Re: This assault weapons ban CANNOT pass!
Sycophant Number 2 reporting for duty, thanks for the reply, glad to see I've got your attention.
Sycophant Number 2 reporting for duty, thanks for the reply, glad to see I've got your attention.
- Thread starter Swift
- Start date
Re: This assault weapons ban CANNOT pass!
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Guy Montag</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: KYpatriot</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Guy, I think you are correct in this thread but your delivery leaves a lot to be desired. </div></div>
Fair enough KYpatriot, my delivery was harsh, but it was in response to insults sent my way.
If you review the posts you'll see Greg jumped ugly with me first.
I was polite and direct with Greg with my initial reply, the same can not be said of him and his <span style="color: #FF0000">psycophants </span> . </div></div>
If our going to categorize us at least spell it correctly, little guy. Pun intended.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Guy Montag</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: KYpatriot</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Guy, I think you are correct in this thread but your delivery leaves a lot to be desired. </div></div>
Fair enough KYpatriot, my delivery was harsh, but it was in response to insults sent my way.
If you review the posts you'll see Greg jumped ugly with me first.
I was polite and direct with Greg with my initial reply, the same can not be said of him and his <span style="color: #FF0000">psycophants </span> . </div></div>
If our going to categorize us at least spell it correctly, little guy. Pun intended.
Re: This assault weapons ban CANNOT pass!
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Guy Montag</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Sycophant Number 2 reporting for duty, thanks for the reply, glad to see I've got your attention. </div></div>
Yeah because everyone can tell I like to kiss ass, lol. By definition a sycophant is someone who attempts to get the attention of someone influential... and there you are admitting you have my attention. And like always you have no response except to be repetitive with the same asinine type statement that only makes sense in your little world...
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Guy Montag</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Sycophant Number 2 reporting for duty, thanks for the reply, glad to see I've got your attention. </div></div>
Yeah because everyone can tell I like to kiss ass, lol. By definition a sycophant is someone who attempts to get the attention of someone influential... and there you are admitting you have my attention. And like always you have no response except to be repetitive with the same asinine type statement that only makes sense in your little world...
Re: This assault weapons ban CANNOT pass!
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Broker</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Yeah because everyone can tell I like to kiss ass, lol. By definition a sycophant is someone who attempts to get the attention of someone influential... and there you are admitting you have my attention. And like always you have no response except to be repetitive with the same asinine type statement that only makes sense in your <span style="color: #FF0000"> little</span> world... </div></div>
Key word.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Broker</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Yeah because everyone can tell I like to kiss ass, lol. By definition a sycophant is someone who attempts to get the attention of someone influential... and there you are admitting you have my attention. And like always you have no response except to be repetitive with the same asinine type statement that only makes sense in your <span style="color: #FF0000"> little</span> world... </div></div>
Key word.
Re: This assault weapons ban CANNOT pass!
Kemeisha vs. Ray Ray ...
<object width="425" height="350"> <param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/Ai4VNxKgOlk"></param> <param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param> <embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/Ai4VNxKgOlk" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"> </embed></object>
Kemeisha vs. Ray Ray ...
<object width="425" height="350"> <param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/Ai4VNxKgOlk"></param> <param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param> <embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/Ai4VNxKgOlk" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"> </embed></object>
Re: This assault weapons ban CANNOT pass!
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Broker</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Guy Montag</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Sycophant Number 2 reporting for duty, thanks for the reply, glad to see I've got your attention. </div></div>
By definition a sycophant is someone who attempts to get the attention of someone influential... </div></div>
Words often have more than one meaning, your dictionary must be a remedial one.
Would you have preferred ass-kisser, adulator or lackey?
syc·o·phant/ : A person who acts obsequiously toward someone in order to gain advantage; a servile flatterer.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Broker</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Guy Montag</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Sycophant Number 2 reporting for duty, thanks for the reply, glad to see I've got your attention. </div></div>
By definition a sycophant is someone who attempts to get the attention of someone influential... </div></div>
Words often have more than one meaning, your dictionary must be a remedial one.
Would you have preferred ass-kisser, adulator or lackey?
syc·o·phant/ : A person who acts obsequiously toward someone in order to gain advantage; a servile flatterer.
Re: This assault weapons ban CANNOT pass!
Not so fast. You're not some innocent, confused victim here, "Guy"
And let's even forget about what may or may not have happened to me. at least to begin with.
We have rules here about personal attacks. We are obliged to read and acknpowledge them on our enrollment, and to occasionally repeat that process thereafter.
Some might interpret them as a threat, and they are, that personal attacks will not be tolerated. But I also interpret them as a promise to the rest of us, that we will not be subjected to personal attacks without recourse.
New members probably read them and believe what they say, that The 'Hide will be a safe sanctuary on the Internet, where they will be at least partly safe from personal attacks and otherwise usual bickering troll BS. Sycophants indeed. I have few friends here, and fewer 'sycophants' here, and I neither want, nor call on them, for aid.
I have watched this troll "Guy" attack forum members Queequeg, and Maggot, just to name a recent two, on a personal level. You don't even need to look beyond this topic to find others whom this "Guy" has treated in a manner which is clearly prohibited under site rules.
Describing "Guy" as a Troll isn't namecalling, it's a simple statement which his own posts repeatedly support. He's cautious, he's coy, and he wears his air of innocence. But when the O/T hijack occurs, he's there. When the nagging provocation is happening, he's there. When resentment is smoldering he's there tossing on the gasoline. When the flames rise up, he's fanning them. Always there with the sarcastic dig, the arrogant insult. He almost never starts a topic, except when he wants to sell something or trash our Government. He pretty much never joins a topic, except to push the negative.
That's a troll. It's not a literary antihero named Guy Montag, or a movie characater depicted as Dr. Strangelove.
Negativity is his most common contributions to The 'Hide, and I think we do better without it.
When this happened, nothing was done. The promise was not kept. He got the message, and others took a similar cue.
When he got around to me again, I dispensed with the prelimiaries and just threw the BS flag.
That's not 'jumping ugly'. That's pointing out the issue and expressing displeasure that the situation, which we forum members are both threatened and promised is not supposed to exist, does indeed exist.
As I said, read his posting record, make up your own minds. I see an agenda. I think it's easy to see.
If you think it will help, read mine, too. See how this is all my doing.
Whether those with authority choose to act or not is not something I either expect or propose. For my part, this stopped being personal almost immediately. It is about a site I cherish, forum members I respect and hope to help, and the free rein of trolls within their midst.
It's not about me. I've been to this situation before and no longer feel any great discomfort being here. Like discomfort, such positions can be old, if less pleasant, friends. When someone like myself has to step up and finger the issue, it's already gone rather far and deep. I think too far and deep.
Do or don't do as you choose. I'm doing, and not doing, as <span style="font-style: italic">I</span> choose.
But Trolls; they will not be something I accept, now or ever. When they are active, I plan to discuss it.
I believe we have a troll problem, and I'm watching see how it gets dealt with. I'd like to think I'm not alone in this.
I can't say if anything will be done, I can say it's not always happened when I think it should. Am I also alone in seeing this?
"Guy"; this s not your personal arena, where the more peaceable forum members may be stalked and slashed with impunity at your leisure.
I don't think you should be allowed to continue doing that. I'm not allowed to do anything about that anymore, and I'm glad I don't. When I was, folks like yourself were usually soon gone.
I'm also glad I don't have to. It wss neither simple nor enjoyable, needing to separate personal intentions from dutiful ones. I think those that do are quite good at it, mostly, but nobody's perfect.
Seen over a long perspective, such things come in waves, and periodically, there develops a tendency to back off the hammer.
That's when we end up with people here like you, "Guy"; wandering within our midst, taking their victims from time time, bearing a demeanor of "Who, me?" pseudo-innocence.
Once more, I'll say, "Enough". The other members of the forum, whom I'm pretty much always trying to help, have usually left me to stand alone. I'm more than familiar enough with that, and I can understand if they are just wishing to avoid being called sycophants.
Greg
Not so fast. You're not some innocent, confused victim here, "Guy"
And let's even forget about what may or may not have happened to me. at least to begin with.
We have rules here about personal attacks. We are obliged to read and acknpowledge them on our enrollment, and to occasionally repeat that process thereafter.
Some might interpret them as a threat, and they are, that personal attacks will not be tolerated. But I also interpret them as a promise to the rest of us, that we will not be subjected to personal attacks without recourse.
New members probably read them and believe what they say, that The 'Hide will be a safe sanctuary on the Internet, where they will be at least partly safe from personal attacks and otherwise usual bickering troll BS. Sycophants indeed. I have few friends here, and fewer 'sycophants' here, and I neither want, nor call on them, for aid.
I have watched this troll "Guy" attack forum members Queequeg, and Maggot, just to name a recent two, on a personal level. You don't even need to look beyond this topic to find others whom this "Guy" has treated in a manner which is clearly prohibited under site rules.
Describing "Guy" as a Troll isn't namecalling, it's a simple statement which his own posts repeatedly support. He's cautious, he's coy, and he wears his air of innocence. But when the O/T hijack occurs, he's there. When the nagging provocation is happening, he's there. When resentment is smoldering he's there tossing on the gasoline. When the flames rise up, he's fanning them. Always there with the sarcastic dig, the arrogant insult. He almost never starts a topic, except when he wants to sell something or trash our Government. He pretty much never joins a topic, except to push the negative.
That's a troll. It's not a literary antihero named Guy Montag, or a movie characater depicted as Dr. Strangelove.
Negativity is his most common contributions to The 'Hide, and I think we do better without it.
When this happened, nothing was done. The promise was not kept. He got the message, and others took a similar cue.
When he got around to me again, I dispensed with the prelimiaries and just threw the BS flag.
That's not 'jumping ugly'. That's pointing out the issue and expressing displeasure that the situation, which we forum members are both threatened and promised is not supposed to exist, does indeed exist.
As I said, read his posting record, make up your own minds. I see an agenda. I think it's easy to see.
If you think it will help, read mine, too. See how this is all my doing.
Whether those with authority choose to act or not is not something I either expect or propose. For my part, this stopped being personal almost immediately. It is about a site I cherish, forum members I respect and hope to help, and the free rein of trolls within their midst.
It's not about me. I've been to this situation before and no longer feel any great discomfort being here. Like discomfort, such positions can be old, if less pleasant, friends. When someone like myself has to step up and finger the issue, it's already gone rather far and deep. I think too far and deep.
Do or don't do as you choose. I'm doing, and not doing, as <span style="font-style: italic">I</span> choose.
But Trolls; they will not be something I accept, now or ever. When they are active, I plan to discuss it.
I believe we have a troll problem, and I'm watching see how it gets dealt with. I'd like to think I'm not alone in this.
I can't say if anything will be done, I can say it's not always happened when I think it should. Am I also alone in seeing this?
"Guy"; this s not your personal arena, where the more peaceable forum members may be stalked and slashed with impunity at your leisure.
I don't think you should be allowed to continue doing that. I'm not allowed to do anything about that anymore, and I'm glad I don't. When I was, folks like yourself were usually soon gone.
I'm also glad I don't have to. It wss neither simple nor enjoyable, needing to separate personal intentions from dutiful ones. I think those that do are quite good at it, mostly, but nobody's perfect.
Seen over a long perspective, such things come in waves, and periodically, there develops a tendency to back off the hammer.
That's when we end up with people here like you, "Guy"; wandering within our midst, taking their victims from time time, bearing a demeanor of "Who, me?" pseudo-innocence.
Once more, I'll say, "Enough". The other members of the forum, whom I'm pretty much always trying to help, have usually left me to stand alone. I'm more than familiar enough with that, and I can understand if they are just wishing to avoid being called sycophants.
Greg
Re: This assault weapons ban CANNOT pass!
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Greg Langelius *</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <span style="color: #FF0000"> It is about a site I cherish, forum members I respect and hope to help</span> , and the free rein of trolls within their midst.
Greg </div></div>
Though 'cherish' might be a bit strong, I agree. I like it here, and have learned a lot from various members...about long range shooting, and other topics. Have made a couple of friends here. Have endured many bans, a couple unfair, but thats the price of admission. Mostly I see some good natured sparring which almost always ends with everyone involved laughing about it later. Recently, however I WAS severely attacked by another member who Ive seen do the same to others. I considered reporting it, but decided that it was just trash talk comeing from an abused little boy in a mans body, and decided to let it go unless it escalated. Fortuantely, to date, it has not. Dont really know where Im going with this so Ill guess I'll end it now. But I do enjoy this house, and hate to see 'Trolls' make it unpleasant for all.
Though I dont always agree with you, and sometimes think your way off base, good work in the above, Greg. You dont stand alone. I was never in the Corps, but a remark and old friend, Tommy F. Thompson of Corpus Christi Texas, who served in Viet Nam, helped to shape my life philosophy..."Marines don't leave Marines to die."
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Greg Langelius *</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <span style="color: #FF0000"> It is about a site I cherish, forum members I respect and hope to help</span> , and the free rein of trolls within their midst.
Greg </div></div>
Though 'cherish' might be a bit strong, I agree. I like it here, and have learned a lot from various members...about long range shooting, and other topics. Have made a couple of friends here. Have endured many bans, a couple unfair, but thats the price of admission. Mostly I see some good natured sparring which almost always ends with everyone involved laughing about it later. Recently, however I WAS severely attacked by another member who Ive seen do the same to others. I considered reporting it, but decided that it was just trash talk comeing from an abused little boy in a mans body, and decided to let it go unless it escalated. Fortuantely, to date, it has not. Dont really know where Im going with this so Ill guess I'll end it now. But I do enjoy this house, and hate to see 'Trolls' make it unpleasant for all.
Though I dont always agree with you, and sometimes think your way off base, good work in the above, Greg. You dont stand alone. I was never in the Corps, but a remark and old friend, Tommy F. Thompson of Corpus Christi Texas, who served in Viet Nam, helped to shape my life philosophy..."Marines don't leave Marines to die."
Re: This assault weapons ban CANNOT pass!
After completing the above post, I started my daily read through the forums.
In 15 minutes, a ran into at least six posts to which I would have normally responded, and in at least one case, have relieved a misconception and saved a forum member some concern and perhaps helped their scores.
But I've decided against doing such things now. A promise is only a promise if it's kept.
Just sayin'...
Greg
After completing the above post, I started my daily read through the forums.
In 15 minutes, a ran into at least six posts to which I would have normally responded, and in at least one case, have relieved a misconception and saved a forum member some concern and perhaps helped their scores.
But I've decided against doing such things now. A promise is only a promise if it's kept.
Just sayin'...
Greg
Re: This assault weapons ban CANNOT pass!
This is hard to do.
About the only real way to desl with it is to go somewhere else for awhile; so I'm switching gears and concentrating on my flying models for now.
Greg
This is hard to do.
About the only real way to desl with it is to go somewhere else for awhile; so I'm switching gears and concentrating on my flying models for now.
Greg
Re: This assault weapons ban CANNOT pass!
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Guy Montag</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Words often have more than one meaning, your dictionary must be a remedial one.
Would you have preferred ass-kisser, adulator or lackey?
syc·o·phant/ : A person who acts obsequiously toward someone in order to gain advantage; a servile flatterer.</div></div>
Again... You are really just that stupid. Who exactly am I trying to flatter, ass kiss, or "gain advantage" with? And there's no difference in definition, you've simply chosen to use a definition worded differently in a lame attempt to justify your misuse since you don't appropriately know the meanings in the context you're using it.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Guy Montag</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Words often have more than one meaning, your dictionary must be a remedial one.
Would you have preferred ass-kisser, adulator or lackey?
syc·o·phant/ : A person who acts obsequiously toward someone in order to gain advantage; a servile flatterer.</div></div>
Again... You are really just that stupid. Who exactly am I trying to flatter, ass kiss, or "gain advantage" with? And there's no difference in definition, you've simply chosen to use a definition worded differently in a lame attempt to justify your misuse since you don't appropriately know the meanings in the context you're using it.
Re: This assault weapons ban CANNOT pass!
No matter what happens, how many of you are ready to do what is needed to keep your rights?
No matter what happens, how many of you are ready to do what is needed to keep your rights?
Re: This assault weapons ban CANNOT pass!
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: SilentStalkr</div><div class="ubbcode-body">No matter what happens, how many of you are ready to do what is needed to keep your rights?
</div></div>
Who the hell wants to listen to you? This has turned into a "guy" banging thread! I've already posted things here that should of had people all over my ass... but no! We're way to busy banging on guys head. Poor "guy" bastards probably a Republican too
. These guys that are bashing the other "guy" should be doing this on the Ann Landers website that way you can wake up in the morning and still respect yourselfs 
.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: SilentStalkr</div><div class="ubbcode-body">No matter what happens, how many of you are ready to do what is needed to keep your rights?
</div></div>
Who the hell wants to listen to you? This has turned into a "guy" banging thread! I've already posted things here that should of had people all over my ass... but no! We're way to busy banging on guys head. Poor "guy" bastards probably a Republican too
Re: This assault weapons ban CANNOT pass!
Toughguy. You're probably completely right on all counts.
I guess it boils down to whether we think taunts and oersonal insults should play a legitimate role in forum discussions. I don't think they do, and it simply flips my switch when a reasonable limit gets exceeded.
I need to back off and leave the matter be, for my own sake as well as others'. Whatever point I may have wanted to make has been made.
Besides, I'm not calling for the hammer, I'd be just as happy if everybody was still here when the dust cleared and the only difference was aa voluntary avoidance of the personal abuse.
What I <span style="font-style: italic">am</span> doing is voluntarily refraining from adding my response to the issues which emerge on the forums. That's always been my option, and it imposes its penalty upon myself before it affects any others. This restraint not something new I'd be doing, only something I'd be doing a bit more of. I truth, it would probably only have a minimal impact on the site anyway.
Of course folks can disagree, i'st how they go about doing it that defines The 'Hide, and it gets redefined each time folks do.
Besides, if folks can employ the forum seeking advice over the angst of a significant other subsequent to the misuse of a kitchen knife, I suspect this discussion s well within bounds.
