Shared publicly  - 
President Obama is weighing as many as 19 different gun control measures that he could take without congressional approval. Republicans say he's overstepping his bounds -- what do you think?
korean community's profile photoMike Setliff's profile photojuan enrique pascual bueno's profile photoBill Lively's profile photo
Well that's what he does best...
if he was overstepping his bounds, then they could effortlessly stop him.....  More hot air from the windbags.
They could only effortlessly stop him, if the elected officials in D.C. actually wanted to.
Not sure where executive orders are in the Constitution. If you do them for one thing, why not all? Write an executive order that limits the Congress's power even further.
We are facing dark times...this is only the beginning... 
oh no !  Run !  Quick !  before you even know what the hell you are talking about !   RUNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN
"as many as 19 different gun control measures that he could"

as many (but we can not give you a number, could be zero, could be 19, be scared !!!!!!!!!!!!)

Could - he could  OoooOoHhHHh  Run ! Be scared, stay tuned to FOX for more detailed non-specific information.
I'm just saying...whats to stop him from taking away all our rights if no one is trying to stop him now
+Dan Seeley So you argument is, that no one will stop him from taking all of our rights at some indeterminate point in the future, and this is demonstrated by the lack of effort of people who aren't Republicans or the NRA trying to prevent him from creating reasonable limits on a few rights right now?

This argument holds together.
+Alexander Natale My argument is that we have a right to bear arms and the president is slowly taking that away without congressional whats to stop him from slowly taking all our rights away. Grant you it wont happen all at once, but it will if this keeps up.
+Dan Seeley when did Obama try to take away your rights? Maybe this is the crap that Colin Powell is talking about. This man is just trying to establishment a public debate on weapons that belong in the military and not in civilian life. It is mind blogging to me a man who spied on you for years and the name of national security was never questioned about taking away your rights. But now we are living in dark times because some don't want to see kids in school get shot up  with weapons of War... Wow... trying to be civilized is taking away our rights...
A better solution would be to help the mentally ill. To identify them and make sure they cant hurt theirselves or others. To figure out why our young people are glorifying criminals , why they view surviving prison as a rite of manhood. The only folks who will obey the laws are us law abiding citizens. Criminals don't care for society or her laws. To truly change the cycle of violence we need to figure out what is wrong with our society and help it heal. Not go after the productive law abiding Americans. 
+Paris Mosley time some lunatic wants to kill a bunch of kids he can do it the civilized way with a knife instead of a gun...why do you keep blaming the object that was used....its the lunatic not the gun that killed.
The United States Supreme Court ruled in Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer that Harry Truman's Executive Order 10340 to end the steel worker's strike was unconstitutional, because Executive Orders may only be used to execute the will of the Congress, not create new laws at the President's whim.
I recommend that he start putting "reasonable limits" on our speech, since the crap that spews from some people's mouth's is the cause of further violence.
+Dan Seeley  Are you crazy?  You really think a knife is as deadly as an assault rifle?  You can hold off a guy with a knife with a chair.  Please try that with an AK47.  Darwin is watching.
The best solution would be that we start holding the INDIVIDUAL committing the act of violence accountable for their actions, instead of trying to blame it on someone or something else.
+Allen Edwards   have you ever been in a knife fight before?  A knife is an assault weapon, no matter how you think about it.
Amen Barry, what a novel idea for a member of our society to be held accountable.  Sooo sad those of us that are responsible pay for others ignorance and disregard for anything other than their own entitlement.
+Barry Koebel Right, a knife is an assault weapon ... just like a chair ... or a really hot potato.

Who the hell ever removed the responsibility from the crazy assailants? Where are you people getting this idea?
The proposal is to remove weapons that can dish out death at an exceptional speed, not pardon the insane killers, +Cynthia Walker!
+Dan Seeley I am not blaming any objects I am just saying how having a public debate about this is some how taking away your rights? But my own preference would be to ban these weapons of war... I am all for people having hand guns, hunting rifles and shotguns...but military style weapons were not create for protecting yourself or hunting... They were only produce to kill a lot of people quickly. Also I don't agree with some sick people who think they can take on the government because they have assault weapons
+Dan Seeley you do know that the Bureau of Justice reports show in 1980 51% of those killed during the commission of a crime were killed by a firearm.  In 2008,
that number was about 80%.

8 out of 10 times it was not a knife.. not a hammer... not a pointed stick, it was a gun.

Hellllloooooo +Vladimir Vigdorovich what do you think is happening right now?  This guy could just as easily gone in with a knife, machete, sword, or even a chair and done just as much damage.  I seem to recall that on the same day as the Newtown shooting, some guy in China went into a school and attacked a few handfuls of kids with a knife.  Using your logic, we need to ban automobile's because they injure and kill so many people from drunk drivers...or better yet, many people must die because they eat to much and want to sit in front of the computer?
+Barry Koebel   we already have limits to free speech.....
and have had since before the ink on the Constitution was dry.
Why aren't we banning Hollywood movies that show guns and violence? Video games too? Ridiculous. Welcome the third world America. This will be a huge WIN for criminals.
+Don Schrampfer because other countries in the world watch and play the same media, but you don't have as much gun violence as it is in this country
+Paris Mosley You should read the US Constitution.  The 2nd was created for the sole purpose to stop tyranny from our own government. 
+Cynthia Walker   and the owners of the gun(s) need to be held accountable for their safekeeping. Unfortunately in order to know who is "responsible" for a specific gun, it has to be "registered"

It all comes back to gun control....
+Allen Edwards I wasn't aware that AK47's were readily available for purchase by any citizen. Please show me where this is possible.

Select fire weapons (automatic) are already strictly controlled and licensed. You cannot just walk into a store and buy one. That has been the law of the land for a long time. So please stop trotting them out every time someone uses a SEMIAUTOMATIC gun for a crime. They are very different.

And our right to arms is not just so we can go hunting and defend our home. It is also so that the citizens will have the means to stand up to a government that tries to turn its citizens into "subjects".

That has happened to many countries in recent history. It can happen anywhere that people aren't vigilant and watchful.

+Marty Livingston Obama executive order will be only to execute the laws already on the books but is not enforced. So his act if he chooses it will not unconstitutional
All these do is make it harder for good people to get and own. Not going to stop a criminal one bit.
+Paris Mosley any executive orders he signs would not be to enforce any laws already on the book.  Typically, the King has used executive orders to not enforce laws already on the books (immigration)
+Adam Bigge your argument is what I find hilarious, so you will use your assault weapons against bombs that will fall from the skies?
I think he must really enjoy seeing our Supreme Court at work!
And as far as which is more deadly, a gun or a knife....

One man gets shot in the head and another gets his throat slashed open. Who is "more dead"? Hmmmm?

Speaking as a person who has seen plenty of people die, dead is dead. It doesn't matter what did the killing. 
+Barry Koebel Barry if Obama was this King you proclaim he would have outlawed guns entirely. Again most of those executives will just instruct the executive branch to enforce the laws already on the books
It's takes people on the ground to win any war. It doesn't matter how many bombs you have.
Not when half the people don't agree with your cause
Does this mean Holder will get prosecuted... those drug dealers did not get proper background checks when he gave them guns.
+Gino Venditti  you hit a key point, you said "get and own"

You have no constitutional right to "get" anything.....
Those who received weapons under "Wide Receiver" did not undergo background checks either.....
same difference +Matthew Chapman , and if Bush would have held those people accountable for their actions, the exact same people would not have tried it again...
+Gino Venditti the Federal government has always restricted the sale of "dangerous" items. No one in the USA has the "right" to be able to purchase anything at all through regulated retail sales channels.....
Again people Obama executive orders is too just enforce the laws already on the books
+Jeffrey Koontz   every president has done exactly what you say they should not do, including "the founding fathers"  George Washington issued the first Exec Order.....
and no one's talking about non-lethal options? beats me..
Well I would say we do not have a typical congress in this country if we did there will not be that much discussion about this issue... global background checks and keep weapons of war in the military
I think he is an idiot and that he needs to be impeached.
What else is new? Republicans resisted on anything the Presiddent proposes. Thye can't accept that a black man  is smarter and well educated than they are!
Really?!?!? It not bad enough that we have the "Class Warfare" in full swing right now in this country you have to go and throw that race card on top of it all.
+Paris Mosley Please define what an assault weapon is.  Do you even know? Really.  What makes a weapon an "assault" weapon?

And if firearms (not full auto machine guns but simple firearms) are so useless for fighting in an armed conflict, why do our police and military use them?  Why does the U.N. security force use them?  Why does our presidents security force use them?

Are you saying that in the event of our country either being attacked by an outside force OR being turned upon by its own government that the best thing to do is lie down and die?  Really?  I pity you.  You have forgotten the words of our founders in regards to the price of freedom.

There is nothing wrong with planning for the worst and hoping for the best.  Would you call a surgeon paranoid for making plans for the eventuality of a patient going into cardiac arrest on the table?  Or how bout calling a school principal a "nut" for making kids practice fire drills?  
But for some reason, if people make plans for the eventuality of our government going awry or our country being attacked, they are labeled as nutjobs and lunatics.  

So many idiots out there are so secure in their ignorant belief that "nothing like that could ever happen here" that they will be the first to die if things ever take a turn for the worst.  I feel sorry for them but I will not allow them to force me to participate in their willful blindness to the possibility of catastrophic events.
+Danny Lease what class warfare? The rich have won that war because American everyday vote against their own financial conditions, believing that the corrupt version of capitalism that goes on in this country is "Freedom" being protected
+Adam Bigge   I was trying to see what prompted your response to +Paris Mosley and I could not find anything

"assault weapon" is already defined and has been for well over a decade.

an "assault rifle" is a selective fire military style weapon.

an "assault weapon" is a semi-automatic (non-selective fire) weapon that otherwise has the same characteristics of an "assault rifle" , look and feel, bayonet mount, flash suppressor, folding stock etc.

I doubt that the presidents security force uses many if any "assault weapons"....

Well its a good thing executive orders are only good for executive branch 
What part of "shall not be infringed upon" do most of you not understand 
Before we ban guns, let's ban cigarettes, baseball bats, propane tanks, knives, gasoline, fertilizer, bad doctors, alcohol, cars/trucks/motorcycles, drugs, poisons and every other dangerous thing in our world. Oh, let's not forget to ban all those violent Hollywood movies and video games too.

According to the CDC, here are the top 10 killers in the U.S.:

Tobacco use: 529K
Medical errors: 195K
Unintentional injuries: 118K
Alcohol abuse: 107K
Motor vehicles: 34K
Unintentional poisoning: 31K
Drug abuse: 25K
Unintentional falls: 24K
*Non-Firearm homicides: 16K
Firearm homicides: 11K (Most are punk vs. punk)

*The FBI says that the #1 weapon used in violent crimes is a baseball bat. (It's time to confiscate all baseball bats!!!!)

Why aren't we outraged at an average of 1,500 funerals each day, due to cigarettes? How many children die each day due to second hand smoke? 50? 100? 200????  Where's the outrage for the number one killer of Americans?  Wake up folks and stop being manipulated by the media.  Let's start at the top of the list and work our way down.
+Paul Ogburn   not sure anyone misunderstands that part, the part that has been debated for years the the part that puts that partial statement in context...  That partial statement alone means nothing even though people keep spouting it.....
+Don Schrampfer
*The FBI says that the #1 weapon used in violent crimes is a baseball bat. (It's time to confiscate all baseball bats!!!!)

Incorrect, if someone is killed during the commission of a crime, 80% of the time it is a gun...........
King Obama speaks and his minion of trolls come to Fox News to spread the wealth around!
+Don Schrampfer When do I say I am for gun control? I just said certain types of weapons are best for the military and not civilian population and that we need universal background checks.
Most of these will only affect law-abiding citizens and won't address mental health and the fact criminals DON'T OBEY LAWS.
wow its +Spencer Scott sticking his big mouth in to add nothing constructive as usual.
+Spencer Scott   most of what?  you do not even know what is being considered, you are Friday Night Quarterbacking for the Sunday game, and you do not even understand football
+Paris Mosley Please show me these laws that are ALREADY on the books which you keep saying that these executive orders are going to force the government to enforce.  
+Barry Koebel executive orders do not have to enforce laws already on the books.... that is one purpose of them, but they can administer new law....

We should probably all wait to see what he is going to say before we speculate on it....
+Charles Caine then maybe it is good ideal to wait until we see the details before we start calling for his impeachment
+Mike Mac Actually, Mike, the Secret service makes use of a wide array of pistols, rifles, submachine guns, and assault rifles.  Among them the HK Mp5, FN P90, and the SR-16. (they used to use Uzis but they have been retired)  The first of those two are very compact, capable of full auto, and quite effective.  Those are all "assault rifles" in the sense that they are capable of "full automatic" fire.   But it's ok that you didn't know that.  Ignorance seems to run rampant around here.

The secondary definition of "assault rifle" that is used by ignorant people pertains only to aesthetics.  The actual function of the weapon is disregarded since they are not capable of full automatic fire and the addition of these accessories do not change the function of the gun.  They simply have the same "look".  IE, if it looks similar then it is classified as an assault rifle.  By that reasoning, there are millions of toy guns out there that should be classified as assault weapons.

I could take a Ruger .22 LR rifle (very weak, small calibre, and generally used to hunt squirrels and small game) swap out the stock, slap in a magazine larger than 10 rounds, put a scope on it and suddenly it would be an assault rifle. Even though its functionality has not changed one bit.  

My point is that people hear "assault weapon" and instantly think of M-16's, AK-47's, Uzi's, P90's etc..... and those are not the weapons that will be affected by a ban.  Those are not the weapons being used by the public.  Those weapons are already strictly controlled.  As they should be.  They all require a great deal of training and expertise to be used safely.

But the weapons that a ban WOULD pertain to are all semi-auto, NON MILITARY weapons.  They function like any other semi-auto hunting rifle.  Pull trigger once, get one bullet.  But the public is being mislead in to believing that any weapon that looks similar to a true military grade assault weapon MUST function the same.  And that is not the case.
And for those that don't understand why the current definition of an "assault weapon" is ridiculous, think of it this way.

Professional race cars, like NASCAR, are not legal to drive on the street.  But you can take your own car, lower the suspension, cover it in decals, and dress it up to look like one. (why anyone would do this is beyond me.  Sorry race fans. I just don't get it)  

Does that make your car capable of competing in a NASCAR race?  No.  Do the changes make your car illegal for road use?  No, because you haven't changed the engine, transmission, fuel system, emissions system, tires, etc.  None of the cosmetic changes have made your car into a race car.  

The same can be said of many other items.  Does dressing up like a firefighter or a doctor mean you can do their job?  No.  It is what is inside that counts.The cosmetic features of any object do not necessarily have anything to do with the objects function.

So why do you want to apply these criteria to guns?  It makes no logical sense.
Der Fuhrer will get what Der Fuhrer wants.
+Charles Caine   I was not making any claims, so your comments are not applicable to anything I did or did not do.
Speaking of comprehending.....  thanks for playing.
....shortly after the President is impeached......
+Adam Bigge   thanks for adding to what I said.  If you re-read, what you are stating was exactly what I said.......
The Secret Service does not use a Bushmaster "assault weapon" they carry selective fire  "assault rifles" and other rifles.

Then you went on to explain a misunderstanding that some have about Assault weapons vs assault rifles, a misconception I do not have.....

"I could take a Ruger .22 LR rifle (very weak, small calibre, and generally used to hunt squirrels and small game) swap out the stock, slap in a magazine larger than 10 rounds, put a scope on it and suddenly it would be an assault rifle."

No you can't.  It is still classified as an "assault weapon" because it does not have selective fire capability.

In reading your tirade, I am not sure you understand the legal definitions of "assault weapon" and "assault rifle".  You can sure have your opinion, but you can not change the definitions of the terms to suit your argument.

and you compare "toys" to assault weapons?  the ultimate in irresponsibility of any gun owner... referencing anything having to do with their guns and toys.... 
+Don Schrampfer   its good that that intruder was stopped, but things do not always end that way. and that saga is far from over.....  There will be inquiries, and attempted civil suits....  They do have a castle type law, but depending on what what actually happened, there may be some gray area... The courts will have to sort that out, not you or I.

But again, how is you not understanding what I said my reading comprehension problem?

+Charles Caine   no... I didn't LOL  you need to re-read and understand what I typed, or get someone to help explain it to you.......
None of these seem like impeachable offenses

-          Ordering tougher penalties for people who lie on background checks; only a fraction of these cases currently are prosecuted. Such a step has support from the NRA, which argues that existing laws must be enforced before new ones are considered.
-          Elevating gun trafficking to a felony
-          Ending limits that make it more difficult for the government to research gun violence, such as gathering data on guns that fall into criminal hands.
-          Giving schools flexibility to use federal grant money to improve school safety, such as by hiring school resource officers.
-          Giving communities grants to institute programs to keep guns away from people who shouldn't have them.

So sad we can't get anything with more teeth because of nonfunctional congress
-          Ordering tougher penalties for people who lie on background checks; only a fraction of these cases currently are prosecuted. Such a step has support from the NRA, which argues that existing laws must be enforced before new ones are considered.
-          Elevating gun trafficking to a felony
-          Ending limits that make it more difficult for the government to research gun violence, such as gathering data on guns that fall into criminal hands.
-          Giving schools flexibility to use federal grant money to improve school safety, such as by hiring school resource officers.
-          Giving communities grants to institute programs to keep guns away from people who shouldn't have them.
+Mike Mac
 You are mincing words.  The legal definition of an assault weapon is nebulous at best.  There is no solid consensus.  Many differing opinions in the law enf. community as well as in our government. Just try to look it up.  Each side has their own definition.  As do most States. I concern myself with physical facts as to capabilities and construction, not legal double-speak. But the Federal Assault weapons ban referenced semi-automatic firearms (weapons) that possess the cosmetic features of an assault rifle (another weapon) that is fully automatic (a particular type of assault weapon).

Those are simply words that do not change the reality of how the weapons operate.

And you are right.  SecSvc does not carry bushmasters. I never said they did. They carry other types of assault rifles.  Much more compact than an M16. But they are still assault rifles. Those rifles are weapons.  Therefore they are assault weapons (a general term that encompasses the former).  Legally, an assault weapon is not necessarily an assault rifle.  But all assault rifles are assault weapons. 

And, as you surely know, my mention of toy guns was simply to illustrate the ridiculous nature of the criteria for assault weapons bans.  Not to draw any equivalency between toys and guns. You can't be that obtuse.  Or maybe you are... Regardless, I am not a fan of replica toys that appear to be genuine weapons.  For exactly the reason you stated.  It gives the impression to children that guns are toys.  My children don't have them.  I instead opt to teach them how to behave around weapons (of all kinds) and that they are not to be treated as playthings.  Rather, they are to be treated with respect due to the damage a person might cause with one if it is mishandled.
+Adam Bigge   I'm really not mincing any words, I am quoting the legal definition (paraphrased for simplicity not verbatim) from legislation.

"SecSvc does not carry bushmasters. I never said they did. They carry other types of assault rifles"

Yes, which is exactly what I said. 

The definitions of the two are pretty much standard across all legislation in all states, basically there are automatic, selectable fire 
"assault rifles" , and all the clone,lookalike, Rambo semi-automatic "assault weapons"  In many cases they are virtually the exact same gun, except for the selectable firing mechanism ....

We can go back and forth playing word salad, but those are the legal definitions, not mine.  

As far as toys resembling military weapons, I can say I agree with most of what you say, my son does not have a toy AK-47 look-alike but he has a Nerf dart gun.  He has a cowboy 45 cap gun, but does not have a MAC that shoots plastic projectiles. We have no "assault" modeled toys in our home. There is no confusion in our home as to what is a toy, and what is a gun.

he also does not have any T-Teen video games. or "Mature" ones.
a 12 year old has no business playing them. My opinion is, no child should.
+Mike Mac well at least we seem to agree on quite a bit. Especially on the point of children and look alike toys. And the video games. 
Ron N
+Alexander Natale and then more reasonable limits on more rights. Please tell me who defines reasonable?
In Romania they executed their dictator and his wife.
Did we ever see the real birth certificate?  What is up with that?
I think he is doing exactly what he promised all along to do, cripple our abilities to defend ourselves as individuals. The electoral college (supposedly following our wishes) voted him a second chance to do just that. America has become a land of sheep, unable to accept responsibility for our own actions and reap our just rewards. Personally, I think he is way out of bounds, attempting to interfere with the God given right to protect ourselves from others. Nothing good is going to come of this, not for the people of this country.
the president can not make laws
+Travis Gore That may be true but the Executive Branch has the power to change regulations and directives for any office or department of the Administrative Branch.

Franklin Roosevelt used Executive Order 9066 to place 110,000 Japanese in concentration camps (62% were American citizens). No law was passed, the military was given the power to establish "exclusion zones" and in 1944 the US Supreme Court upheld the order.

The US Census Bureau provided confidential information in order to facilitate rounding up Japanese families, something they denied until proven by records released in 2007. Yes, they are also under the Administration.

The Bastards!
+Orion McClurg We are in agreement but the 1940s was a totally different time and culture. Face it, the Pearl harbor Memorial wasn't built until the mid 1970's because Americans didn't whine about the attack, they freed the world first. Memorials should be left for the next generation to build.

Roosevelt was wrong on most things, from economics to foreign policy but the Left promoted him to sainthood decades ago and still won't let go of FDR's greatest failure, Social Security.
As some hve stated in there comments, if Congress wanted to stop the order they could vote to repeal it, all they need is a two- thirds vote. TAKE THE VOTE. Oooo, I forgot the won't do it why cause they know it is the right thing to do, and as Christie stated " they are too worried abt their aspirations & re-election to do what is right" Just whining to make their NRA backers feel better abt the money they lobby for them.
It's not about protecting children. It's not about stopping crime.

It's about banning your guns…PERIOD!

Last week, NRA sat in on a White House meeting that was sold to the public as an "open discussion" about how to improve school safety. But that was a dirty lie.

They didn' listen to gun owners' concerns…they didn' consider any real solutions on how we can keep our kids safe…instead Barack Obama, Joe Biden, and their gun ban allies in Congress only want to BLAME you, VILIFY you, BULLY you, and STRIP you of your Second Amendment freedoms.

Right now, they're steamrolling ahead with legislation that would ban your guns, register your ammunition purchases, and even force you to register the firearms you already own with Obama's anti-gun bureaucrats.

I warned you this day was coming and now it's here. This is the fight of the century and I need you on board with NRA now more than ever.

I urge you to renew or upgrade your NRA membership as soon as possible. If it's more convenient for you to do so online, you can follow this link:
Now is the time when I need you and every gun owner to put an NRA membership card in your wallet and STAND AND FIGHT for our freedom. No one can take your place at the front lines of this battle…if we lose now, we lose everything.

The media has been on a vicious tirade to slander and intimidate you, me, and our fellow NRA members. We've been called terrorists and worse. They've blamed us and our Second Amendment freedoms for the actions of violent criminals and madmen. Our lives have been threatened.

But I won' let these brutal and bitterly personal attacks on you and me go unchallenged. I'll fight freedom's enemies. I'll fight to make our schools safer. And I'll fight for your fundamental right to self-defense and your sacred Right to Keep and Bear Arms.

But my strength, and the strength of our entire NRA organization comes from you and your strong commitment to our membership. I need you in our corner TODAY.

Thank you for your friendship and your support. Your letters and your words of encouragement mean more to me than you could ever imagine.

Together, we will defend our freedom.


Wayne LaPierre
Executive Vice President
Protecting children?  That is GOLDEN coming from President Obortion.
I've said it before and I will say it again: the Second Amendment was meant to be the final check and balance. If all else fails, if our President and our Congress and our Supreme Court turn against us, We the People would have the means to forcefully take back our country.

Standing by while they slowly take away our weapons and leave us with novelty guns would be a disservice to future generations that might need them. The civilian class must maintain the knowledge and capacity to manufacturer, operate, and maintain weapons of war. It is our responsibility in this republic. Every bit as important as voting. 
here it is in a nut shell people. Our 2nd Amendment rights are not about hunting or giving the citizens of the America the right  to bear arms in self defense of life, limb and liberty, it is for the government to see where their power ends and the citizens power begins. They work for us not us work for them. They answer to us and according to the oath of office the president swears to uphold the Constitution not change it to his idea of how things are to be. When he does this he goes against his oath therefore he becomes an enemy of the state. Now look at the oath of the US soldier, the first thing they swear to uphold and to protect is the Constitution of the US from all enemy's foreign and domestic the second is to obey all lawful orders of the president. By Obama changing by executive order any part of the Constitution he then has given an unlawful order that will not be enforced as well as becoming a domestic enemy and there for it will be the job of congress to start impeachment proceedings and if neccesary have the military remove him from office.
+James Stanley some have interpreted the 2nd in that way, but as most that have studied it will have to concede, that narrow view of that statement tends to ignore the overall context of the entire verbiage... . 

Only the real problem is, none of anything you have stated has happened, nor will it. Nor has he even suggested he will do what you claim, not in the slightest.... It's all BS

 Anyone that thinks Obama knows less about constitutional law then they do is either a very senior professor of  constitutional law, or sadly mistaken.

The oath of a US military member (both active/reserve duty and retired) also requires they show respect to their Commander in Chief. Disrespect can be punishable as a  courts martial offense......

If he does anything that challenges the Constitution, it won't ever even get put into play, it can't before it is reviewed for 30 days.
+Mike Mac I have studied and do have a degree on US government and did my thesis on the Constitution. I am a gun owner and build custom firearms in my spare time. I know what the oath of both take and as well as what the Supreme Court has stated that the second Amendment applies to individuals and it is the individuals right to maintain and bare firearms and that it shall not be infringed upon. Several states have already declared that they, no matter if there is an executive order or not will not comply to Obama's gun ban nor will they enforce it. If they come to confiscate firearms when people refuse to register them the Federal agents will be arrested, jailed and fined for trying to enforce an unconstitutional law. If they come for mine may the good Lord take a liking to them because I wont. Do not tread on me, I tread back no man or woman will enter my home and steal my property. Our second amendment is what protects all the other amendments. Gun control is not about the gun, it is about the government wanting control. We do not want it but if they force us we will fight with our last breath if need be.
Mike mac..unfortunetly you have succumbed to the leftist ideals of what us gun owners know is not true. To be ill informed as you are makes you a scarey individual because it is people like you who do not know facts that will cause Americans to lose the freedoms we were born into. No sense in arguing with people such as yourself. The only way you will truly understand is when you lose the freedoms you currently enjoy. Unfortunetly by then it will be to late!
+James Stanley   that's great that you do have some formal education centered on government.  But that really changes nothing I stated... you are not a constitutional law professor.

As far as the states you mention not enforcing "Obama's gun ban"... there is no "Obama's gun ban"... and there won't be...   Obama never said he was going to issue an executive order to ban any guns, never once. it's all bullshit and hot air.
You really need to go back and listen to the exact words he spoke...
He said assault weapon ban legislation...and if legslation is passed, the states will have to comply as long as the courts rule it is constitutional, and if it is the same ban as before...  well...  that was already decided in 1994....  

As to if you would personally comply with a law, that is your choice, and as with anyone, if they choose to fail to comply with the law, they are subject to the consequences of their decision(s).

