United States & Gun Control discussion.

The President hardly mentioned gun control or gun violence in the State of the Union address last night. I take that as a good sign, at least at the federal level, that more gun control measures are not in the pipe.
 
Ranger Psych said:
Bullshit. You know it's on his agenda and in the pipe if he can shove it in there through royal decree or legal legislation. I'm more concerned when he isn't talking about it.
Click to expand...
Oh I'm sure it's on his agenda, but I think the Democrats have realized that if they can't pass anything at the federal level in the wake of a tragedy like Sandy Hook, then they probably can't muster enough votes for any GC legislation when things have quieted down. As an example, Feinstein re-introduced her version of the AWB during the last session of Congress and it went absolutely nowhere. From the looks of it, it died in committee before even reaching the senate floor.

The states are another matter, however.
 
Deathy McDeath said:
Oh I'm sure it's on his agenda, but I think the Democrats have realized that if they can't pass anything at the federal level in the wake of a tragedy like Sandy Hook, then they probably can't muster enough votes for any GC legislation when things have quieted down. As an example, Feinstein re-introduced her version of the AWB during the last session of Congress and it went absolutely nowhere. From the looks of it, it died in committee before even reaching the senate floor.

The states are another matter, however.
Click to expand...

The fact that he felt comfortable saying this:
So wherever and whenever I can take steps without legislation to expand opportunity for more American families, that's what I'm going to do."
Click to expand...
no matter what context it was in, is rather telling to me. Yes, he was talking about minimum wage, entitlements, and other financial boons for the middle class, but the system of checks and balances guarantees that there isn't much POTUS can do without legislation. It's not a failing in the system, it's a feature. Don't like that? Blame the Magna Carta.

I'm concerned that he's engaging in political sleight of hand. Look! I'm giving you money! Huhuhuhuh huhuh huh, I like munny (think "Idiocracy"). Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain as he unilaterally moves to enact his ideal gun control by executive order. He's not stupid. He knows that even some members of his liberal base are all about keeping their guns. That's why he didn't say a damned thing about it. I agree with RP, I don't trust his silence on the gun control issue.
 
I'll be a little surprised if much happens on the Federal level. That doesn't mean they've forgotten about it, but they know nothing will go anywhere. They need another Sandy Hook or two to manipulate public opinion and fearmonger. States know they have to tread carefully after watching what happened in CO. A few states may try something, NY is still a bucket of fail, but I think lawmakers are biding their time and waiting for another high visibility shooting.

The issue isn't dead, not by a long shot.
 
www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42987.pdfpdf
You can take a look at the gun control legislation introduced since the start of the 113th congress, and track their progress by entering the bill number at www.govtrack.us
The whole process is pretty transparent. Obviously the committee hearings are less-so, but its not like you can't see which bills are going forward and which ones are stalled

As for a possible executive order....I don't know where you guys are getting this notion, but a sweeping GC executive order would be smashed by the supreme court In like five seconds. Remember guys, Obama was a constitutional law professor lecturer, so I'm pretty sure that he knows his left and right lateral limits extremely well. I'm sure he's weighed the option of a sweeping GC executive order and realized that it would be folly. Obama may be something of a demagogue, but he's not a tyrant.
 
Last edited:
I totally disagree with notion that POTUS knows/understands/follows the US constitution. And he was a guest lecture not a paid professor. He is a community organizer, a member of the democratic socialist party, and he straight up said if he can't get something done by legislative measure he will do it by executive order. He has already signed 26 EO on gun control.
 
UC Law School statement: The Law School has received many media requests about Barack Obama, especially about his status as "Senior Lecturer." From 1992 until his election to the U.S. Senate in 2004, Barack Obama served as a professor in the Law School. He was a Lecturer from 1992 to 1996. He was a Senior Lecturer from 1996 to 2004, during which time he taught three courses per year. Senior Lecturers are considered to be members of the Law School faculty and are regarded as professors, although not full-time or tenure-track. The title of Senior Lecturer is distinct from the title of Lecturer, which signifies adjunct status. Like Obama, each of the Law School’s Senior Lecturers have high-demand careers in politics or public service, which prevent full-time teaching. Several times during his 12 years as a professor in the Law School, Obama was invited to join the faculty in a full-time tenure-track position, but he declined.
Click to expand...
http://www.factcheck.org/2008/03/obama-a-constitutional-law-professor/

While not a tenure-track professor, he nonetheless is considered an expert in constitutional law.

With regards to the EOs he has already signed, nearly all of them had to do with background checks and mental health. That's hardly a blip on the radar.
 
Funny how such an "expert" has systematically trampled all over the very thing he was "lecturing" law students on.:rolleyes: I guess we should be okay with it since he was only doing that three times a year.

I guess the EO's are how the individual views them. Personally, I don't understand how anyone is okay with any POTUS using EO's to restrict and or regulate a constitutional right.

What if he decided by EO to suspend your 4th and 5th amendments, or not suspend them just tweak them to his liking?

This POTUS, has basically thrown the constitution out and is nullifying the checks and balances of our government.

Yep, an expert...
 
JAB said:
Funny how such an "expert" has systematically trampled all over the very thing he was "lecturing" law students on.:rolleyes: I guess we should be okay with it since he was only doing that three times a year.

I guess the EO's are how the individual views them. Personally, I don't understand how anyone is okay with any POTUS using EO's to restrict and or regulate a constitutional right.

What if he decided by EO to suspend your 4th and 5th amendments, or not suspend them just tweak them to his liking?

This POTUS, has basically thrown the constitution out and is nullifying the checks and balances of our government.

Yep, an expert...
Click to expand...

That's what happens when you put an ass clown in office.... Don't worry Jimmy Carter, you are no longer the worst President in U.S. history.
 
JAB said:
Funny how such an "expert" has systematically trampled all over the very thing he was "lecturing" law students on.:rolleyes: I guess we should be okay with it since he was only doing that three times a year.
Click to expand...
Well, hardly anyone has brought any constitutional challenges to his executive orders. You or I don't decide what is or is not constitutional. The Supreme Court does. And to date, only one party has brought suit against the administration for its use of executive orders, and that case is still in the courts (See NLRB vs Canning ). This case is likely to decide the scope of future Presidential executive orders, and should be very interesting to watch. But until the Supreme Court says that they are unconstitutional, they remain constitutional.

JAB said:
I guess the EO's are how the individual views them. Personally, I don't understand how anyone is okay with any POTUS using EO's to restrict and or regulate a constitutional right.

What if he decided by EO to suspend your 4th and 5th amendments, or not suspend them just tweak them to his liking?
Click to expand...
Well, curtailing certain parts of the constitutional amendments to ensure public good has been part of jurisprudence for centuries. Scalia even weighed in during DC v. Heller, saying that while DC restricting an entire class of firearms (in this case, handguns) was unconstitutional, being able to keep and bear whatever arms you felt like is not. In essence, the Second amendment's scope is not unlimited. 1st amendment rights have been curtailed for the public good in previous cases (as well as upheld in phenomenally stupid cases like Citizen's United vs FEC).

JAB said:
This POTUS, has basically thrown the constitution out and is nullifying the checks and balances of our government.
Click to expand...
Executive orders, as I stated above, are subject to judicial review and congressional action. It doesn't change checks and balances.

Like I said before, I sincerely doubt that Obama and the democrats will get anything done on gun control. I'm sure that Congress members will try, but they'll fail. Obama will likely not attempt anything. It's proven to be a non-starter issue, even in the most favorable times.
 
Freefalling said:
I'll be a little surprised if much happens on the Federal level. That doesn't mean they've forgotten about it, but they know nothing will go anywhere. They need another Sandy Hook or two to manipulate public opinion and fearmonger. States know they have to tread carefully after watching what happened in CO. A few states may try something, NY is still a bucket of fail, but I think lawmakers are biding their time and waiting for another high visibility shooting.

The issue isn't dead, not by a long shot.
Click to expand...

You've got to burn down a few Reichstags in order to make any progress...
 
Deathy McDeath said:
Well, hardly anyone has brought any constitutional challenges to his executive orders. You or I don't decide what is or is not constitutional. The Supreme Court does. And to date, only one party has brought suit against the administration for its use of executive orders, and that case is still in the courts (See NLRB vs Canning ). This case is likely to decide the scope of future Presidential executive orders, and should be very interesting to watch. But until the Supreme Court says that they are unconstitutional, they remain constitutional.

*snip*


Executive orders, as I stated above, are subject to judicial review and congressional action. It doesn't change checks and balances.
Click to expand...

Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT) asked Eric Holder about the constitutionality of executive orders in this video right here. Holder doesn't seem to recall, but he's just the janitor. If it were so cut and dry, or even a single shred of legality, no matter how questionable, I think Eric the Red would have clung to it like Kate Winslet's character to driftwood in Titanic, and beat Sen. Lee in the face with it. Rather telling, if you ask me.

 
racing_kitty said:
Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT) asked Eric Holder about the constitutionality of executive orders in this video right here. Holder doesn't seem to recall, but he's just the janitor. If it were so cut and dry, or even a single shred of legality, no matter how questionable, I think Eric the Red would have clung to it like Kate Winslet's character to driftwood in Titanic, and beat Sen. Lee in the face with it. Rather telling, if you ask me.

Click to expand...
I think this has more to do with Holder being a shitty AG than anything. He really should've been replaced after Fast and Furious, but that obviously didn't happen.

CDG said:
Mark Dice recorded multiple college students on a campus in CA signing a fake petition to have gun owners imprisoned, and in some cases, executed.
Click to expand...

Oh man! He got 14 people to sign up! Those stupid liberal college kids! :rolleyes:
 
Deathy McDeath said:
Oh man! He got 14 people to sign up! Those stupid liberal college kids! :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Yeah, you're right. Nothing to worry about! It was only some stupid kids on one out of thousands of college campuses across the country. Clearly this is indicative of nothing. After all, we have a staunchly pro-Constitutional government in place that has expressed zero interest in raping the 2nd Amendment. :rolleyes::rolleyes:
 
Deathy McDeath said:
I think this has more to do with Holder being a shitty AG than anything. He really should've been replaced after Fast and Furious, but that obviously didn't happen.



Oh man! He got 14 people to sign up! Those stupid liberal college kids! :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

I am disturbed when it happens at all.
 

Similar threads

Ooh-Rah
Anyone familiar with Aphantasia?
Replies
17
Views
374
Topkick
Topkick
Devildoc
House discussing citizen-only voting bill...
Replies
19
Views
465
The Quartermaster
The Quartermaster
Marauder06
1911 Questions--Barrel and Slide Swap
Replies
14
Views
874
Diamondback 2/2
Diamondback 2/2
T
Group 35 Series Training Opportunities
Replies
1
Views
279
Marauder06
Marauder06
Devildoc
Western NC/Hurricane Helene
2 3
Replies
54
Views
1K
DA SWO
DA SWO
Back
Top