Gun Issues page 36

2293 posts

Flag Post
Originally posted by tenco1:
Originally posted by jhco50:

I’m kind of surprised Johnny is up, usually it’s you and I at this time of night.

Well I’m pretty sure he lives in Germany, so I think it’s late/early enough for him to be awake.

Putting in a work at home day, because of snow. Otherwise i would be on my way to work by now, its AM 7:45(edit 8:17 at time of finish) here.

Originally posted by jhco50:

Since you know way more about my country’s constitution than I do, show me in that document where it even mentions the president having the power to issue an executive order, bypassing congress. I’m just guessing, but I bet it’s not in there. But hey, what would I know about my own government.

Article. II.
Section. 1. The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America…

Article II
Section. 3. …he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed…

This is where he gains the ability to issue Executive Orders and at the same time also limits the ability. It invest in the President the power of execution of the Law. Within the boundary of existing laws he gets to decide how the executive Power carries out the laws. Thats what a executive Order is, the President deciding within the given limitations how the Laws are executed.

 
Flag Post

Oh my.

http://stockman.house.gov/media-center/press-releases/stockman-warns-obama-push-for-gun-control-will-be-met-with-white-house

WASHINGTON – Congressman Steve Stockman (R-Texas 36th) released the following statement Monday afternoon.

The White House’s recent announcement they will use executive orders and executive actions to infringe on our constitutionally-protected right to keep and bear arms is an unconstitutional and unconscionable attack on the very founding principles of this republic.

I will seek to thwart this action by any means necessary, including but not limited to eliminating funding for implementation, defunding the White House, and even filing articles of impeachment.

The President’s actions are an existential threat to this nation. The right of the people to keep and bear arms is what has kept this nation free and secure for over 200 years. The very purpose of the Second Amendment is to stop the government from disallowing people the means to defend themselves against tyranny. Any proposal to abuse executive power and infringe upon gun rights must be repelled with the stiffest legislative force possible.

Under no circumstances whatsoever may the government take any action that disarms any peaceable person – much less without due process through an executive declaration without a vote of Congress or a ruling of a court.

The President’s actions are not just an attack on the Constitution and a violation of his sworn oath of office – they are a direct attack on Americans that place all of us in danger. If the President is allowed to suspend constitutional rights on his own personal whims, our free republic has effectively ceased to exist.
 
Flag Post
Originally posted by JohnnyBeGood:
Originally posted by tenco1:
Originally posted by jhco50:

I’m kind of surprised Johnny is up, usually it’s you and I at this time of night.

Well I’m pretty sure he lives in Germany, so I think it’s late/early enough for him to be awake.

Putting in a work at home day, because of snow. Otherwise i would be on my way to work by now, its AM 7:45(edit 8:17 at time of finish) here.

Originally posted by jhco50:

Since you know way more about my country’s constitution than I do, show me in that document where it even mentions the president having the power to issue an executive order, bypassing congress. I’m just guessing, but I bet it’s not in there. But hey, what would I know about my own government.

Article. II.
Section. 1. The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America…

Article II
Section. 3. …he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed…

This is where he gains the ability to issue Executive Orders and at the same time also limits the ability. It invest in the President the power of execution of the Law. Within the boundary of existing laws he gets to decide how the executive Power carries out the laws. Thats what a executive Order is, the President deciding within the given limitations how the Laws are executed.

What kind of work do you do? I’m retired now, but I was an electrician for 26 years and the remainder of my working life I was an architectural draftsman.

No. artical 2, section 3 does not give him power to issue executive orders and it is not mentioned here. You are right in that he is given the power to see that the laws are followed as legislated, but it doesn’t allow him to use his power to make laws. The EO came later in our country’s history.

According to the National Archives, this is what an EO is used for. Not for making laws. Consider an EO as a CEO telling his subordinates his orders for the days activities.

