Biden: “Executive action can be taken” on gun control

posted at 3:21 pm on January 9, 2013 by Erika Johnsen

We already knew this was coming, but that doesn’t make it any more welcome. Speaking at his meeting with “gun safety” advocates (talk about re-branding!) on Wednesday, Vice President Biden reiterated that the president can and will take executive action on what he deems to be good gun-control ideas after his task force’s oh-so-measured and inclusive talks with gun interests across the political spectrum.

“The president is going go act,” said Biden, who is conducting meetings all week on gun control. “There are executive orders, executive action that can be taken. We haven’t decided what that is yet, but we’re compiling it all.”

“I want to make clear that we’re not going to get caught up in the notion that, unless we can do everything, we’re going to do nothing,” Biden said. “It’s critically important we act.”

He added that there is “pretty wide consensus on three or four or five things in the gun safety area that could and should be done.”

CBS has more specifics on what some of these enhanced gun-control recommendations, meant to be submitted to the president before the end of the month, might look like:

The president indicated that he wants the task force to submit recommendations by the end of January. He also wants Congress to reestablish the ban on assault weapons, which expired in 2004; limit the size of magazines; and expand background checks, including closing the gun show loophole, which allows unlicensed sellers to sidestep checks. The task force is also expected to look at broader efforts that might include a national database of gun owners and proposals that can be implemented without congressional approval.

After the task force meeting, Dan Gross, president of the Brady Campaign, said there seems to be consensus among a diverse group of organizations in support of background checks for gun purchasers. He noted that only 40 percent of gun owners have received background checks.

Gross attempted to ease fears of gun advocates that the current debate is not about the Second Amendment or taking away guns from legal gun owners. He said the meetings and the task force is about “staking out that middle ground that so clearly exists.”

Funny how all of these “middle ground that so clearly exists”-ideas seem to confirm gun control, ahem, I’m sorry, “gun safety” advocates’ preexisting notions of fewer guns and more bureaucracy as the only solutions for stopping violence. The White House might be putting on a good show by meeting with the NRA and others tomorrow, but I severely doubt that one of the few ideas that has actually been proven to help stop violence is going to get any real consideration:

MR. CARNEY:  Well, I think as the President said, he doesn’t want to prejudge any recommendations that any stakeholder might present.  He did in his “Meet the Press” interview respond to a question about the specific recommendation that the NRA had made by saying that he was skeptical that putting more guns in schools would solve this problem.  But again, we look forward to hearing from a variety of organizations and civic groups and others who have insights into this problem.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3 9

*sigh*

22044 on January 9, 2013 at 3:22 PM

Listen carefully

Schadenfreude on January 9, 2013 at 3:23 PM

Let him try. His little executive order would be worth about as much as his trillion dollar coin. I doubt anyone would even pay attention to it.

Ellis on January 9, 2013 at 3:24 PM

Remind me again, why is there not a march on DC?

nobar on January 9, 2013 at 3:24 PM

What if Obama issued and EO and 100 million Americans didn’t obey?

Liam on January 9, 2013 at 3:24 PM

War.

claudius on January 9, 2013 at 3:24 PM

Incremental control of his subjects…ugly days ahead for America.

d1carter on January 9, 2013 at 3:25 PM

“The president is going go act,” said Biden, who is conducting meetings all week on gun control. “There are executive orders, executive action that can be taken…”

 

Engagement would be responding to the substance of my claims in ways that illustrates you understand the argument and can defeat it with your own.
 
libfreeordie on January 9, 2013 at 1:25 PM

rogerb on January 9, 2013 at 3:25 PM

This president wants conflict.

Speakup on January 9, 2013 at 3:26 PM

America hater, Constitution violater, progressive liberal DICTATOR. He needs to be gone…….. but the GOP has no balls.

ultracon on January 9, 2013 at 3:26 PM

Here we go..

wolly4321 on January 9, 2013 at 3:26 PM

Molon Labe

trs on January 9, 2013 at 3:26 PM

Unconstitutional. Period.
One man with a gun can control 100 without one. – Lenin

kingsjester on January 9, 2013 at 3:27 PM

What if Obama issued and EO and 100 million Americans didn’t obey?

