Congressman threatens impeachment

[jimnyc]

Texas Republican Rep. Steve Stockman threatened Monday afternoon that he would file articles of impeachment against President Barack Obama if he institutes gun control measures with an executive order.

Stockman warned that such executive orders would be “unconstitutional” and “infringe on our constitutionally-protected right to keep and bear arms.”

“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.

At his press conference Monday, Obama floated the possibility of using executive action to enact policies aimed at reducing gun violence.

http://dailycaller.com/2013/01/14/gop-congressman-threatens-impeachment-if-obama-uses-executive-action-for-gun-control/

[Abbey Marie]

I can totally see this getting legs.

[tailfins]

Outstanding!

[aboutime]

So far. Obama has been convinced HE IS UNTOUCHABLE. And the reason he feels so secure will...MARK MY WORDS...be racism of some sort, or fashion.

Just watch, and listen to all of the NAACP members, and the Black Democrat members of Congress JUMP ON THIS LIKE FLIES ON CRAP!

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

http://dailycaller.com/2013/01/14/gop-congressman-threatens-impeachment-if-obama-uses-executive-action-for-gun-control/

Praise God and pass the mashed potatoes!! ---:beer:, :dance:---:salute:--:clap:--Tyr

[jafar00]

I dunno. Some previous Presidents have done worse and escaped impeachment.

[WiccanLiberal]

To my mind, he took an oath to protect and defend the Constitution, all of it, not just the parts he likes. If he does as he appears to be threatening to do he is not just wrong, he is a traitor and should be tried as such.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

I dunno. Some previous Presidents have done worse and escaped impeachment.

And some criminals get away with it having never been caught! This egomaniac thinks he is king. Thinks he can use that office to not only bully the nation but the other two branches of our government. About time the Congress hits back and hopefully the traitor has to stand his day in court for his treason.-Tyr

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

To my mind, he took an oath to protect and defend the Constitution, all of it, not just the parts he likes. If he does as he appears to be threatening to do he is not just wrong, he is a traitor and should be tried as such.

He has been consistently attacking our Constitution his entire first term , with renewed attacks launched before even being sworn in on his second term. Finally more people are starting to see what he truly is!-Tyr

[fj1200]

I hate to be the one to bring up those pesky Constitutional requirements but what are the high crimes and/or misdemeanors?

This article sums up what has been presented as his options:

Obama weighing executive action on guns (http://news.yahoo.com/obama-weighing-executive-action-guns-082740829--politics.html)
WASHINGTON (AP) — Facing powerful opposition to sweeping gun regulations, President Barack Obama is weighing 19 steps that could be taken through executive action alone, congressional officials said.Those steps could include ordering stricter action against people who lie on gun sale background checks, striking limits on federal research into gun use, ordering tougher penalties against gun trafficking, and giving schools flexibility to use grant money to improve safety.
...
At the same time Obama is vowing not to back off his support for sweeping gun legislation that would require congressional backing — including banning assault weapons, limiting the capacity of ammunition magazines and instituting universal background checks — despite opposition from the influential gun lobby.

[fj1200]

IBfjisdamnlib

[fj1200]

I can totally see this getting legs.

IMO it goes nowhere. First, BO won't do anything he doesn't have the power to do and second, Republicans wouldn't hold together on the impeachment vote (not to mention the Senate will never vote to convict). Congress, as an institution, no longer cares about the Constitutional role of Congress, they only care about party and will sell its soul to the Executive if they share a common ideology.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

I hate to be the one to bring up those pesky Constitutional requirements but what are the high crimes and/or misdemeanors?

This article sums up what has been presented as his options:

Obama weighing executive action on guns (http://news.yahoo.com/obama-weighing-executive-action-guns-082740829--politics.html)



Well very likely the fast/furious gun running scandal that led to the American border patrol 's death for starters. Next his deliberate refusal to uphold his oath of office in that he attacks the Constitution instead of defending it. And how about his attacks on our allies coupled with his appeasement of our enemies.
But FAST/FURIOUS would be a good start and if he issues an E.O. further weakening the 2nd Amendment he should be arrested immediately!
If the sheepdog guarding the sheep were to start killing them what would be the prudent thing to do?
This worthless asshat bastard has repeated broken his oath of office.. deny all that you like but that is the truth..-Tyr

Try reading this for starters.

http://www.constitutionpreservation.org/articles/march-7-2009/importance-2nd-amendment

The Second Amendment refers to “a well regulated militia” which opponents of your right to life insist refers to the National Guard. This idea is preposterous! The Bill of Rights was ratified in 1791, however the National Guard was created by the Militia Act of 1903.1 If the Second Amendment refers only to the National Guard, then the Founding Fathers were able to predict the future, and the amendment stood meaningless for 112 years until Congress finally found the time to fill in the blanks. This argument is so outrageous that it does not deserve the dignity of a response.

Others insist that the Second Amendment only grants a “collective right” to keep and bear arms. This is a blatant oxymoron. The only type of rights that exist are INDIVIDUAL rights! (Read Chapter 3 of my book for a lengthy dissertation on this topic.) We do not share a “collective right” to freedom of speech that is exercised “for us” by the main stream media. Each of has an individual right to say what is on our minds, and government is explicitly forbidden from making ANY law abridging our freedom of expression. Each of us has an individual right to life that is certainly not respected simply because some subset of the population is still alive. How would you respond if you were told, “Yes, you have a right to life, but the community is going to exercise that right in your absence. You will be sorely missed.” As utterly insane as that may sound, that is essentially what the anti-gun people are telling you. Being anti-gun is the same as being anti-life.

So far my examples have imagined threats to your life from one or two individuals. What if a large group of people organized themselves specifically for the purpose of threatening your life? What if this organization enjoyed the public’s perception of legitimacy? How would you feel knowing that this organization spends nearly a billion dollars of our tax money to prosecute and incarcerate innocent people, simply for the purpose of generating widespread fear and compliance? I refer, of course, to the federal department of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (ATF, a.k.a. BATF, a.k.a. BATFE). This organization is the only one explicitly tasked with eliminating one of the Bill of
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Best to read from the link as its rather long.. -Tyr

[fj1200]

Well very likely the fast/furious gun running scandal...

Well, this thread is about EO's and gun control.

[revelarts]

IMO it goes nowhere. First, BO won't do anything he doesn't have the power to do and second, Republicans wouldn't hold together on the impeachment vote (not to mention the Senate will never vote to convict). Congress, as an institution, no longer cares about the Constitutional role of Congress, they only care about party and will sell its soul to the Executive if they share a common ideology.

He just went into Libya without congressional approval or constitutional authority and the WHOLE congress let him walk over them like a carpet.
He can put his finger in the wind and see how far he can take this as well.
the spinless congress hardly ever -read NEVER- think "they need to upset the country" over constitutional issues by impeaching a sitting president. "That'd be disruptive... what good would it do... why put the country through that... elections coming up soon enough and a new president can undo (but won't) what ever damage..."

GW Bush did as much against parts of the constitution some here don't take as seriously,
but he was a republican so when impeachment came against him that was all Democratic BS.

