New NY Gun law to pass today. Run for the hills!! lol

[Dubya]

All sounds good. Which part is bad?

The part where we are ruled by a king, instead of governed by a Republic.

You really woudn't understand.

Oh, poor widdles Nosense wasn't consulted on Presidential business....

Tell me what part of the Constitution he has broken? Chapter and verse. Tell me what he done that is illegal. And I don't mean what in your OPINION is illegal, but what actually IS illegal. Again, there is a difference...

Are you nuts? You can't ask a gun nut about the Constitution, they don't have a clue.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Oh, poor widdles Nosense wasn't consulted on Presidential business....

Tell me what part of the Constitution he has broken? Chapter and verse.

{Article. I.
Section 1.

All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives. }

Seriously, stick to shagging sheep - you have a gross total of zero knowledge regarding the American system of law and government.

Tell me what he done that is illegal. And I don't mean what in your OPINION is illegal, but what actually IS illegal. Again, there is a difference...

See above.

 

[Dr Grump]

Well they are all for gun control, now let go for abortion control..

You'll see these same people screaming how it's a woman choice and how dare you..

I hope obama goes after Free Speech next

He went after freedom of religion last year. Unauthorized speech will be very soon.

Notice how the LAWS dictated by King Obama included provisions to deny health care to gun owners?

16. Clarify that the Affordable Care Act does not prohibit doctors asking their patients about guns in their homes.

Well, it's taken a while, but now I can put you in the same box as Oddball:
A certifiable conspiracy theorist loon.....

 

[Uncensored2008]

No, they did not say that in Australia at all. They were quite up front. What they said they were going to do, they did.

Again, you're big on conjecture, little on fact.....

Bullshit. You know that's a fucking lie. The authorities SWORE they had no intention of disarming the law abiding - until they turned around and did it.

 

[Dubya]

Oh, poor widdles Nosense wasn't consulted on Presidential business....

Tell me what part of the Constitution he has broken? Chapter and verse.

{Article. I.
Section 1.

All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives. }

Seriously, stick to shagging sheep - you have a gross total of zero knowledge regarding the American system of law and government.

Tell me what he done that is illegal. And I don't mean what in your OPINION is illegal, but what actually IS illegal. Again, there is a difference...

See above.

All presidents beginning with George Washington in 1789 have issued orders which in general terms can be described as executive orders.

Source: Executive order - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Uncensored2008]

Let me guess...when you were in grade school, your report card was marked "F" for "reads with understanding."

Let me guess, when you wrote an essay on your personal hero, you chose Pol Pot.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Well, it's taken a while, but now I can put you in the same box as Oddball:
A certifiable conspiracy theorist loon.....

So, the 23 executive orders (dictated laws) put forth by Obama are just some wild conspiracy theory?

ROFL

 

[Uncensored2008]

All presidents beginning with George Washington in 1789 have issued orders which in general terms can be described as executive orders.

Source: Executive order - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

When you turn 11 next year, you may grasp the distinction between orders to agencies that report to the executive branch, and laws created without acts of the legislature.

 

[sfcalifornia]

When they hardly know the difference between their ass and hole in the ground, I doubt they could comprehend something so analytical.

Dude, you're from San Francisco. Do you even know the difference between your ass and the dick being shoved up it at this moment?

Come on, as a fascist fucktard, what is your ultimate desire concerning firearms and the peasantry? You know you want the peasants disarmed, I know you want the peasants disarmed...

Were you thinking of me when you were cleaning your rifle this morning? Seems you've got a lot more on your mind than just guns today.

I'll settle for looney-fucking-toons like you to at least live with sensible gun restrictions.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Were you thinking of me when you were cleaning your rifle this morning?

Why would I clean a rifle this morning? It's a work day.

Look, you're a leftist - ergo stupid as a brick. Guns are cleaned after they're fired. People don't clean them just because..

Seems you've got a lot more on your mind than just guns today.

I have civil liberties on my mind, just as you have the revocation of civil rights on your mind.

I have the continuation of a free republic on my mind, just as you have the continued establishment of an authoritarian dictatorship on your mind.

I'll settle for looney-fucking-toons like you to at least live with sensible gun restrictions.

I doubt it. I suspect you'll settle for nothing less that iron fisted domination of those you view as commoners.

Standard Disclaimer: Damn, I said "fisted," now you're going to get all horny and run off to a bath house begging a random strranger to go elbow deep on you....

 

[Dr Grump]

No, they did not say that in Australia at all. They were quite up front. What they said they were going to do, they did.

Again, you're big on conjecture, little on fact.....

Bullshit. You know that's a fucking lie. The authorities SWORE they had no intention of disarming the law abiding - until they turned around and did it.

Links please. Take your time....

 

[Dr Grump]

When you turn 11 next year, you may grasp the distinction between orders to agencies that report to the executive branch, and laws created without acts of the legislature.

Oh, so now they are laws are they? Are you sure about that....

 

[Uncensored2008]

Links please. Take your time....

You don't need links, since i've given them to you before. The National government swore to the public that the buy backs were voluntary and would not be coerced. They lied - flat out.

Further, the bans have done nothing to lower crime.

{ In 2006, assault rose 49.2 percent and robbery 6.2 percent.
Sexual assault -- Australia's equivalent term for rape -- increased 29.9 percent.
Overall, Australia's violent crime rate rose 42.2 percent.

Moreover, Australia and the United States -- where no gun-ban exists -- both experienced similar decreases in murder rates:

Between 1995 and 2007, Australia saw a 31.9 percent decrease; without a gun ban, America's rate dropped 31.7 percent.
During the same time period, all other violent crime indices increased in Australia: assault rose 49.2 percent and robbery 6.2 percent.
Sexual assault -- Australia's equivalent term for rape -- increased 29.9 percent.
Overall, Australia's violent crime rate rose 42.2 percent.
At the same time, U.S. violent crime decreased 31.8 percent: rape dropped 19.2 percent; robbery decreased 33.2 percent; aggravated assault dropped 32.2 percent. }

AUSTRALIA: MORE VIOLENT CRIME DESPITE GUN BAN

 

[Uncensored2008]

Oh, so now they are laws are they? Are you sure about that....

Dunno, will they be enforced against the general population by the federal government?

If so, they are laws.

 

[Dr Grump]

Links please. Take your time....

You don't need links, since i've given them to you before. The National government swore to the public that the buy backs were voluntary and would not be coerced. They lied - flat out.

Further, the bans have done nothing to lower crime.

{ In 2006, assault rose 49.2 percent and robbery 6.2 percent.
Sexual assault -- Australia's equivalent term for rape -- increased 29.9 percent.
Overall, Australia's violent crime rate rose 42.2 percent.

Moreover, Australia and the United States -- where no gun-ban exists -- both experienced similar decreases in murder rates:

Between 1995 and 2007, Australia saw a 31.9 percent decrease; without a gun ban, America's rate dropped 31.7 percent.
During the same time period, all other violent crime indices increased in Australia: assault rose 49.2 percent and robbery 6.2 percent.
Sexual assault -- Australia's equivalent term for rape -- increased 29.9 percent.
Overall, Australia's violent crime rate rose 42.2 percent.
At the same time, U.S. violent crime decreased 31.8 percent: rape dropped 19.2 percent; robbery decreased 33.2 percent; aggravated assault dropped 32.2 percent. }

AUSTRALIA: MORE VIOLENT CRIME DESPITE GUN BAN

Because it's a whackjob site that doesn't back up its assertions with hard data.

That aside, you have changed the subject. You stated that the Australian Govt said it was going to do one thing, but did another. Your unreliable link has nothing to do with that...

 

[jillian]

All presidents beginning with George Washington in 1789 have issued orders which in general terms can be described as executive orders.

Source: Executive order - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

When you turn 11 next year, you may grasp the distinction between orders to agencies that report to the executive branch, and laws created without acts of the legislature.

an executive order is tantamount to a regulation. something like tightening background checks to facilitate something that already exists would fall within something appropriate for an executive order. an executive order saying certain guns are no longer legal, it seems, would fall into a catagory where an executive order would not be appropriate. wouldn't you think that if an order is improperly issued, it would be challenged in court and ultimately reviewed by the supremes? an executive order wouldn't be permitted to violate the constitution any more than an act of congress would. no?

 

[sfcalifornia]

Were you thinking of me when you were cleaning your rifle this morning?

Why would I clean a rifle this morning? It's a work day.

Look, you're a leftist - ergo stupid as a brick. Guns are cleaned after they're fired. People don't clean them just because..

Seems you've got a lot more on your mind than just guns today.

I have civil liberties on my mind, just as you have the revocation of civil rights on your mind.

I have the continuation of a free republic on my mind, just as you have the continued establishment of an authoritarian dictatorship on your mind.

I'll settle for looney-fucking-toons like you to at least live with sensible gun restrictions.

I doubt it. I suspect you'll settle for nothing less that iron fisted domination of those you view as commoners.

Standard Disclaimer: Damn, I said "fisted," now you're going to get all horny and run off to a bath house begging a random strranger to go elbow deep on you....

Cleaning your rifle is the only way you'll ever get any.

It's always the ones who talk about sex the most who want it the most and get it the least.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Because it's a whackjob site that doesn't back up its assertions with hard data.

The National Center For Policy Analysis, a nationally recognized "think tank" is a "whackjob site?"

ROFL

Not that you had any credibility to start with.

That aside, you have changed the subject. You stated that the Australian Govt said it was going to do one thing, but did another. Your unreliable link has nothing to do with that...

Yes I did, and I've given you links on it before.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Cleaning your rifle is the only way you'll ever get any.

It's always the ones who talk about sex the most who want it the most and get it the least.

The irony level is off the chart...

 

[Dubya]

All presidents beginning with George Washington in 1789 have issued orders which in general terms can be described as executive orders. During the early period of the Republic there was no set form with which such orders were required to comply and consequently such orders varied widely as to form and substance.[6] Until the early 1900s, executive orders went mostly unannounced and undocumented, seen only by the agencies to which they were directed. However, the Department of State instituted a numbering scheme for executive orders in 1907, starting retroactively with an order issued on October 20, 1862, by President Abraham Lincoln. The documents that later came to be known as "Executive Orders" probably gained their name from this document, captioned "Executive Order Establishing a Provisional Court in Louisiana."[4]

Until 1952, there were no rules or guidelines outlining what the president could or could not do through an executive order. However, the Supreme Court ruled in Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 US 579 (1952) that Executive Order 10340 from President Harry S. Truman placing all steel mills in the country under federal control was invalid because it attempted to make law, rather than clarify or act to further a law put forth by the Congress or the Constitution. Presidents since this decision have generally been careful to cite which specific laws they are acting under when issuing new executive orders.

Wars have been fought upon executive order, including the 1999 Kosovo War during Bill Clinton's second term in office. However, all such wars have had authorizing resolutions from Congress. The extent to which the president may exercise military power independently of Congress and the scope of the War Powers Resolution remain unresolved constitutional issues, although all presidents since its passage have complied with the terms of the Resolution while maintaining that they are not constitutionally required to do so.

Source: Executive order - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia