Executive Order on Gun Control

[Sean Renaud]

If the US constitution and SCOUTS rulings are not legal boundaries then no such thing exists.

IF he can god mode over everyone as you say he can then he's a fucking piece of shit for ACA, a corrupt scum bag politician too chicken shit to do the right thing and is thus just as bad as those doing the wrong thing.

IF he can't god mode whatever fucking law he wants however the fuck he wants then he is rather impotent when it comes to just blowing off the law doing doing whatever the fuck he wants and won't do fuckin' shit to control guns.

You can't have it both ways unless you just living in denial to bob Obama knob.

I assume you can show me what the legal limitations are on an Executive Order then? It was good enough to literally intern all the Japanese, do we need a more extreme example of what is possible to accomplish with an Executive Order? i'm sure I could dig one up.

The Constiution doesn't give us any definition of what can and cannot be done, since you mention the SCOTUS I again presume you have a specific case in mind that has been used to limit the power of the EO.

As far as I can find the EO seems to have no true limitations other than the next President is under no more obligation to follow it than you were too put in place in the first place.

Strictly speaking nothing is Unconstitutional until and unless the SCOTUS says that it is. As you've accurately pointed out in the past you can't discriminate and haven't been able to for more than a century. Somehow that fails to stop people.

Obama won't do shit to control guns. Not can't. Won't. Politically it would be suicide. And the next president would likely undo it assuming Congress didn't find a way to undo it prior to that. But it's not can't, it's that he's a bitch.

 

[Boxlicker101]

I assume you can show me what the legal limitations are on an Executive Order then? It was good enough to literally intern all the Japanese, do we need a more extreme example of what is possible to accomplish with an Executive Order? i'm sure I could dig one up.

The Constiution doesn't give us any definition of what can and cannot be done, since you mention the SCOTUS I again presume you have a specific case in mind that has been used to limit the power of the EO.

As far as I can find the EO seems to have no true limitations other than the next President is under no more obligation to follow it than you were too put in place in the first place.

Strictly speaking nothing is Unconstitutional until and unless the SCOTUS says that it is. As you've accurately pointed out in the past you can't discriminate and haven't been able to for more than a century. Somehow that fails to stop people.

Obama won't do shit to control guns. Not can't. Won't. Politically it would be suicide. And the next president would likely undo it assuming Congress didn't find a way to undo it prior to that. But it's not can't, it's that he's a bitch.

It might be suicide, but he's a lame duck anyhow. He wants to legislate restrictions on the second A, whether SCOTUS or the American people like it or not. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ma-to-impose-new-gun-control-curbs-next-week/

This will do nothing but help the GOP elect the next POTUS. As part of his or her inaugural speech, the new exec. will probably rescind this one and other exec. orders.

 

[Sean Renaud]

It might be suicide, but he's a lame duck anyhow. He wants to legislate restrictions on the second A, whether SCOTUS or the American people like it or not. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ma-to-impose-new-gun-control-curbs-next-week/

This will do nothing but help the GOP elect the next POTUS. As part of his or her inaugural speech, the new exec. will probably rescind this one and other exec. orders.

He's been a lame duck for 8 years. That term is utterly wasted with the current Congress. Him thinking about it and doing it are two different things. If he does I'll get to get have one more time when I was impressed by him.

If he passes that however I doubt the next president would rescind it. Not that they couldn't but are you really gonna go to the American people and say "background checks are a bad thing?" As stupid as it would be for him to do ANYTHING that could hurt Hilary which this undoubtedly would it would be just slightly less retarded for the next president to rescind this if it goes as planned. As for others I'd have to go through them one a time, a lot of them probably can't even be rescinded if they wanted.

 

[Boxlicker101]

He's been a lame duck for 8 years. That term is utterly wasted with the current Congress. Him thinking about it and doing it are two different things. If he does I'll get to get have one more time when I was impressed by him.

If he passes that however I doubt the next president would rescind it. Not that they couldn't but are you really gonna go to the American people and say "background checks are a bad thing?" As stupid as it would be for him to do ANYTHING that could hurt Hilary which this undoubtedly would it would be just slightly less retarded for the next president to rescind this if it goes as planned. As for others I'd have to go through them one a time, a lot of them probably can't even be rescinded if they wanted.

