Biden On Guns: Executive Order Is On The Table

[DonViejo]

Source: TPM

Biden On Guns: Executive Order Is On The Table

IGOR BOBIC 12:09 PM EST, WEDNESDAY JANUARY 9, 2013

Prior to meeting with gun victims and safety groups on Wednesday, Vice President Joe Biden said that a White House commission on gun violence was weighing all available means to reform laws in the wake of the Newtown, Conn. mass shooting -- including executive orders the President may issue in addition to legislative remedies already sought.

"The president is going to act," Biden said. "Executive order, executive action that can be taken, we haven't decided what that is yet. But we're compiling it all with the help of the attorney general and all the rest of the cabinet members as well as legislative action, we believe, is required."

Biden is scheduled to meet with gun owners and representatives of the National Rifle Association, the country's powerful gun lobby, on Thursday. Mark Glaze, director of Michael Bloomberg’s Mayors Against Illegal Guns, told TPM last week that Biden's taskforce may present its recommendations to the President even earlier than expected.

“We had been led to believe their report would come by end of January, but we’re hearing they may want to have something out by January 15, even quicker than expected," he said.

Watch the video:

-30-

Read more: http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/biden-on-guns-executive-order-is-on-table?ref=fpa

[Kingofalldems]

1. K and R for all the Alex Jones fans

[Pachamama]

42. K and R of the Alex Jones Fans n/t

[freshwest]

81. Okay, then, just for them:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/101790764#post2

The OP proves Alex was right on Piers Morgan. The evil government is gonna take our gunz and kill us. Everyone's free cellphones are in the mail:



Tune in to the Glenn Beck Show to find out the solution to the coming NWO Obama Deception Police State FEMA Camp Georgia Guidestones End Game.

Wait, those are part of the Alex Jones film series. Okay, we can forget Glenn Beck then.

Apply and liberally as needed.

[TheProgressive]

2. I have a problem with issuing 'executive orders' on this...

I think this is a slipper slope kind of action. We already have Obama saying he can
assassinate any American along with Congress/President laws that violates the 4th amendment.

The solution is for a bill to be presented, Congress votes, and the President signs...

I welcome discussion on my point of view...

[mac56]

3. Discussion? okay.

"We already have Obama saying he can assassinate any American along with Congress/ President laws that violates the 4th amendment."

What are you referring to here?

[TheProgressive]

10. Anwar al- Awlaki

There are many sources for this: The Atlantic, New Yorker, HuffPo

[EC]

15. Didn't he renounce his citizenship and

join al quada? He was also declared an enemy combatant already by the previous administration.

[TheProgressive]

21. Type this in your Internet Search 'obama can assassinate americans'

This will help with the basic info...

[didact]

108. lol...that search should get you targeted.

[Comrade_McKenzie]

24. Yeah, American citizens that don't associate with terrorists are safe. nt

[demwing]

27. Define "terrorist"

not your personal definition, but a legal one that protects non-terrorists from assassination.

[Comrade_McKenzie]

99. I'm not paranoid enough to believe the government is targeting the average Joe...

And frankly, I care more about domestic policy.

My only complaint with foreign policy is when it siphons funds away from domestic policy.

I have no moral qualms about drone strikes or military intervention, but I understand why others do.

It's a realization to which I've slowly come over the past few weeks.

[Ash_F]

58. Let's just throw away due process and the Geneva conventions while we're at it.

"IF YOU ARE NOT A TERRORIST YOU GOT NOTHING TO WORRY ABOUT WHAT YOU GOT SOMETHING TO HIDE???!"

I swear this site sometimes...

[Comrade_McKenzie]

100. I understand your frustrations. Please read my reply above.

I'm completely indifferent to this issue.

[Ash_F]

102. Your lack of qualms comes from ignorance

of the political situation in the countries in which these killings are occurring. The US is taking sides in a partisan struggle, not fighting a war. These are political killings.

If they followed due process, they would find most of their bombings unjustifiable. So they don't.

[Akoto]

4. The problem there is ...

... if you rely upon Congress to do something about the issue, what you can probably expect is a token gesture (if anything). Too many representatives are in the pockets of the NRA or others involved with the industry.

Look at Congress on any other issue. It's deadlocked on even the most reasonable of bills, simply for the sake of obstructing them. You think significant gun control legislation has a chance of making it through? I doubt it. That's problematic in light of the fact that such laws could save some lives.

(PS Edit: The anti-Obama potshot really does not benefit you from a point of wanting to discuss things.)

[TheProgressive]

11. Since when is telling the truth a 'pot-shot'?

We are well aware of how Congress sucks. But an executive order on this could be damaging
on many levels.

And, on the pot-shot:

The more Americans rely on the truth - the better America becomes.

It started with Bush and it is continuing. Americans have to stop this
serious violation of our Constitution. And I don't care *who* is president.

[WeekendWarrior]

49. But therein lies the problem.

What is "the truth?" and why do you think you have a channel into it?

[TheProgressive]

50. Let me re-phrase... these are 'facts'...

Anything else?

[WeekendWarrior]

53. But whose facts?

Facts can be cherry picked and manipulated. I'd wager that 90% of what we see as the so-called "facts" is merely someone's version of them.

[TheProgressive]

62. What facts are you questioning?

And, can you prove your wager of 90 percent? Isn't that just blowing smoke?

[graham4anything]

5. Obama should executive order that all legal guns are WMD & treat them like terrorists are treated

[mpdog]

33. Executive Order

Sure.. Lets do away with the First Amendment as well.. We certainly don't want people with opposing views to be able to voice them..

[brew987]

48. I see what you're saying

This is the USA right? We have checks and balances to prevent a dictatorship. Just because you agree or don't agree with something doesn't mean you can just ignore our constitution and do what you want.

[Mojorabbit]

80. This site is getting way out there lately

I can't believe some of the stuff I am reading. Just a couple of weeks ago someone was posting how they did not care if they were being spied on. Most of this board would gladly do away with the second amendment, don't care if we are dong away with habeas corpus, and now want to give the President more power. That will work out well when we have our next republican president. I am just appalled at some of what I am reading lately. Maybe I am just getting old but never in a million years when I was a kid in the 50s and early 60s did I think we would come to this with even some on the left advocating for drug testing of fellow citizens and all of the above.

[Ashgrey77]

86. +1 n/t

[mpdog]

93. Sarcasm

My post was meant as sarcasm.. Sorry I did not tag it as such.. The way the sheep have been giving away rights for the last 20 yrs I can see how my post could be perceived as serious..

[graham4anything]

63. My first amendment right is violated by some stupid ass reading of 2nd by corrupt court

[NutmegYankee]

75. So you'll just say screw the rule of law?

All because you don't get your way? Come on, we're adults here - we change laws via the process. Look at all of the violent action taken by the anti-choice movement against providers of abortion. Their sole justification is that they disagree with the Court ruling and think it should be illegal. So they justify in their minds the harassment and terror they inflict on those providing or receiving abortion services.

We are better than them!

[graham4anything]

90. all we need is a new interpretation by a different court-by end of Hillary45, in 2025

we shall get that ruling.

this has nothing to do with privacy, as gun folk want people to know they have a gun
as they think it's protection, same way people who have alarms plaster their windows with stickers that the house is wired, therefore they want publicity, making it not a privacy issue as gun folks don't want privacy, they want their itchy twitchy fingers on their guns,to protect htemselves, and are Tres Vocal about it

the NRA folk are getting desparate needing to hide behind woman's choice, aren't they?

[mpdog]

95. Rights

The courts interpretation of the 2nd Amendment has absolutely no effect on your freedom of speech..

[graham4anything]

96. yes, a gun stops me from breathing

[NutmegYankee]

110. For someone who has stopped breathing...

You seem to type just fine.

[onehandle]

7. Well, if 'TheProgressive' sez so... nt

[TheProgressive]

13. I appreciate your deep and thoughtful comment...(?)

[Xithras]

28. It will be interesting to see what he can do. The scope of Executive Orders is limited.

They can only be used to define (or refine) powers already delegated to the Executive branch by Congress. Harry Truman famously tried to nationalize steel mills during the Korean War by an Executive Order. That led to Youngstown vs. Sawyer, in which the Supreme Court ruled that the attempt was illegal, because Congress had not passed any laws giving the President authorization to seize or control private property that way.

The President could NOT, for example, issue an order seizing all guns, or instituting new taxes on guns, because those powers are not given to him or are reserved for Congress. However, the BATF and FBI are under the Executive, and Congress HAS given them powers to implement background checks and register some types of firearms. The President COULD potentially implement an Executive Order that expanded these, so long as his order didn't try to override any existing laws.

He certainly has some room to work within the confines of his existing powers, so it will be interesting to see what the White House can come up with.

[TheProgressive]

36. Thanks for your thoughtful input...

This is what my concern is. Executive powers is limited in this instance and great
care must be taken. Overstepping this power could be very detrimental for this, the gun
case, but for other cases as well.

My point is the Obama and all presidents must take careful consideration on
executive orders.

[CitizenPatriot]

46. what executive order are you referring to where he

can kill people?

Just wondering. I know he issued a signing statement clarifying NDAA language (in the opposite direction, btw). But a signing statement is not an EO. Link please.

[TheProgressive]

47. Not an executive order...

Please see my post #21

[CitizenPatriot]

65. It would be more helpful if you make a claim

that you explain it if you're not going to link to it.

[TheProgressive]

70. Here ya go...

The search I did: http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=obama+can+assassinate+americans&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8

Then,

http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/eric-holder-yes-we-can-kill-american-citizens-without-trial/

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/03/05/10585197-holder-us-can-legally-kill-americans-in-terror-groups?lite

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2011/12/constitutional-expert-president-obama-says-that-he-can-kill-you-on-his-own-discretion-he-can-jail-you-indefinitely-on-his-own-discretion.html


http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/10/the-secret-memo-that-explains-why-obama-can-kill-americans/246004/

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/comment/2012/08/kill-or-capture.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/05/us-targeted-killings-eric-holder_n_1320515.html

I hope this helps...

[billh58]

85. I'm sure that President Obama and

VP Joe Biden sincerely appreciate your thoughtful and insightful concern about something that hasn't been either decided or published as yet.

With the swarm of NRA/Gungeon recruits recently, we haven't seen too many concern bots on DU. Welcome, and enjoy your stay...

[TheProgressive]

88. Well Bill...

First, you have assumed incorrectly. I believe you are suggesting that I am a
'NRA/Gungeon recruit'. You will notice I did not mention anything about 'guns' in
my post.

Some people, Bill, just think harder and longer on subjects. Maybe that is why I am a Progressive.
Since Bush, our Constitutional rights have been burned in front of our eyes and, and, We the People
have not 'screamed' our opposition.

Because 'guns' are in the Bill of Rights (you can find that here incase you have never read it: http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/charters.html) it is not only a 'gun' issue, it is a
Constitutional issue, and a Presidential Powers issue. And I am absolutely correct, in all respects,
that the 'Executive Orders' solution has to be very carefully weighed. Do you have a problem with that?

Remember that in 'disasters and chaos', hastily made decisions are not always the best. We need a well thought out
solution to address the gun issue in America.

We have three branches of government each designed to provide checks and balances on the others. And
the People should and must be the ultimate check and balance by loudly voicing our opinions. I will *always*
voice my opinion on what I think is right.

So, Bill, please...be part of the solution. DU was once where we could have intelligent conversations and debate.

[billh58]

92. Thanks again for your

concern, and I sincerely hope that your ego doesn't weigh you down too much as you continue your "progressive" quest. You are certainly adept at "loudly voicing your opinion," and please pay no attention to those who point out that, in fact, yours is only an opinion.

The remainder of the "concern" bots should be joining you soon -- as quickly as they can sign up for new accounts...

[TheProgressive]

103. It seems....

..that you like to rag on posters, Bill.

Have you ever thought that maybe your opinion (on DU'ers) is wrong?
Are you really able to determine that 'somebody is a 'bot''?

I read where you claim you are a Vietnam veteran. Are you just angry at the world?

[billh58]

104. Let's see...

You have had this account since 2009 and 174 of your 174 posts have been within the past 90 days. How many other accounts do you have on DU? Did you just "wake up?" From the tone of your posts, it appears that you have an intimate knowledge of DU and many of its members. Have you been lurking and just recently become "very vocal" about the possible use of Executive Orders concerning the gun issue and gun control?

You see, I have seen all of these "symptoms" before, and a huge increase in "bots" over the past few weeks since gun control has become a real possibility. So, yes I AM able to determine the presence of a bot with some degree of accuracy when the warning signs are so evident.

On the other hand, you may just be an annoying anti-President Obama poster on a mission from God. Who knows, or really cares? This conversation is over as I am placing you on ignore now, but I have a feeling that you are already there under other screen names...

[Jennicut]

38. You are correct. He can only do certain things.

It has to pertain to the executive branch. The assault weapon ban has to go through congress.

[Great Caesars Ghost]

51. I gotta agree wuth you on this.

I may be a democratic socialist, but I am an armed democratic socialist with experiance in creating and repairing firearms.

[bubbayugga]

56. I doubt the House of Representatives would let it stand anyways.

but he'll force them to take a position on it which is something.

[TheProgressive]

61. No one knows what EO he could issue...my point is that great care must be taken.

[razorman]

67. I agree. I am uncomfortable with the recent tendency toward executive orders.

We may like a particular order that is issued by the president when congress will not do as we wish, on occasion. But, we must remember that precedent is being set. If President Obama can issue executive orders to get around the legislature, then so can his successors, (including Republicans). There is a process in place for getting laws passed. It is not efficient or pretty, but it works (more or less).

[amandabeech]

74. 100% in agreement.

[Waiting For Everyman]

6. I'm surprised at this,

that the admin is willing to risk kicking over a hornet's nest on this. I don't know, maybe it's necessary.

[DonCoquixote]

8. If he does nothing

Than Congress realizes it can get it's way, again, which bleeds into things like the debt ceiling. We have a congress that is hijacked by fatcats, be they NRA or Wall Street, and the president will need to kick the hornet's nest to get anything done.

[Waiting For Everyman]

19. I agree, and I'm not against him doing it.

I'm thinking about how this will converge with the Newtown CT deniers who are in the news right now, and in general the meme that the pro-gun side has always promoted even before he was elected about "Obama will take your guns away". It could be a volatile mix. I'm just wondering whether taking an action like this could set off a "gun war" or somesuch. That would be highly ironic.

[Warren Stupidity]

9. Good. nt.

Fuck the obstructionist teabag House.

[Chorophyll]

16. Indeed. They're long past due for a fucking (metaphorically.) nt

[ChisolmTrailDem]

69. Neither was chimpy shrub but you didn't have any problem at all

when he made executive orders.

Go way you POS rightwingslug.

[SunSeeker]

12. K&R

[Redford]

14. This will not end well

[Coyote_Tan]

30. Agreed...

Affects to be felt in 2014

[obama2terms]

73. I agree

As much as I support the president this is a VERY risky move.

[ErikJ]

17. The clips will probably be limited to 95 rounds.

That would be typical for what is considered progress in modern day America.

[klook]

37. You said clips!!11!!1!1

Don't you mean magazines??!!1/1!?!?!!?/!?

... because only those who can describe various models of bolt-action vs. automatic & semi-automatic rifles in exacting technical detail are qualified to have an opinion on these matters, of course.

BTW, yours is (depressingly) the most convincing prediction I've seen for what we can expect from Congress.

[Chorophyll]

18. K&R nt

[mwrguy]

20. Ram it down their throat

It's great to have a president with the balls to take on these death-loving yokels.

[alcibiades_mystery]

31. Exactly correct...the time for "conversation" with the gun nut assholes is over

Impose public health measures on them. Period.

[rightsideout]

22. Congress sat on their hands and did nothing after Congresswoman Giffords was shot

You would think after one of their own nearly died from a gunshot wound they would act but they didn't. They didn't because the National Reload Association is in the back pockets of many in Congress and they are scared from the uproar from the pro-gun community.

It's safer to steer clear of the issue altogether.

[humbled_opinion]

23. Good idea if Congress won't act...

First Congress is Congress refuses to deal with the issue than of course the Executive must act, doing nothing is not an option and watered down measures are ineffective...

[Sunlei]

25. Fast. Walmart meets with him tomorrow and has pulled some gun types off of sales.

Most of the leadership gov. won't be back from holiday until next week. Wonder what the 3 or 4 things the VP said just about everyone agreed on? National registry from past gun sale records could be one. Require register for any reseller, used and gun-show guns another.

[DonViejo]

29. Walmart's too busy to meet with Biden...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022160315

[Sunlei]

40. Walmart changed their mind today and will meet tomorrow, they are USA top gun seller

[DonViejo]

54. Thanks for that news, Sunlei! nt

[Xithras]

35. Can't create a national gun registry by Executive Order

Executive Orders can only be used to refine powers already delegated to the Executive by Congress, and can't override laws passed by Congress. Both FOPA and the Brady Bill contained provisions banning all government agencies from creating gun registries, so implementing one can't be done without a new law from Congress striking those older prohibitions.

[Sunlei]

41. They already have some kind of registry?. mexico was asking for the names and addresses.

Last year Mexico was asking for the names and addresses of gun buyers in the usa, so they could bring charges against them. USA did not comply but maybe it was the gun sellers stores they wanted and the sales ticket info.

[Xithras]

43. That's where things get tricky.

The government does have records of some transactions, but they're deliberately not kept in any kind of searchable database in order to comply with the law. There's also no way to cross reference transactions (i.e., who bought what when).

It might have been possible to dig out some of the records that Mexico wanted, but it would have been difficult.

[Hoyt]

26. Until Congress sends a Bill to Obama, I think this is an excellent idea.

[Recursion]

57. Well, nothing's coming out of the House on this, so EO may be the only way

Also hopefully this will end up with less meddling from "interested parties" than Congressional legislation always ends up being.

[Hoyt]

59. True. The Republican House will not pass anything that will tick off bigots.

[christx30]

118. You might want this, but

it will probably be ignored by a great many people and jurisdictions. He's the President. Not a king. He does have power. But he doesn't have absolute power. Nor should he.
He shouldn't be able to jail people indefinitely without trial. But you know what? Thanks to Congress, he can. What other powers would you grant him?

[riverwalker]

32. I think it's a public safety issue

The President seems to be "the only grown up in the room".

[Frustratedlady]

34. My concern is for Obama and Biden. You know

the supremacists have their heads together...empty, or not. They've been waiting for a good excuse and my stomach aches just thinking about what they might do, let alone some other gun nut out there.

[Jennicut]

39. I worry too.

They are very well protected but I have no doubt that action on gun control will amp up the amount of threats the secret service gets.

[Sunlei]

44. I always worry about that and for their families.

especially because some sitting, should be jailed politicans have actually sent emails praying the president and his family dies.

[AngryOldDem]

72. My stomach dropped when I saw the headline when I logged on.

This will just feed all the paranoia that these people live on: Obama is out to take our guns.

I applaud this move; it's long overdue. If this is the only way to get the message across that war weapons are not an acceptable part of civil society, then the heavy hand must fall.

But still...this REALLY scares me.

[VA_Jill]

45. Neocons are already screaming

"here comes the imperial presidency," just like they do any time Obama even hints at executive action (which is legal).

Their boy Shrub signed 290+ executive orders. Just sayin'

[thelordofhell]

52. And approved of guns being taken away after Katrina.........

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

55. Post-Katrina, guns were not being taken away ...

... well, not from "our sort".

I think the confiscation brigade was mostly limited to 9th ward. Probably not many Bush supporters there.

[Socal31]

60. An executive order that will just be undone by the next (R) president, instead of real reform.

Unless everyone here is too young to realize that the pendulum does swing back, and eventually there will be someone who will use that power in a way that disturbs you.

I just don't see an executive order that goes against the BoR. If he was going to to that, the day after Newton would have been the day...high emotions, etc.

I would prefer taking the House back so we can pass REAL regislation to end Obama's term. Stories like this fire up not only the (R) base, but many legal (D) gun owners.

This would be a case of stepping over dollars to pick up pennies...with no guarantee that you get to keep the pennies.

[Joey Liberal]

64. The Wingnuts are already freaking out here in Oklahoma

But they are always doing that here ......

[XRubicon]

68. Oh boy is this great

[Thinkingabout]

71. Obama has stated he will do whatever is in his power and if Congress sits on their butts they might

passed by. The day of supporting a du nothing Congress should come to a halt, stup their pay until there is some progress. In delaying action on weapons bans is not protecting the majority of American citizens in order to allow some people to try to possess the biggest weapon. Then the gun nuts goes on different shows talking crazy and threatening, this does not look like they have enough control to own a weapon.

[cantbeserious]

76. Excellent, All Necessary First Steps Toward Repealing The 2nd Amendment - Thank You Joe!

eom

[fiddlesticks]

78. This will probably get me banned, but the truth is often an invitation to hate:

The President does not need, have nor deserve the power to decimate the rights of any citizens by executive fiat. That is the province of Kings and Dictators. I can't even imagine the outrage in this community if Bush (or Cheney) had threatened to outlaw abortion of any flavor, or any number of other activities (does nobody recall the "First Amendment Zones"???

I guess it's okay if you're a {whoever's ox is not being gored}

Hypocrisy knows no political boundaries.

[larkrake]

79. all the gov can do is hit the dealers

Restricting licences and forcing background checks and lists of buyers, same with gun show dealers, then prosecuting blackmarket dealers. No one can take your guns or clips away, no one wants to go door to door. Crimes involving banned weapons can bring extended sentences without parole. You cant stop buyers, but you can hobble sellers. Gun Ranges can be licenced to not allow semi auto or automatic.

[freshwest]

82. Per the video: they're meeting with the NRA and GOA, listening to them, too.

Does that sound like the martial law theme that is being pushed here?

The complete regimentation of everything and everyone, the national kill zone per Alex Jones?

[freshwest]

83. GUESS WHAT? Gunowner Rights Protected By ObamaCare...

Betcha no one saw that one coming, huh?

Gunowner Rights Protected By ObamaCare

by Whoopie • 9 January, 2013

I’ve been hearing reports that primary care physicians are now required by ObamaCare to ask their patients if they own any guns and report that information to the government. The doctors are given forms that they must fill out and the question is a simple yes or no, there are no other options to allow for the patient to object or refuse to answer.

Ironically, it appears that the question itself is unlawful. There is a provision in ObamaCare called “Protection of of 2nd Amendment Rights” that was inserted in the law by none other than Harry Reid. He says he did it as a way to avoid the NRA becoming involved in drafting the law (apparently unbeknownst to Nancy Pelosi, the Democrat Party or the government printing office that created the forms doctors must fill out).

Senate Amendment 3276, Section 2716 part c reads: “The government cannot collect any information relating to: A) Lawful ownership of a firearm or ammunition.”

This puts physicians between a rock and hard place. By law they can’t ask that question and yet, by law they must. It’s a testament how clumsily drafted ObamaCare is. That nobody, from the Congress who passed it to the various agencies who enforce it to the individual citizens who are bound by it, truly knows or understands it.

See the CNN video at the link below. The OP video shows that with the NRA included in those meetings, the furor over this announcement is conspiracy theory hysteria. Flame away.

http://blurbrain.com/gunowner-rights-protected-by-obamacare/

[freshwest]

84. Youtube version CNN Secret Gun Provision Hidden In Obamacare:

[Claybrains]

107. Interesting, since our pediatrician ask about general hazards in and around the home.

Doctors always ask about smoke detectors, smokers in the house, animals, seatbelts, but not guns.
Slippery slope.

[freshwest]

109. What slippery slope? Only slippery for those who carpet their home with banana peels.

Read the section that forbids the question because owning guns is lawful. Actually, it should be in the law, but it can't be asked.

Both the OP video and the article and video I posted show both the NRA and GOA are being invited to put their input to the President by the Vice-President. Gun owner rights are not being ignored.

Doctors long before the ACA asked people about smoking, drug use and alcohol so they would not prescribe medication that would harm or neglect their patients by treating them without all the facts. No, the ACA didn't set up Death Panels.

Slippery slope ending up here?

[Claybrains]

113. I agree with you. It should be ask. nt

[freshwest]

114. I didn't say it should be. It's what the law states, CT hysteria to the contrary.

[Claybrains]

120. ok ok for christ's sake. I see your point. jeez

As a mother it just seems like it would be a natural question for a child's safety in the home coming from a doctor. Didn't think of it that way. Damn I'm not a troll-bot just because I new here.

[freshwest]

121. What made you say slippery slope? It sounded like you were against gun control.

I'm unsure of why that was the term you used, but is frequently used in a derogatory way. I didn't mention your post count, only the content of the post you made.

We've got a lot of CT here attacking Obama and Democrats for trying to have a dialogue on guns and a lot of anti-government sentiment. Why would you now talk about troll-bots?

I don't know who or what you're about, maybe I'll get to know you better later. Peace Out.

[Claybrains]

122. Easy Trigger, I read the thread and picked the term from there.

On the contrary, we need gun control. That's why I joined DU. Nice to meet you. I'll pick up on the lingo soon I hope.

[DevonRex]

115. I know how to interpret tbis. I have experience in the field. So...

There is no conflict between the two at all. The physician has to ask the question and he/she will. The answer goes in the child's chart. Nowhere else.

In other words, the answers to that question by each patient in the practice aren't compiled in any list to be forwarded to any governmental entity or any other entity. The information is private, individual medical record information period.

You have to know the concerns of gun owners in order to know the reasoning behind this having been inserted. Reid knows gun owners. They don't like lists of their names being compiled for any reason, especially if there is specific information about the types and number of firearms owned and whether there is a gun safe or not.

[freshwest]

116. Thank you. Thus the ACA, etc. is not a tool to go after gun owners. EOM.

[Dr_Scholl]

87. EO is probably the only option.

Congress won't get around to gun control for a few months because of the financial situation, and by that time:

1) Most of the public outrage will be gone

2) The Republicans (and many rural Democrats) won't vote for any gun legislation anyway.

[D23MIURG23]

89. executive order =/= law. n/t

[99th_Monkey]

91. The sooner the better, to stem all this absurd & obscene hoarding & stockpiling of guns ~nt

[jpak]

94. When does Dumbass Gun Nut 1776 begin?

Last edited Thu Jan 10, 2013, 05:51 PM - Edit history (2)

[Comrade_McKenzie]

101. When it does, I know I'll be glad we have the NDAA. nt

[freshwest]

117. When they run out of Cheetos!

[actslikeacarrot]

97. the man has guts...

...I don't think anyone can deny that.

[L0oniX]

98. The threat or execution of an "Executive Order" is going to feed the paranoia ....big time. n/t

[Red Sox]

105. To Hell With The 2nd Amendment

With 310 million guns in the U.S., according to Slate Magazine, we will need to mobilize police and the military to take away assault weapons from the gun owners. If the Supreme Court rules that Obama's executive action is unconstitutional, he should ignore the five conservatives and complete the job of eradicating assault weapons for use by private citizens.

[RandiFan1290]

106. mmhmm

[billh58]

111. And a fond farewell

to you Mr. Troll. Hope you enjoyed your free pizza...

[Great Caesars Ghost]

112. Then, of course that will take a constitution convention

2nd amendment repeal has no chance in the conventional way of ratification.

[Ter]

119. And then him and Biden would be impeached, and rightfully so

Then say hello to President Boner. Happy now?

[Skyline]

123. Someone tell me

how exactly they are going to create law via EO? That is not possible.

[billh58]

124. I believe that

they are considering implementing new regulations, and not laws. There is more than one way to skin a gun nut.

[billh58]

125. We certainly hope that you

enjoyed your short stay with us. The pizza is on the house...

[samsingh]

126. good for Biden to say that

enough is enough

[samsingh]

126. good for Biden to say that

enough is enough