With Guns | The Weekly Standard

  1. #141
    Global Moderator
    Moderator
    Helix's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:43 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    37,105

    Re: Biden: Obama Considering 'Executive Order' to Deal With Guns | The Weekly Standar

    Quote Originally Posted by Simon W. Moon View Post
    What is the proposed EO?
    details are murky, but from what i've seen in the news coverage, the hypothetical EO would probably cover the gun show background check part.

    i'm not positive of this, but it's my guess that something as broad as an assault weapons ban couldn't be done by EO. if it were attempted, it would likely be tossed out in court, and would be a major black eye for the administration.

    either way, i think it's highly unlikely that the EO card will actually be played, and it was a mistake to even show it. the last thing you want to do is to hand the opposition the means to consolidate and build forces, and with plenty of time to do it.

  2. #142
    Sage
    Ikari's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Colorado
    Last Seen
    12-08-17 @ 01:05 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    54,124

    Re: Biden: Obama Considering 'Executive Order' to Deal With Guns | The Weekly Standar

    Quote Originally Posted by BmanMcfly View Post
    Biden: Obama Considering 'Executive Orders' to Deal With Guns | The Weekly Standard

    Biden: Obama Considering 'Executive Order' to Deal With Guns | The Weekly Standard



    That's if the other ten or so anti-gun bills don't pass obama will make an executive order...

    Just a note, this would have been called "conspiracy theory" just a year ago.
    The Executive Order has become one of the most abused powers of the Presidency and Presidents have wielded it as a King would wield his power. These EO's need to be restricted, the President cannot write legislation.
    You know the time is right to take control, we gotta take offense against the status quo

    Quote Originally Posted by A. de Tocqueville
    "I should have loved freedom, I believe, at all times, but in the time in which we live I am ready to worship it."

  3. #143
    Outer space potato man

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 09:14 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    51,803

    Re: Biden: Obama Considering 'Executive Order' to Deal With Guns | The Weekly Standar

    Quote Originally Posted by Redress View Post
    There is no suggestion he would overturn the second amendment. Anything he is likely to do if he does go this route would be defensible to some extent in a court of law. Whether it actually was upheld in the end or not, who knows, but it won't be clear-cut unconstitutional.
    What you need to understand about the right-wingers is that they've been brainwashed so hard on gun control that they cannot tell the difference between "let's make background checks more thorough" and "take away all guns forever."
    He touched her over her bra and underpants, she says, and guided her hand to touch him over his underwear
    Quote Originally Posted by Lutherf View Post
    We’ll say what? Something like “nothing happened” ... Yeah, we might say something like that.

  4. #144
    Sage
    Moot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Utah
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 06:24 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    27,467

    Re: Biden: Obama Considering 'Executive Order' to Deal With Guns | The Weekly Standar

    Quote Originally Posted by cpwill View Post
    Unless said government was dedicated to the principle that power flows to a limited government of enumerated and specific abilities from the people, rather than the other way 'round. If you'd like, it's not exactly difficult to dig up the old quotes:

    "The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." - Thomas Jefferson

    We don't have the Second Amendment so that we can shoot at deer. We have the Second Amendment so that we can shoot at government if it get's taken over by tyrants.
    Jefferson was casually refering to the Shay rebellion. But guess what? After Thomas Jefferson became president, he signed a law that gave him the presidential authority to use a standing army to squish domestic insurrections.....yea, think about that the next time you're citing his "against tyranny" quote.....

    "..On a prolonged, widespread, and systematic basis, in some places lasting nearly a year, the armed forces harried and beleaguered the citizenry. Never before or since did American history exhibit such a spectacle of derangement of normal values and perspectives. . . .Under Jefferson, from the summer of 1808 until the time he left office, in March of 1809, “insurrections” were continuous throughout an entire section of the nation and the armed forces were employed on a sustained basis, as if it were normal for American soldiers and sailors to enforce against American citizens their own laws.

    The first plank of the legal structure that Jefferson would use to oppress the country was laid in early 1807. Despite the excuses that the Whiskey Rebellion and Fries’s Rebellion might have provided, the Federalists had never passed a law authorizing the regular army or navy to suppress domestic violence or rebellion.

