Like a dictator, Obama threatens unprecedented gun control by executive order

I think if you were truly being objective, you would recognize that you answered your own question regarding the definition of "obstructionist" in your response; but I'll spell it out for you: without the obstructionist segment of the GOP, these measures would pass without a problem.

 

What a dishonest answer on your part. Obstructionist would be what the Republicans do when they come in favor of something, but as soon as Obama agrees with them, they change their mind and try and block that exact same thing.

I see why, with your political leanings, you'd want to leave that part out, but nobody is falling for it, Dr. Tal

 

You keep saying obstructionist. What you mean is representatives who disagree (presumably so do their constituents or else they would be voted out of office). You don't get to bypass the people's representatives because you don't like how they will vote (war time exceptions). That's anti-democracy. There are plenty of dictatorships you might find more suitable to live in than democratic America.

 

No kidding. Let the people as represented decide...the power is in the people's hands by those we elect. Vote as you please. The power is yours..doing otherwise would be against the processes that make this country great...

 

No, what he means is representatives who disagree for purely political purposes and also because they are under the influence of groups who strongly benefit from the status quo. It's really not difficult at all, you're just choosing to not get it.

 

If they are going against their constituents wishes for the sake of satisfying some third party or out of spite for the president, then why don't their constituents vote them out? Seems to me they are voting how their constituents want and that's why they are getting re-elected. Democrats disagree with Republican's constituents and wish to bypass them so they concoct some 'obstructionist' story to justify giving the peoples' representatives no say.

 

Because they are also going with their constituents wishes. It's just they switch their positions based on which way the president goes. We've seen it time and time again.

 

What is truly disgusting in the ongoing obfuscation and obstruction of progress on this issue is that, for some, protecting and saving the lives of our sons and daughters is apparently secondary to protecting gun rights. Disgusting.

 

Those people, for right or wrong, think your gun laws wouldn't save lives of sons and daughters. You don't get to deny them representation because you disagree with them.

 

Do you agree with "those people?"

And if you do, you don't think that, at the very least, certain gun restrictions (like an assault weapons ban or limits on magazine sizes) would save any lives?

 

Some things I agree, some I don't. I would never advocate them being denied representation (war time exceptions).

 

Good list. The one part though that I would change is in regard to reinstating the ban on military style assault weapons. One thing I will agree with the pro-gun side is that the assault weapons ban wasn't that good because it mostly dealt with appearance than function. I would tailor it more to deal with function.

I would also add much higher taxes on ammunition and the ingredients for making ammunition. In this regarding Chris Rock is correct and as Sam Fisher notes raising cigarette taxes has helped to lower smoking. Regard to the ingredients we already regulate things like ammonia and ammonia based fertilizer.

 

Keep in mind we just had an election that returned Obama with a fairly comfortable margin. Anyway as I've said before if you want to protect yourself from tyranny the far more practical way to do it is through the ballot than with the bullet. You would be much better served by spending your money on donating to public interest groups and campaigning than stocking up on guns and ammo in your basement.

As far as the original topic it is within the Constitutionally granted powers of the Presidency, who again we just reelected, to make executive decisions. If such decisions are unconstitutional they can be challenged in court and even if they aren't they can be overturned by Congress with legislation.

 

At times, sure. FDR's Lend-Lease helped stymie the Nazis when the Congress would not have authorized anything. Was that immoral?

How immoral was the Emancipation Proclamation?

Truman's desegregation of the military?

 

war-time orders. Addressed that many times....

 

As long as we're making lists, and if a gun is potentially just as harmful as a car, why not require gun liability insurance?

Responsible drivers have to have insurance to fit within the law. I would like gun owners to have a similar requirement to cover any damages or injuries that occur when they or anyone in their family is operating the gun.

 

LOL.

Lincoln, FDR, & Truman.... all DIKTATERZ!!!

 

Ahh finally lefties are starting to see the absurdity on gun control

Are you advocating that you would like to see less guns fired? Or just simply for revenue generation?

100% of tobacco smoked harms someone. Less than .001% of bullets fired harm anyone. Taxation will only effect the responsible gun owners.

 

No, despite what gunclowns may believe, making guns & ammo more expensive to acquire will necessarily decrease the supply of guns & ammo - this is a good thing for everybody, in every possible case.

 

Yea then why would they still use guns? Lets buy everyone a smoke and the war is over.

See the difference now? It takes years for a smoker to die from smoking related illnesses but it takes seconds for victim to die from a gunshot.

Thats why police equip guns not cigarettes.