Jacksonville Jaguars Fan Forums

Quote:Executive orders don't exist to ensure a President gets his way. They're designed--actually, they're not designed at all, more on that later--to facilitate the operations of the government itself rather than putting minute policies through Congress. The way Obama and Bush used them patently violated that ages-old understanding, and probably the Constitution itself.

 

Although it's hard to violate the Constitution when it doesn't specify anything, right? The concept of an "executive order" is not presented anywhere in the Constitution, and it's instead a slight override of the checks and balances system allowed by all parties as an administrative function. There's a pretty wide gulf between issuing an executive order that allows an office within the executive branch to add funding for a special project and issuing one that is Constitutionally questionable because the President knows it would never make it through Congress. The first check and balance on Presidential decisions is Congress. By removing that hurdle, he's taken his only check and balance to the court system, which could take years to push this through. During that time, the Second Amendment rights of Americans are being infringed upon.

 

IMO, what Obama did is nothing short of illegal. I agree with the sentiment behind it, maybe even the actions the order puts forward, but giving the President the ability to run roughshod over the Constitution when he doesn't feel like waiting for Congress to do its thing is an extremely dangerous precedent to set.

 

He's getting around it by saying, "Congress will get involved." While at the same time saying "We can't wait."

Quote:He's getting around it by saying, "Congress will get involved." While at the same time saying "We can't wait."

That's kind of a dictator move.

He also made reference to how China's (yes, the communist one) policy does a better job at protecting children than our own.

 

Also his executive action is looking into fingerprint scanners and GPS trackers for gun usage.

 

BEHOLD! THE GUNS OF THE PATRIOTS!

Quote:Actually the 2nd amendment has worked exactally as intended, name any other country in the history of the world that has never been overtaken by a foriegn nation and not subject to a dictator in its history.

Australia?


Also it's a sign that the USA is a relatively new country as you are probably talking about countries getting taken over before guns even existed

Quote:England?

 

Canada?

 

South Africa?

 

England through out history has dealt with many dictators in the forms of Monarchs but that's kind of the point of a 2nd amendment when a standing government becomes more of a dictatorship regime the populace has the ability to rise up. 

 

point taken on Canada, and wasn't South Africa dealing with a few dictators in its history? 

Quote:England?

 

Canada?

 

South Africa?

 

England - Oliver Cromwell

Quote:He also made reference to how China's (yes, the communist one) policy does a better job at protecting children than our own.

 

Also his executive action is looking into fingerprint scanners and GPS trackers for gun usage.

 

BEHOLD! THE GUNS OF THE PATRIOTS!

Ok, you and I disagree on the concept of registering guns being a prelude to seizing them, but the idea of using fingerprint scanners and GPS to locate any gun, anytime, is terrifying.

 

I can't wait for that man to leave office. Unfortunately, if the choices come down to Cruz, Trump, Clinton or Sanders, we're equally boned, just in creative new ways.

Quote:England - Oliver Cromwell

Debatable but again before your Constitution even existed.

Quote:If your talking significant will of the people, 80-90% of Americans are in favor of stricter gun laws.

Wasn't Ronald Reagan one of them?

Quote:Wasn't Ronald Reagan one of them?

 

Only for minorities, not for god-fearing white folks.

I think the real fear isn't that people will lose their guns or be put on a list. It's that they will be told they are not allowed to buy a gun because they are mentally unstable or unhealthy.


I agree this will not stop all gun violence, and that guns will still be readily available on the black market. But doing nothing when a raging problem clearly exists is insanity.

There's probably a fair few gun nuts who aren't totally there mentally...

Quote:Considering the sitting Congress during his entire tenure has been focused on undermining his every move and essentially being the least helpful/productive Congress any sitting president has ever had, you'd think he would have used it more.

 

The thing is, he's not acting on the will of the people, he's acting on his own accord.  That's not his job.

 

What's nice about executive action is that they can be pretty much erased by the next guy.  Rightfully so, if that happens.

 

The people, not the president (little p for proper respect) have been undermined for far too long.

 

Clinton is a good example of a President working with Congress for positive results.  My way or the highway, like the current admin demands, (especially when it's against the will and best interest - most importantly) isn't compromise.  Not even close.

Quote:I think the real fear isn't that people will lose their guns or be put on a list. It's that they will be told they are not allowed to buy a gun because they are mentally unstable or unhealthy.


I agree this will not stop all gun violence, and that guns will still be readily available on the black market. But doing nothing when a raging problem clearly exists is insanity.

 

LOL... the "doing nothing" argument.  The juvenile, glib go-to excuse for an "argument."

Quote:I think the real fear isn't that people will lose their guns or be put on a list. It's that they will be told they are not allowed to buy a gun because they are mentally unstable or unhealthy.


I agree this will not stop all gun violence, and that guns will still be readily available on the black market. But doing nothing when a raging problem clearly exists is insanity.

 

Just doing something because there is a problem is a poor argument. You have to do what is right, and restricting the 2nd amendment is not whats right. Rather than restricting people their second amendment rights, why not heavily subsidize research into mental illness? Actual research, not obamacare funding for more facilities, ACTUAL research, through universities as well as private and public institutions. This might help stop crazies from even considering the act of a mass shooting.

 

Want to significantly lower gun crime (since stopping mass shootings won't drop that statistic)? Get warrants for all the public housing projects and ghettos in the top 10 largest American cities then invade and confiscate all the illegal weapons. There is your something. Gun crime will drop HUGE percentage points overnight.

Quote:There's probably a fair few gun nuts who aren't totally there mentally...

 

So you can be nuts and all there mentally? Good to know.

So.. if you develop a rash. Then the skin breaks open. It gets infected. You develop bleeding sores.


You do nothing.

Quote:So.. if you develop a rash. Then the skin breaks open. It gets infected. You develop bleeding sores.


You do nothing.

 

You certainly don't amputate.

Did you even read the executive order? Or did someone tell you how you should react? How is what the order says comparable to amputation?

Quote:Did you even read the executive order? Or did someone tell you how you should react? How is what the order says comparable to amputation?

 

I don't need someone to tell me that anything the government does that restrict my rights requires my opposition.