Liam on January 9, 2013 at 3:24 PM

A vast majority would obey. Then the police would be sent door to door to round up the weapons of anyone who did turn it in (and round up anyone who refused to their faces to turn it in).

Doomberg on January 9, 2013 at 3:27 PM

You can believe if CONgress won’t act on it the way Barry wants, he’ll just do it himself.

In Barry’s line of thought, the best gun control idea is the one where government controls all the guns.

hawkeye54 on January 9, 2013 at 3:27 PM

Because we all know people intent on committing illegal acts with guns take careful note of existing gun laws. I know! Call Rahm – I’m sure he’s got great ideas about what works.

Quisp on January 9, 2013 at 3:28 PM

Sic semper tyrannis

rayra on January 9, 2013 at 3:28 PM

Who guides the admin. – the invited brotherhood

Schadenfreude on January 9, 2013 at 3:28 PM

Speaking at his meeting with “gun safety” advocates (talk about re-branding!)

Goebbels orgasmed in his grave, again. He’s having one ball after the other.

Obama’care’ is neither care, nor affordable.

Schadenfreude on January 9, 2013 at 3:29 PM

III

rginco on January 9, 2013 at 3:30 PM

What if Obama issued and EO and 100 million Americans didn’t obey?

Liam on January 9, 2013 at 3:24 PM

A vast majority would obey. Then the police would be sent door to door to round up the weapons of anyone who did turn it in (and round up anyone who refused to their faces to turn it in).

And if millions did refuse and violently resisted,you can be sure there is a plan to deal with that.

hawkeye54 on January 9, 2013 at 3:30 PM

I dunno. This is “Sheriff Joe Biden” we’re talking about. Plenty of time for the WH to step in and say, “What Joe meant was….”

apostic on January 9, 2013 at 3:31 PM

Alert the military about that “and protect the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic” thingy.

viking01 on January 9, 2013 at 3:32 PM

The task force is also expected to look at broader efforts that might include a national database of gun owners and proposals that can be implemented without congressional approval.

It’s how Hitler and Stalin began. Drudge has it absolutely right.

Schadenfreude on January 9, 2013 at 3:32 PM

Then: What if they gave a war and nobody came?

Now: What if they gave an EO and nobody obeyed?

apostic on January 9, 2013 at 3:32 PM

viking01 on January 9, 2013 at 3:32 PM

No kiddin’.

kingsjester on January 9, 2013 at 3:32 PM

Cuomo doing his State of the Union for NY….I am sure it is the O plan. I didn’t know he was a screamer…but I am wrong. “This is NY the Progressive Capital.” He yells. “Don’t play politics with Sandy in NY” And on and on he rants.

He wants to “We can rebuild a better society!”

CoffeeLover on January 9, 2013 at 3:33 PM

Once again we see the lawlessness of this president and his idiot minions. It is illicit to use EOs to change the U.S. Constitution. Morons.

Warner Todd Huston on January 9, 2013 at 3:34 PM

Jan 19, 2012 Support you Local Gunshop. Chick Fil-A the sequel

stormridercx4 on January 9, 2013 at 3:34 PM

Absolutely none of the suggestions they’ve posed so far would have stopped Sandy Hook from being attacked in the manner it was nor will they stop another massacre from happening again in the future.

ButterflyDragon on January 9, 2013 at 3:35 PM

If the Republicans were smart right now they would take up the GI Home Defense Bill which would subsidize any honorable discharged or currently servicing member of the military to buy a weapon for private use.

Don’t just sit there and wait to try and deal with whatever restrictions on our freedoms Obama wants to make – tackle his arguments head on, on ground friendly to the conservative side.

18-1 on January 9, 2013 at 3:35 PM

I wonder what “gun safety advocates” think about the ATF pushing gun retailers to sell guns to drug lords?

gwelf on January 9, 2013 at 3:35 PM

~45% of guns sold in the USA are imported.
A similar large portion of our ammunition is also imported.
Likewise a large portion of our gunpowder, primers, and projectiles (somewhat).
Almost all AKs and milsurp firearms are imported. Likewise the magazines and ammunition for them.

Obama can block all these things with an EO, and drive prices even higher and availability much lower. This month’s panic would be redoubled.

Then there’s the DOT interference with shipping hazmat ammo to HI and AK. THey are now more stringently enforcing existing rules, greatly throttling the conveyance of ammunition to those states. It goes by ship, the rules require it be piled in smaller amounts, spread across the conveyance. Despite there be NO commercial detonations of ammo at sea.

Then there’s the repeated improper attempts to constrain ammunition via lead content via the EPA, despite that agency being expressly forbidden to do so in their charter.

Then there’s OSHA’s repeated attempts to hamper powder and ammo storage via enhanced regulations.

Then there’s BLM interference predicated on lead and fire hazards.

Then there’s State dept interference on re-importation of Lend-Lease WWII milsurp rifles. OUR rifles.

/

There are ALL kinds of ways that Obama can rule by fiat, rule by executive branch / cabinet-level interferenes in arms and related materials.

rayra on January 9, 2013 at 3:36 PM

Got fingerprinted for my CHL today. On the way home, stopped by a gun store I had never been in before. Decent size… not a small operation. Guy told me that it has been Christmas season times 5 in the past couple of weeks. His gun stock is down about 50% and ammo is now behind the counter. They aren’t getting theft, but it’s how they control not having one person buy the whole stock of any given caliber. While I was looking at a new 9mm SA, another salesman walked over and apologized. Someone else had just committed to buying it. They had ONE AR-15 in stock for about $3,400 and the guy said it wouldn’t last the week.

This backwards ass president and Sheriff Joe will make us the most armed society ever. Nice work Barry. Nice work.

Sugar Land on January 9, 2013 at 3:36 PM

A vast majority would obey. Then the police would be sent door to door to round up the weapons of anyone who did turn it in (and round up anyone who refused to their faces to turn it in).

Doomberg on January 9, 2013 at 3:27 PM

Well, that’s right isn’t it? All those folks were buying up all those very expensive ARs and mags so they could turn them in next month.

claudius on January 9, 2013 at 3:36 PM

Everybody should get up to speed on the meaning of “infringed”

An EO cannot “infringe” on the right to KEEP and BEAR arms.

It will be a big debate.

Jabberwock on January 9, 2013 at 3:36 PM

A national database? F**k you and everyone even remotely associated with such a horrid thing.

Seriously, f**k off in ways that would make an aged hooker blush.

Bishop on January 9, 2013 at 3:36 PM

A vast majority would obey. Then the police would be sent door to door to round up the weapons of anyone who did turn it in (and round up anyone who refused to their faces to turn it in).

Four possible outcomes.

1.The police leave w/o my weapons.
2. The police leave with my weapons and me in a body bag.
3. The police leave in a body bag and my weapons stay with me in my home
4. The police & myself leave in body bags and the weapons stay with my wife in the home.

As a retired police officer, I pray 2, 3, 4 never happen.

Conservative4Ever on January 9, 2013 at 3:38 PM

He may issue an executive order for mental health background check or something similar but no actual gun restriciton… He knows very well that restricitng guns is unconstiutional i.e. it will be overturned quickly by the courts, that it is going to be a political disaster for him, and third that he cannot execute it because no one will follow his order and risk going to jail for Obama unconstitutional orders…

mnjg on January 9, 2013 at 3:38 PM

Dan Gross… “He noted that only 40 percent of gun owners have received background checks.” Where did he get that made-up figure… Oh, nevermind, it’s made-up.

sadatoni on January 9, 2013 at 3:39 PM

Gun Control Kills People

Chip on January 9, 2013 at 3:39 PM

Once again we see the lawlessness of this president and his idiot minions. It is illicit to use EOs to change the U.S. Constitution. Morons.

Warner Todd Huston on January 9, 2013 at 3:34 PM

He follows sharia, not the US constitution, which for him is very passe.

Schadenfreude on January 9, 2013 at 3:39 PM

CUomo’s remarks today, nearly 75mins into the masturbation-fest that was the State of his State speech.

-

public safety / area of gun violence.

ENough. must stop the madness

we need a policy in this state that is reasonable and balanced, respects hunters and sportsmen, this is not taking away guns.
ending the unnecessary risk of high capacity assault rifles, to general and extended applause

1. enact toughest assault rifle ban in nation period
2. close private sale loopholes
3. ban hi-caps
4. mandatory still penalities for illegal gun use
5. bars to mentally disturbed access to firearms
6. ban internet/mailorder ammo orders.
7. ammo registration and nics check for ammo purchases

NYS led the way on gun laws, Sullivan’s law in 1911, NY was the first in the nation.
Let’s pass safe legislation and once again lead the way in SAVING LIVES.

he lurched into it, rattled it off faster than I could type crib notes, then lurched off to talk about campaign finance reform. He spent 10x longer talking about a planned politician river rafting race in the Adirondacks, than he did on gun control.

rayra on January 9, 2013 at 3:40 PM

Dan Gross… “He noted that only 40 percent of gun owners have received background checks.” Where did he get that made-up figure… Oh, nevermind, it’s made-up.

97.5678% of all stats are made up!

Conservative4Ever on January 9, 2013 at 3:40 PM

Everybody should get up to speed on the meaning of “infringed”

An EO cannot “infringe” on the right to KEEP and BEAR arms.

It will be a big debate.

Jabberwock on January 9, 2013 at 3:36 PM

You want a quick primer on the meaning of Infringe, here you go.

Shall not be infringed.

Posted by doriangrey1 on October 15, 2009

in·fringe // //
v. in·fringed, in·fring·ing, in·fring·es

v. tr.

To transgress or exceed the limits of; violate: infringe a contract; infringe a patent.
Obsolete To defeat; invalidate.

v. intr.
To encroach on someone or something; engage in trespassing: an increased workload that infringed on his personal life.

[Latin īnfringere, to destroy : in-, intensive pref.; see in-2 + frangere, to break; see bhreg- in Indo-European roots.]
in·fring’er n.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

The progressive movement has been eroding this amendment since early on in the 20th century. Hiding their actions behind such vile and detestable terms as reasonable regulations and public safety.

The real truth is that the founding fathers left zero wiggle room regarding the regulation of firearms ownership. They made their thoughts on the subject absolutely crystal clear.

Benjamin Franklin: Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary
safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.” (Nov 11 1755, from the Pennsylvania Assembly’s reply to
the Governor of Pennsylvania.)

Thomas Jefferson: “Laws that forbid the carrying of arms…disarm only those who are neither
inclined or determined to commit crimes. Such laws only make things worse for the assaulted and
better for the assassins; they serve to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man
may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.” (1764 Letter and speech from T.
Jefferson quoting with approval an essay by Cesare Beccari)

John Adams: “Arms in the hands of citizens may be used at individual discretion in private self
defense.” (A defense of the Constitution of the US)

George Washington: “Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the
people’s liberty teeth (and) keystone… the rifle and the pistol are equally indispensable… more than
99% of them [guns] by their silence indicate that they are in safe and sane hands. The very
atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference [crime]. When firearms go, all goes,
we need them every hour.” (Address to 1st session of Congress)

George Mason: “To disarm the people is the most effectual way to enslave them.” (3 Elliot,
Debates at 380)

Noah Webster: “Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in
almost every country in Europe.” (1787, Pamphlets on the Constitution of the US)

George Washington: “A free people ought to be armed.” (Jan 14 1790, Boston Independent
Chronicle.)

Thomas Jefferson: “No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.” (T. Jefferson papers,
334, C.J. Boyd, Ed. 1950)

James Madison: “Americans have the right and advantage of being armed, unlike the people of
other countries, whose people are afraid to trust them with arms.” (Federalist Paper #46)

History had to be revised by a progressive controlled educational system for these facts to be so ignored and watered down as to advance the notion the founding fathers found both insane and insulting, reasonable regulation and public safety.

Thomas Jefferson perhaps said it best.

Thomas Jefferson: “Laws that forbid the carrying of arms…disarm only those who are neither
inclined or determined to commit crimes. Such laws only make things worse for the assaulted and
better for the assassins; they serve to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man
may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.” (1764 Letter and speech from T.
Jefferson quoting with approval an essay by Cesare Beccari)

The second amendment is not a States Rights issue, nor does the Federal Government have any constitutional authority to regulate firearms ownership, the constitution makes this indisputably and incontrovertibly clear.

Yet Federal administration after administration and State after State have completely and totally violated the letter of the law as spelled out in no uncertain terms in the Second Amendment to the US Constitution.

Furthermore, the FBI has documented and for the most part hidden their results which prove beyond any doubt that populated centers where individual gun ownership and right to carry laws exist have the very lowest assault, murder, and robbery levels in the entire country.

Federal and State gun regulations are not and never has been about providing public safety, they are and always have been about making stripping the constitutional rights away from citizens and increasing the governments control over individuals lives.

Ponder the words of the great and famous statesman Benjamin Franklin, consider where you fall in this great divide, are you on the side of the Founding Fathers of this Great Republic, or have you sided with the Progressive Movement, (and yes that really does mean communists) who are attempting to subvert the US Constitution?

Benjamin Franklin: Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary
safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.” (Nov 11 1755, from the Pennsylvania Assembly’s reply to
the Governor of Pennsylvania.)

Choose you this day upon whose side you are on, I pray that the words of Sameul Adams are not spoken of you.
Sameul Adams:“If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquillity of servitude than the animating contest of freedom, — go from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen!”

SWalker on January 9, 2013 at 3:40 PM

Absolutely none of the suggestions they’ve posed so far would have stopped Sandy Hook from being attacked in the manner it was nor will they stop another massacre from happening again in the future.

ButterflyDragon on January 9, 2013 at 3:35 PM

It’s bigger than that, much bigger.

Bishop on January 9, 2013 at 3:41 PM

A national database? F**k you and everyone even remotely associated with such a horrid thing.

Seriously, f**k off in ways that would make an aged hooker blush.

Bishop on January 9, 2013 at 3:36 PM

Imagine the irony – this is the same bunch that doesn’t approve of voter IDs and checking if the workers are in the US legally.

No ID cards, but national databanks for gun owners.

Schadenfreude on January 9, 2013 at 3:41 PM

It will be a big debate.
 
Jabberwock on January 9, 2013 at 3:36 PM

 
That’s not the goal.
 
(R)s will keep believing he wants to adhere to Constitutional and lawful procedures and will be left behind.

rogerb on January 9, 2013 at 3:42 PM

Obama has no such authority. Anyone attempting to enforce any such illegal order is a criminal.

Indeed, if Obama even attempts to issue an executive order for the purpose of nullifying part of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights he has flagrantly violated the law and is no longer fit to hold office.

wildcat72 on January 9, 2013 at 3:42 PM

DISARM /ENSLAVE

And what do you think our rulers will do after they attempt to disarm this country?

What will they do to those that don’t comply.

Clearly we are headed to a Dictatorship in this country.

And where are the CONSERVATIVES in Congress to call for IMPEACHMENT?

PappyD61 on January 9, 2013 at 3:42 PM

And for those who say ‘No one is talking CONFISCATION’:

It Begins… Democratic Lawmaker Calls for Confiscation of Guns
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2013/01/it-begins-democratic-lawmaker-calls-for-confiscation-of-guns/

Here we go…
An Iowa Democrat called for the government to start confiscating guns.

Colbyjack on January 9, 2013 at 3:43 PM

Four possible outcomes.

1.The police leave w/o my weapons.
2. The police leave with my weapons and me in a body bag.
3. The police leave in a body bag and my weapons stay with me in my home
4. The police & myself leave in body bags and the weapons stay with my wife in the home.

As a retired police officer, I pray 2, 3, 4 never happen.

Conservative4Ever on January 9, 2013 at 3:38 PM

.
There could be a #5 (or more?), but either way I’m with you.

So dittos.

listens2glenn on January 9, 2013 at 3:43 PM

THIS JUST IN……CRIMINALS AGREE TO DISARM!!!!

Biden hails announcement.

PappyD61 on January 9, 2013 at 3:43 PM

Jan 19, 2012 Support you Local Gunshop. Chick Fil-A the sequel.
Oh by the way Sheriff Joe I will not comply, I will not consent. If you want to register any guns, you can do it without me.Hey Barry take your EO and shove it where the sun doesn’t shine.

stormridercx4 on January 9, 2013 at 3:44 PM

“Fascism will return to the United States not as right wing ideology but almost as a quasi-leftist ideology.”

- Irving Louis Horowitz, radical left-wing sociologist, The Decomposition of Sociology, 1929 – 2012) was a radical, left-wing sociologist, Fulbright lecturer, author of more than 25 books and articles, and a Professor of Sociology at Rutgers University


Remember: It’s Already Happened Here!

Resist We Much on January 9, 2013 at 3:44 PM

For those who did not believe us when we said that “if Scooter gets re-elected, all bets are off”…

Whatcha think now, idjits?

kingsjester on January 9, 2013 at 3:44 PM

Quiz: What was Obama most famous executive order so far?… What happened to Obama first executive order?…

mnjg on January 9, 2013 at 3:45 PM

Impeachments should be taken. Many. These are long past due as this criminal administration has been shredding our Constitution overtly with a new, major un-Constitutional act or crime nearly every month. The Articles of Impeachment should be well into the third volume, already, as Barky and his junta have committed tens of clearly impeachable acts.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on January 9, 2013 at 3:45 PM

I’m not registering jackshit. Period.

wolly4321 on January 9, 2013 at 3:45 PM

I tried to pipe in on the previous thread when the item was broken as O/T, but the HA censor ate my comment.

I could really envision some states breaking out over such attempt, possibly in a violent way. Total control of the media gives Obama a lease to nibble around the edges of the Constitution but a blatant violation of such extreme magnitude, on an issue as volatile as that, will unlikely get shrugged off. As Israeli saying has it, “you can pее into a swimming pool but don’t try it from the jumping tower“.

Archivarix on January 9, 2013 at 3:46 PM

rayra on January 9, 2013 at 3:40 PM

Knee jerk. Some of these kinda make sense but are prolly already covered on ther laws. Earlier today, CNN was touting Piers Morgan praising Cuomo, who said this was about taking away machine guns. Memo to Prince Piers: Not seeing that in the seven points.

apostic on January 9, 2013 at 3:46 PM

When saner conservative heads prevailed up here in Canada, our long gun registry (liberal utopia) was finally abolished.

can_con on January 9, 2013 at 3:47 PM

Shocking that our President wants to do something else that is unconstitutional.

Imagine if George W. Bush, or the “evil” Dick Chaney to make the analogy even more accurate, said that the administration was going to override one of the Bill of Rights through executive order. The left would have become even more unhinged than they normally are. However, when Obama does it, not a peep.

milcus on January 9, 2013 at 3:47 PM

Pure and simple this is tyranny and signals the end of our Constitutional Republic.

The Executive Branch is usurping powers solely given to Congress. They cannot produce law under the guise of “regulations”, vis a vis ATF or any other department, which don’t comport and extend the current law. They cannot redefine terms, conditions or other material aspects directly related to the laws in question. They cannot reinstate laws such as the AWB without the consent of Congress and by extension the people who own this government.

Pure and simply, this is legislating and the Executive Branch has no such power.

Marcus Traianus on January 9, 2013 at 3:47 PM

A vast majority would obey. Then the police would be sent door to door to round up the weapons of anyone who did turn it in (and round up anyone who refused to their faces to turn it in).

Doomberg on January 9, 2013 at 3:27 PM

Well, that’s right isn’t it? All those folks were buying up all those very expensive ARs and mags so they could turn them in next month.

claudius on January 9, 2013 at 3:36 PM

Doomberg is right unless there is an organization, or group willing to lay it on the line for those being targeted. Alone, most will choose to surrender their weapons rather than face prison, or a police standoff.

sharrukin on January 9, 2013 at 3:47 PM

“There are executive orders, executive action that can be taken.

YOU LIE!

“We haven’t decided what that is yet, but we’re compiling it all.”

LMAO…you just keep scheming, Plugs.

Tim_CA on January 9, 2013 at 3:47 PM

Goebbels orgasmed in his grave, again. He’s having one ball after the other.

Schadenfreude on January 9, 2013 at 3:29 PM

Good thing that you didn’t refer to Hitler.

