Obama: Some Gun Control Measures 'I Can Accomplish Through Executive Action'

[mcurrier]

Obama: Some Gun Control Measures 'I Can Accomplish Through Executive Action'

 

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/obama-some-gun-control-measures-i-can-accomplish-through-executive-action_695381.html

 

"My understanding is the vice president's going to provide a range of steps that we can take to reduce gun violence," said Obama. "Some of them will require legislation, some of them I can accomplish through executive action. And so I will be reviewing those today, and as I said, I will speak in more detail to what we're going to go ahead and propose later in the week. But I'm confident that there are some steps that we can take that don't require legislation and that are within my authority as president, and where you get a step that, has the opportunity to reduce the possibility of gun violence, then i want to go ahead and take it."

Edited January 14, 2013 by mcurrier

[gregintenn]

I'm beginning to believe he's doing everything he can to encite civil unrest.

[Jonnin]

Heh.  I dare him to do this.   The sooner and more often he shows his colors, the more people will see.  No one is going to pay one bit of attention to following his "orders" but it keeps growing opposition.

Edited January 14, 2013 by Jonnin

[gjohnsoniv]

I'm beginning to believe he's doing everything he can to encite civil unrest.

 

 

I'm beginning to believe he's doing everything he can to encite civil unrest.

I'm concerned that you may be correct.

[gjohnsoniv]

I don't think he will get very far to be honest. Any kind of executive order would get smacked down faster then he can imagine, after all his power only goes so far.

[TripleDigitRide]

Heh. I dare him to do this. The sooner and more often he shows his colors,.

The fact that he was re-elected proves that a great man are color blind.

[MacGyver]

I have no doubt that the commission will suggest reinstating the AWB.  I would be willing to bet that Obama backs it in voice.  I doubt he'll spend much political capital on it, though.  This is a case where he can have his cake and eat it, too.  He can recommend the AWB, Congress can quash it, then he can blame the Republicans in the House for every act of violence out there.  It's a win-win for him.

 

On the flip side, if the idiots in Congress are dumb enough to actually take it up and pass something, he gets what he's wanted without having to expend any energy on it.

 

An executive order potentially costs him big in goodwill and political capital.  I just don't see him doing it.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

I'm beginning to believe he's doing everything he can to encite civil unrest.

That's all he has been working toward the whole time.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

I think he will do an EO because he thinks he is Moses(probably better to have said Nero or Caligula) and can do anything.

He may wait awhile before he acts and slide some EO in after some Friday news cycle thinking he can get away with it.

Remember, he said he will act on this, even if it only saves one child. Pitiful rhetoric since the other laws have actually

gotten people killed instead of the stated intent.

[GlockSpock]

Using the "even if it only saves one child" argument is very poor thinking indeed. I am not taking away the value of human life here, but is one child's (or adult's) life really worth the Republic we live in? We could ban cars 100% and save probably a thousandfold of lives per day, but we don't. Lets ban swimming pools, even if it only saves one child's life, it is worth it. Lets ban electricity, even if it saves only one child's life, it is worth it. Lets ban candy, even if it saves only one child's life, it is worth it. 

 

"One child's life" gives some people a fuzzy feeling inside, so they eat it up. They bask in the warm, fuzzy feeling they create and throw logical thinking out the door. 

 

Banning certain types of firearms may save a single child's life, but must you ignore the multitude of innocent people who died because they couldn't defend themselves legally with the types of firearms you just banned?

[TrickyNicky]

[quote name="TripleDigitRide" post="884744" timestamp="1358187069"] The fact that he was re-elected proves that a great man are f&@$ing stupid.[/quote] FTFY.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Using the "even if it only saves one child" argument is very poor thinking indeed. I am not taking away the value of human life here, but is one child's (or adult's) life really worth the Republic we live in? We could ban cars 100% and save probably a thousandfold of lives per day, but we don't. Lets ban swimming pools, even if it only saves one child's life, it is worth it. Lets ban electricity, even if it saves only one child's life, it is worth it. Lets ban candy, even if it saves only one child's life, it is worth it. 

