Poll: Would you support an executive order banning...

[Lucidvizion]

I'm gonna need a source for that because it's staggeringly contradicted by everything I've seen so far.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States_by_state

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr...es/10tbl20.xls

Your second link. Add up the number of rifle homicides and add up the number of knife homicides. Knife is almost 6 times greater.

I did the exact calculations in excel but I'm at home now and don't have it handy.

[Lucidvizion]

So dude, are you really ok with *** like this?? http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archive...od_times_5.php

It's very poor judgment on the part of the protesters but what are you going to do? Make a law forbidding people to have rifles outdoors?

[IlluminatusUIUC]

Your second link. Add up the number of rifle homicides and add up the number of knife homicides. Knife is almost 6 times greater.

I did the exact calculations in excel but I'm at home now and don't have it handy.

I see what happened. I read your posts 55 and 56 together because they were back to back and quoting the same thing. I thought you meant knives were used in 6x as many homicides as semi-auto weapons + rifles.

[OpIv37]

Disclaimer: I'm late and didn't read this whole thread, so some of this may have been said.

Regardless of your views on guns, all Americans should vehemently oppose an executive order to change the gun laws.

First, it will set up a Supreme Court battle that could set up a dangerous precedent. No US president should be able to amend or limit constitutional rights by decree. That's just insanity. And even if the SC shoots it down, the last thing the country needs is a divisive SC battle over an already divisive issue.

Second, for you Obama supporters, this would be a huge blow. It would mean the conservatives WEREN'T exaggerating when they say Obama is a dictator who wants to take their guns. Even though Obama can't run again, that's not the kind of ammunition Democrats want going against them in the next election.

And on a semi-related note: someday, hopefully I'll be able to vote for someone who doesn't want to turn the country into a de facto Christian theocracy OR take all my money.

I'm not holding my breath though.

[denverboz]

It's very poor judgment on the part of the protesters but what are you going to do? Make a law forbidding people to have rifles outdoors?

Yep! At least in urban areas. They did create quite the stir, with one school forced to go to lock down and numerous calls to the police, which than led to a huge waste of valuable time of the police investigating it. Little fckers should have been shot by some resident (or by some diligent cop), than we would have seen what tough guys they were.

[IlluminatusUIUC]

Disclaimer: I'm late and didn't read this whole thread, so some of this may have been said.

Regardless of your views on guns, all Americans should vehemently oppose an executive order to change the gun laws.

First, it will set up a Supreme Court battle that could set up a dangerous precedent. No US president should be able to amend or limit constitutional rights by decree. That's just insanity. And even if the SC shoots it down, the last thing the country needs is a divisive SC battle over an already divisive issue.

Second, for you Obama supporters, this would be a huge blow. It would mean the conservatives WEREN'T exaggerating when they say Obama is a dictator who wants to take their guns. Even though Obama can't run again, that's not the kind of ammunition Democrats want going against them in the next election.

And on a semi-related note: someday, hopefully I'll be able to vote for someone who doesn't want to turn the country into a de facto Christian theocracy OR take all my money.

I'm not holding my breath though.

There is some precedent that EOs can override constitutional rights (Korematsu - the Japanese internment case), but the situation has to be exceedingly dire. As horrific as Newtown was, gun violence is actually declining in this country. Obama cannot legitimately ban anything by EO. It would take about 35 seconds for a federal district to enjoin him, and another 75 for the House to impeach him. And I would be onboard with both of those, as it would be flagrantly ultra vires.

What Obama can do is redirect federal law enforcement resources to investigating and prosecuting using existing gun laws. Which is, ironically, what pro-gun advocates have been claiming they want us to do for years.

[Cleve]

I was opposed to law making by executive fiat when Bush was in office. I remain equally opposed to it during the Obama administration.

[YardRat]

Yep! At least in urban areas. They did create quite the stir, with one school forced to go to lock down and numerous calls to the police, which than led to a huge waste of valuable time of the police investigating it. Little fckers should have been shot by some resident (or by some diligent cop), than we would have seen what tough guys they were.

Too funny.

[Dozerdog]

What about multiple intruders or attackers?

What about aliens?

Zombies?

Giant Octo-sharks?

[ublinkwescore]

oooohhh, the results of this thread must have all our resident libtards panties violating their crotches atomic melvin style!!!! I FREAKING LLLLOOOOVVVVEEEE IT!!!!!

[ublinkwescore]

There is some precedent that EOs can override constitutional rights (Korematsu - the Japanese internment case), but the situation has to be exceedingly dire. As horrific as Newtown was, gun violence is actually declining in this country. Obama cannot legitimately ban anything by EO. It would take about 35 seconds for a federal district to enjoin him, and another 75 for the House to impeach him. And I would be onboard with both of those, as it would be flagrantly ultra vires.

What Obama can do is redirect federal law enforcement resources to investigating and prosecuting using existing gun laws. Which is, ironically, what pro-gun advocates have been claiming they want us to do for years.

This house bends over and takes it up the ass violently, then politely asks this joke of a president for another.

[MST3KBillsfan]

This house bends over and takes it up the ass violently, then politely asks this joke of a president for another.

You don't watch C-SPAN or even pay attention to the voting record of the house regarding things the president wants do you? You know, its absolutely amazing what type of mental gymnastics are required for someone such as yourself to say the President isn't showing leadership (you know, like what increasingly Republican John McCain says all the friggen time in response to the President not being able to get the House to pass his proposals) and then say the House doesn't stand up with him. Please, go to the congressional voting record and then try again. You're failing, and I worry that if this were a government class you would fail it quite miserably.

[denverboz]

[MST3KBillsfan]

oooohhh, the results of this thread must have all our resident libtards panties violating their crotches atomic melvin style!!!! I FREAKING LLLLOOOOVVVVEEEE IT!!!!!

Can you retype this in English? It looks like the rants of a certified lunatic, of course considering that you wrote it. . . .

[Swiper]

It's kind of scary to see that over half of the people here would be okay with the president seizing dictatorial powers if it provides an outcome they find favorable.

Not only ok with it, but urging him to do it.

[SmokeShowin]

So you need a semiautomatic burst? Work on your aim, and again not my problem

Sounds like you'd be willing to trade off food stamps for muskets. Wanna go back to the day when everybody provided for themselves and lived off the land? I'm 'game'.



Most don't, but 3-5 shots still qualifies as semi-auto.

You ever try to hit a moving target going full bore from 25-50 yards?

You anti-gun nuts have no idea what the **** you're talking about. You try to act like you're educated on this stuff and you obviously know NOTHING about guns.

A "semi-automatic burst?" What in the blue hell are you talking about???

"3-5 shots qualifies as semi-auto?" Semi-auto means 1 round is discharged per trigger pull. The number of rounds has nothing to do with it.

Un-frigging-believable.

[ParanoidAndroid]

Most dumb****s that do home invasions go at it maybe three or four. An eight to eleven round magazine should allow you to drop those mother ****ers and get out of that situation safely.

One big blast from a 12 gauge should be enough to send them running.

[braddavery]

0l4MAYy.jpg