This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.

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.

 


- advertisements -

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Wed, 01/09/2013 - 14:26 | Link to Comment RacerX
RacerX's picture

welcome to the banana republic

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 14:28 | Link to Comment Randall Cabot
Randall Cabot's picture

The great Brother Nathaniel's take on gun control:

http://www.realjewnews.com/?p=783

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 14:30 | Link to Comment The Juggernaut
The Juggernaut's picture

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

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 14:32 | Link to Comment mr. mirbach
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."

 

 

http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2012/12/27/repeal-of-the-second-amendmen...

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 14:41 | Link to Comment krispkritter
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

 

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 14:50 | Link to Comment redpill
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.

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 14:55 | Link to Comment Dr. Richard Head
Dr. Richard Head's picture

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

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 14:57 | Link to Comment FEDbuster
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

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 14:59 | Link to Comment One World Mafia
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.

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 15:05 | Link to Comment HellFish
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.

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 15:20 | Link to Comment WhiskeyTangoFoxtrot
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.

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 15:22 | Link to Comment Yes We Can. But...
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...

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 15:45 | Link to Comment FeralSerf
FeralSerf's picture

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

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 15:58 | Link to Comment Michaelwiseguy
Michaelwiseguy's picture

Sandy Hook?

Blues Traveler  The Hook

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=arUpcpRR568

Run Around by Blues Traveler with lyrics

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z-yLH5wcEoQ

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 17:25 | Link to Comment redpill
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."

 

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 17:30 | Link to Comment Texas Ginslinger
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... 

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 17:36 | Link to Comment DeadFred
DeadFred's picture

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

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 18:19 | Link to Comment Michaelwiseguy
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"  
Wed, 01/09/2013 - 18:21 | Link to Comment Texas Ginslinger
Texas Ginslinger's picture

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

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 18:32 | Link to Comment redpill
redpill's picture

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

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 19:01 | Link to Comment fourchan
fourchan's picture

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

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 21:18 | Link to Comment dwdollar
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.

Thu, 01/10/2013 - 00:42 | Link to Comment Liberty2012
Liberty2012's picture

Great link - we cannot let language be stolen

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 18:34 | Link to Comment GeezerGeek
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. 

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 18:53 | Link to Comment Dr. No
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.

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 20:37 | Link to Comment HurricaneSeason
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.

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 20:58 | Link to Comment RobD
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.

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 17:41 | Link to Comment James-Morrison
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. 

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 19:02 | Link to Comment fourchan
fourchan's picture

thats why chicago had 500+ murders last year.

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 20:16 | Link to Comment The Gooch
The Gooch's picture

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

Where is the other?

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 17:31 | Link to Comment cornedmutton
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".

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 21:15 | Link to Comment zerozulu
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.

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 17:33 | Link to Comment MisterMousePotato
MisterMousePotato's picture

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

http://www.saveamericafoundation.com/2013/01/06/if-they-come-for-your-gu...

"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.

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 19:08 | Link to Comment Agent P
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.

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 19:32 | Link to Comment mkucstars
mkucstars's picture

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

 

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 20:28 | Link to Comment Michaelwiseguy
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.

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 21:00 | Link to Comment Uncle Sugar
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.

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 15:57 | Link to Comment macholatte
macholatte's picture

 

 

 

60 School Shootings Linked To Psychiatric Drugs Over Past 20 Years

http://beforeitsnews.com/health/2013/01/60-school-shootings-in-20-years-...

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 15:59 | Link to Comment NotApplicable
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.

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 16:19 | Link to Comment Totentänzerlied
Totentänzerlied's picture

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

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 16:36 | Link to Comment Nugents Bastard
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.

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 20:32 | Link to Comment Terminus C
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.

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 16:38 | Link to Comment QQQBall
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.  

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 17:23 | Link to Comment JR
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.

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 18:12 | Link to Comment CH1
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.

Thu, 01/10/2013 - 00:38 | Link to Comment old naughty
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?

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 15:24 | Link to Comment Michaelwiseguy
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.

 

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 15:30 | Link to Comment metastar
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?

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 15:32 | Link to Comment Pegasus Muse
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

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 15:33 | Link to Comment Pegasus Muse
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

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 15:37 | Link to Comment Pegasus Muse
Pegasus Muse's picture

“Was there ever a people whose leaders were as truly their enemies as this one?"   --Ernest Hemmingway

 

"America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter, and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." --Abraham Lincoln

 

Molon Labe, assholes!