Sure the blind Dem faithful will rally around Obama.
Just like the Republicans rallied around Bush with delusional denials and excuses for every unconstitutional act.

The politicians have both sides trained like dogs to make it a left right battle.
not a state vs the people battle.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Well, this thread is about EO's and gun control.




fj1200 (http://www.debatepolicy.com/member.php?728-fj1200)
http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/statusicon/user-online.pngMakin' U my B!http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/reputation/reputation_pos.png http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/reputation/reputation_pos.png http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/reputation/reputation_pos.png http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/reputation/reputation_pos.png http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/reputation/reputation_pos.png http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/reputation/reputation_highpos.png http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/reputation/reputation_highpos.png http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/reputation/reputation_highpos.png http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/reputation/reputation_highpos.png http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/reputation/reputation_highpos.png http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/reputation/reputation_highpos.png



<dl class="userstats" style="margin-right: 10px; margin-left: 0px; float: right; width: 150px;"><dt style="margin: 0px 5px 0px 0px; padding: 0px; float: left;">Join Date</dt><dd style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">Aug 2008</dd><dt style="margin: 0px 5px 0px 0px; padding: 0px; float: left;">Location</dt><dd style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">ATL</dd><dt style="margin: 0px 5px 0px 0px; padding: 0px; float: left;">Posts</dt><dd style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">8,251</dd><dt style="margin: 0px 5px 0px 0px; padding: 0px; float: left;">Thanks</dt><dd style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">1,771</dd><dd style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; display: inline; white-space: nowrap; float: left;">Thanked 1,212 Times in 848 Posts</dd></dl><dl class="user_rep" style="margin-right: 10px; margin-left: 0px; float: right; width: 150px;"><dt style="margin: 0px 5px 0px 0px; padding: 0px; float: left;">Rep Power</dt><dd id="reppower_606865_728" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">970720</dd></dl>


http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/icons/icon1.png

I hate to be the one to bring up those pesky Constitutional requirements but what are the high crimes and/or misdemeanors?

This article sums up what has been presented as his options:

Obama weighing executive action on guns (http://news.yahoo.com/obama-weighing-executive-action-guns-082740829--politics.html)





^^^^^^^^^^^^ Well then don't ask questions like this!! If you don't want an answer like I gave!
You are the one that asked!!
And this thread is about obama too. --Tyr

[fj1200]

... the WHOLE congress let him walk over them like a carpet.

As I said. ;)

As for Libya, I think the Congress is highly unlikely to make a huge stink over foreign policy and the administration had NATO and War Powers Act coverage IIRC.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

He just went into Libya without congressional approval and the WHOLE congress let him walk over them like a carpet.
He can put his finger in the wind and see how far he can take this as well.
the spinless congress hardly ever -read NEVER- think "they need to upset the country" over constitutional issues by impeaching a sitting president. "That'd be disruptive... what good would it do... why put the country through that... elections coming up soon enough and a new president can undo (but won't) what ever damage..."

GW Bush did as much against parts of the constitution some here don't take as seriously,
but he was a republican so when impeachment came against him that was all Democratic BS.

Sure the blind Dem faithful will rally around Obama.
Just like the Republicans rallied around Bush with delusional denials and excuses for every unconstitutional act.

The politicians have both sides trained like dogs to make it a left right battle.
not a state vs the people battle.

Rev. , I am not a big Bush fan. I will not defend him on certain things he did. How about leaving him out of the debate about obama's treachery , ok?
It will just muddy the waters for those of us wanting the truth to come out about obama. He is the greatest threat this nation faces right now. We should concentrate on his treason IMHO.
Of course just a friendly suggestion because you have every right to post as you see fit my friend. -Tyr

[fj1200]

^^^^^^^^^^^^ Well then don't ask questions like this!! If you don't want an answer like I gave!
You are the one that asked!!--Tyr

Your two big problems that I see. 1. Inability to remain on topic and 2. Inability to quote properly.

[glockmail]

I can totally see this getting legs.

Did you mention legs?

[fj1200]

How about leaving him out of the debate about obama's treachery , ok?

:laugh: But ALL of BO's treachery is fair game at any point no matter if it's unrelated to the topic at hand.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Your two big problems that I see. 1. Inability to remain on topic and 2. Inability to quote properly.

Obama is the one that would issue the Executive Order and you think his actions past as well as present are not relevant!!??
Do try not to be the foooooooool that you usually are..
Bush was brought up in this discussion and you are fine with that.
Go fly a kite , idjit....
Now you want to make the thread about my problems and my method of posting, my my how clever..--Tyr

[revelarts]

As I said. ;)

yep



As for Libya, I think the Congress is highly unlikely to make a huge stink over foreign policy and the administration had NATO and War Powers Act coverage IIRC.

Did we elect NATO? Is NATO in the constitution?

And the war powers act did not cover him. Even if stretched to read that way for cover, his time limit ran out and he was beyond even it's bounds and well into Unconstitutional waters.

but sure, make excuses for the parts of the Constitution you think it's OK flout , everyone does it.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

:laugh: But ALL of BO's treachery is fair game at any point no matter if it's unrelated to the topic at hand.

You ffing dumbass, obama is the President , obama made the threat . Are you that damn stupid!! All of his actions, past and present are part of the subject of this thread!!
Good God , what are you the head censorship police here!???-Tyr

[fj1200]

Obama is the one that would issue the Executive Order and you think his actions past as well as present are not relevant!!??
Do try not to be the foooooooool that you usually are..
Bush was brought up in this discussion and you are fine with that.
Go fly a kite , idjit....
Now you want to make the thread about my problems and my method of posting, my my how clever..--Tyr

Your presentation of your inabilities made it about you.

If he goes beyond his powers in the EO then have at it but rage at what people think might happen is misplaced. Rage away in all the other threads about his other misdeeds all you want but why bring them up when clearly off topic?

[revelarts]

Rev. , I am not a big Bush fan. I will not defend him on certain things he did. How about leaving him out of the debate about obama's treachery , ok?
It will just muddy the waters for those of us wanting the truth to come out about obama. He is the greatest threat this nation faces right now. We should concentrate on his treason IMHO.
Of course just a friendly suggestion because you have every right to post as you see fit my friend. -Tyr

I just get tired of the double standard Tyr.

either we defend the constitution all the time or we defend the republican party we can't do both.
It's like digging a ditch one day and filling it up the next. we need to get serious, the time is late. We don't have much of the constitution left.

And My Point is it's NOT JUST OBAMA.
Its not just the DEMOCRATS.

it's the state vs the rights of the people.
soft selling republican tyranny help get OBAMA elected.

[fj1200]

Did we elect NATO? Is NATO in the constitution?

And the war powers act did not cover him. Even if stretched to read that way for cover, his time limit ran out and he was beyond the even it's bounds and well into Unconstitutional waters.

but sure, make excuses for the parts of the Constitution you think it's OK flout , everyone does it.

NATO is actually. ;) I'm sure there's a WP argument to make, but honestly, I don't care that much right now. And no, I didn't like our Libya operations.

[fj1200]

You ffing dumbass, obama is the President , obama made the threat . Are you that damn stupid!! All of his actions, past and present are part of the subject of this thread!!
Good God , what are you the head censorship police here!???-Tyr

What threat? That there are EO options that he has? I don't think there is much dispute that he has some options already. And no, not all of his actions are part of this thread.