If you look at it that way, Obama has been a lame duck for a little over three years, ever since he was reelected in Nov. 2012.

The link refers to a "package" and I don't know what is included and what isn't. Background checks might be a good idea, but they also might be a total waste. Under Obama's previous AG, straw buyers were encouraged.

 

[Sean Renaud]

If you look at it that way, Obama has been a lame duck for a little over three years, ever since he was reelected in Nov. 2012.

The link refers to a "package" and I don't know what is included and what isn't. Background checks might be a good idea, but they also might be a total waste. Under Obama's previous AG, straw buyers were encouraged.

With the filibuster and Republicans willing to abuse it to unprecedented levels (which perhaps the Dems will do in return, won't know until and unless a Republicans wins in November) he's been basically impotent since stepping into office.

The package at least as described in your article appears to be a series of measures meant to close loopholes that Republicans claim don't exist. So either people can sell guns without background checks at gunshows and the like as the president claims. In which case shutting that down at the least will only piss off people who economically can't afford to have to wait until they can make a check. If no such loopholes exist as the right has claimed for years then Obama is simply wasting ink. In which case there is no reason to bother him, hell backing him might be politically bright. It would certain look like you're willing to work with the man even if all he's doing is banning purple unicorns from attacking the moon.

 

[BotanyBoy]

I assume you can show me what the legal limitations are on an Executive Order then? It was good enough to literally intern all the Japanese, do we need a more extreme example of what is possible to accomplish with an Executive Order? i'm sure I could dig one up.

The Constiution doesn't give us any definition of what can and cannot be done, since you mention the SCOTUS I again presume you have a specific case in mind that has been used to limit the power of the EO.

As far as I can find the EO seems to have no true limitations other than the next President is under no more obligation to follow it than you were too put in place in the first place.

Strictly speaking nothing is Unconstitutional until and unless the SCOTUS says that it is. As you've accurately pointed out in the past you can't discriminate and haven't been able to for more than a century. Somehow that fails to stop people.

Obama won't do shit to control guns. Not can't. Won't. Politically it would be suicide. And the next president would likely undo it assuming Congress didn't find a way to undo it prior to that. But it's not can't, it's that he's a bitch.

If that's the case then why even have a government? POTUS can just EO any fuckin' thing he wants and nothing/no one can stop him because EO.

Eliminate free speech, ban guns and fuck due process...hell why not bring back slavery right? Just EO! POTUS does whatever he wants!! Fuck it just nuke St.Lous for shitz n giggles right? just EO!

But not HC that isn't a total ass fuck.....that's somehow miraculously beyond his preview of godlike authority.

I figured it was just assumed POTUS wasn't allowed to EO in total and absofuckinglute defiance of the US constitution, congress and SCOTUS.

I'm not going to search for a cluse where he's not allowed to just suspend all civil rights give the rest of the government the finger and do anything he wants so you win.

Obama can do anything.....except HC reform or end our military fuck fuck games in the middle east or any number of the other shit he promised to do then didn't.

 

[phrodeau]

Sorry, I'm confused. How exactly does the 2nd Amendment prevent gun control?

 

[BotanyBoy]

Sorry, I'm confused. How exactly does the 2nd Amendment prevent gun control?

Name a gun control law that hasn't been found to violate 2A that isn't totally fucking frivolous bullshit.

There is almost 70 years of nope.com from SCOTUS against gun control to the point you guys are trying to ban gun accessories just to piss gun owners off.

You don't even try anymore....you've been ground down to just being dicks for the sake of being dicks for almost 20 years now.

 

[Sean Renaud]

If that's the case then why even have a government? POTUS can just EO any fuckin' thing he wants.

Eliminate free speech, ban guns and fuck due process...hell why not bring back slavery right? Just EO! POTUS does whatever he wants!!

But not HC that isn't a total ass fuck.....that's somehow miraculously beyond his preview of godlike authority.

I figured it was just assumed POTUS wasn't allowed to EO in total and absofuckinglute defiance of the US constitution, congress and SCOTUS.

I'm not going to search for a cluse where he's not allowed to just suspend all civil rights give the rest of the government the finger and do anything he wants so you win.