“He’s having one ball…and is stuck with it.”

lol

Resist We Much on January 9, 2013 at 3:48 PM

Absolutely none of the suggestions they’ve posed so far would have stopped Sandy Hook from being attacked

ButterflyDragon on January 9, 2013 at 3:35 PM

It’s not about future Sandy Hooks. For Obama it’s about the freedom to rule in a manner the 2nd amendment was specifically designed to prevent.

Kataklysmic on January 9, 2013 at 3:48 PM

Gee, isn’t it wonderful. Our own President is declaring war on his own people. If its war our President wants, then its war he and the Prog nation shall have. I shall defer here until the first salvo is launched which of course would be an executive order.

Tangerinesong on January 9, 2013 at 3:48 PM

All i can hope is that he is foolish enough to try. I can imagine 90% of governors flippin him the big f.u.

can_con on January 9, 2013 at 3:49 PM

He can give as many Executive Orders as he wants and we can ignore all of them; who is going to stop us from ignoring them? An Executive Order isn’t a law.

Tater Salad on January 9, 2013 at 3:49 PM

Personal security for the gun grabbers will be at premiums…

d1carter on January 9, 2013 at 3:49 PM

A national database? F**k you and everyone even remotely associated with such a horrid thing.

Seriously, f**k off in ways that would make an aged hooker blush.

Bishop on January 9, 2013 at 3:36 PM

Gun Control Kills People

Just remember that Registration = Confiscation.

Because as soon as you need the feral government’s “permission” to defend yourself, you are effectively disarmed.

Not to mention that the ‘Registration’ process could be used to pare down the gun owning population with those due-process free “watch lists”.

Chip on January 9, 2013 at 3:49 PM

I’m not registering jackshit. Period.

wolly4321 on January 9, 2013 at 3:45 PM

I turned all mine in in a gun buy back when I was on vacation in a blue state. For the life of me, I can’t seem to locate the paperwork.
/

TxAnn56 on January 9, 2013 at 3:50 PM

Obama has no such authority. Anyone attempting to enforce any such illegal order is a criminal.

Indeed, if Obama even attempts to issue an executive order for the purpose of nullifying part of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights he has flagrantly violated the law and is no longer fit to hold office.

wildcat72 on January 9, 2013 at 3:42 PM

Your premise is “the old USA”.

Schadenfreude on January 9, 2013 at 3:50 PM

Wingnut BS neck deep today. Go build your bunkers!

lostmotherland on January 9, 2013 at 3:50 PM

The Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is the “guarantor” of the whole Constitution.

Without it, the rest of the U.S. Constitution becomes no more than a historic document, to show future generations what we started our lives with, but lost for them.

listens2glenn on January 9, 2013 at 3:51 PM

This, for just one example

Schadenfreude on January 9, 2013 at 3:51 PM

What kind of deep and profound mental illness would a man have to be possessed with to furnish Murderous Mexican Drug Gangs with thousands of assault weapons, used to murder hundreds of people, including children, and then pretend that he didn’t know anything about it? Should such a highly disturbed and heartless killer, who belongs in a Mexican prison serving a life sentence, be allowed to have any control of guns whatsoever? I think not, at least in a sane world. But then are we living in a sane world anymore?

Sandy Hook is the slaughter the fascist killer was trying to achieve with his Operation Fast and Furious, which rightfully should be call Operation Murder and Mendacity. He needed people murdered with guns he could tie to America. His problem is that although he achieved the slaughter he wanted, hundreds of dead Mexicans, including scores of children, he lost control of the narrative and had to slither back into the dark for a while when Jaime Zapata’s murder threw a monkey wench in his cold blooded scheme. Now with the bodies of the children of Sandy Hook, he thinks his dream has come true and his “strangulation by regulation” can be jammed down our throats, at least he figures so anyway. In Herr Hussein Obama we have our First American Tyrant.

VorDaj on January 9, 2013 at 3:51 PM

I don’t think there is much Obama can do with an EO except order no Federal licenses to be issued or renewed to retailers of guns and ammo, and to order no more background checks be done so no one can purchase a firearm.