Besides, your argument is dumb. BO should be impeached on this count because he's done other stuff. It's weak.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Your presentation of your inabilities made it about you.

If he goes beyond his powers in the EO then have at it but rage at what people think might happen is misplaced. Rage away in all the other threads about his other misdeeds all you want but why bring them up when clearly off topic?

I strongly disagree that my comments about his past corrupt actions, past E.O THAT STOPPED DEAD IN ITS TRACKS THE FAST/FURIOUS INVESTIGATION IS NOT ON TOPIC!!
How is his previous E.O'S NOT PART OF THIS DISCUSSION ABOUT HIS NEW THREAT OF ISSUING EXECUTIVE ORDER FURTHER LIMITING THE 2ND??

Explain or admit that you are wrong. -Tyr

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

What threat? That there are EO options that he has? I don't think there is much dispute that he has some options already. And no, not all of his actions are part of this thread.

Besides, your argument is dumb. BO should be impeached on this count because he's done other stuff. It's weak.

How foolish of me to think discussing his character and past actions were relevant to the topic at hand!!
Are you always this blind??

[fj1200]

I strongly disagree that my comments about his past corrupt actions, past E.O THAT STOPPED DEAD IN ITS TRACKS THE FAST/FURIOUS INVESTIGATION IS NOT ON TOPIC!!
How is his previous E.O'S NOT PART OF THIS DISCUSSION ABOUT HIS NEW THREAT OF ISSUING EXECUTIVE ORDER FURTHER LIMITING THE 2ND??

Explain or admit that you are wrong. -Tyr

Considering your post was barely coherent... the distinguished Congressman from TX made no mention of impeachment for other offenses. I guess that makes you wrong. ;)


How foolish of me to think discussing his character and past actions were relevant to the topic at hand!!
Are you always this blind??

Not blind with rage as you.

[tailfins]

I dunno. Some previous Presidents have done worse and escaped impeachment.

And we have been paying for it ever since. An example of worse was Bill Clinton using Lewinsky as a smokescreen for selling US Military secrets to China for laundered campaign money.

[revelarts]

NATO is actually. ;) I'm sure there's a WP argument to make, but honestly, I don't care that much right now. And no, I didn't like our Libya operations.
went over that here...

http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?31463-War-Powers-And-Disobeying-Illegal-Orders&p=473324#post473324

[jimnyc]

I hate to be the one to bring up those pesky Constitutional requirements but what are the high crimes and/or misdemeanors?

This article sums up what has been presented as his options:

Obama weighing executive action on guns (http://news.yahoo.com/obama-weighing-executive-action-guns-082740829--politics.html)



Impeachment doesn't require high crimes and misdemeanors, that's for treason, no?

[jimnyc]

IMO it goes nowhere. First, BO won't do anything he doesn't have the power to do and second, Republicans wouldn't hold together on the impeachment vote (not to mention the Senate will never vote to convict). Congress, as an institution, no longer cares about the Constitutional role of Congress, they only care about party and will sell its soul to the Executive if they share a common ideology.

If they voted based on a BJ and lying, I can EASILY see them voting when the 2nd amendment is altered in some manner.

[tailfins]

If they voted based on a BJ and lying, I can EASILY see them voting when the 2nd amendment is altered in some manner.

The GOP played right into Clinton's hands on that one. The focus should have been on Charlie Trie, not Monica Lewinsky.

[glockmail]

The GOP is very good at seizing defeat from the jaws of victory.

[revelarts]

Just for the recoard I'm going to repost this

It's seems that Obama doesn't even have the War powers Act to back him up on the Libyan invasion.
I'd assumed that he did based on the chatter in the Media but ...Once again... If you read the Law (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode50/usc_sup_01_50_10_33.html) for yourself you'll find it doesn't mean what many assume it does.
The CATO institute posted Republicans Tom McClintock's Break down of the fact that Obama has Zero legal authorization to invade Libya. (http://www.cato.org/multimedia/daily-podcast/libya-war-power-impeachment)


Basically he outlines how
War Powers Acts doesn't apply. It clearly state 3 ways for a prez to use military force.
http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by War Powers resolution
Presidential executive power as Commander-in-Chief; limitation

The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to
(1) a declaration of war,
(2) specific statutory authorization, or
(3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces



So he Does Not have even the "60 days". Which, BTW, has past. Day 1 was illegal.

The constitution clearly states that the Prez cannot attack anyone without congress.

McClintock goes on to point out.
NATO is a defensive treaty. AND Any Military Actions Must have Congressional approval as well.
NATO Treaty states that troops are to be deployed "In accordance with" a member's country's Constitution.
U.N. Military Actions. the U.N Participation acts "Requires" Congressional approval for any military actions.

But Back to the War Powers Act.
It Also says the Prez must give the constitutional reason for any military action.
so Obama has failed there as well
http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by War Powers resolution
(a) Written report; time of submission; circumstances necessitating submission; information reported
In the absence of a declaration of war, in any case in which United States Armed Forces are introduced—
(1) into hostilities or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances;
(2) into the territory, airspace or waters of a foreign nation, while equipped for combat, except for deployments which relate solely to supply, replacement, repair, or training of such forces; or
(3) in numbers which substantially enlarge United States Armed Forces equipped for combat already located in a foreign nation;
the President shall submit within 48 hours to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and to the President pro tempore of the Senate a report, in writing, setting forth—
(A) the circumstances necessitating the introduction of United States Armed Forces;
(B) the constitutional and legislative authority under which such introduction took place; and
(C) the estimated scope and duration of the hostilities or involvement...



And Even if Libya did fit the War Powers rule. which obviously it does not.
Congress would STILL have to approve continued military action or the action must STOP.
http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by War powers resolution
(b) Termination of use of United States Armed Forces; exceptions; extension period
Within sixty calendar days after a report is submitted or is required to be submitted pursuant to section 1543 (a)(1) of this title, whichever is earlier, the President shall terminate any use of United States Armed Forces with respect to which such report was submitted (or required to be submitted), unless the Congress
(1) has declared war or has enacted a specific authorization for such use of United States Armed Forces,
(2) has extended by law such sixty-day period, or
(3) is physically unable to meet as a result of an armed attack upon the United States. Such sixty-day period shall be extended for not more than an additional thirty days if the President determines and certifies to the Congress in writing that unavoidable military necessity respecting the safety of United States Armed Forces requires the continued use of such armed forces in the course of bringing about a prompt removal of such forces.




So here we are.
Obama Is CLEARLY outside the scope of his powers by every legal standard.

Impeachable offense much?

Obviously,
get any traction?
no.

when a few dems wanted to impeach the outgoing Bush here's how the Dem Leadership played it


JOY BEHAR: You’ve ruled against impeaching George Bush and Dick Cheney, and now Kucinich is trying to pass that. Why do you insist on not impeaching these people, so that the world and America can really see the crimes that they’ve committed?

REP. NANCY PELOSI: Well, I think that it — I think it was important, when I became Speaker — and it’s, by the way, a very important position — President, Vice President, Speaker of the House — I saw it as my responsibility to try to bring a much divided country together to the extent that we could. I thought that impeachment would be divisive for the country.

In terms of what we wanted — set out to do, we wanted to raise the minimum wage, give the biggest increase in veterans benefits to veterans in the seventy-seven-year history, then pass research for stem cell research, all of that. This week, we’re going to pass equal pay for equal work..... http://www.democracynow.org/2008/7/3...si_defends_her (http://www.democracynow.org/2008/7/30/house_speaker_nancy_pelosi_defends_her)

Not even the supposed swore enemies wanted to rock the boat.
Obama fire or arresst anyone in the "evil" Bush adminstration.
No,
"...we have to look forward..."

GW Bush arrest anyone from the -oh so crooked treasonist- Clinton Admin when he got in

Nope.

who's getting played here folks?

[Robert A Whit]

GW Bush did as much against parts of the constitution some here don't take as seriously,
but he was a republican so when impeachment came against him that was all Democratic BS.

Nope.

Negatory.

Bush in his signing stated he upheld the constitution.

[jimnyc]

I will agree with this much, Rev, I do believe that either side will utilize much more power than is supposed to be afforded to them. And then I think Congress has enabled them. Same shit mostly.

But this one I feel a tad stronger about, and maybe because it's talk of executive orders. I hear that there are 19 executive orders on the table, and I can't imagine any of them being good, and probably as many being unconstitutional, IMO.

[Marcus Aurelius]

I will agree with this much, Rev, I do believe that either side will utilize much more power than is supposed to be afforded to them. And then I think Congress has enabled them. Same shit mostly.

But this one I feel a tad stronger about, and maybe because it's talk of executive orders. I hear that there are 19 executive orders on the table, and I can't imagine any of them being good, and probably as many being unconstitutional, IMO.

care to hazard a guess as to how many will be published on the White House website for 3 days prior to being signed?

[fj1200]

Impeachment doesn't require high crimes and misdemeanors, that's for treason, no?

No, two different animals. Treason provides "aid and comfort" to the enemy and impeachment is "high crimes and misdemeanors" (He says without checking his pocket Constitution.)


If they voted based on a BJ and lying, I can EASILY see them voting when the 2nd amendment is altered in some manner.

I believe the impeachable offense was suborning perjury (getting someone else to lie), I don't think just lying cuts it.


I hear that there are 19 executive orders on the table...

I think it was 19 actions he could take... probably rolled into one EO. And I have to imagine that he wouldn't be altering the second so much as directing action based on previously passed legislation.

[jimnyc]

No, two different animals. Treason provides "aid and comfort" to the enemy and impeachment is "high crimes and misdemeanors" (He says without checking his pocket Constitution.)



I believe the impeachable offense was suborning perjury (getting someone else to lie), I don't think just lying cuts it.



I think it was 19 actions he could take... probably rolled into one EO. And I have to imagine that he wouldn't be altering the second so much as directing action based on previously passed legislation.

IMO, restricting anything less than automatic weapons is going beyond what the constitution allows. And maybe HUGE clips, but I still wouldn't see a point or result from that one anyway. Any ban to guns beneath an automatic, which are guns that citizens can and do use, should be protected. Ammo of course for any protected gun should also be protected. I think Obama is going to reach for too much, but we'll see tomorrow. If he does, I see immediate challenges coming from it and I can't fathom the SCOTUS allowing it, especially now with precedent that the constitution gives us that right.

If he goes after JUST assault weapons and military grade weapons, I can see an argument for that passing muster. I can see background checks being more stringent. I think we'll see registration imposed as well, and this will also be fought.

Maybe not impeachment, but depending on what the power grab is for, I can easily see his orders being turned down.

[revelarts]

I will agree with this much, Rev, I do believe that either side will utilize much more power than is supposed to be afforded to them. And then I think Congress has enabled them. Same shit mostly.

But this one I feel a tad stronger about, and maybe because it's talk of executive orders. I hear that there are 19 executive orders on the table, and I can't imagine any of them being good, and probably as many being unconstitutional, IMO.

ok, well you know i think this is where your law and order side ought to exercise it self freely Jim

when congress and the presidents break the law we should call them on it often and loudly. impeachment and jail.
they broke the law.

It's a lot worse IMO than not giving the policeman proper respect over a traffic light, or getting caught with a bag of weed.
And people go to jail even if it's just for night over that stuff.
but these guys rarely go to jail, just get reelected and "move on". Thousand could be dead behind unconstitutional acts but it's "devise" talk about impeachment.


But yes this is ANOTHER bad one. but he hasn't done anything yet.
I won't be surprised if it's not somethings taht are restricted too federal property, and agencies.
And possible encouragements for tougher federal enforcement on existing laws. More ATF raids, nothing new just more of it.

nothing that he can get caught legally on.

That'd be my guess.

[revelarts]

No, two different animals. Treason provides "aid and comfort" to the enemy and impeachment is "high crimes and misdemeanors" (He says without checking his pocket Constitution.)


But Treason is a High Crime FJ. So it would qualify, no doubt.
And "misdemeanors" is fairly vague and could potentially cover a lot of ground legally if the congress had the spine to use it.

[bingster]

The NY Times is reporting that George H. W. Bush used an executive order relating to gun control.

Reagan supported the Brady bill and came out for banning assault weapons.

George H. W. Bush supported The Gun Control Act of 1968 prohibiting mail-order gun purchases and more control over interstate commerce. While running for president in 1980 he was for banning smaller handguns. After falsely stating he was against gun control and got the NRA's support to win election in 1988, Bush went on to support banning manufacturing of domestic assault weapons. He then enforced the import ban, and proposed banning magazines of more than 15 rounds. The Crime Control Act of 1990 was proposed my Bush.

George W Bush was for instant background checks at gun shows.

[bingster]

http://www.politicususa.com/presidents-bush-clinton-executive-orders-reform-gun-laws.html

It's not the times, but here it is. George H. W. Bush and Clinton using executive orders for gun control

[bingster]

http://www.politicususa.com/presidents-bush-clinton-executive-orders-reform-gun-laws.html

It's not the times, but here it is. George H. W. Bush and Clinton using executive orders for gun control

I'd like to also go on record acknowledging that the tone of the article is divisive. I don't write like this and I do not support the negative tone, but it's informative.

[jimnyc]

The past doesn't matter. People aren't upset with Obama because he's a Democrat, but rather that they don't want their 2nd amendment rights altered. What starts out as one thing always leads to another. Take one thing now, you opened that door that will likely lead to more. Many people like myself want a balance between common sense and protecting the 2nd - which is likely more about stricter checks and military grade weapons - not taking away weapons, not banning hunting rifles or the equivalent, not forced registrations and such. I don't give a crap who is in office, I would still be VERY concerned about these executive orders, and I'm confident that's how many others feel about the COTUS.

[Robert A Whit]

http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/misc/quote_icon.png
Originally Posted by bingster http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=606966#post606966)
http://www.politicususa.com/presiden...-gun-laws.html (http://www.politicususa.com/presidents-bush-clinton-executive-orders-reform-gun-laws.html)

It's not the times, but here it is. George H. W. Bush and Clinton using executive orders for gun control



I'd like to also go on record acknowledging that the tone of the article is divisive. I don't write like this and I do not support the negative tone, but it's informative.

