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)
 
Old 01-07-2016, 09:42 PM
 
Location: Palo Alto
12,149 posts, read 8,414,093 times
Reputation: 4190

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by MTAtech View Post
If it's so meaningless, why do you oppose it?

I don't oppose it. I think everyone needs to be concerned at the precedent he's setting.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 01-08-2016, 12:03 AM
 
Location: Ohio
13,933 posts, read 12,890,487 times
Reputation: 7399
Quote:
Originally Posted by TrapperJohn View Post
I don't oppose it. I think everyone needs to be concerned at the precedent he's setting.
What precedent does it set? All he basically did was release "guidance" on how the government should enforce existing laws..... He didn't write a law or even "re-interpret" the law in a way that would fundamentally change how it is implemented and enforced.


Now, if he'd have tried to make unilateral changes on his own to the law, that would have set a bad precedent.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-08-2016, 12:27 AM
 
Location: Palo Alto
12,149 posts, read 8,414,093 times
Reputation: 4190
Quote:
Originally Posted by WhipperSnapper 88 View Post
What precedent does it set? All he basically did was release "guidance" on how the government should enforce existing laws..... He didn't write a law or even "re-interpret" the law in a way that would fundamentally change how it is implemented and enforced.


Now, if he'd have tried to make unilateral changes on his own to the law, that would have set a bad precedent.

The precedent of attempting to use EO to circumvent congress.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-08-2016, 02:30 AM
 
Location: Ohio
13,933 posts, read 12,890,487 times
Reputation: 7399
Quote:
Originally Posted by TrapperJohn View Post
The precedent of attempting to use EO to circumvent congress.
Yeah, except he didn't circumvent congress. He didn't make any new laws. and he didn't change how the laws were already interpreted and enforced....


Everything he did was already the law and has been for years...


All he basically did was say "hey, if you're engaged in the business of selling firearms, you have to be licensed, no matter if sell your guns on line or at gun shows"


That was already the law.... and Conservatives go nuts thinking he circumvented congress and wrote a law on his own, and Liberals cheered with glee at a victory they didn't really get...


I tell ya...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-08-2016, 04:29 AM
 
Location: Swiftwater, PA
18,780 posts, read 18,121,941 times
Reputation: 14777
Quote:
Originally Posted by florida.bob View Post
We all know the NRA wants everyone to have 11 guns, one for each finger & one for, what, needed manhood extensions I guess?

Why only 11?


By the way; hasn't our President sold more guns than any other recent President? Heck our gun makers are rolling in dough thanks to his efforts to arm all of us. Every time he opens his mouth gun sales skyrocket. All he has to do, to cut down weapons in America, is keep his mouth shut!


Of course he gives our guns to the cartels in Mexico; which isn't a good thing. Did we get all of those assault weapons back or only the bullets shot at our border guards?


PS Now he is sending Hellfires to Cuba: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-35259429. I guess guns were not enough.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-08-2016, 04:36 AM
 
Location: P.C.F
1,973 posts, read 2,271,528 times
Reputation: 1626
Interesting.... Someone(s) posting on a chat board are Constitutional Law Experts.. Someone who actually has Law Degree with Phd in Constitutional Law doesn't know whats he's doing? The side with the law degree actually went to University for 8 years or more other side gets all their information from Faux News and Nutty Right Wing Blogsand Emails from other bloggers hahahaha.. Same old song and dance about 900+ EO's when its actually in or around 226..same old BS .. day after year after year..day..
Quote:
Originally Posted by nononsenseguy View Post
Obama issues an order, which is not law, which cannot be enforced. In clear violation of the Constitution of the United States, and beyond his Constitutional authority, Obama "orders" (mandates) background checks for online & gun show sales.

This is unenforceable, as it is not law. Obama has no authority to make law. Secondly, "executive orders" may only apply to the administration and government agencies. They do not apply to private institutions, citizens, etc.

Therefore, there is nothing to compel anyone to follow his "order."

