http://www.weeklystandard.com/...der-deal-guns_694984.html

This is such a touchy topic, since arguably, a president in the current era knows more about how things are run than our founders from the 1800s.

Assault rifles didn't exist, and we aren't the militia.

An Executive Order Will End In Impeachment

What a stupid thing to say.

I bet he is Republican

Why is what he said so stupid? Should our president be able to override our constitution or do you not believe in the constitution?

liberals only believe in the first amendment, they have no problem trampling the rest.

An executive order implementing gun control is a direct attack on the 2nd amendment.

With The country being split around 50/50 pro/anti gun and a republican controlled house if you think that impeachment would not occur you are naive or simply do not know the meaning of impeachment.

Impeachment is a formal process in which an official is accused of unlawful activity, Two U.S. presidents have been impeached; Andrew Johnson, and Bill Clinton. Bill Clinton was a very successful president, but think about how much more he could have accomplished during his second term if he was not impeached and could have concentrated on important issues instead of the damage control.

After Mr. Obama is impeached he would be tried and most likely be acquitted by the senate. The proceedings would put an end to any meaningful legislation that could benefit the country and end in a failed presidency.

Though I do not agree with most of the current president’s policies I do believe he is a smart man and a good politician. I do not believe he would put himself in that situation and this is just another case of crazy Uncle Joe talking without the teleprompter.

The constitution is irrelevant. Republicans and Democrats have completely ignored it for my entire life. They have created a country in which armed rebellion against the government is completely justified. And ironically, armed rebellion against our current government can be justified by the writings by the very people who created our country.

It's a very good thing I'm both a Christian and a Libertarian Socialist. If I was neither one, and had no religious or political views holding me back, I would probably be in jail for killing a Monsanto executive.

You know you guys also have the right to amend the 2nd amendment right? It was made hundreds of years ago.

Xin, you stay in Singapore!

That doesn't mean I can't state my opinion.

Touche. Here is my point: should our president just be able to say "meh fluff the constitution I'll just do what I want"...

There is a reason we have one and there is a reason we have checks and balances. He isn't a dictator for a reason.

I think Obama really thinks he is King Obama.

They're still in the "knee jerk reaction" phase of all this. A couple more weeks, and it'll settle out a bit more. What's being ignored here, is that the gun control laws in place actually worked just fine. Lanza attempted to acquire his own firearm and was denied through the process. They're reacting over nothing.

I acturally agree it could be impeachment territory ofc he will be aquited by the senate but, an Executive order is not good enough to go against the constitution.

This is an interesting issue, and I think the first question that needs to be asked is: What is the actual problem that we're trying to solve?

If the problem we're trying to solve is "Murders by gun" then the solution is easy: Legalize all drugs tomorrow, selling them in pharmacies to anyone with ID showing they're over 21.

The fact is that it is gang-bangers, mostly black gang-bangers, shooting one another. These are all our (collectively) our fault, and account for about half of all gun murders while only 13% of the US population.

We'd also stop incarcerating half of the people we currently hold in federal prisons (who are there on drug charges) and about 1/3rd of those in state prisons (ditto). Those people, having no felony record any longer, would have better economic opportunity, which would do even more toward making it possible for them to choose a productive life instead of a criminal one.

The fact is that nobody is interested in putting a stop to all the black youth being killed in this country. Nobody is proposing that which we know would stop it, just as it did when we repealed Prohibition.

Of course, it would put the private prison companies out of work and remove lots of prison guard FTE's.

How does this relate to guns?

You want to know where gun laws came from and why they were first enacted? The first was in 1751 in Louisiana. Gun laws came from the same place marriage laws came from: To keep "those people" from having firearms. Free blacks in slave states were required to obtain a license and show need to have a firearm. Whites, of course, did not have any such restriction.


The fun thing about gun laws: They don't stop anything. Columbine killers committed over 100 federal felonies, starting with sawing off shotguns to commit the murders and including dozens of felony bomb creations and high-capacity magazines.

