Coming Soon - Possible Executive Orders

[Karma]

Just a thought, but depending on how the mental health portion is written, couldn't they easily dictate who could even own a weapon, never mind the style of weapon? The mental health part seems more dangerous to me than anything else I've heard so far.

 

[JGRuby]

For sure, there have never been questionable executive orders issued and followed. Can't ever happen... Nope, could never happen, pay no attention to the man behind the curtain... I'm sure the Japanese Americans thought it was just impossible and unconstitutional when Roosevelt issued executive order #9066 (no due process, 4th Amendment goes out the window for some based on your heritage) . Interesting article: Another Obama Executive Order Allows Seizure of Americans? Bank Accounts

So when was the last time you bypassed sanctions on Iran?

James Ruby

 

[DMax]

So when was the last time you bypassed sanctions on Iran?

James Ruby

If you are so sure it won't or couldn't happen Why don't you just turn in your guns and see if they take them or would they say OO not mr ruby your one of us we can't do that its only the other guys we want cause we got ours and we want to take thiers.

"No one cheers more for a tyrant than the ones he enslaves"

 

[Riot]

How about some real proof instead of the maybe, might be or could possibly be crap that we keep hearing on here.

James Ruby

[video]www.youtube.com/watch?v=HZ-wskkuqGU[/video]

<broken link removed>

This enough for you?

 

[JGRuby]

If you are so sure it won't or couldn't happen Why don't you just turn in your guns and see if they take them or would they say OO not mr ruby your one of us we can't do that its only the other guys we want cause we got ours and we want to take thiers.

"No one cheers more for a tyrant than the ones he enslaves"

You are so high and I am not sure exactly on what - you would just assume that something is going to hapen but have no knowledge of what that actually looks like but are willing to suppose or pretend you know. I refuse to panic until there is something sound to go off from. No where did I say I was planning to turn my guns in but here you go supposing again.

James Ruby

 

[DMax]

You are so high and I am not sure exactly on what - you would just assume that something is going to hapen but have no knowledge of what that actually looks like but are willing to suppose or pretend you know. I refuse to panic until there is something sound to go off from. No where did I say I was planning to turn my guns in but here you go supposing again.

James Ruby

No Words

 

[JGRuby]

No Words

Finally

James Ruby

 

[novamind]

What do you call shooting a Blue Helmet Invader with a WWII German Mauser 8mm?......Priceless.

 

[Bacchus]

Don't blame me, I voted for Romney.

 

[Kaniffy117]

Don't blame me, I voted for Romney.

And I voted for Gary Johnson. Regardless of who would be in office. Romney or Obama would be looking to do something. Their records both show they are iffy when it comes to the 2nd amendment. just my $.02

 

[fd15k]

Just a thought, but depending on how the mental health portion is written, couldn't they easily dictate who could even own a weapon, never mind the style of weapon? The mental health part seems more dangerous to me than anything else I've heard so far.

Executive branch can't change eligibility requirements. Those are part of the USC, and congressional action is required to make any alterations.

 

[fd15k]

And I voted for Gary Johnson. Regardless of who would be in office. Romney or Obama would be looking to do something. Their records both show they are iffy when it comes to the 2nd amendment. just my $.02

Don't you know that vote for Gary Johnson is vote for Obama ?

 

[Kaniffy117]

Don't you know that vote for Gary Johnson is vote for Obama ?

I live in Washington state, Obama already won before the election even began. my vote wouldnt have really mattered and besides, I am more toward his ideals in the first place.

 

[fd15k]

I live in Washington state, Obama already won before the election even began. my vote wouldnt have really mattered and besides, I am more toward his ideals in the first place.

I voted for Ron Paul. Which reminds me, here are the stats on voter turnout in the last elections :

<broken link removed>

It appears that if everybody who didn't vote at all would vote say for Gary Johnson, then GJ would likely be the president. Shows how much people care...

 

[Kaniffy117]

I voted for Ron Paul. Which reminds me, here are the stats on voter turnout in the last elections :

<broken link removed>

It appears that if everybody who didn't vote at all would vote say for Gary Johnson, then GJ would likely be the president. Shows how much people care...

Unfortunately so... The main reason I voted for him though besides his ideals is to help get the Independent vote out and increase its numbers. The more who vote third party the faster we get away from as you put it in your signature a broken clock.

 

[novamind]

I keep reading that they can't do this ,they can't do that and I agree, to a point of Laws and the Constitution/Bill of Rights. But they seem to do what ever they Fu.... want anyways right in your face. Its spinning out of control on a exponential scale. But Hey, These are just the thoughts and observations of an old man with limited 1st Grade writing skills.