Executive orders are official documents, numbered consecutively, through which the President of the United States manages the operations of the Federal Government.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by jhco50:

I just can’t believe you went there!

WHY?
I’m quite capable of believing that YOU haven’t a clue as to where “THERE” is….at least in regards to this discussion. Johnny calls YOU out on most of the bullshit ya stubbornly refuse to drop by (his) presenting huge amounts of extreeeemely obvious rebuttals……well, OBVIOUS to all but YOU.
Tenco, according to our constitution, it is not the presidents job to run the country. He is an administrator of government…

…a “government” OF THE COUNTRY.
As in FEDERAL govt.
As in UNITED States…UNIFIED States…States ALL “pulling TOGETHER” for a common goal.
Yeah, that shit just has to stop.

…and the states run themselves.

Okay, yes…we all know that YOU are a State’s Rights advocate.
SO?
While the debate of State’s rights vs. Federalism wages on,,,
a huge deciding factor was born of the Civil War.

Though often regarded as a war over the question of slavery, the Civil War actually was fought over the age-old argument between advocates for a strong central federal government and southern state leaders who thought of their territories as sovereign in and of themselves. The war tested—and the Union victory solidified—the U.S. Constitution and our nation’s viability.

This is not a new thing as it started with FDR.

NO…oh Wise-1-of-History.
The debate on State’s right was going on at the Constitutional Convention.
""""But, ya knew that…"""

Our country has had a problem since FDR, but it is accelerating under Obama.

Yeah…right. NO!
It just appears that way to anyone who wants to see it that way….
regardless of what any actual facts might show.

Each state is an independent entity and each state is supposed to control within it’s borders

. Yes…AND NO.
Wouldn’t it just be grand is it were as simple as that?
jake, just because YOU have a need to “MAKE” it simple (in order for ya to be able to distort such a complex effort as governing 300 millions ppl of such diversity as the U.S) certainly doesn’t mean it is simple…or that anyone else w/ much of any sense would agree w/ ya on this issue.

Federal government has taken a lot of these powers from the states.

Yes….mostly because THINGS CHANGE OVER THE YEARS.
C H A N G E
The Constitution, which IS the SUPREME Law-of-the-Land, has “built into” it as much capability & capacity for CHANGE as was humanly possible. Deal with it.

I think the founding fathers did get everything in the constitution that was agreed upon by all of the members of that first constitutional convention.

Didgya catch that?
AGREED UPON….as in: There were very likely A WHOOOOOLE LOT OF THINGS LEFT OUT because they could not be “agreed upon”.
Meaning: The Constitution is the product of COMPROMISED positions that “best-possible” agreements were those FIANLLY accepted.

The bill of rights were left out because they figured the rights of the people would be protected by their constitution, but were later added because of the kickback from the state representatives, but you know this.

AND….YOU don’t know it.
They weren’t “left out”….they didn’t exist at the time the Const. was written.
The Bill of Rights were “added” in order to CLARRIFY that such Rights did indeed exist w/in the document in order to appease some states’ concerns so they would vote to ratify.

So, yes….ya’re basically right.
BUT, can YOU not see that a lot of what ya present is a “bit jumbled up” in your mind?
It may be merely a failure to succinctly write what ya know.
OR, it could even be more likely that ya just don’t really have it “all that straight” to begin with…..?

 
This post has been removed by an administrator or moderator
 
Flag Post
Originally posted by jhco50:

No. artical 2, section 3 does not give him power to issue executive orders and it is not mentioned here. You are right in that he is given the power to see that the laws are followed as legislated, but it doesn’t allow him to use his power to make laws. The EO came later in our country’s history.

No….I guess ya’re just not listening (AGAIN).
How many of us have ALREADY TOLD ya that such methods of Execution Orders for ADMINERSTERING the laws Congress passed STARTED w/ Pres. Washington.?

