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

a reply to: JacKatMtn Yep Jac it's more intrusive Big Govt Statism. So thinly veiled and the people have become more conditioned over time to accept this. Our Founding Fathers would never have.

originally posted by: ThirdEyeofHorus
a reply to: JacKatMtn Yep Jac it's more intrusive Big Govt Statism. So thinly veiled and the people have become more conditioned over time to accept this. Our Founding Fathers would never have.

But it can't happen. The entire country can be asleep, but it's still unconstitutional.

a reply to: Sublimecraft

Notice that among the people who he wants to take firearms from, it includes "anyone who poses a threat"...

Does anyone remember the "right-wing extremism" report by Janet Napolitano, among many others, which in specific paints a broad brush of who is a "possible extremist/possible terrorist"?...

...
The Report specifically mentions the following political beliefs that law enforcement should use to determine whether someone is a “rightwing extremist”:

Opposes abortion
Opposes restrictions on firearms
Opposes lax immigration
Opposes the policies of President Obama regarding immigration, citizenship, and the expansion of social programs
Opposes continuation of free trade agreements
Opposes same-sex marriage
Has paranoia of foreign regimes
Fear of Communist regimes
Opposes one world government
Bemoans the decline of U.S. stature in the world.
Upset with loss of U.S. manufacturing jobs to China and India
. . . and the list goes on
...

www.thomasmore.org...

Yet you don't see Obama blaming his own policies for the increase in gun violence, and crime in general.

Obama is not blaming his administration's, and his policies which so far have done the following:

Obama is not blaming his "Fast and Furious scandal" Documents: ATF used "Fast and Furious" to make the case for gun regulations in which the government allowed firearms to be sold to Mexican drug cartels and then the Obama administration and the Mexican government, which both knew who was the real culprit of this, blamed America's lax gun laws...

Obama is not blaming his "immigration laws" which are allowing hordes of criminals from Central and South America,New Data Show Immigrant Gang Arrests as well as other nations into the country.

According to ICE officers who testified in Congress the Obama administration gave them explicit orders to allow people moving from south of the border into the U.S. if they claimed to be minors and without having to present any evidence for this, and even if they were criminals.

As of December 2014 Obama's policies have released over 167,000 criminal illegals into our streets, and ICE keep releasing and allowing these criminals into the country. President Obama's "Deferred Action" Program for Illegal Aliens Is Plainly Unconstitutional

Hey, Obama's policies are releasing 167,000+ illegal criminals in the streets, which many have continued their criminal endeavours, including murder and other crimes done with firearms, but his policies are not at fault? U.S. immigration officials released thousands of rapists, murderers, kidnappers and other violent criminals in 2013, report says It is the "right of Americans to own and bear arms" that is at fault according to Obama and his thugs...

Amazing...

The similarities with the United States today to Germany right as Hitler was gaining power are many, and this saddens me...

HItler also wanted to ban "certain people from owning firearms"...

Time for a revolution.

originally posted by: muse7
Otherwise known as COMMON FREAKING SENSE actions

About damn time

Yeah, "common freaking sense actions" by forcing the will of a group over others?...

Hitler thought the same thing when he banned "certain people from owning firearms"... After all, it was "for the good of Germany"...

originally posted by: Phage

They are not laws. The President cannot create laws. These are executive actions.
www.npr.org...

"Executive actions" which are laws created by the President to bypass the law of the land and Congress...

Enacting more gun control without Congress approval are not laws? really?... In what universe isn't it a law when the entire nation must follow these laws and they face penalties, including prison if they don't?...

a reply to: conspiracytheoristIAM

There are numerous dedicated online market places that are the firearms equivalent of craigslist.

There are tons of Facebook groups too.

A majority of people use them to facilitate in state, private, person to person sales.

originally posted by: IlluminatiTechnician




I know the Deep and know of the Dark Web, and the FBI has compromised it now. It's essentially one great big Honeypot.

I've seen the mexican cartel website inside the deep web's search network. There's all sorts of information in there and even disturbing ones related to the illuminati that aren't found elsewhere. The fact that the FBI compromised it, and that website is running is highly suspicious if you ask me.

Makes me think once more of Eric Holder's Fast and Furious.
Just letting you know , extremely dark websites lurk inside there still. When you ultimately become an investigator/aspiring journalist, you go above and beyond the norm just for a clue into the next story. Especially when it relates to the dark and occult.

There is large gun trafficking there still, and it aint stopping anytime soon. But what im trying to point out though, is that people will always find a way to get a hold of a weapon if they intend to do evil. I mean, right now, how many guns are in the street among gang members alone? How many gangs exist in the whole of U.S and in the ghettos?

How many gun fights break out that aren't reported? Some gun fights are bigger than those in san bernandino yet, because it only happened in the guettos its ignored. Why? because its proof that criminals will have their ways to be a criminal. Right now, they are probably laughing because they have their ways of getting things from the black market.

But, meanwhile, what about civilians?

I will tell you what I see. I see the rise of powerful weapons created/invented once prohibition takes place. Weapons will evolve the same way hard drugs evolved into more dangerous ones like crystal meth. Thats what prohibition does, it always makes people find replacements, even if it becomes far more dangerous. History is proof of this claim alone.

a reply to: angryhulk

These "laws" are not aimed only at people with mental disorders, and heck, to the gun-grabbers anyone who is pro-second amendment has a "mental disorder". Not to mention that Obama also mentioned anyone who the Obama administration perceives as a threat.

This doesn't remove amendment 2. It only regulates it. As it is stated "regulated militia". The first has nothing to do with guns. Unless, you want to make a peaceful complaint that is. No amendment broken. Case closed

originally posted by: SoulSurfer

originally posted by: IlluminatiTechnician




I know the Deep and know of the Dark Web, and the FBI has compromised it now. It's essentially one great big Honeypot.

I will tell you what I see. I see the rise of powerful weapons created/invented once prohibition takes place. Weapons will evolve the same way hard drugs evolved into more dangerous ones like crystal meth. Thats what prohibition does, it always makes people find replacements, even if it becomes far more dangerous. History is proof of this claim alone.

That's why full prohibition is always a total disaster, but commonsense regulation & education can be very effective.

Like cigarettes, where use is currently at a record breaking low in 1st world countries, due to commonsense regulation & education.

How will any of this nonsense ever stop someone determined to kill others from doing it? I provide this short video clip as an example to why this executive action is truely pointless in thwarting gun violence. If someone wants to kill they will find a way regardless of these measures.

a reply to: SoulSurfer

It wasn't only Holder's "deep web" Fast & Furious deal... Bush approved that earlier...

This is more about the law abiding folks... DEM or REP.. who choose to own, properly train, understand and secure firearms in their home...

What the President is doing.. does not make us safer, does not encourage responsible firearm ownership, does not one iota in preventing the tragedies that happen when one loses control and takes it out on innocents...

What the President IS doing, is increasing dossiers on law abiding citizens, who have no issue with buying a firearm LEGALLY, and safely respecting said firearm, in the mean time.. criminals will continue to buy their firearms illegally and continue to commit crimes, to the level of murder.... yet fall short of FED scrutiny...

Since the target is squarely placed on those who have committed NO CRIME...

Welcome to the new America....

a reply to: luciferslight

Does the fact that the second amendment states, and I quote:

Amendment II

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.

www.law.cornell.edu...

Is that not clear enough?...

Both rights shall not be infringed... Regulation on firearms is an infringement... More so during an administration that is demonizing an entire section of law abiding Americans based solely on political affiliation, and paints Americans who lean to the right in a broad brush labeling us all as possible extremists/possible terrorists based on ideology alone ...

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse

originally posted by: Phage

They are not laws. The President cannot create laws. These are executive actions.
www.npr.org...

"Executive actions" which are laws created by the President to bypass the law of the land and Congress...

Enacting more gun control without Congress approval are not laws? really?... In what universe isn't it a law when the entire nation must follow these laws and they face penalties, including prison if they don't?...

Executive orders is rules sent ti government employees. They don't exactly create new law they advise them on his to enforce existing laws. For example thr gun show loop hole. If I buy a gun from an individual at a gun sgow no background check. However because it can be argued that the gun shiw itself is involved in the sale since they are required to get licenses to sell guns. Tthey can extend already existing laws requiring gun ships to get a background check to anyone buying or selling at a gun show. This isn't creating a new law as much as applying an existing one to what was a grey area.


If the president were to attempt to ban guns the order has to go under judicial review first and would never pass because it violates the constitution. Yes the president has checks and balances in place restricting his authority even over federal employees. So in other words Obama can't do anything about gun sales all he can do is enfirce existing laws. The president can even decide not to enforce existing laws but only congress can change them.

originally posted by: JacKatMtn
a reply to: SoulSurfer

It wasn't only Holder's "deep web" Fast & Furious deal... Bush approved that earlier...

This is more about the law abiding folks... DEM or REP.. who choose to own, properly train, understand and secure firearms in their home...

What the President is doing.. does not make us safer, does not encourage responsible firearm ownership, does not one iota in preventing the tragedies that happen when one loses control and takes it out on innocents...

What the President IS doing, is increasing dossiers on law abiding citizens, who have no issue with buying a firearm LEGALLY, and safely respecting said firearm, in the mean time.. criminals will continue to buy their firearms illegally and continue to commit crimes, to the level of murder.... yet fall short of FED scrutiny...

Since the target is squarely placed on those who have committed NO CRIME...

Welcome to the new America....

All laws only apply to those that obey the law. Your argument is kind of silly. Law abiding citizens isf thr one that by definition follow the law. Criminals by definition do not follow the law. So any law it can be argued that it only effects law abiding citizens but it also helps in prosecution of thr ones who don't. It's not going to stop criminals but it has two effects one it makes it harder and two when they are caught it allows them to be prosecuted adding to their sentence.

a reply to: Sublimecraft >> The fake tears, the semantics, the using of the tragedies to bolster his pointless agenda is classic Obama. This is a smokescreen to divert our attention away from something> Maybe Saudi Arabia is about to collapse, maybe the stock market will finally implode, maybe the banking industry is ready to melt down.

a reply to: Domo1

Although I've been here forever, I'm not too savvy on linking other sites. Look up a million pounds of food on 3 acres of land on youtube. Totally awesome how tgey do it.

originally posted by: neo96

originally posted by: LordSnow21
i cant think of any good reason why anyone would be against backround checks, and i'm suspicious of anyone who has a problem with the idea.

Explain to me WHY a person should have to prove their worth to the state to practice their constitutional RIGHT.

Then according to a given set of rules politicians wrote. A person just might be granted the 'privilege'.

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.

IT doesn't say Neo might get to buy a gun, but only if he ask's Obama's permission first. Then if Neo's been a good boy according to what he thinks is 'good'.

Obama might allow Neo to buy a gun.

I don't think so.

1. no one has to "prove their worth" not sure what thats supposed to mean. a person should have to prove theyre not a confirmed criminal. i've had many backround checks, they dont hurt and i've never been turned away. make no mistake, i'm not anti gun just against confirmed criminals in posession of them.

2. ofcourse buying firearms is a privilage. your right to buy them only goes so far as your ability to not commit a serious crime.

3. lets talk about that "well regulated milita" thing. what specifically constitutes well regulated? because i'd say basic military training with mos training plus at least one weekend a month for drills while armed and enlisted would be a manditory minimum to be called a well regulated militia. the national guard seems to do a more serious job than all these private yahoos (probably 80+ percent of which are white supremicists with traitorus intent [i'm willing to concede that some of the traitors may not be racist]) that think theyed have even half a chance against a real military force. said militia would need to train regularly alongside guard and regular units to understand how theyed fit into any defence from a foregn invasion, theyed never be allowed to run rampant. i'm confident the founding fathers meant for militias to be a first responder to foregin foes who would threaten americas freedom*, not for them to be domestic enemies. to be taken seriously, any such militia would need at least this level of regulation or theyre simply playing.

4. what constitutes a free state? it could simply mean to keep the country free from foregn occupation and taxation. i dont understand how somthing so simple can be warped by so many into "free" also meaning a wild west style anarchistic state in which any criminal who wants to, can go to a gun show and buy anything that catches their eye. not to mention all the untrained yahoos with a hero complex who just carry a firearm anywhere they want, this version of "free state" is nuts.

5. you're obviously confused. "if neo's been a good boy according to what he (O) thinks is 'good' ." is an ignorant and frankly childish statement. no one just makes a decision on a personal whim, either youve chosen to forfit your right to own a firearm by committing crimes or you have chosen to be a consistantly law abiding citizen. if neo is a felon or has a history of violent crime he shouldnt be able to buy a gun. period.

*i wouldnt press the militia angle too far. the truth is that the minute men filled a real need for a first responder during an 18th century invasion, but this was because at the time the 2nd was enacted it could take weeks or longer for a regular military response to march to the scene, this was even before trains. today, the local air national guard would have f-16s on the spot in minutes. if you push the importance of a legitamate militia (not domestic enemy) today they might just find a real reason to alter or get rid of the 2nd.

Enough already. All these right wingers claiming Obama is taking our guns away. Nowhere has it said that. Only idiots believe that. It does however make it harder for one to purchase a firearm if you are mentally d's up. Which seems like a lot of people are. Especially the ones who believe the whole "they are taking our guns away" nonsense. I fully agree that you shouldn't be able to buy a firearm without a background check just because it's at a show or what have you. If you don't have the patients to wait 10 days for a background check then you have no business owning a firearm