Epic Fail: Obama's "EOs" on gun control

D

Dixie - In Memoriam

New member
Not sure what the technical line is on posting, whether this belongs in the "guns" forum or not, because it's really about politics and current events, but if it's in the wrong place, I grant the executive order for Grind to move the thread to the appropriate forum.

First, I want to say, improper terminology is being used. Obama has issued 23 "Presidential Directives" and not Executive Orders. The President has no constitutional power to implement new laws or to issue orders in contradiction of the Constitution. No matter how much Liberals wish he could do this, he simply can't. (Well, technically.... He CAN, but the SCOTUS will promptly overrule any such decree as unconstitutional.) So these things that everyone is calling "Executive Orders" today, are essentially, Presidential Directives, and he does have the executive power to issue those, no matter how much the right screams about it.
I have read the directives, and I don't see anything that is unconstitutional or overreaching his authority as president. He is simply authorizing government agencies to do practical things that they probably should have already been doing. Many of the things, I have little or no problem with, and I don't think most people will. I won't go into detail here, you can go read the directives for yourself, and come to your own conclusions.

The political implications and problems are the real story here. Regardless of the fact that these 'directives' have no impact on the laws of the land or the constitutional right to bear arms, they are perceived by a good many to be an overreach of power, and an attack on personal liberty. Obama appears to be circumventing Congress to rule by fiat, and that's not a good thing to portray when your enemies are already accusing you of being a dictator. Now, Obama probably doesn't really care about political implications, since he isn't going to be running for president again, and this flurry of 'directives' seems to be making his left-wing liberal base have literal orgasms, but at what cost to the Democratic Party?

Sure, he issued some administrative 'directives' to various agents, but he didn't reform gun laws, or further the agenda of the gun-control left. In fact, he may have rendered any further legislative actions by Congress, DOA. Any such proposals now, will be met with the criticism from the other side, that we've already had enough 'reform' and enough is enough. The political momentum for reform was used to implement a few harmless directives, rather than push for meaningful gun control reforms. It was 4th and goal at the 4 yd, line, and Obama called a QB sneak. He didn't score, and it's now a turnover on downs. He could have used this momentum and pressed his party in Congress to pass something substantial, which he could have surrounded himself with children, and signed into law. But that wasn't the play call.

What happens now? Well, Obama's political opponents now point out how none of his 'directives' will prevent rogue shootings like we saw in CT. Whenever such an incident happens again (and it will), they will point out how his 'directives' didn't fix the problem. Liberals in his party will try to parlay this into more 'fruitful' gun control legislation, and it will fail in the shadow of a growing public backlash to these 'directives' he has issued. I don't know about you, but for this staunch 2nd Amendment defender, I will be happy to see this threat to my liberty put to rest with a few wimpy 'directives' as opposed to some emotive knee-jerk liberal push to repel the 2nd.
 
Dixie said:
Not sure what the technical line is on posting, whether this belongs in the "guns" forum or not, because it's really about politics and current events, but if it's in the wrong place, I grant the executive order for Grind to move the thread to the appropriate forum.

First, I want to say, improper terminology is being used. Obama has issued 23 "Presidential Directives" and not Executive Orders. The President has no constitutional power to implement new laws or to issue orders in contradiction of the Constitution. No matter how much Liberals wish he could do this, he simply can't. (Well, technically.... He CAN, but the SCOTUS will promptly overrule any such decree as unconstitutional.) So these things that everyone is calling "Executive Orders" today, are essentially, Presidential Directives, and he does have the executive power to issue those, no matter how much the right screams about it.
I have read the directives, and I don't see anything that is unconstitutional or overreaching his authority as president. He is simply authorizing government agencies to do practical things that they probably should have already been doing. Many of the things, I have little or no problem with, and I don't think most people will. I won't go into detail here, you can go read the directives for yourself, and come to your own conclusions.