What Johnny is TRYING to tell ya is that “it IS IN” the Constitution because such is the INTERPRETAION rendered by Constitutional scholars and by the Supreme Court. I’m sooooo fucking shit-tired of all this “conservative ignorant” cry of: Show me where in the Constitution it sez.

The ONLY way he is “making laws” is that: In administering laws made by Congress, the Pres. uses methods that include (but ARE NOT limited to) issuing “orders” on how HIS ADMINISTRATIVE BRANCH is to go about the business of carrying his duty….DUTY.
He swears to UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION.

If…And I say IF, Congress thinks he has usurped THEIR domain and actually “made a law”, it can “VETO” his “law”…..just as he can veto theirs.
HOWEVER, he can’t override their “veto”. A 2/3rds vote puts an end to his EO’s.

Got it?
Good.

 
Flag Post

Actually Johnny, I did make a mistake, George Washington, signed an executive order in 1789.

ninja’d

 
Flag Post

No Karma, he is not administering laws made by Congress, he is making new gun-control laws bypassing congress. I am willing to say, the SC will make them null and void.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by jhco50:

Your post differentiates our ideals.

NO.
YOUR posts clearly presents what I said about how YOU get things “jumbled up”.

You believe in an all powerful federal government and I don’t.

NO.
It’s YOU who believes that I “believe in an all powerful federal government.”
I’ve NEVER advocated such…
Yet, I’m NOT AT ALL surprised that YOU desire to see it that way.
Ya’ve proven, over&over&over, a very astute capability for doing this form of childishly ignorant rationalization for anything that differs from YOUR viewpoint.

Your all powerful government was not what our country was supposed to have. Our founding fathers were afraid of a powerful government.

That was THEN…..this is NOW.
TIMES change….THINGS have to change right along w/ them.
Look at how fucked up Congress is.
Do ya seriously believe anything of national importance could be agree upon if all 50 States were to have to “work it out”?

YOU just don’t get it do ya?
Here in Wichita, we had Alabama make a very “sweet” offer to one of our home-grown LARGE aircraft manufactures to move their business there. Cities and states now openly COMPETE for businesses (MONEY), etc.

If there were a strong States’ Right nation….we would end up w/ a lot more Civil Wars—bloody or just bankrupting, either way…FUCKED.

You embrace it, because you think you can milk the taxpayers for your little desires.

LOL…I’m soooooo glad to have YOU around so I can know what it is that I think.

Your idea of change is from our form of government to a socialist government.

YOU actually haven’t a clue about what my ideas are…
because YOU are so blinded by bias that ya can’t see what is TURLY, FACTUALLY going on right before your eyes.
I see you haven’t read my links either.

Like I said: YOU don’t “see” shit.
AND, it’s rather obvious that YOU either don’t read ppls’ links..
OR, ya hugely fail to understand them.
 
Flag Post

Really?

It’s YOU who believes that I “believe in an all powerful federal government.”
I’ve NEVER advocated such…

and

That was THEN…..this is NOW.
TIMES change….THINGS have to change right along w/ them.

and

YOU actually haven’t a clue about what my ideas are…
because YOU are so blinded by bias that ya can’t see what is TURLY, FACTUALLY going on right before your eyes.

And I would say you really don’t know my ideals, although you think you do. I’m sorry if I prefer freedom over you governmental controls. You may have to just get over it.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by jhco50:

Article. II.
Section. 1. The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America…

Article II
Section. 3. …he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed…

This is where he gains the ability to issue Executive Orders and at the same time also limits the ability. It invest in the President the power of execution of the Law. Within the boundary of existing laws he gets to decide how the executive Power carries out the laws. Thats what a executive Order is, the President deciding within the given limitations how the Laws are executed.

No. artical 2, section 3 does not give him power to issue executive orders and it is not mentioned here. You are right in that he is given the power to see that the laws are followed as legislated, but it doesn’t allow him to use his power to make laws. The EO came later in our country’s history.

