Biden says Obama could use executive orders to restrict guns

Comments (66)
texoman wrote:

President Obama would not be President now if he would have responded to gun control initiatives like this before the election! I’m a Democrat, but I’ll never support or vote for a politican that supports gun control! Bet there are many more Independents and Democrats out there that have the same feelings as me!

Jan 09, 2013 2:38pm EST  --  Report as abuse
DSwagger wrote:

texoman: I would never vote for anyone that supports gun control, because, screw those kids in Conecticut, and the next bunch of kids to be slaughtered, and the next, and maybe your kid one day. America has no problem with guns. It is people that kill people, right?

Jan 09, 2013 3:20pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Dragos111 wrote:

So, Obama is looking to enact gun control via Executive Orders, huh? This is the case where we will get to test the Constitutionality of his executive orders. He should not be taking on the responsibilities of the legislative branch of our country. He is not a king or a dictator.

Jan 09, 2013 3:31pm EST  --  Report as abuse

If only he was as committed to “…protect and defend the Constitution of the United States…”. He’s abusing the state secrets act to ensure that nobody can get a case in to court against them for violating our rights (ability to petition the government for your grievances is part of the first amendment). Violating that so that they can continue to violate our 4th amendment rights is criminal, as is killing any american who isn’t on an active battlefield without trial and judgement to that fate by their peers (the 5th, 6th, 7th and 8th amendments). If we got the 1st, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th and 8th amendments back, I would feel less concerned about his behavior towards the 2nd, but the President’s apparent disdain for the the Bill of Rights should be of great concern to everyone. Things are way out of hand when you can’t even petition to have them stop intentionally violating the Constitutional rights of every American. Don’t forget about our ‘secret laws’. I know what our founding fathers meant, they wrote it down, and it isn’t a nation where that happens.

Jan 09, 2013 4:30pm EST  --  Report as abuse
oneof7billion wrote:

texoman-

I’ll take that bet. In fact, I’d bet there are many more Independents and Democrats, and maybe even some Republicans, out there that do support some reasonable forms of gun control.

We will soon find out

Jan 09, 2013 4:42pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Robert-T wrote:

The true irony here is that when the framers wrote the second amendment they did so to guaranty protections from government such as an executive branch passing edicts without going through proper congresional channels.

Jan 09, 2013 5:15pm EST  --  Report as abuse
corynoone wrote:

I know that my opinion on this subject will catch a lot of flack from some people, but I do not agree with the president rolling gun control into an executive order. I’m not going to chant about needing a gun for self defense. In many sitations, things happen too quickly for a person to be able to use their gun effectively. My issue is with what the founding father’s intended by specifically stating that citizens have the right to bear arms. Our system works because people are willing to go with it and follow the rules (for the most part). This is true for our government as well. We elect them and they don’t violate the things spelled out in the Constitution (again, for the most part). However, that doesn’t mean it will always be the case. Our right to bear arms was intended to serve as a ready-made militia, should the people ever feel the need to overthrow the government again. Don’t misunderstand. I’m not advocating that everyone go out, buy a gun, and start marching on the White House right this second. That would be one of the worst things that could happen to the country and is a completely ridiculous suggestiong given what and where we are, but I feel that it is something very important to remember about our history and how we came about in the first place. Things change. Governments change. What if one day we find that ours has changed in a way we do not approve of and can’t control? Just food for thought.

Jan 09, 2013 5:18pm EST  --  Report as abuse

Another unconstitutional executive order? Why not? He’s instituted more executive orders than all previous presidents combined. When asked if he’s the President, the answer should be “No, he’s the King”.

Jan 09, 2013 5:28pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Billpayne wrote:

AlkalineState wrote: “Executive orders, I like that. How are you republicans liking Bush’s Patriot Act now?” Problem is, the Patriot Act is an Act because it was approved and modified by Congress many times. This president is Mr Executive Order. He will not allow his ideological agenda to be disrupted by a recalcitrant congress that wants to debate the rules by which we are governed.

Jan 09, 2013 8:19pm EST  --  Report as abuse
gregbrew56 wrote:

Bluewater23000 wrote: “Another unconstitutional executive order? Why not? He’s instituted more executive orders than all previous presidents combined.”

From the National Archives:

Bush – Term 1 – 171 E.O.
Bush – Term 2 – 115 E.O.
Obama – Term 1 – 144 E.O.

Do you just make up this bologna as you go along? If you heard it from somewhere else, you might want to re-think your sources.

Take your lies elsewhere.

Jan 09, 2013 8:40pm EST  --  Report as abuse
brnwtrs7 wrote:

Proclaiming an edict to thwart the will of the people who are not subjects of the crown or vasssls of the state and who live in a democracy is never a good idea.

Jan 09, 2013 9:02pm EST  --  Report as abuse
brnwtrs7 wrote:

Proclaiming an edict (executive order) to thwart the will of the people who live in a democracy and who are not subjects to the crown or are not vassals of the state is never a good idea.

Jan 09, 2013 9:06pm EST  --  Report as abuse
bjoh249 wrote:

What Obama and the left is doing is just like how so many dictatorships got started. Gun control is always the first step in the making of a dictatorship. These liberal extremists in our government are not focused on the real issue which is mental illness. They are focusing on guns as a part of their plans to take more power over the American people. After all, did the Brady Bill and Assault Weapons ban of 1994 stop the massacres at Columbine, Paducah, Jonesboro, the 1998 shootings on the steps of our own capitol(by a paranoid schizophrenic)?? No they did not. Just like how prohibition stopped alcohol use, just like how the law s against marijuna, cocaine, meth has stopped people from using them.

Jan 09, 2013 9:14pm EST  --  Report as abuse
bates148 wrote:

@Robert-T And the bigger irony is that Mr Obama is a teacher of constitutional law. It’s just unbelievable.

Jan 09, 2013 9:17pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Broey77 wrote:

77,000 Americans and over 1 million children each year are killed or abused by drunks. Do the world a favor and grow a backbone. Ban alcohol sales after 9pm, I now it would hurt you since you love your beer as much as a redneck loves his gun, but please Mr President, be a leader and do the one thing that will actually save lives day 1.

I would be more then happy to vote for a Semi-Auto ban AFTER the president steps up and bans Alcohol sales after 9pm with an Executive Order.

Alcohol has no purpose except to impair judgement, at least a Semi-Auto can be used in home defense or if you live out in the country when the sheriffs office is 30 minutes away.

Jan 09, 2013 9:24pm EST  --  Report as abuse
AZWarrior wrote:

Like Biden is such a constitutional scholar. Doing the wrong thing for the best of reasons, is still doing the wrong thing. Of course, all of this isn’t about those children at all now is it?

Jan 09, 2013 9:48pm EST  --  Report as abuse
foiegras wrote:

Down in my neck of the woods – below the Mason-Dixon Line – we have been talking dictatorship big time. We also talk slippery slope, the Constitution, Fast and Furious, communism, getting prayer in the schools, and the devil. We’re getting tuned up for Armageddon at the local gun show, for civil war, big government takeover – anything to distract us from the reality that our country is becoming a war zone. “When you’re lost in the rain in Juarez…”

Jan 09, 2013 9:56pm EST  --  Report as abuse
actnow wrote:

Wow…He’s talking about overriding the Constitution again! He’s putting out feelers to see how people will react and they need to hear an ear full. This is flat unacceptable. Our democracy is founded on the Constitution. The Executive Branch can neither create laws nor interpret laws that do not exist. President Obama must not be allowed to become a king.

Jan 09, 2013 10:14pm EST  --  Report as abuse
mikefromaz wrote:

Lifelong gun owner without apology. By the way if it matters also a Democrat. That being said, I can honestly say while I am not surprised, I am disgusted with the selfish “hooray for me” and to he77 with everyone else when it comes to guns, especially as of late. Hey, you people who mistake testosterone for common sense. THE ONLY difference between military, and police personell,and John Q Public is the pros don’t treat guns like toys. Yes you, you know who you are, the kind who gets a thrill every time you stroke your gun? Grow up huh. It isn’t bad enopugh the NRA is making jerks out of themselves, they are enticing even more fringe lunatics to come out of the woodwork to exact whatever murderous toll the worms in their heads demands. Im not bullet proof are you? Is it a game of whoever has the most/biggest guns wins? I hunt, and I target shoot, and I have more than enough home protection. I also don’t want lunatics like we now have killing at will to have guns of any sort. The 2nd Ammendment is not a sacred pact to die for so crazy people can have guns. The NRA with their rabid “guns uber alles” (guns over all else) attitude are already their own worst enemy. If you are a responsible gun owner as I am, we better make responsible sounding voices and sane decisions while their is still a choice. If not you CAN and will kiss your gun “rights” goodbye.