The political implications and problems are the real story here. Regardless of the fact that these 'directives' have no impact on the laws of the land or the constitutional right to bear arms, they are perceived by a good many to be an overreach of power, and an attack on personal liberty. Obama appears to be circumventing Congress to rule by fiat, and that's not a good thing to portray when your enemies are already accusing you of being a dictator. Now, Obama probably doesn't really care about political implications, since he isn't going to be running for president again, and this flurry of 'directives' seems to be making his left-wing liberal base have literal orgasms, but at what cost to the Democratic Party?

Sure, he issued some administrative 'directives' to various agents, but he didn't reform gun laws, or further the agenda of the gun-control left. In fact, he may have rendered any further legislative actions by Congress, DOA. Any such proposals now, will be met with the criticism from the other side, that we've already had enough 'reform' and enough is enough. The political momentum for reform was used to implement a few harmless directives, rather than push for meaningful gun control reforms. It was 4th and goal at the 4 yd, line, and Obama called a QB sneak. He didn't score, and it's now a turnover on downs. He could have used this momentum and pressed his party in Congress to pass something substantial, which he could have surrounded himself with children, and signed into law. But that wasn't the play call.

What happens now? Well, Obama's political opponents now point out how none of his 'directives' will prevent rogue shootings like we saw in CT. Whenever such an incident happens again (and it will), they will point out how his 'directives' didn't fix the problem. Liberals in his party will try to parlay this into more 'fruitful' gun control legislation, and it will fail in the shadow of a growing public backlash to these 'directives' he has issued. I don't know about you, but for this staunch 2nd Amendment defender, I will be happy to see this threat to my liberty put to rest with a few wimpy 'directives' as opposed to some emotive knee-jerk liberal push to repel the 2nd.
Click to expand...

I agree with your assessment. The libtards that are whacking themselves off to this don't understand the issue. My guess is that Obama knew he had zero appetite in the Senate or the House for and gun legislation. THere are too many democrats in red states up for re-election and they remember what happened last time they pushed a gun ban.

If this mollifies the idiots on the left, then so be it. Now they can shut the fuck up. They love symbolism over substance and Obama gave them lots of symbolism.

The thing that pisses me off is that Obama has made it impossible to enjoy yourself at a gun show because everyone is flocking to them now. The left just doesn't get it. I know people who have never owned guns and never wanted to own guns who are now going out and buying guns. I am having fun teaching them how to use them so they don't hurt themselves.

Also, the new NRA app for the iPhone is the diggity bomb
 
Obama Hates America said:
I agree with your assessment. The libtards that are whacking themselves off to this don't understand the issue. My guess is that Obama knew he had zero appetite in the Senate or the House for and gun legislation. THere are too many democrats in red states up for re-election and they remember what happened last time they pushed a gun ban.

If this mollifies the idiots on the left, then so be it. Now they can shut the fuck up. They love symbolism over substance and Obama gave them lots of symbolism.

The thing that pisses me off is that Obama has made it impossible to enjoy yourself at a gun show because everyone is flocking to them now. The left just doesn't get it. I know people who have never owned guns and never wanted to own guns who are now going out and buying guns. I am having fun teaching them how to use them so they don't hurt themselves.

Also, the new NRA app for the iPhone is the diggity bomb
Click to expand...

Funny. The You tube link that I saw had a twat trying to defend a willfully misinterpreted second ammendment and a right wing newspaper hack handing him his arse on a plate.
Honestly if you think Shapiro scored even a single point in that debate you have a major problem of understanding. I guess that makes you a twat just like Shapiro.
 
Obama Hates America said:
Tell me what it means smart guy. I will love handing your limey ass to you
Click to expand...

I would guess you enjoy handling any arse, you are a yank and it rather goes with the territory.
However you ask me to tell you what the phrase 'a well regulated militia' means.
I'll try but I can't guarantee that you will understand, yank.
A militia consists of civilians TRAINED as soldiers but not part of the regular army. That you are not.
The second meaning is the entire body of physically fit civilians eligible by law for military service and that you (plural meaning all gun owners in the US) are not.
Next. 'Regulated' means controlled or governed according to rule or principle. It is from the Latin 'regula' meaning rule. There is no 'regulation' of the loonies in America who like tossing off to a gun.
Well regulated, of course, means regulated in a good and efficient way and, dear boy before you even get close enough to touch my arse, there is no way that there is good regulation when it comes to deranged yanks with guns.
OK? Or would you like some more, you mental cripple?
 
