Will Obama Use An Executive Order To Enact Gun Control?

Tyler Durden's picture

Moments ago, MSNBC showed a clip in which "gun tzar" VP Joe Biden made it clear that "the President is going to act" on the issue of gun control, and that "executive orders and executive action can be taken." Of course "can" does not mean "will" as the fallout from an executive order bypassing Congress would be rather dramatic, especially on a topic so near and dear to at least half of America, and the response, to put it mildly, would make the Piers Morgan vs Alex Jones screaming match seems like a tranquil discussion between two dignified stoics. If "can" however, does become "will", America may have far bigger issues over the next two months than the debt ceiling, kicking the sequester down another several months, or even the quadrillion yen tuna.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
RacerX's picture

welcome to the banana republic

Randall Cabot's picture

The great Brother Nathaniel's take on gun control:


The Juggernaut's picture

"The beauty of the Second Amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it." - TJ

mr. mirbach's picture

"Since the Second Amendment did not create or grant any right concerning firearms, the right enumerated in the Amendment has to be an existing right separate from the Amendment. Thus, repealing the Second Amendment would not eliminate any right because the right enumerated in the Amendment was not created by the Amendment. The right to keep and bear arms exists independent of the Constitution or the Second Amendment."




krispkritter's picture

Regarding the Alex Jones 'interview', here's the subsequent set of guests, aka. peace-loving gun control advocates, wishing Alex all the best: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MWtzcQuLRGA


redpill's picture


The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.


The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.


The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.


The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.


The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.


The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.


Pretty fucking straight forward, isn't it you fascist fuckers.

Dr. Richard Head's picture

Too bad it HAS already been infringed some 20,000 times - www.brookings.edu/es/urban/publications/gunbook4.pdf

FEDbuster's picture

"Any single man must judge for himself whether circumstances warrant obedience or resistance to the commands of the civil magistrate; we are all qualified, entitled, and morally obliged to evaluate the conduct of our rulers. This political judgment, moreover, is not simply or primarily a right, but like self-preservation, a duty to God. As such it is a judgment that men cannot part with according to the God of Nature. It is the first and foremost of our inalienable rights without which we can preserve no other." John Locke

One World Mafia's picture

The bank-owned senate can constitutionally kill the 2nd amdt thru a treaty with foreign nations.

Article 6
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in
Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the
Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the
Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or
Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

all Treaties made…shall be the supreme Law of the Land…any Thing in the Constitution or
Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

When the constitution was written, senators were elected by state legislators, easily rigged electronic voting didn’t exist and people knew each other at the polls, global power hungry organizations like the UN exist. False flags were fewer, and there were no psychotropic drugs. However, Article 6 is so stupid it looks like it was set up to doom us.

HellFish's picture

Not quite right.  The Right to Keep and Bear Arms like other rights recognized in the bill of rights are not granted in any law not the constitution.  The are only recognized there.  They are intrinsic to the nature of free men and granted by your creator.  Nothing written by man can override that, that included treaties.

WhiskeyTangoFoxtrot's picture

Well said, HF. On another note, they are talking about using executive orders to put serious restrictions on ammo and mags. Without ammo and mags, firearms aren't worth much. The 2A doesn't say anything about access to ammunition, so what's the next move?

I think a lot of people will still see that as a step toward disarmament, given that the 2A was meant to enshrine the people's right to defend themselves against tyranny, and limiting ammo limits that right. These fools have no idea what they're about to step into.

Yes We Can. But Lets Not.'s picture

I find myself amazed at the rapidity of the descent of the USofA, economic, moral, political, social, cultural...

FeralSerf's picture

It, like the debt, is a geometric progression.  The longer it goes on, the faster the change is.

redpill's picture

Really odd that they would start making these executive order threats just days ahead of a giant inauguration ceremony, it's almost as if they are encouraging some loon to try something so they can catch them and say "see look this is why we need gun control."


Texas Ginslinger's picture

The ironic thing about guns and ammo is that whenever there is talk of more controls, gun and ammo sales skyrocket.

Hey, Uncle Joe, forget guns - how about talking about controls on the purchase of gold and silver..??

I need my PM stash to increase in value... 

DeadFred's picture

Why??? You weren't panning to sell any were you?

Michaelwiseguy's picture

Hat tip Daily Paul.

