PDA

View Full Version : Obama To Unveil Gun Control Reforms In Near Future


BMartin1776
07-08-2011, 12:18 AM
As you know the real reason behind fast and furious operation was to go after the 2nd amend with "legit" reasons. The stats from 08, 09 about US guns going to Mexico was a farce, so FF operation was created to make them real. You can be sure of it regardless of what comes out of DOJ and ATF. Obama wants to reign in guns. Obviously it has backfired now the HuffPo has this piece out, where you can be sure he will bypass Congress and issue executive orders. Remember what he told a gun control group about operating below the radar! That was the FF Op so now it must be a direct assault on guns!

Emperor Obama has drawn a line in the sand.

Obama To Unveil Gun Control Reforms In Near Future (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/07/obama-unveil-gun-control-reforms_n_892633.html)

oni.dori
07-08-2011, 12:25 AM
How on earth is HE allowed to do that?

CalBear
07-08-2011, 12:26 AM
Sounds like the end result of the meetings isn't going to amount to much. The article says he isn't even going to try to introduce legislation -- only executive and administrative orders. He will probably just direct the department of justice to do more in the way of disarming prohibited persons, improving the NICS system, etc. It'll have to relate to existing laws.

DannyInSoCal
07-08-2011, 12:28 AM
Whatever Soros wants - Soros gets...

Krak
07-08-2011, 12:43 AM
Whatever Soros wants - Soros gets...

Here's my theory on the Soros game-plan. Or at least what it was, I'm sure things have changed with the McDonald v. Chicago decision and the Fast and Furious scandal. :TFH:

- Run a gun smuggling program to increase the amount of guns in Mexico, have them traced back to the U.S.
- Push new legislation forcing states to enforce international treaties. The execution of Humberto Leal Garcia, Jr. brought this legislation forward. Never let a good tragedy go to waste.
- Sign the International Arms Trade Treaty, which will easily be ratified due to all of the reports coming in saying that drug cartels are receiving most of their guns from U.S. gun stores.
- The International Arms Trade Treaty, through the new legislation, prohibits the sale of firearms in the states and calls for the disarmament of the public, essentially killing the second amendment.

Soros and Obama weren't expecting the McDonald v. Chicago decision, neither were they expecting operation Fast and Furious to fall apart the way it did. Now they are switching to plan B.

kemikalembalance
07-08-2011, 2:01 AM
my apologies in advance to the forum and the moderators if my question causes any conflict. i will not be offended if it is removed.

Im sure that the president does not watch the news or read every article. im sure he doesnt watch you tube or read opinion based emails. But there is no way in hell that he could be so sheltered by his advisors that he wouldnt see the outcome of those decisions. im am not a fan of his policies. but i cant see someone being so naive to the reality. maybe im giving more credit than is deserved, i may be criticized for this, but im not seeing it. im not a fan of section 8, but if i was elected to run this state, i know for a fact that i couldnt cut it in half, or let alone, all together. there would be rots on a mass scale, and it would destroy the market. so again, the question, even with the UN backing it, HOW COULD HE THINK HE COULD PULL IT OFF?

Anchors
07-08-2011, 3:23 AM
He really doesn't want to be reelected does he?
When you just don't say anything about guns, the gun folks don't care and the antis don't care.
When you oppose guns, the gun folks will not reelect you and the antis will.
The gun folks outnumber the antis in size and campaign money several times over.

For those not worried about this...executive orders have been greatly abused in the past and Obama is no stranger to defying law, judges, congress, and the Constitution.
I am really worried about what he is cooking up...

Seeker
07-08-2011, 3:40 AM
I am really worried about what he is cooking up...

Yeah me too. We need to vote this SOB out of office ASAP!:26:

Slim///
07-08-2011, 4:42 AM
Here we go...

I think I lost some IQ points reading the comments in that link

Cobrafreak
07-08-2011, 5:06 AM
Don't worry about Obama as much as who He puts on SCOTUS.

grommit666
07-08-2011, 8:38 AM
:sleep1:
I swear something like this comes up every week or two. These conspiracy theories would be funny if the people spouting them weren't so serious. Take a deep breath. The second amendment is a very high bar to jump now, thanks to Heller/McDonald.

Goosebrown
07-08-2011, 9:16 AM
Don't worry too much about the treaty. It would cause some problems perhaps in getting foreign arms or part kits, but it will not disarm the US. The Constitutional protections over ride treaty obligations. See Reid v. Covert.

Anyway, it won't pass the senate if provided for ratification any more then Kyoto or the Rome Treaty would.

SDS-Ruger
07-08-2011, 10:25 AM
I don't have anything to worry about due to a recent boating accident. :laugh:

blazeaglory
07-08-2011, 10:39 AM
Executive orders are meant for inside government, NOT to strip us of our rights. An executive order will only force certain administrations and agencies to follow certain orders, or so it should be. An executive order cannot override a law in regards to the public. That is what an executive order should be anyways but I am holding my breath to see what obama has in store.

stitchnicklas
07-08-2011, 11:09 AM
all was lost in the fishing trip is all i will say........

Bigtime1
07-08-2011, 11:14 AM
If Barry wants my guns, he can come try to get them.

Spanky8601
07-08-2011, 11:44 AM
my apologies in advance to the forum and the moderators if my question causes any conflict. i will not be offended if it is removed.

Im sure that the president does not watch the news or read every article. im sure he doesnt watch you tube or read opinion based emails. But there is no way in hell that he could be so sheltered by his advisors that he wouldnt see the outcome of those decisions. im am not a fan of his policies. but i cant see someone being so naive to the reality. maybe im giving more credit than is deserved, i may be criticized for this, but im not seeing it. im not a fan of section 8, but if i was elected to run this state, i know for a fact that i couldnt cut it in half, or let alone, all together. there would be rots on a mass scale, and it would destroy the market. so again, the question, even with the UN backing it, HOW COULD HE THINK HE COULD PULL IT OFF?

To be a politician at this level you have incredible arrogance otherwise you would never make it. That is why he is not sheltered from the results, he firmly believes everyone else is wrong and he is correct. :cool2:

Wernher von Browning
07-08-2011, 11:57 AM
If Barry wants my guns, he can come try to get them.

Just don't be anywhere near "Wash" when They come to get him.

:7:

dustoff31
07-08-2011, 12:03 PM
Executive orders are meant for inside government, NOT to strip us of our rights. An executive order will only force certain administrations and agencies to follow certain orders, or so it should be. An executive order cannot override a law in regards to the public. That is what an executive order should be anyways but I am holding my breath to see what obama has in store.

Well, that's the way it's supposed to work. But then, we also know that no matter what the law says, nothing is really legal or illegal, or constitutional or unconstitutional until some court says it is.

If anyone believes that some within the government would not use an executive order as carte blanche to ignore the laws, I invite their attention to Operation Gun Walker.

This operation was carried out ostensibly without any authorization. It's not difficult to forsee what those same people would do with written "authorization" in hand.

ccmc
07-08-2011, 12:03 PM
Don't worry about Obama as much as who He puts on SCOTUS.

That's exactly right. Heller and McDonald were 5-4 with all five majority votes from justices appointed by republican presidents. Scalia's 76, and once you get to that age anything can happen healthwise. All it takes is one more Obama appointee to replace one of the five, and all the cases people in states like CA, MD, etc are hoping SCOTUS will take don't look so good all of a sudden.

BigDogatPlay
07-08-2011, 12:10 PM
While it's easy to dismiss all this as just more FUD, there is a fairly serious media campaign beginning to build around this. And I think we have a pretty good idea how a majority of the media in this country feel about the President and the 'progressive' agenda, don't we?

My expectation is an EO requiring all transfers of any kind to be run through NICS. That is the horsebleep "gun show loophole" that the Bloomberg crowd (among others) keeps asking for. And I would wager that the Obama / Holder led USDoJ thinks they can ram that through and look like they've done something. And it's quite possible it could pass the smell test as "reasonable regulation".

I'm also expecting some additional attempts, either through EO or regulation, to make things harder for FFLs to stay compliant. Given the harsh glare being cast onto BATFE right now, the EO route is (I think) more likely.

Nothing they want in this vein will get through Congress. There are not near enough votes in either house to make that happen so all they are left with is EO and regulation.

DocSkinner
07-08-2011, 12:18 PM
This is Obama playing the middle - TO get re-elected.

I don't understand how all the pro 2A people on here that didn't vote for him and still won't vote for him don't understand that if they didn't prevent him getting elected in the first place, they sure as heck aren't going to prevent him getting RE-elected.

The MIDDLE swing votes get politicians elected (something the NRA and all pro 2A people and organization need to take to heart).

He could do some very pissy things with executive orders and the background check system. The article says the effort is to make it more fool proof. So, purely in the name of safety, and keeping firearms out of the hands of dangerous people, some tiny changes will have to be made:

So require a thorough search of all applicants mental history. Regretfully that will take days and weeks to insure that people with mental health issues or PENDING restraining orders, etc don't get firearms. (read: the new wait period).

Holding background checks for 30 days to insure mentally ill or those about to get restraining orders can't rush out and purchase firearms and that 'in process' paper work has a chance to be entered into the system. (read: the new waiting period.)

Background checks for purchasing those dangerous types of magazines. (read: high cap ban.)

Allowing only 1 background check on 1 firearm to be being conducted at the same time by any individual to prevent potential 'dangerous people" from stocking up on firearms. (read: A national 1 gun a month policy.)

Increased level of background checks on certain types of weapons that are "more dangerous".

Or now with raids like our own Kamela's, push the issue of maintaining the records of all checks for emergency purposes and to be able to get guns out of people's hand that BECOME dangerous. (Read: national firearms registry)


There is a ton of stuff he can do with this.

And this is exactly why the NRA should have had a rep there when they were cooking up all this crap we will be seeing. I can't imagine our gov't turning down an op to have a person in the room where terrorists are planning actions, but the NRA got holier-than-thou and did exactly that. A HUGE strategic & tactical error. But hey - they made their hard core supporters happy. Too bad that small group isn't enough to change who gets elected president, or who gets elected to high level state positions in states like NY and CA.

Krak
07-08-2011, 12:29 PM
Don't worry too much about the treaty. It would cause some problems perhaps in getting foreign arms or part kits, but it will not disarm the US. The Constitutional protections over ride treaty obligations. See Reid v. Covert.

Anyway, it won't pass the senate if provided for ratification any more then Kyoto or the Rome Treaty would.

You're right, because of the McDonald decision we don't have to worry. If we didn't have the McDonald decision we would be worried, very worried. Before McDonald, the second amendment only applied to the federal government and not the states. The treaty could very well have bypassed the constitution by requiring the states to enforce it on the state level. I'm not worried about the treaty, that's just my idea on what the original plan was.

BigDogatPlay
07-08-2011, 12:35 PM
The treaty could very well have bypassed the constitution by requiring the states to enforce it on the state level.

Except that the states can not enter into treaties with foreign governments. That power is reserved to the federal government. If the feds didn't enter into the treaty I can't see how it could ever be made operative against the individual states.

chiselchst
07-08-2011, 1:20 PM
While it's easy to dismiss all this as just more FUD, there is a fairly serious media campaign beginning to build around this. And I think we have a pretty good idea how a majority of the media in this country feel about the President and the 'progressive' agenda, don't we?

My expectation is an EO requiring all transfers of any kind to be run through NICS. That is the horsebleep "gun show loophole" that the Bloomberg crowd (among others) keeps asking for. And I would wager that the Obama / Holder led USDoJ thinks they can ram that through and look like they've done something. And it's quite possible it could pass the smell test as "reasonable regulation".