Next. 'Regulated' means controlled or governed according to rule or principle.
Click to expand...

It could mean that, but in the case of the 2nd Amendment, it doesn't mean that. How can you say someone has a right that is inalienable, but government has power to control it? It's a contradiction in terms, it's impossible to do both. This is a case where common parlance of the day meets more modern interpretation, and we have to realize they used common parlance of the day when writing the Constitution.

In 1776 language, the term "well regulated" simply means "well maintained" or "well equipped."
 
Dixie said:
It could mean that, but in the case of the 2nd Amendment, it doesn't mean that. How can you say someone has a right that is inalienable, but government has power to control it? It's a contradiction in terms, it's impossible to do both. This is a case where common parlance of the day meets more modern interpretation, and we have to realize they used common parlance of the day when writing the Constitution.

In 1776 language, the term "well regulated" simply means "well maintained" or "well equipped."
Click to expand...


You need to read about the Shay rebellion
 
Rana said:
You need to read about the Shay rebellion
Click to expand...

I'm familiar with the Shay Rebellion, but it has little to do with the wording in the 2nd Amendment. In fact, some would argue, it's one of the reasons the Founding Fathers were compelled to include a Bill of Rights, and a 2nd Amendment.
 
Lowaicue said:
I would guess you enjoy handling any arse, you are a yank and it rather goes with the territory.
However you ask me to tell you what the phrase 'a well regulated militia' means.
I'll try but I can't guarantee that you will understand, yank.
A militia consists of civilians TRAINED as soldiers but not part of the regular army. That you are not.
The second meaning is the entire body of physically fit civilians eligible by law for military service and that you (plural meaning all gun owners in the US) are not.
Next. 'Regulated' means controlled or governed according to rule or principle. It is from the Latin 'regula' meaning rule. There is no 'regulation' of the loonies in America who like tossing off to a gun.
Well regulated, of course, means regulated in a good and efficient way and, dear boy before you even get close enough to touch my arse, there is no way that there is good regulation when it comes to deranged yanks with guns.
OK? Or would you like some more, you mental cripple?
Click to expand...

I knew you would fail miserably. That is why you got your asses kicked by a bunch of
Militia

The term "we'll regulated" at the time of the writing of the US Constituton meant "well equipped"

Now using the actual meaning of the word at the time if the writing an using the way liberals literally interpret the 1st Amendment, the government should be buying us all guns.

Here is a question. I saw that pompous windbag Piers Morgan on a clip if the Steven Colbert show and he said this "we have zero guns in Britain. Even the cops don't have guns. We have zero guns and only 54 people die a year from fun deaths"

Now I know I am just a Yankee, but do you Brits have a different meaning of the word zero? Because of there are ZERO guns then shouldn't there be ZERO gun deaths?
 
Last edited:
SmarterthanYou said:
and you can produce a document from the founders that tells us all what that means?
Click to expand...

Here's one...

Our founding fathers chose forming state militias TO defend our government, not protect FROM government. They were concerned that a standing army was a threat to the nation.



Concerning the Militia
Wednesday, January 9, 1788
[Alexander Hamilton]​

To the People of the State of New York:

THE power of regulating the militia, and of commanding its services in times of insurrection and invasion are natural incidents to the duties of superintending the common defense, and of watching over the internal peace of the Confederacy.

It requires no skill in the science of war to discern that uniformity in the organization and discipline of the militia would be attended with the most beneficial effects, whenever they were called into service for the public defense. It would enable them to discharge the duties of the camp and of the field with mutual intelligence and concert an advantage of peculiar moment in the operations of an army; and it would fit them much sooner to acquire the degree of proficiency in military functions which would be essential to their usefulness. This desirable uniformity can only be accomplished by confiding the regulation of the militia to the direction of the national authority. It is, therefore, with the most evident propriety, that the plan of the convention proposes to empower the Union "to provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by congress."