Obama is not a King, though he may think he is. Do not comply.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-08-2016, 04:41 AM
 
Location: Tampa Florida
22,229 posts, read 17,847,737 times
Reputation: 4585
Quote:
Originally Posted by Macgregorsailor51 View Post
Interesting.... Someone(s) posting on a chat board are Constitutional Law Experts.. Someone who actually has Law Degree with Phd in Constitutional Law doesn't know whats he's doing? The side with the law degree actually went to University for 8 years or more other side gets all their information from Faux News and Nutty Right Wing Blogsand Emails from other bloggers hahahaha.. Same old song and dance about 900+ EO's when its actually in or around 226..same old BS .. day after year after year..day..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-08-2016, 04:51 AM
 
Location: P.C.F
1,973 posts, read 2,271,528 times
Reputation: 1626
No actually the morons in this country , who were convinced / frightened into , buying guns and ammo and a lot of other crap they will never need, by the very people selling all that stuff for huge profits , are STUPID!
IMHO when anyone who post publishes or broadcast in anyway , what is in fact lies about this Country and or its President should be tried for TREASON.. Lying IS NOT FREEDOM OF Speech Lying is Lying..
In fact your link has done just that .. Here is what happened... as performed by some military duffous..

An inert US Hellfire missile sent to Europe for a training exercise was wrongly shipped on to Cuba, the Wall Street Journal reports.
The incident in 2014 could have led to a serious loss of military technology, officials told the paper.
US officials have since been trying to get Cuba to return the missile, which did not contain explosives.
Investigators are unclear if the incident was an error or the result of espionage, the paper says.
A US official "with knowledge of the situation", who was not authorised to speak publicly on the matter and demanded anonymity, confirmed the report's veracity to The Associated Press.


Obama didn't send Cuba Anything ! Someone in the Worlds most Expensive Military sent it by flipping mistake.. THATS HOW SMART OUR ......WORLDS MOST EXPENSIVE MILITARY IS!




Quote:
Originally Posted by fisheye View Post
Why only 11?

By the way; hasn't our President sold more guns than any other recent President? Heck our gun makers are rolling in dough thanks to his efforts to arm all of us. Every time he opens his mouth gun sales skyrocket. All he has to do, to cut down weapons in America, is keep his mouth shut!


Of course he gives our guns to the cartels in Mexico; which isn't a good thing. Did we get all of those assault weapons back or only the bullets shot at our border guards?


PS Now he is sending Hellfires to Cuba: US Hellfire missile wrongly shipped to Cuba - BBC News. I guess guns were not enough.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-08-2016, 04:52 AM
 
Location: Londonderry, NH
41,479 posts, read 59,756,720 times
Reputation: 24863
I, one of the loudest opponents to government gun control on this forum, do not object to gun dealers (defined by the number of sales per year or something similar) having to run a background checks on potential customers to ascertain that the customer does not have a criminal record of violent felonies. This serves primarily to protect the dealer from the charge of selling firearms to a convicted criminal. That is already illegal.


To me it is important that the crime be a violent felony. I do not consider dope sales or possession to be felonies severe enough to warrant taking away a person's right or need for a firearm. I also do not consider an accusation of threatening behavior to be sufficient. If a person is threatened they should file a criminal charge and that charge should be investigated by the police and the accused tried to see if the crime of assault was actually committed. If so they lose the right to own firearms.


I do object to the Federal Firearms Act of 1934. I do not believe the government should regulate the type and number of guns a citizen may own. Firearms are an old technology and are available for specific purposes. These range from hunting game at very long ranges to shooting a house breaker as he comes through the door. The long range rifle is legal but the short shotgun is illegal. That should not be as a sawed off shotgun is one of the most effective short range defense weapons ever devised.


I also object to the government knowing I have purchased a gun or not. That is my private business. Registering gun sales should be stopped.


I also object to requiring training to be able to own a gun or carry it concealed. Anyone that buys a gun most likely knows enough to get instruction on how and when to use that gun. Watching gangster movies is not recommended but a lot of thugs seem to use movies as a lesson. Mandating it is just another way the government might use to restrict people from owning the weapons they may need for self defense.


I am all for proper gun control so long as it is limited to the shooter selecting a legitimate target and hitting it with the first shot. Selecting the target requires substantial thought (along the lines of do I want to stop this person from harming me and can I accept that I might kill him) and hitting the target is a skill that can be learned.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-08-2016, 04:52 AM
 
Location: Swiftwater, PA
18,780 posts, read 18,121,941 times
Reputation: 14777
Quote:
Originally Posted by florida.bob View Post

Give yourselves big hugs and pats on the back; but you are doing a great job selling guns (you and your leader): http://www.cnbc.com/2016/01/05/. Your doing a great job; keep it up.
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

All times are GMT -6.

© 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