According to the National Archives, this is what an EO is used for. Not for making laws. Consider an EO as a CEO telling his subordinates his orders for the days activities.

Executive orders are official documents, numbered consecutively, through which the President of the United States manages the operations of the Federal Government.

No Article 2, section 3 does not give him this power. Section 1 does. Section 3 tells that his Job includes taking care how the laws are put into practice. To do this he can put in place regulation to tell (within limits of existing law) the People working under him in the executive how to do their Jobs and what Jobs to do.
Just to clarify it is true that executive Orders are not named in the Constitution, but this is because the constitution gave the President things to do and the Power to do so. Giving names to how he does so, was not deemed important. The name Executive Order was invented later and then applied retroactively.

To explain for someone who does not get this. Lets say you are invested with the right to live. As far as its necessary to live this means your allowed to breath, too. Now breathing could still be regulated separately, but its generally not necessary. Executive orders are to Executive power what your breathing is to your life.

What kind of work do you do? I’m retired now, but I was an electrician for 26 years and the remainder of my working life I was an architectural draftsman.

Well i studied Social Work (a mixture of psychology, law and economics) and specialized in Management and Organization. I share ownership of a small Company. We mostly provide services for other Companies and NGO´s that operate in the social Field. We provide consultation, training aimed at increasing the efficiency of such Clients, help them to gain new financing. We also act as brokers for providing temporary employees and subcontracting(creating shared resource pools). To fill in gaps we run some projects of own.

Nominally i work in Management and give some Seminars. But when employees fallout and no other Replacements are available its back to the field(s).

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by jhco50:

Really?

It’s YOU who believes that I “believe in an all powerful federal government.”
I’ve NEVER advocated such…

and

That was THEN…..this is NOW.
TIMES change….THINGS have to change right along w/ them.

and

YOU actually haven’t a clue about what my ideas are…
because YOU are so blinded by bias that ya can’t see what is TURLY, FACTUALLY going on right before your eyes.

And I would say you really don’t know my ideals, although you think you do. I’m sorry if I prefer freedom over you governmental controls. You may have to just get over it.

What is THIS pathetic post supposed to present….
other than that it is one of yer many crappy tricks at avoiding any real defenses of your positions when they are attacked?

AND, I guess ya just haven’t “matured” enough to grasp the concept that “govt.” IS we-the-ppl (as in…the society ya live in) and when one dwells among other ppl, it is obvious to the matured mind that “freedom” is something that WILL HAVE LIMITS.

BTW, why didgya delete your “explanation” of how an EO works….ya know, the one telling of it being like the boss of a company sending a memo to those who work for him? But, that he couldn’t send such “orders” to those who don’t work for him?

I don’t really expect an answer….THAT just isn’t what ya do.
Ya mostly present shit and then “run away from” it….
only to have retreated to a position that has already been defeated by us.

BUT, I’m gonna respond to this distinction ya so dearly want to believe is true.
When the Pres. uses his Administrative duties to clarify a law made by Congress and said clarification DOES EXTEND to an informing the public how such a law that he is charged w/ administering will be observed by the public,,,, this action is based upon Article II, Section 1. of the Const.

YOU yourself should know that Congress is often pathetically inept when it comes to making laws that are capable of being clearly understood. They make a law and dump it into the Pres’s lap to be administered. The Pres. has to then instruct his Administrative team on how to go about this task. Then, there are times he will need to make a “memo” (an EO) to inform the public how THEY are going to go about the task of THEIR observation of the law.

HE IS NOTMAKEING” A LAW….
he is only administering laws….
and at times he has to issue edicts.
In doing so, his EO “memos” to his team do have the weight of the law he is instructing them to carry out…..even if these “memos” are perceived as also telling the public how they are to be carried out—as far as THEIR observance of them is concerned. This action by the Pres. IS NOTMAKING A LAW”.

