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

The Emancipation Proclamation, while issued during wartime, had little to do with the military aspect of the Civil War. The other two (1941 and 1948) were not issued during a war.

 

haven't you heard? america's in perpetual war!

 

Just simply wrong.

Lend Lease (aka Act to Further Promote the Defense of the United States) was most certainly a military act to help the Allied nations (allies at war).

Desegregation of the military should of been voted on (not that I disagree with it obviously). To answer your question; No, it was not immoral to desegregate the military; Yes, it was immoral to do it with out congressional approval.

You seem to be unable to differentiate between the morality of the legislation and the morality by which the legislation came to exist.

 

No doubt on the tyranny aspect. I'm with you. Let the people decide. That is why I'm against the executive order thing. It's kinda funny how executive orders don't last long depending on the next President anyways..and as far as stockpiling,...too late. In a extremely low to almost no chance tyranny defense situation, winning may not be the goal, but you want to make it expensive for the government by having to rely on expensive technology and manpower which may not be so easily expendable.

Sure. The Supreme Court can and HAS overturn executive orders easily and more difficult: congress can overturn by a weird veto of expenditures/followed by overturn by Pres./ re-overturn by 2/3 majority congress scenario...or the other party President can very easily scrap the last Presidents executive order...

 

I think Glynch might have something to say about calling me a lefty, I am actually ambidextrous.

Anyway I have said this for awhile that the problem with the assault weapon ban was that it was mostly cosmetic and easily skirted.

Both.

And taxing cigarettes will only effect responsible smokers.

Ammunition is a consumable resource and therefore if we want to reduce the potential of gun violence given all of the guns out there I think it is better to address the easy access to that consumable resource. If your argument regarding responsible gun owners means that there will be black market ammunition that is why I also added the ingredients for making ammunition. As has been noted cigarette taxes have reduced smoking without a massive black market in cigarettes. Also regulating ammonia and ammonia based fertilizers has made it much more difficult to build bombs.

 

We need those who smoke and drink to pay more insurance which can adversely affect the children. Need more tobacco, and alcohol control. What we have is not enough.

 

I know you are but what am I? You can't just throw stuff out there unsupported. How am I wrong?

Yes, but the United States was not at war, which is kind of the whole point of the example.

If it was not immoral to desegregate the military but immoral to do it without congressional approval, is it moral to wait on desegregation for two decades or more before Congress would vote in favor? In this case, most people would say the greater moral imperative was desegregation and not congressional approval.

You seem to have a naive Schoolhouse Rocks view of how Congress works.

 

Smokers and heavy drinkers do pay higher insurance. I do see the dumb point you are trying to make though.

 

You mean like an Air Force and tanks? Why is it that when all the gun people let the tyranny fantasy take hold, they are being oppressed only by scrubby ground troops with similar weapons? If the feared future tyrant actually appeared, there would be little concern for collateral damage, so that fortified front door and ammo-stocked basement would just be blown up by the bomb dropped down your chimney.

The other problem with the tyranny defense is of course, who defines tyranny?

 

By responsible gun owners, I mean those who do not let their guns get easily stolen to be used in crimes or let their kids get a ahold of them and accidentally hurt someone. This is by far a bigger problem than mass shootings.

Tobacco and guns are not even remotely comparable. Tobacco use is addicting and most would prefer not to use it. Gun owners don't take several breaks during the day to fire off their guns.

A box of 20 9mm rounds can be bought for about $7-8.00. Even if you taxed it at 200% or about $25 for a box of 20, this will have very very little effect on crime. All it will do is stop the recreational shooters at the gun ranges from shooting.
Bobby Joe will still have his 9mm cocked and ready, hidden between his mattress, waiting for little jonny to find it and accidentally shoot his sister. Angry Mike will just put the ammo on his credit card, regardless of price, because he is about to go shoot up his workplace. He really doesn't care about the price of ammo, because he is going to kill himself when the authorities show up.

Taxing ammo is not going to solve anything unless you think the government can get away with charging $10-20 per round. I just do not think that is going to happen.

 

You can't just say I am wrong.... anyways it was issued under the authority of the commander-and-chief. It greatly crippled the rebellious states.

Morally, the thing to do would be to start your own country or win Congress (get the number of votes).


Where exactly are you drawing the line between when a president should bypass the peoples' representatives and when they shouldn't? You seem to be trying to compare abolition with legislation that limits ammo size. If you bypass Congress for this, why have a Congress at all? Lets just have one voted on king.........

 

How is it immoral to issue an executive order? It's something presidents have done since 1789, and it's a healthy part of the balance of powers.

Is it immoral for the Supreme Court to assert their authority over the decisions of a legislative body? They are tasked with doing so.

How about you create a new country where nobody issues executive orders, the Supreme Court doesn't exist to overrule issued executive orders that overstep the boundaries of constitutionality, and people don't make apocalyptic predictions of unconstitutional executive orders to ban the Second Amendment, set up a concentration camp system, and parade Glenn Beck around in a turkey outfit.

 

You are off your rocker. Give us a break, Doc Tal.

 

Tell that to the 11,000 people who were shot to death last year.

 

In other words. Tall is an asshat. What's new?

 

Sorry, just had to address this.

1. I think you completely misunderstand how lung cancer works. I'm no expert, but like most things in science, there is a statistical probability of developing cancer based on your genetics and behavior. Here, the behavior is cigarettes, but it is not true that *each* particle from a cigarette makes one lung cell divide improperly, creating a proto-tumor. Wrong. Some people will smoke literally tens of thousands of cigarettes and never get that cancer started (my 81-yr-old father-in-law, for starters.)
So smoking, in terms of risk, is a lot more like bullets than you intended.

