The Attack on the 2nd Amendment Continues

[Lawman]

The group thinkers were supporters of the King.

That picture depicts the forming of the constitution which took place after they disposed of the tyrant.

And the founders were so "confident" of the executive not over reaching the limits placed on it and creating party tyrant that they made the runner up the VP just to stabilize it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Seggy]

How long do you think it will be before an injunction is placed on any EO he issues and that is ultimately rolled back by Congress? Especially from a lame duck president in his last year?

This Administration has had very good luck with dealing with the court systems so I am sure they have already thought about it and the counter. Once again, they are playing the long game here...

Then there is this coming down the pipe....

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...828dce-978b-11e5-8917-653b65c809eb_story.html

 

[Seggy]

That picture depicts the forming of the constitution which took place after they disposed of the tyrant.

And the founders were so "confident" of the executive not over reaching the limits placed on it and creating party tyrant that they made the runner up the VP just to stabilize it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

As stated, Obama hasn't used the Executive Order nearly as much as other Presidents have done. Reagan has used it more. Do you think Reagan was a tyrant?

 

[Lawman]

As stated, Obama hasn't used the Executive Order nearly as much as other Presidents have done. Reagan has used it more. Do you think Reagan was a tyrant?

Executive order isn't always inappropriate. (Say the creating of a department to oversee al the national parks under one house).

When it is inappropriate is when you start creating legislation.

The fact that you ignore the difference and play a strictly numbers game demonstrates you have no ability to defend the actual Merit or constitutionality of what the president is doing with this particular order.

But he's a democrat and he's going after guns so you turn a blind eye. Like I said, Useful idiot.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Seggy]

Executive order isn't always inappropriate. (Say the creating of a department to oversee al the national parks under one house).

When it is inappropriate is when you start creating legislation.

The fact that you ignore the difference and play a strictly numbers game demonstrates you have no ability to defend the actual Merit or constitutionality of what the president is doing with this particular order.

But he's a democrat and he's going after guns so you turn a blind eye. Like I said, Useful idiot.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Didn't answer the question and missed the point.

 

[scooter2525]

If only Mr Obama would use his "unfinished business" resolution to look outside of "the gun" for the actual root causes of violence in society, and use his "pen and phone" to work on some of that.

If he was really concerned about it, he'd take a step back away from his partisan platform position and look seriously at the social, economic, and legislative links to violent crime.

Those are more complicated issues to parse, but don't involve infringements to constitutionally-protected rights to work on.

Lemme get you a mic so you can drop it.

 

[Seggy]

Lemme get you a mic so you can drop it.

He actually has looked to fix some of the social and economic problems that are linked to violent crime. However, the right doesn't want to hear about universal health care, free college education, proper meals and food stamps.

So the bottom line is that it is VERY disingenuous to play that game.

 

[Lawman]

Didn't answer the question and missed the point.

No I made exactly the point.

You asked if Reagan or any other president who used more executive orders was a tyrant and I told you exactly why that question was BS.

Quantity of use is not what makes it unconstitutional. If that were true than FDR is a dictator. Using it to create legislation is what makes it wrong and tyrannical. If you can't even acknowledge that executive orders granting a half day for government employees or recognizing thanksgiving on the federal calendar are different from creating gun legislation you are being beyond obtuse.

Reagan was a fool in a lot of ways. A great man in others. Obama though, is showing colors as a petty child who has publicly stated he will use the pen to subvert congress because he knows they lack the political capital to do anything about it. Says a lot about a President who has the gall to call himself a constitutional scholar since he is actively subverting it's intent.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[milleR]

No I made exactly the point.

You asked if Reagan or any other president who used more executive orders was a tyrant and I told you exactly why that question was BS.

Quantity of use is not what makes it unconstitutional. If that were true than FDR is a dictator. Using it to create legislation is what makes it wrong and tyrannical. If you can't even acknowledge that executive orders granting a half day for government employees or recognizing thanksgiving on the federal calendar are different from creating gun legislation you are being beyond obtuse.

Reagan was a fool in a lot of ways. A great man in others. Obama though, is showing colors as a petty child who has publicly stated he will use the pen to subvert congress because he knows they lack the political capital to do anything about it. Says a lot about a President who has the gall to call himself a constitutional scholar since he is actively subverting it's intent.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Welcome to the Seggy Arument Clinic, sponsored by the Kardasian Organization for Public Awareness.

 

[Lawman]

Welcome to the Seggy Arument Clinic, sponsored by the Kardasian Organization for Public Awareness.

(From familiarity with the skit)

This is BS... I didn't come for an argument. I asked the receptionist for the other thing!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[milleR]

(From familiarity with the skit)

This is BS... I didn't come for an argument I'm here for the other thing!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I appreciate the articulate in with which you express your point. Thanks for being objective and non-dramatic considering who you're responding too.

 

[milleR]

(From familiarity with the skit)

This is BS... I didn't come for an argument. I asked the receptionist for the other thing!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

No you didn't!

 

[chrisreedrules]

Anyone else starting to think we should just rename the Lav, "GUNS"??

 

[Hacker15e]

The the President would 'never' enact an Executive Order to start the process of reasonable gun control.

That still doesn't answer what conversation you're referring to when you're stating "I was right and they were wrong." Can you please point out that conversation where anyone said what you are quoting?

Mr Obama has all ready previously enacted a couple of "gun control" EOs in 2013. So, if someone actually said what you claim above, it was disproved two years ago when he did that.

I do appreciate your use of "reasonable" here. Nice sophistry and emotive language use.

As I said, the President is playing the long game with this.

Actually, throwing out EOs that nip around the edges but have no practical impact on the actual problem you (say you are) trying to solve isn't "playing the long game".

Can you articulate exactly how changing the definition of "in the business" for firearm dealers is going to go toward reduction of violent crime?

 

[Hacker15e]

was right when they made an observation about what the President was going to do.

When did you say this?

 

[Hacker15e]

universal health care, free college education, proper meals and food stamps.

This list is another part of the problem.

Folks don't want to actually attack the root causes of poverty and social disenfranchisement which are the causes of the vast majority of violent crime. We have had 50 years of "Great Society" social programs; at some point we have to objectively stand back and ask if it is working and, if not, then why not. To what extent has the "War on Drugs" had second and third-order effects of violent crime?

 

[Acadia]

You don't get to pick and choose with Liberty. If you allow the government to infringe on a right because it's not popular with you then you invite them go and effect something that is popular with you but maybe not the group later.

We do pick and choose with liberty. You are not free to say anything you want, wherever and whenever. We already clearly limit what arms citizens can own, so the right to keep and bear arms is greatly infringed. I am not advocating against guns, but to pretend that it is a simple cut and dry issue is not productive.

 

[Acadia]

Please kindly speak for yourself.

So you would advocate for complete freedom of speech, such as yelling fire in a crowded theater? Should the right to keep and bear arms be extended to every possible arm such as chemical weapons? I am guessing that you are more reasonable that that and accept those infringements on your rights.

Again, I am not advocating against firearms. However, this is a massively complicated issue and clearly some of our rights shall be infringed. People have different viewpoints and tolerances on where that line should be, and while I don't agree with the left on this particular issue, I can understand where they are coming from. The answer is not black and white, and denying that does not advance your viewpoint.

 

[Hacker15e]

We do pick and choose with liberty. You are not free to say anything you want, wherever and whenever. We already clearly limit what arms citizens can own, so the right to keep and bear arms is greatly infringed. I am not advocating against guns, but to pretend that it is a simple cut and dry issue is not productive.

The problem is that this is a disingenuous comparison.

Again, as has been covered, it is USE of speech that is limited. Certain words are not banned; it does not require a license to use particular phrases; you don't require a background check to say or print certain things.

Yelling "FIRE" is not against the law. The word FIRE is not banned. It does not require a special license to say FIRE -- it is the causation of ensuing panic by using the word in a particular situation that is illegal.

In the same way, USE of firearms is all ready limited under existing statutes. Brandishing, assault, manslaughter, murder...all ready against the law.

So, the idea that "other rights are all ready heavily regulated" being used as a rationale for ADDITIONAL restrictions of the right to keep and bear arms is a logical fallacy.

 

[Acadia]

The problem is that this is a disingenuous comparison.

Again, as has been covered, it is USE of speech that is limited. Certain words are not banned; it does not require a license to use particular phrases; you don't require a background check to say or print certain things. Yelling "FIRE" is not against the law. The word FIRE is not banned. It does not require a special license to say FIRE -- it is the causation of ensuing panic by using the word in a particular situation that is illegal.

In the same way, USE of firearms is all ready limited under existing statutes. Brandishing, assault, manslaughter, murder...all ready against the law.

So, the idea that "other rights are all ready heavily regulated" being used as a rationale for ADDITIONAL restrictions of the right to keep and bear arms is a logical fallacy.

It really was not meant to be a direct comparison. The point is that we do restrict ourselves at different levels, and that those calling for more restrictions have a different threshold than you or I might. To just keep yelling "shall not be infringed" is folly. Hec, even in the Heller decision the SCOTOS stated: "It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose." Clearly the right to keep and bear arms can be infringed. I don't see it as a logical fallacy, but simply a difference of opinion on what the acceptable level of infringement will be. We have the courts to help with that and it will always be a tug of war.