I'm also expecting some additional attempts, either through EO or regulation, to make things harder for FFLs to stay compliant. Given the harsh glare being cast onto BATFE right now, the EO route is (I think) more likely.

Nothing they want in this vein will get through Congress. There are not near enough votes in either house to make that happen so all they are left with is EO and regulation.

BigDog,

I so hope you're right!

I love this "code-speak" for trying to make firearm purchases/transfers so complex or difficult, it'll acheive their goal:

"The president directed the Attorney General to form working groups with key stakeholders to identify common sense measures that would improve American safety and security while fully respecting Second Amendment rights," Carney said at Thursday's briefing. "That process is well underway at the Department of Justice with stakeholders on all sides working through these complex issues and we expect to have more specific announcements in the near future."

"...with stakeholders on all sides..." Hah?

Right...to make us safer.

Wernher von Browning
07-08-2011, 1:36 PM
"...with stakeholders on all sides..." Hah?



http://www.undeadlegacy.com/wp-content/uploads/3426494560_6c2bfdfd3a_o-337x450.jpg

donw
07-08-2011, 1:39 PM
i heard on Rush Limbaugh today that "Fast and Furious" cost the taxpayers $56,000,000.00 of the stimulus money, as posted on justice.com on page 96...:cuss::helpsmilie:

Wherryj
07-08-2011, 1:41 PM
I don't have anything to worry about due to a recent boating accident. :laugh:

I was there, so I can vouch for it...along with the other thousand or so CalGunners who went along for that three hour tour.

Krak
07-08-2011, 1:46 PM
Except that the states can not enter into treaties with foreign governments. That power is reserved to the federal government. If the feds didn't enter into the treaty I can't see how it could ever be made operative against the individual states.

Obama is trying to get new legislation passed that would require states to enforce international treaties because of the Humberto Leal Garcia execution in Texas.\

Edit: So in essence, the states themselves would not be entering into the treaty but they would be required to enforce it, bypassing the constitution.

GrayWolf09
07-08-2011, 3:27 PM
Whatever Soros wants - Soros gets...

Here's my theory on the Soros game-plan. Or at least what it was, I'm sure things have changed with the McDonald v. Chicago decision and the Fast and Furious scandal. :TFH:

- Run a gun smuggling program to increase the amount of guns in Mexico, have them traced back to the U.S.
- Push new legislation forcing states to enforce international treaties. The execution of Humberto Leal Garcia, Jr. brought this legislation forward. Never let a good tragedy go to waste.
- Sign the International Arms Trade Treaty, which will easily be ratified due to all of the reports coming in saying that drug cartels are receiving most of their guns from U.S. gun stores.
- The International Arms Trade Treaty, through the new legislation, prohibits the sale of firearms in the states and calls for the disarmament of the public, essentially killing the second amendment.

Soros and Obama weren't expecting the McDonald v. Chicago decision, neither were they expecting operation Fast and Furious to fall apart the way it did. Now they are switching to plan B.

I just check my closet and under my bed every night. As long as it's the Koch brothers, I know I am safe, but if it is George Soros, I call Glenn Beck.:TFH:

i heard on Rush Limbaugh today that "Fast and Furious" cost the taxpayers $56,000,000.00 of the stimulus money, as posted on justice.com on page 96...:cuss::helpsmilie:

Straight from the horses ***. Rush is right maybe 5 or 10% of the time.

GrayWolf09
07-08-2011, 3:29 PM
This is Obama playing the middle - TO get re-elected.

I don't understand how all the pro 2A people on here that didn't vote for him and still won't vote for him don't understand that if they didn't prevent him getting elected in the first place, they sure as heck aren't going to prevent him getting RE-elected.

The MIDDLE swing votes get politicians elected (something the NRA and all pro 2A people and organization need to take to heart).

He could do some very pissy things with executive orders and the background check system. The article says the effort is to make it more fool proof. So, purely in the name of safety, and keeping firearms out of the hands of dangerous people, some tiny changes will have to be made:

So require a thorough search of all applicants mental history. Regretfully that will take days and weeks to insure that people with mental health issues or PENDING restraining orders, etc don't get firearms. (read: the new wait period).

Holding background checks for 30 days to insure mentally ill or those about to get restraining orders can't rush out and purchase firearms and that 'in process' paper work has a chance to be entered into the system. (read: the new waiting period.)

Background checks for purchasing those dangerous types of magazines. (read: high cap ban.)

Allowing only 1 background check on 1 firearm to be being conducted at the same time by any individual to prevent potential 'dangerous people" from stocking up on firearms. (read: A national 1 gun a month policy.)

Increased level of background checks on certain types of weapons that are "more dangerous".

Or now with raids like our own Kamela's, push the issue of maintaining the records of all checks for emergency purposes and to be able to get guns out of people's hand that BECOME dangerous. (Read: national firearms registry)


There is a ton of stuff he can do with this.

And this is exactly why the NRA should have had a rep there when they were cooking up all this crap we will be seeing. I can't imagine our gov't turning down an op to have a person in the room where terrorists are planning actions, but the NRA got holier-than-thou and did exactly that. A HUGE strategic & tactical error. But hey - they made their hard core supporters happy. Too bad that small group isn't enough to change who gets elected president, or who gets elected to high level state positions in states like NY and CA.

Makes entirely too much sense. Not nearly paranoid enough. You won't last long on Calguns. Besides you don't have any of those cute little nicknames for President Obama.

MolonLabe2008
07-08-2011, 3:51 PM
Who needs legislation when you got executive orders at your disposal.

MolonLabe2008
07-08-2011, 3:54 PM
:sleep1:
I swear something like this comes up every week or two. These conspiracy theories would be funny if the people spouting them weren't so serious. Take a deep breath. The second amendment is a very high bar to jump now, thanks to Heller/McDonald.

5-4 decisions.

If Obama gets another anti to add to the two he already appointed, then what?

ElvenSoul
07-08-2011, 3:57 PM
No way Obama Loves Guns that is why he has like six wars going on....he just doesn't want you to have fun too.

SDS-Ruger
07-08-2011, 4:20 PM
^:rofl:

HondaMasterTech
07-08-2011, 4:26 PM
This maniacs fantasy is destroying the lives of Americans every day.

ccmc
07-08-2011, 4:54 PM
This is Obama playing the middle - TO get re-elected.

I don't understand how all the pro 2A people on here that didn't vote for him and still won't vote for him don't understand that if they didn't prevent him getting elected in the first place, they sure as heck aren't going to prevent him getting RE-elected.

The MIDDLE swing votes get politicians elected (something the NRA and all pro 2A people and organization need to take to heart).

He could do some very pissy things with executive orders and the background check system. The article says the effort is to make it more fool proof. So, purely in the name of safety, and keeping firearms out of the hands of dangerous people, some tiny changes will have to be made:

So require a thorough search of all applicants mental history. Regretfully that will take days and weeks to insure that people with mental health issues or PENDING restraining orders, etc don't get firearms. (read: the new wait period).

Holding background checks for 30 days to insure mentally ill or those about to get restraining orders can't rush out and purchase firearms and that 'in process' paper work has a chance to be entered into the system. (read: the new waiting period.)

Background checks for purchasing those dangerous types of magazines. (read: high cap ban.)

Allowing only 1 background check on 1 firearm to be being conducted at the same time by any individual to prevent potential 'dangerous people" from stocking up on firearms. (read: A national 1 gun a month policy.)

Increased level of background checks on certain types of weapons that are "more dangerous".

Or now with raids like our own Kamela's, push the issue of maintaining the records of all checks for emergency purposes and to be able to get guns out of people's hand that BECOME dangerous. (Read: national firearms registry)


There is a ton of stuff he can do with this.

And this is exactly why the NRA should have had a rep there when they were cooking up all this crap we will be seeing. I can't imagine our gov't turning down an op to have a person in the room where terrorists are planning actions, but the NRA got holier-than-thou and did exactly that. A HUGE strategic & tactical error. But hey - they made their hard core supporters happy. Too bad that small group isn't enough to change who gets elected president, or who gets elected to high level state positions in states like NY and CA.

Nope. A good economy will ensure his re-election, and that's what he's failed miserably at. Since pro 2A people supposedly come in all political persuasions (or is that just a California thing?) none of this posturing would amount to a hill of beans on that issue alone.

I also disagree with your take on the NRA meeting with Obama. Would have been a waste of time IMHO. And as I mentioned above all he needs is one more SCOTUS nominee.

frankm
07-08-2011, 4:58 PM
all was lost in the fishing trip is all i will say........

Do not, repeat, DO NOT, keep all your guns in one place. I don't care if you have to bury one in the desert and one in the mountains.

BigDogatPlay
07-08-2011, 5:09 PM
Obama is trying to get new legislation passed that would require states to enforce international treaties because of the Humberto Leal Garcia execution in Texas.\

Edit: So in essence, the states themselves would not be entering into the treaty but they would be required to enforce it, bypassing the constitution.

And the primacy of the state of Texas to administer justice within it's own territory, concerning crimes covered under state law, is still paramount. The Supreme Court essentially said that in 2004 when they spanked President Bush for trying to force Texas to comply with a ruling by the International Court of Justice concerning Humberto Leal Garcia and 50 other foreign nationals sitting on death rows in the US for crimes committed here. Bush was told by the court that he was overstepping and that the states have the right to administer justice in accordance with their own laws without outside interference from entities without jurisdiction.

The huffing and puffing over Humberto Leal Garcia, will blow over in a few days. The administration is doing anything it can relative to Mexico to divert attention from the ongoing civil war and the ongoing and illegal invasion of our country by Mexican citizens. This posturing is about politics and nothing more. What, after all, was the Mexican consul going to do for Mr. Garcia? Bring him extra hot sauce for his last meal?

After all, if Mr. Garcia were so concerned about his rights as a citizen of Mexico he wouldn't have committed the rape and murder of a young girl in Texas, would he? And heaven knows how many other serious crimes that he alluded to in his final statement before assuming room temperature.

The War Wagon
07-08-2011, 5:19 PM
Banning the BATmen and dismantling the BATcave (BATFE) would seem the FIRST rule of order, since our Border Patrol is MOST threatened by THEIR guns. :mad:

Quser.619
07-08-2011, 5:37 PM
Given this Administration's propensity to ignore the Constitution or Federal Law when convenient for them - Healthcare mandate, wars in Libya, Somalia, etc, Operation Gun Runner & Project Fast & Furious, fund raisers in the White House, bypassing Congress & appointing Czars to handle traditional Cabinet positions - I can't say I find it too much of a stretch that they'll back-door further Gun Control. After all, Daley is his Chief of Staff. Can anyone name any pro 2A members of his staff or Cabinet?

supersonic
07-08-2011, 5:47 PM
If citizen disarmament actually became reality, I think most gun owners would just deny ownership of their (well-stashed away) weapons, and simply claim that anything registered (AW's, Handguns) were recently stolen. PROVE otherwise, Mr. National Guardsman at my door!!! I imagine that I know at least one person that would do this.;)

Kid Stanislaus
07-08-2011, 6:08 PM
If he actually tries this he'll run into a buzz saw and the last nail in the coffin holding his re-election hopes with be driven home.

Aegis
07-08-2011, 6:21 PM
With a U6 unemployment rate near 20%, Obama has too many economic issues to try this kind of stuff.

mag360
07-08-2011, 6:31 PM
If citizen disarmament actually became reality, I think most gun owners would just deny ownership of their (well-stashed away) weapons, and simply claim that anything registered (AW's, Handguns) were recently stolen. PROVE otherwise, Mr. National Guardsman at my door!!! I imagine that I know at least one person that would do this.;)

nope, no guns, just this here chain saw.