Jan 09, 2013 10:16pm EST  --  Report as abuse
tracing wrote:

Look,

Its obvious he can use an executive order to take an action on the lawful gun owners in the USA.

Just because no other President hasn’t tried it in more than 200 years doesn’t mean he cant do it.

LOL – I say, go for it Mr Obama

LOL it will ber V E R Y interesting to see where it leads.

GO FOR IT BABY, we support you lolololol

Jan 09, 2013 10:19pm EST  --  Report as abuse
tracing wrote:

President Obama would not be President now if he would have responded to gun control initiatives like this before the election!

——————

Well then you are a LOW INFORMATION VOTER my friends because HE DID RESPOND to this topic prior to the election and a few million of us that WATCHED HIM during the debates heard him and sounded the alarms

YOU NOW HAVE ONLY YOURSELF TO BLAME

Stupid low information believe the lying media voters

You are about to get EVERYTHING you voted for lol

Its ok, we have been preparing for whats coming, we will be fine, you all… well, good luck, good luck

Jan 09, 2013 10:21pm EST  --  Report as abuse

is this guy crazy? is obama crazy? this aint russia, or china. these guys have to be crazy!

Jan 09, 2013 10:22pm EST  --  Report as abuse
tracing wrote:

When I went to school they had this thing called HISTORY, kinda important, obviously, they dropped it from the curriculum in the inner cities and dem areas, thats the only explanation, oh well, they will get everything they voted for

Hitler wrote a self serving autobiography to introduce himself and his ideals to the masses

Hitler was assigned to watch the labor unions in one of his first govt assignments and, seeing the power they had, decided to use them for political ends, in the end, the unions were nationalized and worked for nationalized companies, and the sole nationalized union was used to enslave the workers in the newly nationalized companies and factories

Hitler used a depressed economic era to rally support of his ideas from the masses of poor and unemployed

Hitler identified the source of all economic woes to be centered in a 1% of the country (jews)

Hitler declared that only the military and police needed arms, and banned all arms from the citizens

Hitler suffered from a “mixed up parentage” that he was ashamed of his entire life

Hitler was a socialist

Hitler was NOT Hitlers real name

The people that BLINDLY followed hitler lived LIVES OF SHAME AND RIDICULE

The people that followed hitler, felt like FOOLS for the rest of their lives

Jan 09, 2013 10:23pm EST  --  Report as abuse
tracing wrote:

When I went to school they had this thing called HISTORY, kinda important, obviously, they dropped it from the curriculum in the inner cities and dem areas, thats the only explanation, oh well, they will get everything they voted for

Hitler wrote a self serving autobiography to introduce himself and his ideals to the masses

Hitler was assigned to watch the labor unions in one of his first govt assignments and, seeing the power they had, decided to use them for political ends, in the end, the unions were nationalized and worked for nationalized companies, and the sole nationalized union was used to enslave the workers in the newly nationalized companies and factories

Hitler used a depressed economic era to rally support of his ideas from the masses of poor and unemployed

Hitler identified the source of all economic woes to be centered in a 1% of the country (jews)

Hitler declared that only the military and police needed arms, and banned all arms from the citizens

Hitler suffered from a “mixed up parentage” that he was ashamed of his entire life

Hitler was a socialist

Hitler was NOT Hitlers real name

The people that BLINDLY followed hitler lived LIVES OF SHAME AND RIDICULE

The people that followed hitler, felt like FOOLS for the rest of their lives

Jan 09, 2013 10:23pm EST  --  Report as abuse
ConstFundie wrote:

An executive order to remove a personal right guaranteed by the Constitution? Obama and Biden are way out of line on this one. Nothing short of eminent danger to the Union could validate such a horribly unconstitutional and desperate action. Another case of Presidential abuse of Executive powers.

Jan 09, 2013 10:24pm EST  --  Report as abuse
actnow wrote:

Hey Reuters…is there any limit on how many times someone can post? This is looking like a blog from tracing? He shouldn’t be allowed to abuse this privileged or it will drive off legitimate dialog.

