Buy your assault weapons now

fivepointstar said:

I have a feeling gun sales will BOOM after tonight!!

Good call

Click to expand...

Exactly why im waiting to sell some of the collection that i was gonna put up for sale a few weeks back.

august1410 said:

What's an "assault weapon"?

Click to expand...

Its something other than a old shotgun, you wouldnt know one if you seen one.

Haides said:

Is there any danger of a ban coming through an executive order (not really sure how they work)? We all know how much Obama loves those...

Click to expand...

Some of us know... "we all" certainly do not.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/executiveorders.asp

booker said:

Some of us know... "we all" certainly do not.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/executiveorders.asp

Click to expand...

I'm not sure what you are trying to say, but the current POTUS has issued more than any previous POTUS, by a substantial amount. So, I would say that he does at least have a pretty substantial crush on them, although love may be a bit strong..


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_federal_executive_orders

HappyCamper said:

I'm not sure what you are trying to say, but the current POTUS has issued more than any previous POTUS, by a substantial amount. So, I would say that he does at least have a pretty substantial crush on them, although love may be a bit strong..

Click to expand...

What I'm saying is that Obama has not issued more than all previous Presidents, that is a myth. The WIKI list is incomplete, it even says so on the page.

For a complete and cited list, please go to http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/data/orders.php

If you ask my opinion, the number itself is meaningless. Many EOs are internal White House affairs, policy implementation, etc. Is it somehow "worse" that FDR issued 3522, whereas Truman was able to get away with only 907? No, it is entirely meaningless. How many times a head coach of a football team talks to his QB during a week of practice doesn't directly influence whether they win the game on Sunday. What is more important is what he says and how he says it.

Have you ever actually read an EO? Let's take a look at a couple..

Executive Order 13508 of May 12, 2009, Chesapeake Bay Protection and Restoration
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Executive_Order_13508

Executive Order 13513 of October 1, 2009, Federal Leadership on Reducing Text Messaging While Driving
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Executive_Order_13513

Executive Order 13625 of August 31, 2012. Improving Access to Mental Health Services for Veterans, Service Members, and Military Families
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Executive_Order_13625

Are any of those "excessive" use of EO power? Is this the President running amok in the White House, issuing orders with reckless abandon, and no regard for the people or the Constitution?

What if Obama had broken 13625 into three separate EOs.. one for Veterans, one for Active/Reserve Duty, and another for families. That would have added two EOs to his running total. Is that a bad thing? The substance of the EO(s) is the same, to help those who serve get mental health services.

Sure, there are some EOs that I don't like.. but calling out the raw number of signed documents (especially falsified numbers!) is flimsy political subterfuge.

booker said:

For a complete and cited list, please go to http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/data/orders.php

Click to expand...

Nice site. Learn something new everyday.

Tyeraxus said:

ATF's little corner of the regs is 27CFR. These are the implementing regulations for statutes involving alcohol, tobacco, firearms, and explosives, and ATF doesn't have to go to Congress to change them. For example, the machinegun ban, could morph into a de facto assault weapons ban by simply changing the definition of machinegun at 27CFR 479.11. At that point, unless Congress passed a statute specifically at odds with the new definition, ATF's regs would be deferred to by the court system.

Click to expand...

Dead wrong in this case. "Machinegun" is defined by statute: 26 USC 5845(b). Only Congress can change it.

The 1989 Bush AWB was based on an interpretation of something that is not defined by statute: "Particularly suitable for sporting purposes."

The 1994 Clinton AWB defined an AW by statute by means of a now expired amendment to the Gun Control Act of 1968.

booker said:

What I'm saying is that Obama has not issued more than all previous Presidents, that is a myth. The WIKI list is incomplete, it even says so on the page.

For a complete and cited list, please go to http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/data/orders.php

If you ask my opinion, the number itself is meaningless. Many EOs are internal White House affairs, policy implementation, etc. Is it somehow "worse" that FDR issued 3522, whereas Truman was able to get away with only 907? No, it is entirely meaningless. How many times a head coach of a football team talks to his QB during a week of practice doesn't directly influence whether they win the game on Sunday. What is more important is what he says and how he says it.

Have you ever actually read an EO? Let's take a look at a couple..

Executive Order 13508 of May 12, 2009, Chesapeake Bay Protection and Restoration
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Executive_Order_13508

Executive Order 13513 of October 1, 2009, Federal Leadership on Reducing Text Messaging While Driving
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Executive_Order_13513

Executive Order 13625 of August 31, 2012. Improving Access to Mental Health Services for Veterans, Service Members, and Military Families
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Executive_Order_13625

Are any of those "excessive" use of EO power? Is this the President running amok in the White House, issuing orders with reckless abandon, and no regard for the people or the Constitution?

What if Obama had broken 13625 into three separate EOs.. one for Veterans, one for Active/Reserve Duty, and another for families. That would have added two EOs to his running total. Is that a bad thing? The substance of the EO(s) is the same, to help those who serve get mental health services.

Sure, there are some EOs that I don't like.. but calling out the raw number of signed documents (especially falsified numbers!) is flimsy political subterfuge.

Click to expand...

I didnt say anything about the 9 hundred-some number, I already knew that wasn't true. Thanks for the links and the insight though. Appreciate you educating me rather than just calling me stupid or something

Didn't he seal documents related to fast & furious with an executive order though? (sorry for off topic)

Furious George said:

Dead wrong in this case. "Machinegun" is defined by statute: 26 USC 5845(b). Only Congress can change it.

The 1989 Bush AWB was based on an interpretation of something that is not defined by statute: "Particularly suitable for sporting purposes."

The 1994 Clinton AWB defined an AW by statute by means of a now expired amendment to the Gun Control Act of 1968.

Click to expand...

With the popularity of "3 Gun Nation" and modern shooting sports, that seems like it would be easily challenged in a court of law.

Haides said:

I didnt say anything about the 9 hundred-some number, I already knew that wasn't true. Thanks for the links and the insight though. Appreciate you educating me rather than just calling me stupid or something

Didn't he seal documents related to fast & furious with an executive order though? (sorry for off topic)

Click to expand...

No, I think the sealing of the documents were through Executive Privilege.

Yes, Obama backed Attorney General Holder's position that the documents should not be released to Congress, by using the Executive Privilege power given to the President. The statement to explain this move was that making the documents public “would have significant, damaging consequences.”

Were these consequences that would implicate Govt officials in a terrible scheme and cover-up? Or is it a consequence that would put field officers' lives in danger? Or a consequence that would put undercover officers' lives in danger? Or a consequence that would terminate (if not burn) agents within the Mexican cartels? Nobody except a handful of people knows, but I will say it would be a terrible tragedy if the latter is the case, and we had a repeat of the Valerie Plame incidence, where it is known without a doubt that the leak resulted in deaths abroad. It raises a broader question, about what secrets can/must our Govt keep to protect the lives and accomplish the mission, balanced with the citizens' right to know and transparency of Govt.

For the record on Executive Privilege, it has been invoked 24 times since President Reagan, including six by GWB and 14 by Clinton.

Furious George said:

Dead wrong in this case. "Machinegun" is defined by statute: 26 USC 5845(b). Only Congress can change it.

Click to expand...

I stand corrected, and thank you. The thrust of the post stands, though; regulations don't take an act of Congress and are implemented by the agency in question.

booker said:

Yes, Obama backed Attorney General Holder's position that the documents should not be released to Congress, by using the Executive Privilege power given to the President. The statement to explain this move was that making the documents public “would have significant, damaging consequences.”

Were these consequences that would implicate Govt officials in a terrible scheme and cover-up? Or is it a consequence that would put field officers' lives in danger? Or a consequence that would put undercover officers' lives in danger? Or a consequence that would terminate (if not burn) agents within the Mexican cartels? Nobody except a handful of people knows, but I will say it would be a terrible tragedy if the latter is the case, and we had a repeat of the Valerie Plame incidence, where it is known without a doubt that the leak resulted in deaths abroad. It raises a broader question, about what secrets can/must our Govt keep to protect the lives and accomplish the mission, balanced with the citizens' right to know and transparency of Govt.

For the record on Executive Privilege, it has been invoked 24 times since President Reagan, including six by GWB and 14 by Clinton.

Click to expand...

Wow. Thanks for all that. You guys are just a wealth of knowledge. lol.

Haides said:

Wow. Thanks for all that. You guys are just a wealth of knowledge. lol.

Click to expand...

My pleasure.

It is easy to forget that really, this is the manifestation of our three branches of government and a system of checks & balances between them. Just because Congress requests documents from the White House doesn't mean the White House has to comply. Just because the President appoints a Justice to the Supreme Court doesn't mean the Justice is forever (or ever at all) beholden to that President's political agenda. Just because Congress passes a bill into law doesn't mean the Supreme Court gives it a pass on Constitutionality. Does it happen that way? Sometimes.. but more often than not things tend to moderate over time and the two-party system pulls everyone to the middle, or absolutely nothing ever gets done. Or worse, the pendulum swings one way and then another, wasting scarce resources to undo everything the last guy did, put in the new stuff, only to have it dismantled again to start over. The old "good idea pinata," or as the Russians say, "Perfect is the enemy of good enough."

Does it work? Sometimes!

These points have been and are continually argued; for example, what makes the Supreme Court any better at determining Constitutionality than Congress? Are Justices better able to be apolitical because their appointments are for life? In the end there is no definitive argument, as it is all theory, and the way it plays out is dependent on people who are inherently unpredictable. Frankly, I think it comes down to putting trust in a majority of people making more good decisions than bad decisions, more than half of the time. Unfortunately, when Congress hasn't been able to come to a consensus lately they decide it's a good time to take a 30-day vacation. Whiskey Tango Foxtrot, over!?

booker said:

Whiskey Tango Foxtrot, over!?

Click to expand...

Hah. I read you, loud and clear

Katie Pavlich NAILS it ...

The author of Fast and Furious: Barack Obama's Bloodiest Scandal and the Shameless Cover-Up distills your election choice down to what really matters to us here on MDS.

What Does a Second Obama Term Mean for Gun Owners?

The effects of a second Obama term will reach far beyond the next four years and will have grave consequences for gun owners. If re-elected, Obama will have as many as three opportunities to place more anti-Second Amendment judges on the Supreme Court… for life. During his first term, he appointed Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor, both of whom, as you might expect, have staunch anti-Second Amendment records.

Click to expand...

Vote like your 2A Right depends on it.