    Not so Jefferson and his followers. On March 3, 1807, in the wake of the alleged Aaron Burr conspiracy, the Jeffersonian Congress passed An Act authorizing the employment of the land and naval forces of the United States, in cases of insurrections:

    Be it enacted, &c., That in all cases of insurrection, or obstruction to the laws, either of the United States, or of any individual State or Territory, where it is lawful for the President of the United States to call forth the militia for the purpose of suppressing such insurrection, or of causing the laws to be duly executed, it shall be lawful for him to employ for the same purposes, such part of the land or naval force of the United States, as shall be judged necessary, having first observed all the pre-requisites of the law in that respect.

    The requirement of the last clause that the president “first observe[] all the pre-requisites of the law” imposed no effective check on a determined executive. The “law” referred to, Section 2 of the Militia Act of 1795, gave the president absolute discretion over whether to call out the militia against domestic rebellion:

    SEC. 2. And be it further enacted, That whenever the laws of the United States shall be opposed, or the execution thereof obstructed, in any state, by combinations too powerful to be suppressed by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings, or by the powers vested in the marshals by this act, it shall be lawful for the President of the United States, to call forth the militia of such state, or any other state or states, as may be necessary to suppress such combinations, and to cause the laws to be duly executed; and the use of militia so to be called forth may be continued, if necessary, until the expiration of thirty days after the commencement of the then next session of Congress.

    President Thomas Jefferson now had the power to call out the army and the navy to suppress domestic "combinations" that he deemed "too powerful to be suppressed by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings."

    Elektratig: Thomas Jefferson Enforces the Embargo 1: Congress Authorizes the Use of the Army and Navy to Suppress Insurrection
    Of all the things Jefferson ever said, I bet he wished he could take his "against tyranny" quote back.

  5. #145
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Last Seen
    01-03-16 @ 02:05 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    12,761

    Biden: Obama Considering 'Executive Order' to Deal With Guns | The Weekly Standard

    Quote Originally Posted by Redress View Post
    Executive orders have the full force of law: Executive Orders and Proclamations - Wikisource, the free online library



    Actually, you better guess right in those situations. If you guess wrong, you are a criminal. It is taking a huge risk based on a desire to retain something trivial.
    Is your freedom really something "trivial"?

    Ok, how about this: what would it take before you said "this goes too far!!"?

    Imagine, 5 years ago even, if you told someone that you had to go trough a body scanner showing your naked body and sometimes even having to be groped just to get on a plane in the near future, people would have thought you crazy...

    15 years ago that free speech would be limited to "zones", that citizens could be stripped of their rights and tortured, I could go on...

    Now, the government is threatening to take the guns, you have to know that this is just so that you won't be able to resist when the government takes the rest...

    But then again, you'll probably still be happy when the country is in equivalent conditions to north Korea, and still be thanking "great leader" for the 2 hours of electricity you get to use.

  6. #146
    Sage
    PeteEU's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Denmark
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 04:35 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    29,090

    Re: Biden: Obama Considering 'Executive Order' to Deal With Guns | The Weekly Standar

    Thought I heard a lot of heads exploding from the west of here.... now I know it was a bunch of right wingers heads blowing up in anger...
    PeteEU

  7. #147
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,990

    Re: Biden: Obama Considering 'Executive Order' to Deal With Guns | The Weekly Standar

    Quote Originally Posted by Redress View Post
    There is no suggestion he would overturn the second amendment. Anything he is likely to do if he does go this route would be defensible to some extent in a court of law. Whether it actually was upheld in the end or not, who knows, but it won't be clear-cut unconstitutional.
    With your implications of hypocrisy towards those that seemingly argue stronger in gun threads than other rights threads, I must say I'm massively happy that this line of reasoning is pushed by you just as strongly in PATRIOT Act and other defense threads since 2008 to today as you seem to push in all the Gun Threads. Sarcasm, by the way, if it didn't come through on the computer.