Obama can do anything.....except HC reform

I think you mean why have a Constitution not a government. An all powerful dictator IS a government and a functional one at that, just one we've been trained to dislike. But yes you can EO a great deal.

Where is it in defiance of the Constitution? We've established that Executive Orders do exist even if they are never clearly defined in the Constitution.

Basically you won't research it because you know you're wrong. It's not that he couldn't do HC reform, it's that he did not, would not and has not. Though if you listen to the right he's grossly stepped out of line with the multiple fixes he's put in place to keep the ACA from collapsing on itself.

 

[BotanyBoy]

I think you mean why have a Constitution not a government. An all powerful dictator IS a government and a functional one at that, just one we've been trained to dislike. But yes you can EO a great deal.

No I mean why have a government if congress is totally powerless in the wake of a POTUS who can just EO any-fucking-thing he wants?

Where is it in defiance of the Constitution?

IDK if it does but according to you he can just EO anything he wants...fuck the constitution, SCOTUS and congress right?

I think if he tries he'll get his shit pushed in.

Basically you won't research it because you know you're wrong.

Basically no.

I'm not doing it because I really don't give that much of a shit, I don't think POTUS can EO a direct violation of the Constitution any more than he can EO the execution of the million most wealthy white males on the WH lawn. He can EO some buu shit fuck fuck whatever but he can't just shit can the US constitution and give Congress/SCOTUS the finger.

 

[Sean Renaud]

No I mean why have a government if congress is totally powerless in the wake of a POTUS who can just EO any-fucking-thing he wants?



IDK if it does but according to you he can just EO anything he wants...fuck the constitution, SCOTUS and congress right?

I think if he tries he'll get his shit pushed in.



Basically no.

I'm not doing it because I really don't give that much of a shit, I don't think POTUS can EO a direct violation of the Constitution any more than he can EO the execution of the million most wealthy white males on the WH lawn. He can EO some buu shit fuck fuck whatever but he can't just shit can the US constitution and give Congress/SCOTUS the finger.

Then you mean why have a Congress. Again a POTUS doing everything he wanted would still constitute a government.

Yes, he can EO basically whatever the fuck he wants. Tis within his range of powers. The Congress can bitch about it later, even overule it or impeach him if they like but untill and unless they are willing to take it there he can essentially do as he pleases.

You don't think that Japanese Internment Camps were real or do you not think that taking peoples property without due cause is Constitutional? Because that was an executive order. And whatever we feel about it today apologies and reparations aside they did stand.

 

[Iceprincess12]

/QUOTE]

At the risk of appearing pouty...

You still forgot the most important part of my message!!!

 

[BotanyBoy]

Then you mean why have a Congress. Again a POTUS doing everything he wanted would still constitute a government.

Or a SCOTUS......all just dog and pony show while POTUS is god mode at the WH.

Yes, he can EO basically whatever the fuck he wants. Tis within his range of powers. The Congress can bitch about it later, even overule it or impeach him if they like but untill and unless they are willing to take it there he can essentially do as he pleases.

But he can't do HC reform with out turning the price gouging corruption up to 11....what a great guy

You don't think that Japanese Internment Camps were real or do you not think that taking peoples property without due cause is Constitutional? Because that was an executive order. And whatever we feel about it today apologies and reparations aside they did stand.

It only stood because it had the rest of the government supporting it.

I don't think you will find any such support for any EO's coming close to gun control. That GOP controlled congress will have him hemmed up by COB and that EO wouldn't make it out of DC.

 

[NeverEndingMe]

obama is not an American and must be held for treason and crimes against Real American's as well as humanity

 

[phrodeau]

Name a gun control law that hasn't been found to violate 2A that isn't totally fucking frivolous bullshit.

There is almost 70 years of nope.com from SCOTUS against gun control to the point you guys are trying to ban gun accessories just to piss gun owners off.

You don't even try anymore....you've been ground down to just being dicks for the sake of being dicks for almost 20 years now.

Require all gun and ammo commerce to be done through government-run stores, using the profits to fund law enforcement. The 2nd Amendment doesn't say that anybody has the right to buy or sell arms.