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 15:42 | Link to Comment Michaelwiseguy
Michaelwiseguy's picture

I've change the words "Assault Weapons" psychological meme to "Defense Rifles", that are used to defend the Republic from International Banking Cartel destroyers of our Republic.

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 15:52 | Link to Comment Landotfree
Landotfree's picture

Rights come from God, not the Constitution.  This is a dead issue.

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 16:09 | Link to Comment jcaz
jcaz's picture

That's right-  put the guy who fluffed his resume in charge of gun control....

Go ahead, Joe-  try to take away my gun......

Please.

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 19:00 | Link to Comment dick cheneys ghost
dick cheneys ghost's picture

good pt

 

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 20:48 | Link to Comment HurricaneSeason
HurricaneSeason's picture

The guy that laughed hysterically through his whole debate like he's a brick shy of a full load. Meanwhile the country surrenders economically to China, the banks and corporations.

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 21:09 | Link to Comment agNau
agNau's picture

It's all about gaining maximum control before the elevator cable snaps.
You can have martial law sooner, or with submission, a little later. The trashing of the constitution has been going on for a long time.
The media is the biggest enemy to our nation. They have fed the untruths to the public for decades. Anyone working there that had a real problem with those untruths, should have been gone long ago.

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 20:58 | Link to Comment ersatzteil
ersatzteil's picture

They will take it away, from your dead hands if they must. 

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 16:27 | Link to Comment Totentänzerlied
Totentänzerlied's picture

Good look trying to tell that to Uncle Sam and his Alinskyite pals. Remember, Obama is a Constitutional scholar, so there. But really, America's politicians, media outlets, and so-called intellectuals have rejected the theory of negative rights for at least a century, offering the popular alternative theory of "because this fancy piece of paper says so and it was signed and sealed by Congress or the President, and the Supreme Court doesn't object" AKA "bend over and take it, slave". Compelling stuff.

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 21:20 | Link to Comment Debt-Is-Not-Money
Debt-Is-Not-Money's picture

George W. Bush said : "Constitution? It's just a G-D piece of paper!

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 16:24 | Link to Comment WhiskeyTangoFoxtrot
WhiskeyTangoFoxtrot's picture

"Defensive Rifles" FTW. Better than "Modern Sporting Rifles."

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 17:43 | Link to Comment pods
pods's picture

My favorite:

The Right Arm of the Free World.

We can broaden that little saying to include more than the FN FAL.

pods

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 20:39 | Link to Comment BoNeSxxx
BoNeSxxx's picture

Sure thing PODS.

My favorite?  It's all the anti-gun BS accusing assault style weapons of being 'militarized' or 'so close to what the military uses'

REALLY?  NOTHING COULD BE FURTHER FROM THE TRUTH.

The truth is what civilians can legally buy is LIGHT YEARS away from the truly militarized weapons.

Seen a kill from a .50 cal at long range recently?  A kill from a C-130 gun ship?  A night kill from a sniper drone using thermal scopes?  You think you are safe hiding out in a Georgia mountain cave with your MREs and some AR-15s?  Think again.  You would be smoked before you saw it coming.

Fuck them, the assault weapons I can buy today are no better defense than pee shooters or sling shots compared to what the gov't has at their disposal.

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 22:47 | Link to Comment palmereldritch
palmereldritch's picture

I like this one.  From a commenter at another site

The Second Amendment: The First Amendment's big brother

Thu, 01/10/2013 - 01:29 | Link to Comment jerry_theking_lawler
jerry_theking_lawler's picture

Why change Assault Rifles (or Weapons).....read the constitution and understand it....it say.. bear Arms...where Arms is capitalized. Looking at a definition of Arms from 18th century dictionary it reads.... Arms: Weapons of Offence.....

I would say an Assault Rifle is a weapon of offence....so their, if they ban a weapon of offence, then they are infringing upon your rights. Understand the Law, Use the Law (they try to manipulate it to their like with this double speak, snipets, etc). The truth is out there, we just need people to understand and step up.

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 20:32 | Link to Comment The Gooch
The Gooch's picture

It's Bitchez, Asshole.

/S

Well informed, armed and pissed bitchez, bitchez.

/S off

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 15:54 | Link to Comment monad
monad's picture


The oath of office of the President of the United States is an oath or affirmation required by the United States Constitution before the President begins the execution of the office. The wording is specified in Article TwoSection OneClause Eight:

Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:--"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 16:02 | Link to Comment sunnyside
sunnyside's picture

If this is his best he needs to be removed.