As for how far I would go, I think that would depend on my neighbors. I would not be eager to step up and hurl the first epithet, gauntlet, whatever; but I would be willing to follow them with little or no hesitation. It's not a 'me' thing; it has to be an 'us' thing. I don't mind doing what it takes, but I do mind instigating my neighbors out onto a limb they never had any intention being out upon.
Greg
Toughguy. You're probably completely right on all counts.
I guess it boils down to whether we think taunts and oersonal insults should play a legitimate role in forum discussions. I don't think they do, and it simply flips my switch when a reasonable limit gets exceeded.
I need to back off and leave the matter be, for my own sake as well as others'. Whatever point I may have wanted to make has been made.
Besides, I'm not calling for the hammer, I'd be just as happy if everybody was still here when the dust cleared and the only difference was aa voluntary avoidance of the personal abuse.
What I <span style="font-style: italic">am</span> doing is voluntarily refraining from adding my response to the issues which emerge on the forums. That's always been my option, and it imposes its penalty upon myself before it affects any others. This restraint not something new I'd be doing, only something I'd be doing a bit more of. I truth, it would probably only have a minimal impact on the site anyway.
Of course folks can disagree, i'st how they go about doing it that defines The 'Hide, and it gets redefined each time folks do.
Besides, if folks can employ the forum seeking advice over the angst of a significant other subsequent to the misuse of a kitchen knife, I suspect this discussion s well within bounds.
As for how far I would go, I think that would depend on my neighbors. I would not be eager to step up and hurl the first epithet, gauntlet, whatever; but I would be willing to follow them with little or no hesitation. It's not a 'me' thing; it has to be an 'us' thing. I don't mind doing what it takes, but I do mind instigating my neighbors out onto a limb they never had any intention being out upon.
Greg
Re: This assault weapons ban CANNOT pass!
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Greg Langelius *</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I guess it boils down to whether we think taunts and oersonal insults should play a legitimate role in forum discussions.</div></div>
Says the guy who STARTED the name calling.
Thanks for the laugh Greg, your hypocrisy is truly amusing.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Greg Langelius *</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I guess it boils down to whether we think taunts and oersonal insults should play a legitimate role in forum discussions.</div></div>
Says the guy who STARTED the name calling.
Thanks for the laugh Greg, your hypocrisy is truly amusing.
Re: This assault weapons ban CANNOT pass!
I never went anywhere, and I'm sorry if I gave the impression I was committ8ng Internet suicide or anything like that.
I am still keeping my own counsel regarding technical questions and issues, and I guess the best way to cover that is to say that from now on, I will be doing or not doing any of that based soley on my own assessment of the degree of rancor I see on the forum as a whole.
I have my views and when people can't manage to disagree with them without getting up in my face, I will respond accordingly. When I see it happening to others, I just may do the same anyway, just as I have done in this instance.
As for "Guy" and his activities, that's up to him and always has been. I would just hope he manages to find a less acrimonious way to convey his disagreement. He certainly knows my views.
Greg
I never went anywhere, and I'm sorry if I gave the impression I was committ8ng Internet suicide or anything like that.
I am still keeping my own counsel regarding technical questions and issues, and I guess the best way to cover that is to say that from now on, I will be doing or not doing any of that based soley on my own assessment of the degree of rancor I see on the forum as a whole.
I have my views and when people can't manage to disagree with them without getting up in my face, I will respond accordingly. When I see it happening to others, I just may do the same anyway, just as I have done in this instance.
As for "Guy" and his activities, that's up to him and always has been. I would just hope he manages to find a less acrimonious way to convey his disagreement. He certainly knows my views.
Greg
Re: This assault weapons ban CANNOT pass!
Well then 'Guy" it's good to know you still insist on being the Asshole.
I thought you had at least enough wisdom to know when you were pushing your luck, but now it's easy to see that taunts and insults are your only stock in trade. The last refuge of the incompetent, as it were.
We tried it one way, now we try it another. I tried handling this in the open, face to face, you and me. Now, It's being reported to the Moderators.
Don't be calling <span style="font-style: italic">them</span> sycophants, they have little love for me, longtime now.
I hope you end up with all you deserve. If I end up getting the hammer, the rest of you can discern what that means all by yourselves.
Greg
Well then 'Guy" it's good to know you still insist on being the Asshole.
I thought you had at least enough wisdom to know when you were pushing your luck, but now it's easy to see that taunts and insults are your only stock in trade. The last refuge of the incompetent, as it were.
We tried it one way, now we try it another. I tried handling this in the open, face to face, you and me. Now, It's being reported to the Moderators.
Don't be calling <span style="font-style: italic">them</span> sycophants, they have little love for me, longtime now.
I hope you end up with all you deserve. If I end up getting the hammer, the rest of you can discern what that means all by yourselves.
Greg
Re: This assault weapons ban CANNOT pass!
Pretend away Greg, you elected to jump ugly with me and seemingly think you can avoid that fact.
I was polite and courteous to you in my initial post, and no amount of whining on your part will change this reality.
Apparently your "taunts and insults" aren't relative to the matter.
Does Yellow make you sad?
<object width="425" height="350"> <param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/eAdLruOIKmA"></param> <param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param> <embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/eAdLruOIKmA" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"> </embed></object>
Pretend away Greg, you elected to jump ugly with me and seemingly think you can avoid that fact.
I was polite and courteous to you in my initial post, and no amount of whining on your part will change this reality.
Apparently your "taunts and insults" aren't relative to the matter.
Does Yellow make you sad?
<object width="425" height="350"> <param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/eAdLruOIKmA"></param> <param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param> <embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/eAdLruOIKmA" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"> </embed></object>
Re: This assault weapons ban CANNOT pass!
Cute comeback; but you're no longer my problem.
Greg
Cute comeback; but you're no longer my problem.
Greg
Re: This assault weapons ban CANNOT pass!
PM sent with olive branch
PM sent with olive branch
Re: This assault weapons ban CANNOT pass!
PM read and olive branch embraced with sincerity.
For the record, I'm wrong, you're not a troll.
Greg
PM read and olive branch embraced with sincerity.
For the record, I'm wrong, you're not a troll.
Greg
Re: This assault weapons ban CANNOT pass!
Thanks Greg, I truly appreciate your consideration. My apologies for the nonsense.
Thanks Greg, I truly appreciate your consideration. My apologies for the nonsense.
Re: This assault weapons ban CANNOT pass!
Much the same. Pax.
Greg
Much the same. Pax.
Greg
Re: This assault weapons ban CANNOT pass!
At the risk of no small amount of cheek ...
<object width="425" height="350"> <param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/FO725Hbzfls"></param> <param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param> <embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/FO725Hbzfls" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"> </embed></object>
At the risk of no small amount of cheek ...
<object width="425" height="350"> <param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/FO725Hbzfls"></param> <param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param> <embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/FO725Hbzfls" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"> </embed></object>
Re: This assault weapons ban CANNOT pass!
Wow. Total 180. No idea what was said but I'm glad you guys hashed it out.
Wow. Total 180. No idea what was said but I'm glad you guys hashed it out.
Re: This assault weapons ban CANNOT pass!
I'm just gonna go ahead and say vote Ron Paul. Write him in. Do whatever you need to do to support someone that isn't Romney or Obama. They're nothing but the same candidate from different parties. True Republicrat centrists.
I'm just gonna go ahead and say vote Ron Paul. Write him in. Do whatever you need to do to support someone that isn't Romney or Obama. They're nothing but the same candidate from different parties. True Republicrat centrists.
Re: This assault weapons ban CANNOT pass!
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Boog</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I'm just gonna go ahead and say vote Ron Paul. Write him in. Do whatever you need to do to support someone that isn't Romney or Obama. They're nothing but the same candidate from different parties. True Republicrat centrists. </div></div>
I agree with you but Ron Paul will never make it. He's too in touch with real America and fat cats don't like it so they buy up all the advertising and bully guys like him into submission.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Boog</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I'm just gonna go ahead and say vote Ron Paul. Write him in. Do whatever you need to do to support someone that isn't Romney or Obama. They're nothing but the same candidate from different parties. True Republicrat centrists. </div></div>
I agree with you but Ron Paul will never make it. He's too in touch with real America and fat cats don't like it so they buy up all the advertising and bully guys like him into submission.
Re: This assault weapons ban CANNOT pass!
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Inogame</div><div class="ubbcode-body">There is clearly overpopulation?
Clearly?? I think not.
I happen to agree with Guy, though not the method of his answer.
The planet has the capacity to sustain far more people than now and as tech advances we will be able to sustain more.
That's how it works. As we advance on food yields and medicine advances the max sustainable population rises.
Talk to me when we stop paying farmers to not grow food...
Just my opinion based on things I've read. </div></div>
That actually started years ago and continues to a certain extent with the CRP program. Various forms of it are still in place, unless you're a huge corporate farm.
Things like the average age of farmers world wide is 57, add in significant droughts in agricultural areas leads to significant issues. Aquifers aren't getting refilled due to lack of rainfall and increase irrigation to keep crop yields barely at break-even points.
Add to that...Farm subsidies. Another example of the gov't picking winners and losers. Although not the original intent, moves the likelihood of crops to other areas of political favor for votes rather than the interest of what crops are primarily needed.
