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.
The Gooch's picture

Divide and conquer, continued.

Good luck with that, Uncle Clown.

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.


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

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.

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.


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.

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.

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.

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.

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)

Silvergood's picture

Get ready for civil war!

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.

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.

FeralSerf's picture

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

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.

mckee's picture

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

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.

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.


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...

Bohm Squad's picture

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

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.

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!

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

ZFiNX's picture

Okay, well, we were warned, Sandy Hook was a false-flag: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=khQJ9i8mqoE

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.

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.

jonan's picture

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

Freddie's picture

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

FeralSerf's picture

Not the cops and firemen I know!

respect the cock's picture

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

Some of the biggest gun nuts around.

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..

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.

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!

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.

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.

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.

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).

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).

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..

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...

Calmyourself's picture

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

BeansBulletsBandaids's picture

No worries.

Just wanted to help out the lovely heathens here on zh

Nikao7's picture

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

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? 

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.

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.

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.


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.

israhole's picture

Let's see if Americans have any balls like we're always boasting, it's time to start shooting.  If we don't use them now, we don't need them.