 

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 17:07 | Link to Comment SeattleBruce
SeattleBruce's picture

If we remove him we get Joe. If we remove the Ds we get the establishment pubbies.  There's got to be a better way!

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 18:16 | Link to Comment CH1
CH1's picture

There's got to be a better way!

Yes: Drop out of the system altogether. Stop taking them seriously and stop obeying them.

Once people stop obeying, the beast dies quickly.

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 19:37 | Link to Comment Citxmech
Citxmech's picture

This is my strategy - that and accumulating a few more arms for my posterity and in protest.

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 21:28 | Link to Comment Papasmurf
Papasmurf's picture

If we remove him we get Joe. If we remove the Ds we get the establishment pubbies.  There's got to be a better way!

Checkmate.

The only way to win the game is to kick over the board.

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 22:20 | Link to Comment The Gooch
The Gooch's picture

or- spill everclear in the ashtray.

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 15:54 | Link to Comment CrockettAlmanac.com
CrockettAlmanac.com's picture

 

 

"Stand your ground. Don't fire unless fired upon, but if they mean to have a war, let it begin here." -- Capt. John Parker, 1775

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 17:17 | Link to Comment Jonas Parker
Jonas Parker's picture

Ah yes. My son's words on that fateful day. Thank you for remembering them.

Sgt. Jonas Parker, Lexington Company, Massachusetts Militia

 

 

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 17:41 | Link to Comment ATM
ATM's picture

"The only path to the final defeat of imperialism and the building of socialism is revolutionary war." - Bill Ayres, Barack Obama's communist radical terrorist friend.

 

It's very easy to see where they are trying to force us to go.

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 16:27 | Link to Comment A Nanny Moose
A Nanny Moose's picture

Explain Huffington Post please? MSM are just parrots on the shoulders of pirates.

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 15:48 | Link to Comment Bad Attitude
Bad Attitude's picture

The Second Amendment implicitly requires the citizenry to have unfettered access to ammunition and "high capacity" magazines. Without ammo and mags, the right to keep and bear arms is hollow - it is like having a "right" to "affordable" healthcare, but not being able find a doctor when you need one.

With all this talk about restrictions, bans, confiscation and other gun control schemes, it is almost like the gun grabbers are trying to provoke an armed revolt.

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 16:17 | Link to Comment tip e. canoe
tip e. canoe's picture

"gun grabbers are trying to provoke an armed revolt."

precisely.   question is:   knowing this, what would be the appropriate response?

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 18:17 | Link to Comment CH1
CH1's picture

knowing this, what would be the appropriate response?

Stop giving them money to use against you.

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 19:19 | Link to Comment deeznutz
deeznutz's picture

The appropriate response is for all gun owners to keep their guns and ammo and not register a thing. Civil disobidience, but all gun owners must participate. If you are too weak to break unconstitutional laws, sell your guns and move elsewhere.

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 16:22 | Link to Comment The Heart
The Heart's picture

"the gun grabbers are trying to provoke an armed revolt."

Exactly. It is the same old Hegelian Dialectic.

What to do?

Follow your Heart!

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 16:38 | Link to Comment Ghordius
Ghordius's picture

luckily they are - that's a fact - provoking a lot of sales

just saying, more consumption makes Professor Nobel Laureate Krugman very happy

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 17:38 | Link to Comment ATM
ATM's picture

Freedom suppressed and again regained bites with keener fangs than freedom never endangered. - Marcus Tullius Cicero

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 16:25 | Link to Comment Larry Dallas
Larry Dallas's picture

In context I've mentioned this but I'll say it again:

If this can becomes a will, it will certainly unearth a few pissed off vetrans with some form of uncurable cancer and will undoubtedly try to kill off O.

I think O doesn't care. He's trying deliberately to ruin this country as fast as he can (not even Inauguration Day yet...) and if he gets shot, he did as much as he could.

It will happen.

Its not when, its if.

This bee hive has been shaken enough now.

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 19:41 | Link to Comment Citxmech
Citxmech's picture

FWIW, the marching orders don't come from the office of the president.  He's got as much substance as the "Great and Powerful" Oz.

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 19:44 | Link to Comment Bad Attitude
Bad Attitude's picture

You DO NOT want Dear Leader to be physically harmed. If he is even injured, he will become a martyr for both his masters and his followers. Yes, I badly want him out of office. Let him go back to Chicago and lecture about Saul Alinsky.