Cobrafreak
07-08-2011, 6:33 PM
Considering the fire that is just beginning to start breathing down their backs over Gunrunner I don't see what he can do.

Tarn_Helm
07-08-2011, 6:54 PM
BigDog,

I so hope you're right!

I love this "code-speak" for trying to make firearm purchases/transfers so complex or difficult, it'll acheive their goal:

"The president directed the Attorney General to form working groups with key stakeholders to identify common sense measures that would improve American safety and security while fully respecting Second Amendment rights," Carney said at Thursday's briefing. "That process is well underway at the Department of Justice with stakeholders on all sides working through these complex issues and we expect to have more specific announcements in the near future."

"...with stakeholders on all sides..." Hah?

Right...to make us safer.

I really hate it when I am referred to as a "stakeholder" instead of a citizen.
:mad:

All of these little verbal sidesteps are intentional moves to put on us slippery slopes of various sorts.

Every normal man must be tempted, at times, to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats.
~H. L. Mencken
:chris:

Anchors
07-08-2011, 7:06 PM
Executive orders are meant for inside government, NOT to strip us of our rights. An executive order will only force certain administrations and agencies to follow certain orders, or so it should be. An executive order cannot override a law in regards to the public. That is what an executive order should be anyways but I am holding my breath to see what obama has in store.

Yeah...like this one, right?
Executive Order 9066 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_9066)

Makes entirely too much sense. Not nearly paranoid enough. You won't last long on Calguns. Besides you don't have any of those cute little nicknames for President Obama.

Are you saying you actually agree with those changes?
Because the person that posted it didn't say that he thought they were a good idea, just that that was what Obama was going to do...

oni.dori
07-08-2011, 7:07 PM
Banning the BATmen and dismantling the BATcave (BATFE) would seem the FIRST rule of order, since our Border Patrol is MOST threatened by THEIR guns. :mad:

I am quite sure if this is done (which really doesn't seem too far-fetched any more), it will be used as one of those things to distance his (quite obvious now) obvious (at LEAST) awareness of, and possible involvement in, said goings-on; and as a way to demonstrate his "outrage" at such "dispicable" errors in "judgement". More likely than that though, I would predict him stripping them of their "law enforcement" powers, and a severe "restructuring" across the entire Bureau.

Trailboss60
07-08-2011, 7:30 PM
This story shows the arrogance of this administration, as the public grows more and more comfortable with liberalizing gun laws, this smelly assed turd signals that he is going to strong arm the populace into his gun control scheme while his administration runs guns into Mexico as he tries to frame the gun store owner and armed citizen.

He needs to be a one term president.

oni.dori
07-08-2011, 7:37 PM
That very well COULD turn in to a good thing though. It very well could just backfire him, and turn the populace against him; causing these EO's to pass on, just like his tenure as POTUS.

blazeaglory
07-08-2011, 7:53 PM
Yeah...like this one, right?
Executive Order 9066 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_9066)





Yeah I understand what could happen but I cant believe you just compared this to Japanese interment during WW2. That was a different era and America wanted BLOOD.

This time its a skinny necked socialist out of the blue trying to steal our 2A rights.

How does that compare to Japanese internment?

If your trying to say that an executive order has the power to do anything the president wants, congress can over ride it when necessary. And dont quote Wikipedia and say "but they wont because ..."

I do agree with you though that an executive order has power. And I am holding my breath to see exactly what power that entails. Im guessing it will be something to the effect of forcing the states to perform stricter background checks and restrict mags and black rifles some way through stringent screening.

GrayWolf09
07-08-2011, 8:16 PM
Are you saying you actually agree with those changes? Because the person that posted it didn't say that he thought they were a good idea, just that that was what Obama was going to do...

No. I am not, but nice try. What I am saying is that I believe that the good Doctor has made a very reasoned analysis of the situation, far from the usual hysterical cries from the extreme right on this thread such as the President of the United States is going to assassinate a Justice of the United States Supreme Court or that George Soros issues orders to the President of the United States. Given the current composition of Congress, the chances of any restrictive gun legislation passing are none and none. There is a limited amount the President can do with executive orders and this President seems reluctant to use those especially where to do so would contravene the will of Congress as in the abolition of "Don't ask, don't tell". There may be some increased enforcement to strengthen the system of background checks to keep guns out of the hands of those who are prohibited from owning guns, which assuming it does not unduly burden legitimate gun owners is probably a good thing because then it may prevent another Gabrielle Giffords type high profile shooting which fuels the fires of those who would take away our 2nd Amendment rights.

bwiese
07-08-2011, 8:48 PM
No. I am not, but nice try. What I am saying is that I believe that the good Doctor has made a very reasoned analysis of the situation, far from the usual hysterical cries from the extreme right on this thread such as the President of the United States is going to assassinate a Justice of the United States Supreme Court or that George Soros issues orders to the President of the United States. Given the current composition of Congress, the chances of any restrictive gun legislation passing are none and none. There is a limited amount the President can do with executive orders and this President seems reluctant to use those especially where to do so would contravene the will of Congress as in the abolition of "Don't ask, don't tell". There may be some increased enforcement to strengthen the system of background checks to keep guns out of the hands of those who are prohibited from owning guns, which assuming it does not unduly burden legitimate gun owners is probably a good thing because then it may prevent another Gabrielle Giffords type high profile shooting which fuels the fires of those who would take away our 2nd Amendment rights.

That's a pretty theory, but...

- since BATF will end up the whipping boy instead of Holder for
FastNFurious, they'll be pushed/jumped to more aggressively
audit FFLs and increase the shutdowns for non-dotted-i's on
4473s.... "see, we're doing something right".

- more drama on gun parts import (easily EOable)

Krak
07-08-2011, 9:06 PM
And the primacy of the state of Texas to administer justice within it's own territory, concerning crimes covered under state law, is still paramount. The Supreme Court essentially said that in 2004 when they spanked President Bush for trying to force Texas to comply with a ruling by the International Court of Justice concerning Humberto Leal Garcia and 50 other foreign nationals sitting on death rows in the US for crimes committed here. Bush was told by the court that he was overstepping and that the states have the right to administer justice in accordance with their own laws without outside interference from entities without jurisdiction.

The huffing and puffing over Humberto Leal Garcia, will blow over in a few days. The administration is doing anything it can relative to Mexico to divert attention from the ongoing civil war and the ongoing and illegal invasion of our country by Mexican citizens. This posturing is about politics and nothing more. What, after all, was the Mexican consul going to do for Mr. Garcia? Bring him extra hot sauce for his last meal?

After all, if Mr. Garcia were so concerned about his rights as a citizen of Mexico he wouldn't have committed the rape and murder of a young girl in Texas, would he? And heaven knows how many other serious crimes that he alluded to in his final statement before assuming room temperature.

Not sure what the rant about the execution was for, I was all for his execution and agree that it wouldn't have mattered if he contacted Mexico or not.

What was bush trying do to in 2004? Can you cite the case please?

dustoff31
07-08-2011, 9:47 PM
Not sure what the rant about the execution was for, I was all for his execution and agree that it wouldn't have mattered if he contacted Mexico or not.

What was bush trying do to in 2004? Can you cite the case please?

In 2004, the International Court of Justice ruled that the US had to comply with the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations. In 2008, Bush attempted to stop an execution of a Mexican National in TX to comply with the treaty. Essentially the same circumstances as yesterday's execution. SCOTUS ruled:

From wikipedia:

Medellín v. Texas, 552 U.S. 491 (2008) is a United States Supreme Court decision which held that while an international treaty may constitute an international commitment, it is not binding domestic law unless Congress has enacted statutes implementing it or unless the treaty itself is "self-executing"; that decisions of the International Court of Justice are not binding domestic law; and that, absent an act of Congress or Constitutional authority, the President of the United States lacks the power to enforce international treaties or decisions of the International Court of Justice.

Trailboss60
07-08-2011, 10:00 PM
No. I am not, but nice try. What I am saying is that I believe that the good Doctor has made a very reasoned analysis of the situation, far from the usual hysterical cries from the extreme right on this thread such as the President of the United States is going to assassinate a Justice of the United States Supreme Court or that George Soros issues orders to the President of the United States. Given the current composition of Congress, the chances of any restrictive gun legislation passing are none and none. There is a limited amount the President can do with executive orders and this President seems reluctant to use those especially where to do so would contravene the will of Congress as in the abolition of "Don't ask, don't tell". There may be some increased enforcement to strengthen the system of background checks to keep guns out of the hands of those who are prohibited from owning guns, which assuming it does not unduly burden legitimate gun owners is probably a good thing because then it may prevent another Gabrielle Giffords type high profile shooting which fuels the fires of those who would take away our 2nd Amendment rights.

Sorry to bust your cheerleading bubble, but when Obama assumed office, questionnaires were sent out to staffers on whether or not prospective employees owned guns or not, his cabinet is loaded with anti-gunners, and his judicial appointments have been ardent anti-gunners, most notably Kagan and Soto-liar, His justice department has been running guns in order to frame gun store owners and gun show promoters, Obama previously headed up the Joyce foundation and the Brady chumps last week claimed that in their confidential meeting, Obama was working "under the radar" on gun control measures.

Other than all that, I agree with you, Obama is the friend of the gun owner...move over Charlton Heston!:rolleyes:

BigDogatPlay
07-08-2011, 10:00 PM
Not sure what the rant about the execution was for, I was all for his execution and agree that it wouldn't have mattered if he contacted Mexico or not.

You brought the execution into the discussion as part of your point that the President wanted to end run the constitution and force states to obey treaties with foreign powers. I took your post to be an argument in support of your point. I called shenanigans on your point, as the President, and his administration, is trying to meddle in matters that are not his concern. Just as President Bush did in similar circumstances a few years ago, only to be told to butt out by SCOTUS.

I would expect a similar ruling if the President tries to force this issue with another execution down the road. The long and the short is that I am pointing out the precedent which moots your point.

That said, you'll forgive my editorializing, but there is a special place in hell for people like Humberto. My hope is that Mr. Needle will help those like him to get there... the sooner the better.

What was bush trying do to in 2004? Can you cite the case please?

Thanks dustoff31 for the pick up.

GW
07-08-2011, 10:01 PM
Didn't Bush I sign an EO banning importation of Norinco made armaments?
Didn't Clinton sign some EO making that ban permanent? Executive Orders have been issued many times and often with little regard to the Constitution
Barry doesn't need congress' permission to enact his diktats. He thinks he can circumvent the Constitution at will.

Anchors
07-08-2011, 10:56 PM
Yeah I understand what could happen but I cant believe you just compared this to Japanese interment during WW2. That was a different era and America wanted BLOOD.

This time its a skinny necked socialist out of the blue trying to steal our 2A rights.

How does that compare to Japanese internment?

If your trying to say that an executive order has the power to do anything the president wants, congress can over ride it when necessary. And dont quote Wikipedia and say "but they wont because ..."

I do agree with you though that an executive order has power. And I am holding my breath to see exactly what power that entails. Im guessing it will be something to the effect of forcing the states to perform stricter background checks and restrict mags and black rifles some way through stringent screening.

Calm down. No I wasn't comparing Second Amendment rights to Japanese internment during World War II.
But I am illustrating that executive orders are very powerful and have been abused in the past without being challenged.
Obama himself has already openly defied a federal judge that told him he was violating the Constitution. He clearly doesn't care.