Jan 09, 2013 10:40pm EST  --  Report as abuse
palama wrote:

With a congress worse than cockroaches, this is the right way to get things done!

Jan 09, 2013 10:40pm EST  --  Report as abuse
SanPa wrote:

The President could issue such an order. We know that Roosevelt had the power to seize private properties and intern American citizens through the power of an Executive Order. George W. Bush used Executive Power to collect American Citizens without warrants and held without timely trial. So sure, President Obama could strip away weapon ownership rights. And as long as Americans are willing to stand by, any and all of this incursions on our rights can take place.

Jan 09, 2013 11:05pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Amskeptic wrote:

Fricken gun nuts go crazy so fast they can’t see common sense any more.
A MAJORITY of Americans want sensible gun control! A MAJORITY of NRA members want background checks on all gun purchases! And look at the looneys launch their idiotic diatribes, “they’re coming to take our guns!” Sensible registration and background checks folks. That’s all. The fact is, Congress is thwarting the will of the people because they are beholden to the NRA. GO Biden!

Jan 09, 2013 11:23pm EST  --  Report as abuse
richinnc wrote:

All this talk about gun control and nothing about how our “leaders” – both parties – killed the economy. Many of us have been affected by the poor economy – some mortally. But many of our “leaders” do not want spending control. They just want more bullets (taxes).

Jan 09, 2013 11:25pm EST  --  Report as abuse
rasputyn wrote:

Take on the NRA? Why not take on the Fed….(who is destroying the country more effectively than communism and Alquaida ever dreamed of) That would be much easier.

Jan 09, 2013 11:26pm EST  --  Report as abuse
rasputyn wrote:

those who beat their chests and defy the gov’t should remember the words of one Radio talk show host…. your weapons are pea-shooters compared to what the military has. Ahhhhh… Syria here we come. So people, please don;t throw stones at Assad. You live in glass houses.

Jan 09, 2013 11:29pm EST  --  Report as abuse
bates148 wrote:

@Amskeptic A couple states have your “Sensible registration and background checks.” First check out the murder rates in Texas, a state with practically no gun laws. Then check out the murder rates in NY and California, two states with very strict gun control, and let me know if you see a strong correlation.

Jan 09, 2013 11:39pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Mandingo wrote:

I voted for Obama and I expect him to at the very least do what he wants to do as this is the minimum that will be done. Being military I know assault weapons (M16, FN, AK-47) and I also know they were designed to murder people – nothing else. They are very effective as human killing machines and as far as I am concerned I would never want a civilian to have one of these weapons with the insanity of 30 round magazines attached.

Jan 10, 2013 12:08am EST  --  Report as abuse
zivis wrote:

I happen to be for gun control in making sure they go to mentally/emotionally stable, trained people or better yet “regulated militias” (I am not for limiting weapon types), but the whole notion that the POTUS can restrict them by executive order has a very ugly irony to it–it is tyrannical; to stop tyrants is precisely why the 2nd amendment exists. This executive order thing has gotten way out of control in general (long before Obama), but this proposal is across the line.

Jan 10, 2013 12:47am EST  --  Report as abuse
AlkalineState wrote:

Obama’s executive orders: 141.

Ronald Reagan’s executive orders: 381.

Jan 10, 2013 1:05am EST  --  Report as abuse
beech wrote:

Emperor Obama! And if you can’t find him, look on the golf course.

Jan 10, 2013 1:37am EST  --  Report as abuse
Chronicle236 wrote:

Earlier today, I heard an even-handed discussion of this topic on NPR. It focused on the REAL problem that few people want to discuss. Had I been close to a phone, I would have called into the program and added in my own views. You don’t control mentally ill people (the people involved in massacre-style slayings) by controlling guns. You control mentally ill people by catching the mental illness early and controlling the people with mental illnesses. Folks, it isn’t just “guns.” Not a single gun was used in the Oklahoma City Federal Building massacre. Nor was a single gun used by the “Unibomber” (remember him?). Nuts don’t need a gun to kill people. They just need to be nutty enough to do it. We need to move away from the touchy-feely notion that potentially violent head cases can be treated on an outpatient basis. These people need to by “committed” to an inpatient stay to get them off the streets. So, let’s have a little less GUN CONTROL and a lot more NUT CONTROL.

Jan 10, 2013 2:01am EST  --  Report as abuse
Abulafiah wrote:

actnow wrote:
“Wow…He’s talking about overriding the Constitution again!”

Wow – presidents have been doing that since 1785! Wow – the Constitution gives them the power to issue EOs!

Article II, Section 1, Clause 1, and Article II, Section 3, Clause 5, confirmed by SCOTUS.

Jan 10, 2013 4:16am EST  --  Report as abuse
dreamymiss wrote:

There is a problem when we have people in office who say things that clearly show they have no idea what the constitution means and why it is there. What were the points of contention in the revolutionary war? Taxes and guns.

Jan 10, 2013 4:36am EST  --  Report as abuse
dreamymiss wrote:

cronicle 236, we can’t institutionalize them anymore. Our institutions are back down to the numbers of the 1800′s (what was the population of the US in the 1800′s compared to now? hmmmm)

Jan 10, 2013 4:38am EST  --  Report as abuse
fuzzywzhe wrote:

The gunman that did this was a felon, and it was illegal for him to own any guns.

Didn’t stop him, did it?

Criminals don’t have any qualms about breaking the law. Making gun sale or ownership of guns illegal, won’t stop the people that are the most dangerous gun owners, it won’t even deter them.

Jan 10, 2013 5:00am EST  --  Report as abuse
bjoh249 wrote:

“To conquer a nation first disarm its people.”-Adolf Hitler

Jan 10, 2013 5:16am EST  --  Report as abuse
fromthecenter wrote:

I don’t think he will need to do any executive orders after what has been transpiring. I think it is a good time to review everything about the gun violence going on in this country and begin to take steps to correcting it. Just issuing a ban on assault rifles or large clips isn’t going to fix the problem. We need to do better at background checks, we need to address the issue of too many mentally unstable people walking among us, we need to hold gun owners, sellers and re-sellers more accountable. Hopefully, something positive will result and we can reduce the amount of gun violence that is happening in this country every day. Not just the mass murders that are occuring.

Jan 10, 2013 5:59am EST  --  Report as abuse
ccharles wrote:

How does this protect children? They are back at school, do they have security? How does the gun laws proposed change anything? and if these laws dont work will biden and obama be taking responsiblity for the next tragic event that happens? of course not, they into making grand statement but not into taking on responsiblity at all.

The way we protectd the courthouses is the model they should use to protect the schools.

Jan 10, 2013 7:06am EST  --  Report as abuse
deerecub1977 wrote:

The truth is that the United States of America is a constitutional republic. This is similar to a democracy because our representatives are selected by democratic elections, but ultimately our representatives are required to work within the framework of our constitution.

Jan 10, 2013 7:07am EST  --  Report as abuse
deerecub1977 wrote:

dragos 111 said He is not a king or a dictator. are YOU SURE?

Jan 10, 2013 7:08am EST  --  Report as abuse
richinnc wrote:

The bigger problem is that we do not understand right from wrong. We have become a nation of law breakers – who has not broken the speed limit (too fast or too slow). Our “leaders” think they can pass laws and that will change our behavior. The Constitution is not the rock solid document that it should be. Take airport “security” – do you not feel that you are guilty and have to prove your innocence? Sadly freedom is not free – many were killed in the revolutionary war and the various wars – but it is not only the military – it is us. Unless we become a complete police state and EVERYONE is watched 24/7 and no one can commit a crime (which would be criminal to the Constitution) we will have murder. Whether it is a President (Lincoln & Kennedy) or a homeless person. Whether it is a single person or thousands (as on Sept. 11) because we have freedom we will have wonderful people killed. And I am one who mourns the end of life for all the aborted – so the woman can have her “rights” (I cannot understand how we can overlook those – I think part of Hell will be a cry room with all those babies-to-be in it)

Jan 10, 2013 7:26am EST  --  Report as abuse
Abulafiah wrote:

tracing wrote:
“Hitler wrote a self serving autobiography to introduce himself and his ideals to the masses”

Hitler wrote Mein Kampf in 1923, while he was in prison for trying to incite a national revolution. He introduced his ideals long before that – he became party chairman of the DAP in 1921.

tracing wrote:
“the unions were nationalized and worked for nationalized companies, and the sole nationalized union was used to enslave the workers in the newly nationalized companies and factories”

They were not nationalised. They were banned. Their assets were seized, their leaders imprisoned, their funds were confiscated, and both collective bargaining rights and the right to strike were removed.

tracing wrote:
“Hitler used a depressed economic era to rally support of his ideas from the masses of poor and unemployed”

Hitlers base was the business leaders, such as Krupp, Siemens AG, and IG Farben. He won that support by tax cuts, subsidies, and government support in the form of Reichsarbeitsdienst, which were decreed by Hitler but performed by private industry who then got paid by the government. Think of Haliburton and you get the idea.