Here's another fact about the gun laws: Virtually all of the "active shooter" incidents involve someone who is on, or has recently been on, psychotropic medication. Yes, "under 1%" of people experience that effect.. but if 2 million kids take a drug, 20,000 kids have that bad reaction -- potential killers. All of the killers aren't looking for a fight -- the instant bullets fly the other way, the killers blow their brains out. Of course, any bullets flying causes collateral damage -- recently in NYC police had to take a suspect out.. and out of 17 shots fired at the target, 9 bystanders were hit.

All of these issues are, of course, why "public health" is a very worthwhile field -- and why the public debate over ties to the pharmaceutical industry should happen.

But the knee-jerk response of disarming doesn't address the fundamental problem, it exacerbates it.

it doesnt matter though the media will never talk about that fact, just like when it was revealed that he didnt even use an AR15 in the shooting they made sure to not correct their incorrect reporting. its all propaganda, make certain guns seem more evil then they are to gain support from people on the fence about gun control/rights.

http://politicalhumor.about.com/od/joebiden/a/bidenisms.htm

Much ado about what amounts to a troll.

The world will truly be fluffed when in the year 2500 Americans are crying about how their lazer guns are being taken away and they can't vaporize eachother anymore.

Seems to me the complaints in here are more that your constitution should never change even though it is a different world than when it was made and even though it is allowed. You guys and your ray guns...

I don't see what you guys are kibitzing about. There's nothing in that article which suggests the 2nd amendment will be violated.

There have been many laws enforced in America's history which restrict the use and ownership of various arms. Many of these laws are more stringent than what's in place now, and have been upheld by the supreme court as constitutional.

Therefore, it is possible to enforce additional restrictions on arms without violating the second amendment.

There's a limit to how far these restrictions could go, but since we have no details of what's intended we can't make that judgement yet. Because of this, crying foul now does nothing but demonstrate that you're a political hack who's more interested in political posturing than in actually examining the pros and cons of proposed solutions.

In some ways, this actually makes things easier for the rest of us. It tells us who we can ignore when details do become available.

-Fooglmog
Guy with no clue.

the solution is simple. work at the city and state levels to enhance the mental health services and eliminate "gun free zones" where do all these mass killings happen? in "gun free zones" where they know that nobody else has one. also, bring back public stonings, instead of showing their face on the news for months after it happens show videos of them getting stoned to death, they will lose incentive for the 15 mins of fame they are searching for .

Lol. fluffing hipsters.

Thank you.

As far as impeachment, I guess our definitions are at odds. Beginning an impeachment proceeding on a sitting president, or even passing through the house, is a bunch of smoke and mirrors. He's not going to be convicted of anything, especially since, as foog pointed out, none of you have ANY DETAILS whatsoever.

Presidents have been circumventing their enumerated powers for over 200 years through the use of executive orders. It's nothing new.

Having a president have to deal with even the hint of a possible impeachment is all that is really needed.

Correct Crest. What most people don't understand is Executive orders can be struck down by the supreme court Also. So, even if obama gets the gun ban executive order. Will it pass the Supreme Court. I'm 99% sure not. The question though is how fast will it take the Supreme Court to strike it down....

Constitution (should be) > Executive Orders.

Otherwise, Executive Orders can start stripping away the rest of the Constitution; such as term limits, or how Congress is elected, or how the Supreme Court is appointed. The President can start changing the rest of the governmental infrastructure to his liking. Pretty soon the "President" will have climbed up the ladder and pulled it with him.

If you don't see this as a problem, then you should move to countries where the "Leader" ("President", "Dictator", "Emperor", etc..) has absolute authority.

Lymz I like your post.

I don't see why it would be done that way. Alchohol was banned via constitutional amendment once. Firearms could be as well (or more restricted or clarified as to what is/isn't allowed). If there was overwhelming support for such a thing that would be the only legal way to do it in the US.

Is this a serious thread? He can also order everyone to wear rainbow colored flip flops, but it will never hold up in the courts therefore nullifying it. So if he goes too far with an EP, it will be challenged successfully in courts (quite possible it's challnged either way). And if they totally ignore the populace than people will vote for a new group of people dedicated to doing away with the old group's agenda.

President's have overreachd before and it's not always worked out their way. FDR wanted 13 SCOTUS Justices. Yah, how did that work out? Sometimes it does work, "Mr. Marshall has ruled, now let him enforce it." But ultimately it's a back-and-forth of powers. I don't think that's a bad thing.

This threads' stupidity content is OVER 9000!

Sure you do, Req, but you don't know if any of the orders are going to violate the constitution, like others said

Just a question for all the Obama-bashers here....

Where was your moral outrage when President Bush signed an Executive Order allowing the NSA to wiretap American citizens without a warrant? Was that not a blatant violation of the Fourth Ammendment?

So here we have many people who most likely supported the previous administration's blatantly unconstitutional executive order, calling for the impeachment for the current President when A) he hasn't done anything yet and B) nobody knows what he plans to do.

It is that kind of intellectual dishonesty that makes teabaggers the dregs of American politics.

Also, as others have pointed out, the Senate would never remove him from office. But for our current House majority, throwing a symbolic fluff-fit that accomplishes absolutely nothing is just another day at the office.

How can you be "99% sure" it won't get through the supreme court when you have no information about what the executive order would include?

-Fooglmog
Guy with no clue.

Because it goes against the 2nd amendment without any legislative approval.

Who has appointed most of the supreme court?

Uh... that's completely wrong King.

If a regulation is enacted which violates the second amendment, it makes no difference whether or not it originated in congress or as an executive order.

Likewise, if a regulation could be enacted by congress without it being a violation of the second amendment, it would not be a violation of the second amendment if enacted by executive order.

Legislative approval has no connection what-so-ever to the determination of it's constitutionality under the second amendment.

-Fooglmog
Guy with no clue.

Reagen 2, Bush senior 2, Bush Jr. 2, Clinton 2, and Obama 2.

;)

I bought my first ever gun today. Take that administration.

but, Fooglmog congress can amend the constitution while Executive orders can not.

Actually, Congress can only propose amendments. 3/4 of the states or State Legislatures have to approve to make it official.

I was outraged then, too. But I'm a libertarian socialist, and most definitely not a Republican. But you really should grow up and move beyond childish namecalling. Calling people teabaggers bothers me even more than people calling Obama a socialist. It's even more ignorant.

You DO realize that they (the tea party crowd) originally started calling themselves teabaggers before anyone on the left ever did, right?

It's not my fault they picked such a ridiculously comical name for themselves, and from my point of view, if I have to tolerate them I can at least have a chuckle while I do =)

And Rockman, you are in a very very small minority here. While we tend to disagree on pretty much everything of substance, I can have respect for your well-thought stances. Just assume that unless I address you directly, nothing I say is meant as a comment about your ideology.

Its the ditto-heads that are spoon fed their opinion from blatant propaganda sources that I'm talking to..... Look around. There are plenty of them around, in this very thread.

lol, where do you get the idea that the tea party called themselves teabaggers? that is ridiculous

I stopped reading after that... Idiot.

http://www.facebook.com/events/59218539592/ ---- Facebook invite from Feb 1, 2009 for a protest in front of the White House.


http://washingtonindependent.com/...he-new-american-tea-party ---- "Tea Bag Liberal Dems Before They Tea Bag You"

http://www.nationalreview.com/...0ZWYxZWU4OWU2MzFiOWJmNDE=


"The first big day for this movement was Tax Day, April 15. And organizers had a gimmick. They asked people to send a tea bag to the Oval Office. One of the exhortations was “Tea Bag the Fools in D.C.” A protester was spotted with a sign saying, “Tea Bag the Liberal Dems Before They Tea Bag You.” So, conservatives started it: started with this terminology. But others ran with it and ran with it."

Go argue with NRO, that lefty online rag that it is.....

or for that matter, just google "history of teabagger"..... Idiot.

pwned

as usual

Idiot sighting! Yes, you cougar.

Wrong, as usual!

I'm not an expert on the tea party, so that may be true.

However, I would relate calling them 'teabaggers' to be similar to using the n-word against black people. Even if a minority of black people use that term themselves, when used by non-black people it is being used in a derogatory insulting manner, and few would argue that when liberals use the term 'teabagger' that they do not mean it in an insulting and degrading manner.

It is really sad that liberals preach tolerance, yet so many of them are so intolerant and hateful. It is almost as sad as Christians preaching non-violence, yet not seeing the hypocrisy in supporting violence in so many situations like so many of them do.