Executive orders were originally created to do things like procure supplies for the office, change the way communications worked within it, etc.
Not issue laws from the White House throne-room.

No. I am not, but nice try. What I am saying is that I believe that the good Doctor has made a very reasoned analysis of the situation, far from the usual hysterical cries from the extreme right on this thread such as the President of the United States is going to assassinate a Justice of the United States Supreme Court or that George Soros issues orders to the President of the United States. Given the current composition of Congress, the chances of any restrictive gun legislation passing are none and none. There is a limited amount the President can do with executive orders and this President seems reluctant to use those especially where to do so would contravene the will of Congress as in the abolition of "Don't ask, don't tell". There may be some increased enforcement to strengthen the system of background checks to keep guns out of the hands of those who are prohibited from owning guns, which assuming it does not unduly burden legitimate gun owners is probably a good thing because then it may prevent another Gabrielle Giffords type high profile shooting which fuels the fires of those who would take away our 2nd Amendment rights.

No sense in adding the "nice try". It isn't a game, I'm not trying to "catch you slipping up" or something. Just asking.

As far as your post. Backgrounds checks haven't done anything.
13 years and only 850,000 denials.
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/nics/reports/070511_denials.pdf

I've also read somewhere that many of these were overturned after the issues were cleared up (mistaken identity, rights restoration, etc).

That's a pretty theory, but...

- since BATF will end up the whipping boy instead of Holder for
FastNFurious, they'll be pushed/jumped to more aggressively
audit FFLs and increase the shutdowns for non-dotted-i's on
4473s.... "see, we're doing something right".

- more drama on gun parts import (easily EOable)

+1

Sorry to bust your cheerleading bubble, but when Obama assumed office, questionnaires were sent out to staffers on whether or not prospective employees owned guns or not, his cabinet is loaded with anti-gunners, and his judicial appointments have been ardent anti-gunners, most notably Kagan and Soto-liar, His justice department has been running guns in order to frame gun store owners and gun show promoters, Obama previously headed up the Joyce foundation and the Brady chumps last week claimed that in their confidential meeting, Obama was working "under the radar" on gun control measures.

Other than all that, I agree with you, Obama is the friend of the gun owner...move over Charlton Heston!:rolleyes:

+2

R8RRunner
07-08-2011, 11:18 PM
As with everything in the current administration I wouldn't put it past them to try to make it harder for law abiding citizens to own and or purchase firearms.

Its another one of those things we hope nothing will come of it but we need to keep the wool from being pulled over our eyes unlike many citizens who believe everything they are fed from the media. Ignorance is not bliss but some sure appear to prefer ignorance over being informed.

Krak
07-08-2011, 11:48 PM
You brought the execution into the discussion as part of your point that the President wanted to end run the constitution and force states to obey treaties with foreign powers. I took your post to be an argument in support of your point. I called shenanigans on your point, as the President, and his administration, is trying to meddle in matters that are not his concern. Just as President Bush did in similar circumstances a few years ago, only to be told to butt out by SCOTUS.

I would expect a similar ruling if the President tries to force this issue with another execution down the road. The long and the short is that I am pointing out the precedent which moots your point.

That said, you'll forgive my editorializing, but there is a special place in hell for people like Humberto. My hope is that Mr. Needle will help those like him to get there... the sooner the better.



Thanks dustoff31 for the pick up.

Right, I'm not arguing the fact that Obama tried to halt the execution through the Supreme Court. Nor am I stating that he wanted to "end the constitution" with that execution. What I'm saying is, using this execution as an excuse, Obama will try to push legislation through that will require states to enforce international treaties.


Medellín v. Texas, 552 U.S. 491 (2008) is a United States Supreme Court decision which held that while an international treaty may constitute an international commitment, it is not binding domestic law unless Congress has enacted statutes implementing it or unless the treaty itself is "self-executing"; that decisions of the International Court of Justice are not binding domestic law; and that, absent an act of Congress or Constitutional authority, the President of the United States lacks the power to enforce international treaties or decisions of the International Court of Justice.

I'm not a lawyer but it seems to me that if the second amendment was not incorporated, a law like that could bypass the second amendment. This is a moot point because the McDonald decision incorporated the second amendment making any law requiring states to enforce a treaty such as the Arms Trade Treaty, unconstitutional. Up until McDonald v. Chicago, the states did not have to abide by the second amendment. That is all I'm trying to say.

kemikalembalance
07-09-2011, 3:08 AM
On a side note:
I WOULD LIKE TO START UP A DONATION PLATE.
ALL DONATIONS GO TO THE "FAST TRACK TO THE OTHERSIDE" FOUNDATION IN THE TEXAS PRISON SYSTEMS!:cowboy::cheers2:
I know money is tight right now, but i wanna do my part as an American citizen and as a father of a little girl, by "offsetting" their costs. Thank you Texas, for making the United States just a little more safer for my daughter!

but back to the topic...

ive read all the posts so far, and as a new calgunner, (but not new to ownership), im seeing a steady decline in our freedoms, but no way back. if the antis cant take them
they regulate them
if we win that battle
the tax them
if we pay for them
they regulate the ammo
we still buy it

some nut case goes postal, they blame us all
we show them how a gun owner saves some one

its a cycle that will never break. i know that. and ill keep fighting to preserve our way of life. but help me out on this one...
THE ANTIS MAKE A LAW, THE PROS GO TO COURT, THE ANTIS LOOSE THE CASE, THE PRESIDENT SAYS "FU" ANYWAYS, AND MAKES A NEW RULE. WE TELL THE GUARDSMAN AT THE DOOR THEY GOT STOLEN, WE STILL LOST. UNLESS WE GET INVADED, WE CANT DIG THEM UP.
I know there is allot more to it than that, but if we win the law of the land, eventually, another anti gun president will find a loophole to jump in and try to ban them. so how do we guarantee the safety of our constitution? can we?

oni.dori
07-09-2011, 3:58 AM
I mean absolutely no offence when I say this kemikalembalance, but you just haven't been here long enough. I have been (steadily) lurking/posting on CG for just under a year now, and I once felt the same way you did. That is, until things started falling in to place. When I payed attention, I could pick up on a lot of the subtleties. After I started getting clarification through this board about current laws, I started putting the subtleties in place. Then slowly...things started happening. Small things at first, seemingly insignificant, miniscule things. Then, Heller vs. DC started to come in to play, and things started becoming more significant, and happened more often. Then, McDonald vs. Chicago. I mean THEN...things started to REALLY roll. It was like the CGF (along with the CRPA, SAF, & NRA) were Superman, singlehandedly stopping that out of control speeding train that no one EVER though would be slowed down. Then you know what they did? They turned that train RIGHT BACK AROUND on them. It was MARVELOUS! In all truth, the more time you spend here, the more it will become apparent to you as well. The more the pieces will fall in to place, and those beautiful light bulbs will start glowing their radiant light right above your head. You will see, and you will enjoy EVERY second of it. Because, if it can happen here, in California (of ALL places), it can surely happen just about anywhere. It's all such a beautiful thing my friend, enjoy the ride, we are part of history in the making!!!

Gem1950
07-09-2011, 8:41 AM
This is Obama playing the middle - TO get re-elected.

I don't understand how all the pro 2A people on here that didn't vote for him and still won't vote for him don't understand that if they didn't prevent him getting elected in the first place, they sure as heck aren't going to prevent him getting RE-elected.

The MIDDLE swing votes get politicians elected (something the NRA and all pro 2A people and organization need to take to heart).

He could do some very pissy things with executive orders and the background check system. The article says the effort is to make it more fool proof. So, purely in the name of safety, and keeping firearms out of the hands of dangerous people, some tiny changes will have to be made:

So require a thorough search of all applicants mental history. Regretfully that will take days and weeks to insure that people with mental health issues or PENDING restraining orders, etc don't get firearms. (read: the new wait period).

Holding background checks for 30 days to insure mentally ill or those about to get restraining orders can't rush out and purchase firearms and that 'in process' paper work has a chance to be entered into the system. (read: the new waiting period.)

Background checks for purchasing those dangerous types of magazines. (read: high cap ban.)

Allowing only 1 background check on 1 firearm to be being conducted at the same time by any individual to prevent potential 'dangerous people" from stocking up on firearms. (read: A national 1 gun a month policy.)

Increased level of background checks on certain types of weapons that are "more dangerous".

Or now with raids like our own Kamela's, push the issue of maintaining the records of all checks for emergency purposes and to be able to get guns out of people's hand that BECOME dangerous. (Read: national firearms registry)


There is a ton of stuff he can do with this.

And this is exactly why the NRA should have had a rep there when they were cooking up all this crap we will be seeing. I can't imagine our gov't turning down an op to have a person in the room where terrorists are planning actions, but the NRA got holier-than-thou and did exactly that. A HUGE strategic & tactical error. But hey - they made their hard core supporters happy. Too bad that small group isn't enough to change who gets elected president, or who gets elected to high level state positions in states like NY and CA.

OMG! Are you allowed to write such heresy on this site?

BigDogatPlay
07-09-2011, 10:14 AM
Right, I'm not arguing the fact that Obama tried to halt the execution through the Supreme Court. Nor am I stating that he wanted to "end the constitution" with that execution. What I'm saying is, using this execution as an excuse, Obama will try to push legislation through that will require states to enforce international treaties.

Which would require, IMO, a constitutional amendment. And amending the constitution requires 3/5 of the the states to ratify before it becomes effective. Given the bubbling undercurrent of state's rights, particularly out here in the west, do I think that such an amendment would be ratified by states against their own interests?

Not no, but hell no.

I'm not a lawyer but it seems to me that if the second amendment was not incorporated, a law like that could bypass the second amendment. This is a moot point because the McDonald decision incorporated the second amendment making any law requiring states to enforce a treaty such as the Arms Trade Treaty, unconstitutional. Up until McDonald v. Chicago, the states did not have to abide by the second amendment. That is all I'm trying to say.

Correct, but as you say the point is moot. So why go down the hypothetical you raised when it's already mooted by your own suggestion? We are past the point in time where such a law could bypass.

Not trying to pick a fight. Just saying. :)

scarville
07-09-2011, 10:56 AM
Legally, Obama is commander and chief of the Armed Forces and the Militia when actually called into service. So, what if he were to create a department within Homeland Security -- call it the Militia Readiness Assessment Project or somesuch -- which would have the mandate to evaluate and report on the state of readiness of the Militias in case any are called up. That would, at least, entail registration of any weapons appropriate to militia service.

frankm
07-09-2011, 11:06 AM
As with everything in the current administration I wouldn't put it past them to try to make it harder for law abiding citizens to own and or purchase firearms.


Couldn't they just shut down DROS?

blazeaglory
07-09-2011, 11:59 AM
Calm down. No I wasn't comparing Second Amendment rights to Japanese internment during World War II.
But I am illustrating that executive orders are very powerful and have been abused in the past without being challenged.
Obama himself has already openly defied a federal judge that told him he was violating the Constitution. He clearly doesn't care.

Executive orders were originally created to do things like procure supplies for the office, change the way communications worked within it, etc.
Not issue laws from the White House throne-room.





I was calm

MontClaire
07-09-2011, 12:13 PM
I think that at this time of uncertainty in the world.......there is very little incentive to remain law obiding if those who create laws are criminals themselfs. You can issue executive orders, spit propaganda in front of cameras....nowadays people know it's all fake and lies. Most people will spit at those executive orders right back.:rofl2:

GrayWolf09
07-09-2011, 1:25 PM
Sorry to bust your cheerleading bubble, but when Obama assumed office, questionnaires were sent out to staffers on whether or not prospective employees owned guns or not, his cabinet is loaded with anti-gunners, and his judicial appointments have been ardent anti-gunners, most notably Kagan and Soto-liar, His justice department has been running guns in order to frame gun store owners and gun show promoters, Obama previously headed up the Joyce foundation and the Brady chumps last week claimed that in their confidential meeting, Obama was working "under the radar" on gun control measures.

Other than all that, I agree with you, Obama is the friend of the gun owner...move over Charlton Heston!:rolleyes:

I fail to see how opining that I don't believe President Obama is about to assassinate a Supreme Court Justice makes me a cheerleader for him.

What a cute name you have for Justice Sotomayor. Do you have cute names for all the justices or just the one Hispanic?

If you are a single issue voter, I can understand that you would not be overjoyed with the choices of Justice Kagan and Justice Sotomayor. If you take off your right-wing glasses, however, they are both fairly moderate in their views much less to the left than President Bush's picks were to the right.

If you are like me and are not a single issue voter, then the issue is more complex. You have Supreme Court Justices who will protect your gun rights but take away your civil rights and give them to corporations. On the other side are Supreme Court Justices who will protect your civil rights but limit your gun rights. Quite frankly neither option is particularly appealing.:(

Gem1950
07-09-2011, 3:09 PM
I fail to see how opining that I don't believe President Obama is about to assassinate a Supreme Court Justice makes me a cheerleader for him.

What a cute name you have for Justice Sotomayor. Do you have cute names for all the justices or just the one Hispanic?

If you are a single issue voter, I can understand that you would not be overjoyed with the choices of Justice Kagan and Justice Sotomayor. If you take off your right-wing glasses, however, they are both fairly moderate in their views much less to the left than President Bush's picks were to the right.

If you are like me and are not a single issue voter, then the issue is more complex. You have Supreme Court Justices who will protect your gun rights but take away your civil rights and give them to corporations. On the other side are Supreme Court Justices who will protect your civil rights but limit your gun rights. Quite frankly neither option is particularly appealing.:(

Watch out. You're being too damn sensible!

Trailboss60
07-09-2011, 7:58 PM
I fail to see how opining that I don't believe President Obama is about to assassinate a Supreme Court Justice makes me a cheerleader for him.

What a cute name you have for Justice Sotomayor. Do you have cute names for all the justices or just the one Hispanic?

If you are a single issue voter, I can understand that you would not be overjoyed with the choices of Justice Kagan and Justice Sotomayor. If you take off your right-wing glasses, however, they are both fairly moderate in their views much less to the left than President Bush's picks were to the right.

If you are like me and are not a single issue voter, then the issue is more complex. You have Supreme Court Justices who will protect your gun rights but take away your civil rights and give them to corporations. On the other side are Supreme Court Justices who will protect your civil rights but limit your gun rights. Quite frankly neither option is particularly appealing.:(



FWIW, I am 50% Hispanic, so any notion of me somehow being racist...that dog don't hunt. I called her Soto-liar because during the advise and consent, she told Sen. Lindsay Graham that she would support the second amendment as an individual right and that it was "settled law". On her first ruling regarding the second amendment (The McDonald decision) she voted against the second amendment being an individual right...her collectivistic roots drove her vote.

Your earlier comments pretty well communicate the fact that you are happy with O'bummer I just pointed out that he has long been anti-gun, well schooled in the doctrines of Daley....that position is unassailable as I can back it up with quotes and votes that he has cast...a "moderate" doesn't end up as director of the Joyce foundation.

As for single issue?
Yes I believe in a constitutional republic, guided by the principles set forth by the founding fathers. If you don't think Obama is in the pocket of many of the corporate executives, you are sorely mistaken...they are a useful means to a socialistic destination in his end game.

snowdog650
07-09-2011, 10:40 PM
Yeah...like this one, right?
Executive Order 9066 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_9066)

Or this one?

EO 6102 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gold_confiscation)

otalps
07-10-2011, 12:28 AM
If you are like me and are not a single issue voter, then the issue is more complex. You have Supreme Court Justices who will protect your gun rights but take away your civil rights and give them to corporations. On the other side are Supreme Court Justices who will protect your civil rights but limit your gun rights. Quite frankly neither option is particularly appealing.:(

Such a "moderate" position.:rolleyes:

nagorb
07-10-2011, 1:08 AM
Such a "moderate" position.:rolleyes:

Don't get it. What is extreme?

otalps
07-10-2011, 1:17 AM
Don't get it. What is extreme?

The lefty talking point about taking away first amendment rights from individuals and giving them to corporations.

jeep7081
07-10-2011, 1:23 AM
As you know the real reason behind fast and furious operation was to go after the 2nd amend with "legit" reasons. The stats from 08, 09 about US guns going to Mexico was a farce, so FF operation was created to make them real. You can be sure of it regardless of what comes out of DOJ and ATF. Obama wants to reign in guns. Obviously it has backfired now the HuffPo has this piece out, where you can be sure he will bypass Congress and issue executive orders. Remember what he told a gun control group about operating below the radar! That was the FF Op so now it must be a direct assault on guns!

Emperor Obama has drawn a line in the sand.

Obama To Unveil Gun Control Reforms In Near Future (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/07/obama-unveil-gun-control-reforms_n_892633.html)

Please tell me this SOB isn't going to serve another 4yrs? Please, if you do anything....VOTE!

jeep7081
07-10-2011, 1:40 AM
How on earth is HE allowed to do that?

He has realized he can do what he wants, and no one will said a word. Were in another war, without congress approval (last time I checked) and what's done? Nooooooothing.

If you want a real change....VOTE! Get Obama gone.

oni.dori
07-10-2011, 1:52 AM
He has realized he can do what he wants, and no one will said a word. Were in another war, without congress approval (last time I checked) and what's done? Nooooooothing.

If you want a real change....VOTE! Get Obama gone.

Believe me, my vote LAST time tried to prevent him from getting there THIS time.

Trailboss60
07-10-2011, 2:17 AM
I know more than one person who is 50% "Hispanic" who is a racist. The fact that you are 50% "Hispanic" in no way precludes you from being a racist.


Wow...so I guess I am a racist..:rolleyes:


People that throw out the race card usually do so because the facts aren't on their side, straw men are constructed that way ya know?

far from the usual hysterical cries from the extreme right on this thread such as the President of the United States is going to assassinate a Justice of the United States Supreme Court or that George Soros issues orders to the President of the United States.

That is a straw man argument if I ever saw one...

nagorb
07-10-2011, 2:54 AM
The lefty talking point about taking away first amendment rights from individuals and giving them to corporations.

I guess I missed that.

vantec08
07-10-2011, 7:33 AM
Don't worry about Obama as much as who He puts on SCOTUS.

uh huh. This nation is being run by ONE person .. . the deciding vote of SCOTUS on whatever issue is on the table.

hawk81
07-10-2011, 1:11 PM
Those 2 justices he appointed are far from moderate, they are freaking socialists. They will protect no rights for citizens. You are way out of touch with reality there bud.



I fail to see how opining that I don't believe President Obama is about to assassinate a Supreme Court Justice makes me a cheerleader for him.

What a cute name you have for Justice Sotomayor. Do you have cute names for all the justices or just the one Hispanic?

If you are a single issue voter, I can understand that you would not be overjoyed with the choices of Justice Kagan and Justice Sotomayor. If you take off your right-wing glasses, however, they are both fairly moderate in their views much less to the left than President Bush's picks were to the right.

If you are like me and are not a single issue voter, then the issue is more complex. You have Supreme Court Justices who will protect your gun rights but take away your civil rights and give them to corporations. On the other side are Supreme Court Justices who will protect your civil rights but limit your gun rights. Quite frankly neither option is particularly appealing.:(

vantec08
07-10-2011, 2:48 PM
I fail to see how opining that I don't believe President Obama is about to assassinate a Supreme Court Justice makes me a cheerleader for him.

What a cute name you have for Justice Sotomayor. Do you have cute names for all the justices or just the one Hispanic?

If you are a single issue voter, I can understand that you would not be overjoyed with the choices of Justice Kagan and Justice Sotomayor. If you take off your right-wing glasses, however, they are both fairly moderate in their views much less to the left than President Bush's picks were to the right.

If you are like me and are not a single issue voter, then the issue is more complex. You have Supreme Court Justices who will protect your gun rights but take away your civil rights and give them to corporations. On the other side are Supreme Court Justices who will protect your civil rights but limit your gun rights. Quite frankly neither option is particularly appealing.:(


Exactly WHICH Justice gave my 2nd rights to Taco Bell?

blazeaglory
07-10-2011, 7:26 PM
Those 2 justices he appointed are far from moderate, they are freaking socialists. They will protect no rights for citizens. You are way out of touch with reality there bud.

They will always vote the way they think their "master" would vote

InGrAM
07-10-2011, 7:51 PM
I fail to see how opining that I don't believe President Obama is about to assassinate a Supreme Court Justice makes me a cheerleader for him.

What a cute name you have for Justice Sotomayor. Do you have cute names for all the justices or just the one Hispanic?

If you are a single issue voter, I can understand that you would not be overjoyed with the choices of Justice Kagan and Justice Sotomayor. If you take off your right-wing glasses, however, they are both fairly moderate in their views much less to the left than President Bush's picks were to the right.

If you are like me and are not a single issue voter, then the issue is more complex. You have Supreme Court Justices who will protect your gun rights but take away your civil rights and give them to corporations. On the other side are Supreme Court Justices who will protect your civil rights but limit your gun rights. Quite frankly neither option is particularly appealing.:(

The right to bear (OOPS) arms IS a civil right ;)

bjl333
07-11-2011, 12:27 AM
Spending bill gave $10 million of taxpayers' funding to effort
http://www.alipac.us/article-6399-thread-1-0.html

Librarian
07-11-2011, 12:54 AM
Let's try to keep all the Obama/Gun control posts in just 1 thread, please.

AND, let's try to keep the discussion on the topic - remaining as respectful of the office as you can manage is REQUIRED.

ubet
07-11-2011, 5:25 AM
graywolf, you are so out of touch its not even funny. Kegan/Soto are so far left they make Al Gore look like Regan.


Now back to reality, if he does do this, I will take it to mean one thing, that he KNOWS he will not get reelected. I have a feeling his numbers are much worse than what is let on. I have a feeling we are over 20% unemployement, if that is true, that is a hell of a lot of people who arent going to vote for him. A poll came out last week that put him in the high 30s/low 40s on approval.

If he does do this AND gets reelected, and we get a CONSERVATIVE senate, two things will happen, graywolf will have a coronary and obama might get impeached.

ccmc
07-11-2011, 5:37 AM
Sorry to bust your cheerleading bubble, but when Obama assumed office, questionnaires were sent out to staffers on whether or not prospective employees owned guns or not, his cabinet is loaded with anti-gunners, and his judicial appointments have been ardent anti-gunners, most notably Kagan and Soto-liar, His justice department has been running guns in order to frame gun store owners and gun show promoters, Obama previously headed up the Joyce foundation and the Brady chumps last week claimed that in their confidential meeting, Obama was working "under the radar" on gun control measures.

Other than all that, I agree with you, Obama is the friend of the gun owner...move over Charlton Heston!:rolleyes:

That pretty much nails it. I know a few gun owners that voted for Obama for other reasons ie they're not single issue voters, and they made the choice that other issues were more important to them than RKBA. Some of them rationalize their choice by saying Obama hasn't done anything overtly to endanger RKBA (although they are silent on his SCOTUS nominees). But to make the leap that Obama is pro RKBA is like peeing on someone's leg and saying it's raining. It's just not a credible position.

vantec08
07-11-2011, 9:38 AM
That very well COULD turn in to a good thing though. It very well could just backfire him, and turn the populace against him; causing these EO's to pass on, just like his tenure as POTUS.