What are you getting at? (I have now gone back to review your earlier posts, so forget this question)

In the case of HW Bush, per your article, something happened based on an existing law.

In the case of Clinton, ditto. Nothing was stated about GW Bush that he banned guns.

So, what are you getting at?

I think your article states Obama can't make up new laws.

Pretty much what we have been saying.

[Robert A Whit]

The NY Times is reporting that George H. W. Bush used an executive order relating to gun control.

Reagan supported the Brady bill and came out for banning assault weapons.

George H. W. Bush supported The Gun Control Act of 1968 prohibiting mail-order gun purchases and more control over interstate commerce. While running for president in 1980 he was for banning smaller handguns. After falsely stating he was against gun control and got the NRA's support to win election in 1988, Bush went on to support banning manufacturing of domestic assault weapons. He then enforced the import ban, and proposed banning magazines of more than 15 rounds. The Crime Control Act of 1990 was proposed my Bush.

George W Bush was for instant background checks at gun shows.

CSPAN today featured Dr. Cook of Duke U explaining that the Brady law did not help at all. And he studied all the gun laws and none worked.

Fascinating stuff. You can find it on cspan.

I prefer instant background checks. CA screws around with us forcing us to wait a couple of weeks.

Say, does that make you wish you supported both Bush's for president?

[bingster]

CSPAN today featured Dr. Cook of Duke U explaining that the Brady law did not help at all. And he studied all the gun laws and none worked.

Fascinating stuff. You can find it on cspan.

I prefer instant background checks. CA screws around with us forcing us to wait a couple of weeks.

Say, does that make you wish you supported both Bush's for president?


You guys seem to be making the case that Obama is a crazy liberal who'll use executive privaledge to grab your guns. I've been making the case that he's going for common sense gun safety measures that will save lives. It may or may not prevent another Sandy Hook, but it will save lives. In my last post, I demonstrated that Republicans used to believe in common sense.

No, I never supported George W. I thought he was severely misguided, not intellectually curious, and grievously immature. However, since the birth of the Tea Party, I have pined for his measured non-incindiary rhetoric. I miss a more moderate Republican Party. I believe in a two party system. Our system is currently one party and an anti-party.

[bingster]

You guys seem to be making the case that Obama is a crazy liberal who'll use executive privaledge to grab your guns. I've been making the case that he's going for common sense gun safety measures that will save lives. It may or may not prevent another Sandy Hook, but it will save lives. In my last post, I demonstrated that Republicans used to believe in common sense.

No, I never supported George W. I thought he was severely misguided, not intellectually curious, and grievously immature. However, since the birth of the Tea Party, I have pined for his measured non-incindiary rhetoric. I miss a more moderate Republican Party. I believe in a two party system. Our system is currently one party and an anti-party.


Didn't see Dr. Cook, but I've seen evidence to the contrary.

[aboutime]

Didn't see Dr. Cook, but I've seen evidence to the contrary.


bingster, or whoever you are pretending to be as you come here acting as if you have all of the answers.

You exposed yourself early on by starting with the words "YOU GUYS".

That is so liberal, democrat, progressive. Not even you are capable of hiding your true colors. Which most liberals would say is How
"YOU GUYS OPERATE!"

[glockmail]

Congress lacks the balls to impeach anyone, never mind The Obama. Next subject please.

[bingster]

bingster, or whoever you are pretending to be as you come here acting as if you have all of the answers.

You exposed yourself early on by starting with the words "YOU GUYS".

That is so liberal, democrat, progressive. Not even you are capable of hiding your true colors. Which most liberals would say is How
"YOU GUYS OPERATE!"

I wish you would make a reasonable argument. Knocking down my referring to the last three posters as "you guys" is a ruse. It has nothing to do with party and it has nothing to do with the argument, Mr/Mrs/Ms Aboutime. What is your problem with my username? I got that nickname in the army-did you serve?

[bingster]

http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/misc/quote_icon.png

What are you getting at? (I have now gone back to review your earlier posts, so forget this question)

In the case of HW Bush, per your article, something happened based on an existing law.

In the case of Clinton, ditto. Nothing was stated about GW Bush that he banned guns.

So, what are you getting at?

I think your article states Obama can't make up new laws.

Pretty much what we have been saying.



As per the article, Obama can attach his executive orders to former bills. That argument is made in the article.

[aboutime]

I wish you would make a reasonable argument. Knocking down my referring to the last three posters as "you guys" is a ruse. It has nothing to do with party and it has nothing to do with the argument, Mr/Mrs/Ms Aboutime. What is your problem with my username. I got that nickname in the army.


You can wish for anything you like. But that still won't change my assessment of you, and the words you used.

[bingster]

You can wish for anything you like. But that still won't change my assessment of you, and the words you used.

Listen, despite some of the hostility I've endured while writing on this mostly conservative forum, I have made a concerted effort to neither being insulting nor divisive. I do have an opinion drastically different than yours. It's healthy to have debates with people who have different opinions than you. I actually do apologize if something I wrote was offensive to you.

I like to debate things. I wish our Congress would do it more. Instead, they come with their own agendas and refuse to compromise.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

You guys seem to be making the case that Obama is a crazy liberal who'll use executive privaledge to grab your guns. I've been making the case that he's going for common sense gun safety measures that will save lives. It may or may not prevent another Sandy Hook, but it will save lives. In my last post, I demonstrated that Republicans used to believe in common sense.

No, I never supported George W. I thought he was severely misguided, not intellectually curious, and grievously immature. However, since the birth of the Tea Party, I have pined for his measured non-incindiary rhetoric. I miss a more moderate Republican Party. I believe in a two party system. Our system is currently one party and an anti-party.

You make the case that obama is not the monster many of us know him to be. You try to paint him and his agenda as business as usual , both are false plays on your part.. Doesn't matter to me if you do so deliberately or out of folly.
As long as you present obama as a rational and sane guy just doing his job as best he can you are part of the problem.
Lukewarm and passionately committed to convincing all that obama is not deliberately destroying the power of this nation forces me to reject all of your views! As a matter of principle..
Any time a man tries to sell me a turtle that he boasts can race around the track like a race car I suspect duplicity and subterfuge. With that in mind I know where to put the coming posts, regardless of how clever they may first appear. -Tyr

[aboutime]

Listen, despite some of the hostility I've endured while writing on this mostly conservative forum, I have made a concerted effort to neither being insulting nor divisive. I do have an opinion drastically different than yours. It's healthy to have debates with people who have different opinions than you. I actually do apologize if something I wrote was offensive to you.

I like to debate things. I wish our Congress would do it more. Instead, they come with their own agendas and refuse to compromise.

bingster. Understood. But knowing you are drastically different in your words, and opinions, as you admitted. What else did you expect?

Agreed. It is healthy to have debates with people with differing opinions. Yet, when you begin by sayiing "YOU GUYS". You all but eliminated any desire of finding a debate atmosphere here by sounding like every other Liberal who uses words like that, rather than the name calling we have been conditioned to hear from that kind of attitude.

