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.
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!

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.

Landotfree's picture

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

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.

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.

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.

ersatzteil's picture

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

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.

Debt-Is-Not-Money's picture

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

WhiskeyTangoFoxtrot's picture

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

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

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.

palmereldritch's picture

I like this one.  From a commenter at another site

The Second Amendment: The First Amendment's big brother

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.

The Gooch's picture

It's Bitchez, Asshole.

/S

Well informed, armed and pissed bitchez, bitchez.

/S off

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."

sunnyside's picture

If this is his best he needs to be removed.

 

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!

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.

Citxmech's picture

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

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.

The Gooch's picture

or- spill everclear in the ashtray.

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

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

 

 

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.

A Nanny Moose's picture

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

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.

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?

CH1's picture

knowing this, what would be the appropriate response?

Stop giving them money to use against you.

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.

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!

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

ATM's picture

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

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.

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.

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.

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!

One World Mafia's picture

The govt doesn't care about our intrinsic rights.

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! ;-)

Shell Game's picture

Thanks for the link, great timeline.

HellFish's picture

typo fixes

not = nor

The = They

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. 

 

trav777's picture

treaties cannot abrogate the Constitution

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.

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.

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.

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

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