Biden hints at Obama executive order (concerning guns)

[irishScott]

That's true, Biden is a fucking idiot.

And yet he's the best guy our President could find for a commission to reform gun laws.

 

[corwin]

Should we all just ignore his statements?

Of course, if the messiah doesn't say it then it's nothing and we need to go back to watching dancing with the stars

 

[corwin]

Possible, but not probable.

So we make our voices heard in opposition to it so they know it's not wanted or needed to be sure...silence is tacit approval, if no one speaks up then why wouldn't they go ahead with it?

 

[corwin]

And yet he's the best guy our President could find for a commission to reform gun laws.

He wanted a puppet for the job and he went with his go to puppet, no surprise...it's not like he would pick someone who actually had a brain and would look into real solutions

 

[HomerJS]

Because 20 kids didn't die in a single shooting during its tenure. This type of legislation only gains traction in the wake of severe tragedy, and preys on the emotions of worried parents.

You'll note that mental health, the real problem, is being given little more than lip service by the gun grabbers (who are virtually all Democrats and supposedly on the side of healthcare reform); and the misinformation in the media is disgustingly thick (I saw PBS show an amateur video clip of a guy firing a fully automatic machine gun, then talk about "semi-automatic" rifles.)

The agenda is quite clear, and the fact that it has the support it does is deeply disturbing.

and if a mental health test is required as part of the background check your response would be???

 

[JulesMaximus]

I'm curious, did anyone read the thread title and take this seriously?

 

[corwin]

I'm curious, did anyone read the thread title and take this seriously?

Only those who want to rave about right-wing loonies

OP took hyperbole to the extreme with that title

 

[surfsatwerk]

So we make our voices heard in opposition to it so they know it's not wanted or needed to be sure...silence is tacit approval, if no one speaks up then why wouldn't they go ahead with it?

The whole world knows that people like their guns and are sensitive about people grabbing them, it's a given. What I'm seeing is Biden trolling people for lulz and watching them blow up over shit that will never happen.

 

[corwin]

The whole world knows that people like their guns and are sensitive about people grabbing them, it's a given. What I'm seeing is Biden trolling people for lulz and watching them blow up over shit that will never happen.

Or it was another of his gaffe's and he wasn't supposed to let it slip until his puppet master had a signed EO

And do you really think Biden is smart enough to be a troll

 

[fskimospy]

Doesn't mean it's not true

Well considering an EO is by definition bypassing the other branches then it's not even close to absurdity...now of course we don't know what he's going to put in that EO yet but voicing opposition to it is also far from absurd

EOs are most certainly not by definition bypassing other branches. This is just factually wrong. They are directives to the executive branch, and are generally made in order to tell the executive how to implement acts of congress which are typically vague. So contrary to your idea that EOs must bypass congress they are usually made to implement the will of congress.

Your second sentence is baffling. 'i don't know what it is, but that doesn't mean opposing it is wrong'.

 

[corwin]

EOs are most certainly not by definition bypassing other branches. This is just factually wrong. They are directives to the executive branch, and are generally made in order to tell the executive how to implement acts of congress which are typically vague. So contrary to your idea that EOs must bypass congress they are usually made to implement the will of congress.

Your second sentence is baffling. 'i don't know what it is, but that doesn't mean opposing it is wrong'.

You really need to look up what an EO is, it's a "decree" made by the president that has the full force of law and doesn't require congressional approval.

And it doesn't surprise me you're baffled but let me say it a different way, if any VP made a comment about the president maybe making an EO to limit abortions, even with no specifics, how big of a shit storm would there be even though you don't know what it is?

 

[fskimospy]

You really need to look up what an EO is, it's a "decree" made by the president that has the full force of law and doesn't require congressional approval.

And it doesn't surprise me you're baffled but let me say it a different way, if any VP made a comment about the president maybe making an EO to limit abortions, even with no specifics, how big of a shit storm would there be even though you don't know what it is?

No, you need to go look up what an EO is. It does not by definition bypass the other two branches because it must be consistent with congressional legislation and/or the Constitution. The presidents ability to issue these is constrained both by acts of congress and judicial review.

While they can be abused and used to circumvent the will of Congress, etc, they are miat certainly not inherently this way. What you wrote was just wrong.

I know that I would certainly not make a shit storm if Republicans mentioned wanting new restrictions on abortion in a general sense for two reasons. First, it's a waste of time to rage against something that doesn't exist. Also, Republicans say that sort of thing so often itbwould be exhausting to get enraged all the time.

I swear you guys enjoy feeling victimized and outraged.

 

[corwin]

No, you need to go look up what an EO is. It does not by definition bypass the other two branches because it must be consistent with congressional legislation and/or the Constitution. The presidents ability to issue these is constrained both by acts of congress and judicial review.

While they can be abused and used to circumvent the will of Congress, etc, they are miat certainly not inherently this way. What you wrote was just wrong.

OK let me be more specific, they are hinting at abusing the EO to circumvent congress as is done by most presidents in recent times...that is their intent and what he hinted at.

I know that I would certainly not make a shit storm if Republicans mentioned wanting new restrictions on abortion in a general sense for two reasons. First, it's a waste of time to rage against something that doesn't exist. Also, Republicans say that sort of thing so often itbwould be exhausting to get enraged all the time.