 

"One child's life" gives some people a fuzzy feeling inside, so they eat it up. They bask in the warm, fuzzy feeling they create and throw logical thinking out the door. 

 

Banning certain types of firearms may save a single child's life, but must you ignore the multitude of innocent people who died because they couldn't defend themselves legally with the types of firearms you just banned?

Using the argument "even if it only saves one child" is telling if you think about what their goals really are and then you put what they say to the smell test. These people really think they are right, just like a jihadist who straps a bomb on their kid and puts her on a school bus. The liberal considers it okay to lie, cheat and cajole anything they can in order to further their mission. It is completely logical to them.

 

If you go back and look at what the common themes within the liberals' groups are you will find the same thing. From Margaret

Sanger and what abortion is really about, to Cloward and Piven's overwhelming the system. The end game is all about death,

yours and mine, and then eventually even theirs. Human beings don't deserve a place on planet Earth, as far as they are

concerned. It is too easy to hear them say it.

 

Karl Marx wrote about brother love, progressive taxation, equality, and all that other stuff that stifles anything you put in front of it. He is their founding father.

 

Michael Savage isn't crazy and is exactly right when he says "liberalism is a mental disorder" because all they want is death.

Edited January 15, 2013 by 6.8 AR

[Guest 6.8 AR]

I have no doubt that the commission will suggest reinstating the AWB.  I would be willing to bet that Obama backs it in voice.  I doubt he'll spend much political capital on it, though.  This is a case where he can have his cake and eat it, too.  He can recommend the AWB, Congress can quash it, then he can blame the Republicans in the House for every act of violence out there.  It's a win-win for him.

 

On the flip side, if the idiots in Congress are dumb enough to actually take it up and pass something, he gets what he's wanted without having to expend any energy on it.

 

An executive order potentially costs him big in goodwill and political capital.  I just don't see him doing it.

I wonder about the political capital. I don't think he has any left at all. He won the election, but he spent it all appeasing the

masses, but didn't gain any real ground in the House and Senate. He can still be knocked out of his throne if someone(ahem)

like Boehner collects his proverbial C.O.Jones and acts like a Speaker should. Obama knows this and I think he really doesn't

care about much else.

He will just continue the vacations and golf games and let the autopen sign his name to a pre-written EO while sipping on a

margarita in Hawaii.

I'm also wondering about goodwill. And I'm being kind of sarcastic. He has the will, but I wouldn't put good with it.

 

As to the Congress, they know they will pay heavily if they pass something. At least I think the Republicans do, anyway.

[superduty]

Whatever political capital he expends in this effort will be recouped if he passes immigration 'reform', in which he will instantly create millions of brand new democrats for life.

I keep thinking of the Bugs Bunny cartoon-  Instant Martians- Just add water.

 

 

Then there's the mid-term elections, with Congress' ratings lower than a cockroach......

Edited January 15, 2013 by superduty

[Mark@Sea]

Actually, this may turn out to be our opportunity to put a stake through the heart of "sporting purposes".  I think imports are going to be his main angle of attack.

  I'll also hazard a w.a.g. that he'll try to go after domestic magazines and rifles as 'destructive devices', and claim he can do this through a rule change by F troop.  Likewise for 'armor piercing' ammo.  Suddenly rifle ammo will fall under this.  He may attack ammo through the EPA.

  I foresee lots of lawsuits arising, especially from the Second Amendment Foundation.  They asked to be present at Bidens' little clambake and were refused.

[Mdunntn]

I wish we could press fast forward, wonder if our president will buy me some Rogaine from all the hair he's making me pull out.

[SonnyCrockett]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TUSQ-GAc6B0

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c7-AAlV6x_8

 

LIARS AT WORK

Edited January 15, 2013 by SonnyCrockett