Doubt it. Any nation that elects, promotes, and enables idiots like o.bammy and moonbeam isnt likely to change it spots. The excuses from my liberal sis-in -law and friends is already starting - "well, he personally didnt know about it" -- "they meant well" -- we have to do SOMEthing about guns" -- blahblah.

tankarian
07-11-2011, 9:55 AM
http://desmond.imageshack.us/Himg411/scaled.php?server=411&filename=asskisser2.png&res=medium

Disgusting.

smn
07-11-2011, 10:55 AM
Alan Gura was just on Fox News speaking about the constitutionality of such an attempt by the President. I was unable to hear what he was saying, as I was in a restaurant. Perhaps someone here saw it and could upload it.

GrayWolf09
07-11-2011, 11:11 AM
The lefty talking point about taking away first amendment rights from individuals and giving them to corporations.

It is not just First Amendment rights I am talking about, it is a whole panoply of civil rights being taken away by the activist justices on the Roberts Court.
Prosecutors hide evidence and you go to jail for 18 years - too bad.
Generic drug kills grannie - too bad
Sex discrimination - too bad

You might try reading this article by the Dean of the UC Irvine School of Law: http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-chemerinsky-scotus-20110706,0,7879390.story?track=rss


That is a straw man argument if I ever saw one...

Wrong! As to President Obama taking orders from George Soros please see posts 4 and 5. As to the allegation that President Obama is planning to assassinate a Supreme Court Justice it looks like the mods have cleaned out some of the more embarrassing right wing allegations.

Those 2 justices he appointed are far from moderate, they are freaking socialists. They will protect no rights for citizens. You are way out of touch with reality there bud.

They will always vote the way they think their "master" would vote

graywolf, you are so out of touch its not even funny. Kegan/Soto are so far left they make Al Gore look like Regan.


Now back to reality, if he does do this, I will take it to mean one thing, that he KNOWS he will not get reelected. I have a feeling his numbers are much worse than what is let on. I have a feeling we are over 20% unemployement, if that is true, that is a hell of a lot of people who arent going to vote for him. A poll came out last week that put him in the high 30s/low 40s on approval.

If he does do this AND gets reelected, and we get a CONSERVATIVE senate, two things will happen, graywolf will have a coronary and obama might get impeached.

I have examined the writings of both Justice Kagan and Justice Sotomayor and nowhere can I find them advocating collective ownership of the means of production. If you have some legitimate showing where they advocate this I would be happy to take a look at it but spare me unsupported opinions.

What I don't understand is how you can sit back and watch your civil rights being flushed down the toilet and be ok with it as long as you get to keep your guns. It was the same thing under the Bush administration. People arrested and thrown into military prisons, people arrested and held indefinitely with no charges filed, people denied counsel, phones tapped and e-mails intercepted without a warrant, but as long as they didn't talk about gun rights everything was fine and dandy. When they have taken away all your other civil rights, do you really believe the people who own America will allow you to keep your guns?:(

[/B]

The right to bare arms IS a civil right ;)

What about the right to bare breasts, is that a civil right too?;)

otalps
07-11-2011, 12:46 PM
It is not just First Amendment rights I am talking about, it is a whole panoply of civil rights being taken away by the activist justices on the Roberts Court.
Prosecutors hide evidence and you go to jail for 18 years - too bad.
Generic drug kills grannie - too bad
Sex discrimination - too bad

You might try reading this article by the Dean of the UC Irvine School of Law: http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-chemerinsky-scotus-20110706,0,7879390.story?track=rss


Nice, an op-ed by a hard left "Constitutional Scholar" that thinks there is an historical basis for the whole collective rights argument concerning the 2nd amendment and had this (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/13/AR2007031301508.html) to say about the Parker decision:

The assumption in this debate, and one that the D.C. Circuit followed Friday, is that gun control laws are unconstitutional if the individual rights approach is followed. This assumption, though, has no basis in constitutional law. No rights are absolute. Even the First Amendment, which is written in the seemingly absolute language that Congress shall make "no law" abridging freedom of speech or religion, allows government regulation.

In the article you linked to he makes this absurd claim:
In a very different area, the desire to use military tribunals, rather than federal courts, to try those accused of terrorist acts is based on a lack of faith in federal judges to handle such matters and come to the desired results.
That combined with the fact that all 9 justices agreed in the Wal-mart case he used to promote his conservatives are evil spiel it's not worth following up on the rest of his "facts."

Still would like to see where your first amendment rights were supposedly taken away and given to corporations?

InGrAM
07-11-2011, 5:01 PM
Lol, got me on that grammar error greywolf. But the fact that you did not know that the 2nd amendment was a civil right obviously shows your true colors. ;)

GettoPhilosopher
07-11-2011, 6:35 PM
Makes entirely too much sense. Not nearly paranoid enough. You won't last long on Calguns. Besides you don't have any of those cute little nicknames for President Obama.

Yeah....I figure just for irony (and to piss people off) whenever we get our next Republican president, I'm going to make up corny/kooky/vaguely racist/condescending nicknames for him and always substitute them in.

"You know what President Dumney did today? Well, Ditz Wrongney told so and so...." :P (Using Romney just because I'm not creative enough to think of a better example)

I especially love the guys who insist on calling him President Hussein or Hussein Obama. Cuz, yeah, that's totally for reasons other than implying he's Islamic/middle eastern/"non-American".....and we'll get back to you on what those reasons are at a later date.

GrayWolf09
07-11-2011, 7:03 PM
Nice, an op-ed by a hard left "Constitutional Scholar" that thinks there is an historical basis for the whole collective rights argument concerning the 2nd amendment and had this (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/13/AR2007031301508.html) to say about the Parker decision:



In the article you linked to he makes this absurd claim:

That combined with the fact that all 9 justices agreed in the Wal-mart case he used to promote his conservatives are evil spiel it's not worth following up on the rest of his "facts."

Still would like to see where your first amendment rights were supposedly taken away and given to corporations?

Straight out of the Alinsky playbook. Rather than respond to the substance of my post you attack the messenger. The fact remains that the Supreme Court justices you are such a fanboy of have as their mantra "corporations win -- little guy takes it in the shorts ha ha ha".

BTW what is wrong with civilian courts? Where do you think Richard Reid, the underpants bomber, Timothy McVeigh, Ted Kaczynski, the cast and crew of the first attack on the World Trade Center and a whole host of other terrorists were tried?

Lol, got me on that grammar error greywolf. But the fact that you did not know that the 2nd amendment was a civil right obviously shows your true colors. ;)

I know it is a civil right and I know a lot of others too. Like freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures, the right to a fair and speedy trial, the right to confront your accusers, the right to a public trial, the right to an attorney, freedom of association. Why are you willing to give those up? Because they promised to let you keep your guns? They lie.

LockJaw
07-11-2011, 7:44 PM
New ATF gun laws announced.

http://mobile.sfgate.com/sfchron/db_41688/contentdetail.htm?contentguid=lmwxqGOv

And so it begins.

E. Max Hengst
07-11-2011, 9:03 PM
Of course he is going after the guns. he knows he is going to be out after one term so why not a scorched earth policy against all of our rights?

otalps
07-11-2011, 9:43 PM
Straight out of the Alinsky playbook. Rather than respond to the substance of my post you attack the messenger. The fact remains that the Supreme Court justices you are such a fanboy of have as their mantra "corporations win -- little guy takes it in the shorts ha ha ha".


Yes that was very Alinskyish of me. You posted some op-ed full of opinion that matched your own, an op-ed by an anti gunner at that. Considering his whole premise was look at how evil all these 5-4 decisions were by the conservative wing of the court and then somehow using a decision that was 9-0 to back up that claim, I'm sure if I had delved deeper I may have found some substance to respond to; but still no taking of rights. I mean other than what the author of your link has advocated for of course.

I do believe he would probably agree with your original premise that your 1st amendment rights have been given to corporations regardless of any facts.


BTW what is wrong with civilian courts? Where do you think Richard Reid, the underpants bomber, Timothy McVeigh, Ted Kaczynski, the cast and crew of the first attack on the World Trade Center and a whole host of other terrorists were tried?


Nothing is wrong with civilian courts. It was his premise that the reason behind not wanting to try terrorists captured on foreign soil was because of a lack of faith in the system that was absurd.

Why do you think we didn't try Nazi or Japanese war criminals in civilian court? I'll give you a hint that it had nothing to do with a lack of faith in the system.

Read up on the case of Ahmed Khalfan Ghailani to see what a cluster **** trying a terrorist captured overseas in a civilian court is. Funny you're not up in arms about him getting life without the possibility of parole after being acquitted on 280 counts of murder and only found guilty of conspiracy to destroy government property. Talk about a travesty of justice.

Wernher von Browning
07-11-2011, 10:53 PM
Doubt it. Any nation that elects, promotes, and enables idiots like o.bammy and moonbeam isnt likely to change it spots.

And there you have it. These "great leaders," from city councilman to POTUS, aren't the disease, they're just the symptom. The real cause of the problem lives on your street and mine, next door and across town and across the country. The real cause is stupid, lazy, greedy, shortsighted, muddle-headed voters who want something for nothing.

I blame the schools.

jwkincal
07-11-2011, 11:17 PM
I blame the schools.

Which is still the government.

Which is still the fault of the lazy, selfish, muddle-headed voters and taxpayers.

Wasn't it the Joker in the first Batman film? "This town (country) needs an enema!"

GrayWolf09
07-12-2011, 7:36 PM
Yes that was very Alinskyish of me. You posted some op-ed full of opinion that matched your own, an op-ed by an anti gunner at that. Considering his whole premise was look at how evil all these 5-4 decisions were by the conservative wing of the court and then somehow using a decision that was 9-0 to back up that claim, I'm sure if I had delved deeper I may have found some substance to respond to; but still no taking of rights. I mean other than what the author of your link has advocated for of course.

I do believe he would probably agree with your original premise that your 1st amendment rights have been given to corporations regardless of any facts.



Nothing is wrong with civilian courts. It was his premise that the reason behind not wanting to try terrorists captured on foreign soil was because of a lack of faith in the system that was absurd.

Why do you think we didn't try Nazi or Japanese war criminals in civilian court? I'll give you a hint that it had nothing to do with a lack of faith in the system.

Read up on the case of Ahmed Khalfan Ghailani to see what a cluster **** trying a terrorist captured overseas in a civilian court is. Funny you're not up in arms about him getting life without the possibility of parole after being acquitted on 280 counts of murder and only found guilty of conspiracy to destroy government property. Talk about a travesty of justice.

Thank you for proving my point exactly. At first you say you have no problem with civilian courts then you criticize them because it is difficult to get a conviction. The bottom line is you do not want to try people in civilian courts because you have no faith in them. Ahmed Khalfan Ghailani was tried convicted and sentenced to life in prison. What more do you want? They probably would have convicted him of much more but as near as anyone can figure out the Bush administration screwed up and tortured one of the witnesses. His testimony was then disallowed by the judge.

I have to tell you that people like you scare the daylights out of me. You scream Constitution when it suits you like when its your gun rights, but don't want anyone else to have their rights. Of course, it is difficult to obtain a conviction in civilian courts and well it should be because taking away a man's precious liberty or even his life is not something that should ever be done lightly. How many innocent people has Texas executed? Sorry, ma'm we killed your only son and it turned out later he was innocent, but it was an honest mistake.