Why it is important for you to aggressively and actively re-brand and re-label MSM slogans in your everyday conversation. You have the right to do that, and wage verbal war against the MSM.

War of the Words http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q2riOiBaZrg&feature=youtu.be   I'm changing the label "Conspiracy Theorist" to "CSI Hobbyist"  
Texas Ginslinger's picture

Dead, yes I will eventually sell or trade my physical PM , when the price is right.

redpill's picture

Yes, when the price is a nice piece of crop-bearing land with an arsenal of weaponry to defend it.

fourchan's picture

The constitution limits only the government, not we the people. we should all remember that.

dwdollar's picture

Definitely caught in a positive feedback loop at this point. Tyrants acting desperately creates desperate gun buying, which forces tyrants to act more desperately creating even more desperate gun buying.

Liberty2012's picture

Great link - we cannot let language be stolen

GeezerGeek's picture

They'll just confiscate the gold, just like they did once before. Maybe they'll come get the gold and the guns at the same time; more efficient that way. Or maybe they'll try gold first, since there is a much smaller constituency for gold ownership. 

Dr. No's picture

There is no need to confiscate gold since the US in not on the gold standard.  They are free to print on whim without the pesky requirement to devalue against gold.

HurricaneSeason's picture

I think the police will go on strike before going door to door to collect hundreds of millions of guns. We'd lose hundreds of thousands of police that way. It reminds me of the 2 judges in Florida wanting to personally inspect millions of ballots, not knowing it'd take them 40 years, but doing it for months.

RobD's picture

A co-worker happens to be friends with the second in charge of a local medium sized city police department and he called him up today to ask him if the feds passed gun confiscation would he comply. He said that he would not give such an order to his men.

James-Morrison's picture

It's just the Chicago way.

They will fuss and gun sales will skyrocket and then a watered down band-aid will be produced after the Gun Lobby coughs up some dough.

It's about corruption.  Nothing else. 

fourchan's picture

thats why chicago had 500+ murders last year.

The Gooch's picture

The "Chicago way" (aka Alinsky) also incorporates SLEIGHT OF FUCKING HAND.

Where is the other?

cornedmutton's picture

Why do they need to create the circumstances for an actual occurance as such?  The media simply makes up and "reports" on whatever is deemed "necessary".

zerozulu's picture

OK, here is a real life example. American ASS is being kicked in Afghanistan because Afghani love their weapons. They know what second amendment means.

MisterMousePotato's picture

If They Come for Your Guns, Do You Have a Responsibility to Fight?


"Our framers were very clear on this. If my government comes to take my guns, they are violating one of my constitutional rights that is covered by the 2nd amendment.

It is not my right, at that point, but my responsibility to respond in the name of liberty. What I am telling you is something that many are trying to soft sell, and many others have tried to avoid putting into print, but I am going to say it. The time for speaking in code is over.

You have the right to kill any representative of this government who tries to tread on your liberty. I am thinking about self-defense and not talking about inciting a revolution. Re-read Jefferson’s quote. He talks about a last resort. I am not trying to start a Revolt, I am talking about self-defense. If the day for Revolution comes, when no peaceful options exist, we may have to talk about that as well. None of us wants to think about that, but please understand that a majority can not take away your rights as an American citizen.

Congress could pass gun ban legislation by a 90%+ margin and it just would not matter. I think some people are very unclear on this. This is the reason we have a Supreme Court, and though I do not doubt that the Supreme Court can also become corrupt, in 2008 they got it right. They supported the constitution. It does not matter what the majority supports because America is not a democracy. A constitutional republic protects the rights of every single citizen, no matter what their elected servants say. A majority in America only matters when the constitution is not in play.

I just wrote what every believer in the constitution wants to say, and what every constitutional blogger needs to write. The truth of the matter is that this type of speech is viewed as dangerous and radical or subversive, and it could gain me a world of trouble that I do not want. It is also the truth. To make myself clear I will tell you again. If they come for your guns it is your right to use those guns against them and to kill them. You are protected by our constitution."

This guy is tired of waiting as well...lets discuss this, post this up Tylers. I would actually love to see the responces to this.