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 20:34 | Link to Comment UGrev
UGrev's picture

Without ammo, it's not a true firearm. It's a club. They aren't banning clubs. They are banning guns. You cannot ban ammo, you cannot restrict it, tax it or anything of the sort. To do so would be an infringement; for all our rights demand access to to that right, uninhibted as our wonderful Contstituion doesn't not explicity permit the fed nor states with explicit citation such that each entity and the body of men therein, can decide upon which rights are valid and which are not. 

In Summary: FUCK OFF COMMIES!

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 15:21 | Link to Comment One World Mafia
One World Mafia's picture

The govt doesn't care about our intrinsic rights.

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 15:29 | Link to Comment Future Jim
Future Jim's picture

The information has been availabe since 2008 to prove that Obama wants your guns. It was supressesd and denied by everyone including FOX News.

NOW even his followers admit that Obama wants your guns. That's huge progress - keep moving forward! ;-)

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 19:17 | Link to Comment Shell Game
Shell Game's picture

Thanks for the link, great timeline.

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 15:57 | Link to Comment HellFish
HellFish's picture

typo fixes

not = nor

The = They

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 21:13 | Link to Comment bevo
bevo's picture

While that may be true, you do realize that executive agreements are NOT reviewable by the Supreme Court, right? Article VI, clause 2 of the US Constitution, as interpreted by the Supreme Court in Missouri v Holland in 1920, states that a treaty trumps the US Constitution and Federal law. An executive agreement is just like a treaty, except it does NOT have to be ratified by the Senate. Don't take my word for it though... LOOK IT UP.

Your rousing words are indeed inspiring -- the sad fact is that most people think that the High Courts can acutally stop an executive agreement... the only point of my post is not to disagree with you, but to alert people to the shifty games that are in play. 

 

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 15:09 | Link to Comment trav777
trav777's picture

treaties cannot abrogate the Constitution

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 15:25 | Link to Comment One World Mafia
One World Mafia's picture

I agree treaties shouldn't be able to abridge any rights, but Article 6 is written so they can:

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.

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 15:37 | Link to Comment centerline
centerline's picture

The key word there is likely the "and" which leads to potential conflict.  Not necessarily one thing being overruled by another.  Just my 2 cents.

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 15:54 | Link to Comment Landotfree
Landotfree's picture

The Constitution is a limit on the government, not a limit on free Men.  Any agreement the US makes via Treaty is not binding on free Man.  Sorry, your Rights come from God, not a piece a paper.

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 16:03 | Link to Comment TomGa
TomGa's picture

No it isn't, and that is a common misunderstanding of Article 6. The Supreme Court already ruled on this issue in Reid v. Covert 354 U.S. 1 (1957).  Justice Black wrote for the court stating that a foreign treaty may never supersede the Constitution.

 

From Wikipedia:

"Reid v. Covert354 U.S. 1 (1957), was a landmark United States Supreme Court case in which the Court ruled that the Constitution supersedes international treaties ratified by theUnited States Senate."

"...this Court has regularly and uniformly recognized the supremacy of the Constitution over a treaty,...."

Moreover,  Justice Black declared: “The concept that the Bill of Rights and other constitutional protections against arbitrary government are inoperative when they become inconvenient or when expediency dictates otherwise is a very dangerous doctrine and if allowed to flourish would destroy the benefit of a written Constitution and undermine the basis of our government.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reid_v._Covert

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 16:08 | Link to Comment MayIMommaDogFac...
MayIMommaDogFace2theBananaPatch's picture

Corporations are people...

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 17:02 | Link to Comment HardlyZero
HardlyZero's picture

Laws come from the Congress.  That is why we have separation of powers.  It will probably go to the Supremes since the Congress is flaccid.  Hey we live in interesting times...maybe the UN will pickup some of the slack ? /SARC

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 22:24 | Link to Comment Jendrzejczyk
Jendrzejczyk's picture

Thankyou.

What's your opinion of US vs. Miller ? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Miller

On May 15, 1939 the Supreme Court, in a unanimous opinion by Justice McReynolds, reversed and remanded the District Court decision. The Supreme Court declared no conflict between the NFA and the Second Amendment had been established, writing:

"In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument."
Thu, 01/10/2013 - 01:42 | Link to Comment Xanadu_doo
Xanadu_doo's picture

Thank you for sharing the legal precidence (sp?). Hopefully today's justices will still agree (choke).

