An off-topic political dig and naive, too -- everybody left and right tries to capitalize on opportunity to push agendas they believe in.
White House readying 19 executive actions on guns
- Thread starter David LaPell
- Start date
StatesRightist
Member
Rep. Steve Stockman
Baddog
Member
- Joined
- Apr 1, 2012
- Messages
- 154
- Reaction score
- 97
Should President Barack Obama decide to make good on his threat to enact gun regulations through executive order, Rep. Steve Stockman (R-Texas) says he may, among other actions, file articles of impeachment against the commander-in-chief.
"I will seek to thwart this action by any means necessary, including but not limited to eliminating funding for implementation, defunding the White House, and even filing articles of impeachment," Stockman said in a statement on Monday.
Per Politico's Ginger Gibson:
In a statement, Stockman didn't hold back, saying Obama is launching an "attack on the very founding principles of this republic."
"The President's actions are an existential threat to this nation," Stockman said in a statement. "The right of the people to keep and bear arms is what has kept this nation free and secure for over 200 years. The very purpose of the Second Amendment is to stop the government from disallowing people the means to defend themselves against tyranny. Any proposal to abuse executive power and infringe upon gun rights must be repelled with the stiffest legislative force possible."
Obama said in a Monday morning press conference that he will make public recommendations from a task force run by Vice President Joe Biden to curb gun violence in the wake of shootings in Newtown, Conn. Last week, Biden said some of those restrictions may be achieved through executive order instead of the legislative process.
Stockman said tinkering with the Second Amendment requires due process and the consent of Congress, the representatives of the American people. Stockman is a former member of the U.S. House of Representatives who returned after 15 years in January to oppose John Boehner as speaker of the House.
"The President's actions are not just an attack on the Constitution and a violation of his sworn oath of office – they are a direct attack on Americans that place all of us in danger…If the President is allowed to suspend constitutional rights on his own personal whims, our free republic has effectively ceased to exist," he added.
"I will seek to thwart this action by any means necessary, including but not limited to eliminating funding for implementation, defunding the White House, and even filing articles of impeachment," Stockman said in a statement on Monday.
Per Politico's Ginger Gibson:
In a statement, Stockman didn't hold back, saying Obama is launching an "attack on the very founding principles of this republic."
"The President's actions are an existential threat to this nation," Stockman said in a statement. "The right of the people to keep and bear arms is what has kept this nation free and secure for over 200 years. The very purpose of the Second Amendment is to stop the government from disallowing people the means to defend themselves against tyranny. Any proposal to abuse executive power and infringe upon gun rights must be repelled with the stiffest legislative force possible."
Obama said in a Monday morning press conference that he will make public recommendations from a task force run by Vice President Joe Biden to curb gun violence in the wake of shootings in Newtown, Conn. Last week, Biden said some of those restrictions may be achieved through executive order instead of the legislative process.
Stockman said tinkering with the Second Amendment requires due process and the consent of Congress, the representatives of the American people. Stockman is a former member of the U.S. House of Representatives who returned after 15 years in January to oppose John Boehner as speaker of the House.
"The President's actions are not just an attack on the Constitution and a violation of his sworn oath of office – they are a direct attack on Americans that place all of us in danger…If the President is allowed to suspend constitutional rights on his own personal whims, our free republic has effectively ceased to exist," he added.
Just a thought--if we wanted to REALLY make a difference down the road we would rise up and demand that public "education" stop dumbing down kids and start them to thinking.
Of course, this is NOT going to happen, because that was never their intention.
Odd that we have almost too many choices when it comes to cars, toothpaste, TV channels and fast food, but when it comes to school "choice" is suddenly a bad thing.
From what I can gather the average Colonial farmer of 1776 was a hell of a lot sharper than the average college graduate of today. When it comes to financial crimes the watchword is "follow the money". Maybe it's time to walk public education back and figure out why Johnny can't think!
And pursue alternatives NOW.
Of course, this is NOT going to happen, because that was never their intention.
Odd that we have almost too many choices when it comes to cars, toothpaste, TV channels and fast food, but when it comes to school "choice" is suddenly a bad thing.
From what I can gather the average Colonial farmer of 1776 was a hell of a lot sharper than the average college graduate of today. When it comes to financial crimes the watchword is "follow the money". Maybe it's time to walk public education back and figure out why Johnny can't think!
And pursue alternatives NOW.
