Relic Posted January 11, 2013 Share Posted January 11, 2013 So I read yesterday about a Tennessee gun instructor ranting about gun control on Youtube. He went so far as to say he would shoot people to protect his 2nd Amendment rights from Obama. http://www.newschann...ver-gun-controlToday, his gun permit has been revoked...by the TENNESSEE Department of Safety and Homeland Security. http://www.newschann...trol-rage-videoI think this goes in the file of Not Helping the Cause.What a psycho. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Former Lord of Winterfell Posted January 11, 2013 Share Posted January 11, 2013 IMO, Executive Orders make sense as a topic because of the widely published recent news that the President will consider what action he can take as an Executive Order on the gun control issue.Actually, Biden pretty clearly said that "Executive Orders" was only one of the things they'd look at:"The vice president said there was a consensus on "three or four or five" steps regarding gun safety, but did not specify what they were."There are executive orders, executive action that can be taken. We haven't decided what that is yet," Biden said, adding that Obama is conferring with Attorney General Eric Holder on potential action."http://www.reuters.c...E9080UA20130109People are having a hard enough time understanding what this means already without it getting confused further, IMO. There is no evidence here - at all - that the President intends to "push or break" the envelope, so while your point about the integrity of the political process is perfectly valid, it's not striking me as overly relevant, so I was trying to think of some way that it might be relevant that I was missing. Not to my "argument," but the larger topic of gun control.I don't think the point is confusing at all, unless you want to turn it into a legal argument. My point is pretty simple -- gun owners don't trust the President not to twist the intent of legislation. What Biden is referring to are material gun-control actions the Administration will take without seeking any Congressional approval. And the prospect of the President being willing to limit gun rights without going through Congress makes some folks nervous. Whether he theoretically had that power before in a regulatory sense really is academic to how those comments destroy any good faith starting point for a deal.I'm still not really seeing any relevance, but that's okay, I understand that you just have a point you want to make and aren't particularly concerned about what thread it gets made in.Uh, what? This is a gun control thread, not a "what does Rehnquist say about the difference ways the President may use his authority" thread. If you want to discuss the technical legalities, fine. I don't care. To me, the 5-4 status of the court, and the difficulty when it comes to political questions and interbranch disputes, makes the legal arguments rather moot. Ah, I see you also want to continue to "eviscerate" former Cheif Justice Rhenquist's distinction. Is that because of an agenda that you have, or do you not understand the distinction?No. I don't care about his distinction. While legally correct, it is irrelevant with respect to the substance of the issue as viewed from the perspective of a gun owner. Here's what you said for the "non-lawyers" upthread:The difference is that where statutory authority is concerned, power Congress grants to the President can be taken away, any time, the same way it was granted.Well, horsepiss to that. Sure, it's legally correct, but it is much harder to take away that authority once it has been given. Essentially, you're going to have to get control of both houses of Congress, and override a Presidential veto. How likely is that? That may be a perfectly valid solution from the perspective of a Constitutional theorist, but it's not a satisfactory distinction from the perspective of a gun owner who cares about the substance, and what happens between the point in time where the President takes that authority, and some future Congress manages to take it away. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Raidne Posted January 12, 2013 Share Posted January 12, 2013 I care a lot about what gun owners are concerned about, just not absolutely valid actions taken under existing statutory authority. That's perfectly legal and justified. Besides, what wouldn't be preferable to ATF rulemaking & adjudication??? They suck at providing clear interpretation so. hard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Former Lord of Winterfell Posted January 12, 2013 Share Posted January 12, 2013 I care a lot about what gun owners are concerned about, just not absolutely valid actions taken under existing statutory authority. That's perfectly legal and justified."Absolutely valid under existing statutory authority" is not a fixed, objective standard. You can't know those boundaries ahead of time, and they are subject to change as the composition of courts change. What is absolutely invalid under existing statutory authority today may be valid tomorrow. And, invalid actions may end up being in place for a significant period of time until tossed.So, If the Adminstration's position is "we're going to try as hard as we possibly can to stretch that new gun legislation as much as possible", then I'd just as soon not give them the opportunity. And unfortunately, that's what I think the President actually wants to do. The only certain way to limit interpretations of new legislation is not to pass it in the first place.SCOTUS upheld the Executive Order in the Korematsu case because the government misrepsented the evidence regarding the likelihood of espionage by citizens of Japanese ancestry and Congress authorized the war in Iraq because the administration misrepresented the evidence on WMD.You just had to tell him, didn't you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tormund Ukrainesbane Posted January 12, 2013 Share Posted January 12, 2013 Just bought a new pistol in your honor. This one is illegal in Canada. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fragile Bird Posted January 12, 2013 Author Share Posted January 12, 2013 Why is it illegal in Canada Tormund? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Scot A Ellison Posted January 12, 2013 Share Posted January 12, 2013 FB,It squirts maple syrup. With the attack on the strategic maple syrup reserve such weapons are deemed too wasteful to be legal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fragile Bird Posted January 12, 2013 Author Share Posted January 12, 2013 FB,It squirts maple syrup. With the attack on the strategic maple syrup reserve such weapons are deemed to wasteful to be legal. :lol: :lol: :lol: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Durckad Posted January 12, 2013 Share Posted January 12, 2013 Maybe that information should be made available in some sort of publicly viewable list so that derelict pancakes, waffles and (god forbid) french toast are deterred from breaking into Tormund's home and fucking with his breakfast materials. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TerraPrime Posted January 12, 2013 Share Posted January 12, 2013 So I read yesterday about a Tennessee gun instructor ranting about gun control on Youtube. He went so far as to say he would shoot people to protect his 2nd Amendment rights from Obama. That's fairly common rhetoric amongst the more vocal gun supporters, far as I can tell. I've read it elsewhere on the internet, and I've even read it on this board. Something about bullets, face, and one at a time. ;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Raidne Posted January 12, 2013 Share Posted January 12, 2013 It's probably just part of the trauma of feeling like your life was threatened and all, but I don't believe that particular bumper sticker says anything about faces. Seeing as all Americans with health insurance have covered mental health care now, you should get that checked out sometime. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kalbear Posted January 13, 2013 Share Posted January 13, 2013 Are you actually making a joke about mental illness? Nice! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sologdin Posted January 13, 2013 Share Posted January 13, 2013 it's all fair, kal. i've suggested that gun ownership is a type of self-administered psychotherapeutic intervention designed to treat the phobias, paranoias, and psychoses that arise from living near those whom the owner considers to be dangerous untermenschen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Former Lord of Winterfell Posted January 13, 2013 Share Posted January 13, 2013 When you say you've "suggested" that, I assume that's your preferred euphemism for just yanking it out of your sphincter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Raidne Posted January 13, 2013 Share Posted January 13, 2013 Are you making a joke at the expense of those truly afflicted with constipation? For shame! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kalbear Posted January 13, 2013 Share Posted January 13, 2013 Guess those ADD jokes and domestic violence jokes are fair game too. Good to know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sologdin Posted January 13, 2013 Share Posted January 13, 2013 is it therefore reasonable to fear random home invasions sufficiently to become heavily armed and develop a siege mentality with shoot-the-prowler/stand-another's-ground aggressiveness, but unreasonable to fear firearms owners who proclaim their intention to shoot the prowler while standing another's ground? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Free Northman Posted January 13, 2013 Share Posted January 13, 2013 SologdinYou only have to fear them if you are prowling on their private property. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mormont Posted January 13, 2013 Share Posted January 13, 2013 [mod] Enough is too much. I'm closing this thread, and if the next one also descends into having pops at each other rather than talking about the topic at hand, that'll be the end of the gun control threads for a while. [/mod] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.