But...I want to point out, re: “The concept that the Bill of Rights and other constitutional protections against arbitrary government are inoperative when they become inconvenient or when expediency dictates otherwise is a very dangerous doctrine and if allowed to flourish would destroy the benefit of a written Constitution and undermine the basis of our government.”

 

Isn't that their intention???

I think it is, and we are fucked if we let them, so fuck that.

This gives some small hope that there were wise and honerable men leading this country, once at least.

 

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 16:25 | Link to Comment The Heart
The Heart's picture

Please review and understand the Dick Act:

http://www.theheartlandusa.com/index2.htm

 

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 15:26 | Link to Comment seek
seek's picture

Yes, this is pretty well establised law. I may be a bit of a conspiracy monger myself, but I wish people would drop this particular angle of histrionics.

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 16:30 | Link to Comment One World Mafia
One World Mafia's picture

When the gun treaty stalled over the summer, there were threats to bring it back after the elections. Since when does "histrionics" stop these people?

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 15:30 | Link to Comment Zap Powerz
Zap Powerz's picture

Trav,

While you are correct when you say:

"treaties cannot abrogate the Constitution"

That is assuming we have a government that gives a shit about the constitution.  This whole article we are discussing is about Obama using an EO to deny you the legal right to self defense with a fire arm.  If that doesnt scream "I dont give a shit about no stinking constitution (by Obama)" then I dont know what does.

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 15:43 | Link to Comment Chupacabra-322
Chupacabra-322's picture

The President of the United States was elected to ‘Defend’ and ‘Protect’ The Constitution ….Not Circumvent it with deceitful executive orders, this is Tyranny, which make him a Tyrant, an oath breaker and Domestic Enemy of The State.  A CRIMINAL.

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 16:08 | Link to Comment deeznutz
deeznutz's picture

... which makes every president back to ??? also a tyrant

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 16:26 | Link to Comment The Heart
The Heart's picture

Back to Kennedy...exactly!

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 16:31 | Link to Comment A Nanny Moose
A Nanny Moose's picture

Think back a little further. It all started before the ink was dry on the Constitution. Such is the result of force.

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 18:34 | Link to Comment Texas Ginslinger
Texas Ginslinger's picture

"The President has the power to seize property, organize and control the means of production, seize commodities, assign military forces abroad, call reserve forces amounting to 2 1/2 million men to duty, institute martial law, seize and control all menas of transportation, regulate all private enterprise, restrict travel, and in a plethora of particular ways, control the lives of all Americans...

Most [of these laws] remain a a potential source of virtually unlimited power for a President should he choose to activate them. It is possible that some future President could exercise this vast authority in an attempt to place the United States under authoritarian rule.

While the danger of a dictatorship arising through legal means may seem remote to us today, recent history records Hitler seizing control through the use of the emergency powers provisions contained in the laws of the Weimar Republic."

--Joint Statement, Sens. Frank Church (D-ID) and Charles McMathias (R-MD) September 30, 1973

http://www.disastercenter.com/laworder/11003.htm

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 16:01 | Link to Comment trav777
trav777's picture

have you maybe looked at the overlap between crime and Obama's staunchest supporters, on a county-by-county basis!??!

I mean am I the ONLY ONE who notices the gd'd elephant taking a dump in the room?

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 16:09 | Link to Comment akak
akak's picture

Say it openly, racist: "Niggers".

We, and you, all know that that is exactly what you are just itching to say.

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 16:44 | Link to Comment Mad Mohel
Mad Mohel's picture

Yo ho ho and a bottle of rum!

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 18:31 | Link to Comment akak
akak's picture

Why am I repeatedly (and, I suspect, kneejerk-like automatically) downarrowed merely for putting the word "nigger" into Trav's mouth, when HE is the racist and the one who AGREES with the sentiment behind that word, while I am not and do not?

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 20:38 | Link to Comment trav777
trav777's picture

I can answer this:

because you're a b!tch, loser.

You refuse to acknowledge the elephant and you call me names for pointing it out.

That makes you a little nanny trying to get me to conform to an orthodoxy on this subject.  I have no animosity toward the people you claim I do; I merely point out facts. 

