• Gold Money
    05/26/2016 - 14:27
    Here’s a question that might have you pondering: Is gold a commodity? More importantly, are we doing a disservice to the gold industry by calling gold a commodity? These may sound like silly...

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.

Your rating: None

- advertisements -

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Wed, 01/09/2013 - 15:37 | 3137646 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 | 3137699 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 | 3137758 Landotfree
Landotfree's picture

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

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 16:09 | 3137856 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......


Wed, 01/09/2013 - 19:00 | 3138718 dick cheneys ghost
dick cheneys ghost's picture

good pt


Wed, 01/09/2013 - 20:48 | 3139091 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 | 3139173 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 | 3139127 ersatzteil
ersatzteil's picture

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

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 16:27 | 3137957 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 | 3139217 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 | 3137932 WhiskeyTangoFoxtrot
WhiskeyTangoFoxtrot's picture

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

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 17:43 | 3138399 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.


Wed, 01/09/2013 - 20:39 | 3139055 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'


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 | 3139455 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 | 3139862 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 | 3139037 The Gooch
The Gooch's picture

It's Bitchez, Asshole.


Well informed, armed and pissed bitchez, bitchez.

/S off

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 15:54 | 3137771 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 | 3137816 sunnyside
sunnyside's picture

If this is his best he needs to be removed.


Wed, 01/09/2013 - 17:07 | 3138192 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 | 3138572 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 | 3138858 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 | 3139253 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!


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

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 22:20 | 3139400 The Gooch
The Gooch's picture

or- spill everclear in the ashtray.

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 15:54 | 3137769 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 | 3138246 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 | 3138338 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 | 3137956 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 | 3137732 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 | 3137894 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 | 3138576 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 | 3138791 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 | 3137924 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 | 3138032 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 | 3138367 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 | 3137944 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 | 3138867 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 | 3138880 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 | 3139041 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. 


Wed, 01/09/2013 - 15:21 | 3137528 One World Mafia
One World Mafia's picture

The govt doesn't care about our intrinsic rights.

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 15:29 | 3137602 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 | 3138786 Shell Game
Shell Game's picture

Thanks for the link, great timeline.

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 15:57 | 3137793 HellFish
HellFish's picture

typo fixes

not = nor

The = They

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 21:13 | 3139189 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 | 3137471 trav777
trav777's picture

treaties cannot abrogate the Constitution

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 15:25 | 3137521 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 | 3137672 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 | 3137767 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 | 3137790 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.”


Wed, 01/09/2013 - 16:08 | 3137853 MayIMommaDogFac...
MayIMommaDogFace2theBananaPatch's picture

Corporations are people...

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 17:02 | 3138162 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

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