Of the different grounds which have been taken in opposition to the plan of the convention, there is none that was so little to have been expected, or is so untenable in itself, as the one from which this particular provision has been attacked. If a well-regulated militia be the most natural defense of a free country, it ought certainly to be under the regulation and at the disposal of that body which is constituted the guardian of the national security. If standing armies are dangerous to liberty, an efficacious power over the militia, in the body to whose care the protection of the State is committed, ought, as far as possible, to take away the inducement and the pretext to such unfriendly institutions. If the federal government can command the aid of the militia in those emergencies which call for the military arm in support of the civil magistrate, it can the better dispense with the employment of a different kind of force. If it cannot avail itself of the former, it will be obliged to recur to the latter. To render an army unnecessary, will be a more certain method of preventing its existence than a thousand prohibitions upon paper.
 
Federalist No. 46
by James Madison​

The only refuge left for those who prophesy the downfall of the State Governments is the visionary supposition that the Federal Government may previously accumulate a military force for the projects of ambition. The reasonings contained in these papers must have been employed to little purpose indeed, if it could be necessary now to disprove the reality of this danger. That the People and the States should, for a sufficient period of time, elect an uninterrupted succession of men ready to betray both; that the traitors should, throughout this period, uniformly and systematically pursue some fixed plan for the extension of the military establishment; that the Governments and the People of the States should silently and patiently behold the gathering storm, and continue to supply the materials, until it should be prepared to burst on their own heads, must appear to every one more like the incoherent dreams of a delirious jealousy, or the misjudged exaggerations of a counterfeit zeal, than like the sober apprehensions of genuine patriotism. Extravagant as the supposition is, let it however be made. Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the Federal Government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State Governments, with the People on their side, would be able to repel the danger. The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by Governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops. Those who are best acquainted with the late successful resistance of this country against the British arms, will be most inclined to deny the possibility of it. Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the People of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate Governments, to which the People are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier, against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple Government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the Governments are afraid to trust the People with arms. And it is not certain, that with this aid alone, they would not be able to shake off their yokes. But were the People to possess the additional advantages of local Governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the National will, and direct the National force, and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these Governments, and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance, that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned in spite of the legions which surround it. Let us not insult the free and gallant citizens of America with the suspicion, that they would be less able to defend the rights of which they would be in actual possession, than the debased subjects of arbitrary power would be to rescue theirs from the hands of their oppressors.
 
Dixie said:
It could mean that, but in the case of the 2nd Amendment, it doesn't mean that. How can you say someone has a right that is inalienable, but government has power to control it? It's a contradiction in terms, it's impossible to do both. This is a case where common parlance of the day meets more modern interpretation, and we have to realize they used common parlance of the day when writing the Constitution.

In 1776 language, the term "well regulated" simply means "well maintained" or "well equipped."
Click to expand...

Rule or principle does not necessarily mean a government ordinance, rule of principle. The important thing is that there is no rule or principle in the US that complies with the term well regulated. In many states there aren't even checks on purchasers.
If you wish to use 1776 language you should also remember that the arms now available and used increasingly by the mentally deranged of your country had not been dreamed of.
Now if you all want to keep 1776 then equip yourselves with muskets and not assault rifles etc.
 
Obama Hates America said:
I knew you would fail miserably. That is why you got your asses kicked by a bunch of
Militia

The term "we'll regulated" at the time of the writing of the US Constituton meant "well equipped"

Now using the actual meaning of the word at the time if the writing an using the way liberals literally interpret the 1st Amendment, the government should be buying us all guns.

Here is a question. I saw that pompous windbag Piers Morgan on a clip if the Steven Colbert show and he said this "we have zero guns in Britain. Even the cops don't have guns. We have zero guns and only 54 people die a year from fun deaths"

Now I know I am just a Yankee, but do you Brits have a different meaning of the word zero? Because of there are ZERO guns then shouldn't there be ZERO gun deaths?
Click to expand...

