nm
Do you really not see the difference between your bolded quote, which was one guy actually expecting a gun ban via executive order, and all of the other quotes, which gave no evidence that they actually expected a gun ban via executive order?
They may have been expecting exactly the sort of executive orders that actually happened.
nm - I see Simplicio and Bricker seem to have gotten clear on the executive order v. legislation business.
…they use Hoppe’s.
No, he acted within the powers vested in him by the Constitution and by legislation passed by Congress.
Speaking of simply lying.
When did SB become Bricker’s sock puppet?
Executive orders were originally meant to order fucking office supplies for the white house without having to go to congress and stuff like that, not set policy.
If the gun nuts don’t want you to do anything about guns, then making sure you never have good data to base your argument on is a good pre-emptive measure.
I’m not really much of anything like Bricker. Even my arguments in gun threads don’t particularly resemble his.
Maybe you think I look like Bricker because I’m willing to be the one to be the sole counter-argument in a big liberal circle jerk, since he’ll fill that role sometimes.
Whatever, dude.
So which executive order is the sand in your jerkoff cream today? Pick a number (or multiple numbers) from 1 to 23.
Oh, here’s Reince Priebus, chairman of the RNC:
[QUOTE=Reince Priebus]
“President Obama’s series of gun control measures amount to an executive power grab that may please his political base but will not solve the problems at hand. He paid lip service to our fundamental constitutional rights, but took actions that disregard the 2nd Amendment and the legislative process. Representative government is meant to give voice to the people; President Obama’s unilateral executive action ignores this principle.”
[/QUOTE]
And that’s after Obama announced his executive orders.
Here’s the thing: people on the right say stuff like this in their spittle-flecked rants. And if you parse it carefully enough, most of them aren’t specifically saying Obama’s going to come take away their guns at 12:30pm on January 16, 2013. But they do their best to leave their followers with the impression that they can and should expect that outcome without warning. And most of their followers aren’t doing a Bricker-style legal analysis of Pepe LaPierre’s latest rant.
And Congress was supposed to actually do its job as part of the government, not act like a combination of a spoiled toddler and a terrorist. Things change.
Then it’s just a tad ridiculous to use the “he’s just using his proper powers the constitution and congress grant him” argument, isn’t it?
Oh please. This is what the OP said:
These statements are nothing like that.
The entire purpose of this OP is:
Gun nuts thought their guns were going to be banned by executive action today. But they aren’t. What paranoid idiots!
The entire premise of this thread is that people actually thought guns would be banned, today, full stop. And the fact that they aren’t is evidence that they’re all dumb and paranoid. Posting a few wishy washy statements about how people are weary of Obama’s push for gun control are so ridiculously not what the OP was saying that I can’t believe you’re offering these up as serious defenses of it.
Well, now that we know what constitutes “wishy washy” in your world, I’m very much afraid of what sorts of talk you are used to and consider the norm.
So this
is wild-eyed rantings of a gun nut to you? It’s evidence, to you, that all gun nuts though today would be gun ban day?
That statement actually strikes me as pretty calm. I don’t see what’s supposed to be so over the top or even wrong about it.
If the sides were reversed, and this were an equivelant statement about Bush using executive orders to expand torture or wiretapping programs, you’d be applauding it.
12000 people die every year due to gun violence.
About 400 of them die from shots fired from long guns (including "assualt weapons).
More people get struck by lightning than die from long gun fire.
Its retarded to focus on “assault weapons”
You want to save lives, then:
Have a national registry that tracks the ownership of every gun.
Make everyone who wants a gun take a class on gun safety and take a licensing exam.
Make people present ID to buy ammunition.
Hire more cops.
These mass shootings might be good opportunities to focus on gun violence but focusing on banning semi-automatic rifles is like focusing on partial birth abortion to reduce the number of abortions in the country. You will expend a lot of political capital and grassroots inertia to achieve something of dubious value.
Yes, it is.
Please explain which of the 23 actions is a power grab, or has anything to do with disregarding the 2nd amendment.
Really? You’re going to equate CDC research, law enforcement training, data sharing, naming an ATF director and mental health initiatives with torture and warrantless wiretapping?
What, specifically, in the proposals was an “executive power grab” that disregards the 2nd amendment moreso than the legislation it references?
Thinking that the phrase “executive power grab” is not a wild-eyed rant in this context just shows what passes for normal-seeming political discourse these days.
Your wrong by an order of magnitude. The US averages 51 lightening deaths a year.
Depends on the details. For example, when the background check law went into effect, there was concern it would turn into a de facto registraton scheme. So by law they were only permitted to keep the records for a certain amount of time - 72 hours maybe? - for auditing purposes, then they had to be destroyed.
Several attempts by democrats have been to keep this data anyway and to use it to build a registry of gun owners, in contradiction to the law and to the promises made when the background check system was enacted. If Obama changes that policy, it would certainly count to me as an inappropriate use of executive power.