In the United States we follow the Constitution and the rule of law. That is what separates us from our enemies.

otalps
07-12-2011, 11:07 PM
Thank you for proving my point exactly. At first you say you have no problem with civilian courts then you criticize them because it is difficult to get a conviction. The bottom line is you do not want to try people in civilian courts because you have no faith in them.


It's got nothing to do with a lack of faith in the system. It has everything to do with an understanding of it. That is the bottom line that you don't understand. So again why were Nazi and Japanese war criminals not tried in civilian courts?

Do you think enemy combatants captured on a battlefield need to be mirandized? Do soldiers now have to have articulable probable cause to stop or search people on the battlefield?


Ahmed Khalfan Ghailani was tried convicted and sentenced to life in prison. What more do you want?

Funny how obam changed his mind about military tribunals after that trial, guess he actually did lose faith in the civilian courts.


I have to tell you that people like you scare the daylights out of me. You scream Constitution when it suits you like when its your gun rights, but don't want anyone else to have their rights. Of course, it is difficult to obtain a conviction in civilian courts and well it should be because taking away a man's precious liberty or even his life is not something that should ever be done lightly. How many innocent people has Texas executed? Sorry, ma'm we killed your only son and it turned out later he was innocent, but it was an honest mistake.


Where did I ever mention not wanting anyone else to have their rights? And Texas, I have no idea; how many innocent people have they executed? Did it effect your faith in the system since it obviously didn't work out for the innocent people? Anyway, wtf does any of that have to do with enemy combatants or military tribunals? Furthermore how does any of this prove the original assertion of yours that your first amendment rights have been taken away and given to corporations?:confused:


In the United States we follow the Constitution and the rule of law. That is what separates us from our enemies.

Where exactly in the Constitution does it mention trying enemy combatants captured on a battlefield in civilian courts? How exactly does trying enemy combatants in a military tribunal go against the Constitution?

What a hypocrite Madison, the Father of the Constitution and author of the Bill of Rights must be to you for holding all those poor British POWs indefinitely while not even bringing them to trial in a civilian court of law during the War of 1812. Jefferson too during the Barbary Wars. You'd think they would've known better.

oni.dori
07-13-2011, 1:15 AM
Yeah....I figure just for irony (and to piss people off) whenever we get our next Republican president, I'm going to make up corny/kooky/vaguely racist/condescending nicknames for him and always substitute them in.

"You know what President Dumney did today? Well, Ditz Wrongney told so and so...." :P (Using Romney just because I'm not creative enough to think of a better example)

I especially love the guys who insist on calling him President Hussein or Hussein Obama. Cuz, yeah, that's totally for reasons other than implying he's Islamic/middle eastern/"non-American".....and we'll get back to you on what those reasons are at a later date.

Dubya much?

GrayWolf09
07-13-2011, 12:50 PM
It's got nothing to do with a lack of faith in the system. It has everything to do with an understanding of it. That is the bottom line that you don't understand. So again why were Nazi and Japanese war criminals not tried in civilian courts?

Oh, but I do understand. I understand that the United States was founded on certain values embodied in the Constitution and the rule of law. That is what separates us from despotic and tyrannical regimes. I also understand that there are those who are so afraid of terrorists, Muslims, George Soros, homosexuals or whatever might be hiding under their bed at nights that they would give up a substantial part of their civil rights in exchange for the illusory promise of security.

Do you think enemy combatants captured on a battlefield need to be mirandized? Do soldiers now have to have articulable probable cause to stop or search people on the battlefield?

Yes and they should be given milk and cookies at snack time. Let's not be ridiculous, shall we? The treatment of prisoners of war is governed by the Geneva Convention. But Ahmed Khalfan Ghailani was not captured on the battlefield, he was arrested by Pakistani authorities. We aren't at war with Pakistan are we?

Funny how obam changed his mind about military tribunals after that trial, guess he actually did lose faith in the civilian courts.

Now there is a new nickname for the President of the United States. I am continually amazed by how people on this forum can keep coming up with such clever nicknames. Most of them have racial overtones and at the very least they show contempt for the democratic process.

Since much of the trial is still shrouded in secrecy, we don't know the answer. My belief is that questions raised in the trial came perilously close to revealing torture and other human rights violations by officials of the United States government (read CIA). This had and has the potential to result in the prosecution of United States officials up to and including the President of the United States for torture and war crimes. I believe that President Obama was trying to protect the Bush administration.

Where did I ever mention not wanting anyone else to have their rights? And Texas, I have no idea; how many innocent people have they executed? Did it effect your faith in the system since it obviously didn't work out for the innocent people? Anyway, wtf does any of that have to do with enemy combatants or military tribunals? Furthermore how does any of this prove the original assertion of yours that your first amendment rights have been taken away and given to corporations?:confused:

It was you who said the Supreme Court had taken away my First Amendment rights not me. I said the Supreme Court had taken away a whole panoply of civil rights and given them to corporations and I cited a number of cases to prove that.

You seem to be just fine with the Bush administration listening to people phone conversations and reading their e-mails without a warrant, arresting people and not charging them with an offense, putting civilians in military prisons, denying people the right to an attorney. By the way, in my opinion, the Obama administrations seems to bear an uncanny resemblance to George Bush's third term.

Where exactly in the Constitution does it mention trying enemy combatants captured on a battlefield in civilian courts? How exactly does trying enemy combatants in a military tribunal go against the Constitution?

What a hypocrite Madison, the Father of the Constitution and author of the Bill of Rights must be to you for holding all those poor British POWs indefinitely while not even bringing them to trial in a civilian court of law during the War of 1812. Jefferson too during the Barbary Wars. You'd think they would've known better.

As I said before unless we are at war with Pakistan, Ahmed Khalfan Ghailani was not an enemy combatant captured on the battlefield, but arrested by Pakistani authorities.

Enemy combatants captured on the battlefield are subject to the Geneva
Convention. Where in the Geneva Convention does it allow for the torture of POWs. And how come when Japanese officers waterboarded our troops our military tribunals convicted them of war crimes but when the Bush administration did the exact same thing they were not guilty of war crimes?

By the way I am opposed to further gun regulations whether by executive order or any other form of legislation. Maybe that is the one point we can agree on.:)

randian
07-14-2011, 5:33 AM
Funny how obam changed his mind about military tribunals after that trial, guess he actually did lose faith in the civilian courts.
Like most leftists, Obama's faith is in whatever is farthest away from influence by the common person. That means he prefers courts and executive departments (EPA et al) over legislatures, and military courts over civilian. It's easier to bring improper command influence to bear on a military trial than it is to bring improper influence to bear on a civilian trial.

Goosebrown
07-14-2011, 6:08 AM
"Kegan/Soto are so far left they make Al Gore look like Regan. "

Well he sorta does if you squint... they're both tall...

GrayWolf09
07-14-2011, 8:39 AM
Like most leftists, Obama's faith is in whatever is farthest away from influence by the common person. That means he prefers courts and executive departments (EPA et al) over legislatures, and military courts over civilian. It's easier to bring improper command influence to bear on a military trial than it is to bring improper influence to bear on a civilian trial.

Um, it was President Bush who proposed military tribunals, not President Obama. Are you saying that President Bush is a leftist?:confused:

randian
07-14-2011, 8:47 AM
Um, it was President Bush who proposed military tribunals, not President Obama. Are you saying that President Bush is a leftist?:confused:
I believe we were talking about Obama's abandonment of civilian courts, not Bush's use of military courts (which I agreed with). Bush wasn't a full-bore leftist like Obama, but he was no conservative.

SupportGeek
07-14-2011, 9:20 AM
Like most leftists, Obama's faith is in whatever is farthest away from influence by the common person. That means he prefers courts and executive departments (EPA et al) over legislatures, and military courts over civilian. It's easier to bring improper command influence to bear on a military trial than it is to bring improper influence to bear on a civilian trial.

I wouldn't call this exclusive to the left by any means. Both left AND right have this tendency to limit public involvement in everything they do. (as an example, the ideas of some Tea Party, leaders to limit voting to landowners or those that pay a certain amount of taxes) in fact pretty much ALL politicians no matter their stripe would prefer to avoid influence by the common man in every matter.

otalps
07-14-2011, 12:42 PM
Oh, but I do understand. I understand that the United States was founded on certain values embodied in the Constitution and the rule of law. That is what separates us from despotic and tyrannical regimes. I also understand that there are those who are so afraid of terrorists, Muslims, George Soros, homosexuals or whatever might be hiding under their bed at nights that they would give up a substantial part of their civil rights in exchange for the illusory promise of security.


Trying enemy combatants by military tribunal does not go against the Constitution and is within the rule of law. It has nothing to do with fear of terrorists, homosexuals, or George Soros.


Yes and they should be given milk and cookies at snack time. Let's not be ridiculous, shall we? The treatment of prisoners of war is governed by the Geneva Convention. But Ahmed Khalfan Ghailani was not captured on the battlefield, he was arrested by Pakistani authorities. We aren't at war with Pakistan are we?


It's not ridiculous if you're looking to try enemy combatants as criminals in civilian court. Where in the Geneva Conventions does it we have to try them in civilian court? Rudolph Hess was captured by the British, we weren't at war with the UK.


Now there is a new nickname for the President of the United States. I am continually amazed by how people on this forum can keep coming up with such clever nicknames. Most of them have racial overtones and at the very least they show contempt for the democratic process.


So now a typo is a clever nickname with racial overtones? I'm continually amazed how far some can reach for the race card.:rolleyes:


Since much of the trial is still shrouded in secrecy, we don't know the answer. My belief is that questions raised in the trial came perilously close to revealing torture and other human rights violations by officials of the United States government (read CIA). This had and has the potential to result in the prosecution of United States officials up to and including the President of the United States for torture and war crimes. I believe that President Obama was trying to protect the Bush administration.


So the first thought you can come up with regarding secrecy in a trial of an enemy combatant is a cover up to protect the Bush administration? No thoughts that maybe they were trying to protect assets still in the field? Or other military intelligence that might still be prudent in an ongoing war perhaps?


It was you who said the Supreme Court had taken away my First Amendment rights not me. I said the Supreme Court had taken away a whole panoply of civil rights and given them to corporations and I cited a number of cases to prove that.


You didn't cite a number of cases that proved such you linked to an op ed.
You're correct you did say:

You have Supreme Court Justices who will protect your gun rights but take away your civil rights and give them to corporations.

I assumed, (yes I know) you were referring to Citizens United since we were discussing Sotomayor. What other case might you have been referring to that gave your civil rights to corporations?


You seem to be just fine with the Bush administration listening to people phone conversations and reading their e-mails without a warrant, arresting people and not charging them with an offense, putting civilians in military prisons, denying people the right to an attorney. By the way, in my opinion, the Obama administrations seems to bear an uncanny resemblance to George Bush's third term.


If they're not US Citizens, yes I'm completely fine with all that. You do know some of the stuff you mentioned does not happen after working it's way through the court system yes?


As I said before unless we are at war with Pakistan, Ahmed Khalfan Ghailani was not an enemy combatant captured on the battlefield, but arrested by Pakistani authorities.


He's Tanzanian not Pakistani. Pakistan is/was supposedly our ally in the war on terror, why do we have to be at war with Pakistan in order to try someone they arrest in a military tribunal? What if they had arrested Osama, should he have been tried in a civilian court? Should his lawyers be able to use the discovery process to gain access to military intelligence?


Enemy combatants captured on the battlefield are subject to the Geneva
Convention. Where in the Geneva Convention does it allow for the torture of POWs.