But you sound like an intelligent man, surely you know that reality is, if the US government came to get your guns, they would get your guns in the end.....  at what cost is debatable, but the outcome is a given....

and you keep saying "we"...  no disrespect intended,  I have many of the same feelings as you do, I am a proud gun owner too, but I can assure you, you do not speak for me.
+ge coombs  if you knew who I was, how many guns I own and of what types, details of my military experience, or actually anything at all about me, then you would realize what a fool you sound for making such unfounded, baseless, ill-informed assumptions.........
 hopefully your mouth is big enough to accommodate your other foot...
They would find an empty gun safe and ask questions and leave. Then I would go to my cache and join the rest of my fellow patriots and fight to the last breath if need be. Your right I don't speak or represent you because you are willing to give up your arms and or register your firearms, you are the worst kind of gun owner a liberal that believes in half truths....the problem with half truths are you never know if you have the lie or the truth in your case I would suspect you are believing the lie side of it.
One thing I do know is as gun owners we need to stick together and fight the fight whatever it may be ... To much turmoil causes distractions and that what they want. 
+James Stanley   its great you have posted your plan in a public forum  lol

And you are assuming and trying to put words in my mouth to try to prove your weak argument, and justify your fanatical position... I never once said or even suggested I would register anything or give up any arms...

and what proof (other then I do not agree with you 100%) do you have I am even a "liberal"?

Good luck with all that :)
None but your actions and you are assuming this is a real picture of me and that my real name is given on here too. My position is not fanatical it is truth. You see there is only yes or no, up or down, left or right, right or wrong there is no grey area either people stand for the Constitution and the second amendment and will fight legally for their rights and do so in a peaceful manner until either the Government backs down or they decide to come after us. If that happens then a civil war will happen. Look at how many people in 26 states wanted to leave the union and become their own nation, I do not agree that is the right thing to do at this time but if the government starts to take our freedoms it is all we are left with.
+James Stanley   I assumed nothing about your picture or profile, but one thing I do know after decades in IT, anyone that posts anything on the internet and thinks it is anonymous is only fooling themselves...
+Mike Mac You may not be a liberal but you seem to consistently come down on the progressive side of most arguments. Are you suggesting that you are a progressive, but not a liberal?  You constantly support the president's agenda. I don't think that anyone would argue as to whether he is a liberal or not. You also like to occasionally make allusions to your Military Experience. Would you mind filling us in? Inquiring minds want to know. You do seem unfamiliar with the Oath and certain specific articles of the UCMJ, so pardon me but I am a bit skeptical.
+William Carlson    LOL   how does that have anything to do with the topic of gun control? as usual, you are just trying to change the subject.....
+Mike Mac No, not really changing the topic. I am just asking about claims you made in this thread.
+Mike Mac Mike I have been doing this since before there was an internet as we know it, give me some credit :) 
+William Carlson  sure, what questions regarding claims I made about gun control do you have a question about ?
+Mike Mac The somewhat off topic claims you made in this thread that are listed in one of my prior posts, but apparently you are now very concerned about sticking to the topic.

Personally the THOUSANDS of gun laws already on the books currently are an infringement on the Second Amendment. Any executive order would just be another infringement. I believe that the president would push the envelope and do whatever he could get away with.
He left in in the hands of Congress and they let the gun ban sun set in 2004 and I bet they will not vote for another gun ban either. 
In reading the actual list in detail it is interesting to note that not a single item will prevent any foaming at the mouth  law abiding Republican from acquiring a gun, nor will they in any way whatsoever take any guns from them....  

However there are provisions try to provide mental health coverage  LOL

Which ironically was a NRA suggestion....

You can't make this crap up...
Paul F.
explain, please, # 14 on the list to me then please.  and to all that support the gun takeover measure, please be sure to post in your yards the following: " I DO NOT OWN A GUN.  I SUPPORT BANNING GUNS."  
+Paul F. 
14. "Issue a presidential memorandum directing the Centers for Disease Control to research the causes and prevention of gun violence."

is this the #14 you do not seem to understand?  

Why would I put a sign in my yard that says I do not own a gun when that is not true?
He is doing just like the movie 2016 said he was going to do.dissarm his opposition and weakin America.already n Africa is takin over by the muslem brotherhood and our economy is in the tank and going down and the media has been takin over by progressive idiots
Add a comment...