Obama Administration Trying to Grab G...

Obama Administration Trying to Grab Guns Through Executive Order

There are 6 comments on the Free Republic story from May 10, 2013, titled Obama Administration Trying to Grab Guns Through Executive Order. In it, Free Republic reports that:

Remember when Senators Pat Toomey, Joe Manchin and Chuck Schumer formed an unholy alliance during the recent gun battle on Capitol Hill? Remember how their amendment would have encouraged your psychiatrist to turn you in to the FBI's gun ban list? And you remember how we stopped that provision, because over 40 senators found it to be odious and a ... (more)

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Free Republic.


“Shall NOT be infringed!”

Since: Apr 13

San Jose, CA.

#1 May 10, 2013
Obama would be committing treason by issuing such an order. For it is in direct violation of We The People's Constitution. And any officer attempting to carry out an UNCONSTITUTIONAL dictate would be just as guilty.

Open violation of our Constitution is legally just cause for rebellion:

"If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government ... The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms..."--Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers No. 28.

"The opinion of the Federalist has always been considered as of great authority. It is a complete commentary on our Constitution; and is appealed to by all parties in the questions to which that instrument has given birth. Its intrinsic merit entitles it to this high rank; and the part two of its authors performed in framing the constitution, put it very much in their power to explain the views with which it was framed..."--Chief Justice John Marshall, U.S. Supreme Court, Cohens v. Virginia (1821).

Huntsville, AL

#2 May 10, 2013
GunShow1 wrote:
liar trying to justify his terrorist leanings.


“Shall NOT be infringed!”

Since: Apr 13

San Jose, CA.

#3 May 10, 2013
Another wrote:
<quoted text>
liar trying to justify his terrorist leanings.
Your 'master' obummer want to be just like Lincoln was:

"The President has also violated that clause the Constitution of the United States which says that no money shall be drawn from the Treasury of the United States, except in consequence of appropriations by law. He has taken appropriations made by Congress for one purpose and applied them to another, in violation of law; and we are called upon to support that act of his which was subversive of the plainest principles, and the very letter of the Constitution, which he, and you, and I, have taken an oath to support.
"The Federal Constitution was originally framed without any bill of rights; but, sir, the people, jealous of power--our fathers, knowing the lust and love of power--had certain amendments put to that Constitution, in the nature of a bill of rights. The President of the United States has, since the adjournment of the last Congress, and prior to the commencement of the present session, violated the first, second, third, fourth, fifth, and sixth amendments to the Constitution.
"By the first amendment to that instrument, it is provided that Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition the Government for a redress of grievances; yet, sir, the President of the United States has, by his orders, limited the freedom of speech and of the press. Sir, a reign of terror exists to-day. Even in this city men dare not speak the honest sentiments of their hearts in regard to the acts the Administration. Men have been arrested all over this country without process of law, upon no other charge than that they had uttered seditious language. Where is your authority to a man for the utterance of seditious language? Is anything said of it in the Constitution of United States? Is there any law upon the statute-book that authorizes these unconstitutional usurpations by the Executive of the country? Sir, a warrant was issued a few days ago by a commander, backed by four hundred soldiers, who surrounded one of the printing presses of this country, and removed the types and stopped the issuing of that paper. Why? Because, as was said, it contained libels upon the soldiery of United States!
"The President has likewise violated the second amendment, which secures to the people the right to keep and bear arms. That right has been infringed. Arms, the private property of citizens, have, upon mere suspicion, been taken at the order of military commanders, and are now withheld from the citizens, whose property they are, and whose rights have thus been violated.

"A MEMBER. Where?

"Mr BURNETT. In my own State, in my own district, upon the soil of Kentucky, whose people have been loyal to this Government, and have done no act in derogation of their fealty to it. Yet the property of her citizens has been seized by military commanders, and is held today in violation of that clause of the Constitution which secures to the people the right to keep and bear arms.

- Rep. Henry C. Burnett, of Kentucky, July 16, 1861, U.S. House of Representatives, The Congressional Globe, Pgs. 150-151.

Huntsville, AL

#4 May 10, 2013
GunShow1 wrote:
<quoted text>
just pasting irrelevant spam everywhere


“Shall NOT be infringed!”

Since: Apr 13

San Jose, CA.

#5 May 10, 2013
Still wrote:
<quoted text>
just pasting irrelevant spam everywhere
Just proving that you treasonous freaks don't have a leg to stand on:

"We demand it according to law; we demand it upon the guarantees of the Constitution. You are bound to guaranty to us are republican form of Government, and we ask it as constitutional right. We do not ask you to interfere as a party, as your feelings or prejudices may be one way or another in reference to the parties of the country; but we ask you to interfere as a Government according to the Constitution. Of course we want your sympathy, and your regard, and your respect; but we ask your interference on constitutional grounds.
"The amendments to the Constitution, which constitute the bill of rights, declare that "a regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep bear arms shall not be infringed." Our people are denied this right secured to them in their constitution and the Constitution of the United States; yet we hear no complaints here of violations of the Constitution in this respect. We ask the Government to interpose to secure us this constitutional right."

- Senator Powell, July 27, 1861. The Congressional Globe, Pg. 296.(Lazarus W. Powell,(Oct. 6, 1812 July 3, 1867), was the 19th Governor of Kentucky, from 1851 to 1855. And later elected to represent Kentucky in the U.S. Senate from 1859 to 1865.


“Shall NOT be infringed!”

Since: Apr 13

San Jose, CA.

#6 May 11, 2013
Hey, democtat party HYPOCRITES.

Care to explain THIS?









The success of the Democracy essential for the preservation of the Union and the protection of the integrity of the Constitution



Mr. COLFAX. What is the date of that?

Mr. STEPHENS. Last November. Now ....

"... I will not go to the gentleman's State, or to any other gentleman's State, to find laws that I do not approve. We have plenty of them in my own State. And the gentleman ought to feel highly blessed if he has none in Indiana that he disapproves. We have a great many in Georgia I do not approve. There is one in particular which I fought in the legislature and opposed before the courts with all the power that I had. It was a law making it penal to bear concealed deadly weapons. I am individually opposed to bearing such weapons. I never bear weapons of any sort; but I believed that it was the constitutional right of every American citizen to bear arms if he chooses, and just such arms, and in just such way, as he chooses. I thought that it was the birthright of every Georgian to do it. I was defeated in our legislature. I was defeated before our courts. The question went up to the highest judicial tribunal in our State, the Supreme Court*, which sustained the law..." [*Nunn v. State, 1 Ga.(1 Kel.) 243 (1846).]

[Hon. Alexander H. Stephens, June 28, 1856, U.S. House of Representatives.(Mr. Stephens served as a U.S. Representative from Georgia,(before and after the Civil War). He was also Vice President of the Confederate States of America, and the 50th Governor of Georgia from 1882 until his death in 1883).]

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

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.

Law Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News White House will override Obama's climate plan 1 hr Into The Night 3,806
News Number of Minnesota adults without health insur... (Dec '14) 3 hr Seniors For Fairness 3
News Man Arrested for Threatening to Murder Rep. Sco... 5 hr Lawrence Wolf 3
News State Supreme Court won't review case of Long B... (Apr '10) 8 hr Cali 20
News Judge turns down embattled cops request to have... 8 hr Policing schenectady 4
News Car arson suspect also accused of bizarre, sex ... 11 hr Hands 2
News Powerful Photos Blast The Media's Portrayal Of ... (Aug '14) 12 hr lol 472