It won't work.  You can't shut me up and the truth doesn't need your consent to exist.  I don't care how uncomfortable facts make you.  Any of you.  I know you'd really LIKE IT A LOT if the whole "we're all equal" meme were true.  That's the thing tho, it's NOT.  And most of you have IMMENSE trouble accepting that.  So how do you expect me to take you seriously if you come onto ZH and talk about being a "freethinker" and taking the red pill and all of this BS when you can't divorce yourselves of this massive denial?

When confronted, you punt.  You always do, akock.

Thu, 01/10/2013 - 04:16 | Link to Comment akak
akak's picture

You are a truly a digusting, vile, collectivist, racist piece of human filth, and I have utterly no compunctions about labeling you as such.

Do you know why you are such a vile piece of filth, Trav?  Because you are a racist, which is to say, a COLLECTIVIST pure and simple --- you focus on and label individuals based on vague and all-but-meaningless group statistics (which are open to interpretation and debate in many cases anyway). You would condemn ALL members of a given human genotype based on their race's position within some Gaussian curve rather than on their individual merits and demerits.  Your thinking and your innuendos are EXACTLY the same as those of the Nazis, the Hutus and Tutsis, the slave traders and the misogynists: damnation based on supposed group guilt and group inferiority.

Let me ask you this once again, the question which you in your cowardice have NEVER deigned to answer: Given your reading of the racial Gaussian curve, and the supposed inferiority of blacks, just WHAT are your concrete policy prescriptions?  Tell us!  Since you seem to want to play God in deciding who is "worthy" and who is not, just what would YOU do, given the power, with all those who are "unworthy" in your eyes?  What do we as a society do about the "inferiors" in our midst?  Go ahead, tell us --- I dare you.

It is having to share the planet with the loathsome likes of monsters like you that makes this life a madhouse and a Hellhole.

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 18:56 | Link to Comment BooMushroom
BooMushroom's picture

Nice ad hominem.

Correlation, causation or Falsehood? We all know trav is a racist asshole, but is he right? 532 murders in Chicago says maybe.

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 20:41 | Link to Comment trav777
trav777's picture

The biggest irony on ZH is how you people REFUSE to accept that what you think you know about race is actually CONDITIONING.

You seem to believe you've been LIED TO about EVERYTHING except that.

Go figure.  Go and look up who runs the NAACP and SPLC, along with media and finance.  Oh but they told you the truth about race, right?  The marxists who pushed for multicult...it's really actually TRUTH they peddled to you on this subject while lying everywhere else.

54% of the homicides say they were lying even bigger about that, bud.

But, I'm a "racist."  I don't think anyone even knows wtf that means anymore.

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 22:46 | Link to Comment BooMushroom
BooMushroom's picture

It's racist to say that American blacks are more likely murder people. It's judging them by their race, ergo racist.

It's also mathematically provable, true, and pretty much in your face unless you stick your fingers in your ears, close your eyes, and shout "La La La I can't hear you!" Especially if you spend any amount of time in Chicago, New Orleans, Stockton, or any other majority black, Democrat-run city.

I think what you are saying is true, and it is unpleasant, and I don't see a good solution to it. I can't divine whether it is nature or nurture though. I've given up on disagreeing with you, as it is backed up by the numbers, the headlines, and the security camera footage, youtube, as well as my own personal experience.

For helping change my thinking on this, and slipping that particular red pill in with my usual ZH red pills, I dub you an asshole.

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 23:06 | Link to Comment knowless
knowless's picture

While i don't take the same course of logic you do, i do think the west has at the very least an ignorant and myopic view of race, other groups proudly accept that racial identity has something to do with there heritage.

But yeah, blinders on, restitution is necessary, even if your "white" ancestors came here as indentured servants or share croppers. Racial identity is bad (as long as your not part of the "oppressed").

On an interesting note, a recent huffpo article put the numbers on whites and blacks as near equally taking government money.

Thu, 01/10/2013 - 02:20 | Link to Comment Xanadu_doo
Xanadu_doo's picture

wow - I just thought he meant the bankers...

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 16:23 | Link to Comment negative rates
negative rates's picture

Perhaps you saw a goat, and between your eyes and your mind things changed, and there was that one maroon glass elephant dumping his load, looks like it landed in your lap.

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 20:45 | Link to Comment trav777
trav777's picture

the conditioning you have against acknowledging reality is so incredibly strong, it consistently amazes me.

Why do you suppose that is?  Is it because you're too frightened of the consequences?

I mean the REST of the "american dream" message is all total BS, red pill time, right?  You "get it."  You people will believe 911 was an "inside job" but the SPLC and the multicult marxists have been telling you the TRUTH for your own good about race for 100 years, you know, to stop you from being an evil nazi.  Because lord knows you can't discern for yourself or use common sense.

When the dude who discovered DNA is saying something, you oughta listen.

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 16:00 | Link to Comment Banksters
Banksters's picture

 

REVOLUTION IS THE ONLY SOLUTION!

LONG LIVE THE BILL OF RIGHTS AND FREEDOM LOVING AMERICANS!!!!

 

 

 

During a? speech in 1995 Eric Holder says people need to be brainwashed into thinking negatively about guns.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gYyqBxD-3xw

IT IS ON MOTHERFUCKER!

 

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 16:02 | Link to Comment Chupacabra-322
Chupacabra-322's picture

The Executive is supposed to carry out the laws of Congress, which is the Constitution. If Criminal Obama bypasses the Constitution, again, and if the Criminal Congress allows him to do so, again, all members of the two Criminal branches of government (the third being along for the ride) will be rebelling against our Constitution and the American people again. Only this time, many citizens have drawn their last line in the sand. They had better be very damn careful.

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 16:05 | Link to Comment Banksters
Banksters's picture

Chupacabra,

 

I couldn't agree more.    We the people are fucking pissed.    Bankers go free, Americans get sold out, and ultimately become the 'problem.'

 

FUCK THE GOVT.    

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 16:21 | Link to Comment Chupacabra-322
Chupacabra-322's picture

Their Criminality isn't "hidden in plain view" anymore.  It's all out in the open for all to see.  The Criminals need The American People disarmed before the orchestrated, engineered, all done by design/agenda Economic Collapse. 

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 16:33 | Link to Comment The Heart
The Heart's picture

Ding...ding...ding!

We have a winnner here folks!

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 15:37 | Link to Comment One World Mafia
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 didn't 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.

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 16:45 | Link to Comment Ghordius
Ghordius's picture

"global power hungry organizations like the UN didn't exist" <sigh>

ok, so a bunch of ambassadors propose a treaty between countries - according to the wishes of their governments

this treaty might or might not be ratified - in the same manner as a law is

pls explain, what is this "global power hungry" again?

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 16:47 | Link to Comment yrbmegr
yrbmegr's picture

No, they can't.  It says treaties shall be supreme notwithstanding any state's laws or constitution.  It doesn't say treaties trump the US constitution.

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 18:48 | Link to Comment GeezerGeek
GeezerGeek's picture

Arguing over which would be supreme, a treaty or the Constitution, is futile. One could argue that the Bill of Rights and subsequent amendments came later and therefore override the provisions in the Constitution itself. All I know is what I learned from Mao. Power comes out of the barrel of a gun.

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 19:07 | Link to Comment masterinchancery
masterinchancery's picture

No, the Constitution cannot be amended by Treaty, but only by the mechanisms set forth in the Constitution.

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 18:10 | Link to Comment TeMpTeK
TeMpTeK's picture

Hey Fuck heads.... tyranny exists because all the brightest people in the room actually believe the president can, with the stroke of a pen and without an act of congress, make laws that abrogate the US constitution...WTF is wrong with you people.. Executive orders have no weight or effect of law in any one of the 50 states.. This is however an epic display of how little Americans understand their govt and its LIMITED authority.. Needs Proof?...Just ask all the medicinal marijuana growers in Claifornia and elsewhere who legally violate federal drug laws everyday and there aint shit the feds can do....Wake the fuck up people!..

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 18:39 | Link to Comment Texas Ginslinger
Wed, 01/09/2013 - 21:31 | Link to Comment TeMpTeK
TeMpTeK's picture

Let me educate u....

The feds can only legislate and intercede in states affairs when the activity in question relates to "INTERSTATE COMMERCE" . The article you point out specificially cites the Feds only angle...

"Attorneys for each of California's federal districts announced a crackdown on "commercial trade" in medical marijuana..."

The commercial or "commerce angle" is all the feds have...Medicial Marijuana facilities not ALLEGEDLY engaged in commercial activities have been albeit "Messed With" but have not been shut down by the feds... More proof of the feds limited authority is the 1990 "Gun Free School Zone Act" ... Declared unconstitutional... because The feds can NOT even legislate guns in or around school zones in anyone of the 50 states of the union.. Please see the American Peoples victory also known as US vs Lopez 1995. 