I swear you guys enjoy feeling victimized and outraged.

You're full of shit, there would be an outcry similar if not bigger than this and you know it, there has never been the mention of a sitting president using an EO to put any limits on abortion and to say so is an outright lie, don't try and change the topic to just "republicans" talking about it, this is the VP saying the president is considering doing it...big fucking difference

 

[TerryMathews]

No, you need to go look up what an EO is. It does not by definition bypass the other two branches because it must be consistent with congressional legislation and/or the Constitution. The presidents ability to issue these is constrained both by acts of congress and judicial review.

While they can be abused and used to circumvent the will of Congress, etc, they are miat certainly not inherently this way. What you wrote was just wrong.

I know that I would certainly not make a shit storm if Republicans mentioned wanting new restrictions on abortion in a general sense for two reasons. First, it's a waste of time to rage against something that doesn't exist. Also, Republicans say that sort of thing so often itbwould be exhausting to get enraged all the time.

I swear you guys enjoy feeling victimized and outraged.

How do you rectify this assertion with the EO to not prosecute cases based on DOMA and the EO to cease deporting law abiding illegal immigrant children? Neither is consistent with the law of the land.

 

[corwin]

How do you rectify this assertion with the EO to not prosecute cases based on DOMA and the EO to cease deporting law abiding illegal immigrant children? Neither is consistent with the law of the land.

He just wanted to be technically precise while ignoring the intent of the comment by Biden and the rampant current systemic abuse of the EO...

 

[fskimospy]

How do you rectify this assertion with the EO to not prosecute cases based on DOMA and the EO to cease deporting law abiding illegal immigrant children? Neither is consistent with the law of the land.

The president has stated that he believes DOMA to be unconstitutional. If Congress wished it could take him to court over it and if it won, he would be forced to defend it.

Ceasing to deport specific classes of people is called prioritized enforcement and is practiced by basically every jurisdiction ever. Similarly, cities don't have a dedicated jaywalking patrol even though it's every bit as illegal as murder. If Congress wished, it could pass legislation that would make Obama deport those people.

In both cases you are mistaking congress's unwillingness to act for an inability to act.

 

[fskimospy]

He just wanted to be technically precise while ignoring the intent of the comment by Biden and the rampant current systemic abuse of the EO...

That's because you only hear about the controversial executive orders, not all the other ones. This is why a rational person waits for something to be outraged about before becoming outraged.

 

[corwin]

That's because you only hear about the controversial executive orders, not all the other ones. This is why a rational person waits for something to be outraged about before becoming outraged.

Sure, just wait until somethings been done before trying to stop it, that makes perfect sense, like giving your daughter birth control pills right after she gets pregnant

 

[fskimospy]

Sure, just wait until somethings been done before trying to stop it, that makes perfect sense, like giving your daughter birth control pills right after she gets pregnant

If you want to incoherently rage about something you don't have any information on, I guess that's your business.

 

[corwin]

If you want to incoherently rage about something you don't have any information on, I guess that's your business.

Actually I'm quite coherent and far from rage, but I'm not going to sit idly by and wait until something has happened before voicing opposition to it, which I've done more than just here and to people who can actually do something about it. You may be content to just wait for things to happen then whine/complain/rage about it after the fact but I prefer to be proactive and attempt to keep it from happening

 

[monovillage]

and if a mental health test is required as part of the background check your response would be???

Sure, as soon as they institute one for voting.

 

[fskimospy]

Actually I'm quite coherent and far from rage, but I'm not going to sit idly by and wait until something has happened before voicing opposition to it, which I've done more than just here and to people who can actually do something about it. You may be content to just wait for things to happen then whine/complain/rage about it after the fact but I prefer to be proactive and attempt to keep it from happening

I'm not going to wait until someone does something to oppose it! Just think about all the other things that Obama's not doing that you should be opposing.

 

[TerryMathews]

The president has stated that he believes DOMA to be unconstitutional. If Congress wished it could take him to court over it and if it won, he would be forced to defend it.

Ceasing to deport specific classes of people is called prioritized enforcement and is practiced by basically every jurisdiction ever. Similarly, cities don't have a dedicated jaywalking patrol even though it's every bit as illegal as murder. If Congress wished, it could pass legislation that would make Obama deport those people.

In both cases you are mistaking congress's unwillingness to act for an inability to act.

And you don't see the hypocrisy in your two disparate viewpoints do you?

 

[corwin]

I'm not going to wait until someone does something to oppose it! Just think about all the other things that Obama's not doing that you should be opposing.

Do you actually believe or think about what you're writing? Something they are talking about and hinting at doing is cause for concern, they are talking and hinting about this so there's valid cause for concern...I get you probably support this so want everyone to ignore it but come on, I know you're not an idiot and that statement is pretty idiotic

 

[spidey07]

If you want to incoherently rage about something you don't have any information on, I guess that's your business.

What the fuck are you talking about?

Have you not listened to this president and what he wants? He want mag bans, semi-auto bans, assault weapon bans, etc. We have PLENTY of information about his goals.