681ismyfavorite
Member
i wouldnt be surprised if a conservative SCOTUS judge mysteriously takes ill soon....
JenniferG
US Veteran
I'll be breathlessly waiting to hear the proclamations from on high from vinegar Joe.
JenniferG
US Veteran
Well don't forget gun owner's other biggest nemisis up there who is just as or more powerful politically, Sheldon Silver the Speaker of the State Assembly from Lower Manhattan. They conspired to remove your rights as a citizen so now they will be calling NY residents "the ruled".
44_Triple Lock
Member
They are anti gun. The FBi stastics and research is much more reliable and accurate. The CDC have an anti gun agenda to push. Please don't take this question as an attack or flame. Would you want the CDC doing research on how automobiles should get better gas milage?
We ain't got a mental health issue in this country as the Liberals would have us believe. It's a moral and personal responsibility issue. "Mental health" is the new buzz word to ignore the real problem by playing the blame game. It makes me wonder what kind of "mental health " clause is in obamacare to "fix" this problem.
There is a cure for todays violence.
Genesis 9:6 Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man.
There is a record of every ATF 4473 form and the bound book gun shops have, that get stored in the ATF's record division. Maybe someone could offer more details or correction on that subject. If it's kinda pointless gun data, then it's pointless & no need to axpand the cost and size tp operate it.
Unless you are referring to 'fast & furious.' Letting people 'slide by' simply is not true. I don't think any FFL holders are willing to take that risk. It's a felony to provide false information when filling out a 4473 form.
Its not against the law to have a mental health issue is it? Why would there be a need to have more criminal data bases, if there is no intent to use those data bases for gun confiscation? Just asking.
What's so bad? Well for one, to meet the yardstick gunowners will be measured by is that one is considered guilty until one proves their innocent to the governments determination, which will always be subject to change without notice to the governments advantage.
Secondly, the government has no need to know how many guns one owns. Its none of there business. Doesn't make much cents for honest law abiding citizens to have their names in a "criminal data" base.
Delos
Member
It is a distraction
They are trying to call our helicopter crashes accidents. They want us distracted so they can further endanger our kids who signed up as "volunteers".
And they really do not want to mention that Osama Bin Laden was one of the ones using them, in our cold war with russia.
Taliban still have Reagan's Stingers - Telegraph
Taliban still have Reagan's Stingers
By Toby Harnden in Washington
12:01AM BST 26 Sep 2001
ONE of the most dangerous weapons Western pilots could face in Afghanistan is an anti-aircraft missile provided by the United States during the Reagan presidency.
The hand-held Stinger surface-to-air missile was so effective in the Afghan war against the Soviet Union that it was credited with changing the course of the conflict.
(More)
They are trying to call our helicopter crashes accidents. They want us distracted so they can further endanger our kids who signed up as "volunteers".
And they really do not want to mention that Osama Bin Laden was one of the ones using them, in our cold war with russia.
Taliban still have Reagan's Stingers - Telegraph
Taliban still have Reagan's Stingers
By Toby Harnden in Washington
12:01AM BST 26 Sep 2001
ONE of the most dangerous weapons Western pilots could face in Afghanistan is an anti-aircraft missile provided by the United States during the Reagan presidency.
The hand-held Stinger surface-to-air missile was so effective in the Afghan war against the Soviet Union that it was credited with changing the course of the conflict.
(More)
Delos
Member
More on why distractions are needed
October 1, 2011
Launching the Missile That Made History
Three former mujahedeen recall the day when they started to beat the Soviets
The Stinger Missile That Made Afghanistan's History - WSJ.com
(First paragraph)
By Michael M. Phillips
Outside Jalalabad, Afghanistan, 25 years ago this week, an angry young man named Abdul Wahab Quanat recited his prayers, walked onto a farm field near a Soviet airfield, raised a Stinger missile launcher to his shoulder and shot his way into history.
(9 paragraphs down)
The Taliban emerged on top, and the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency spent years trying to recover 600 unused Stingers, including 53 that found their way to Mullah Omar, the Taliban leader who hosted Osama bin Laden during the 9/11 attacks, according to the book "Ghost Wars" by Steve Coll.
………………………..
(Plenty of other stories)
(Now we have other wars and are trying to contain the poison gas in Syria. I recall a story where Russian trucks were moving the poison gas from Iraq to Syria as our tanks were taking the long route. The long route was necessary because our friend, Saudi Arabia, would not let us use the airstrip we built there for any blow-ups in the Mid East, that everyone knew was coming).
And what is in Egypt?
And why was our ambassador and his bodyguards killed in Libya?
October 1, 2011
Launching the Missile That Made History
Three former mujahedeen recall the day when they started to beat the Soviets
The Stinger Missile That Made Afghanistan's History - WSJ.com
(First paragraph)
By Michael M. Phillips
Outside Jalalabad, Afghanistan, 25 years ago this week, an angry young man named Abdul Wahab Quanat recited his prayers, walked onto a farm field near a Soviet airfield, raised a Stinger missile launcher to his shoulder and shot his way into history.
(9 paragraphs down)
The Taliban emerged on top, and the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency spent years trying to recover 600 unused Stingers, including 53 that found their way to Mullah Omar, the Taliban leader who hosted Osama bin Laden during the 9/11 attacks, according to the book "Ghost Wars" by Steve Coll.
………………………..
(Plenty of other stories)
(Now we have other wars and are trying to contain the poison gas in Syria. I recall a story where Russian trucks were moving the poison gas from Iraq to Syria as our tanks were taking the long route. The long route was necessary because our friend, Saudi Arabia, would not let us use the airstrip we built there for any blow-ups in the Mid East, that everyone knew was coming).
And what is in Egypt?
And why was our ambassador and his bodyguards killed in Libya?
JenniferG
US Veteran
Yeah we do, head doctors aren't turning over the names of individuals that are a real danger to themselves or others as a matter of business. They don't want to be sued for violating a patients HIPPA privacy rights or they have problems with society singling out these individuals. Which is nothing more than more liberal hoo ha.
That's a two sided coin too. If you go to a shrink or therapist,councelor etc.. and they don't like guns they could easily submit your name so you can't own a gun. Sure there are medical profession ethics but once you get branded even by malice from a ideological doctor you'll spend plenty of dollars getting your name removed from that list.
I had a women's issues doctor ask me one time if I had guns in my house and I told him it was none of his business and I left him to find another doctor. When I did find another doctor I talked with her and she told me the other doctor had me down as a troublemaker on his records she had gotten from that doctor's office. It was like I was on probation just to see the new doctor so don't go pushing the medical and psychiatric community too hard for solutions because they can make all kinds of trouble for gun owners.
Just the people they already know are in no way shape or form able to own a firearm should be added to the NCIC list. The psychiatric community knows who they are.
We also have a drug problem among our children. The schools and the mental health community have been filling our kids up with all kinds of damaging psychotropic drugs that make them violent, suicidal, homicidal or all of the above.
The CDC is just another place to increase the size and scope of the government. Goodness, man do you think we another government agency bloated with taxpayer's money to study gun violence. Any moron can go to any major city and see the drug gangs murdering each other over the drug trade day in day out and we need to spend more money studying that? Do you think for one minute any one of those MS 13 gangs or whatever are going to give CDC officials interviews?
We've now reached ludicrous speed with these proposals. Put the guys in jail for long periods of time if they commit a crime with a gun. It works every time it's tried.
DigiRebel
Member
On some levels there is nothing wrong with that. The problem is the way he may decide to creatively interpret the existing laws. I mean he has an issue understanding the second amendment, which is already about clear as day, and our interpretation is backed up by EVERY scrap of evidence from the time of the writing of the Constitution... yet, he feels there might be some ambiguity in the words, "Shall not be infringed."
Are guns a disease? That is the issue. The problem with appointing any government agency whose directors are also governmentally (read: politically) appointed is that ANYTHING they produce is automatically suspect. Look at the papers they produced regarding second hand smoking, the conclusions of the papers don't always match up with the evidence found in the report itself. There is also the MAJOR concern that any research will be done with a predetermined "Finding" in mind.
I also worry that such studies won't be years in the coming, and once a report is out there it will be used to bludgeon people in the head to bully them into a stance whether the report is factual or not. They've done it before.
The Pres. has a lot of clout to bully the states to toe the line whether they like it or not. The other issue is what if his order says, "We won't purge NICS anymore so we can have a better idea if someone is buying LOTS of guns over a short period." Then we have a background check that works a whole lot more like a registry. A few penstrokes here and there and Uncle Sam can know you bought a rifle on Tuesday, and a handgun on Friday. Then all he needs to do is have a couple of agents swing by to see if you're planning a revolution with all of your many (two) guns, and while they are there, they can see if there are any minor infractions they could use to get a warrant, or bully you into illegal search followed by seizure.
Of course, we saw a few weeks ago exactly what kind of issues can arise from registries. Look at that website that has New York gun owner's names and addresses listed like they are sex offenders. With the Freedom of Information act and Obama at the helm do you think they will try to keep that information secret? Do you want all of your neighbors to know when you buy something new? Even if nothing is done, do you want that information on the books so a future President can decide that, "Confiscation is the way to go, and oh look!
We have this handy list right here!"
Outside of a so-called gun show loophole (which I've seen no evidence of actually existing, at least here in PA, they run the background checks when buying at a show.) I am not sure how, exactly, we're currently sliding by anything. You certainly can't go out to your local gun store and buy an actual selective fire m16 without a Class 3...
What's wrong with the current check they do? It already effectively stops felons from buying guns legally. Private citizens aren't required, but certainly are encouraged to bring a private sale into a shop to transfer a firearm, and no responsible gun owner wants more bad guys to have guns. I am not opposed to trying to find ways to cut down further on straw purchases, but no gun database will help with that.
Its better than an outright weapons ban, yes. But not by much and the chance to abuse it is FAR too great. The other issue is that the President is supposed to enforce, not create laws. Its not his prerogative to decide how big of a magazine I'm allowed to go plinking with. One of the tenets of the Second Amendment is that its a guard against tyranny. When looking at the writings of the founding fathers, tyranny includes a member of government attempting to usurp the powers and roles of other parts of government. We have checks and balances for a reason, and the second amendment is the last line of defense against a breakdown of that system. The final check and balance as it were.
I think you overestimate the President. IMHO BHO has never done anything original in his life. He has simply been pushing the agenda of the Party he represents. I would also not be surprised if his party would sacrifice him politically to achieve its objective. What does BHO care really? He has a good retirement package already locked up. A lifetime of world travel at the taxpayers expense and millions in speaking fees and book deals. I think right now he is serving the purpose he was selected for, serving as a lightening rod to absorb public indignation at his Parties agenda.
I tried to stay non-political on this and I apologize in advance because I suspect this post will get pulled.
I have not read the latest articles, yet. But my issue with involving the CDC is that those who would like to enact even greater gun control, especially within the executive branch, can do a lot more damage, even without congressional support, under the guise of public health. To illustrate my point, the journal of the AMA recently ran an article proposing that guns be viewed from a public health standpoint and that they could be treated as such. The specific suggestions include:
1. A new, substantial national tax on all firearms and ammunition.
2. Requiring "key or security locking devices on guns.
3. Reducing magazine size and restricting assault weapons
4. Required periodic safety inspections of firearms including documentation of home storage and safety measures.
5. Mandatory gun safety classes.
6. Smart guns with automatic security or locking devices.
7. Licensing with periodic renewal.
JAMA Network | JAMA | Curbing Gun ViolenceLessons From Public Health SuccessesCurbing Gun Violence
We need to understand that very little of what we are seeing from the media and our elected officials is a RESULT. of recent events. The majority of those people and entities were seeking gun control before any of the recent events occurred.
CDC involvement is nothing more than an attack from a different angle. It would provide a lot more statistics to be abused and give a new avenue to go after guns. I mean really, how much research does it take to figure out is it unhealthy to be on the wrong end of a gun?
Joewisc
US Veteran
Afraid it will be too late by then.
Dikinalaska
Member
The more harsh background checks could get to be near impossible to pass. Just my thoughts, and I have no facts to base this on, but what if he pushed to the extremes of, say, too many speeding tickets will deny you because it shows your lack of respect for the laws. Or that shoplifting offense as a middle-schooler shows you want to lead a life of crime. It gets a little personal, but I'm putting it out there just as a hypothetical situation.(the hypothetical situation being denied my right to buy/own firearms because of the following. The following really did happen) I was involved in a misfortunate situation (misunderstanding) that lead to me being charged with 12 felonies. It was a long legal battle, but finally got it all sorted out and charges dropped. I am NOT a felon, but now it's on my record that I was charged with 12 felonies. If background checks got more strict, I'm sure I'd no longer be able to buy new firearms. Even though I did nothing wrong, and proved it in court, that showing up on the background check could prove detrimental if stricter regulations went through. I'm just saying, you never know how strict he'd try to go with these background checks.