I have no idea whether you are a yankee or not and nor do I care. You are a yank and that is what I said and intended.
Piers Morgan is like you, a right wing blowhard. Gun control is NOT or SHOULD not be a political matter. Gun control or any other cause of death and destruction is something that is a-political. Only twats like you, Santoro and that Jones lunatic make it political.
I have no idea what he meant by zero and, again, I do not care. Why don't you address the problem in America that fuckwits like you are causing?
You are a fool.
 
The OP FAILS to explain why the President's plan is epic or a failure.

Again the Cock of failure is Deep in Dixie's throat.

Gurgle, gurgle...
 
Lowaicue said:
Rule or principle does not necessarily mean a government ordinance, rule of principle. The important thing is that there is no rule or principle in the US that complies with the term well regulated. In many states there aren't even checks on purchasers.
If you wish to use 1776 language you should also remember that the arms now available and used increasingly by the mentally deranged of your country had not been dreamed of.
Now if you all want to keep 1776 then equip yourselves with muskets and not assault rifles etc.
Click to expand...

Let's clarify, It's not ME who is using 1776 language, it was the people who penned the Constitution and Bill of Rights. I don't insist on it, that's how it was written by the people who wrote it at the time, it has nothing to do with me. The term "well regulated" does not mean that government should enforce a bunch of regulations on it, that is a modern misinterpretation of "well regulated" that simply doesn't apply to the original intent by the people who wrote the Constitution.

Now, let's correct a few more misconceptions. There is NO STATE which doesn't mandate background checks (and waiting periods) on gun purchasers. To my knowledge, "mentally deranged" people are not allowed to purchase firearms. In fact, Adam Lanza had attempted to buy a gun and was rejected, because he had a relatively mild history of mental health issues. He had not been diagnosed as "mentally deranged" and was not institutionalized.

What IS an "assault rifle?" Can you explain it to me? Is it a gun that has a certain "look" about it? It is a gun that is able to fire every time you pull the trigger? My shotgun does that, is it an "assault rifle?" Is it because the ammunition is housed in a magazine instead of internally? What exactly makes it an "assault" rifle?
 
Dixie said:
Federalist No. 46
by James Madison​

The only refuge left for those who prophesy the downfall of the State Governments is the visionary supposition that the Federal Government may previously accumulate a military force for the projects of ambition. The reasonings contained in these papers must have been employed to little purpose indeed, if it could be necessary now to disprove the reality of this danger. That the People and the States should, for a sufficient period of time, elect an uninterrupted succession of men ready to betray both; that the traitors should, throughout this period, uniformly and systematically pursue some fixed plan for the extension of the military establishment; that the Governments and the People of the States should silently and patiently behold the gathering storm, and continue to supply the materials, until it should be prepared to burst on their own heads, must appear to every one more like the incoherent dreams of a delirious jealousy, or the misjudged exaggerations of a counterfeit zeal, than like the sober apprehensions of genuine patriotism. Extravagant as the supposition is, let it however be made. Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the Federal Government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State Governments, with the People on their side, would be able to repel the danger. The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by Governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops. Those who are best acquainted with the late successful resistance of this country against the British arms, will be most inclined to deny the possibility of it. Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the People of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate Governments, to which the People are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier, against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple Government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the Governments are afraid to trust the People with arms. And it is not certain, that with this aid alone, they would not be able to shake off their yokes. But were the People to possess the additional advantages of local Governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the National will, and direct the National force, and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these Governments, and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance, that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned in spite of the legions which surround it. Let us not insult the free and gallant citizens of America with the suspicion, that they would be less able to defend the rights of which they would be in actual possession, than the debased subjects of arbitrary power would be to rescue theirs from the hands of their oppressors.
Click to expand...

Great Dixie. Now all you need is an adult to explain the context and intent of Madison's words.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top