This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.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 - 15:14 | 3137497 wee-weed up
wee-weed up's picture

They're going to do it like "boiling a frog" - gradual increments at a time.

The question is... how long before we jump?

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 15:00 | 3137421 e_goldstein
Wed, 01/09/2013 - 15:25 | 3137569 verum quod lies
verum quod lies's picture

Facts are facts, he's right; and it seems it's time to water that tree of liberty.

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 15:55 | 3137776 retiringteach
retiringteach's picture

fuck you, white trash-each day i walk my dog so he can take a "cabot"!

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 18:44 | 3138664 kito
kito's picture

youre a blind ignorant clueless bigot randall cabot...there is a very strong JEWISH PRO GUN GROUP IN THE UNITED STATES..... them up....they view gun control as a cancer.....they are determined not to let fascism take hold in the united states.........

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 14:28 | 3137209 The Juggernaut
The Juggernaut's picture

Want my guns?  Come and get them!  Molon Labe!

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 14:30 | 3137220 Buckaroo Banzai
Buckaroo Banzai's picture

Gotta love Drudge's headline right now:

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 14:42 | 3137298 bank guy in Brussels
bank guy in Brussels's picture

Here is another, quite disturbing headline on-topic here:

« Obama Death Squads Kill Top Gun Activists As New Massacre Fears Rise »

Article says Obama's goons may recently murdered two people, John Noveske, owner of Noveske Rifelworks, and Keith Ratliff, associated with the popular FPS Russia gun videos on YouTube

This is a quite-often-scorned Irish 'conspiracy' site but damn interesting reading ... FWIW:

Article also links to a site with photos and bio info on 119 mysteriously dead research scientists in 2004-2011

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 15:11 | 3137478 secret_sam
secret_sam's picture

If only Keith had had a gun of his own, he could've defended himself.

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 16:28 | 3137964 Buckaroo Banzai
Buckaroo Banzai's picture

When somebody gets the drop on you from behind, it doesn't matter how many guns you have.

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 16:46 | 3138075 secret_sam
secret_sam's picture

Nonsense.  The only reason there's any crime in the first place is because there aren't enough guns around. 

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 16:35 | 3138018 Cynthia
Cynthia's picture

This is not about gun control, this is about American foreign policy, a policy that says it is OK to kill, OK to kill children, OK to kill innocent people, if it gets want you want. OK to take other people's lands. OK to take other peoples resources, if it lets us maintain our obscene lifestyle. Let's make sure we are looking at the real reasons, not the reasons the elite rulers want us to see.

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 16:29 | 3137977 SmallerGovNow2
SmallerGovNow2's picture

WOW!!  Thanks Buckaroo...

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 14:34 | 3137250 Azannoth
Azannoth's picture

I find it facinating how Americans have rolled over on the 4,5,6,7,8,9 and 10th Amendments but have drawn a "line in the sand" on the 2nd

Aparently "God given rights" are not all created equal

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 14:36 | 3137266 The Juggernaut
The Juggernaut's picture

Pane et Circenses

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 16:24 | 3137939's picture

No guns and BGH contaminated butter.

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 14:41 | 3137289 lolmao500
lolmao500's picture

Well, most people will do everything to avoid war because they know what war is... the 2nd amendment is the red line that must not be crossed... the 2nd amendment is basically the ``right to life`` of the country...

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 15:13 | 3137489 aerojet
aerojet's picture

Remember something else, too--Paul Revere's ride was to warn the colonists that the gun grabbers were coming to disarm them.

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 14:41 | 3137290 Buckaroo Banzai
Buckaroo Banzai's picture

The right to defend one's life is the ultimate right. We lose that one, and it's game over.

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 15:16 | 3137503 onewayticket2
onewayticket2's picture

....and now you understand the thinking behind Fast and Furious. 

Raise the spectre of violence with these weapons (fail, it was exposed - somewhat but no matter), create public uproar (check), create crying mom soundbites (check), push legislation (in process), if it fails, you always have executive order (second term, in process).

this has been in the cards since before he was elected....and a good crisis will not be left to waste.  F&F may not have generated it, but the outcome is the same....

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 17:45 | 3138406 Freddie
Freddie's picture

Still the idiots keep watching TV and Hollywood's shit which supports disarming you and no Fox is not any better.   They control the media and the idiots watch. 

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 15:12 | 3137486 aerojet
aerojet's picture

Hey, we're holding the line on the 3rd Amendment really well!

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 16:28 | 3137962's picture

Now we just pay through the nose to provide troops with their own digs in over 140 countries.

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 14:54 | 3137371 grgy
Wed, 01/09/2013 - 15:16 | 3137502 XitSam
XitSam's picture

Those that think disarmament will be a straight up shoot out need to think again.

The enemy is not stupid.

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 15:36 | 3137656 Chupacabra-322
Chupacabra-322's picture

LOCK AND LOAD PEOPLE.  The CRIMINALS have officially declared War on The American People.  Take absolutely NO prisoners and Aim Small.  Pack a Gun and Pay NO Tax!!!

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 15:40 | 3137681 Praetorian Guard
Praetorian Guard's picture

Now if the 2nd Amendment protects individuals to own firearms, then why are felons, domestic violence individuals PROHIBITED from owning said firearm, wherein your rights shall not be infringed? You see where I am going on this... they can say and do whatever they want. Those laws are ILLEGAL, yet "enforced"... sad but true... yet no one has challenged this, makes you wonder...

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 16:31 | 3137993's picture

So you want convicted murders to have the ability to get guns, speak freely about forming a mob and assemble in your living room? That makes sense.

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 17:17 | 3138253 Praetorian Guard
Praetorian Guard's picture

Well, taking the constitution in its form would indicate that yes, a person guilty of DV and a felony should be able to possess weapons. Any laws to the contrary are unconstitutional...

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 18:25 | 3138610's picture

The US Constitution is based on a long tradition which includes common law.


The roots of felony disenfranchisement laws can be traced back to ancient Greek and Roman traditions. Disenfranchisement was commonly imposed on individuals convicted of "infamous" crimes as part of their "civil death", whereby these persons would lose all rights and claim to property. Most medieval common law jurisdictions developed some form of exclusion from the democratic process, ranging from execution on sight to rejection from community processes.[2]

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 15:43 | 3137705 Zap Powerz
Zap Powerz's picture

There is a common theme on this thread.

That theme is people expect the US government to protect them from the US government.

To me, that seems kind of stupid, but whatever.

It goes like this: "Obama cant take away our guns because the government promised us we have the right to keep them."  If you cant see the problem with this thought process then perhaps you dont deserve freedon nor guns.

I am a free human being. I am alive. I will do whatever is necessary to protect myself and remain alive and free. There is nothing that will stand in between me and my ambition to remain alive and free.  I do not care what anyone else says or does.  Their actions or words will not affect my desire to remain alive and free.

Ulitmately, the Constitution is just a piece of old paper.  It will not protect you. You are on your own in this world. It is up to you to remain alive and free.  You must fight for yourself and fend for yourself.  As soon as you abdicate your responsibility to stay alive and free to someone else, you lose.

Thu, 01/10/2013 - 02:22 | 3139929 Fedaykinx
Fedaykinx's picture

Don't forget those little things we still have called state governments.

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 16:24 | 3137935 Cynthia
Cynthia's picture

Never forget the worst firearms crimes are committed in the sacred name of the State. The horrors visited upon Connecticut are the very ones routine for Gazans, Iraqis or Afghans.

We have reared thousands, even millions with the notion that we can fix every ill with an invasion and mass killings. No wonder some lunatic will take this propaganda to its ultimate and deadly conclusions.
Check out the videos these children watch daily.

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 16:29 | 3137976 Zen Bernanke
Zen Bernanke's picture

A democracy cannot survive as a permanent form of government. It can last only until its citizens discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. (DONE) From that moment on, the majority (who vote) will vote for those candidates promising the greatest benefits from the public purse (DONE), with the result that a democracy will always collapse from loose fiscal policies, always followed by a dictatorship (AND DONE)!

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 18:01 | 3138499 TeMpTeK
TeMpTeK's picture

Tyler...Executive orders are not laws in the 50 states of the Union...They are merely suggestions... The president has executive authority only with regard to federal territories and the military...We see how well gun laws have done in federal territories like Puerto Rico and military bases like Ft Hood....Nuff Said

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 19:59 | 3138922 Everybodys All ...
Everybodys All American's picture

Banana republic: Where they take your guns and mint trillion dollar coins.

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 20:10 | 3138962 brokenclock
brokenclock's picture

They are making a full court press to get the guns. WOW!!!!

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 20:16 | 3138985 Jethro
Jethro's picture

I kinda hope he does, just to satisfy my morbid sense of humor. It'd be the political equivalent of doing Olympic diving off of the Sears tower, and landing on pavement. Sure, he'd likely get style points, and the "audacity" can't be questioned....but that landing is sure to leave a mark, and repeat performances will be unlikely.

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 14:26 | 3137195 reload
reload's picture

I double dare him.

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 14:39 | 3137224 MachoMan
MachoMan's picture

I learned from an early age not to play with fire...  I'm not sure anyone should motivate intrusions upon the second amendment (I am refusing to use the term gun control any longer unless specifically referring to shooting techniques to improve accuracy or effectiveness/efficiency).

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 15:13 | 3137490 NotApplicable
NotApplicable's picture

Obama is literally, "The Bomb."

Remember, he's merely an elite tool, and will destroy in whatever manner he's been programmed.

Which would you rather preside over, a broke country where everyone rightly blames the DC/Wall St cartel, or Civil War 2.0 ("Saving America from Evil")?

You may have learned not to play with fire, but he learned that he is pure gunpowder.

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 15:21 | 3137530 Henry Chinaski
Henry Chinaski's picture

Yes a true arsonist doesn't want to play with fire, he wants to BE fire.

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 16:56 | 3138135 tip e. canoe
tip e. canoe's picture

and now it should make sense why he goes around saying Lincoln was his favorite president.   and why there is a movie on Lincoln (directed by a master revisionist) on the big screen (just wait until Oscar time for the big PR push).

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 14:27 | 3137196 Buckaroo Banzai
Buckaroo Banzai's picture

but but but... back in 2008 he swore he wouldn't take away our guns.


Wed, 01/09/2013 - 14:28 | 3137214 Buckaroo Banzai
Buckaroo Banzai's picture


Wed, 01/09/2013 - 14:59 | 3137416 Freddie
Freddie's picture

Dude - all of TV and all of Hollywood are the same aand support disarming you.  Turn it all off. 

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 14:31 | 3137229 docj
docj's picture

Remember, this is the same dude who, when he was a lowly (part-time) senator used to rend his garments and gnash his teeth over his predecessor's "signing statements". Something about abuse of executive power and flaunting the Constitution, and whatnot.

Now Mr. Constitutional Law Schollar is sending his idiot Veep out there to tell the world "Constitution? Never heard of it!"

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 14:44 | 3137307 Clayton Bigsby
Clayton Bigsby's picture

Could not have said it better myself.  I doff my chapeau to thee, sir...

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 14:27 | 3137198 Gene Parmesan
Gene Parmesan's picture

Chaos, right on schedule.

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 15:14 | 3137495 NotApplicable
NotApplicable's picture

How better to render the debt ceiling moot? (and nearly every other government induced social problem)

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 14:27 | 3137205 Dangertime
Dangertime's picture

All your guns are belong to us!


We pwn you!

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 14:31 | 3137206 Mi Naem
Mi Naem's picture

Take our guns, eh? 

Well, it's time for Samurai Steak Knife to take them back, one at a time. 

In a situation where the state has taken our guns,police officers and others carrying weapons should be very suspicious of people just walking by minding their own business. 

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 14:58 | 3137402 pods
pods's picture

Already there I'm afraid to say.

"[Police are] going to be in SWAT gear and have AR-15s around their neck," Stovall said. "If you're out walking, we're going to stop you, ask why you're out walking, check for your ID."

(Stovall is the police chief)


Wed, 01/09/2013 - 15:22 | 3137540 trav777
trav777's picture




pick 2.  You won't have the 3rd.

Oh but wait, I'm not allowed to say that; we can't have nice things because brown colored young males are criminally inclined and violent. And the "no snitch" policy in these neighborhoods makes it IMPOSSIBLE to police them.

So the cops will go gestapo and start IDing people....papers please.  but AT NO POINT can we have ANY kind of REALISTIC conversation about who it IS that commits crimes.  We must DESTROY OUR SOCIETY in order to refrain from speaking any kind of truth.

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 17:41 | 3137869 secret_sam
secret_sam's picture

The Batman-theater shooter guy and the asshole who just shot all the Sandy Hook kids were actually negroes, they just had severe vitaglio.  Everything would be perfect here if it weren't for those damn brown-skinned folks.

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 14:33 | 3137207 lolmao500
lolmao500's picture

If he does, there will be a civil war... or hopefully the military will intervene before that and overthrow his ass along with congress.

The next realistic step is SCOTUS... but you bet there's already threats being made against Scalia, Roberts, Kennedy, Thomas and Alito that if they rule for the second amendment, they, or people they love, are gonna end up dead... or worse.

Remember, the statists only need ONE VOTE to give them a 5-4 majority.

America is a breath away from total chaos... a civil war would mean the whole world economy going kaput.

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 14:34 | 3137251 lunaticfringe
lunaticfringe's picture

Ignore the Bill of Rights? Ok. I guess they'll have to suffer the consequences. 

Everyone has choices to make. Molon Labe. 

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 14:41 | 3137286 Randall Cabot
Randall Cabot's picture

"If he does, there will be a civil war... or hopefully the military will intervene before that and overthrow his ass along with congress."

Gen. McChrystal Throws Weight Behind Effort to Ban Firearms

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 14:43 | 3137302 lolmao500
lolmao500's picture

Yeah I know. The military is full of those sycophants... Still, I'm sure there's lots of REAL patriotic military officers out there.

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 15:14 | 3137494 DCFusor
DCFusor's picture

I've recently talked to a lot of low level whatthefuckistan vets who are really upset about what we've allowed this country to devolve into while they were in harms way "protecting" it.  If it comes down to it, those guys are going to be on our side.  They remember that their oath was to the Constitution, not the commander in chief.

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 15:17 | 3137506 NotApplicable
NotApplicable's picture

Luckily for law enforcement, those kids have already been classified as terrorists.


Wed, 01/09/2013 - 15:02 | 3137433 mckee
mckee's picture

What will civil war do to the sales of iPads? Should I sell my APPL prior to the war?

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 15:03 | 3137439 mckee
mckee's picture


Wed, 01/09/2013 - 15:18 | 3137517 Miffed Microbio...
Miffed Microbiologist's picture

Nah, the guy who made those silly kiddie bullet proof backpacks will come up with the " personal bulletproof iPad jacket ". APPL saved, you're good.


Wed, 01/09/2013 - 15:30 | 3137608 Bohm Squad
Bohm Squad's picture

No...just buy the Civil War can fight along with the resistance from the comfort of your living room.

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 16:10 | 3137857 oddball
oddball's picture

There is a drone for that.

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 14:48 | 3137326 MachoMan
MachoMan's picture

Considering the SCOTUS recently decided that owning a firearm was a fundamental right, I'm not sure where you're going with your post...

Further, as long as you're wishing, you need to wish to keep the military the fuck away from political control...

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 14:58 | 3137373 lolmao500
lolmao500's picture

Chicago Law Banning Handguns in City Upheld by Court

The unanimous three-judge panel ruled today that a U.S. Supreme Court decision last year, which recognized an individual right to bear arms under the U.S. Constitution’s Second Amendment, didn’t apply to states and municipalities.

In Turkey, they do a good job. The military has been keeping the tyrants away for the last 70 years.

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 15:01 | 3137425 pods
pods's picture

Does Turkey need to blow up any brown people around the world who refuse to accept their debt money?

Kind of like comparing apples to hand grenades.


Wed, 01/09/2013 - 15:10 | 3137476 MachoMan
MachoMan's picture

Are you a troll or something?

The SCOTUS already took a shit on your thesis.

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 15:22 | 3137533 lolmao500
lolmao500's picture

Yeah sorry I wanted to edit but I couldn't.

Still, if they can make a judge change his vote, they can overturn any previous decision...  wouldn't be the first time... Citizen United overturned what... 100+ years of jurisprudence?

Same goes for Obamacare, with enough twists and turns, they declared it constitutional...

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 15:29 | 3137600 MachoMan
MachoMan's picture

That would be exceptionally rare in the span of a couple of years...  the only way these types of decisions typically get overturned is after 100 years have passed and the court thinks the coast is clear.  However, it may be "clarified" as each case largely rests upon its own facts and circumstances...  thereby reducing its application and, thus, effectiveness.

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 15:30 | 3137610 secret_sam
secret_sam's picture

What part of "Obamacare" is supposed to be unconstitutional, anyway?  A 3rd-grade level understanding of the Constitution doesn't really suffice in a courtroom, you know.

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 15:35 | 3137652 lolmao500
lolmao500's picture

They treated it as a tax. It's total BS.

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 15:56 | 3137784 secret_sam
secret_sam's picture

Total BS, yes, lousy legislation, yes, but not unconstitutional.  Sorry, but that's really just a stupid claim.

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 16:13 | 3137870 lolmao500
lolmao500's picture

Why treat it as a tax to make it ``constitutional`` if it's constitutional in the first place? Ah yes, because it ain't.

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 16:35 | 3138013 MachoMan
MachoMan's picture

This is what happens when the judiciary is result oriented...

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 16:48 | 3138089 secret_sam
secret_sam's picture

Which part of it is not Constitutional?  You never answered that.

Have you ever READ the Constitution?  Go ahead and give it a try, it's not that long.  Find the part that "Obamacare" violates.

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 16:59 | 3138156 lolmao500
lolmao500's picture

You're forced to buy a service from private companies.

The commerce clause forbids the government from compelling people to enter into commerce.

Right there it's unconstitutional.

If you do not enter into commerce (buy private medical insurance), you're forced to pay a fine... which is unconstitutional... (forcing you to enter into commerce or else) so they just said it was tax instead and they found it legal since congress has the power to levy taxes.