 

[Sean Renaud]

Or a SCOTUS......all just dog and pony show while POTUS is god mode at the WH.



But he can't do HC reform with out turning the price gouging corruption up to 11....what a great guy



It only stood because it had the rest of the government supporting it.

I don't think you will find any such support for any EO's coming close to gun control. That GOP controlled congress will have him hemmed up by COB and that EO wouldn't make it out of DC.

Well depending on the time and place it's always been a dog an pony show while POTUS is godmode. Out of respect the other two branches only kinda get in his way and if anything important is going on they almost without exception stand down. Take the current situation where they absolutely refuse to expand Obama's war powers (because that would be them taking responsibility) but also get pissed when he doesn't just get shit done which he can, and they expect.

He could have done HC without gouging. Choose not too.

If it stood because the rest of the government tacitly backed it (Congress certainly didn't step up and the court system did send it to the SCOTUS who did in turn back it) then the president can in fact do what he pleases even if he risks being overturned.

The Constiution doesn't say anything about what EOs can and cannot do. Not a single word. They are never described but every single president has assumed that the power was implied somewhere and that fact has never been challenged. It is important you bring up the Constiution since technically they have to find backing for it in the Constitution but if we could find grounds for internment I imagine we can find grounds for background checks. It's just a matter reaching down and growing a pair.

 

[NeverEndingMe]

Require all gun and ammo commerce to be done through government-run stores, using the profits to fund law enforcement. The 2nd Amendment doesn't say that anybody has the right to buy or sell arms.

or do you want those funds to go into the welfare slush fund. you know, to support your lazy way of life?

 

[NeverEndingMe]

if only the obama was an American

 

[Sean Renaud]

Happy new year je taime.

Name a gun control law that hasn't been found to violate 2A that isn't totally fucking frivolous bullshit.

There is almost 70 years of nope.com from SCOTUS against gun control to the point you guys are trying to ban gun accessories just to piss gun owners off.

You don't even try anymore....you've been ground down to just being dicks for the sake of being dicks for almost 20 years now.

What's the one your fond of naming on automatic weapons? I'm also fairly certain the banning of armor piercing ammo hasn't had any significant challenges.

 

[Iceprincess12]

Happy new year je taime.

Merci!

Happy New Year!
bisous

 

[BotanyBoy]

What's the one your fond of naming on automatic weapons? I'm also fairly certain the banning of armor piercing ammo hasn't had any significant challenges.

That was the first and last time there was ever any real gun control. Since then it's pretty much just been fuck fuck games. Banning AP rounds doesn't violate 2A.

EO a ban handguns and watch O get snapped back so fucking hard it will split his skull open on McConnell's desk for all the GOP to feast upon. They wish a mother fucker would try...

 

[Sean Renaud]

That was the first and last time there was ever any real gun control. Since then it's pretty much just been fuck fuck games. Banning AP rounds doesn't violate 2A.

EO a ban handguns and watch O get snapped back so fucking hard it will split his skull open on McConnell's desk for all the GOP to feast upon. They wish a mother fucker would try...

But you've been attempting to argue here that it can't be done without the SCOTUS knocking your dick in the dirt because Constiution. Not that nobody has the scrotum to do it.

Obama isn't talking about an EO ban on handguns. He of course could. And as you state it would be challenged by the courts, most likely struck down (though the Supreme Court would be 100% within their own powers to simply tell everybody to suck it the fuck up. Their is zero chance they would but there really isn't shit you can do to the Supreme Court even if you wanted to other than wait for them to die.

In the off chance that they did we'd probably be looking at mass rioting if not out right civil war at which point absolutely all bets are off.

 

[NeverEndingMe]

the end result: obama sucks.

unless you are one of those welfare slaves

 

[oggbashan]

Even if all President Obama's proposed action does is to start Americans thinking that the number of deaths caused by guns is unacceptable - then it is worth him trying.

Gun control is an emotive subject and the arguments against do not appear to recognise that the US has a problem, and the arguments for gun control do not appear to recognise the strength of feeling of responsible gun owners.

Those for and against gun control are shouting past each other, not listening to the other side's concerns.

 

[NeverEndingMe]

obama the shit stain keeps on rolling