Agent P's picture

"You have the right to kill any representative of this government who tries to tread on your liberty. I am thinking about self-defense and not talking about inciting a revolution....If they come for your guns it is your right to use those guns against them and to kill them. You are protected by our constitution"

I gave you an up vote because I agree with the principle of your post.  However, I disagree with the selected items above.  As a citizen you are expected to pursue your grievances through the courts, including attempts to tread on your liberties.  A government gun grab would violate the Second and Fourth Amendments, but it wouldn't justify the use of deadly force, which is reserved for situations where you or other innocents face immediate death or serious bodily harm, not for protecting property (or unfortunately liberty).  For the same reason, you're not allowed to shoot someone who tries to infringe your 1st Amendment rights.  The constitution does protect you from the government treading on your liberty, but it does not grant you the use of deadly force in doing so.  What you speak of IS revolution and not self-defense.

That being said, I don't plan on pursuing a court ruling should they come for my guns.

mkucstars's picture

When they come they will be armed. Count on it.


Michaelwiseguy's picture

The Constitution does grant you the right to protect your property using deadly force, including protecting your guns from anyone who would come to forcibly take them from you.

Charles Krauthammer of FOX ugh just said there will be an INSURRECTION if the try to take the guns.

Uncle Sugar's picture

Up vote for insurrection. If they decide to come, they'd better be like Santa and hit all the houses on the same night. Otherwise the subsequent nights will be really ugly.

macholatte's picture




60 School Shootings Linked To Psychiatric Drugs Over Past 20 Years


NotApplicable's picture

It's El-Erian's "new normal." Rules rewrite rules, rewrite rules...

Memes now grow stale before they're even well known.

Totentänzerlied's picture

Odd, I find myself amazed at the apparent languidity. It's been 237 years.

Nugents Bastard's picture

Shit.  Our attention span isn't even 237 seconds.  It's however long the average TV commercial is.


The vast majority of us have been living way above our means for our entire lifetime.  It shouldn't be a surprise that we don't appreciate what we've got, never having earned it.  The founding fathers sounded exceptionally spirited when talking about freedom, because they were in the process of earning it.  Most of us work at some bullshit job to "earn" money to buy the newest iPad.  If we were to sound exceptionally spirited when talking about something, it would probably be that.

Terminus C's picture

Your post was too long, I only got to "our"...

Sure do love the word "shit" though, that is a funny assed word.

QQQBall's picture

read "Shock Doctrine" - the template has been getting tweeked for many, many years. The "responses"are written well before the crisis - if you had a tin foil hat, you could say 9/11 happened b/c they were either ready or got tire dof waiting. You look at the past crises in other countries and the people who came out the best thought critically and acted appropirately.  

JR's picture

"Cheney, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz saw 9/11 as a neo-con wet dream. I always wondered how a 342 page law like the Patriot Act could be written, debated, read, and signed in the five weeks between 9/11 and Bush signing it into law on October 26, 2001." – Washington’s Blog

Continues GW:

The Patriot Act was planned before 9/11. Indeed, former Counter Terrorism Czar Richard Clarke told Stanford law professor Lawrence Lessig:

After 9/11 the government drew up the Patriot Act within 20 days and it was passed.   The Patriot Act is huge and I remember someone asking a Justice Department official how did they write such a large statute so quickly, and of course the answer was that it has been sitting in the drawers of the Justice Department for the last 20 years waiting for the event where they would pull it out.

CH1's picture

In the same interview the scumbag Clarke said that they have another plan waiting in a drawer for taking down the Internet.

old naughty's picture

They have many plans waiting in a drawer for congress or ececutive orders...

They're waiting for the right event(s).

The waiting is unbearable.

Any hint on which event comes first?

Michaelwiseguy's picture

I repeat this to show you the #1 enemy.

The "Human Interest Story Model" used by the MSM to tug on sheeples heart strings isn't working anymore. People are turning them off and TV ratings are virtually zero because people don't like the psychological social engineering being done on them. People in huge numbers are going to the Internet to get real news with substance, not crying weepy human interest story crap that is designed to keep you in a state of sheepleness.


metastar's picture

With approval rating of congress being so low, is it any wonder they are coming for the guns? With congress coming for the guns, is it any wonder why their approval rating is so low?

Pegasus Muse's picture

"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is it's natural manure.” ---Thomas Jefferson, 1787

Pegasus Muse's picture

“A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.   -- The Second Amendment