    As to this executive order business....we'll see what happens if it happens. My guess is it'll be controversial, similarly to the immigration executive order from last year. It'll probably be challenged, IF it happens, but likely won't get anywhere in terms of the courts unless the next President is also a Democrat and keeps the order in place. If it's similar to the one from last year, I'm sure you'll have pretty smart people on both sides claiming it's perfectly fine or horribly unconstitutional, and both sides will claim that THEIR smart people are the only ones POSSIBLE to be correct. Oh, and my last prediction will be that many of those who bitched for YEARS about Bush's executive order and who used it as part of the argument for Obama in 2008 will shrug their shoulders if not actively appluading Obama for his action....and many of those who had no issue with Bush's use of EO's will cry out "UNCONSTITUTIONAL" and mutter about how bad executive orders are. And both sides will try to call the other side hypocritical about it while ignoring their own hypocrisy.

    As to the notion of whether or not the EO would be constitutional. Legally, it's essentially not until it's ruled as such. You can THINK it's unconstitutional all you want...until it's ruled such, you're going to be treated like it is. That said, something can be legally constitutional but ultimately still be unconstitutional (See previous laws that were initially found to be okay and then a later court struck down). To those who'd want to disobey an EO or law because they feel it's unconstitutional...as I've said to others on other issues, more power to you. Understand if you're caught you will, and should, be subject to the law until such point that the law agrees with your assertion. As long as you understand that risk, and accept that it's not "unfair" if that risk befalls you, it's fine by me if you want to take said risk.

  8. #148
    Filmmaker Lawyer Patriot
    Harshaw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:49 AM
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    29,569

    Re: Biden: Obama Considering 'Executive Order' to Deal With Guns | The Weekly Standar

    Quote Originally Posted by Redress View Post
    Anything he is likely to do if he does go this route would be defensible to some extent in a court of law. Whether it actually was upheld in the end or not, who knows, but it won't be clear-cut unconstitutional.
    Use your vast legal training and suggest an EO he might issue which would be constitutional. You clearly have something in mind, don't you? You must if you're confident it would be "defensible."
    “Offing those rich pigs with their own forks and knives, and then eating a meal in the same room, far out! The Weathermen dig Charles Manson.”-- Bernadine Dohrn

  9. #149
    Sage

    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    okla-freakin-homa
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:24 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    12,620

    Re: Biden: Obama Considering 'Executive Order' to Deal With Guns | The Weekly Standar

    Quote Originally Posted by Velvet Elvis View Post
    So....like the ACLU? NLRB?
    I'd say the ACLU has a MUCH better track record of actually supporting court action to change/define the limits of our laws. (arent they the ones testing the warrantless wiretaps in court?) like them or hate them they are pro-active and don't just sit in lavish k-Street offices in 3K suits spewing the same tired rants)

  10. #150
    Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Last Seen
    08-19-16 @ 02:13 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    5,243

    Re: Biden: Obama Considering 'Executive Order' to Deal With Guns | The Weekly Standar

    Just bought one yesterday, no big deal. Walked in, picked out what I wanted plus two boxes of shells. Presented my driver's license and CCW permit, filled out the 4473 form and I was out in less than half an hour. Personally I think this little 8 ounce 7 round .32 pistol is more dangerous than an AR in that it disappears in to a pocket. But hey, if the lawmakers who don't know one gun from another want to ban the big hard to conceal ones it just points out how clueless they are.

    The point has been made (repeatedly) that historically national registration is the first step to confiscation. The banners keep saying "no one is coming for your guns", even though historically that is the next step after registration and several congress critters have very plainly stated that if they had their way they would confiscate them all. We are seeing a government acting outside the Constitution and getting away with it because nobody is calling them on it. There is no reason to think that they will reverse course and behave themselves.Regardless of what you may want to do or what you think is the right thing to do there is a legal process and limitations to what the federal government is allowed to do. The founders were very clear about that and designed it based on their experience with a tyranical government. Nobody wants another revolution. It's not the people who are pushing the point, it is government. There will come a point where they will get what they are moving toward. It's like a game of chicken. They push one more inch, than another, than another and before you know it a minor deviation from the structure of law becomes completely off the tracks.

Page 15 of 84 FirstFirst ... 513141516172565 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •