IGX

Blaidd Drwg wrote:

Biden: Obama Might Use Executive Order to Deal With Guns
11:42 AM, JAN 9, 2013 • BY DANIEL HALPER
Vice President Joe Biden revealed that President Barack Obama might use an executive order to deal with guns.

"The president is going to act," said Biden, giving some comments to the press before a meeting with victims of gun violence. "There are executives orders, there's executive action that can be taken. We haven't decided what that is yet. But we're compiling it all with the help of the attorney general and the rest of the cabinet members as well as legislative action that we believe is required."

Biden said that this is a moral issue and that "it's critically important that we act."

Biden talked also about taking responsible action. "As the president said, if you're actions result in only saving one life, they're worth taking. But I'm convinced we can affect the well-being of millions of americans and take thousands of people out of harm's way if we act responsibly."

Biden, as he himself noted, helped write the Brady bill.

Eric Holder was scheduled to be at the meeting that's currently take place at the White House.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/bid ... 94984.html

johno wrote: That sounds like a really bad idea. Bloody bad.

A Republican-run House committee voted today to cite Attorney General Eric Holder for contempt after President Obama asserted executive privilege over documents in the "Fast and Furious" operation.

Holder's Justice Department requested that Obama claim the privilege and withhold documents concerning the botched gun-smuggling operation and the death of a U.S. border agent.

The House Oversight and Government Reform Committee voted along party lines to recommend that the full House cite Holder for contempt, after a full day of sniping between folks on Capitol Hill and in the White House.

The "decision to invoke executive privilege implies that White House officials were either involved in the Fast and Furious operation or the cover-up that followed," said Michael Steel, a spokesman for House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio. "The administration has always insisted that wasn't the case. Were they lying, or are they now bending the law to hide the truth?"

White House communications director Dan Pfeiffer shot back that House Republicans are on a "politically motivated, taxpayer-funded, election-year fishing expedition."

Pfeiffer said Republicans should concentrate instead on extending federal funding for transportation projects and student loans.

The root of the problem is that guns are "dumb." Pull the trigger and they discharge bullets mindlessly, regardless of who is doing the aiming or where they are aimed. Guns should "know" not to fire in schools, churches, hospitals or malls. They should sense when they are being aimed at a child, or at a person when no other guns are nearby....

Guns should also be designed to sense where they are being aimed. Artificial vision and optical sensing technology can be adapted from military and medical communities. Sensory data can be used by built-in software to disable firing if the gun is pointed at a child or someone holding a child.

Building software into guns need not affect gun owners' desire to protect their homes. Trigger control software could be relaxed when the gun is at home or in a car, while other safety features stay on to prevent accidental discharges. Guns used by the police would be exempt from such controls.

Finally, guns should be designed to broadcast their location when they are loaded. Police could see if high-powered assault weapons are entering or getting close to a public place. Gun owners, too, could choose to broadcast their guns' locations publicly to increase deterrent effect.

ARE YOU HANDICAPPED IN BRAIN? HOT WATER WILL HAVE NO EFFECT ON COMPOUNDS LEFT BY CORROSIVE SURPLUS AMMUNITION. DO NOT BE AMERICAN PUSSY BITCH. TAKE OUT GENITALS AND PISS INTO CHAMBER. DO NOT BE AFRAID, NO ONE LOOKS AT MAN URINATING IN MOSIN, IS NATURAL. UNLESS YOU ARE UNCLE MISHA. MISHA LOST USE OF PENIS IN FIRST WORLD WAR. URINATE INTO BAG NOT UNLIKE COLECTOMY PATIENT. INSTEAD MISHA HELD CAT TO CHAMBER. CAT PEES CONTAIN MANY AMMONIAS. IS VERY GOOD FOR REMOVAL OF STUBBORN CORROSIVE PRIMER ELEMENT. I SEE DOG IN PICTURE. MAYBE YOU USE DOG. I NOT KNOW, IVAN IS ENGINEER NOT CHEMIST.