It's unconstitutional.

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 17:16 | 3138245 secret_sam
secret_sam's picture

    You're forced to buy a service from private companies.

And this conflicts with *what* in the Constitution?

I'd say stuff like drug prohibition and the draft are unconstitutional, too, but hey, that's just like my opinion, man.

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 17:46 | 3138416 Abaco
Abaco's picture

And you would be correct.

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 18:47 | 3138671 lolmao500
lolmao500's picture


Thu, 01/10/2013 - 00:50 | 3139779 secret_sam
secret_sam's picture

How hard can it be to quote the text from the document, eh?

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 17:43 | 3138397 Abaco
Abaco's picture

There is no grant of authority for the federal government to regulate health care. Therefore Obamacare is an unconstitutional arrogation of power.

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 17:50 | 3138440 Abaco
Abaco's picture

Your entire premise is back asswards. You do not look for what clause a law violates.  You must find what clause provides authority to do something. Every power not specifically granted to the Federal government is prohibited to it.

Thu, 01/10/2013 - 00:32 | 3139735 secret_sam
secret_sam's picture

I agree with you in theory, but you have to throw out a few hundred years of USSC decision in order to "get there."

The Supreme Court has delivered a lot of decisions over the years, in case you've forgotten.  There is very little Federal law today which can "qualified" as Constitutional according to your definitions, which is all fine, except you're neither the Supreme Court nor the absolute dictator of the USA.

(As a personal note: at the end of the day, folks should distinguish between the personal opinions I happen to hold and my ability to reason about the ARGUMENT.)

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 19:51 | 3138897 GeezerGeek
GeezerGeek's picture

Just which part of Article 1 Section 8 gives the Congress the authority to pass this kind of law? Ditto Medicare and Social Security. It is only the contorted, fallacious/malicious reasoning of the courts that allowed these kinds of programs to exist. Perhaps the problem is in the wording, where the framers perhaps intended "general welfare" to be a goal and not something that could result in legislation.

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 17:41 | 3138384 Abaco
Abaco's picture

The federal government only has those powers specifically granted to it by the constitution. There is no such grant of authority to regulate health care.  Health care is NOT commerce. The feds do have the authority to regulate the interstate commerce of goods used in health care. A 3rd grade level of understanding of the Constitution would be an improvement for you.

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 17:44 | 3138396 secret_sam
secret_sam's picture

The Affordable Care Act doesn't regulate health-care at all.  It regulates health INSURANCE.  Insurance is an industry provided numerous special legal privileges in exchange for extensive regulation.

It's all bullshit and never should have passed, but it's not what you're claiming it is.

(As an aside, incidentally, if the Feds can't regulate healthcare at all, where's anyone supposed to get justification for prohibition of abortion?)

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 17:45 | 3138403 Abaco
Abaco's picture

Insurance is not commerce. Commerce is the exchange of of goods, merchandise at a wholesale (not retail) level. 

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 18:48 | 3138678 lolmao500
lolmao500's picture

Everything sold is considered commerce. So is insurance.

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 17:48 | 3138425 Abaco
Abaco's picture

As for your aside - the feds have no authority to pass any legislation regarding abortion, murder, or most anything else unless restricted to the District of Columbia.

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 15:12 | 3137481 aerojet
aerojet's picture

That ruling is out of date--that was from June 2 of 2012?  The 7th Circuit apparently has overridden that lower court decision by forcing Illinois to enact a concealed carry law.  Chicago may still have slimed its way out from under the ruling, I don't know.  It's bullshit that major cities where people need concealed carry the most are the places where they are prevented from exercising that capability. 

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 15:55 | 3137779 trav777
trav777's picture

mcDonald v chicago applied the 2nd to the States, 561 US 3025

this still won't stop the gov't from trying to weasel out

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 15:46 | 3137717 trav777
trav777's picture

every single law school student learns that the 14th Amendment applied the BoR to the States.

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 14:54 | 3137367 bank guy in Brussels
bank guy in Brussels's picture

Indeed there are open threats against the US judges

US Federal Judge John Roll was shot dead in Arizona in 2011 shortly after ruling against Obama and the US gov't

Media barely covered it, but the US judges all have the message

If more US judges are killed, more drugged-up 'lone gunmen' can be supplied to 'confess' just like with dead Judge Roll ... making more 'proof' for the gun-grabbers too

That was the reason for Supreme Court Justice Roberts' nervousness when telling the lies upholding Obamacare ... He has to please his bosses or die

Once inside the mafia, there is no way out

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 14:59 | 3137410 lolmao500
lolmao500's picture

Yep. They could stage an assassination or a new OKC.

