Nobody is selling such. There ARE ads in “shotgun news” placed by BATF to catch anyone stupid enough to try it. Kind of like "hornygirl15 " posting in a chat room.
I hope your right. Biden seems pretty confidant in his statement. He specifically said certain actions can be taken and that the attorney general is involved to give legal advice.
Remember there won’t be any discussion or debate on Executive Orders. We’ll get a Presidential address (probably in prime time) where Obama announces what he’s ordering. There’s nothing anyone can do except go to the courts for an injunction or stay. The legal battle will be on. Meanwhile whatever Obama ordered will proceed unless a judge stops it. Even then the gov can appeal.
It bothers me that one guy can do something like this. The President isn’t a king for gosh sakes.
Biden confident, you say?
“Certain actions can be taken” is the opposite of specific. And of course the attorney general is giving legal advice. That’s part of his job.
That last sentence means the rest of what you say here is not true. And yes, there would be debate over any executive order. There are some things Obama can do with executive orders, but he can’t make new laws, can’t “crush” gun owners, and can’t resolve this on his own.
This is the guy who was told he isn’t allowed to lock people up for the rest of their lives without trial and immediately challenged the ruling. How do you imagine an unconstitutional power grab is out of character?
Ahem. Cite?
Bad advice. Bullets never work on the monster. You need something like a vat of acid, lots of explosives or a car crusher. Don’t worry, when the cops ask you why you have a huge vat of acid under a trapdoor, just say “chupacabra” and they’ll nod and understand.
I think we should definitely buy more guns now on the basis that Obama is considering possibly doing some action of some sort at some point in time. Because Hitler!
No, actually they’re pretty common.
If that’s the executive order - the PotUS says enough of Congress stalling, I’m closing the gun show loophole via executive order - would you still object so strenuously?
Remember that you have no idea what those orders, if they actually happen, will be. For all you know it might be something totally reasonable that’s well within the President’s purview. You should put your Chicken Little impression on hold for a bit until you actually have a fact or two to work with.
[hijack]Have you read the Monster Hunter International books by Larry Correia? They posit that bullets do work on the monster (even chupacabras!) - you just need to use a lot of them.[/hijack]
Here’s the Obama administration’s motion to have the injunction lifted until their appeal was heard. That good enough for you?
Handguns are used in far more crimes than assault rifles. Why is the focus on banning the latter and not the former?
Maybe my read on that one is way off base, but “immediately” is the appropriate timeframe in which to address a legal matter that has been imposed on you, especially if you disagree with it. Also, the pleadings seem to indicate the court acted improperly in imposing the injunction in the first place. If that’s true, then the injunction itself was improper and the activities it sought to affect were legal and should continue. Also, G W BUSH!
Point is, the initiation of a legal action does not mean it is not frivilous.
The recent high profile use, and assault rifles look “scary” to many people.
No insults in this forum, Vinyl Turnip. Stop it.
Baby steps - get one piece of crap off the streets and maybe we can get the other shit off the streets after that.
Personally, I would like to give Obama a huge erasure and have him simply totally delete that vague, misinterpreted, over-reaching 2nd Amendment. Yes - get rid of it completely and then create a new Amendment that expressly denies the rights to own an arsenal of weapons. Period.
Maybe allow licensed individuals to own a single one-shot musket to go out and shoot rats in the dump. Allow only 5 lead ball bullet per year. There - you have your weapon to hunt critters and protect your home.
Federal-level restrictions of that sort would make just as little sense as a federal-level prohibition on restrictions. There are some places in this country where it makes sense to own firearms and use them on a regular basis. Maybe you get a significant portion of your household’s meat from hunting. Maybe you need to keep the foxes under control around your henhouse. Maybe you sometimes need to be able to put down an injured horse or cow. And if places where that makes sense want to allow more than five bullets per year, they should be able to. By the same token, though, none of that is going to apply in the middle of Chicago or DC.
And mine.
The current congress is doing so poorly lately at getting things done without weeks of kicking and screaming and theatrics that I can definitely see the president wanting to take a “Do something or I’ll do it myself” stand to try to shake them into action. Will it work? I have no clue, which is about how much faith I have in congress.
I think this instance is much ado about nothing, but I’ll point out that a Congress that almost literally refuses to do anything at all is a long-term recipe for workarounds that centralize more power in the executive branch and diminish the legislature. That’s not an endorsement of anything in particular, it’s a statement that seems totally obvious to me. I’ve seen no evidence Republicans are going to figure it out.
Because assault rifles are scary!!! :eek::eek::eek::eek::eek:
This is the same stupid knee-jerk bullshit from the last time we had an assault weapon ban.
Assault weapons (or any long gun, really) are ridiculously impractical for 99+% of any crimes. An assault weapons ban is pure “feel good” legislation.