Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Take a moment away from making fun of folks based on dialect and read the link that you urged me to read. Yeah it's ABC news, and arguably bogus, but again you can't abrogate a direct quote from the POTUS. Obama Calls for Renewal of Assault Weapons Ban - ABC News
You're going to lose this argument.
You've lost this argument from your first post
I know it's hard for the right wingers, but sometimes it's good to learn facts, and not to keep pushing radical right wing propaganda from fox.
I will dumb this down as much as I can.
You link is a right wing opinion piece.
Obama never stated he wanted to bring back the assault weapons ban. The only thing he stated was that he wants to enforce those on the book.
Willard has passed an assault weapons ban as well and many more anti-gun rights legislation and says he supports tough gun laws.
Though I guess in the right wing world, someone that is anti-gun = pro gun rights and someone that is pro-gun rights = anti guns.
Here's an interesting "what if" scenario by law professor/writer Davel Kopel. What if Obama wins re-election, and he & Eric Holder decide to finally move on their deeply held convictions regarding guns and "gun violence." I urge any gun owner thinking about voting for Pres. Obama to read this first. It's a great read, and brilliantly written IMO.
Of course pro-gun Democrats (they're increasingly common) will protest that Obama didn't do much of anything to ban any guns during his first term. The problem with that line: during his first term there was a giant (political) sword of Damocles overhead. Move on gun control, and it could cost him a second term. In his second term, that sword will be gone.
Kopel draws a roadmap of all that a Pres. could do, even with zero co-operation from Congress. He details how, for example, a President could ban all 12-gauge shotguns by reclassifying them as a "destructive device" under the National Fireams Act (NFA) of 1934. This provision has been used before, when Treas. Sec. Lloyd Bentsen effectively banned several shotgun models in 1994, with the stroke of a pen. No legislation, no debate. Almost 20 years later, they remain effectively banned for civilian ownership. There are several other powerful tools in the toolbox that are available to Obama, and Kopel runs through them all.
very true, any potus could effectively ban any sort of weapons on their 2nd term. whether or not people would obey that order is another issue. if you look at it, and the actual EO's can be ruled unconstitutional and voided. also, EO's for there to modify executive branch or agency or modify an existing law.
assault rifles are not in an existing federal law, and would not fall into a category that an EO would cover.
Executive Orders have two main functions: to modify how an executive branch department or agency does its job (rule change) or to modify existing law, if such authority has been granted to the President by Congress. Executive orders are not mentioned by the Constitution, but they have been around a long, long time. George Washington issued several Presidential Proclamations, which are similar to EO's (Proclamations are still issued today). EO's and Proclamations are not law, but they have the effect of statutes. A typical modern Proclamation might declare a day to be in someone's honor. Historically, they have had broader effect, such as the Emancipation Proclamation. A typical EO might instruct the government to do no business with a country we are at war with. Executive orders are subject to judicial review, and can be declared unconstitutional. Today, EO's and Proclamations are sequentially numbered. The average president issues 58 EO's a year. As of March 13, 1936, all EO's must be published in the Federal Register. The first to have been so published was #7316, by President Roosevelt.
Thanks to Richard Barr for the idea.
I don't think this is a matter of executive order. I googled around a little but couldn't find out for sure on what basis Clinton's Treas. Sec'y Bentsen was able to ban 3 specific shotgun models. My guess is that that the 1934 NFA legislation gives the executive branch wide latitude as to the definition of "destructive device" just as the 1968 GCA gives the executive wide lattitude as to "sporting purposes."
In any case the ban was imposed, and it stuck. It's still in place almost 20 years later. Presumably if Pres Obama decided to use the same method to ban the Remington 870 (and the new Versamax), the Mossberg 590, or the Keltec KSG in his second term, it would stick too.
All my guns are at the bottom of Lake Mead. Tragically, I lost them in a boating accident. Honest.
Yeah...me too....craziest thing.....there I was, minding my own business and I turned around, and they were gone! Must have been a non-b celebrity ghost encounter...shame...oh well, I guess I'll just move on.....
One thing I never understood is that if Obama is so hell bent on taking away the guns, why would he even risk the second term? Why not go ahead and do it if it is his raison d'etre? It just seems like artificial paranoia. And after a quick review of 5 year stock price charts for the 2 publically traded ammunition companies, I think I can figure out who is behind it. My barely employable redneck brother-in-law spent so much money on bullets in early '09 he probably could have put himself through school. Poor ******* is STILL convinced that Obama is going to raid his hovel/ house.
One thing I never understood is that if Obama is so hell bent on taking away the guns, why would he even risk the second term? Why not go ahead and do it if it is his raison d'etre? It just seems like artificial paranoia. And after a quick review of 5 year stock price charts for the 2 publically traded ammunition companies, I think I can figure out who is behind it. My barely employable redneck brother-in-law spent so much money on bullets in early '09 he probably could have put himself through school. Poor ******* is STILL convinced that Obama is going to raid his hovel/ house.
Right, why wait and risk not being able to do it at all? If Romney wins, he will probably take them away during his 1st term.
No, Romney's "assult weapon" ban is still in effect in MA. In his opinion such guns are designed for killing people.
Make no mistake about it, Romney is fiercely anti-gun and his past proves it.
The big difference, which most of you don't bother to check the facts on, is that Romney "banned" REAL FULL AUTOMATIC weapons.
The federal laws allow them but, have very strict laws regarding getting them and the additional annual costs and documentation.
Obama wants to go back to the Clinton so-called assault weapon ban with greater restrictions.
If you don't know the difference I suggest you do some research before making bigger fools of yourselves.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