 

[Sun195]

For instance, this person suggested, Wal-Mart and other major gun retailers may have an incentive to support closing a loophole that allows people to bypass background checks if they purchase firearms at gun shows or through other types of private sales. That could result in more people buying guns in retail stores.

Any retailer that supports this effort will never see a penny of my money again.

"As we get involved in these ad nauseam debates over the Second Amendment, our children are still at risk," said Jon Adler, national president of the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association. "Debating is not the action verb we need to protect our children."

Yes, yes - let's not spend more time talking about the document that governs this country. Let's just take action - Constitution be damned! Disgusting.

 

[Kevatc]

executive orders? no way. any executive order that has any chance of contradicting the 2nd amendment would be illegal. not because it contradicts the 2nd amendment, but because the executive branch would be in violation of the "separation of powers." now, the executive office CAN issue executive orders if the subject and content of such orders are not in violation of established legislation/law--or if such executive orders are given the "clear & go" by the supreme court for not being in violation of the separation of powers act. there were a few instances during bush jr.'s ("il dunce") reign in which he issued executive orders that were immediately challenged in federal court.

executive orders are not going to happen. if obama ("der fuehrer") was going to issue an executive order banning firearms, mags, or the online sale of ammo, he would have done so already (as in, last month). furthermore, if he even does issue an executive order, it wouldn't be implemented as law until it passes through the judicial branch--which, if pertaining to the 2nd amendment, it has no chance in ever being given the "go" by the courts.

both parties (pro-gun and anti-gun) need to go back to high school and retake civics.

AMEN. Executive orders can ONLY apply to those agencies that fall within the scope of the executive order. Think about it for a second: if the executive branch of government could just "order" things to happen then we would not have a Supreme Court or a Congress. We would've had a dictatorship. Now you can hate on Obama all you want and express opinion but you aren't entitled to your own fallacies and pursue them as fact. Civics folks ... civics. Is that to say we won't get any absolutely, stupendously, incredibly farcical proposed legislation (from our Congress from which all legislation must come that affects 'we the people') about guns? No. But this absolute nonsense being perpetuated about the POTUS being able to ban guns unilaterally is not only inaccurate but shameful because it preys on the lack of civics intelligence on the one hand and on emotion on the other. I can't believe how many Constitutional quoting folks continually get sucked into this and display their ignorance of their own government.

 

[Father of four]

Gents, you may be missing something:


‘National database’ on gun sales part of Obama anti-gun game plan

The Washington Post is reporting that President Barack Obama is preparing to pull out all the stops in pushing his anti-gun agenda in what the newspaper calls “a far broader and more comprehensive approach” than the Clinton-era ban on semi-autos.

<broken link removed>



Now, it might be interesting to hear from some of those smug gun people who were in here making excuses for, and supporting, the administration. Whatever happened to "He's not going to do anything about guns?"

"...what the Post calls “measures backed by key law enforcement leaders that would require universal background checks for firearm buyers (and) track the movement and sale of weapons through a national database…”

And who did some say would not come for Our firearms?

 

[Father of four]

Yes, it is scary but not for that reason (the UN is impotent and inept). It is however scary that the powers that be are looking for ways to dispense with congress to do as they wish with something as major as this.

Sorta like this.

In a way not going around congress, but making congress do something if they don't do something else. Sorta like dispensing congress.


http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2011/04/20/facts-about-independent-payment-advisory-board

"Independent Payment Advisory Board


Key to these savings is a proposal to strengthen the Independent Payment Advisory Board &#8211; IPAB, which was created by the Affordable Care Act. Here's how IPAB works:

15 experts including doctors and patient advocates would be nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate to serve on IPAB.

IPAB would recommend policies to Congress to help Medicare provide better care at lower costs. This could include ideas on coordinating care, getting rid of waste in the system, incentivizing best practices, and prioritizing primary care.

IPAB is specifically prohibited by law from recommending any policies that ration care, raise taxes, increase premiums or cost-sharing, restrict benefits or modify who is eligible for Medicare.

Congress then has the power to accept or reject these recommendations. If Congress rejects the recommendations, and Medicare spending exceeds specific targets, Congress must either enact policies that achieve equivalent savings or let the Secretary of Health and Human Services follow IPAB's recommendations."


More here...http://acta.us/growls/2012/07/obamacares_independent_payment.html and...http://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/PA700.pdf