The only part the economic environment played was to open the door to extremist positions, much as it did for the Tea Party in the USA.

tracing wrote:
“Hitler identified the source of all economic woes to be centered in a 1% of the country (jews)”

“The Marxist parties and their allies have had 14 years to show what they can do. The result is a heap of ruins. Now, people of Germany, give us four years and then pass judgment upon us!”

Adolf Hitler

tracing wrote:
“Hitler declared that only the military and police needed arms, and banned all arms from the citizens”

You have clearly never heard of the SA. They were not military, but armed, and were effectively Hitler’s armed militia. He used them to intimidate the opposition and get him into power. Think of Sinn Fein/IRA. Or GOP/NRA….

tracing wrote:
“Hitler suffered from a “mixed up parentage” that he was ashamed of his entire life”

What mixed up parentage? Both parents where Austrian. Hitler’s ‘problem’ was that he wanted to German.

tracing wrote:
“Hitler was a socialist”

This one makes me laugh. You have been listening to Glenn Beck for too long.

Leaving aside the facts of Hitler outlawing unions, increasing working hours, removing the right to leave a job without government permission, the lack of any nationalisation, and the little matter of Hitler ordering his SA to purge (AKA murder) the leftist elements in his party, Hitler himself said he was not a socialist.

From Mein Kampf:
‘the suspicion was whispered in German Nationalist circles that we also were merely another variety of Marxism, perhaps even Marxists suitably disguised, or better still, Socialists… We used to roar with laughter at these silly faint-hearted bourgeoisie and their efforts to puzzle out our origin, our intentions and our aims.’

Or, in a speech he made on January 26th, 1932:
‘I am bound to say that private property can be morally and ethically justified only if I admit that men’s achievements are different. Only on that basis can I assert since men’s achievements are different, the results of those achievements are also different. But if the results of those achievements are different, then it is reasonable to leave to men the administration of those results to a corresponding degree. It would not be logical to entrust the administration of the result of an achievement which was bound up with a personality either to the next best but less capable person or to a community which, through the mere fact that it had not performed the achievement, has proved that it is not capable of administering the result of that achievement. Thus it must be admitted that in the economic sphere, from the start, in all branches men are not of equal value or of equal importance.’

Isn’t that pretty much what the modern GOP says?

Before you come with the usual Glenn Beck soundbite, Hitlet said, on 16th November, 1928:
“We have to strip the terms ‘Nationalism’ and ‘Socialism’ of their previous meaning. Only that man is a nationalist who stands by his people, and only that man is a socialist who stands up for the rights of his people both internally and externally.”

tracing wrote:
“Hitler was NOT Hitlers real name”

Yes it was. You are getting confused with his father.

Jan 10, 2013 7:41am EST  --  Report as abuse
Abulafiah wrote:

fuzzywzhe wrote:
“The gunman that did this was a felon, and it was illegal for him to own any guns.

Didn’t stop him, did it?”

That is the whole point. He was easily able to arm himself by getting weapons for a legal, law-abiding, allegedly responsible gun owner.

When the current law lets this happen, it is obvious that the laws are to lax. As things stand right now, most legal gun owners are not responsible enough to own guns. They allow too many guns to fall into the hands of criminals.

The NRA working to make the laws even more lax, so criminals can arm themselves even more easily, is madness.

Jan 10, 2013 7:51am EST  --  Report as abuse
corynoone wrote:

@Abulafiah

I find it difficult to take a government entity seriously when they want to increase the restrictions for responsible gun owners in order to protect everyone else, but that has no problem with actively encouraging who knows how many guns to find their way into the hands of the Mexican drug cartels. Hypocrisy at it’s finest.

Jan 10, 2013 8:11am EST  --  Report as abuse
ConstFundie wrote:

@abulafiah, An EO for the extraordinary circumstance in this case being that Obama feels like ignoring his sworn oath to uphold the US Constitution including the Separation of Powers?

