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

page: 1
7
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 9 2013 @ 05:32 PM
link   

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


www.weeklystandard.com

"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."
(visit the link for the full news article)


Related News Links:
www.infowars.com




posted on Jan, 9 2013 @ 05:32 PM
link   
Top link in red on drudge right now. This might just be it folks. Is Obama really going to try and restrict the second amendment through executive order? Are Americans going to put up with it if he does?


Biden said that this is a moral issue and that "it's critically important that we act


Right, it's a moral issue. Like the drone strikes that kill children on a daily basis that your administration orders. That's not a moral issue though is it Biden? Of course not.



www.weeklystandard.com
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Jan, 9 2013 @ 05:34 PM
link   
this have been posted but... can we do a public order to fire obama, lets get started on that.



posted on Jan, 9 2013 @ 05:40 PM
link   
Drudge has pictures of Hitler and Stalin above the link. How mature.



posted on Jan, 9 2013 @ 06:00 PM
link   
reply to post by Dispo
 

it's realistic. every time guns have been banned to the proposed extent, the government commits mass murder.

the dollar is collapsing, and they don't want pissed off armed citizens demanding answers. in their view, the murder of those innocent children was for the greater good.



posted on Jan, 9 2013 @ 06:29 PM
link   

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."


That is the biggest joke of all "they are compliing" meanign putting on a dog and poney show for the media and the attorney general(fast and furious) and making more laws for do nothing.

Why the hell have congress at all?

They are going to do whatever the hell they want no matter what and punish us who have done nothing.

Par for the course for those fascists.



posted on Jan, 9 2013 @ 06:33 PM
link   
reply to post by Dispo
 


Immature ? Hardly\

Stating a fact:




posted on Jan, 9 2013 @ 06:35 PM
link   
reply to post by neo96
 


If you had to guess, where on this pyramid would you say the "HITLERRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR" argument would fall?




posted on Jan, 9 2013 @ 06:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Dispo
 


The "Hitler argument" you tell me:


In 1919, the German government passed the Regulations on Weapons Ownership, which declared that "all firearms, as well as all kinds of firearms ammunition, are to be surrendered immediately."[2] Under the regulations, anyone found in possession of a firearm or ammunition was subject to five years' imprisonment and a fine of 100,000 marks


The NFA


n August 7, 1920, the German government enacted a second gun-regulation law called the Law on the Disarmament of the People. It put into effect the provisions of the Versailles Treaty in regard to the limit on military-type weapons.


The ASWB of the 90s follow by the Brady laws.


n 1928, the German government enacted the Law on Firearms and Ammunition. This law relaxed gun restrictions and put into effect a strict firearm licensing scheme. Under this scheme, Germans could possess firearms, but they were required to have separate permits to do the following: own or sell firearms, carry firearms (including handguns), manufacture firearms, and professionally deal in firearms and ammunition. This law explicitly revoked the 1919 Regulations on Weapons Ownership, which had banned all firearms possession




Current events

en.wikipedia.org...

Even Hitler thought we he was doing was "moral".


edit on 9-1-2013 by neo96 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 9 2013 @ 06:45 PM
link   
reply to post by neo96
 


There is a difference between giving information and sources and opinions, like you did in that post, and saying "OBAMA IS THE HITLER HIDE YOUR DAUGHTERS!!!!111"



posted on Jan, 9 2013 @ 06:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dispo
reply to post by neo96
 


There is a difference between giving information and sources and opinions, like you did in that post, and saying "OBAMA IS THE HITLER HIDE YOUR DAUGHTERS!!!!111"



Nice hyperbole there.



posted on Jan, 9 2013 @ 06:52 PM
link   
reply to post by neo96
 


You saw what I did? Aww, I'm glad you noticed.



posted on Jan, 9 2013 @ 06:56 PM
link   
Ya know, while I am deeply affected by what happened in my state a few weeks ago, I will never (and will state this again WILL NEVER) agree with any law, rule, exec order that states that people have to give up the right to bear arms.

That said, if he just is going to (and we don't know) ban high capacity magazines and machineguns that can fire 1000 rounds in a minute into a crowd, then fine, let him, as long as the right to keep an arm (or arms) stays in place. We don't need him pulling a "Turn in all your guns no matter what they are because more people will die if you don't"

Wait and see, unfortunately I'm thinking he's leaning toward the latter.. and that would be just BAD



posted on Jan, 9 2013 @ 06:58 PM
link   
If the President "acts" (without the legislature) then maybe the Legislature should act and draw up Articles of Impeachment:
1) He is Not a "Natural Born Citizen" (even if he was born in Hawaii and I have my serious doubts, since his mother was not yet of age then his father would have to be a US Citizen. His father was from Kenya which was a British Colonial Protectorate at the time).
2) He along with comrades in the executive branch (VP, AG, etc) and in the Congress (Sen. Feinstein et al) has directly assaulted the sanctity of the Constitution by attempting to disarm the American citizens of their second amendment protection.



posted on Jan, 9 2013 @ 07:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dispo
reply to post by neo96
 


There is a difference between giving information and sources and opinions, like you did in that post, and saying "OBAMA IS THE HITLER HIDE YOUR DAUGHTERS!!!!111"


the comparison regarding gun regulations is apt. i'm assuming you have heard of WWII, concentration camps, genocide, etc? if you have, then the analogy is obvious, and as the saying goes "those who forget history are doomed to repeat it".

every time guns are banned, genocide/mass murder ensues, therefore the persons pushing for the ban are directly responsible.



posted on Jan, 9 2013 @ 07:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Bob Sholtz
 


Just stop mentioning Hitler (or any other naughty dictators), that's all I'm asking.

en.wikipedia.org...


Godwin's law (also known as Godwin's Rule of Nazi Analogies or Godwin's Law of Nazi Analogies[1][2]) is an argument made by Mike Godwin in 1990[2] that has become an Internet adage. It states: "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1."[2][3] In other words, Godwin observed that, given enough time, in any online discussion—regardless of topic or scope—someone inevitably makes a comparison to Hitler or the Nazis.

[...]

Godwin has stated that he introduced Godwin's law in 1990 as an experiment in memetics.[2]

Godwin's law does not claim to articulate a fallacy; it is instead framed as a memetic tool to reduce the incidence of inappropriate hyperbolic comparisons. "Although deliberately framed as if it were a law of nature or of mathematics, its purpose has always been rhetorical and pedagogical: I wanted folks who glibly compared someone else to Hitler or to Nazis to think a bit harder about the Holocaust," Godwin has written.[10]
edit on 9-1-2013 by Dispo because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 9 2013 @ 07:13 PM
link   
reply to post by vkey08
 



That said, if he just is going to (and we don't know) ban high capacity magazines and machineguns that can fire 1000 rounds in a minute into a crowd, then fine, let him, as long as the right to keep an arm (or arms) stays in place. We don't need him pulling a "Turn in all your guns no matter what they are because more people will die if you don't"

i'll have to disagree with you here, though it's mostly based on the wording of the bill.

the laws that obama wants to pass ban the vast majority of guns, all guns that could be used to resist the government.

gun homicide has been steadily decreasing for years, and is currently very low. gun deaths aren't even in the top 15 causes of death annually.

my last point: did you know that if a common citizen had a gun during the shooting, it would have been illegal for them to stop the shooter? that's how messed up gun control is. all these mass shootings happen in areas where guns are banned.



posted on Jan, 9 2013 @ 07:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Bob Sholtz
 


I think that you misread


final line of that was to paraphrase "We don't need him coming out and stating that everyone needs to turn in their guns" ie: if he does that, it would be bad bad bad bad bad

Yes i'm tired today..



posted on Jan, 9 2013 @ 07:17 PM
link   
reply to post by Dispo
 





Just stop mentioning Hitler (or any other naughty dictators), that's all I'm asking.


No free speech

Naughty dictators?

The bloodiest periods of human history is described as "naughty" ?

Seriously?

Funny no one asked me to give up my constitutional right to arms they use fascist/gestapo tactics so the comparison is right.
edit on 9-1-2013 by neo96 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 9 2013 @ 07:17 PM
link   
reply to post by Dispo
 

godwin's law does nothing to negate the logic of my arguments, and it is a poor riposte.

denial is dangerous. the british parliament ignored hitler for a long time as he was invading countries simply because they didn't want to deal with it. they convinced themselves that there was no need to intervene.

your request is akin to doing the same.





new topics
top topics
 
7
<<   2 >>

log in

join