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.
Totentänzerlied's picture

If the Constitution does not matter, then the SCOTUS can "rule" however it pleases on any and all subjects with impunity. The issue is, and always has been, and always will be, ENFORCEMENT.

The best part is, most people believe that their rights are in fact conditional privileges which, should the majority or the government decide to annul them, it would be perfectly acceptable - and legal. And so it is.

 

CrockettAlmanac.com's picture

 

 

 

The Supreme Court held:[43]

(1) The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.
(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.
(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved. Pp. 22–28.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller
FEDbuster's picture
Supreme Court Justice Scalia On Gun Control post Heller: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BOmM6qBnbrI

Watch the whole thing or skip to 4:00, where he starts to waiver.

zerotohero's picture

the constipation is well over 200 years old and really needs to be thrown aside for some new logic and upgrading

smlbizman's picture

i agree....1+1=2 has been around for to long...... lets fix it....

Yes We Can. But Lets Not.'s picture

Bernanke has been hard at work on that

Pure Evil's picture

Ditto, the 200+ year old rag has been used to wipe the ass of the world's elites for so long no one can even make out the words anymore.

I think the new constitution should start this way:

     I Barack Obama, your new Lord and Master, herby declare you to be the slaves of our Satanic Communist overlords and the banking elite. You have no rights. Turn over all your wealth and posessions to the state and prepare yourself to be either reeducated or eliminated. Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Kim Ill Jung, and Pol Pot have all shown us the way, the only way to deal with slaves unable to be absorbed into the new body politic. Double Plus Good.

Freddie's picture

This would work for most union workers including the UAW, teachers, professors and govt workers.  Those love our dear master and mullah.

SamAdams's picture

+1 vote for subtle 1984 reference

GeezerGeek's picture

I heard an audio clip that was supposed to be Barack caught singing in the shower. It started like this:

My country tis of Me

Dark land of tyranny

That's all I remember

I am on to you's picture

Has been fixed,its now called...1+1=Derivativ?=you name it,Trillions?Quadrillions,my favorit Donnald Ducks Uncle Joakim Fantasillions,was Disney an Economist?

yogibear's picture

It would have been music to Karl Marx comrade.

CPL's picture

Agreed, all laws should be abolished because that would be constructive...sigh

 

Or was that the intention to your statement?

Totentänzerlied's picture

"Agreed, all laws should be abolished"

By passing a law? Appropriate, as your silly laws begin the same way - ex nihilo. The Constitution was supposed to be different. It wasn't.

Joe Davola's picture

Who knew old people like Ruth Ginsberg could navigate the interwebs, let alone qualify for an account on such a nefarious site as this.

caimen garou's picture

yep, lets throw it all away! thank you  obama and bernake for making me see the light. you have made me sell all my gold and silver and I burned the wood off  my guns to keep the house warm then sold the barrels for scrap so I can buy some mc donalds 99 cent garbage burgers. I am not working so I put my application at walmart but they told me I was to young,53 by the way! to young to collect social security and don't have the energy to go back to school and get another degree as I am depressed. Friday I have a doctors appointment for my depression and with any luck I may be able to get  one of thoes new american express cards, other people call them ebt. I am currently shooting targets with my new slingshot, I don't think they will ban it as it has no military features.  thats about it, again thanks to all the fine people that helped me along the way. Oh and if you think this lie is true,ask the blind man he saw it too!

Shell Game's picture

Come for my guns then, zerotofuckyou, or send your statist/bankster masters.  Either way, there will be blood.  Mine in the short term, yes.  If they succeed, yours and your children's in the long-term, yes. 

NotApplicable's picture

"Either way, there will be blood."

Which, is exactly what they want.

As for your long term??? Thing is, other than a handful of obvious trillionaires/billionaires, you've no idea who "they" are. And those, well, they're pretty much untouchable.

Overfed's picture

Nobody is untouchable. You just aren't thinking creatively enough.

Shell Game's picture

Enjoy your posts NA, but on this one I disagree with your inference of inaction.  They want us to stay paralyzed to crisis and incrementalism.  'Long term' is the descent into a gunless society and full collectivist tyranny.  Seriously, if it ever comes to police state confiscation there is not excuse for not taking a stand.

CrockettAlmanac.com's picture

 

 

the constipation is well over 200 years old and really needs to be thrown aside for some new logic and upgrading

 

Then there would be no president or congress to take away people's guns. Might be a good idea.

A Nanny Moose's picture

The only logically consistent outcome, when you believe that all individuals are created equal, is to strip away the power of so-called authority.

When do we get started?

CrockettAlmanac.com's picture

But don't we need a government with guns and prisons so that it can do the will of the people?

Totentänzerlied's picture

Yes, shake out the weak (hyperstatist, socialist, etc.) hands - the ones who use laws and courts, religion, finance, economagics, politics, tax-men, media, and police thugs - or as I call it, collectively, The Statist's Toolkit - to implement their will, rather than the simpler - and more obvious - brute force of standing/occupying armies. 

The price of liberty is indeed eternal vigilance.

shovelhead's picture

We are waiting patiently for your genuis to flower and guide us.

A Nanny Moose's picture

The idea of government has been around, and failing, for several millenia. Something needs upgrading alright.

The Constitution, or any government decree, no longer applies. Individuals possess the right of self determination, regardless of some words on a shitty piece of paper, which nobody in power will ever obey.

Clark Bent's picture

Pray tell us why douche bag. Does it stand in the way of some new form of freedom for a new sort of person. Such as the sort of uneducated indolent, mom's basement-dwelling, suckhole loser like someone you know? 

DaddyO's picture

 

The Bill of Rights is a muscle that seems to have atrophied, it looks as if 2013 New Year's resolution may be to get back in better shape. There seems to be some movement at the gyms around the country.

Look here, www.lifechangesbeready.com and here www.gunappreciationday.com

DaddyO

 

1100-TACTICAL-12's picture

I beg of you fucking wanna be dictators to " Cease & Disist " the alternative is not going to be plesant for either side of the issue.

WhiskeyTangoFoxtrot's picture

They HAVE to know that already. If they do, that leads to the conclusion that they WANT the nasty result that appears to be looming on the horizon.

FEDbuster's picture

Hence the miltarization of the police, stocking up on billions of rounds of hollowpoint ammunition, warrentless survailance of all citizens, NDAA rendition of all whom dare to criticize the current government, etc.....

WhiskeyTangoFoxtrot's picture

Right. But why? I guess it doesn't matter why, all that matters is that they've (predictably) almost completed the implementation of a full-on police state. This was foreseen in John Robb's book, Brave New War. Also foreseen: evolving tactics of resistance.

http://www.amazon.com/Brave-New-War-Terrorism-Globalization/dp/0471780790

CrockettAlmanac.com's picture

 

 

“We Are This Far From A Turnkey Totalitarian State" - Big Brother Goes Live September 2013

 

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/%E2%80%9Cwe-are-far-turnkey-totalitarian-s...

yogibear's picture

Rather than following the rule of law more are opting to dump the constitution.

Looking for a few good tyrants and dictators!

People in the US are looking forward to Sepreme Leader. Here's your chance Kim Jong-un

 

AgAu_man's picture

Jan. 2009:  "I, Barak Hussein Obama do solemny swear to... uphold the Constitution of the United States of America".

Jan. 2013:  "I, Barak Hussein Obama do solemny swear to... uphold the Constitution of the United States of America".

I/we did not hear him utter a qualifier of "...Except for the 2nd Ammendment.  Or any other Ammendment that is not aligned to the prevailing national or political mood, policy or intent of my Administration."

So, technically, he would be in violation of his Oath, and is therefore... impeachable.  Is he not?  Or what lawful recourse do We the People have?

knightowl77's picture

bring the pitchforks and your AR's to DC and string up any one of those turds that tries to disarm the people

Ragnar24's picture

The Tree of Liberty will get some long-overdue watering...

Larry Dallas's picture

Recourse? What do you mean?

O stole the election, with flying colors. Bribes every angry black woman, man and child with foodstamps for stripbars, booze and iPhones. No one is going to do shit.

 

Totentänzerlied's picture

Who you gonna believe, the Constitutional scholar, or your lyin' ears?

PS: No one with power to do anything gives a flying **** about laws or rules or procedures or oaths.

Clark Bent's picture

I thought we tried lawful recourse when 28 states and a plethora of other parties petitioned the federal government to declare the Obamacare plan unconstitutional, which it so clearly is. I think we have tried legal recourse in the November elections with a candidate who could only be aggressive with his rivals in the Republican party. But that was subverted by millions of foreign national voting to support the handout king. I thought we were relying upon lawful recourse when we hoped that the Administration might tell us the truth about gun-running in Mexico that resulted in thousands of deaths, and gun-running in support of al-Quaeda groups in Benghazi. I suppose we were relying upon lawful recourse when Attorney General Eric Holder was condemned for perjuring himself to Congress on several occasions. Perhaps we were relying on lawful recourse when he was shielded by Obama from any consequence of his crimes, as O is the Chief law enforcement officer in these Unoited States. I hope I am malking my point about the apparent inefficacy of lawful recourse. I am stsrting to feel like John Brown when he stated at his hanging that he did not think that that era's scourge could be resolved short of bloodshed. I do believe we have exhausted our the limits of law in this country where the lawless control all avenues to redress and they are ignoring our petitions. The country should commence dividing now into cohesive groups for the upcoming war. As a civil war, as an ideological war, and with compnents of a racial war, it promises to be one of the ugliest ever seen in human history. Obama is working hard to try to force a confrontation becuase he thinks he has the advantages of political support, emotional support in the wake of Newtown, and becuase nobody has pushed back agaionst him yet (except for the likes of Glen Beck). His political opponents have caved every time so far, he can rely on them to retreat always. I suppose he is calculating that if he outlaws guns, and then enlists rats in society to snitch on gun owners (he'll likely offer a bounty in a blue state), he will get his Waco style confrontation where he will order the dishonorable mercenaries in one of his grotesque agencies (pick one, they are all armed now, BATF, DHS, DEA, FBI, SSA(!) Treasury, etc.) and they will crush the resistor. Then its back to how sorry we are that it had to come to this but necessay, and so on. The message must be brutal and decisive, and it must be against a small and demonized group (tea party, Christian, etc.). What happens then will likely change America permanently one way or the other. 

larz's picture

who continues to vote these creatures in office?

I cant believe they are in office for more than one term

Shell Game's picture

+7.92 x 51   Pretty abso-fucking-lutely clear.

"If They Come For Your Guns, Do You Have A Responsibility To Fight?"

 

Duty to arm. Duty to train. Duty to resist. 

 

unrulian's picture

um....duty to use the correct caliber or it will be a short campaign, it's 7.62 sir....

Shell Game's picture

lol!  Love those dislexic moments...

Teamtc321's picture

Fuck these fascist MFer's. Gun Free Zone every Fed and State facility first where you claim to work you sucking piglet's!

billsykes's picture

If you believe the fraudulent government with the foreign president will abide by the rule of law, think again.

 

 

 

 

 

Bloodstock's picture

",,,Shall not be infringed,,," means DO NOT FUCK WITH! I really believe that is what the founders meant to say but they were more eloquent than I.

Teamtc321's picture

"

Good news -- it has become known that hidden deep within the massive 2800-page bill called Obamacare there is a Senate Amendment protecting the right to keep and bear arms.

It seems that in their haste to cram socialized medicine down the throats of the American people, then-Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and Barack Obama overlooked Senate amendment 3276, Sec. 2716, part c.

According to reports, that amendment says the government cannot collect "any information relating to the lawful ownership or possession of a firearm or ammunition."

CNN is calling it "a gift to the nation's powerful gun lobby."

And according to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV), that's exactly right. He says he added the provision in order to keep the NRA from getting involved in the legislative fight over Obamacare, which was so ubiquitous in 2010."

 

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/01/09/Backfire-Obamacare-Fo...

cornedmutton's picture

Keyword: lawful.

All you have to do is make all firearm ownership unlawful.  Bam.  Problem solved.

Do I get a cookie?

Randall Cabot's picture

If you didn't know before that Alex Jones works for the jew supremacists that interview with Piers Morgan on CNN should have convinced you.

First he claimed that Hitler confiscated the guns in Germany-that is not true, the jew supremacist Weimar Republic did that before Hitler came to power.

Then Jones said that Stalin confiscated the guns in Russia. True, but Stalin came to power as a result of the jewish banker backed jewish-bolshevik revolution mislabeled as the "Russian" Revolution.

He goes on to says Mao in China took the guns-true but again Jones neglects to mention that FDR and the jewsih supremacists brought Mao to power.

Then Jones says it is "foreign bankers" that are behind gun confiscation and of course he doesn't state the fact that these "foreign bankers" also own and run the Federal Reserve Bank are the same jew supremacist gang mentioned above.

But he does invoke the name of the jew supremacist dwarf Michael Bloomberg as a gun grabber but he quickly covers for his Bloomberg's jew supremacism by saying he's mafia boss shifting the blame away from jews.

And finally, on his Wednesday show, to avoid shining any light on CNN's jew supremacism, Jones claims that it is the "Nazi demon" Ted Turner who runs CNN-Ted Turner sold CNN decades ago!

Notice that Jones blamed everyone but the jew supremacists as being behind gun confiscation.