And Obama's trying to write executive orders for ridiculous gun control. It sounds to me like they're both bad.
English
-
Like Max said, none of Obama's 23 intentions have anything to do with executive orders for ridiculous gun control. To say so is false.
-
How many times do people need to be told that precisely ZERO of his 23 points in the executive order pertained to the regulation or ban of firearms, magazines, or ammunition?
-
Edited by Quantum: 1/17/2013 3:56:01 AMExecutive orders are nothing new. Gun control being bad is also your opinion. Also, Americans don't actually seem to know what "ridiculous" gun control is. Have you guys like ever been in any other Western country? (Barring a few exceptions)
-
Many Americans haven't been to the UK.
-
And anything supporting/opposing DOMA would be opinion, too. What's your point?
-
Point is: don't label someone as bad because he is using the power given to him legally, i.e executive order, something which basically all presidents like using. Whether or not you agree with the concept of the EO is a different story.
-
No, the point is that he shouldn't be writing an executive order that directly infringes on the Constitution. He doesn't have that power, regardless of whether you agree with him or not. And that's the problem, first and foremost.
-
Edited by Quantum: 1/17/2013 4:12:59 AMElaborate on what is directly infringing on the Constitution. [b]Also, the constitution can be changed.[/b] The 2nd amendment is outdated, it was created a time where the bloody revolver didn't exist, let alone larger magazines, machine guns, assault rifles etc. To think that any move towards stricter gun control laws is breaking the 2nd amendment is fallacy. While pistols, shotguns and hunting rifles will come under it, that doesn't mean you can use everything in the military arsenal. Limiting magazine size to 10 rounds and banning the sale of certain assault weapons does not infringe on someone's right to bear arms, lest you think that everyone should have the right to bear RPG's and anti-aircraft batteries. That's arbitrarily drawing a line at where you think the 2nd amendment is infringed.
-
do you even bother to attempt to research what you're talking about?
-
Do you even bother to understand the concept and position of the original 2nd amendment?
-
The second amendment was created back when literally everyone and their grandmother had a musket. Right now, I'm sure that the second amendment doesn't apply to it since not every 300 million Americans own a gun.
-
No, [b]you[/b] are arbitrarily drawing a line where you think the 2nd Amendment is infringed. You're trying to tell me that some weapons are alright, and others aren't. It's "outdated-ness" is purely subjective, so you can take that remove it from the debate. Obama's using power that he doesn't have to infringe on the Constitution. Whether it should remain in the Constitution or not is an entirely different debate. All I'm saying is that our dumbass president is stepping out of his boundaries, and that's a fact.
-
Actually, no I am not, I am putting myself in a position similar to the Clinton administration. FYI, the Supreme court did not blow up the gun control attempts back then, they won't do it now. I am saying that weapons somewhat similar to those back in the early 1800's are the ones that are the most likely to come under the 2nd amendment. I'm not arbitrarily drawing a line, you are. Once again, the 2nd amendment can be changed.
-
The Second Amendment -- the right to bear arms. It's not anyone's place to take away what guns we can and can't have, let alone the ammunition and such. And that's besides the fact that one man is taking that power onto himself, as he knows the House wouldn't ever consider doing such a thing.
-
Please read the entire thing, other than "right to bear arms". And try to interpret it in 18th century, not 21st. "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Let's try to make it a bit simpler. "A well regulated defense force , being necessary to a free country, the right for the people to defend their country with weapons will not be infringed." There, I turned an 18th century phrase into something that's more accurate for the 21st century. The second amendment was NEVER made for people to feel entitled to their guns. It was created so people could DEFEND THEIR COUNTRY from threats.
-
Everything you just said plays into the argument against gun control. Making these kinds of laws (and executive orders) directly infringes on weapon rights.
-
There's gun control we have now, then Obama's policy, then heavy gun restriction, then outright ban. The second amendment was about defending the country with weaponry against a force threatening it. In this case, everyone is fighting with themselves. No one is going to rise up and make a force to kill Obama. Think about the 18th century. Everyone had a weapon that they used for survival. That was the main point of the second amendment: You can have a weapon to help yourself survive. It was never about, "You can own a gun to do whatever the hell you want with it, kill someone? We don't care. Shoot game? We don't care." It was all about defending the country. I read it from left to right and I don't selective screen.
-
I'm pretty sure that the NRA isn't supporting the right to kill someone. So I'm going to slowly back out of this thread with whatever respect I still have for you, since you clearly don't get why so many people are against this shit.
-
I already know why people think they're against the gun control. We already had something similar like this happen and it seems like no one cares after 3 or 4 months. Remember what happened with Obamacare? No one cares about it anymore, now they're ranting about gun rights. That's how life is. People forget.
-
You stupid muppet, how many times do you need to be told that the Executive Orders do not in anyway ban weapons and are not laws.
-
[quote]It's not anyone's place to take away what guns we can and can't have[/quote]Good news. Nobody's doing that.
-
Pretty much this. I don't see how people manage to make "Gun Regulation" into "Gun Ban".
-
because you don't know the meaning of the word "reasonable" or "compromise". you don't know about the subject at hand or laws already on the books, so you can't possibly understand the position of your opposition in the debate. and because said regulation actually does amount to a Freaking ban(s). you're not even paying attention to what you're even supporting. why do you support anything against assault weapons? they're semi-automatics that a politician thinks looks scary. and let me clarify:semi-auto means single shot per single trigger pull.