So if the feds cant shut down Every single Medical Marijuana spot in the country and if they cant legislate guns in or around a school zone in any one of the 50 states of the union ... then what makes anyone think a presidential Executive order is some "New Power" not specifically delegated and outlined by the US constitution???

 

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 22:09 | Link to Comment Clark Bent
Clark Bent's picture

I take your point, but I am not so sanguine as you about these limitations being respected. There is the example of substantive due process wherein the Supreme Court conceives new "rights" and attaches them to classes of people, often enough as a politically-favored class. Mischievous at best. Then there is the novel announcement by Justice Roberts last summer that all Obamacare is really just a tax scheme to generate revenue for thhings not specifically prohibited by the Constitution. Seems to me this leaves a great deal of room for anxiety about whether a man who can pick up the phone and have a flying robot drop a Hellfire missile on somebody anywhere in the world (wihtout reference to collateral killings even) will be modest about his ability to issue edicts that enjoy popular support (at least part, certainly the media part, of the populace). As a lifelong radical marxist with a distinct inferiority/superiority complex, who as yet has not faced any real resistance, who can feel secure in anything? Why would this mentally disordered narcissist refrain from taking this risk? One might ask whether he is capable of even understanding the American commitment to liberty, as he clearly operates on the belief that all people are motivated primarily by fear and self interest. Patriotism is unknown to him except as a tactic. He does not understand why someone would actually risk status or their lives to stand for a mere principle. He won the lection, his "peeps" are urging him to be bold; why wouldn't he try it? 

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 23:41 | Link to Comment TeMpTeK
TeMpTeK's picture

"I am not so sanguine as you about these limitations being respected"..

 

Oh believe me... they wont be respected.. the ever encroaching arm of the gummerment is at work 24hrs a day 7 days a week....Get your AR15s while its easy....

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 14:57 | Link to Comment Meatballs
Meatballs's picture

Not arguing the facist piece of your statement, however, you are ignoring the first part of the amendment- which I predict will be the piece brought into play. An axiom most ignore that is extremely relevant is this- If you want to fuck something up- bring in the lawyers. They're going to bring them in a big way before this is over.

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 14:59 | Link to Comment redpill
redpill's picture

SCOTUS has already ruled definitively on that.  The right is an individual one, just like all the other amendments that make up the bill of rights.

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 15:08 | Link to Comment SamAdams
SamAdams's picture

They plan to eliminate your Bill of Rights.  They told you this clear as crystal when they erected the Masonic columns in front of the IRS headquarters.  They always tell you in advance, albeit subtly, what they intend to do.

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 16:39 | Link to Comment The Heart
The Heart's picture

"They always tell you in advance, albeit subtly, what they intend to do."

Exactly!

http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/przion1.htm

How it all happened:

http://www.iamthewitness.com/DarylBradfordSmith_Rothschild.htm

Who is involved?:

http://www.iamthewitness.com/books/Andrew.Carrington.Hitchcock/Synagogue...

 

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 22:04 | Link to Comment ChacoFunFact
ChacoFunFact's picture

remember that the seventh year of revolution is harder than the first.

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 15:11 | Link to Comment FEDbuster
FEDbuster's picture

Problem with Heller is they allowed states and local jurisdictions to regulate what type of "arms" can be owned.  You may end up with a right to own a single shot, 22lr with a four foot barrel.  

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 15:36 | Link to Comment Karlus
Karlus's picture

You hit the nail on the head. The plan is to erode over time. The logic now is you cant have an army weapon. You cant have a "high" (aka normal) capacity magazine. You cant have a caliber higher than...there needs to be a mechanism that does not let you fire too many shots too quickly, limit fps of projectile...etc

Im worried people will never take a stand

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 16:35 | Link to Comment Totentänzerlied
Totentänzerlied's picture

"Im worried people will never take a stand"

Allow me to allay your fears!

The people will take a stand for what they believe in!*

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/October_Revolution

Forward!

*It just won't be what you believe in, or what you hoped they believe in, or anything good

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 15:16 | Link to Comment CPL
CPL's picture

All those documents are written in pencil now and the eraser is coming out of the drawer.

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 17:01 | Link to Comment The Gooch
The Gooch's picture

Barack Eraserhead.

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 15:35 | Link to Comment Meatballs
Meatballs's picture

Appreciate the head's up and will research it. Was operating from years of seeing how shit like this goes...regardless, if they want something badly enough, we all know they will find a way.

Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site!