Prime example: Corn based ethanol fuels. Take a core staple food chain item to extend energy when there are alternatives like beets which are not a core food chain item from livestock, dairy to humans. - pure stupidity.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Inogame</div><div class="ubbcode-body">There is clearly overpopulation?
Clearly?? I think not.
I happen to agree with Guy, though not the method of his answer.
The planet has the capacity to sustain far more people than now and as tech advances we will be able to sustain more.
That's how it works. As we advance on food yields and medicine advances the max sustainable population rises.
Talk to me when we stop paying farmers to not grow food...
Just my opinion based on things I've read. </div></div>
That actually started years ago and continues to a certain extent with the CRP program. Various forms of it are still in place, unless you're a huge corporate farm.
Things like the average age of farmers world wide is 57, add in significant droughts in agricultural areas leads to significant issues. Aquifers aren't getting refilled due to lack of rainfall and increase irrigation to keep crop yields barely at break-even points.
Add to that...Farm subsidies. Another example of the gov't picking winners and losers. Although not the original intent, moves the likelihood of crops to other areas of political favor for votes rather than the interest of what crops are primarily needed.
Prime example: Corn based ethanol fuels. Take a core staple food chain item to extend energy when there are alternatives like beets which are not a core food chain item from livestock, dairy to humans. - pure stupidity.
Re: This assault weapons ban CANNOT pass!
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: rdsii64</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Can we go back to talking about guns? </div></div>
The first page of this thread had A LOT of great information concerning a possible new assault weapons ban and even information on how to get involved with grassroots movements to help protect our rights.
Then it turned into a full on political thread complete with crying, bitch slapping, name calling and I think I even witnessed a few dutch rudders near the end there... all about overpopulation and environmental sustainability.
<span style="font-weight: bold">WTF?!</span>
<span style="font-weight: bold">So has anyone heard anything else about what might possibly come our way?</span>
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: rdsii64</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Can we go back to talking about guns? </div></div>
The first page of this thread had A LOT of great information concerning a possible new assault weapons ban and even information on how to get involved with grassroots movements to help protect our rights.
Then it turned into a full on political thread complete with crying, bitch slapping, name calling and I think I even witnessed a few dutch rudders near the end there... all about overpopulation and environmental sustainability.
<span style="font-weight: bold">WTF?!</span>
<span style="font-weight: bold">So has anyone heard anything else about what might possibly come our way?</span>
Re: This assault weapons ban CANNOT pass!
I've spoken with a few different folks and there seems to be confusion about how much power the President actually has when it comes to executive orders.
I've had folks tell me he can easily sidestep the Senate and House to push a weapons ban through. I've also had folks say it'll never happen, he doesn't have the power, etc.
Can anyone clear this up? Re-election would likely give House and Senate majority to the liberals so it may not matter but going through the channels will slow the process and give us a chance to fight it.
I've spoken with a few different folks and there seems to be confusion about how much power the President actually has when it comes to executive orders.
I've had folks tell me he can easily sidestep the Senate and House to push a weapons ban through. I've also had folks say it'll never happen, he doesn't have the power, etc.
Can anyone clear this up? Re-election would likely give House and Senate majority to the liberals so it may not matter but going through the channels will slow the process and give us a chance to fight it.
Re: This assault weapons ban CANNOT pass!
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: rdsii64</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Can we go back to talking about guns? </div></div>
+1, this thing went full retard pretty fast. If some of the guys arguing over the nonsense posted in here is who we've got sticking up for 2A I'm surprised we can still own socks and tennis balls.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: rdsii64</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Can we go back to talking about guns? </div></div>
+1, this thing went full retard pretty fast. If some of the guys arguing over the nonsense posted in here is who we've got sticking up for 2A I'm surprised we can still own socks and tennis balls.
Re: This assault weapons ban CANNOT pass!
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: L3IRQ</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: rdsii64</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Can we go back to talking about guns? </div></div>
+1, this thing went full retard pretty fast. If some of the guys arguing over the nonsense posted in here is who we've got sticking up for 2A I'm surprised we can still own socks and tennis balls. </div></div>
And you're contributing exactly what other than running your mouth after the cease fire? It's easy to run your mouth... but try doing it and actually contributing a point other than judging others.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: L3IRQ</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: rdsii64</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Can we go back to talking about guns? </div></div>
+1, this thing went full retard pretty fast. If some of the guys arguing over the nonsense posted in here is who we've got sticking up for 2A I'm surprised we can still own socks and tennis balls. </div></div>
And you're contributing exactly what other than running your mouth after the cease fire? It's easy to run your mouth... but try doing it and actually contributing a point other than judging others.
Re: This assault weapons ban CANNOT pass!
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: THEBEARRRRRRJEW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I've spoken with a few different folks and there seems to be confusion about how much power the President actually has when it comes to executive orders.
I've had folks tell me he can easily sidestep the Senate and House to push a weapons ban through. I've also had folks say it'll never happen, he doesn't have the power, etc.</div></div>
Executive orders have already been used by the past three administrations to ban the importation of certain firearms, parts, and ammunition. I don't know how far this can be extrapolated to a larger ban.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: THEBEARRRRRRJEW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I've spoken with a few different folks and there seems to be confusion about how much power the President actually has when it comes to executive orders.
I've had folks tell me he can easily sidestep the Senate and House to push a weapons ban through. I've also had folks say it'll never happen, he doesn't have the power, etc.</div></div>
Executive orders have already been used by the past three administrations to ban the importation of certain firearms, parts, and ammunition. I don't know how far this can be extrapolated to a larger ban.
Re: This assault weapons ban CANNOT pass!
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Eric Bryant</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: THEBEARRRRRRJEW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I've spoken with a few different folks and there seems to be confusion about how much power the President actually has when it comes to executive orders.
I've had folks tell me he can easily sidestep the Senate and House to push a weapons ban through. I've also had folks say it'll never happen, he doesn't have the power, etc.</div></div>
Executive orders have already been used by the past three administrations to ban the importation of certain firearms, parts, and ammunition. I don't know how far this can be extrapolated to a larger ban.
</div></div>
That's where I'm lookin for clarity. Anyone?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Eric Bryant</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: THEBEARRRRRRJEW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I've spoken with a few different folks and there seems to be confusion about how much power the President actually has when it comes to executive orders.
I've had folks tell me he can easily sidestep the Senate and House to push a weapons ban through. I've also had folks say it'll never happen, he doesn't have the power, etc.</div></div>
Executive orders have already been used by the past three administrations to ban the importation of certain firearms, parts, and ammunition. I don't know how far this can be extrapolated to a larger ban.
</div></div>
That's where I'm lookin for clarity. Anyone?
Re: This assault weapons ban CANNOT pass!
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Eric Bryant</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: THEBEARRRRRRJEW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I've spoken with a few different folks and there seems to be confusion about how much power the President actually has when it comes to executive orders.
I've had folks tell me he can easily sidestep the Senate and House to push a weapons ban through. I've also had folks say it'll never happen, he doesn't have the power, etc.</div></div>
Executive orders have already been used by the past three administrations to ban the importation of certain firearms, parts, and ammunition. I don't know how far this can be extrapolated to a larger ban.
</div></div>
Please cite exactly which Executive Order and what exactly was "banned".
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Eric Bryant</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: THEBEARRRRRRJEW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I've spoken with a few different folks and there seems to be confusion about how much power the President actually has when it comes to executive orders.
I've had folks tell me he can easily sidestep the Senate and House to push a weapons ban through. I've also had folks say it'll never happen, he doesn't have the power, etc.</div></div>
Executive orders have already been used by the past three administrations to ban the importation of certain firearms, parts, and ammunition. I don't know how far this can be extrapolated to a larger ban.
</div></div>
Please cite exactly which Executive Order and what exactly was "banned".
Re: This assault weapons ban CANNOT pass!
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Broker</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Eric Bryant</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: THEBEARRRRRRJEW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I've spoken with a few different folks and there seems to be confusion about how much power the President actually has when it comes to executive orders.
I've had folks tell me he can easily sidestep the Senate and House to push a weapons ban through. I've also had folks say it'll never happen, he doesn't have the power, etc.</div></div>
Executive orders have already been used by the past three administrations to ban the importation of certain firearms, parts, and ammunition. I don't know how far this can be extrapolated to a larger ban.
</div></div>
Please cite exactly which Executive Order and what exactly was "banned". </div></div>
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/law/jan-june98/guns_4-6.html
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Broker</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Eric Bryant</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: THEBEARRRRRRJEW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I've spoken with a few different folks and there seems to be confusion about how much power the President actually has when it comes to executive orders.
I've had folks tell me he can easily sidestep the Senate and House to push a weapons ban through. I've also had folks say it'll never happen, he doesn't have the power, etc.</div></div>
Executive orders have already been used by the past three administrations to ban the importation of certain firearms, parts, and ammunition. I don't know how far this can be extrapolated to a larger ban.
</div></div>
Please cite exactly which Executive Order and what exactly was "banned". </div></div>
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/law/jan-june98/guns_4-6.html
Re: This assault weapons ban CANNOT pass!
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: THEBEARRRRRRJEW</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Eric Bryant</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: THEBEARRRRRRJEW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I've spoken with a few different folks and there seems to be confusion about how much power the President actually has when it comes to executive orders.
I've had folks tell me he can easily sidestep the Senate and House to push a weapons ban through. I've also had folks say it'll never happen, he doesn't have the power, etc.</div></div>
Executive orders have already been used by the past three administrations to ban the importation of certain firearms, parts, and ammunition. I don't know how far this can be extrapolated to a larger ban.
</div></div>
That's where I'm lookin for clarity. Anyone?</div></div>
If you are looking for clarity, then look at the Constitution which is supposed to be the supreme law of the land. If you are confused about our current state of affairs then you have good reason: modern Presidents do not limit themselves to their Constitutional authorities and have seized powers not granted to them by the people in that document.
The Constitution has a succinct list of authorities for the President:
1. Is the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces
2. May require reports in writing from the cabinet officers on their duties
3. May grant pardons except in case of impeachments
4. May make treaties, but only with the advice and CONSENT of the Sentate
5. May appoint senior officers and judges, again with the advice and consent of the Senate
6. Must deliver a message on the State of the Union
7. May recommend legislation
8. May call special sessions of Congress
9. May resolve disputes between the House and Senate on adjournment
10. May receive ambassadors
11. Must take care that the laws are faithfully executed
12. Gives all military and other officers their commissions.
This list should be significant to you for what it does not contain:
1. The President does not have the power to make war.
That power is reserved in Constitution for the Congress and Congress alone in Article 1. Yet we have had over 115,000 Americans killed since World War Two in wars which have not been Congressionally declared as required by law.
2. The President does not have the power to enact law/legislation.
That authority is granted by the people to the Congress. Article 1 Section 1 reveals that Congress has 100% of the legislative authority. Yet we have a running total of around 14,000 executive orders from Presidents that have the force of law. Worse, we have over 200 books making up the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) from Presidential Administrative Agencies such as the EPA, USDA, FDA, etc. These "regulations" have the force of law, despite the fact that such lawmaking power is supposed to be fully vested in Congress, not the President. The Constitution grants no such authority to Presidential agencies - they are supposed to be administering and executing Congressional law, and advising the President so he may recommend legislation.
You might wonder if we still have a republican form of government, one in which law is made by elected representatives of the people, when unelected bureaucrats make far more "laws" than your elected lawmakers. Here is some clarity - we clearly do not. Here the federal government has completely annihilated the letter and intent of the Constitution, and indeed even the Declaration of Independence, since these "laws" are enacted by fiat like a king. In fact it may be worse, since a king at least has a face and may opposed. Go ahead and try to penetrate the dozens of executive bureaucracies and hold accountable specific individuals cranking out these laws by the tens of thousands. These individuals which will never appear on a ballot hold sway over the majority of law in this nation.
3. The President cannot unilaterally enter treaties.
That has not stopped them from doing so. While we have over 900 treaties that have been enacted with the consent of the Senate, we are also party to over 5000 "executive agreements" that in effect have the force of law through the President's administrative agencies. These "executive agreements" are called by that name here because to call them treaties would require Senate consent. The State Department simply renames them, though they are referred to as treaties elsewhere. Notice that again, we have far more un-Constitutional treaties than lawful treaties. Treaty power is serious, as the Constitution says that treaties become the law of the land like the Constitution itself. That is precisely why that power was distributed...the President confers with foreign powers but the Senate must consent.
So. The President goes to war when he pleases. He makes the laws he pleases. He makes the treaties he pleases. The elite club of 9 looks the other way, while Congress contemptibly abdicates their duty to the President so they may have more time to confiscate and spend your money to their own purposes.
Now that you have some clarity, do you feel better or worse?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: THEBEARRRRRRJEW</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Eric Bryant</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: THEBEARRRRRRJEW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I've spoken with a few different folks and there seems to be confusion about how much power the President actually has when it comes to executive orders.
I've had folks tell me he can easily sidestep the Senate and House to push a weapons ban through. I've also had folks say it'll never happen, he doesn't have the power, etc.</div></div>
Executive orders have already been used by the past three administrations to ban the importation of certain firearms, parts, and ammunition. I don't know how far this can be extrapolated to a larger ban.
</div></div>
That's where I'm lookin for clarity. Anyone?</div></div>
If you are looking for clarity, then look at the Constitution which is supposed to be the supreme law of the land. If you are confused about our current state of affairs then you have good reason: modern Presidents do not limit themselves to their Constitutional authorities and have seized powers not granted to them by the people in that document.
The Constitution has a succinct list of authorities for the President:
1. Is the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces
2. May require reports in writing from the cabinet officers on their duties
3. May grant pardons except in case of impeachments
4. May make treaties, but only with the advice and CONSENT of the Sentate
5. May appoint senior officers and judges, again with the advice and consent of the Senate
6. Must deliver a message on the State of the Union
7. May recommend legislation
8. May call special sessions of Congress
9. May resolve disputes between the House and Senate on adjournment
10. May receive ambassadors
11. Must take care that the laws are faithfully executed
12. Gives all military and other officers their commissions.
This list should be significant to you for what it does not contain:
1. The President does not have the power to make war.
That power is reserved in Constitution for the Congress and Congress alone in Article 1. Yet we have had over 115,000 Americans killed since World War Two in wars which have not been Congressionally declared as required by law.
2. The President does not have the power to enact law/legislation.
That authority is granted by the people to the Congress. Article 1 Section 1 reveals that Congress has 100% of the legislative authority. Yet we have a running total of around 14,000 executive orders from Presidents that have the force of law. Worse, we have over 200 books making up the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) from Presidential Administrative Agencies such as the EPA, USDA, FDA, etc. These "regulations" have the force of law, despite the fact that such lawmaking power is supposed to be fully vested in Congress, not the President. The Constitution grants no such authority to Presidential agencies - they are supposed to be administering and executing Congressional law, and advising the President so he may recommend legislation.
You might wonder if we still have a republican form of government, one in which law is made by elected representatives of the people, when unelected bureaucrats make far more "laws" than your elected lawmakers. Here is some clarity - we clearly do not. Here the federal government has completely annihilated the letter and intent of the Constitution, and indeed even the Declaration of Independence, since these "laws" are enacted by fiat like a king. In fact it may be worse, since a king at least has a face and may opposed. Go ahead and try to penetrate the dozens of executive bureaucracies and hold accountable specific individuals cranking out these laws by the tens of thousands. These individuals which will never appear on a ballot hold sway over the majority of law in this nation.
3. The President cannot unilaterally enter treaties.
That has not stopped them from doing so. While we have over 900 treaties that have been enacted with the consent of the Senate, we are also party to over 5000 "executive agreements" that in effect have the force of law through the President's administrative agencies. These "executive agreements" are called by that name here because to call them treaties would require Senate consent. The State Department simply renames them, though they are referred to as treaties elsewhere. Notice that again, we have far more un-Constitutional treaties than lawful treaties. Treaty power is serious, as the Constitution says that treaties become the law of the land like the Constitution itself. That is precisely why that power was distributed...the President confers with foreign powers but the Senate must consent.
So. The President goes to war when he pleases. He makes the laws he pleases. He makes the treaties he pleases. The elite club of 9 looks the other way, while Congress contemptibly abdicates their duty to the President so they may have more time to confiscate and spend your money to their own purposes.
Now that you have some clarity, do you feel better or worse?
Re: This assault weapons ban CANNOT pass!
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Veer_G</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Broker</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Eric Bryant</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: THEBEARRRRRRJEW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I've spoken with a few different folks and there seems to be confusion about how much power the President actually has when it comes to executive orders.
I've had folks tell me he can easily sidestep the Senate and House to push a weapons ban through. I've also had folks say it'll never happen, he doesn't have the power, etc.</div></div>
Executive orders have already been used by the past three administrations to ban the importation of certain firearms, parts, and ammunition. I don't know how far this can be extrapolated to a larger ban.
</div></div>
Please cite exactly which Executive Order and what exactly was "banned". </div></div>
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/law/jan-june98/guns_4-6.html </div></div>
He said the past 3 administrations, not 3 administrations ago, but thanks V for finding that since I didn't realize Clinton had done such. I'd still like to see an Executive Order given by Obama AND Bush in the last 11 years doing the same or similar.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Veer_G</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Broker</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Eric Bryant</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: THEBEARRRRRRJEW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I've spoken with a few different folks and there seems to be confusion about how much power the President actually has when it comes to executive orders.
I've had folks tell me he can easily sidestep the Senate and House to push a weapons ban through. I've also had folks say it'll never happen, he doesn't have the power, etc.</div></div>
Executive orders have already been used by the past three administrations to ban the importation of certain firearms, parts, and ammunition. I don't know how far this can be extrapolated to a larger ban.
</div></div>
Please cite exactly which Executive Order and what exactly was "banned". </div></div>
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/law/jan-june98/guns_4-6.html </div></div>
He said the past 3 administrations, not 3 administrations ago, but thanks V for finding that since I didn't realize Clinton had done such. I'd still like to see an Executive Order given by Obama AND Bush in the last 11 years doing the same or similar.
Re: This assault weapons ban CANNOT pass!
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Broker</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Please cite exactly which Executive Order and what exactly was "banned". </div></div>
I'm not going to go do your Google dirty work for you to find the specific EO #s, but you can start with the following information:
1) The importation of certain firearms "not suitable for sporting purposes" was banned by EO in 1989. This is why you cannot simply go down to the local gun shop and buy a shiny new authentic HK91 or FNC.
2) That ban was made permanent in 1998, and was widened to further to preclude the importation of certain ammunition (essentially, steel-core ammo in "pistol" calibers, including 7.62x39mm).
3) In 2006 (? - might have been 2005), certain parts were banned from importation. This is what killed the importation of Imbel FAL receivers, AK kits with intact barrels, etc.
You can figure out which three administrations were involved by the dates provided.
Now, EOs are typically limited to expounding upon how the executive branch will enforce a particular piece of legislation. Each of the above concerns the 1968 GCA. If one wants to speculate as to how this model could be used to further the cause of gun control, imagine the following:
A) The GCA is interpreted in such a fashion as to preclude private-party sales as it is impossible to truly "knowing or having reasonable cause to believe" that the buyer is not in violation of the law without a NICS check.
B) A requirement for a "mental health check" is instituted in order to further comply with the above.
C) Blood or urine testing is required to prove that a buyer is not addicted to an unlawful drug.
D) The requirements for "marking" (serialization) are expanded to include additional components, such as barrels, trigger groups, etc. While existing parts would be unaffected, new components of this type would be treated just as receivers.
E) The definition of "sporting purpose" is interpreted even more narrowly to prevent the importation of anything but a field-grade shotgun.
F) The definition of "destructive device" is widened to include, say, any rifle not strictly adapted to a sporting use and is capable of being used in an anti-material role.
This is all purely hypothetical, and maybe doesn't pose a concern to most gun owners. But if one looks at the sort of EOs that have been issued during the War On Terror, then it's quite possible to see a trend that moves from the executive branch's <span style="font-style: italic">interpretation</span> of the law towards the outright creation of new regulations on the fly.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Broker</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Please cite exactly which Executive Order and what exactly was "banned". </div></div>
I'm not going to go do your Google dirty work for you to find the specific EO #s, but you can start with the following information:
1) The importation of certain firearms "not suitable for sporting purposes" was banned by EO in 1989. This is why you cannot simply go down to the local gun shop and buy a shiny new authentic HK91 or FNC.
2) That ban was made permanent in 1998, and was widened to further to preclude the importation of certain ammunition (essentially, steel-core ammo in "pistol" calibers, including 7.62x39mm).
3) In 2006 (? - might have been 2005), certain parts were banned from importation. This is what killed the importation of Imbel FAL receivers, AK kits with intact barrels, etc.
You can figure out which three administrations were involved by the dates provided.
Now, EOs are typically limited to expounding upon how the executive branch will enforce a particular piece of legislation. Each of the above concerns the 1968 GCA. If one wants to speculate as to how this model could be used to further the cause of gun control, imagine the following:
A) The GCA is interpreted in such a fashion as to preclude private-party sales as it is impossible to truly "knowing or having reasonable cause to believe" that the buyer is not in violation of the law without a NICS check.
B) A requirement for a "mental health check" is instituted in order to further comply with the above.
C) Blood or urine testing is required to prove that a buyer is not addicted to an unlawful drug.
D) The requirements for "marking" (serialization) are expanded to include additional components, such as barrels, trigger groups, etc. While existing parts would be unaffected, new components of this type would be treated just as receivers.
E) The definition of "sporting purpose" is interpreted even more narrowly to prevent the importation of anything but a field-grade shotgun.
F) The definition of "destructive device" is widened to include, say, any rifle not strictly adapted to a sporting use and is capable of being used in an anti-material role.
This is all purely hypothetical, and maybe doesn't pose a concern to most gun owners. But if one looks at the sort of EOs that have been issued during the War On Terror, then it's quite possible to see a trend that moves from the executive branch's <span style="font-style: italic">interpretation</span> of the law towards the outright creation of new regulations on the fly.
Re: This assault weapons ban CANNOT pass!
The 1989 ban was not an "Executive Order" but in fact done by the BATFE in accordance to the 1968 Gun Control Act when they deemed that it failed the "Sporting" purpose test. Details Here
Yes, in 1998 as Veer pointed out an EO was given expanding a current law ALREADY in place. The Gun Conrol Act of 1968 was enacted by Congress, not an Executive Order, but I'll gldaly concede that there was one given by Clinton.
I still however don't think it has anything to do with "Google dirty work" but that you simply through the "past three administrations" out there as a fact when in fact it was speculation since you had Zero details other than you know at some point in the 200-06 period you couldn't get parts to an FAL which were restricted not by an Executive Order as far as I can see but by the order of the BATFE.
As for the latter 1/2 in regards to the Gun Control Act, Yeah I agree. Technically we should be even more concerned as an Executive Order can be given for items not listed if the President feels he can justify that the law was to "clarify or act to further a law put forth by the Congress" and if he thinks he can get it past The Supreme Court as "Constitutional" and not in violation of the 2nd.
The 1989 ban was not an "Executive Order" but in fact done by the BATFE in accordance to the 1968 Gun Control Act when they deemed that it failed the "Sporting" purpose test. Details Here
Yes, in 1998 as Veer pointed out an EO was given expanding a current law ALREADY in place. The Gun Conrol Act of 1968 was enacted by Congress, not an Executive Order, but I'll gldaly concede that there was one given by Clinton.
I still however don't think it has anything to do with "Google dirty work" but that you simply through the "past three administrations" out there as a fact when in fact it was speculation since you had Zero details other than you know at some point in the 200-06 period you couldn't get parts to an FAL which were restricted not by an Executive Order as far as I can see but by the order of the BATFE.
As for the latter 1/2 in regards to the Gun Control Act, Yeah I agree. Technically we should be even more concerned as an Executive Order can be given for items not listed if the President feels he can justify that the law was to "clarify or act to further a law put forth by the Congress" and if he thinks he can get it past The Supreme Court as "Constitutional" and not in violation of the 2nd.
Re: This assault weapons ban CANNOT pass!
The BATFE is a part of the executive branch. There is little difference in practical effect on the gun owner whether the rule comes about via executive order or bureaucratic law making...both are outside the intent of the Constitution, and neither law is reviewable by the people at the ballot box, despite the fact that it will have the force of law and can send you to jail. As such we have lost representative government and that makes it difficult to keep our Second Amendment rights from being improperly limited by bureaucrats.
By the way, no President will have a problem getting an executive order past the Supreme Court. The last time the court balked on an executive order was in 1952. President Truman was unhappy about a potential strike in a steel mill (Youngstown Sheet and Tube) and issued an executive order to the commerce secretary to simply seize the mill and operate it. The Supreme Court held this to be un-constitutional, and rightly so. The Constitution was written for good times and bad, is not subject to change just because there is an emergency or a major problem, and the President is bound to it. Since that time, that shining example of a decision has been continually weakened by subsequent cases so that now there is nothing of it left. The coup de grace was some '80s environmental cases that practically gave the EPA the ability to write whatever environmental law they wanted in the Reagan administration. Thus ended all restraint on executive branch lawmaking, either through executive orders or executive agency fiat.
Choose your President carefully, as he has far more power than the founder's gave him.
The BATFE is a part of the executive branch. There is little difference in practical effect on the gun owner whether the rule comes about via executive order or bureaucratic law making...both are outside the intent of the Constitution, and neither law is reviewable by the people at the ballot box, despite the fact that it will have the force of law and can send you to jail. As such we have lost representative government and that makes it difficult to keep our Second Amendment rights from being improperly limited by bureaucrats.
By the way, no President will have a problem getting an executive order past the Supreme Court. The last time the court balked on an executive order was in 1952. President Truman was unhappy about a potential strike in a steel mill (Youngstown Sheet and Tube) and issued an executive order to the commerce secretary to simply seize the mill and operate it. The Supreme Court held this to be un-constitutional, and rightly so. The Constitution was written for good times and bad, is not subject to change just because there is an emergency or a major problem, and the President is bound to it. Since that time, that shining example of a decision has been continually weakened by subsequent cases so that now there is nothing of it left. The coup de grace was some '80s environmental cases that practically gave the EPA the ability to write whatever environmental law they wanted in the Reagan administration. Thus ended all restraint on executive branch lawmaking, either through executive orders or executive agency fiat.
Choose your President carefully, as he has far more power than the founder's gave him.
Re: This assault weapons ban CANNOT pass!
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: KYpatriot</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The BATFE is a part of the executive branch. There is little difference in practical effect on the gun owner whether the rule comes about via executive order or bureaucratic law making...both are outside the intent of the Constitution, and neither law is reviewable by the people at the ballot box, despite the fact that it will have the force of law and can send you to jail. As such we have lost representative government and that makes it difficult to keep our Second Amendment rights from being improperly limited by bureaucrats.
By the way, no President will have a problem getting an executive order past the Supreme Court. The last time the court balked on an executive order was in 1952. President Truman was unhappy about a potential strike in a steel mill (Youngstown Sheet and Tube) and issued an executive order to the commerce secretary to simply seize the mill and operate it. The Supreme Court held this to be un-constitutional, and rightly so. The Constitution was written for good times and bad, is not subject to change just because there is an emergency or a major problem, and the President is bound to it. Since that time, that shining example of a decision has been continually weakened by subsequent cases so that now there is nothing of it left. The coup de grace was some '80s environmental cases that practically gave the EPA the ability to write whatever environmental law they wanted in the Reagan administration. Thus ended all restraint on executive branch lawmaking, either through executive orders or executive agency fiat.
Choose your President carefully, as he has far more power than the founder's gave him. </div></div>
That does NOT make it an "Executive Order" simply because it came from an Agency with the Executive Branch. And the Constitution never called for a public vote at the ballots of every law enacted which is why we have the Legislative Branch who in theory is supposed to be Representative's of the People and to vote the People's will.
It's pointless to even discuss it since most here believe all the Branches operate as an arm of the Executive and are far from belief in the system as it currently operates. Kind of like how everyone wants to attack a President no matter who it is and blame the Executive Branch for everything when in REALITY people should be looking at the Legislative Branch which is far more damaging. Come November it will be the same thing... American's naively thinking if they swap a President the USA will change. They could elect Wayne LaPierre as the US President at the moment and it would make no difference since people refuse to acknowledge the larger problem which is the REAL lawmakers. The Branches DO in fact have checks and balances, but if you don't actually BALANCE all the branches it's not going to matter.
Add:
KY...
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: KYpatriot</div><div class="ubbcode-body">By the way, no President will have a problem getting an executive order past the Supreme Court. The last time the court balked on an executive order was in 1952. President Truman was unhappy about a potential strike in a steel mill (Youngstown Sheet and Tube) and issued an executive order to the commerce secretary to simply seize the mill and operate it. The Supreme Court held this to be un-constitutional, and rightly so. The Constitution was written for good times and bad, is not subject to change just because there is an emergency or a major problem, and the President is bound to it. Since that time, that shining example of a decision has been continually weakened by subsequent cases so that now there is nothing of it left. The coup de grace was some '80s environmental cases that practically gave the EPA the ability to write whatever environmental law they wanted in the Reagan administration. Thus ended all restraint on executive branch lawmaking, either through executive orders or executive agency fiat. </div></div>
If you read my post and my previous posts regarding The Supreme Court you'll see I never at any time implied he would have difficulties. I've actually outlined that exact information on another thread. I consider a US Supreme Court Justice to be more powerful than the President which makes them far more dangerous if unchecked. Once you become a Justice you're there for life or until you retire. There is no Impeachment process for them. When they pass Judgement it's final and without appeal. They also enjoy the same privileges as a US President including Secret Service protection for life.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: KYpatriot</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The BATFE is a part of the executive branch. There is little difference in practical effect on the gun owner whether the rule comes about via executive order or bureaucratic law making...both are outside the intent of the Constitution, and neither law is reviewable by the people at the ballot box, despite the fact that it will have the force of law and can send you to jail. As such we have lost representative government and that makes it difficult to keep our Second Amendment rights from being improperly limited by bureaucrats.
By the way, no President will have a problem getting an executive order past the Supreme Court. The last time the court balked on an executive order was in 1952. President Truman was unhappy about a potential strike in a steel mill (Youngstown Sheet and Tube) and issued an executive order to the commerce secretary to simply seize the mill and operate it. The Supreme Court held this to be un-constitutional, and rightly so. The Constitution was written for good times and bad, is not subject to change just because there is an emergency or a major problem, and the President is bound to it. Since that time, that shining example of a decision has been continually weakened by subsequent cases so that now there is nothing of it left. The coup de grace was some '80s environmental cases that practically gave the EPA the ability to write whatever environmental law they wanted in the Reagan administration. Thus ended all restraint on executive branch lawmaking, either through executive orders or executive agency fiat.
Choose your President carefully, as he has far more power than the founder's gave him. </div></div>
That does NOT make it an "Executive Order" simply because it came from an Agency with the Executive Branch. And the Constitution never called for a public vote at the ballots of every law enacted which is why we have the Legislative Branch who in theory is supposed to be Representative's of the People and to vote the People's will.
It's pointless to even discuss it since most here believe all the Branches operate as an arm of the Executive and are far from belief in the system as it currently operates. Kind of like how everyone wants to attack a President no matter who it is and blame the Executive Branch for everything when in REALITY people should be looking at the Legislative Branch which is far more damaging. Come November it will be the same thing... American's naively thinking if they swap a President the USA will change. They could elect Wayne LaPierre as the US President at the moment and it would make no difference since people refuse to acknowledge the larger problem which is the REAL lawmakers. The Branches DO in fact have checks and balances, but if you don't actually BALANCE all the branches it's not going to matter.
Add:
KY...
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: KYpatriot</div><div class="ubbcode-body">By the way, no President will have a problem getting an executive order past the Supreme Court. The last time the court balked on an executive order was in 1952. President Truman was unhappy about a potential strike in a steel mill (Youngstown Sheet and Tube) and issued an executive order to the commerce secretary to simply seize the mill and operate it. The Supreme Court held this to be un-constitutional, and rightly so. The Constitution was written for good times and bad, is not subject to change just because there is an emergency or a major problem, and the President is bound to it. Since that time, that shining example of a decision has been continually weakened by subsequent cases so that now there is nothing of it left. The coup de grace was some '80s environmental cases that practically gave the EPA the ability to write whatever environmental law they wanted in the Reagan administration. Thus ended all restraint on executive branch lawmaking, either through executive orders or executive agency fiat. </div></div>
If you read my post and my previous posts regarding The Supreme Court you'll see I never at any time implied he would have difficulties. I've actually outlined that exact information on another thread. I consider a US Supreme Court Justice to be more powerful than the President which makes them far more dangerous if unchecked. Once you become a Justice you're there for life or until you retire. There is no Impeachment process for them. When they pass Judgement it's final and without appeal. They also enjoy the same privileges as a US President including Secret Service protection for life.
Re: This assault weapons ban CANNOT pass!
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Broker</div><div class="ubbcode-body">That does NOT make it an "Executive Order" simply because it came from an Agency with the Executive Branch. And the Constitution never called for a public vote at the ballots of every law enacted which is why we have the Legislative Branch who in theory is supposed to be Representative's of the People and to vote the People's will.</div></div>
By way of explanation, the body of the Senate expresses the will of the constituent <span style="font-style: italic">states</span> of the Union. The House Representatives <span style="font-style: italic">represent</span> the will of the people in the individual districts thereof comprising.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Broker</div><div class="ubbcode-body">That does NOT make it an "Executive Order" simply because it came from an Agency with the Executive Branch. And the Constitution never called for a public vote at the ballots of every law enacted which is why we have the Legislative Branch who in theory is supposed to be Representative's of the People and to vote the People's will.</div></div>
By way of explanation, the body of the Senate expresses the will of the constituent <span style="font-style: italic">states</span> of the Union. The House Representatives <span style="font-style: italic">represent</span> the will of the people in the individual districts thereof comprising.
Re: This assault weapons ban CANNOT pass!
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Veer_G</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Broker</div><div class="ubbcode-body">That does NOT make it an "Executive Order" simply because it came from an Agency with the Executive Branch. And the Constitution never called for a public vote at the ballots of every law enacted which is why we have the Legislative Branch who in theory is supposed to be Representative's of the People and to vote the People's will.</div></div>
By way of explanation, the body of the Senate expresses the will of the constituent <span style="font-style: italic">states</span> of the Union. The House Representatives <span style="font-style: italic">represent</span> the will of the people in the individual districts thereof comprising. </div></div>
I wasn't going to get into specifics of each branch V since I was trying to make my point in regards to the branches themselves. The House of Representatives is part of The Legislative Branch which is what I said. In theory also the Senate is supposed to represent the will of their "State" and that represents the will of the "People" of that State.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Veer_G</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Broker</div><div class="ubbcode-body">That does NOT make it an "Executive Order" simply because it came from an Agency with the Executive Branch. And the Constitution never called for a public vote at the ballots of every law enacted which is why we have the Legislative Branch who in theory is supposed to be Representative's of the People and to vote the People's will.</div></div>
By way of explanation, the body of the Senate expresses the will of the constituent <span style="font-style: italic">states</span> of the Union. The House Representatives <span style="font-style: italic">represent</span> the will of the people in the individual districts thereof comprising. </div></div>
I wasn't going to get into specifics of each branch V since I was trying to make my point in regards to the branches themselves. The House of Representatives is part of The Legislative Branch which is what I said. In theory also the Senate is supposed to represent the will of their "State" and that represents the will of the "People" of that State.
Re: This assault weapons ban CANNOT pass!
I agree with all of that, the most important point being that the legislature (the body most accountable to the people) is supposed to make 100% of the laws in this country. Not the president with an executive order, not the supreme court with a court ruling. The president is only supposed to recommend law, the supreme court is only supposed to interpret, not rewrite or create new law. Currently, the majority of law in this country comes from the executive branch in the form of bureaucratic regulations and a multitude of executive orders. The supreme court creates new law with nearly every ruling, in many cases simply re-writing legislation for the legislature like they did for Obamacare when they re-termed certain provisions as taxes so that they could then be determined Constitutional. That is not an authority granted to the Court by the Constitution.