I guess it is YOU who fails to read links.
So, here is something from one of them that I posted.
_
Since 1789, US presidents (“the executive”) have issued directives that are now known as executive orders. These are legally binding directives to federal administrative agencies. Executive orders are generally used to direct federal agencies and officials as their agencies implement congressionally-established law. However, executive orders may be controversial if the President is acting counter to real or perceived legislative intent.

That “however” part is likely what YOU are basing YOUR position on EO’s.
It doesn’t mention that he is MAKING laws,,,
it says he merely is NOT carrying out his duty to administer them as they were (poorly?) written.

How many times do we need to tell ya that Congress yet retains the right to tell him he is wrong in his interpretation of THEIR law and rescind his manner of carrying it out via a 2/3rds vote (a “veto” of his executive “bill”) just like they can override HIS veto of a Congressional bill placed before him?

How many times are YOU going to defend YOUR “refusal” to acknowledge our presentation of this information by merely saying: you are wrong & I am right? This pathetic manner of defending against such presentations is well demonstrated by:

Originally posted by jhco50:

Really?

It’s YOU who believes that I “believe in an all powerful federal government.”
I’ve NEVER advocated such…

and

That was THEN…..this is NOW.
TIMES change….THINGS have to change right along w/ them.

and

YOU actually haven’t a clue about what my ideas are…
because YOU are so blinded by bias that ya can’t see what is TURLY, FACTUALLY going on right before your eyes.

And I would say you really don’t know my ideals, although you think you do. I’m sorry if I prefer freedom over you governmental controls. You may have to just get over it.

But, since ya gave an analogy of how an EO works….using the private sector,,
I’ll present one using the govt. sector.
A CHIEF (commander-in-CHIEF) of a city police dept. has the duty of enforcing the laws of that city…..laws NOT made by him, but rather the (usually) city council. As anyone w/ any common sense should be able to easily grasp…a very, VERY small amount of laws can be exact in how they will be applied IN EVERY SCENARIO.

Say the city fathers pass a new law…
the chief must see to it that it is enforced.
He tells (memo..rather than mouth-2-ear) how he wants his officers (ppl of HIS “office”) to carry out//execute (executive order?) this law.
In most situations, this directive to his officers obviously is going to be extended to telling the public how they are going to observe said law.
And, there is going to be a few instances that the Chief will also NOTIFY THE PUBLIC of a directive by which he (though his officers) is going to be enforcing said law.

When it comes to national politics, the mere EO of a Pres. to his team is going to be very well made known to the public, also. This is probably where the controversy about his “making a law” (for the public) comes in when all he is doing is his duty of enforcing//administrating a Congressional law via his Executive duty.

He is NOT “telling the PUBLIC” what to do…
it is the Congressional law that does that.
His EO is merely telling his staff//team how to go about administering it.

Got it, NOW?
Good.

 
Flag Post

Johnny, I’m going to reply quickly as I am heading south. My renter died about a month ago and his wife seems to have forgotten rent since then.

I can accept you reasoning in this post. No argument here.

Sounds like like a wonderful career you have for yourself and it sounds like you are enjoying your work. I was forced to retire by an economy that disappeared. I would much rather be working but I believe my working days are over. To keep myself occupied, I have have gotten a couple of old houses to refurbish. One of them is done and I am working on the second.

 
Flag Post

Karma, I didn’t delete anything that I remember. I don’t know what happened to it. I will be here tonight, gotta go.

You know, there are three things that show you are getting old. memory loss……………and I forget the other two.

 
Flag Post

You know, there are three things that show you are getting old. memory loss……………and I forget the other two.

Erectile dysfunction and arthritis?

 
Flag Post

Ok, so rather than have fearmongering and defense flying back and forth, let’s take a look at the actual gun orders that were signed into effect, and see how we feel about them. The link breaks them down pretty nicely. Any and all thoughts on these—good, bad, neither—or why you feel that way.

jhco, in particular, I’d like you to look through this and specify which orders bother you and why.

