It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Biden: Obama Considering 'Executive Order' to Deal With Guns

page: 1
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in


posted on Jan, 9 2013 @ 12:12 PM
Sorry if this is already posted, I honestly didn't even take the time to check.
My heart is pounding out of my chest right now.
Here it is people!!!!
The moment we've been waiting for is finally here.

Vice President Joe Biden revealed that President Barack Obama might use an executive order to deal with guns.

"The president is going to act," said Biden, giving some comments to the press before a meeting with victims of gun violence. "There are executives orders, there's executive action that can be taken. We haven't decided what that is yet. But we're compiling it all with the help of the attorney general and the rest of the cabinet members as well as legislative action that we believe is required."


Like so many before him,
He is making the power grab and installing himsef as dictator.
Civil War is on the way if he does this.
There are just too many people who won't turn them in.
And there are so many who will turn on their friends,neighbors,and loved ones who refuse to turn them in.
They will be villified in the news and reduced to being called terrorists and enemies of freedom.
"They are endangering our children"

I can hear it all now.
I am sick to my stomach.
Your thoughts????

Edit to add: ##SNIPPED## This needs maximum exposure and we need all hands on deck with this one. This is a converstaion which needs as many players as possible.
edit on 9-1-2013 by Screwed because: (no reason given)

edit on Wed Jan 9 2013 by DontTreadOnMe because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 9 2013 @ 12:17 PM
reply to post by Screwed

I can't wait to see the smug looks come off of these progressive, authoritarians faces when they realize the #storm they have created by being the useful idiots for these criminals in DC.......

Like I mentioned in another thread, "Do you think when the troops hit the streets, they will be asking if you are a Dem/Rep?"......

posted on Jan, 9 2013 @ 12:30 PM
reply to post by Screwed

The BATFE (under the Dept of Justice which is in the Executive Branch) will be the one charged with carrying out the Executive Order no doubt.

posted on Jan, 9 2013 @ 12:39 PM
reply to post by Screwed

Executive Order power was never established as a means of setting national policy or major issues of law/regulation. That's the tool of a tyrant not an elected leader. Those were meant to give the President a means to handle housekeeping issues or matters outside the usual duties of Congress. Obama has used few compared to past Presidents but he's using them in a way past ones haven't generally dared attempt getting away with.

He isn't even inagurated to his second term and already he's making friggen threats about going around Congress (The point HE uses for EO power) and doing things unilaterally. I thought we elected a President, not a King. Enough with the Royal Decrees. If he can't get it done INSIDE THE SYSTEM it probably means on a given issue, not enough of this nation agree with him to get it done. That isn't a problem. That's HOW IT'S SUPPOSED to work.

posted on Jan, 9 2013 @ 12:54 PM

Originally posted by seeker1963

Like I mentioned in another thread, "Do you think when the troops hit the streets, they will be asking if you are a Dem/Rep?"......

Of course not. Because it's never been about party-- a fact which the many party-flag wavers here and elsewhere seem to not realize, or ignore. It's not even about conservative versus liberal (which in recent years has just become another synonym for republican versus democrat). But many have been too busy loudly yelling at each other-- defending the party line-- which I'm sure is just what they've wanted you to do.

Just because "conquer and divide" is older than dirt doesn't mean it's ineffective.

And yes, OP, if legit this is more than a little disconcerting.

posted on Jan, 9 2013 @ 12:56 PM
reply to post by Screwed

I have thought civil war was what tptb have been pushing for, for a long time. People have become so divided over a whole host of issues it would only take a little more, and that "little" more is a controversial issue.

People are playing into it, alot more than I expected, which is scary. If this does go through it will lead to war. Good people on both sides will be hurt and killed.

In the end though, it will prove out to be a divide and conquer tactic. People will be so distracted about fighting each other, that they won't see who the real enemy is. The one who started it all in the first place.

However, I think this will push more people than we realize into seeing the truth.

I won't lie, if this goes down, me and mine are heading for the woods. We won't take part in this, we know who the real enemy is and it isn't our neighbors. We won't help them lessen the amount of people they have to control, thereby making their jobs easier.

posted on Jan, 9 2013 @ 12:58 PM
I'm sure that it will be an executive order pertaining to mental illness.


posted on Jan, 9 2013 @ 01:00 PM
reply to post by Screwed

Yep, heard that comment as well.

I do love the fact that many of us here, stated over the last several years that 0bama would come after gun ownership and gun owners. WE were called crazy and told that it would never happen.

Now, look what is going on.

Yes, 0bama is anti-2nd Amendment and it is being shown, as the lame duck President presents his true Statist Marxist Colors.

posted on Jan, 9 2013 @ 01:03 PM
Rebirth of the clinton 'assault weapon' ban?

That way they can say 'something strong has been done' without provoking a riot.

I doubt that the democrats want to commit political suicide by going further than that.

posted on Jan, 9 2013 @ 01:05 PM

Did beezzer say, "Good"?

An EO is about the only way Obama could get something like his draconian gun bans passed. And (if I'm not mistaken) an EO only lasts as long as his presidency. So in 4 years, not only will Obama be gone, but much of congress that goes along with this as well.

This could be the constitutional mandate to get the progressives (in both parties) out!


