SavedOnebyGrace Posted January 7, 2016 Group: Royal Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 11 Topics Per Day: 0.04 Content Count: 4,054 Content Per Day: 15.47 Reputation: 5,191 Days Won: 0 Joined: 07/30/2023 Status: Offline Share Posted January 7, 2016 I think it's backdoor gun control by controlling the sources for ammo to fill these big government contracts. HP ammo can't be used in any NATO operation, so it has to be in this country. We know Obama is not protecting the borders, so who does he fear? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Patriot21 Posted January 7, 2016 Group: Worthy Ministers Followers: 28 Topic Count: 338 Topics Per Day: 0.05 Content Count: 15,696 Content Per Day: 2.46 Reputation: 8,515 Days Won: 39 Joined: 10/25/2006 Status: Offline Birthday: 02/27/1985 Share Posted January 7, 2016 well, there are times for executive orders and times for not. For example, in the graph omega provided, Rooselvelt had probably the most, but look at the time he was in office. In a time of war, you expect there to be lots of them, youd need to, if you waited on congress before decided on a major military move, well, the war would be over and we would have lost. Thats kind of what the executive orders were made for. Its the peacetime (I use the term loosely) executive orders we have to be watching. Were not in any "major" war right now, just a few conflicts. And if Obamas executive orders were limited to that, I wouldnt be complaining so much, but its orders like these-that show how far hes willing to over step his bounds. They were never intended to be used to "create law" and especially not to circumvent the constitution. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rjp34652 Posted January 10, 2016 Group: Advanced Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 17 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 448 Content Per Day: 0.10 Reputation: 156 Days Won: 0 Joined: 05/19/2012 Status: Offline Share Posted January 10, 2016 General news releases seem to indicate that the ruling applies to those who sell guns at gun shows. The presidential edict is questionable at several points. First, as far as I know there is no Federal mandate for background checks to be performed by the purchaser of a firearm. States, counties and cities administer this function and do not administer it well. Some do and some don't. Background checks can be applied against state or FBI databases. Sometimes both. Sometimes just the state database. Sometimes not at all. There is no clear national law on the subject because the gun trade is in most cases local, not interstate. Local trade is generally not subject to Federal jurisdiction. This is the legal nature of the dispute. Is it legal for Obama to dictate terms regarding local transactions? As of this writing, if you buy a gun from a person in another state it MUST be shipped to you via FFL persons on both ends. The seller must surrender the gun to an FLL person/shop on his end and the buyer must receive the gun from an FFL person/shop on his end. The man who receives the interstate shipped weapon from his FFL agent is required to have a background check upon receipt of his gun. The caveat to this is that the onus for proper records keeping is on the FFL agent. What if that person is a criminal or at worst a terrorist? Will they dutifully report the shipment to the US government? What do you think? For example, the state of California is said to have some of the most restrictive laws for gun ownership, transport or sale. However, state laws are administered liberally or conservatively by local counties and cities. In San Francisco, which has been declared an open city, laws are slack for every sort of offense except firearms. One cannot trade, legally use or carry a gun there. It's ok to defecate on a BART platform (BART is a public light rail transport system), but one cannot carry a concealed .38. If you travel to San Francisco you would be well advised to watch your step. I'm not kidding. In non-urban areas of California, one can open carry a gun without being bothered by the authorities. Gun ranges and gun shops in these areas are available and gun sales among private owners and gun shops are still viable. The NRA points to California as being restrictive. In actual fact, the state's rules are inconsistent at best. One may also point out that the state is also responsible for fueling MOST of the national and international motivation for purchasing guns. Movie heroes like Clint Eastwood ("Make my day" .44 auto mag/magnum revolver) or Bruce Willis' John McCain (uses a Beretta in Die Hard and Sig Saur P220R for Live Free or Die) or even James Bond (Sean Connery made the Beretta popular. Daniel Craig's SPECTER movie made the Sig Sauer P226 so popular it doubled in retail price overnight. Watch the scene in the train. Several minutes are dedicated to a demonstration and description of the Sig 226. This clip is the ultimate example of product placement in a movie.). Violence promoted by hypocritical Hollywood types fuels an active interest in firearms of all types. For the Obama edict to be prosecuted, the guns in question must have been transported across state lines. Selling one's pistol to a retired neighbor for home security may not be an offense. In many cities, police periodically support a gun buy back program. No questions asked, the cops pay cash money for guns in any condition. Honest citizens line up around the block to do their part to reduce the number of guns. Thieves stand with them. Stolen weapons are often sold to the police during these programs. No questions asked and the police department becomes a legal fencing operation for stolen firearms. Sweet. It's a win win situation for everybody except the honest citizen who surrenders their legally obtained and used firearm. The most important point I leave for last. Today the interstate traffic in firearms is rigidly controlled. One cannot, for example, ship a pistol via UPS or other carrier to another person without an FFL business or person acting as intermediary. Because FFL licensed businesses and persons make their living from obeying the law they self-regulate the operation. On the other hand, IF and that's a big IF, every arms seller is required to hold a Federal Firearms License the possibilities for abuse become legion. A criminal could ship and receive illegal arms across state lines (and internationally) and hide among the legal sheep as it were. International terrorism would flourish because it gains a legal means of obtaining guns. Does a terrorist care if he's caught at what he's doing? To date there seems to be no evidence that they do. Obama's crocodile tears on camera may be cute for the camera, but it doesn't go an inch toward crime prevention. In fact, it may instigate much that has not existed before. It's another example of a government devoid of wisdom. Possible solutions? I do not trust the Federal government. Apart from the FFL program, which has been recognized as viable and acceptable by gun collectors and dealers for years, I do not believe any additional Federal laws are necessary as far as individual owners are concerned. Why do we not hear about restrictions on the part of gun manufacturers? I'd like to know why. I$ there a rea$on do you $uppo$e? Gun laws should be consistently applied and administered by States - just like owning and operating a motor vehicle. Police buy back programs should be outlawed. Cops providing a legal fencing operation to finance thieves who steal guns ought not be allowed at all. Get the Federal government involved and the possibility for fraud and political abuse becomes intolerable. It has often been said that citizens have rights. One of those rights is that our government should administer laws without corruption. Good luck with that one. In your dreams, baby. and that's me, hollering from the choir loft... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Patriot21 Posted January 10, 2016 Group: Worthy Ministers Followers: 28 Topic Count: 338 Topics Per Day: 0.05 Content Count: 15,696 Content Per Day: 2.46 Reputation: 8,515 Days Won: 39 Joined: 10/25/2006 Status: Offline Birthday: 02/27/1985 Share Posted January 10, 2016 Actually interstate right now the only type of firearms that must be transferred via ffl dealerbare handguns. You can go to the next state over and purchase a rifle and bring it across state lines. Have done so many times. And regardless of what the order consisits of its unconstitutional. EOs where never intended to create law. Ever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ezra Posted January 10, 2016 Group: Royal Member Followers: 16 Topic Count: 134 Topics Per Day: 0.04 Content Count: 8,142 Content Per Day: 2.36 Reputation: 6,612 Days Won: 20 Joined: 11/02/2014 Status: Offline Share Posted January 10, 2016 On 05/01/2016 at 9:46 AM, Saved.One.by.Grace said: And the Republicans will roll over and let him do it too. That's for sure. But Trump will rescind all these detrimental executive orders. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest shiloh357 Posted January 12, 2016 Share Posted January 12, 2016 On 1/5/2016 at 1:06 PM, Omegaman 3.0 said: As always, it is quality not quantity, that is at issue. It is the nature of Obama's executive orders and what he uses them for. Executive orders are for the purpose of executing existing law. Obama uses executive orders illegally, essentially making law by executive order. If he thinks Congress is moving too slow or if Congress doesn't give him what he wants, he takes it for himself by executive order and that is unconstitutional and illegal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thereselittleflower Posted January 12, 2016 Group: Royal Member Followers: 6 Topic Count: 58 Topics Per Day: 0.02 Content Count: 5,457 Content Per Day: 1.70 Reputation: 4,220 Days Won: 37 Joined: 07/01/2015 Status: Offline Share Posted January 12, 2016 On 1/10/2016 at 3:58 PM, Ezra said: That's for sure. But Trump will rescind all these detrimental executive orders. You actually believe that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
other one Posted January 12, 2016 Group: Worthy Ministers Followers: 29 Topic Count: 595 Topics Per Day: 0.08 Content Count: 56,036 Content Per Day: 7.56 Reputation: 27,781 Days Won: 271 Joined: 12/29/2003 Status: Offline Share Posted January 12, 2016 On 1/10/2016 at 5:58 PM, Ezra said: That's for sure. But Trump will rescind all these detrimental executive orders. 5 hours ago, thereselittleflower said: You actually believe that? Well, he said he would.... So I was really hoping so. Assuming the Democrats don't win..... and that's not a given. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ezra Posted January 12, 2016 Group: Royal Member Followers: 16 Topic Count: 134 Topics Per Day: 0.04 Content Count: 8,142 Content Per Day: 2.36 Reputation: 6,612 Days Won: 20 Joined: 11/02/2014 Status: Offline Share Posted January 12, 2016 6 hours ago, thereselittleflower said: You actually believe that? Why not? Trump has already made it publicly clear. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thereselittleflower Posted January 12, 2016 Group: Royal Member Followers: 6 Topic Count: 58 Topics Per Day: 0.02 Content Count: 5,457 Content Per Day: 1.70 Reputation: 4,220 Days Won: 37 Joined: 07/01/2015 Status: Offline Share Posted January 12, 2016 Just now, Ezra said: Why not? Trump has already made it publicly clear. Because I don't trust anything he says. He says what he thinks people want to hear, just like any other polictician. i have absolutely no confidence he will do any particular thing he says he will do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts