IMO, things won’t be truly rounded out until ElvisL1ives has joined in with his anti-McDonald/Heller “Miller-Ruling-Collective-Right-Only-Stare-Decisis” schtick.
If Diogenes were still around, we’d get more than a few not-so-veilled refrences to either our lack of penises, or our penis’ dysfunction.
At least Czarcasm dropped his “Church of the Holy Bangstick” line.
Link. The Senate voted for this in 2009, and it was blocked in the House.
While we’re talking about lies and misleading statements…
They didn’t vote for the gun law, they voted to give DC a Representative and a rider just happened to be attached. And, of course, they knew that such a bill would never pass the House because it was a change to the composition of the House.
Ex, can you tell me exactly the mechanism for that happening? Because you’re coming off like a… I don’t know, scaredy-cat. Or Glen Beck-head. Modifying mortgages in the way Obama did involves altering implementation of previously existing laws.
I mean, what IF Obama suddenly declared a tax on breathing? It comes off about the same.
Well, as President, if he’s willing to bypass Congress to get one thing done that he really wants, what’s to stop him from doing it again? And again?
The Senate actually voted 62-36 to approve the amendment. It didn’t just appear out of thin air. It was supported when Democrats had firm control of the chamber and it is indeed a good example of how the debates over gun rights has massively changed since the Clinton years. Senate Passes Ensign D.C. Gun Rights Amendment to Voting Bill | S E N A T U S
But I should apologize to Abatis. My comments were excessively snarky and I shouldn’t have put my point in that way. So Abatis, even though I stand by my point that the NRA and others should realize that the climate on gun control is tremendously different than 15 years ago, I should have made that point without condescension.
There is a bit of a difference between directing Federal agencies (that already report to him) to modify the regulations that the agencies, themselves, established in order to carry out Congressional acts and simply declaring a ban on guns (which would be unconstitutional on its face) without Congress enacting any laws.
That sort of hype is the kind of thing that makes me ignore the NRA on most occasions. (Just as I tend to ignore the Brady Campaign when they pass out literature claiming that Floridians have been authorized to shoot people whom they believe have been rude to them.)
Even accepting the claims that the NRA hype is merely a necessary component of the bi-lateral propaganda campaigns over guns, (a position to which I have not yet been persuaded), posting that sort of thing in this forum is silly.
So, you have like no idea how the government works, huh?
Obama is doing what he can do without Congress’ approval. He isn’t passing new laws. He’s not magic.
It’s baseless fears like this that drive the NRA use such nonsense, conspiracy theory arguments. There is a segment of gun owners in America who are terrified of the government because of right-wing misinformation and scare tactics. People who believe that Obama has unilateral power to disarm the nation, or that there are FEMA concentration camps waiting for conservatives, or that there is a coming race-war, are who LaPierre’s war-whoops are aimed at.
I really don’t think that’s a good example. I think a better one would be the Johnson-era law (part of the 1968 Act) which allows the Secretary of the Treasury to ban by decree any imported firearm which is not “generally-recognized as particularly suitable for or readily adaptable to sporting purposes.” Note that self-defense was specially left out, which I feel was somewhat worrying.
Here again it’s a difference between the intent of the law, the letter of the law, and the potential use (and misuse) of the law.
Obama could ban by decree virtually all imported firearms under that language, should he choose to. All he has to do is say “any non-Olympics firearms are not suitable for sporting purposes”, and they’re gone. AFAIK he has done nothing along those lines; even the NRA-ILA site doesn’t mention Obama taking advantage of that, which he could have at any time. In fact, AFAIK the two Presidents who actively took advantage of this were Bush I (Republican) and Clinton (Democrat).
It’s a disturbing law, in that it’s vague and could be misused, and it should be changed. Vague laws are dangerous, and that’s one thing the NRA is good at attacking - vague firearms laws which could be interpreted in a variety of nu-Constitutional manners.
I understand the distinction. But, in an administration that has used a complete cluster-fuck like Fast & Furious as justification for more gun control laws, and that has decided that it will, “work around Congress by administrative procedure,” I do not put it past them to announce that they will, oh, do something like take the NICS system off-line, “for a comprehensive review of the firearm transaction approval procedures, as well as a lengthy internal audit of ATF policies and procedures.”
In states without their own version of NICS, you just shut down all legal firearm transactions.
Sure, Congress would pitch a fit, as well as the NRA, the Second Amendment Foundation, the CCRKBA, etc.,. Lawsuits would be filed, Committees formed, Hearings held…and in the meantime, gun-owners and gun-rights organizations would be vilified in the “main stream media” as heartless thugs, who deliberately want to arm vicious Mexican Drug Cartels so poor federal agents like Brian Terry can be gunned down in cold blood.
I’m not saying it will happen; I’m not willing to lay odds on the possibility of it happening; but I’m not putting it past this administration or their anti-gun and media allies.
I’m sorry, my vision isn’t what it used to be. I missed where you backed up this assertion in this thread. Could you kindly point me to where you provided a citation to back up the claim that “The only reason for wanting to own death equipment is to want to kill other humans?”
Indeed, he could do that. It’d last about two seconds, as the sporting purposes of various weapons were explained in court, but he could, in fact, do that.
The only likely result would be that the law would be overturned as contrary to Heller, mind you.
Edit: Naxos, what the hell? What’s wrong with owning a car?
Realistically it could drag on for a couple of years if it was fought and argued and delayed in the court system. Recall that the vast majority of the imports occur via sea, vis, the East and West coasts, where the Federal Courts tend to be more liberal and they may be much less likely to issue an injunction pending the final outcome.
And if the makeup of the USSC changes at all (and you absolutely know Obama would have an anti-gun acid test for any candidate, just as Republicans have their anti-abortion acid test) then the future is very uncertain.
I don’t “absolutely” know any such thing. Of course, the Occupy movement is totally commited to impounding and destroying all guns, including Nerf guns, staple guns and Guns N’ Roses. This is made perfectly obvious by their careful and studied avoidance of the subject, but they aren’t fooling anybody.
Una, it could, but don’t forget several of the Supreme Court justices are avid shotgun sporting sorts. Why, Scalia even took Kagan out shooting once or twice, I hear.
I’m pretty sure that if the rule as presented was implemented, it’d hit the Supremes like a rocket, as it would personally piss several of them off.
Wrong thread.
But remember, the ban only impacts imported weapons. They could still buy oodles of made-in-the-US-of-A guns.
And look, I said earlier that it was not only highly unlikely, but that Obama has shown no indication whatsoever he wants to do anything like that. I only throw it out as an existing law already on the books which does in fact allow the President to ban by decree potentially a significant number of new guns. And yes it could be challenged and overturned, but so could anything. All I’m saying is that it’s possible, as opposed to other scenarios where it’s impossible.
Damn, I never expect the Thread Police! Sorry, officer, perhaps you could direct me to the correct thread for politics, law, guns, and the NRA?
Oh, sure, it’s possible, but it’s the sort of thing that would cause massive pain, politically, and only work for a limited period of time.
Beretta’s new line just showed up in my inbox, after all.