The petulant little threat about EOs seems more like trying to scare people into demanding legislative action in hope of preserving some gun rights.

Obama can issue all the EOs he wants about any guns I might have. I never was any good with people in authority.

Liam on January 9, 2013 at 3:51 PM

This president wants conflict.

Speakup on January 9, 2013 at 3:26 PM

This.

This regime and its lickspittle followers are having wet dreams about one of us losing his cool in very spectacular, and very public, fashion, so they can point and say, “Look at what a bunch of unhinged whackjobs we’re dealing with!”

They’d love for a conservative to go postal for a change.

CurtZHP on January 9, 2013 at 3:52 PM

I know some boys out in West Va that are not gonna take kindly to that.

faol on January 9, 2013 at 3:53 PM

Wingnut BS neck deep today. Go build your bunkers!

scaredofboomsticks on January 9, 2013 at 3:50 PM

CurtZHP on January 9, 2013 at 3:53 PM

Wingnut BS neck deep today. Go build your bunkers!

lostmotherland on January 9, 2013 at 3:50 PM

.
HELL NO … but IF this really comes to Civil War, you might to find one.

listens2glenn on January 9, 2013 at 3:53 PM

Good thing that you didn’t refer to Hitler.

“He’s having one ball…and is stuck with it.”

lol

Resist We Much on January 9, 2013 at 3:48 PM

Obama has none, and look how powerful he thinks he is.

Schadenfreude on January 9, 2013 at 3:53 PM

Your premise is “the old USA”.

Schadenfreude on January 9, 2013 at 3:50 PM

Which I like to call America 1.0, the one that I grew up in. We now live in America 2.0.

TxAnn56 on January 9, 2013 at 3:53 PM

Obama can’t issue an executive order on gun owners. It wouldn’t be valid. EO only mean anything to people in government agencies. It would have to be a Presidential Proclamation.

OliverB on January 9, 2013 at 3:53 PM

Wingnut BS neck deep today. Go build your bunkers!

lostmotherland on January 9, 2013 at 3:50 PM

Go build your Alter to Obama.

VorDaj on January 9, 2013 at 3:54 PM

I see the Alex Jones contingent is out in force on this thread. One calling for war, another one threatening to engage any law enforcement people with deadly force who make the mistake of coming for his guns.

Either Hotair bans you freaks, or Hotair itself becomes marginalized.

keep the change on January 9, 2013 at 3:54 PM

Wingnut BS neck deep today. Go build your bunkers!

lostmotherland on January 9, 2013 at 3:50 PM

You peepee pants over bangstick noises again?

Don’t worry little camper, Walmart sells underwear by the 6-pack.

Bishop on January 9, 2013 at 3:54 PM

Which I like to call America 1.0, the one that I grew up in. We now live in America 2.0.

TxAnn56 on January 9, 2013 at 3:53 PM

Good lady, it was America and is now AmeriKa.

Fight

Schadenfreude on January 9, 2013 at 3:54 PM

SWalker on January 9, 2013 at 3:40 PM

Thanks for all that. It is interesting.
All definitions I have seen, seem to be VERY active. That is to say that the right cannot be questioned or limited in ANY way.
Moreover, any rule or law that is meant to desuade or restrict the purchase of a gun would seem an infringement.

Interesting that it stems from Latin word “to destroy”

Jabberwock on January 9, 2013 at 3:55 PM

Obama can’t issue an executive order on gun owners. It wouldn’t be valid. EO only mean anything to people in government agencies. It would have to be a Presidential Proclamation.

OliverB on January 9, 2013 at 3:53 PM

If you’re right, it’s interesting that the guy who’s one heartbeat away from the job doesn’t know that.

CurtZHP on January 9, 2013 at 3:55 PM

How do we know that both political parties are co-conspirators with Obama in this unconstitutional attempt to disarm American Citizens. Very simply, if they weren’t, John Bonehead Boehner and Mitch Benedict Arnold McConnell would be filing articles of impeachment against Barack Obama right this very second. But they are not, and they are not because they are in on it with Obama.

SWalker on January 9, 2013 at 3:55 PM

obama must think gun owners are a bunch of romneys.

renalin on January 9, 2013 at 3:55 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 9