Strassel: The Real Gun-Control Consensus
Despite the press's best efforts to parse his statements, Harry Reid has committed himself to nothing more than a 'thoughtful debate.'
By KIMBERLEY A. STRASSEL

The next time you hear a fellow American bemoaning the lack of Washington bipartisanship, tell him to cheer up. There is one issue on which Congress still resoundingly agrees: gun rights. Bear that in mind, too, the next time you read a story about the "new" political debate over gun control.

An almost cosmic disconnect has been building in the political sphere since the tragedy of Sandy Hook. On the one side is the gun-control community, which sniffed a rare political opening and is determined to use it to the max. Vice President Joe Biden's gun-violence task force has given that community a vehicle for its ambitions, even as it has encouraged it to ramp up its demands.

By this week, the elites were calling for a gun-control agenda unmatched in modern times. The closing of the gun-show "loophole"? Restrictions on large-capacity clips? An "assault weapons" ban? They want all that, plus a national gun database, and a background check for every gun sale, and similar checks for ammunition sales, and regulation of Internet transactions, and Michael Bloomberg crowned emperor. (A position for which Mr. Bloomberg no doubt believes himself suited.) The media have reported all this as rational, reasonable and doable.

On the other side is the reality that any of these proposals must, in the normal course of things, pass Congress. A few quick facts about that body. 1) More than half of its members have an "A" rating from the National Rifle Association. 2) The few members today calling for gun control are the same few who have always called for gun control. 3) The House is run by Republicans.


Despite the press's exuberant efforts to cast congressional gun supporters as having changed their minds, there has been no actual movement. Senate Democrat Joe Manchin caused a media sensation when he declared, immediately after Sandy Hook, that nobody needed "30 rounds in a clip." Less reported was that it took the Democrat about the time necessary for your average West Virginian to drive to a ballot box to clarify that statement and to add that he's "so proud of the NRA." Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, even with the press's best efforts to parse his remarks, has committed himself to nothing more than a "thoughtful debate."

Montana's Jon Tester and Max Baucus, Alaska's Mark Begich, Arkansas's Mark Pryor, South Dakota's Tim Johnson, Louisiana's Mary Landrieu—all are quiet on that red-state Democratic front. North Dakota's brand new senator, Heidi Heitkamp, declared proposals mulled by the Biden task force as "way in the extreme" and "not gonna pass." Unlike Mr. Obama, all of these members still face elections.

Over in the House, when asked recently what was more likely—passage of gun control or Speaker John Boehner becoming a pagan—a senior GOP leadership aide told Buzzfeed: "Probably the latter."

Even were the Senate to summon 60 votes (unlikely), and even were Mr. Boehner to risk the renewed wrath of his caucus by moving such a bill (crazy unlikely), any legislation would fall to members such as Virginia's Bob Goodlatte (who runs the Judiciary Committee) and Pete Sessions (who runs the Rules Committee). Mr. Goodlatte is strong on gun rights. Mr. Sessions is from Texas.

Add to this one consequence of President Obama's intransigence on a debt solution: His other priorities are in limbo. Mr. Biden will announce his recommendations next week, just as Congress prepares to tackle the debt ceiling. At what point will Democrats have the spare bandwidth to address gun control? Also open to question is whether the White House intends to spend its political capital on that perilous subject, rather than on presidential priorities like immigration reform.

The White House is playing its usual fuzzy double-game. Does it intend to stick to mental-health recommendations and slough off on Congress any gun decisions? Or does it intend to embrace gun control in its liberal remake of the country? Was the leak that the Biden task force is debating big gun restrictions a signal of a fight to come? Or was it a deliberate head fake—to make smaller proposals look more reasonable? No one has a clue.

Whatever the White House intends, it is already in a tough position. The task-force leak, combined with Mr. Biden's tantalizing suggestion of a gun-related executive order, has seriously raised expectations. Anything less than the dismantling of the Second Amendment will earn Mr. Obama a lambasting from his left.

At the same time, the more sweeping any gun proposals, the more dead on arrival they will be in Congress. Mr. Obama might know that and be planning to take credit for going big while blaming failure on Congress. If so, he'll have to beat on his own party.