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 18:09 | 3138533 lakecity55
lakecity55's picture

Do not rule out a fake attempt on Kenyatta.

It was discussed by the Insider before the fake election.

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 15:34 | 3137641 secret_sam
secret_sam's picture

If it weren't so incredibly difficult to get a gun in AZ, no one would have to worry about government assassinations being carried out there.

Thu, 01/10/2013 - 02:30 | 3139939 Fedaykinx
Fedaykinx's picture


Wed, 01/09/2013 - 16:00 | 3137806 Meatier Shower
Meatier Shower's picture

“We the people are the rightful masters of both The Congress and the Courts - not to overthrow The Constitution but to overthrow men who Pervert the Constitution."
- Abraham Lincoln


Wed, 01/09/2013 - 14:29 | 3137212 The Gooch
The Gooch's picture

Divide and conquer, continued.

Good luck with that, Uncle Clown.

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 14:29 | 3137215 TheAlchemist
TheAlchemist's picture

If Obama bypasses Congress (as well as the Consitution) by issuing an EO on this matter... I don't believe he will like the results.

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 14:29 | 3137217 PSEUDOLOGOI

If he does an exec order, there will be an attempt to impeach him.  The Union will be split. 

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 14:45 | 3137314 lolmao500
lolmao500's picture

Riiiiiiiight. Who will impeach him? Boehner? Harry Reid? LOL!

The only way to tell Obama to go to hell if he does that is for states to plan SECESSION REFERENDUM WITHIN A MONTH OF HIS EOs. I'm sure it would pass in many states.

Or at the very least, governors and state legislatures telling Obama that any of his EOs and unconstitutional federal BS won't apply in the state.

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 15:04 | 3137440 pods
pods's picture

Yeah I think it could be done with several vocal state AGs flatly telling him they will not enforce that decree because according to the constitution that they (states) passed, CONgress makes the laws.


Wed, 01/09/2013 - 15:22 | 3137542 NotApplicable
NotApplicable's picture

I'd have a hard time believing that any of them would take any action in true opposition. Facade-shining rhetoric, perhaps. But action? LOL If there's any that are that stupid, it won't take but one to pay the price before the others quickly tuck their tails and run.

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 15:52 | 3137752 Zap Powerz
Zap Powerz's picture


That would be great! I have nothing in common with over half this country anyway and could care less about them. Lets divorce now before it gets bloody. Lets hope for that!

But prepare for the worst and hope for the best my friend.

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 14:29 | 3137218 q99x2
q99x2's picture

Pig won't; Pig will. Of course he will. The Debt Bro can't have armed citizens when he moves Al-Kida in to attack the US.

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 14:29 | 3137219 AndrewJackson
AndrewJackson's picture

Good to see zerohedge pick up on this. Just remember this obama/congress critters, the constitution says SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. Don't fully expect gun owners to go along with your tyranny so easily.

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 15:24 | 3137563 NotApplicable
NotApplicable's picture

That's exactly what they're hoping for, arranging for someone else to spring the trap, creating the very "mandate" they've been waiting for.

Every action will beget a greater action. (that's a win-win in political circles)

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 14:30 | 3137223 Silvergood
Silvergood's picture

Get ready for civil war!

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 14:40 | 3137287 TerminalDebt
TerminalDebt's picture

BS, we all know that the sheeple will roll over and hand over the guns. The blow hards talk a mean talk but that all they do.

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 14:49 | 3137338 seek
seek's picture

No, we don't. The compliance rate with the CA AW ban was 30%. I think someone here from Germany mentioned that they, too, had a very low compliance rate under similar circumstances.

I would assume they won't hand over their guns. I'd also assume that they won't initiate the use of force. The next step would be the government's -- if they start door to door searches, then I'd expect the game to be on.

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 21:49 | 3139326 FeralSerf
FeralSerf's picture

It's rumoured that compliance with Canada's gun laws is spotty in the western provinces.

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 15:01 | 3137423 exi1ed0ne
exi1ed0ne's picture

Exactly.  I plan on complying by turining in my POS 22 LR that hasn't worked since I was 14.  It's my only one.  Honest.

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 15:17 | 3137511 mckee
mckee's picture

The other ones, that you don't own, may have to be turned over one shell at a time.

Thu, 01/10/2013 - 02:36 | 3139943 Fedaykinx
Fedaykinx's picture

they're not going to get anything out of me, i plan on complying by telling them to eat a bag of dicks.

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 15:22 | 3137548 Miffed Microbio...
Miffed Microbiologist's picture

The only people I know of who would roll over and hand over their gun are people who actually don't have guns. Strange that.


