Impeach Obama over Executive Order Abuse

Impeach Obama over Executive Order Abuse

Posted in the Irvine Forum

First Prev
of 5
Next Last

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#1 Jan 15, 2013
There are currently many reasons why Obama should have never been allowed to reach the point of re-election but now the newest one is that he is threatening to infringe on your rights to keep and bear arms through executive order bypassing congress altogether. Call your Congressman, Senator...

Andy Barr KY6 US House
Rand Paul USKY Senator
Mitch McConnell US KY Senator

Proceedings must begin in the House of Representatives.
Ronald Reagan

Russell Springs, KY

#2 Jan 15, 2013
The Virg wrote:
There are currently many reasons why Obama should have never been allowed to reach the point of re-election but now the newest one is that he is threatening to infringe on your rights to keep and bear arms through executive order bypassing congress altogether. Call your Congressman, Senator...
Andy Barr KY6 US House
Rand Paul USKY Senator
Mitch McConnell US KY Senator
Proceedings must begin in the House of Representatives.
You are ignorant, no one is wanting to take away your guns, hunting rifles, shotguns, pistols. An assault rifle ban has been discussed along with other measures to enforce laws so that mentally impaired persons could not purchase guns.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#3 Jan 15, 2013
Ronald Reagan wrote:
<quoted text>You are ignorant, no one is wanting to take away your guns, hunting rifles, shotguns, pistols. An assault rifle ban has been discussed along with other measures to enforce laws so that mentally impaired persons could not purchase guns.
Shall not be infringed.... when you can understand what that means then get back with me...
nuthinfancey

Knoxville, TN

#4 Jan 15, 2013
just wait, it should be very interesting to see what biden comes up with....and that will just be the start..more executive orders.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#5 Jan 16, 2013
nuthinfancey wrote:
just wait, it should be very interesting to see what biden comes up with....and that will just be the start..more executive orders.
Id rather not wait
Blame

Irvine, KY

#6 Jan 16, 2013
Well wait you must. No one needs an assault rifle.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#7 Jan 16, 2013
Blame wrote:
Well wait you must. No one needs an assault rifle.
When I have a right to keep and bear arms... I do not need to express my need to you or anyone else. You are just yet another coward of the tyranny of this Unconstitutional Federal Government.
Blame

Irvine, KY

#8 Jan 16, 2013
The Virg wrote:
<quoted text>
When I have a right to keep and bear arms... I do not need to express my need to you or anyone else. You are just yet another coward of the tyranny of this Unconstitutional Federal Government.
We do have a right to keep and bear arms, I said no one needs an assault weapon.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#10 Jan 16, 2013
Blame wrote:
<quoted text>
We do have a right to keep and bear arms, I said no one needs an assault weapon.
If the government can have "assault weapons" then why not everyone else? Your understanding of the Second Amendment is flawed at best. The Second Amendment is about recognizing individual rights of citizens to decide best for themselves what it takes to maintain their sovereign individual freedom and independence from any threat including that from their own government.

“I been hangin' on every word.”

Since: Sep 10

Location hidden

#11 Jan 16, 2013
Ronald Reagan wrote:
<quoted text>You are ignorant, no one is wanting to take away your guns, hunting rifles, shotguns, pistols. An assault rifle ban has been discussed along with other measures to enforce laws so that mentally impaired persons could not purchase guns.
I have an assault rifle. It is a .22LR. But because it has a pistol grip, barrel shroud (you know, a "shoulder thing that goes up"), and an adjustable stock, not to mention a 25 round magazine, it is considered an assault rifle. The only school it could shoot up is a school of fish. Again. It is a .22 rifle. So why is it somehow more dangerous than my Taurus Judge--a 5-shot revolver that shoots SHOTGUN SHELLS and is perfectly acceptable under the assumed new laws.

If Obama is considering laws similar to the ones New York just passed, then my wife's 9mm would be illegal because it holds 8 rounds. Additionally, it is a "semi-automatic" meaning that she doesn't have to load a freaking wad, powder and lead ball into it every time she shoots--if she pulls the trigger, it fires. If she pulls the trigger again, it fires again.

Because you seem unintelligent enough to have no idea what you are talking about: What is an assault rifle in your opinion? What features does it have that make it more dangerous than, for example, my .38 revolver? Is it easy to conceal?(no.) Is it a machine gun?(no.) Do they generally fire extremely large calibers?(no.) Is it used in many crimes?(no. less than 1/2 of 1% of gun crimes)

So what is your point? Have you ever done ANY research at all?(the answer to this, again, is no.)

“I been hangin' on every word.”

Since: Sep 10

Location hidden

#12 Jan 16, 2013
Blame wrote:
<quoted text>
We do have a right to keep and bear arms, I said no one needs an assault weapon.
I don't need a Ferrari either. But if I have the money and am responsible enough to not hurt anyone with it, I have the right to own it because I FREAKING WANT TO you mindless waste of space.

Oh, but half of one percent of Ferrari owners are idiots and will commit crimes with it? Then punish that half of one percent. But get the hell away from me and my rights.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#13 Jan 16, 2013
There are no limitations on the weaponry listed in the second amendment and no further amendments have been passed to place limitations on weaponry.. Therefore its only logical to conclude that ALL Regulations on the weaponry that individual citizens could get a hold of are to be found unconstitutional and null and void. All an "assault rifle" is to sissies is any weapon that looks like the weapons that SWAT Teams and the Military would use. Its time that people start using their brains when deciding on what is right for a change instead of using their emotions. Not every tragedy requires action. Certainly not further action down the same path that has proven completely worthless and damaging.
ComeBackToTheLig ht

London, KY

#14 Jan 16, 2013
There's a fine line between 'treason' & a "well regulated Militia"....'WELL REGULATED' being the operative words, which is another name for our army. Relax, your services are not needed, unless you are as brave as you claim to be, and enlist. It appears that the two of you are unable to comprehend the logic or necessity behind the 2nd Amendment. But you're not alone, people like you are the reason other amendments were made for clarity, even as recent as the Supreme Court ruling on 'Heller'. The United States has not needed a Militia to defend our freedom since our Armed Forces became strong enough to defend ALL other country's freedom. Try to get out more or pick up a newspaper, read the news, watch the news, watch CSPAN, but turn off 'Alex Jones' & the NRA's 'Pepe Le Pew'. The NRA AND Alex Jones are extreemly disapproved of on this subject, having just a 11% approval.

Although posting what kind of guns and ammo you own, OBVIOUSLY gets you 'off', it just doesn't do 'it' for us. Isn't that kind of selfish, aren't you supposed to satisfy our partner 1st? You're missing the 'sweet spot', UGH.

Q: What is treason?
A: The betrayal of one's own country by waging war against it or by consciously or purposely acting to aid its enemies.

AND by the way, the Supreme Court has already had a ruling on 'gun control'(I know how that phrase hits a nerve BUT). apparently this is news to you all, here's even more recent than the 9th Amendment.

"Back in 2008, in a case called District of Columbia v. Heller, a narrow Supreme Court majority answered a question that had lingered for a long while: does the Second Amendment protect an individuals right to "keep and bear arms," or is it a collective right belonging to well-regulated militias?
Five conservative justices, going even further than the Bush administration's lawyers had expected, sided with the former, striking down DC's ban on handgun ownership. So, does that effectively rule out post-Newtown restrictions? Actually, no. As Adam Liptak recently explained, there's quite a bit of policy work that can be done between the status quo and the Heller ruling's limits.
Despite the sweeping language of a 2008 Supreme Court decision that struck down parts of the District of Columbia's strict gun-control law, the decision appears perfectly consistent with many of the policy options being discussed after the shootings in Newtown, Conn.
The courts have upheld federal laws banning gun ownership by people convicted of felonies and some misdemeanors, by illegal immigrants and by drug addicts. They have upheld laws making it illegal to carry guns near schools or in post offices. They have upheld laws concerning unregistered weapons. And they have upheld laws banning machine guns and sawed-off shotguns.
Looking ahead, Democratic policymakers seem to be focusing on banning high-capacity clips, improved background checks, and improved inter-agency information sharing related to gun crimes. Republicans may not like these ideas, there's nothing in the Supreme Court precedent that suggests such steps would be unconstitutional. Just the opposite is true.
Indeed, even in his Heller ruling, Antonin Scalia endorsed "longstanding prohibitions" on firearm ownership from felons and the mentally ill, guns in government buildings, limits on the commercial sale of guns, and bans on "dangerous and unusual weapons" including "M-16 rifles and the like

now about Obama illegaly' using 'Executive Orders' to sign something into law?..Oh MY goodness! read em and weep! Straight from the Federal Regester. & While you're at it, why not Google how your last TWO reoublican presidents felt about GUN CONTROL!

http://www.google.com/url...
really dear

United States

#15 Jan 16, 2013
Hey, Light-headed? Do you always plagiarize so voluminously? Shouldn't you be giving credit to those you stole most of your tirade from? Just sayin...
Web

Georgetown, KY

#16 Jan 16, 2013
I like how Light posted the ruling that specifically protected the right of the people to bear arms and claimed that it was a ruling that specifically did not protect the people's right to bear arms.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#17 Jan 16, 2013
I got news for you light.. the second amendment is not what defines the military.. article one section eight does that.. the second amendment is what recognizes the right of each individual the right to defend themselves from any threats. As far as treason goes.. Obama is guilty of providing military and financial aid to our enemies of hamas and al queda when he unilaterally decided to side step congress in allowing the UN access to our military resources in Libya.. also guilty of failing to provide security protection to our ambassador in Benghazi resulting in his death and others.. The list goes on...also Obama is potus now no one else.. Clinton was impeached for a blowjob what the hell else must Obama do to get impeached. Ive never seen so much cowardice in our congress and in people to fail to recognize when someone is doinv wrong and demanding redress.
John Rambo

Richmond, KY

#18 Jan 16, 2013
I wish we all just had a big ole shit load of guns and that we were all just renecking along blasting the hell out of one another because that's the rambo way of thinking around here.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#19 Jan 16, 2013
John Rambo wrote:
I wish we all just had a big ole shit load of guns and that we were all just renecking along blasting the hell out of one another because that's the rambo way of thinking around here.
Whatever!!

“Relax. Its just a ride.”

Since: Aug 09

Location hidden

#20 Jan 16, 2013
The Bill of Rights is a list things that the government is not allowed to do. Why would they randomly add in "Oh, yeah, the armies allowed to have guns"?
You know what? I could waste time typing this shit up or Penn and Teller could just explain it in like 90 seconds.

“Relax. Its just a ride.”

Since: Aug 09

Location hidden

#21 Jan 16, 2013
Kick Brass wrote:
<quoted text>
I have an assault rifle. It is a .22LR. But because it has a pistol grip, barrel shroud (you know, a "shoulder thing that goes up"), and an adjustable stock, not to mention a 25 round magazine, it is considered an assault rifle. The only school it could shoot up is a school of fish. Again. It is a .22 rifle. So why is it somehow more dangerous than my Taurus Judge--a 5-shot revolver that shoots SHOTGUN SHELLS and is perfectly acceptable under the assumed new laws.
If Obama is considering laws similar to the ones New York just passed, then my wife's 9mm would be illegal because it holds 8 rounds. Additionally, it is a "semi-automatic" meaning that she doesn't have to load a freaking wad, powder and lead ball into it every time she shoots--if she pulls the trigger, it fires. If she pulls the trigger again, it fires again.
Because you seem unintelligent enough to have no idea what you are talking about: What is an assault rifle in your opinion? What features does it have that make it more dangerous than, for example, my .38 revolver? Is it easy to conceal?(no.) Is it a machine gun?(no.) Do they generally fire extremely large calibers?(no.) Is it used in many crimes?(no. less than 1/2 of 1% of gun crimes)
So what is your point? Have you ever done ANY research at all?(the answer to this, again, is no.)
Im sorry. I can't hear you over awesomeness of my 80ish year old Mosin Nagant. Never mind that its a largely wooden bolt action rifle. It has a Bayonet lug so its an assualt rifle damnit! Never mind that it hasn't saw action since Berlin '45, its an assualt machine gun that fires baby-seeking bullets.
Wait a minute. Seriously, are Mosins EVER used for crime?! Is there a statistic for that?

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 5
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Irvine Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Dusty Reynolds (May '14) 2 hr Seen it 3
News Bible study rules for public schools proposed (Feb '10) 4 hr ChromiuMan 174,791
reliable and honest heating and cooling company... 14 hr Bob 6
Woman with bad acne 16 hr Normal 1
What to do in town on a friday night 20 hr Guy 1
Pigs Thu Racist 8
Nick Parsons Thu Wanted Man 1

Irvine Jobs

Personal Finance

Irvine Mortgages