Jan 10, 2013 8:13am EST  --  Report as abuse
Abulafiah wrote:

corynoone wrote:
“@Abulafiah

I find it difficult to take a government entity seriously when they want to increase the restrictions for responsible gun owners in order to protect everyone else”

You are assuming, without any proof at all, purely as an act of faith, that the current gun owners are responsible.

Given the number of criminals who arm themselves by obtaining a gun from one of your responsible gun owners, I would say that way too many of them are not.

Jan 10, 2013 9:06am EST  --  Report as abuse
Abulafiah wrote:

@ConstFundie

I suspect you have never read this constitution that you worship so much. In what way, exactly, is Obama violating the constitution?

Jan 10, 2013 9:08am EST  --  Report as abuse
tony7914 wrote:

@Abulafiah

“When the current law lets this happen, it is obvious that the laws are to lax. As things stand right now, most legal gun owners are not responsible enough to own guns. They allow too many guns to fall into the hands of criminals”

This kind of thing does happen from time to time, it’s a tradgedy but adding more restrictions does nothing but make it harder for responsible people to own a weapon, and criminals have an easier time of getting them.

So where do you get the idea that most legal gun owners are not responsible enough to own a weapon? Also I would like to know how you think it’s legal gun owners that are responsible for guns falling into the hands of people that there are already numerous laws in force intended to stop this kind of thing, adding more laws does nothing to prevent the problem it only makes it harder for those of us who are legal and responsible owners.

Saddly I haven’t seen or heard much discusion on why the man did this in the first place, clearly he is deranged and yet no one saw the warning signs or did anything to head this guy off.

Right now this country is about as divided as I have ever seen it in my lifetime, bone headed stunts like what Obama is pulling with executive orders will only deepen that divide, we have a process for designing and passing new laws in this country and the executive branch has very little to legally do with it, this abuse of executive orders was something a lot of folks threw fits about when the last addministration tried things like that, funny how they think it’s ok to do that now, how do you justify that?

It’s truly sad what we are leaving for the children, keep trying things like this and eventually you will have something to worry about because as it stands now about half the country doesn’t agree with the progressive bs being dumped on us.

Jan 10, 2013 9:37am EST  --  Report as abuse
Overcast451 wrote:

Such champions of our rights….

Jan 10, 2013 9:56am EST  --  Report as abuse
tony7914 wrote:

“Chronicle236 wrote:

Earlier today, I heard an even-handed discussion of this topic on NPR. It focused on the REAL problem that few people want to discuss. Had I been close to a phone, I would have called into the program and added in my own views. You don’t control mentally ill people (the people involved in massacre-style slayings) by controlling guns. You control mentally ill people by catching the mental illness early and controlling the people with mental illnesses. Folks, it isn’t just “guns.” Not a single gun was used in the Oklahoma City Federal Building massacre. Nor was a single gun used by the “Unibomber” (remember him?). Nuts don’t need a gun to kill people. They just need to be nutty enough to do it. We need to move away from the touchy-feely notion that potentially violent head cases can be treated on an outpatient basis. These people need to by “committed” to an inpatient stay to get them off the streets. So, let’s have a little less GUN CONTROL and a lot more NUT CONTROL.”

It’s good to see there are still some folks who can identify the root cause of the issue, well said!

Jan 10, 2013 10:00am EST  --  Report as abuse
QuidProQuo wrote:

I have a gun, a perfect little colt that fits nicely into the palm of my hand, holds one in the chamber and five in the magazine. I like it, it’s perfect for close range defensive needs. I’ve never met anyone yet who is all into AR-15′s, etc that has ever given me good vibes. Including my ex who was a radical assault weapon freak. Tell me what the purpose is for these weapons in the hands of my ex and my neighbors? Oh, it’s fun to shoot them these people say. Whatever. To me they are useless in our society. Hey, I am all for responsible gun ownership and love game meat in the freezer shot by my very skilled hunter boyfriend. But he uses a gun meant to take down a deer with one shot, not spary the animal with 20 bullets. And I don’t know any hunter out there who would ever pull out an assault rifle to hunt their game. So when we have really strange members of humanity using these guns to hunt other humans, I do have issue with that.
Do I think everyone should have the right to have a self defense pistol? yes, i do. But I don’t think anyone has some freakish right to strut around all cocky and stupid acting with an AR-15. Weirdos

Jan 10, 2013 11:09am EST  --  Report as abuse
lawgone wrote:

Over-reaction and baseless arguments.