Bottom line, our Second Amendment rights, and our other rights, are in danger because we no longer respect the rule of law. The Constitution is being ignored, and blatantly, right before our eyes. They get away with it because most Americans are simply more concerned with the latest Dancing with the Stars stats than they are the issues, and their apathy and ignorance drag the rest of us down with them.
If we just simply followed the law and respected the Constitution this would all be a moot point. Unfortunately, I see little indication our government is going to do that unless we make them. THAT will take an informed and courageous citizenry, which I hope we can still muster. The fact that this is even a discussion topic here gives me some glimmer of hope.
I agree with all of that, the most important point being that the legislature (the body most accountable to the people) is supposed to make 100% of the laws in this country. Not the president with an executive order, not the supreme court with a court ruling. The president is only supposed to recommend law, the supreme court is only supposed to interpret, not rewrite or create new law. Currently, the majority of law in this country comes from the executive branch in the form of bureaucratic regulations and a multitude of executive orders. The supreme court creates new law with nearly every ruling, in many cases simply re-writing legislation for the legislature like they did for Obamacare when they re-termed certain provisions as taxes so that they could then be determined Constitutional. That is not an authority granted to the Court by the Constitution.
Bottom line, our Second Amendment rights, and our other rights, are in danger because we no longer respect the rule of law. The Constitution is being ignored, and blatantly, right before our eyes. They get away with it because most Americans are simply more concerned with the latest Dancing with the Stars stats than they are the issues, and their apathy and ignorance drag the rest of us down with them.
If we just simply followed the law and respected the Constitution this would all be a moot point. Unfortunately, I see little indication our government is going to do that unless we make them. THAT will take an informed and courageous citizenry, which I hope we can still muster. The fact that this is even a discussion topic here gives me some glimmer of hope.
Re: This assault weapons ban CANNOT pass!
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: KYpatriot</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I agree with all of that, the most important point being that the legislature (the body most accountable to the people) is supposed to make 100% of the laws in this country. Not the president with an executive order, not the supreme court with a court ruling.</div></div>
Not exactly. You need to remember that they're supposed to check & balance each other in order to protect the People from Tyranny by any one particular branch. The Supreme Court was designed to keep the Legislative & Executive Branch in check with the Constitution, and the Executive Order was designed to protect the people from the Legislative or Judicial Branches failure to act. The Legislative & Judicial is given the power to overturn even an Executive Order but requires a 2/3rds majority in Congress. I think the real problem is that none of the Branches are really doing a check & balance of each other any more, they're all trying to force their own agenda which is not in the interest of the People but instead politically motivated towards special interest groups who will line their pockets.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: KYpatriot</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I agree with all of that, the most important point being that the legislature (the body most accountable to the people) is supposed to make 100% of the laws in this country. Not the president with an executive order, not the supreme court with a court ruling.</div></div>
Not exactly. You need to remember that they're supposed to check & balance each other in order to protect the People from Tyranny by any one particular branch. The Supreme Court was designed to keep the Legislative & Executive Branch in check with the Constitution, and the Executive Order was designed to protect the people from the Legislative or Judicial Branches failure to act. The Legislative & Judicial is given the power to overturn even an Executive Order but requires a 2/3rds majority in Congress. I think the real problem is that none of the Branches are really doing a check & balance of each other any more, they're all trying to force their own agenda which is not in the interest of the People but instead politically motivated towards special interest groups who will line their pockets.
Re: This assault weapons ban CANNOT pass!
Good discussion. Let me put my point on it another way. There is no authority in the Constitution for the President to use an executive order to protect the people from a legislative "failure to act." Presidents have artfully derived the lawmaking power of the executive order from a clause in Article II to "take care that the laws are faithfully executed" but to most reasonable people this implies that a law already exists to execute. No matter, logic nor law appears to matter much to any of the three branches.
I am generally in agreement with your thinking here, just the point on who has the lawmaking authority is important because the fact that all law is supposed to originate in the legislature is critical to the concept of representative self government, and is in itself a check on the other branches since they do not have that authority. I agree with you that these checks are critical, and aren't being done.
Here is the main problem as I see it: Congress has nearly completely abdicated their responsibility to the President. The President goes off the reservation, and the Supreme Court generally lets him. The President unilaterally decides when we go to war. The President makes the vast majority of law through his army of bureaucrats, not our legislators. The president does not take the advice or bother with the consent of the Senate for our international trade and other agreements. The President does not get Senate confirmation for important officers of government, we now just call them czars and ignore the Senate confirmation.
So in all these areas we have allowed the president to take power that was purposely distributed to elected representatives and concentrate it in just one man.
The obvious question is why would the Congress do that? Why cede or delegate its Constitutional authority that way? Well I believe the answer is simple: they have reduced their accountability to nearly zero and are able to shift blame no matter what happens, and when "their side" is in the oval office they get to implement their desires through the president without being accountable to the people in their districts. The president can only be in office 8years so his time is limited anyway right? But there are members of congress around for decades.
For example, the Congressional thinking goes something like this when you ask them to do their duty and declare war:
"What, you want me to declare war? NO way! Wars are risky! I might have to explain to my constituents why I voted to send their sons to war! No..what I will do is authorize a funding bill. That way if it goes bad, I can say it was Bush's war or Obama's war. I was just ensuring that they had what they needed when BUSH sent them to war...not me. I did what I could to help them in this god-forsaken presidential war. Or.... I could approve an "authorization to use force" that I can later claim did not go so far as to get us in this full fledged terrible war! On the other hand, if the war turns out great, well I supported the war didnt I? After all, I funded it so I was onboard! I authorized force and that meant all the way!. Yes you see, I am a member of Congress and always get to have my cake and eat it too."
They cannot lose and the American people lose their voice. Same thing with other policy matters, not just war. You are likely to hear "Don't call my office, the ATF is the one you should be mad at if you want a suppressor." or how about "Yeah, it really is crazy that the EPA would try to ban ammo because it has lead. I'm going to write a sternly worded letter!" Congress is full of self serving cowards who let the other branches do the heavy lifting on policy and law and then pretend to be outraged when they look bad. Meanwhile, the incumbents get dozens of consecutive terms in the house and decades in the Senate through this hypocrisy and the public is too shallow to see through it.
Good discussion. Let me put my point on it another way. There is no authority in the Constitution for the President to use an executive order to protect the people from a legislative "failure to act." Presidents have artfully derived the lawmaking power of the executive order from a clause in Article II to "take care that the laws are faithfully executed" but to most reasonable people this implies that a law already exists to execute. No matter, logic nor law appears to matter much to any of the three branches.
I am generally in agreement with your thinking here, just the point on who has the lawmaking authority is important because the fact that all law is supposed to originate in the legislature is critical to the concept of representative self government, and is in itself a check on the other branches since they do not have that authority. I agree with you that these checks are critical, and aren't being done.
Here is the main problem as I see it: Congress has nearly completely abdicated their responsibility to the President. The President goes off the reservation, and the Supreme Court generally lets him. The President unilaterally decides when we go to war. The President makes the vast majority of law through his army of bureaucrats, not our legislators. The president does not take the advice or bother with the consent of the Senate for our international trade and other agreements. The President does not get Senate confirmation for important officers of government, we now just call them czars and ignore the Senate confirmation.
So in all these areas we have allowed the president to take power that was purposely distributed to elected representatives and concentrate it in just one man.
The obvious question is why would the Congress do that? Why cede or delegate its Constitutional authority that way? Well I believe the answer is simple: they have reduced their accountability to nearly zero and are able to shift blame no matter what happens, and when "their side" is in the oval office they get to implement their desires through the president without being accountable to the people in their districts. The president can only be in office 8years so his time is limited anyway right? But there are members of congress around for decades.
For example, the Congressional thinking goes something like this when you ask them to do their duty and declare war:
"What, you want me to declare war? NO way! Wars are risky! I might have to explain to my constituents why I voted to send their sons to war! No..what I will do is authorize a funding bill. That way if it goes bad, I can say it was Bush's war or Obama's war. I was just ensuring that they had what they needed when BUSH sent them to war...not me. I did what I could to help them in this god-forsaken presidential war. Or.... I could approve an "authorization to use force" that I can later claim did not go so far as to get us in this full fledged terrible war! On the other hand, if the war turns out great, well I supported the war didnt I? After all, I funded it so I was onboard! I authorized force and that meant all the way!. Yes you see, I am a member of Congress and always get to have my cake and eat it too."
They cannot lose and the American people lose their voice. Same thing with other policy matters, not just war. You are likely to hear "Don't call my office, the ATF is the one you should be mad at if you want a suppressor." or how about "Yeah, it really is crazy that the EPA would try to ban ammo because it has lead. I'm going to write a sternly worded letter!" Congress is full of self serving cowards who let the other branches do the heavy lifting on policy and law and then pretend to be outraged when they look bad. Meanwhile, the incumbents get dozens of consecutive terms in the house and decades in the Senate through this hypocrisy and the public is too shallow to see through it.
Similar threads