What does the Geneva conventions say about unlawful combatants?


By the way I am opposed to further gun regulations whether by executive order or any other form of legislation. Maybe that is the one point we can agree on.:)

Yes, we can agree on that.:cool:

Bigtime1
07-14-2011, 1:39 PM
Looks like OBummer better hurry if he's going to push his agenda on us. His poll numbers are dropping like a prom dress at midnight.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/148487/Republican-Candidate-Extends-Lead-Obama.aspx

GrayWolf09
07-14-2011, 7:19 PM
Looks like OBummer better hurry if he's going to push his agenda on us. His poll numbers are dropping like a prom dress at midnight.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/148487/Republican-Candidate-Extends-Lead-Obama.aspx

Yeah the only thing lower is the rating Republicans get:

http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x1295.xml?ReleaseID=1624

tankarian
07-14-2011, 7:22 PM
:rolleyes:
Typical. When you can't defend the indefensible you just hijack the thread or blame Bush...

oni.dori
07-14-2011, 7:37 PM
Yeah the only thing lower is the rating Republicans get:

http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x1295.xml?ReleaseID=1624

A UNIVERSITY study. Wow, those are REAL unbiased there...:rolleyes:

GrayWolf09
07-14-2011, 8:26 PM
Trying enemy combatants by military tribunal does not go against the Constitution and is within the rule of law. It has nothing to do with fear of terrorists, homosexuals, or George Soros.

Nobody claimed they couldn't. Please stop making things up!

It's not ridiculous if you're looking to try enemy combatants as criminals in civilian court. Where in the Geneva Conventions does it we have to try them in civilian court? Rudolph Hess was captured by the British, we weren't at war with the UK.

Again, nobody said they couldn't. I suggest you improve your reading skills.

So now a typo is a clever nickname with racial overtones? I'm continually amazed how far some can reach for the race card.:rolleyes:

Come on. You have been on Calguns enough to see the names people call President Obama. Nobody could be that clueless.;)

So the first thought you can come up with regarding secrecy in a trial of an enemy combatant is a cover up to protect the Bush administration? No thoughts that maybe they were trying to protect assets still in the field? Or other military intelligence that might still be prudent in an ongoing war perhaps?

Like I say, since the government is not releasing information, it is all speculation. Yours was that President Obama had lost faith in the system. At least mine is grounded in fact.

You didn't cite a number of cases that proved such you linked to an op ed.
You're correct you did say:


I assumed, (yes I know) you were referring to Citizens United since we were discussing Sotomayor. What other case might you have been referring to that gave your civil rights to corporations?

Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 558 U.S. 08-205 (2010)
The Walmart discrimination case reported at: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/06/20/groups-blast-laud-high-court-for-decision-against-nations-largest/
generic drugs: http://articles.latimes.com/2011/jun/24/news/la-heb-generic-drugs-20110624
Would you like more?

If they're not US Citizens, yes I'm completely fine with all that. You do know some of the stuff you mentioned does not happen after working it's way through the court system yes?

What are you talking about? What stuff does not happen?

He's Tanzanian not Pakistani. Pakistan is/was supposedly our ally in the war on terror, why do we have to be at war with Pakistan in order to try someone they arrest in a military tribunal? What if they had arrested Osama, should he have been tried in a civilian court? Should his lawyers be able to use the discovery process to gain access to military intelligence?

Non sequitur, his nationality doesn't matter. Yes, if Osama had been captured he should have been tried like any other terrorist in a civilian court. Let's all be glad he wasn't. :rolleyes: Discovery is only available to the extent it does not endanger national security for example the warrant-less eavesdropping suits against the telecom companies.

What does the Geneva conventions say about unlawful combatants?

Enlighten me please.:cool:

Yes, we can agree on that.:cool:

ttfn:)

GrayWolf09
07-14-2011, 8:29 PM
A UNIVERSITY study. Wow, those are REAL unbiased there...:rolleyes:

Yeah, they have smart people there. The best studies are done by stupid people.:confused:

:rolleyes:
Typical. When you can't defend the indefensible you just hijack the thread or blame Bush...

Not me. The people are the ones blaming President Bush. By a 2 to 1 margin no less :p:

http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x1295.xml?ReleaseID=1624

jwkincal
07-14-2011, 8:32 PM
PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE SOMEONE KILL THIS THREAD!!!!

Dave A
07-14-2011, 11:07 PM
GrayWolf 09 said among many posts:


"Not me. The people are the ones blaming President Bush. By a 2 to 1 margin no less" :p:

I understand the polls and it is results like this that make me lose any hope for the future of this country. If "the people" are so stupid as to blame GW Bush for the mess that President Obama is currently stirring up then they will vote to hand the country over to China if the right words are used by the lapdog media.

I disagreed with GW on a lot of things, but I certainly do not blame him for the current debacle facing the country.

oni.dori
07-14-2011, 11:23 PM
Yeah, they have smart people there. The best studies are done by stupid people.:confused:



Not me. The people are the ones blaming President Bush. By a 2 to 1 margin no less :p:

http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x1295.xml?ReleaseID=1624

No sir, they are smart. Smart enough to sway things in their favored outcome; and more oft than not, they don't favor the side that CG is on. Still confused?

otalps
07-15-2011, 12:35 AM
Nobody claimed they couldn't. Please stop making things up!


Your entire argument was based on the fact that enemy combatants should be tried in civilian court. What was all that US, Constitution and rule of law crap if that wasn't the point you were arguing?:confused:


Again, nobody said they couldn't. I suggest you improve your reading skills.


You made the claim that we weren't at war with Pakistan so military tribunals shouldn't be used in the case of Ahmed Khalfan Ghailani, How is that any different than the case of Rudolph Hess? Perhaps you should improve your writing skills if you were trying to make a different point.


Come on. You have been on Calguns enough to see the names people call President Obama. Nobody could be that clueless.


What does that have to do with me writing obam, a typo where I left out a letter? Furthermore if I had called him Dumb ***, Hussein, Obummer, Ogabe, Zero or any of the other names I've seen him called it still wouldn't have anything to do with race.


Like I say, since the government is not releasing information, it is all speculation. Yours was that President Obama had lost faith in the system. At least mine is grounded in fact.


Yours wasn't grounded in any fact. You stated nothing but your own theory that he was somehow protecting the Bush administration because they waterboarded someone. Did he or did he not give up on civilian trials? Is he or is he not still keeping Gitmo open and did he or did he not bring back military tribunals? Thought so. His plan to try enemy combatants in civilian courts was retarded.


Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 558 U.S. 08-205 (2010)


So I was correct. Your 1st amendment rights were not taken away and given to corporations.

Since we've gotten far enough off topic as is perhaps we could discuss your leftist spin regarding the other two cases and whatever else you wish in another thread.


What are you talking about? What stuff does not happen?


For one the whole habeas corpus issue you referred to concerning Abdullah al-Muhajir. The guy that never was denied habeas corpus that went all the way through the court system. (The same one that your op ed stated that people like me had lost faith in.) The same one that said the president could not declare a US citizen an enemy combatant.


Non sequitur, his nationality doesn't matter. Yes, if Osama had been captured he should have been tried like any other terrorist in a civilian court. Let's all be glad he wasn't. Discovery is only available to the extent it does not endanger national security for example the warrant-less eavesdropping suits against the telecom companies.


Non sequitur? You said we were'nt at war with Pakistan? Where does the Constitution mention anything about National Security? What happened to the rule of law?


Enlighten me please.


For one they aren't entitled to the same protections as a uniformed combatant. What happened to the German SS troops wearing American uniforms changing the signs around Bologne during the Battle of the Bulge that were captured?

otalps
07-15-2011, 12:36 AM
PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE SOMEONE KILL THIS THREAD!!!!

Go read another thread if this one bugs you so.

Trailboss60
07-15-2011, 7:24 AM
GrayWolf 09 said among many posts:


"Not me. The people are the ones blaming President Bush. By a 2 to 1 margin no less" :p:

I understand the polls and it is results like this that make me lose any hope for the future of this country. If "the people" are so stupid as to blame GW Bush for the mess that President Obama is currently stirring up then they will vote to hand the country over to China if the right words are used by the lapdog media.

I disagreed with GW on a lot of things, but I certainly do not blame him for the current debacle facing the country.

Many of the people that voted for Obama I reckon did so because after eight years of relentless attacks by the chowderheads at CBS/NBS/ABS/CNNBS/MSNBS..etcc.they started believing it, Goebbels might have been evil, but he knew what he was talking about. I had a lot of problems with Bush on spending, buying into global warming, appeasing democrats, but he certainly wasn't the monster that he was portrayed as.

Many people voted for Obama because of their "white guilt", and deified him; :rolleyes:,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=37B_nOdRTAA
Some voted for him because they expected him to buy their gas and pay their mortgage;
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P36x8rTb3jI
and with some, it was just the "woody" factor;
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5w-FjtdChXE

The bloom is off the rose on Obama, people are seeing him for what he is, some people are still suffering from election erection though; If this condition persists past the election, see your doctor...or look into the face of Hillary Clinton.

GrayWolf09
07-15-2011, 7:36 AM
Go read another thread if this one bugs you so.

I think we have gone around enough. I have no intention of continuing this discussion. But I do agree with you on this.;)

DocSkinner
07-15-2011, 11:56 AM
No sir, they are smart. Smart enough to sway things in their favored outcome; and more oft than not, they don't favor the side that CG is on. Still confused?

So you don't believe any of that stuff that one academic put out? what was his name? Oh - John Lott.

DocSkinner
07-15-2011, 12:00 PM
Many of the people that voted for Obama I reckon did so because after eight years of relentless attacks by the chowderheads at CBS/NBS/ABS/CNNBS/MSNBS..etcc.they started believing it, Goebbels might have been evil, but he knew what he was talking about. I had a lot of problems with Bush on spending, buying into global warming, appeasing democrats, but he certainly wasn't the monster that he was portrayed as.

Many people voted for Obama because of their "white guilt", and deified him; :rolleyes:,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=37B_nOdRTAA
Some voted for him because they expected him to buy their gas and pay their mortgage;
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P36x8rTb3jI
and with some, it was just the "woody" factor;
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5w-FjtdChXE

The bloom is off the rose on Obama, people are seeing him for what he is, some people are still suffering from election erection though; If this condition persists past the election, see your doctor...or look into the face of Hillary Clinton.

Many people voted Obama because the REPs put a dingbat in for their VP candidate.

Obama is going after guns now because he knows he can and get away with it, as it is highly likely the REPs will pick another dingbat for either their Presidential or VP candidate, or both, and only 20-30 percent of the voters will blindly vote REP over voting against having a dingbat in power.


If the REPs put a good VP candidate with McCain, we might not even be having this conversation/debate/argument.

Trailboss60
07-15-2011, 2:21 PM
Many people voted Obama because the REPs put a dingbat in for their VP candidate.

Obama is going after guns now because he knows he can and get away with it, as it is highly likely the REPs will pick another dingbat for either their Presidential or VP candidate, or both, and only 20-30 percent of the voters will blindly vote REP over voting against having a dingbat in power.


If the REPs put a good VP candidate with McCain, we might not even be having this conversation/debate/argument.

McCain was the dingbat..the only reason that he got as much support as he did was because of his pick for vp...
In reality, once McCain let himself get snookered on the Bailouts/ stimulus/ porkulus, his butt was toast...he was a sorry candidate.

jwkincal
07-15-2011, 2:45 PM
I think we have gone around enough. I have no intention of continuing this discussion. But I do agree with you on this.;)

Sweet. That worked out way better than I had hoped.