2. It is silly to compare cigarettes or booze or other vices (designed for human pleasure) to guns (designed to kill/main other living things, and in the case of assault weapons, specifically to kill people.) Most people just find that absolutely silly. But even if we compare them, those other things have regulations.
What might be similar for smoking is the once-powerful cigarette companies compared to the NRA (i.e. the gun manufacturers.) Cigarette companies once fought tooth and nail to suppress research into smoking, just like the NRA has fought to prevent any study of gun violence. Guess who won the cigarette battle? Data won.

3. As to your percentage of harmful bullets, I can apply the same rationale to nuclear warheads, where the vast percentage have never hurt anyone. May I own one now, by your logic? I think the 2nd Amendment could call that an "arm."

4. Taxation affects everyone who purchases a taxed product. Responsible, irresponsible, etc. That's obvious.

There is more talk nationally of insurance, and I really think it's a good way to go. I hope it gets traction. Responsible gun owners (the ones we keep hearing about) would get great breaks on their insurance rates. Have proper training? Have a good gun safe? Don't live with mentally ill people? Don't have a criminal in your immediate family? GREAT -- each of those lowers your gun insurance.

And you're free to own a Bushmaster, but the liability rate is going to be higher on something that potentially deadly to many people when compared to a 20 gauge shotgun for squirrel hunting or what-have-you.

Peace, folks. I don't want to restrict my fellow citizens. I don't. But I don't want their zany hobbies to make a country where I have to strap up to feel safe.

PS -- LOL @ Biden using the "silver bullet" metaphor concerning gun violence yesterday. Whoops. "There is no silver hollow-point, home-machined bullet to solve this problem. Or, what I mean is..."

 

It was actually 9,500 annually from what I have read. Also, if you take yourself out of the drug trade, other illegal activities and hitting on somebody else's spouse, you take yourself out of about 60% of homicides in this country overall.

Knives accounted for almost 2,000 deaths last year in the US and hammers were used in about 400.

 

If you can take a break from trying trivialize our national disgrace of a gun problem by running the NRA playbook (love the smug b****y little implications above - couldn't have done better ) - question, do you have a gun at home? If so how do you deal with the fact that the risk of violent death in your house via homicide or suicide is many times more likely than those of us who only have hammer? That must make for an awkward family meeting!

FWIW- not that i feel like it right now, but your stats are probably bull**** and have misinterpretation all over them

 

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/AKjGFFUyC3M" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

 

I wasn't addressing simply lung cancer. There are more effects to smoking than just getting cancer. The study on tobacco use, the ones cigarette companies tried so hard to prevent, will tell you more about it. Every cigarette smoked effects someone in a detrimental manner, one way or another. And if you should manage to fine one case, or even a dozen that doesn't, it doesn't make the point less valid.

Neither needed massive amounts of data and research to prove their point. The only people who needed data and research that tobacco is bad for people are the lawyers trying to sue the tobacco companies.
The same applies to guns. We already have massive amounts of research on the subject and the liberal and media's solution is to ban "mean looking" weapons.
I recognize we have a gun problem, but banning "mean looking" weapons and taxing ammo isn't going to fix very much. Its very insulting to the 27 people who died at Sandy Hook to imply that if AR15's were banned, they would still be alive today. Its just as insulting to those at Virginia Tech that the solution that could have prevented their deaths was to ban weapons that was not even used in that shooting.

Using hyperbola as an example is not a valid point in a debate. Nobody is suggesting ownership of WMD's or heavy artillery is protected by the 2nd amendment.

Affects by taking money out of their pocket and giving to the government? Yes.
Reducing gun violence? Very very slight, if none at all.
If you really think applying a 100% tax rate on ammo is going to stop massacres, you're clearly misguided. Again, if someone is going to commit suicide, they really don't care how much ammo costs.
In the last 3 months, ammo has gone up 50-100% and its selling out immediately.

Requiring gun owners to have gun insurance?? Insurance against what? I think you mean gun tax.
And before you can have a gun tax, or a nonsensical "gun insurance", it first requires a law that everyone must register their gun. I'll mentally file that under "LOL HAHAHA". If the government could have done that, it would have been done a long time ago.

Serious solutions?
For mass shootings: Direct gun control will have little affect. The exception is magazine capacity. The "happy" number seems to be 10. I would go as low as 6. I am also not opposed to making magazine loading cumbersome. Mental health is the key issue here though. The reality is that if someone wants to kill, they can find an easy way to do it, even if it means running their car into a big group of people.

For the more serious issues: Accidental deaths, robberies, murders, ect...

-Magazine capacity as mentioned
-All guns must be kept in a durable safe at all times. (exception are shotguns and concealed carry permits). Owners are responsible for their guns whereabouts. If a gun is lost or stolen, the gun owner should be held responsible (because it should be in a safe).
-Concealed carry permits should be renewed every quarter and their permit should list any handgun on their permit that can be unsecured (on their person). Only one handgun can be unsecured at a time.
-Requiring 3 day waiting period on all sales of firearms and ammo.

The reality is that guns are here to stay for a long time to come. They are protected by the constitution. Its better to pass legislation that can save the lives of hundreds, if not thousands of non newsworthy deaths than pass feel-good legislation that does very little. Placing more restrictions and responsibilities on careless/uneducated/negligent owners will force those gun owners to either become more responsible or force them to get rid of them altogether.