BREAKING - Obama to use Executive actions, bypassing Congress, to force gun control measures.

Something really needs to be done about the "executive action" usage! (when, where and how it's used to be exact)

originally posted by: introvert
This entire thing is just fluff. Obama is not ordering new rules or restrictions that make drastic changes to what is already required.

All he is doing is making it appear as though he is doing something about the problem.

Exactly.

HUGE difference between Executive Actions versus Executive Orders.

Executive Actions are nothing more than a Presidential wish list. Basically it's "I'd really like it if you would try to see if this can be done."

I have zero doubt though that he looked for every way possible to make them into Executive Orders, and these Actions were what came of it.

originally posted by: TinfoilTP
King Obama will have to give up the throne soon, in the meantime antics like this just cause firearms sales to skyrocket through the roof.

Go get yourselves one to defy the King, it's trendy, it's hip, it's patriotic and makes the gun grabbing commie libs squirm.

Bill Clinton's Stirring 1993 Gun Speech Will Make You Disappointed In How Little Has Changed
We will honor the meaning of our church.
We will, somehow, by God's grace, we will turn this around.
We will give these children a future. We will take away their guns and give them books.
We will take away their despair and give them hope. We will rebuildwww.youtube.com...

a reply to: poncho1982

It looks like Obama has spent some time on the internet learning how to troll people and whip people into a frenzy. That's exactly what I think Obama is doing -- he is trying to spark irrational emotional behavior from people.

Moderate and rational people will see people going nuts and screaming and bemoaning and carrying on like spoiled children who can't have a cookie -- and wonder what those 2nd Amendment people are carrying on about. The media will make fun of them, furthering the entire thing.

This is how you shape public opinion. If the pro-gun people just stayed calm and kept asserting their facts and arguing point for point without name calling and dragging dramatics into the mix, they'd be seen a sane, logical, sensible people who deserve the rights in the Constitution.

This is all a carefully crafted and executed psychology experiment to piss people off and make them act insane.

His proposals to restrict gun rights were debated by the United States Senate, and they were rejected.
No president should be able to reverse legislative failure by executive fiat, not even incrementally.
The American people deserve a president who will respect their constitutional right — all of them.
This is a dangerous level of executive overreach, and the country will not stand for it.

Read Latest Breaking News from Newsmax.com www.newsmax.com...

I'm about to do some sort of open debate on this topic.

Any input would greatly help.

So what's your take on this whole Executive Action?

I know most of you spoke your mind already, but what about some of the things he's mentioning?

For instance, what exactly is he planning to do here?

1. Do you agree, that we should increase the background checks? For example, guns are sold at Gun Conventions without proper background checks, what do you think of those? Brady Bill Loophole?

Do you think it's correct to add additional measures so that people can't abuse this loophole?

Why or why not?

2. What other additional measures is he talking about? Did anyone see his full speech? All I heard was just background checks and more background checks... what else??

3. Do you agree with him claiming we need to invest more into mental institution or on ways to better identify individuals with mental health history...

In general, instead of just saying "There has to be a line drawn on the sand" which is cool and all, but what exactly do you think is wrong with his almost 30min. long speech?

a reply to: truthseeker84

Did anyone see his full speech? All I heard was just background checks and more background checks... what else??

Rather than the speech, the actual actions would be what you want to consider.
www.whitehouse.gov...

It should also once again be noted that executive actions carry little legal weight and are subject to judicial review. However, I don't see anything particularly onerous there. The medical provisions could be seen as troubling but the actual changes to HIPA clarify them somewhat.
s3.amazonaws.com...

You actually might want to start a new thread actually discussing the details though, since this one isn't really about that.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: truthseeker84

Did anyone see his full speech? All I heard was just background checks and more background checks... what else??

Rather than the speech, the actual actions would be what you want to consider.
www.whitehouse.gov...

It should also once again be noted that executive actions carry little legal weight and are subject to judicial review. However, I don't see anything particularly onerous there. The medical provisions could be seen as troubling but the actual changes to HIPA clarify them somewhat.
s3.amazonaws.com...

You actually might want to start a new thread actually discussing the details though, since this one isn't really about that.

They could be the noblest efforts of all time except that he bypassed Congress after failing to gain support for them. The only discussion worthwhile is what level of treason this is.

a reply to: TinfoilTP
Silly.
They are not laws. The President cannot make laws. Only Congress can do that. There was no "bypass."

I guess you would consider every President to be a traitor though.
theweek.com...

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: TinfoilTP
Silly.
They are not laws. The President cannot make laws. Only Congress can do that. There was no "bypass."

I guess you would considered every President to be a traitor though.
theweek.com...

Only the ones that pass executive orders to limit the second amendment.

All he accomplished though was a spike in gun sales, good ole American attitude going against the Authority is alive and well.


Still scratching my head, where did I use the word "Law" in my previous post?

a reply to: TinfoilTP

Only the ones that pass executive orders to limit the second amendment.

Ah. So you're a single issue type person. Ok.
So you think people who are found to be incompetent should be able to buy a gun? You think felons should be able to buy a gun?

All he accomplished though was a spike in gun sales, good ole American attitude going against the Authority is alive and well.

No. Just people panicking, thinking that this means they can't legally get a gun. It doesn't. It doesn't actually change anything, it just provides ways to better enforce existing laws (which were created by, you guessed it, Congress).

Still scratching my head, where did I use the word "Law" in my previous post?

Since you said he bypassed Congress it would mean that he created a law. Since that is what Congress does.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: TinfoilTP

Only the ones that pass executive orders to limit the second amendment.

Ah. So you're a single issue type person. Ok.

Still scratching my head, where did I use the word "Law" in my previous post?

Since you said he bypassed Congress it would mean that he created a law. Since that is what Congress does.

No, that is what he, Obama, attempted to do. When he failed to get the Laws he wanted passed, he turned to executive orders to enact the same measures.

Are you going to argue the semantics, Law vs Executive Order, or admit what is obvious that he bypassed Congress?

a reply to: TinfoilTP

When he failed to get the Laws he wanted passed, he turned to executive orders to enact the same measures.

False.

Are you going to argue the semantics, Law vs Executive Order, or admit what is obvious that he bypassed Congress?

Semantics? You mean what the words actually mean as opposed to making them mean whatever you want them to? Ok, semantics. The President did not bypass Congress. He created no new laws. He made policy decisions (which is what the President does) which make enforcement of existing laws more effective.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: TinfoilTP

Only the ones that pass executive orders to limit the second amendment.

Ah. So you're a single issue type person. Ok.

Still scratching my head, where did I use the word "Law" in my previous post?

Since you said he bypassed Congress it would mean that he created a law. Since that is what Congress does.

Felons already cannot buy guns legally. I believe you already knew this though. Strange weak line of attack.

Those who oppose his Kingly decrees see them as baby steps.
He gets away decreeing something small and insignificant at first, covering felons and mental patients which had laws covering them long before he was around, which sets the precedent to attempt to move in for the kill against the second amendment later on, by anyone in the Oval Office.

Ironically his attempts to pad his record for his Presidential Library only causes proliferation of guns.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: truthseeker84

Did anyone see his full speech? All I heard was just background checks and more background checks... what else??

Rather than the speech, the actual actions would be what you want to consider.
www.whitehouse.gov...

It should also once again be noted that executive actions carry little legal weight and are subject to judicial review. However, I don't see anything particularly onerous there. The medical provisions could be seen as troubling but the actual changes to HIPA clarify them somewhat.
s3.amazonaws.com...

You actually might want to start a new thread actually discussing the details though, since this one isn't really about that.

That's a good suggestion, but where would I insert it though.

Political Madness?