Does this Surprise anyone?

Obama: Some Gun Control Measures 'I Can Accomplish Through Executive Action'
"My understanding is the vice president's going to provide a range of steps that we can take to reduce gun violence," said Obama. "Some of them will require legislation, some of them I can accomplish through executive action. And so I will be reviewing those today, and as I said, I will speak in more detail to what we're going to go ahead and propose later in the week. But I'm confident that there are some steps that we can take that don't require legislation and that are within my authority as president, and where you get a step that, has the opportunity to reduce the possibility of gun violence, then i want to go ahead and take it."

Weekly Standard

While those of you who celebrate Obama taking action on firearms may think this is great. Remember he may be setting a precedence that will allow future presidents that same power over issues you would rather see decided in the Congress.

Just another instance of using a crisis as an excuse for a power grab.

NOPE , doesn't surprise, however.....probably for a DIFFERENT reason. The emotional response the Pres. displayed right after the
murder of 20 young souls.....kinda' was a hint. JMO

I appreciate how emotionally devastating the event was, but matters such as these need to be deliberate and the result of discussion and compromise.

(chickaree) I appreciate how emotionally devastating the event was, but matters such as these need to be deliberate and the result of discussion and compromise.

I agree, key word is compromise. But if one side (NRA/GOP) Does not feel the need to move one iota of their position, then I can understand a move such as this. We can not just ignore the fact that these 'mass shootings' are occurring..... and any/all solutions need to be on the table. When one group removes possibility for any change in gun control regulations, the game changes.

The NRA was willing to give up private sales without background checks but it didn't go anywhere.

netdude wrote: I agree, key word is compromise. But if one side (NRA/GOP) Does not feel the need to move one iota of their position,

One side wants fewer restrictions, one side wants more. Doing nothing IS a compromise.

You are operating off of the mistaken idea that the current gun bans are OK with the pro-arms side. They are not. they should be rolled back. More guns in the hands of good citizens is the answer, not fewer.

The operative phrase is "good citizens".

So the "sky is falling" responses to what? The President merely stated that he may exercise his legal authority where applicable to reduce gun violence. What is so wrong with that? Are you saying that he should increase gun violence? Until he states exactly what steps he may take by executive order, it is mere supposition and hysteria to go into such hyperbole.

Something the Dog Said wrote: So the "sky is falling" responses to what? The President merely stated that he may exercise his legal authority where applicable to reduce gun violence. What is so wrong with that? Are you saying that he should increase gun violence? Until he states exactly what steps he may take by executive order, it is mere supposition and hysteria to go into such hyperbole.

He should allow congress to do it's job, and stay out of it.

Ban guns and only rich people will be able to afford them. :rofllol


" But people are really sure that if we pass the assault weapons ban, something useful will be done, even though it’s a ban on deadly weapons in the same way that prohibiting flame decals would be a ban on fast cars. This law intending that we only get shot with non-scary-looking guns wouldn’t actually ban anything, since everything pre-ban would still be perfectly legal — it would just cost more. Despite all the Occupy Wall Street protests about the sociopathic 1%, apparently we’ll all feel safer if only the wealthy have the ability to kill lots of people at once."


http://pjmedia.com/blog/pretend-gun-con ... epage=true