I’ll start out by saying that Order 12, in particular, is interesting:

12. Provide law enforcement, first responders, and school officials with proper training for active shooter situations.

I think this was something the gun advocate party was actually calling for, no?

 
Flag Post

Twilight, there can be plenty of active shooter training scenarios, but most don’t end up the way we’d like them to. I’ve seen training videos, and they were pretty scary considering how much the people with the concealed weapons panicked. In the video, a man rushes into a classroom with 20+ people and an instructor. One of those people with many, many hours of firearms training is armed with a handgun. They are using simmunition, so there is no real threat here. Anyway, as the man comes in each and every time the person concealing the handgun is unable to pull out their weapon, as much as they try and are inevitably shot. Several people were tested on this, and only one was actually able to release his handgun from the holster.

I think that most of these laws bring nuisances to those who actually follow and are willing to follow the laws at hand already.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by rwbstripes:

Twilight, there can be plenty of active shooter training scenarios, but most don’t end up the way we’d like them to. I’ve seen training videos, and they were pretty scary considering how much the people with the concealed weapons panicked. In the video, a man rushes into a classroom with 20+ people and an instructor. One of those people with many, many hours of firearms training is armed with a handgun. They are using simmunition, so there is no real threat here. Anyway, as the man comes in each and every time the person concealing the handgun is unable to pull out their weapon, as much as they try and are inevitably shot. Several people were tested on this, and only one was actually able to release his handgun from the holster.

I think that most of these laws bring nuisances to those who actually follow and are willing to follow the laws at hand already.

Hit them in the back, its not that hard I guess, I mean if you can overcome the nervousness

 
Flag Post

What the hell does that mean, Punisher?

 
Flag Post

ever hear of hunting knives, or combat knifes?

Originally posted by HappyAlCROWholic:

I think we should ban knives.


Here are some facts about how deadly knives are:
1. every year, millions of people get hurt by knives.
2. sometimes people go on stabbing sprees.
3. There is NO reason to own a knife other than to HARM OTHER PEOPLE!!!


Discuss these flawless reasons of why guns should be banned. Oops, I meant “knives”, not “guns” :>


ever hear of hunting knives, or combat knifes? banning knives would be retarded. Guns on the other hand, having a gun can come in handy for protection, suicide, murdering children, murdering your neighbors, murdering your boss, etc.
see, guns are so useful. why ban them?

 
Flag Post

Only, if you were given a gun, would you shoot the first person you saw in the face?

Probably not.

So why would a law-abiding citizen do that?

Home defense, sports, hunting, 2nd Amendment…

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by rwbstripes:

What the hell does that mean, Punisher?

I mean shoot em when they turn their backs at you, at least thats what my uncle told me about street muggers who come on a motor cycle, point a mauser , take your mobile and cash and speed away, they usually don’t bother searching.
He told me that the best time to shoot them is that, (just incase if I buy a gun).

 
Flag Post

The scenario was a shooting. The man walked into the classroom shooting people and “killing” them. He did not once turn his back to the people carrying the handguns.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by thepunisher52:
Originally posted by rwbstripes:

What the hell does that mean, Punisher?

I mean shoot em when they turn their backs at you, at least thats what my uncle told me about street muggers who come on a motor cycle, point a mauser , take your mobile and cash and speed away, they usually don’t bother searching.
He told me that the best time to shoot them is that, (just incase if I buy a gun).

YOU & yer unc probably ought to do a weeeebit of reconsideration on that macho bit of “justice”.

At the very least, ya’ll see that doing said action COULD very likely have a criminal prosecutor looking at YOU. At best, ya’ll then know how to better cover up a murder by making it appear more like “self-defense” from a guy speeding away an a motorcycle.

 
Flag Post

Ironically, going by Punisher’s usual stance on such things, if this event did occur, he’d probably steal the dead man’s motorcycle, and any cash the would-be mugger happened to have on him at the time.