He might instead consider that gun rights are an excellent—and rare—example of an issue on which Republicans and Democrats have for some time been on common ground, and in which they have honestly represented their constituents. Last heard, that was exactly the sort of bipartisanship the president claimed to want more of.

Mr. Sessions is from Texas.

Despite launching a gun control agenda that threatens to disarm the American people, President Obama has signed a bill that would afford him armed Secret Service protection for life.

“The legislation, crafted by Republican Rep. Trey Gowdy of South Carolina, rolls back a mid-1990s law that imposed a 10-year limit on Secret Service protection for former presidents. Bush would have been the first former commander in chief affected,” reports Yahoo News.

The new bill, which will cost American taxpayers millions of dollars, is a re-instatement of a 1965 law which will see presidents protected for life as well as their children up to age 16.

The irony of Obama seeking to surround himself with armed men for the rest of his life while simultaneously working to disarm the American people via a gun control agenda that is likely to be enforced via executive decree represents the height of hypocrisy.

But it’s not the first time that Obama has lauded the notion of responsible Americans using firearms to protect himself and his family while concurrently eviscerating that very same right for the American people.

During an ABC Nightline interview broadcast on December 26 yet recorded before the Sandy Hook shooting, Obama said one of the benefits of his re-election was the ability “to have men with guns around at all times,” in order to protect his daughters.

In addition, the school attended by Obama’s daughters in Washington D.C. has no less than 11 armed security guards on duty at all times, yet the idea of arming teachers and school officials to prevent school massacres has been dismissed by gun control advocates who want school campuses to remain “gun free zones” where victims are disarmed and shooters are free to carry out their rampage unimpeded.

The hypocrisy of gun control advocates who feverishly work to create victim disarmament yet surround themselves with armed men is rampant amongst the political class.

As we reported last month, despite in the same year calling for “Mr. and Mrs. America” to “turn in” their guns California Senator Dianne Feinstein, author of a draconian bill set to be introduced later this month that would treat gun owners like sex offenders, admitted to carrying a concealed weapon for her own protection after she was threatened by a terrorist group.

Other prominent gun control advocates such as Mayor Michael Bloomberg have also aggressively pushed to disarm Americans while themselves employing armed bodyguards at all times.

Michael Moore, another vehement proponent for gun control, also has armed bodyguards, one of whom was arrested for carrying an unlicensed weapon at New York’s JFK airport back in 2005.

A White House petition created at the end of last month calls for making the White House and all federal buildings gun free zones. “If the government believes gun free zones are a solution for citizens, the same standard should apply to government servants and employees,” states the petition, which currently has over 12,000 signatures.

ecalpal wrote:Regardless of what happens, it doesn't matter what the law says when you're above it anyway.

The irony of Obama seeking to surround himself with armed men for the rest of his life while simultaneously working to disarm the American people via a gun control agenda that is likely to be enforced via executive decree represents the height of hypocrisy.

nafod wrote:

ecalpal wrote:Regardless of what happens, it doesn't matter what the law says when you're above it anyway.

The irony of Obama seeking to surround himself with armed men for the rest of his life while simultaneously working to disarm the American people via a gun control agenda that is likely to be enforced via executive decree represents the height of hypocrisy.

Is retarded shit like that, that has turned me on the whole gun thing. Along with the NRA and the gun manufacturers trying to get rich(er) off of the Sandy Hook shooting of those 20 kids.

nafod wrote:

ecalpal wrote:Regardless of what happens, it doesn't matter what the law says when you're above it anyway.

The irony of Obama seeking to surround himself with armed men for the rest of his life while simultaneously working to disarm the American people via a gun control agenda that is likely to be enforced via executive decree represents the height of hypocrisy.

Is retarded shit like that, that has turned me on the whole gun thing. Along with the NRA and the gun manufacturers trying to get rich(er) off of the Sandy Hook shooting of those 20 kids.

johno wrote:

nafod wrote:

ecalpal wrote:Regardless of what happens, it doesn't matter what the law says when you're above it anyway.

The irony of Obama seeking to surround himself with armed men for the rest of his life while simultaneously working to disarm the American people via a gun control agenda that is likely to be enforced via executive decree represents the height of hypocrisy.

Is retarded shit like that, that has turned me on the whole gun thing. Along with the NRA and the gun manufacturers trying to get rich(er) off of the Sandy Hook shooting of those 20 kids.

Should Obama & ex-Presidents be protected by men with submachine guns? Yes.
Should Obama disarm the law-abiding citizens who pay for his protection? Hell no.


The NRA is simply maintaining the status quo while being beaten over the head with Sandy Hook.
Save your outrage for Lanza, first & foremost.
Then for the Media, endlessly dancing in the blood of children; and for the politicians pushing Junk Legislation in their lust for power & fame.

nafod wrote:

johno wrote:

nafod wrote:

ecalpal wrote:Regardless of what happens, it doesn't matter what the law says when you're above it anyway.

The irony of Obama seeking to surround himself with armed men for the rest of his life while simultaneously working to disarm the American people via a gun control agenda that is likely to be enforced via executive decree represents the height of hypocrisy.

Is retarded shit like that, that has turned me on the whole gun thing. Along with the NRA and the gun manufacturers trying to get rich(er) off of the Sandy Hook shooting of those 20 kids.

Should Obama & ex-Presidents be protected by men with submachine guns? Yes.
Should Obama disarm the law-abiding citizens who pay for his protection? Hell no.


The NRA is simply maintaining the status quo while being beaten over the head with Sandy Hook.
Save your outrage for Lanza, first & foremost.
Then for the Media, endlessly dancing in the blood of children; and for the politicians pushing Junk Legislation in their lust for power & fame.

Nobody is trying to take all of the guns. The status quote helped contribute to Sandy Hook, is fucked up, and needs to be changed. Last I checked Lanza is still dead, so i'll save my outrage for places where it can make a difference. Hollywood and media deserve abuse too. Your comment about politicians makes no sense, considering how many the NRA own and operate.

I wonder if the NRA and the gun manufacturers will give props to the Sandy Hook children for increased profits in their annual reports.

As a state senator in Illinois, President Obama opposed legislation providing an exception to handgun restrictions if the weapon was used in the defense of one’s home.

Just eight years earlier, in 1996, Obama answered “Yes” to a survey question asking whether he would support state legislation to “ban the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns.” The Obama 2008 presidential campaign claimed the form had been filled out by an aide who mischaracterized Obama’s position, even though Obama’s handwriting was found on survey.

DrDonkeyLove wrote:[What's emboldened above is the crux for me and I 100% disagree. I am completely convinced that progressives want a drastically or, preferably, totally disarmed society and are using Sandy Hook as a means to that political end. ... the Obama/Feinstein/Biden/Coumo/Bloomberg, et al crowd are relentless incrementalists who won't be satisfied until their goals are reached.

DrDonkeyLove wrote:Here's some info on Barack Chavez Obama's actual actions relating to gun control. Can't vouch for the veracity of the website

As a state senator in Illinois, President Obama opposed legislation providing an exception to handgun restrictions if the weapon was used in the defense of one’s home.

Just eight years earlier, in 1996, Obama answered “Yes” to a survey question asking whether he would support state legislation to “ban the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns.” The Obama 2008 presidential campaign claimed the form had been filled out by an aide who mischaracterized Obama’s position, even though Obama’s handwriting was found on survey.

nafod wrote:The status quote helped contribute to Sandy Hook, is fucked up, and needs to be changed.

johno wrote:

nafod wrote:The status quote helped contribute to Sandy Hook, is fucked up, and needs to be changed.

What law would realistically prevent a Sandy Hook type incident?

protobuilder wrote:

johno wrote:

nafod wrote:The status quote helped contribute to Sandy Hook, is fucked up, and needs to be changed.

What law would realistically prevent a Sandy Hook type incident?

An armed guard outside the only public entrance, who could see an adult approaching an elementary school with 2 assault rifles over his shoulders and a backpack.