You have every right to express your opinions here. And when you do. Knowing this is a mostly conservative forum. You must also know. "If you can't stand the heat...you are in the wrong Kitchen".

[bingster]

bingster. Understood. But knowing you are drastically different in your words, and opinions, as you admitted. What else did you expect?

Agreed. It is healthy to have debates with people with differing opinions. Yet, when you begin by sayiing "YOU GUYS". You all but eliminated any desire of finding a debate atmosphere here by sounding like every other Liberal who uses words like that, rather than the name calling we have been conditioned to hear from that kind of attitude.

You have every right to express your opinions here. And when you do. Knowing this is a mostly conservative forum. You must also know. "If you can't stand the heat...you are in the wrong Kitchen".

Oh, I can handle the heat. I just don't think it furthers the conversation. Again, when I said "you guys" I was referring to the last three posters. I could have been saying something good about the last three posters; I could have been saying something negative about the last three posters. Is it the gender thing? Is it the "putting you all in the same boat" thing? I thought conservatives got their woodies calling liberals PC Police. "every other Liberal who uses words like that"-sorry, I never knew I was using something from the liberal lexicon.

[aboutime]

Oh, I can handle the heat. I just don't think it furthers the conversation. Again, when I said "you guys" I was referring to the last three posters. I could have been saying something good about the last three posters; I could have been saying something negative about the last three posters. Is it the gender thing? Is it the "putting you all in the same boat" thing? I thought conservatives got their woodies calling liberals PC Police. "every other Liberal who uses words like that"-sorry, I never knew I was using something from the liberal lexicon.


Doesn't matter what you claim you didn't know. You have identified yourself. Nothing more needs saying.

[fj1200]

But Treason is a High Crime FJ. So it would qualify, no doubt.
And "misdemeanors" is fairly vague and could potentially cover a lot of ground legally if the congress had the spine to use it.

True, but I think they served two different purposes Constitutionally speaking. One is specifically removing the POTUS from office and the other would be applicable to anyone.

[mundame]

My guess is Obama will be worried enough about the effect of Executive Orders that he'll just propose a lot of legislation, but none of it will pass, and then he can blame Republicans, as usual.

And the crazies will go on and on using AR-15s to massacre lots of little children and shoppers.

An effective president would actually put a stop to it. An ineffective president will boot it to Congress and then blame someone else.

[tailfins]

Listen, despite some of the hostility I've endured while writing on this mostly conservative forum, I have made a concerted effort to neither being insulting nor divisive. I do have an opinion drastically different than yours. It's healthy to have debates with people who have different opinions than you. I actually do apologize if something I wrote was offensive to you.

I like to debate things. I wish our Congress would do it more. Instead, they come with their own agendas and refuse to compromise.

Welcome to DP, Bingster. I'm happy to interact with all philosophies from Libertarians and Klansmen all the way across the spectrum to Marxist-Leninists and NAZIs; I'm just curious how they got there. The only types of people I want nothing to do with those who have had an abortion and occultists. Being spiritually mistaken is one thing, calling on the power of Lucifer and his demons is quite another. The last thing I want in my life is unclean spirits.

Someone who has had an abortion is no better than Charles Manson.

[mundame]

http://www.trbimg.com/img-50f03b24/turbine/la-tot-cartoons-pg-alex-jones-and-pro-gun-paranoids-put-nuts-in-gun-nuts/600

[revelarts]

My guess is Obama will be worried enough about the effect of Executive Orders that he'll just propose a lot of legislation, but none of it will pass, and then he can blame Republicans, as usual.

And the crazies will go on and on using AR-15s to massacre lots of little children and shoppers.

An effective president would actually put a stop to it. An ineffective president will boot it to Congress and then blame someone else.

And if the only way to stop the few is by taking the rights away from the many, should it be done?

So is it after every tragedy that we are to create some new "reasonable" restrictions to protect for that, until there are no more dangers left?
As tragic as these mass shooting and other violent events are. No president or congress can keep people safe from all danger.
It's a politicians lie to sell and a nervous public's snake oil to buy.

And even if all rights were taken away and we lived in prisons with no guns at all, there'd still be dangers.
But safety is not what the country was founded on it was liberty.

the often quoted Ben Franklin line about exchanging liberty for security is seldom refereed to after tragedy. In grief it doesn't strike the proper note. But the quote from Anonymous is usually on to many peoples lips, "the gov't needs to do something!". As if the gov't is god and with the right laws, restrictions, surveillance and forced medications can keep people safe from all crazy/mean/evil people and accidents. It's more than false hope. It's a trap.

[mundame]

And if the only way to stop the few is by taking the rights away from the many, should it be done?

So is it after every tragedy that we are to create some new "reasonable" restrictions to protect for that, until there are no more dangers left?
As tragic as these mass shooting and other violent events are. No president or congress can keep people safe from all danger.... As if the gov't is god and with the right laws, restrictions, surveillance and forced medications can keep people safe from all crazy/mean/evil people and accidents.

Yes, I think there have been some silly "rights" allowed of late years; prime among them is the right of psychiatric patients to refuse treatment and refuse meds and refuse confinement and instead go out and murder as many people as they can. This was a left-wing "right" and I don't agree with it: I want the men in the white coats and butterfly nets back; padded cells and heavy anti-psychotic drugs.

And I think another silly "right" was allowing assault weapons and high-capacity magazines which have one purpose only: to kill lots of citizens, or at least fantasize about doing so. And boy, the crazies sure got that message, didn't they.

I'm a Libertarian, not an anarchist: I believe there is a function for government, and law and order is that function, and I want more of that right now!

I understand, however, your position that government cannot protect us from all crime and danger, and of course you are right. However, government is actually supposed to protect us from obvious stuff like a continuing increase in mass murders: that is its function. If it can't even do that, we need a government that can.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

And if the only way to stop the few is by taking the rights away from the many, should it be done?

So is it after every tragedy that we are to create some new "reasonable" restrictions to protect for that, until there are no more dangers left?
As tragic as these mass shooting and other violent events are. No president or congress can keep people safe from all danger.
It's a politicians lie to sell and a nervous public's snake oil to buy.

And even if all rights were taken away and we lived in prisons with no guns at all, there'd still be dangers.
But safety is not what the country was founded on it was liberty.

the often quoted Ben Franklin line about exchanging liberty for security is seldom refereed to after tragedy. In grief it doesn't strike the proper note. But the quote from Anonymous is usually on to many peoples lips, "the gov't needs to do something!". As if the gov't is god and with the right laws, restrictions, surveillance and forced medications can keep people safe from all crazy/mean/evil people and accidents. It's more than false hope. It's a trap.

Ole Ben knew exactly what he was talking about and that's why the media almost never points out that WARNING!
Our government has been creating crisis, then forcing votes on unread legislation for 4 years now! If Americans can not figure out that what is being done now is ALL a sham then likely the Republic will fall!
I am no longer holding any hope that it will survive without a fight! The entire system is so corrupted now that nothing less than a total cleaning out of the filth infecting it now will do.
That can not and will not happen at the ballot box. Our nation will either fall or have a revolution. I'm sure of that now..
The NRA gained 250,000 new mmbers last month and gun sale rose 500% , apparently people are starting to understand exactly who the REAL enemy is!!-Tyr

[tailfins]

http://www.trbimg.com/img-50f03b24/turbine/la-tot-cartoons-pg-alex-jones-and-pro-gun-paranoids-put-nuts-in-gun-nuts/600

That reminds me of a boss I had back in Tennessee. I was so impressed with him and his kind that I stayed four months then moved to Massachusetts.

Having said that: If you rain on other people's parades, tomorrow they will want to rain on yours. As a nation we need to make it a priority not to ruin the fun of our compatriots. I see the gun control crowd as profoundly selfish. Leave the gun hobbyists alone. That includes the ones that want to do at home Mythbusters experiments.

[jimnyc]

Apparently the gist of what Obama will "order" today will still need to make it through congress, where many doubt it will make it through with the assault weapons ban, which really aren't "assault weapons" to begin with. It would appear that some in Washington are confused as to what makes an assault weapon as well, in addition to the facts surrounding gun violence and what guns are actually used. Luckily they won't see a scary gun or scary gun name and ban it for that reason, without facts to backup their agenda.

[Abbey Marie]

You guys seem to be making the case that Obama is a crazy liberal who'll use executive privaledge to grab your guns. I've been making the case that he's going for common sense gun safety measures that will save lives. It may or may not prevent another Sandy Hook, but it will save lives. In my last post, I demonstrated that Republicans used to believe in common sense.

No, I never supported George W. I thought he was severely misguided, not intellectually curious, and grievously immature. However, since the birth of the Tea Party, I have pined for his measured non-incindiary rhetoric. I miss a more moderate Republican Party. I believe in a two party system. Our system is currently one party and an anti-party.

If saving lives is the gold standard, repealing Roe wil save many, many more than will stricter gun laws. As will moving the speed limit on highways down to 35.

[Abbey Marie]

http://www.trbimg.com/img-50f03b24/turbine/la-tot-cartoons-pg-alex-jones-and-pro-gun-paranoids-put-nuts-in-gun-nuts/600

"It's one tiny step from banning partial birth abortion, to forcing women to become pregnant and carry children to term for the State."

[jimnyc]

You guys seem to be making the case that Obama is a crazy liberal who'll use executive privaledge to grab your guns. I've been making the case that he's going for common sense gun safety measures that will save lives. It may or may not prevent another Sandy Hook, but it will save lives. In my last post, I demonstrated that Republicans used to believe in common sense.

No, I never supported George W. I thought he was severely misguided, not intellectually curious, and grievously immature. However, since the birth of the Tea Party, I have pined for his measured non-incindiary rhetoric. I miss a more moderate Republican Party. I believe in a two party system. Our system is currently one party and an anti-party.

The things being discussed.... the laws are even TOUGHER in places like NY and Chicago. If these measures WILL save lives - why aren't they doing so in places where these laws area already implemented? Oh, and as for preventing another Sandy Hook - you do realize there was already an assault weapons ban on the books there?

[tailfins]

If saving lives is the gold standard, repealing Roe wil save many, many more than will stricter gun laws. As will moving the speed limit on highways down to 35.

You're dead wrong on the speed limit premise.

Consider this FAQ on speed limits:
http://www.motorists.org/speed-limits/faq

[Marcus Aurelius]

My guess is Obama will be worried enough about the effect of Executive Orders that he'll just propose a lot of legislation, but none of it will pass, and then he can blame Republicans, as usual.

And the crazies will go on and on using AR-15s to massacre lots of little children and shoppers.

An effective president would actually put a stop to it. An ineffective president will boot it to Congress and then blame someone else.


so, we're back to shoppers and little children being murdered at alarming rates all year, are we?

you never did provide a link to your data showing your claims here...
http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?38666-NRA-Says-Congress-Will-Not-Pass-Weapons-Ban&p=606651#post606651




Originally Posted by Marcus Aurelius http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=606637#post606637)

http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Marcus Aurelius http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=606621#post606621)



http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by mundame http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=606618#post606618)

The assault rifle ban did sunset, and nothing very remarkable happened because of it, except that more and more since then these AR-15s have become the weapon of choice for almost all mass murderers. I've been reading that both Clinton and Bush DID have weapons bans by executive order also, so I'll have to look that up at some point for the citation.

And the time between mass murders, spree killings, is getting shorter and shorter and there are more and more of them. I'd like to see that pattern go the other way. There are people here who will refuse to accept any changes even when the spree murder rate is every day with an average of 40 children or shoppers killed daily, but I think this crime needs to be stopped or at least slowed down.





So, 14,600 children or shoppers were killed last year in spree murders?
Really? Link please???




still waiting for that link showing 14,600 children and shoppers killed last year in spree murders......


any luck with that link????




still full of shit I see, huh Mundame

[jimnyc]

I'm not getting involved in the AR15 thing anymore, Marcus - or should I call you "James Holmes"? You're in good company though, as Darin's new name is "Adam Lanza". And coming in 3rd and 4th is aboutime and Kathianne, otherwise known as "Eric Harris & Dylan Klebold". Tyr doesn't get a photo, only the reputation of having shot his sister and 4 firemen.

http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?38637-Men-armed-with-assault-rifles-walk-through-Portland&p=606192#post606192

This of course is followed by a bunch of cartoons and such meant to poke fun of and vilify those who simply speak up in defense of certain guns and the 2nd amendment.

[jimnyc]

The things being discussed.... the laws are even TOUGHER in places like NY and Chicago. If these measures WILL save lives - why aren't they doing so in places where these laws area already implemented? Oh, and as for preventing another Sandy Hook - you do realize there was already an assault weapons ban on the books there?

I'd also like to add - we had these measures before, from 1994-2004 - and it made little to no difference at all.

[Marcus Aurelius]

I'm not getting involved in the AR15 thing anymore, Marcus - or should I call you "James Holmes"?

I'd prefer to be compared to/confused with this guy...


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O0B_UZNtEk4

[jimnyc]

^^ Thanks, you just inspired my new signature! ;)

[Marcus Aurelius]

^^ Thanks, you just inspired my new signature! ;)


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uOot8XkuBkk

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Summary of obama's new 23 royal decrees, pay close attention please!

From obama, "Myself and my family are well protected by --armed guards-- fukk you and yours!
my kids are precious, fukk you and yours!
I am your master, fukk you and yours.
We the elite have rights , fukk you and yours..
Now do you people understand why I've been so absolutely against this monster??--Tyr

[tailfins]

.
Now do you people understand why I've been so absolutely against this monster??--Tyr

You were a little fuzzy on that point. Could you run by it again?

[fj1200]

What? No extra-Constitutional Executive Order that includes outright confiscation of any gun including the venerated Red Ryder BB gun to be carried out by the Homeland VIPR squad of jack-booted government thugs?

[aboutime]

I'd prefer to be compared to/confused with this guy...


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O0B_UZNtEk4

Totally agree Jimnyc. I may be older than most others, with Robert here.

But I REFUSE to give up, or give in to this Pretender who dares call himself a MAN, and Our President.

