Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 09-27-2013, 09:39 AM
 
Location: Los Angeles, California
4,373 posts, read 3,240,257 times
Reputation: 1041

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by shooting4life View Post
No, a concealed carry permit should be issued to anyone who can legally own a gun. Politicians should not get to pick and choose who they issue them to, like other politicians, campaign donors, etc.

I do not have to justify my civil rights.

They can have permits, they need to issues them to everyone who wants them that can legally have them.
Well said. No one should have to justify their civil rights, no matter what the cause is so long as it's constitutional and within reason. What I mean by that is it shouldn't be an "out there" cause that people are arguing civil rights over.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 09-27-2013, 09:42 AM
 
Location: San Diego, CA
10,581 posts, read 9,819,772 times
Reputation: 4174
Quote:
Originally Posted by shooting4life View Post
No, a concealed carry permit should be issued to anyone who can legally own a gun. Politicians should not get to pick and choose who they issue them to, like other politicians, campaign donors, etc.

I do not have to justify my civil rights.

They can have permits, they need to issues them to everyone who wants them that can legally have them.
Which means, the permits should be tossed in the trash and anybody can buy a gun who legally can.

Just like the 2nd amendment says.

Why bother with the useless paperwork of "permits"?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-27-2013, 09:44 AM
 
Location: San Diego, CA
10,581 posts, read 9,819,772 times
Reputation: 4174
Quote:
Originally Posted by jjwebbster View Post
Obama's mouth runs 28 hrs. a day. Nothing new there......
In all 57 states.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-27-2013, 09:48 AM
 
Location: San Diego, CA
10,581 posts, read 9,819,772 times
Reputation: 4174
Quote:
Originally Posted by adiosToreador View Post
Well if it is, can you point out where it says that? I'm curious to see if you can provide the proof because, honestly, I'm not motivated enough to go out of my way to look it up on Google.
The Constitution says what the President can do. If it doesn't say it, the Prez can't do it.

And the Constitution says that the President's job is to make sure the laws passed by Congress (and signed by the President) are carried out.

It says NOTHING about the President having any power to make his own laws that were NOT passed by Congress... and so he cannot do that.

As I said earlier:

Executive Orders while the House is NOT in session, also violate the Constitution.

Unless they are made in direct pursuance to laws already passed by Congress and signed earlier by the President.

The usual example (pretty minor) is: Congress passes a bill saying that a couple blocks of Government buildings will be painted brown, and the Prez signs the bill into law. Then the Prez issues Executive Orders to get three bids from companies to do the work, assigns a committee to go over the bids and choose a contractor.

The Prez is issuing Executive Orders to carry out a law passed by Congress and signed into law. Those Executive Orders are constitutional, whether Congress is in session right now or not (where did you people get the idea that Congress being in session or not, has any effect on the constitutionality of Executive Orders?). And that is the ONLY legal use of Executive Orders there is.

If the President also issues Executive Orders to paint a different group of Federal buildings on the other side of town that Congress never mentioned, that Executive Order is unconstitutional.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-27-2013, 09:50 AM
 
Location: PA
5,562 posts, read 5,701,879 times
Reputation: 1962
Well its a good thing the navy yard shooting wasn't with a AR 15 or an Assault semi automatic something. :-) We would be talking AR-15 bans again.
So lets see in Navy Yard where they disarmed the workers in a military location, the ex military worker sneaks in a SHOTGUN (no semi-auto) anything and kills people I'm not so sure that limited mag clip really applied here. I remember not to long ago the DC sniper using a hunting rifle to kill people from the truck of his car. You know I'm not sure its really the gun.
when crazy people go crazy with a knife, gun, hammer or baseball bat, I will be ready to use my gun and end the voices and low frequency sound waves making him kill people.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-27-2013, 09:54 AM
 
Location: San Diego, CA
10,581 posts, read 9,819,772 times
Reputation: 4174
Quote:
Originally Posted by LibertyandJusticeforAll View Post
Well its a good thing the navy yard shooting wasn't with a AR 15 or an Assault semi automatic something. :-) We would be talking AR-15 bans again.
The gun-rights-haters are talking AR-15 bans anyway.

What makes you think facts make any difference to these people?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-27-2013, 10:00 AM
 
79,259 posts, read 61,361,367 times
Reputation: 50534
Quote:
Originally Posted by freightshaker View Post
He already knows he won't get gun legislation through the house or senate, so his only option is EO, which if the house is in session is unconstitutional. That however has not stopped him in the past.
You miss the more obvious explanation.

This is just posturing for the base, lip-service on a topic that will not change.

It's like abortion, it's a GREAT fundraiser issue for both parties. Kaching!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-27-2013, 10:52 AM
 
Location: Los Angeles, California
4,373 posts, read 3,240,257 times
Reputation: 1041
Quote:
Originally Posted by Little-Acorn View Post
The Constitution says what the President can do. If it doesn't say it, the Prez can't do it.

And the Constitution says that the President's job is to make sure the laws passed by Congress (and signed by the President) are carried out.

It says NOTHING about the President having any power to make his own laws that were NOT passed by Congress... and so he cannot do that.
Okay, but there isn't anything explicitly denying him the ability to pass Executive Orders while Congress is in session, is there? If there is, I'm unaware of it. Not only that it also says NOTHING about what the President CAN'T do.

I think there needs to be some language out there somewhere citing what the President can and cannot do while Congress is in session.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-27-2013, 11:10 AM
 
Location: SF Bay Area
12,287 posts, read 9,864,627 times
Reputation: 6509
Quote:
Originally Posted by LibertyandJusticeforAll View Post
Well its a good thing the navy yard shooting wasn't with a AR 15 or an Assault semi automatic something. :-) We would be talking AR-15 bans again.
So lets see in Navy Yard where they disarmed the workers in a military location, the ex military worker sneaks in a SHOTGUN (no semi-auto) anything and kills people I'm not so sure that limited mag clip really applied here. I remember not to long ago the DC sniper using a hunting rifle to kill people from the truck of his car. You know I'm not sure its really the gun.
when crazy people go crazy with a knife, gun, hammer or baseball bat, I will be ready to use my gun and end the voices and low frequency sound waves making him kill people.
That won't stop Obama

Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-27-2013, 11:15 AM
 
Location: Wisconsin
38,759 posts, read 22,561,990 times
Reputation: 14210
Quote:
Originally Posted by freightshaker View Post
No, any law that is executed via fiat is unconstitutional... We don't live in a dictatorship...
The point the left ignores, is the president cannot use executive orders to create laws, alter laws, ignore laws, or give individual citizens and corporations waivers, so they can ignore the law.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 12:14 PM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top