(Libertarians, are you listening>)

posted on Jan, 9 2013 @ 01:06 PM
reply to post by Wrabbit2000

Agreed on the EOs. It is time to start considering:
1) LAWS by CONGRESS to REAFFIRM the Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms (all firearms but if they are automatic weapons, or suppressors or short barreled rifles/shotguns then they need to be registered w the BATFE). This will affirm the right to semi-auto assault style weapons and high capacity magazines.
2) ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT (POTUS and key Congressional leaders pushing for gun control).

I would only defund BATFE if they are expanded into the role of confiscation....otherwise it will slow the process of getting legal transfers accomplished.

posted on Jan, 9 2013 @ 01:06 PM
reply to post by Screwed

welllllll this can't be good......... Do you think their going to use one that's already in place?? Or are they going to come up with a whole new one. I don't agree with this in any way shape or form. I really wonder what exactly the order will be, no more AR-15, high round clips and such, or do you think he will go for the whole shebang and maybe ask for a "voluntary" turn in or firearms?? Either way I don't see any good coming out of this........

posted on Jan, 9 2013 @ 01:09 PM
reply to post by RN311

It would be extremely hard to get away with a blanket ban of semi autos. The most likely way to use EOs would be to expand the "interpretation" of Title 2 weapons under the Gun Control Act and classify semi-autos that have a military or "non-sporting" feature to be registered with the BATFE (as they do fully automatic weapons now) and require extensive background checks and a $200 transfer fee. (see my thread on "Gun Control: Here is how it will go down"

edit on 9-1-2013 by CosmicCitizen because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 9 2013 @ 01:12 PM
It could be used as an act of national security were as the POTUS could enforce a act to ban all sales of semi auto weapons, mags that hold more than 10 rounds, and ban the sales of semi auto pistols ban the sales of mil caliber ammo 9 40 45 223 308 (7.62x51) 338
and 50 the general public.

This would mean no over the counter sales, and there would be no second amendment argument. You could still get them as a collector, tax stamp and hole lot of paper work as to why you want one.

posted on Jan, 9 2013 @ 01:14 PM
Keep calm, folks. No need to get knickers all into knots.

IF the post is true, it is only a consideration and not yet LAW.

Furthermore, under US sacred Constitution, executive orders MUST still pass through the judiciary - 3rd arm of the govt, to be approved. If not, it gets revoked if there is a challenge by Congress, and may even mean impeachment for the president.

What's more, there's the People the president will have to contend with, whom will march on Capitol Hill by the millions, descendants of the founding fathers from the brilliant generals to the just married footsoldier whom gave their lives for the freedom all americans have today.

Enough time had long been wasted upon the offensive words of 'gun control' debates. If president Obama wants to excercise executive orders, he best save it up for the fiscal cliff or the debt ceiling raising. At least that is more worthy and will save 300 million americans, rather than a dubious weapons control or ban that had never worked to end tyranny or violence upon innocents, even long before the birth of USA of a planet of 5000 years recorded history.

Stay calm. There are more peaceful means in a democracy to achieve a win win solution for all, then a precipitate action that will cause everyone to lose all.

posted on Jan, 9 2013 @ 01:15 PM
An executive order to try and force the citizens to perform unconstitutional behaviors will be followed about the same as an executive order for all hot chicks to stay naked until age 40. Stupid.

posted on Jan, 9 2013 @ 01:17 PM
reply to post by bekod

Dont forget to add the 7.62 x 39 (commie .30 cal) to the list (originally posted on my gun control thread). But how can one rationalize "National Security" with a 100 deaths from mass shootings in a year? What about the violent crime stopped by armed citizens? What about the role of citizens as a defacto militia in the event of a (albeit unlikely) invasion of the "homeland"? (Wolverines!)

posted on Jan, 9 2013 @ 01:18 PM
I just want to add that it's a darn shame that all my weapons got stolen.

posted on Jan, 9 2013 @ 01:26 PM
In thinking about this... There is quite a lot he can do by Executive order. It won't TECHNICALLY bypass Congress at first glance but in effect it will be end running the entire legislative process of our Government for the ends it's meant to achieve. Major policy change without the consent of the Governed by way of elected get all technical in terms.

What he can do is extend on steroids what Commerce and State have already done to some degree. He can make the IMPORT of everything from spare parts to receivers and whole weapons as close to outright illegal as it comes ..and could make it completely banned if I'm not mistaken. Regulating them like a dangerous product and ignoring the 'gun' issue for the sake of WHAT it is would be the way to do it under the cold regulations of import/export policy.

Additionally, where Obama and the Presidents recently before him seem to flat out refuse to tax or tariff anything for imports, that can change quick for ammo. Enough comes from overseas to dramatically squeeze the domestic market in making up the difference of it's loss. Then it's just more of the same B.S. over-regulation and death by a thousand fines against domestic ammunition and weapons producers that don't play ball with how the White House thinks their product lines should change and what should be dropped .. Kinda like GM got told what cars to make over others in preference.

All that IS within executive authority if he wants to push the the absolute limits of that power and beyond what any before him have done, IMO.

edit on 9-1-2013 by Wrabbit2000 because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 9 2013 @ 01:26 PM
reply to post by Screwed

I don't agree at all with handling the "gun issue" through an executive order but I think you are way out in left field with your reaction to this. You're speculating what they are going to do and panicking about. There is truly nothing any of us can do against an EO, we will have to wait and see what happens.

There's no need to post like the US is falling into civil war over the wording Biden used in his presser.

top topics

<<   2  3  4 >>

log in