In neighboring Connecticut, Governor Dannel Malloy urged U.S. lawmakers to tighten federal gun control measures in response to the shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School.

“As long as weapons continue to travel up and down (interstate highway) I-95, what is available for sale in Florida or Virginia can have devastating consequences here in Connecticut,” said Malloy, who paused and fought back tears, his voice cracking, when discussing the tragedy at Sandy Hook.

So Gov Malloy, how many deadly incidents have arose from firearms coming from Florida and Virginia? Did the firearms used in the Sandy Hook incident come from either state? In fact, how many mass murders have occurred in your state in say the last 10-20 years and what type of firearm was used and where did they come from?

I’ll I can say is get a grip you’re supposed to the Governor. Try using facts to present your argument instead of emotions.

Personally, I think Walmart should have said they’d be more than happy to attend the meeting through phone or video conferencing instead.

Biden wants Congress to reintroduce the “assault weapons” (whatever they are).

The “assault weapons” (whatever they are) ban made no difference in the statistics over the 10 year ban.

Statistics are pesky things for gun grabbers.

More BS…

“Gun violence has been on a rampage as we know firsthand and we know painfully,” Cuomo said on Wednesday in his annual State of the State address, committing New York to leading the country in enacting new gun control laws. “We must stop the madness, my friends.

Gov Cuomo, how many mass killings have there been in your state in say the 10-20 years and what was the primary firearm used?

By the way, when your were Clinton’s Attorney General you did more harm to this country then legal gun owners will ever do in several life times. You had a pretty big hand in the collapse of the housing marking with your lawsuits. Don’t think that Americans are going to forget about your role in the collapse of our economy.

I could pick this entire article apart piece by piece using the truth, but no one wants to hear that…

Jan 10, 2013 11:42am EST  --  Report as abuse
jaham wrote:

Sure, Obama could use executive orders to impose gun controls, but it certainly won’t keep mass shootings from occurring…

Jan 10, 2013 11:51am EST  --  Report as abuse
BillDexter wrote:

QuidProQuo, the business owners who survived the L.A. riots by standing on the roofs of their businesses with semi automatic weapons might disagree with you. They survived while others that were not so well armed were beaten and killed, their businesses looted and burned.

As our open borders increase the number of government dependants and we then indoctrinate them into a bolder sense of entitlement to other people’s money, let’s consider the end game. Can this continue forever? If not, how will it end? Ramping down by policy was roundly rejected in the last election. That really only leaves eventual bankruptcy. What will happen when the welfare checks stop? Your paradigm for what’s ‘needed’ for self defense could change, and change drastically one day.

Jan 10, 2013 12:12pm EST  --  Report as abuse
random79 wrote:

Abulafiah wrote:
Wow – presidents have been doing that since 1785! Wow – the Constitution gives them the power to issue EOs!

Article II, Section 1, Clause 1, and Article II, Section 3, Clause 5, confirmed by SCOTUS.

Actually no, the EO is only to be used to aid the president in enforcing existing law, not make new law. And presidents that have issued EO’s that conflict with the constitution have had them stricken down by the SCOTUS on numerous occasions.

Jan 10, 2013 12:58pm EST  --  Report as abuse
ejhickey wrote:

i wonder if Bush realizes how he blazed a trail for Obama’s in roads into our freedoms. i wonder if W still considers himslf a conservative, a republican and an American?

Jan 10, 2013 3:14pm EST  --  Report as abuse
AlkalineState wrote:

How are you republicans liking Bush’s Patrioit Act now?

Executive orders. This is funny.

Jan 10, 2013 3:43pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Abulafiah wrote:

@tony7914

things like this don’t happen from time to time, they happen several times a year. Far more frequently than in any country with gum controls. Do you think that is just a co-incidence?

Jan 10, 2013 8:55pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Abulafiah wrote:

@random79

EOs have been struck down twice, not ‘on numerous occasions’, and what new laws is Obama introducing? Be specific.

Jan 10, 2013 8:57pm EST  --  Report as abuse
This discussion is now closed. We welcome comments on our articles for a limited period after their publication.