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

reply to post by unityemissions


I saw that a while ago.
Title is for stats between 1993 to 2001.
It is far from current.

I would guess that were an Executive Order given to disarm citizens, there would certainly be hysteria, that just goes without saying. Them against us. How could they enforce their directive? With military and police and certain agencies of the government. What would they face? Certain combat as entire areas defied this illegal grab. Regional areas would become strongholds with law enforcement and citizens alike defending their second amendment rights against intrusion. How then could they try to enforce their agenda? I'd guess by locking down any transactions in the monetary of buying and selling. This would be used to 'Starve out' those who would not comply. Killing communication and power and water supplies. This might have a severe impact considering it's winter, and we have a couple months until spring arrives. With the arrival of spring, crops or gardens could be grown the food to power the rebellion. In the mean time what could those in the regions of defiance do? Stop or destroy key interstate routes and commerce, destroy crops and utilities of opposing regions. The list is long, the difficulties the victims of Gun Confiscation could bring to bear on those wishing to deprive them. If it comes to a civil war, you know the saying... "all's fair in love and War". Recently a survey was done in the 'Southern States' and Law Enforcement individuals were asked if they would enforce action against those who opposed the governments demand to disarm the populace, and there was a resounding 'NO' by Police and Law enforcement. I posted this link on another thread recently. IF 0bama does in fact try to pull some sneak attack on our second amendment rights, there will literally be war and hell to pay. The Whole world will reel from the effect of this division and following fight. It could be the final straw that divides America and topples the corrupt power structure. Government that opposes its populace is doomed to failure. And with an armed populace, it is
surely doomed. I'm not suggesting a course of action, just stating the obvious. I'm sure much could be added to the particulars.

reply to post by Truth_Hz

Dont you think that the Founders could have used broad language in simply stating "arms" in 2A to confer a fundamental right as opposed to delimiting the right by delineating restrictions inherent in descriptions of the contemporary arms of the day? Give TJ, GW, PH, BF, JM et al some credit.

AND there's always the possibility this whole topic is ....Call it what you will...... put together by trolls and those with an agenda, and untrue. I question the accuracy and author of this news....... Mind you (not the OP)

Originally posted by macman
reply to post by unityemissions

 

I saw that a while ago.
Title is for stats between 1993 to 2001.
It is far from current.

Urghh, dude I'm trying to help ya here. Just frustrating.

I provided stats for recent years in my first link.

Because the original question was directed at the age group 16-28 I think, you asked for proof that this came from the youth. So I provided a link that shows crime is mostly under 25.

You asked for a better link. I provided.

That the date for these stats is from 93-01 is entirely irrelevant.

You're basically saying you don't believe that the youth are, historically speaking, the ones who are usually locked up as the vast majority.

There are variables, and there are constants, and the youth being "fools" who must be "corrected" by social institutions is a constant throughout our history.

Originally posted by rival

Originally posted by MegaMind

Originally posted by rival
Obama doesn't have to ban guns to do what he wants. He doesn't even have to regulate them.
He doesn't have to conflict with the second amendment at all...

All he has to do is ban ammunition...then ban reloading equipment and sales of gun powder
and primers to citizens...easy-peasy.

Ban the bullet and you effectively ban the gun...without running afoul of the BoR--the second
amendment is clear, "...the right to keep and bear arms...". It says nothing about bullets

Guns don't kill...guns don't protect...bullets do

Bullets are part and parcel with arms ....

go fish ...

Darn.......Arms and ammunition are not synonymous Arms refers to guns...ammunition refers to bullets....

Got any threes?

Nope ...

Read em and weep ... I have more books than you ...

google ...

Arms
Noun
1. Weapons and ammunition; armaments: "they were subjugated by force of arms".
2. Distinctive emblems or devices, forming the heraldic insignia of families, corporations, or countries.

google ...

am·mu·ni·tion
Noun
1. A supply or quantity of bullets and shells.
2. Considerations that can be used to support one's case in debate.

better luck next time ...

If a tyrant ever gets elected and they take away all firearms then you will be mass murdered,simple as that.People who love government and communism will never understand it.

Originally posted by unityemissions

Originally posted by macman
reply to post by unityemissions

 

I saw that a while ago.
Title is for stats between 1993 to 2001.
It is far from current.

Urghh, dude I'm trying to help ya here. Just frustrating.

I provided stats for recent years in my first link.

Because the original question was directed at the age group 16-28

I think, you asked for proof that this came from the youth. So I provided a link that shows crime is mostly under 25.

You asked for a better link. I provided.

That the date for these stats is from 93-01 is entirely irrelevant.

You're basically saying you don't believe that the youth are, historically speaking, the ones who are usually locked up as the vast majority.

There are variables, and there are constants, and the youth being "fools" who must be "corrected" by social institutions is a constant throughout our history.

edit on 10-1-2013 by unityemissions because: (no reason given)

Very plainly.
Get me an age breakdown of crime.
The FBI stats are irrelevant, as they are 10 + years old.
Youth does not equal criminal.
Nor does the elder.

Originally posted by Jobeycool
If a tyrant ever gets elected and they take away all firearms then you will be mass murdered,simple as that.People who love government and communism will never understand it.

I dislike communism because it is an oppressive, fake utopia BUT you would be suprised to find out that nations with a communist government had much less corruption than capitalist ones. The nwo has not been able to infiltrate them at all, they have had their own currency and did not need to borrow from the capitalist markets, and they were self-suficient to a large degree.

The only two problems with communism were the lack of freedom and the lack of motivation for sucess. But everyone was guaranteed a job, basic health, shelter and food. Of course the lack of freedom was nothing minor though.

The world is not black and white. The real enemy is lucifer/satan and he is hiding under capitalism! I keep correcting people but they don't want to listen because they have been successfuly brainwashed to instinctively abhor communism and to a lesser degree socialism.

I read this earlier after watching Alex Jones on with Pierce Morgan, have to say funny video and Alex raised some good points people in Britain still get guns even though they are banned,

I'm a bit confused as to what an executive order is ?

is it to do with forcing an act upon public like martial law ?

Yes, it is happening.

The end game is here.

STUDY the intelligence leak at this page---


[spam link removed]

reply to post by MegaMind


Firstly you kindly omitted this:

Today, some prerogative powers are directly exercised by ministers without the approval of Parliament, including the powers of declaring war and of making peace, to issue passports, and to grant honours.[34] Prerogative powers are exercised nominally by the monarch, but on the advice of the prime minister (with whom the monarch meets on a weekly basis) and on the advice of the cabinet.[35] Some key functions of the British government are still executed by virtue of the Royal Prerogative, but generally the usage of the prerogative has been diminishing as functions are progressively put on a statutory basis.[36]

Nominally.. an important word here

Secondly The Governor Generals whilst are the representatives of the Monarch do not act upon orders of the Monarch.

I will post this here for all to read and understand the logical dissection of the 2nd amendment and that any restrictions against this freedom is paramount to treason against the oath of office, the constitution and the american people:

I, along with the American public am requesting the current Bans and Regulations of firearms in the United States of America be deemed unconstitutional and forfeit their rulings. This is to include and not limited to all “class 3” NFA items (SBR, Full Auto, AP Rounds, Suppressors, Machine guns and destructive devices). This petition is in regards to the Second Amendment of the Bill of Rights constituted in the Constitution of the United States in 1791. The second amendment reads as follows:
“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
Specifically the later of the bill:
“the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
As noted in plain English the amendment addresses that the “people” = American Citizens, have the right to keep and Bear = Own/Carry/Transport, and that RIGHT shall NOT be INFRINGED upon.
Infringed = To encroach on someone or something.
And,
Encroach = To take another's possessions or rights gradually or stealthily.
The current Legislation/Bans and proposed future bans, regulation and legislation encroach on the rights of the American citizen by definition and therefore are deemed by definition both illegal and unconstitutional. Any further legislation is unconstitutional and is equal to treason under the oath of office in which all representatives of the American people take upon entering office. That oath is as follows:
“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God. “
This oath is sworn in at all public offices since 1884. Any legislation or vote for legislation against the amendments of the bill of rights by definition has broken this sacred oath and is in fact an act of treason.
Treason = Violation of allegiance toward one's country or sovereign/A betrayal of trust or confidence.
This petition is requesting in plain English that the current bans be lifted immediately and that any further bans be constituted as illegal and unconstitutional. It is not requesting that representatives be tried for treason but rather any law or legislation or regulation that infringes or encroaches on the rights of the American Citizen as published by the bill of rights and the constitution be forfeit and nullified. This would include but not limited to (tax stamps, Assault weapons ban, Ammunition bans, Concealed Carry laws, Destructive Devices ban, Machine gun ban, and any other law, regulation or legislation which encroaches on the right of an American citizen to freely and willfully own a firearm or other device).


**This petition is based on the text and not any one person’s beliefs or opinion. No ideology is being interjected into the 2nd amendment but rather the meaning and definition are being extracted by form of Exegesis.
Exegesis = Critical explanation or analysis, especially of a text.


Founding Fathers Thoughts on 2nd amendment:

I will quote a founding fathers and their belief on the 2nd amendment:

"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."
— Thomas Jefferson (attributed to Jefferson, by his contemporaries)

"When governments fear the people there is liberty. When the people fear the government there is tyranny."
— Thomas Jefferson (attributed to Jefferson, by his contemporaries)

"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."
— Benjamin Franklin (on the title page of An Historical Review of the Constitution and Government of Pennsylvania - 1759)

"I believe there are more instances of the abridgment of freedoms of the people by gradual and silent encroachment of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations."
— James Madison (attributed to Madison, by his contemporaries)

Sounds like the forefathers knew exactly what would happen and their foresight was dead on with the current encroachment on our freedoms! Support the constitution! not politicians and their misguided ideologies!

Originally posted by macman
reply to post by DelMar

 

Oh, I get it. Master of Semantics is here.


Look to his history and what his Admin/Cabinet officials are saying. Along with the morons in Congress and the Senate.

Hardly a "Master of Semantics" as you claim. I was simple asking the OP to back his own statements and he couldn't. All he wanted to do was deflect to a different part of his post.

I really need to stop reading posts about this...as no one here knows history about civil wars, revolution and dictators...

The U.S. is the only country to have both and not have a Dictator rise up or have a country dissolved and divided doubt we will be as lucky a 2nd time.

But those that think it's the Democrats or the Republicans should really get their eyes checked! It's both! And it is the plan to have those pissed enough to rise up instead of doing nothing and not fighting their wars anymore, like we have so-------many times before.

But sure go ahead sheeple do what they have planned!

reply to post by MegaMind

Ammunition is a vital part of a Fire-arms system....for without the bullet projectile a firearm is just an expensive club. Therefore it can be assumed that an infringement on the ability to acquire ammunition would be an infringement on the right to exercise the right to keep and bear arms.

Originally posted by Truth_Hz
reply to post by MegaMind

 

Firstly you kindly omitted this:

Today, some prerogative powers are directly exercised by ministers without the approval of Parliament, including the powers of declaring war and of making peace, to issue passports, and to grant honours.[34] Prerogative powers are exercised nominally by the monarch, but on the advice of the prime minister (with whom the monarch meets on a weekly basis) and on the advice of the cabinet.[35] Some key functions of the British government are still executed by virtue of the Royal Prerogative, but generally the usage of the prerogative has been diminishing as functions are progressively put on a statutory basis.[36]

Nominally.. an important word here

So the monarch still ultimately has prerogative powers and meets with the PM weekly. The PM and cabinet gives "advice."

Does it help you that everyone keeps saying in "name only" but really in the fine print the Monarch still holds these powers even if they don't expressly use them?

wiki ...

These powers are known as Royal Prerogative and can be used for a vast number of things, such as the issue or withdrawal of passports, to the dismissal of the Prime Minister or even the Declaration of War. The powers are delegated from the Monarch personally, in the name of the Crown, and can be handed to various ministers, or other Officers of the Crown, and can purposely bypass the consent of Parliament.

bypass the Parliament? Officers of the Crown? Wake up already ...

delegated ... but still ultimately hers ...

Secondly The Governor Generals whilst are the representatives of the Monarch do not act upon orders of the Monarch.

And what does the word representative mean to you? The Governor General is the Queen's ruler in that country and may ultimately be removed by the Queen.

Your form of government is called a constitutional monarchy ... there is a reason for that. All power of the state is derived through the monarchy. The queen of England IS the sole power of government she grants the existence of Parliament and the PM. All oaths of allegiance, by those in government, are sworn to the Crown.

wiki ...

A major grouping of constitutional monarchies comprises the sixteen Commonwealth realms under Elizabeth II.[7] Unlike some of their continental European counterparts, the Monarch and her Governors-General in the Commonwealth realms hold significant "reserve" or "prerogative" powers, to be wielded in times of extreme emergency or constitutional crises, usually to uphold parliamentary government. An instance of a Governor-General exercising such power occurred during the 1975 Australian constitutional crisis, when the Australian Prime Minister, Gough Whitlam, was dismissed by the Governor-General. The Australian senate had threatened to block the Government's budget by refusing to pass the necessary appropriation bills. On 11 November 1975, Whitlam intended to call a half-Senate election in an attempt to break the deadlock. When he sought the Governor-General's approval of the election, the Governor-General instead dismissed him as Prime Minister, and shortly thereafter installed leader of the opposition Malcolm Fraser in his place.

Pretty powerful stuff right there ...

Even though the United Kingdom has no single constitution document, in October 2003, in order to increase transparency, the Government published the above list as some of the powers exercised in the name of the Monarch and which are part of the Royal Prerogative. However the full extent of Her Majesty's powers has never been fully disclosed.

You should educate yourself ... www.republic.org.uk ...

The power to dismiss the Government

Legally, the Queen has the power to dismiss the Government at any time and for any reason or for none. No exercise of this power could be struck down by any court of law. This power was last exercised in the United Kingdom by William IV in 1834, but it remains in place. It was exercised with devastating effect in 1975 in Australia.

Even if some of these powers have not been exercised in the United Kingdom in many years, do not be fooled. Legally, they still exist. Several of them have been much more recently exercised by the Crown in Australia (where the Queen's appointed representative dismissed the democratically elected Government of the day in 1975) and in Canada (where the Queen's appointed representative prorogued Parliament for several weeks in late 2008, preventing it from performing its democratic and constitutional functions).

The difference between America and the UK is that our government derives its power through the consent of the people while your government - which doesn't even have a written constitution - derives its power through the Crown. Get it?

Originally posted by TheIllusiveMan
reply to post by beezzer

 

100% agree with you! It is time we stop simply reacting to the emotional manipulation of the government and it is time we begin to act as a united front. Those in visible power i.e. the "top" republicans and democrats are obviously united in the pillaging and perversion of the law and the constitution.

I understand this and you and everyone in this forum understands this, but how do we get the masses to understand and to stop believing in all the smoke and mirrors??

We need to look at causes and not symptoms. We need to be vocal and reasoned, not playing off emotions like the government and their lapdogs in the MSM do.

Other than that?

Dunno.

reply to post by APOCOLYPSE DAWN




This guy explains why we need guns!

Originally posted by Spiramirabilis

Originally posted by beezzer
If the idiot who killed all those people in Sandy Hook had a knife, or a sharp stick, or a rock, or a hammer instead of a gun we'd all be discussing the deplorable state of the mental health services in America.

But we're focusing on the weapon the killer used instead of the killer.

Agenda?

you're getting warmer...

(so close!)

:-)

Why do I feel like I'm playing Marco Polo and the prize is. . . the truth!