I am not ready, or willing to GIVE UP...even after I die. I will haunt the very ground those who tried to destroy this nation, walk on...and become THEIR WORST DREAM.

4312

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

I'm not getting involved in the AR15 thing anymore, Marcus - or should I call you "James Holmes"? You're in good company though, as Darin's new name is "Adam Lanza". And coming in 3rd and 4th is aboutime and Kathianne, otherwise known as "Eric Harris & Dylan Klebold". Tyr doesn't get a photo, only the reputation of having shot his sister and 4 firemen.

http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?38637-Men-armed-with-assault-rifles-walk-through-Portland&p=606192#post606192

This of course is followed by a bunch of cartoons and such meant to poke fun of and vilify those who simply speak up in defense of certain guns and the 2nd amendment.

This after my having went out of my way to be nice to the accuser!!
Somebody either "lost it" or else never had it to start with IMHO!! I AM GREATLY DISAPPOINTED BUT SUCH IS LIFE.
I WILL COMMENT MORE ABOUT THIS LATER BECAUSE I HAVE TO GO NOW.--Tyr

[aboutime]

What? No extra-Constitutional Executive Order that includes outright confiscation of any gun including the venerated Red Ryder BB gun to be carried out by the Homeland VIPR squad of jack-booted government thugs?


fj. I found your photo. Everyone should take note, and remember this....4313 fj's attitude, and IQ.

[jimnyc]

What? No extra-Constitutional Executive Order that includes outright confiscation of any gun including the venerated Red Ryder BB gun to be carried out by the Homeland VIPR squad of jack-booted government thugs?

I think the fears were warranted, based on Feinstein's and other top Democrats words. With that said, I'm not sure how far he overreached, if at all. I don't think the ban will pass Congress, and a bill was likely to be presented regardless.

[fj1200]

fj. I found your photo. Everyone should take note, and remember this.... fj's attitude, and IQ.

My IQ huh? Considering that I was right and you were running around with your hair on fire. :slap:

[fj1200]

I think the fears were warranted, based on Feinstein's and other top Democrats words. With that said, I'm not sure how far he overreached, if at all. I don't think the ban will pass Congress, and a bill was likely to be presented regardless.

I don't think so given the limitations of an EO. I haven't seen an indepth listing of everything he mentioned but it appears he merely kicks it to Congress so he can sit back and demonize.

[jimnyc]

I don't think so given the limitations of an EO. I haven't seen an indepth listing of everything he mentioned but it appears he merely kicks it to Congress so he can sit back and demonize.

Well, granted an overreaching order might be struck down by the courts, but I meant the fear of Obama trying. I'm actually surprised that he didn't try to enforce without congressional approval, he's certainly got a history of sidestepping them.

[jimnyc]

Why is it that when we now go to federal buildings, there are Xray machines, metal detectors and armed guards? Is this to protect the government workers?

[revelarts]

Why is it that when we now go to federal buildings, there are Xray machines, metal detectors and armed guards? Is this to protect the government workers?

Its to make sure your not carrying an AR15 rifle Jim.

[jimnyc]

Its to make sure your not carrying an AR15 rifle Jim.

:lol:

Of course they are there to protect lives, the lives of the government workers. It's all over the place. But for "the people", the kids, no can do!

[Abbey Marie]

Its to make sure your not carrying an AR15 rifle Jim.

I was going to say, to make sure you aren't carrying a Bible. ;)

[gabosaurus]

Let me get this right -- some loony legislator from Texas (of course) wants to impeach Obama for wanting gun control?
Considering neither Clinton or Dubya were impeached for outright lying in office, I would call this a long shot. :rolleyes:

[jimnyc]

Let me get this right -- some loony legislator from Texas (of course) wants to impeach Obama for wanting gun control?
Considering neither Clinton or Dubya were impeached for outright lying in office, I would call this a long shot. :rolleyes:

Clinton WAS impeached, but maybe not for lying as we discussed, but for perjury. And the threat of impeachment would have been if he trampled on the 2nd aka confiscation or an executive order ban. Neither seems to have happened and I'm confident he won't be bringing proceedings against Obama. I'm sure you will see lots of fighting from Republicans and the NRA though.

[Abbey Marie]

Let me get this right -- some loony legislator from Texas (of course) wants to impeach Obama for wanting gun control?
Considering neither Clinton or Dubya were impeached for outright lying in office, I would call this a long shot. :rolleyes:

Pun intended? ;)

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Why is it that when we now go to federal buildings, there are Xray machines, metal detectors and armed guards? Is this to protect the government workers?

The elitists will have their protection. You peasants need none. Your lives are both meaningless and worthless.
Your kids lives are as well. So sayeth dear leader his majesty obama. Get used to it.
In fact, how dare you protest , didnt you see those little children on stage today? --Tyr

[fj1200]

Pun intended? ;)

Perhaps you thought you were here (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?38710-California-science-teacher-fired-porn-star)?

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/icons/icon1.png

http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by jimnyc http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=607082#post607082)
I'm not getting involved in the AR15 thing anymore, Marcus - or should I call you "James Holmes"? You're in good company though, as Darin's new name is "Adam Lanza". And coming in 3rd and 4th is aboutime and Kathianne, otherwise known as "Eric Harris & Dylan Klebold". Tyr doesn't get a photo, only the reputation of having shot his sister and 4 firemen.

http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthre...192#post606192 (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?38637-Men-armed-with-assault-rifles-walk-through-Portland&p=606192#post606192)

This of course is followed by a bunch of cartoons and such meant to poke fun of and vilify those who simply speak up in defense of certain guns and the 2nd amendment.








This after my having went out of my way to be nice to the accuser!!
Somebody either "lost it" or else never had it to start with IMHO!! I AM GREATLY DISAPPOINTED BUT SUCH IS LIFE.
I WILL COMMENT MORE ABOUT THIS LATER BECAUSE I HAVE TO GO NOW.--Tyr

Yep, that's me. A raving loon just looking to off my family members and people I do not even know!
I am disappointed that my civility towards mundane was treated in this manner. Live and learn as they say.
Somebody sure wants me to break my New Tear's resolution early..-;)
I'll pass on that at this time while reserving my right to blast back later if need should arrive.-Tyr

[Abbey Marie]

Perhaps you thought you were here (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?38710-California-science-teacher-fired-porn-star)?

I have to confess, I don't get the joke. :confused:

[aboutime]

Clinton WAS impeached, but maybe not for lying as we discussed, but for perjury. And the threat of impeachment would have been if he trampled on the 2nd aka confiscation or an executive order ban. Neither seems to have happened and I'm confident he won't be bringing proceedings against Obama. I'm sure you will see lots of fighting from Republicans and the NRA though.


jimnyc. Gabby wasn't aware of what happened to Clinton. It wasn't something she bothered to investigate BEFORE coming here to prove her endless educational challenges haven't changed...even after her NEW YEARS Resolution to THINK before speaking.

[red states rule]

Let me get this right -- some loony legislator from Texas (of course) wants to impeach Obama for wanting gun control?
Considering neither Clinton or Dubya were impeached for outright lying in office, I would call this a long shot. :rolleyes:

http://media.townhall.com/Townhall/Car/b/lb0115cd20130114104610.jpg