Wed, 01/09/2013 - 15:35 | 3137643 secret_sam
secret_sam's picture


Wed, 01/09/2013 - 15:50 | 3137737 Praetorian Guard
Praetorian Guard's picture

No, actually they won't rely on people to turn their guns in, they will offer vouchers for people to TURN in other people. Moral of that story is DO NOT tell others, including family, what you do or don't have. Your motto should be victory through the art of deception...

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 15:38 | 3137673 Bohm Squad
Bohm Squad's picture

Studies show that it takes about 10% to start turning the tide of perception...

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 14:47 | 3137323 I am more equal...
I am more equal than others's picture

Civil is when we use words only.  There will be more than sarcasm used to take your guns.  Bigger guns with more guns pointed at you with the threat of real death or actual - you may get to choose.  Get ready to rumble because it will be at your front door...or with the door kicked in and the family on the floor restrained then contained.

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 14:31 | 3137225 verum quod lies
verum quod lies's picture

Are they really that stupid and bent on kicking the pot/country over before the frog/citizens boils to death? Molon labe!

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 15:27 | 3137589 NotApplicable
NotApplicable's picture

What choice do they have? Collapse is upon us, so what can you do, but to drive it in advantageous directions? Think about it, it's either us or them that will fall. Now, who do you think they will choose?

Divide and Conquer 101

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 14:31 | 3137226 Unstable Condition
Unstable Condition's picture

I will not comply...

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 14:31 | 3137227 ZFiNX
ZFiNX's picture

Okay, well, we were warned, Sandy Hook was a false-flag:

Now they're coming for our guns, they've got our money, they've got our children in their schools, they've got our warriors overseas, and soon they will be demanding more freedoms. We are so fucked, there is nowhere to run, nowhere to hide, now they can send predator drones after us. The only solution is armed revolt.

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 14:39 | 3137276 Citxmech
Citxmech's picture

"The only solution is armed revolt."

Personally, I think grass-roots civil disobediance will have a better chance of success.  The key is to organize at a local level to include local law enforcement.

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 14:44 | 3137313 jonan
jonan's picture

so you can get mace to the face while you have grass up your ass? no thanks...molon labe!

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 15:02 | 3137436 Freddie
Freddie's picture

The cops and fireman are true blue union Dems. They love Obama.

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 16:38 | 3138034 FeralSerf
FeralSerf's picture

Not the cops and firemen I know!

Thu, 01/10/2013 - 01:24 | 3139855 respect the cock
respect the cock's picture

You sure as fuck don't know any firemen then.

Some of the biggest gun nuts around.

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 15:28 | 3137590 kill switch
kill switch's picture

This is not going to be a cakewalk for all of us..... They could ID everyone that has a gun and freeze their bank accounts,, turn off your drivers license, turn off you electricity, and water. We are so embedded in this clusterfuck system...It's going to be rough going, but I'm all in [Kimber 1911 Pro Covert II...]  I'm afraid we have finally met the time of reckoning. Good luck all, and make your choices.

The kill switch

Maybe for the last time..

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 14:30 | 3137228 Inthemix96
Inthemix96's picture

If the 'O' chooses to go down this route and enact an executive order against law abiding American citzens right to bear arms, I fear it may be the last thing he does as president of your land.

Make of that what you will, but my American friends, do not give up your guns.  You would end up as useless as us stupid fuckers over here.

Give this wanker the fight he deserves.  And once more, do not give up your guns.  I fucking wish I had one to protect me and mine.  Dont end up wishing like us.

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 14:34 | 3137230 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."


posted in two places due the importance of having this knowledge!

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 14:47 | 3137312 NoDebt
NoDebt's picture

OK, we get it.  You have a point to make.  I might even agree with it if I understood what the hell you're talking about.  The link didn't help me much.

Pretend I'm not a constitutional scholar and talk to me like..... like I'm in 5th grade.  Everyone else in my life does, so why should you be any different?  Once more, slowly, using small words for dum-dums like me.  Please.

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 15:25 | 3137387 mr. mirbach
mr. mirbach's picture

What it means is that the right to keep and bear arms is a "natural" or "god given" basic human right and therefore not subject to legislative fiat. In small words, the Bill of Rights specifically prohibit the Federal Government from passing any laws contrary to that right.

Part of the dilberate redaction of the Constitution currently printed by most modern printers is the preamble to the Bill of Rights that states "The Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution."


Furthermore, in the case of United States v Cruikshank, the United States Supreme Court held that the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights were not granted by the Amendments and are not dependent upon the Constitution for their existence. The Court also ruled that the Amendments were restraints on the powers of the federal government and it is the duty of States to secure the individual rights of the American people.

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 15:32 | 3137623 aerojet
aerojet's picture

Unfortunately for this situation, the law is based on precedent, and precedent is that we are very far down the road to gun prohibition at this point in time--the 1934 NFA, the 1968 GCA, and all the follow-on laws and executive orders have brought us to this point where a tyrant can simply close the loophole that is the entire RKBA.

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 15:36 | 3137658 NotApplicable
NotApplicable's picture

You don't seem to understand that words on paper do not guarantee anything. The righteousness of them exist only in our minds. Of course, same is true for the concept of government legitimacy itself.

But ask yourself, are these two ideas on the same level, or is one considered more incorruptible than the other? Of course, that answer lies uniquely in our minds as well, but I'm willing to bet that more people consider the 2nd Amendment "out of style" than do the number who feel the same way about the structure of government, overall.

So, while some will feel that government has gone too far, others will feel it hasn't gone far enough.

Which is the perfect recipe for a civil war (or yet another war of aggression against secessionists who have no desire to rule from DC).

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 14:56 | 3137388 DonFromWyoming
DonFromWyoming's picture

Very slowly now......  You have the right to own tools to defend yourself from armed thugs, whether they have badges or not.  The constitution and laws didn't give you that right - you had it before the constitution existed, and you will have that right after it has become a curious relic (oh wait, it already is).

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 15:02 | 3137435 Calmyourself
Calmyourself's picture

Luke 22:36 Your rights are God given whether you believe or not.  Why did Paul have a sword with him in the garden in order to slice off the Centurions ear?  The apostles were armed with the assault weapon of their day as defending the life you were given is inherent in your being.  The constitution BOR only codified these rights so tyrants would get no ideas.  Any laws or EO's based upon a tragedy are... unwise..

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 15:45 | 3137710 BeansBulletsBandaids
BeansBulletsBandaids's picture

I only down-narrowed you for the biblical inaccuracy. Peter cut off the ear of one of the high priest's servants. Other than that, rock on...

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 16:20 | 3137910 Calmyourself
Calmyourself's picture

You are correct I typed a "P" name without thinking. 

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 20:14 | 3138977 BeansBulletsBandaids
BeansBulletsBandaids's picture

No worries.

Just wanted to help out the lovely heathens here on zh

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 16:19 | 3137900 Nikao7
Nikao7's picture

Good point.  (It was Peter,  Paul was never in the Garden)

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 15:33 | 3137635 aerojet
aerojet's picture

You only have what you can defend from the state.  The state doesn't "believe" in natural rights, and thus the whole natural rights argument is academic.  Let's try to deal with reality, ok?  The people in the UK and Australia and everywhere else in the world possess the natural right to self-defense, but that has done nothing to prevent widespread civil disarmament, so spare me, okay? 

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 15:55 | 3137772 NotApplicable
NotApplicable's picture

Absolutely. The idea that words on paper act as a restraint upon tyrants are for suckers. That is only the case during the "good times." When the SHTF though, you might as well use these documents for heat. They will do nothing to protect you.

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 16:14 | 3137878 Calmyourself
Calmyourself's picture

Ha, spare me the projection okay.. The Brits and Aussies were well armed and they decided not to resist a government mandate based upon trgaedies.  The fact they had no tradition of rebellion embedded in their founding documents and writings binds Americans how? One man's academic is another man's lexington bridge.  If your cowardice is binding those chains rest on you.

Wed, 01/09/2013 - 23:00 | 3139494 NoDebt
NoDebt's picture

Thank you.  I read what you and others posted and I understand.  Actually, I always did, I just wasn't familiar with that language used to describe it.  I don't speak "academic" very fluently.  No disagreement, though.

I think, perhaps, we are at a point here (or shorly will be) where the theory of this will be put to the test in the real world.  File under the heading of "The Constitution is a living document", I guess.  We'll see if it survives this assault on it or if we just walk away from it for the latest "flavor of the month." 

I fear that the forces aligned against the Constitution have been gaining strength for a long time (decades).  They got their foothold in academia.  And when the Constitutional ideas that we hold dear lost their voice in the world of education we lost them everywhere else.  It's just that now that we're actually seeing the results of that play out in the real world when, in reality, the battle was lost long ago.


Wed, 01/09/2013 - 16:05 | 3137830 FubarNation
FubarNation's picture

I understand where you are coming from but let's be honest here.   The majority of Americans would toss the Constitution in the fire to keep warm.  And the DOJ, WH etc are wiping their asses with it.


I almost want to say it is over.  Got the kids their alternate passports and making back up plans to get out.


Good luck to us all.

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