Does this Surprise anyone?

If the President has the constitutional authority to exercise his power, then it is his job. Just because he is not bought and paid for like the conservatives in Congress, does not mean that he should not use his constitutional authority.

If the President has the constitutional authority to exercise his power, then it is his job. Just because he is not bought and paid for like the conservatives in Congress, does not mean that he should not use his constitutional authority.

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

I thought the bad guys didn't go through the regular channels and stole their guns. If that's the case, it doesn't matter how expensive they are.

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.

Grady wrote: 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.

While I did use Obama's answer to a question on gun control, gun control was not intended to be the thrust of this thread. My intent was to push the issue of another federal government power grab. To those of you who would celebrate another Obama executive order, beware of what you wish. Because the next time it may be another president with a completely agenda. The only thing they may have in common is the desire for more power and control.

Raees wrote:

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

I thought the bad guys didn't go through the regular channels and stole their guns. If that's the case, it doesn't matter how expensive they are.

That is actually a good point, up to a point.The more valuable an item is the harder it will be to steal and the more expensive it will be on the black market..

If guns are more expensive, they will be locked up more securely, etc.

Some of the legal fully automatic guns are 15-100K. You can bet few of their owners are going to leave them in a car trunk overnight, or leaning in the corner for a week.

Grady wrote: [

While I did use Obama's answer to a question on gun control, gun control was not intended to be the thrust of this thread. My intent was to push the issue of another federal government power grab. To those of you who would celebrate another Obama executive order, beware of what you wish. Because the next time it may be another president with a completely agenda. The only thing they may have in common is the desire for more power and control.

And here we are. I fear it is over.

"
AUTHOR:

Benjamin Franklin (1706–1790)



QUOTATION:

They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. 1



ATTRIBUTION:

Historical Review of Pennsylvania.



the left wants our guns the right wants our vaginas.

My intent was to push the issue of another federal government power grab.

As has been pointed out, if he already has the power to do certain things, then they are not "power grabs". What could he do? Here are a few things . As for the rest, presidents certainly can and frequently do push Congress for legislation that they feel strongly about. Nothing fishy about that.

More guns in the hands of good citizens is the answer, not fewer.

And who gets to decide what a "good citizen" is?

Grady wrote:

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.

Grady wrote: 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.

While I did use Obama's answer to a question on gun control, gun control was not intended to be the thrust of this thread. My intent was to push the issue of another federal government power grab. To those of you who would celebrate another Obama executive order, beware of what you wish. Because the next time it may be another president with a completely agenda. The only thing they may have in common is the desire for more power and control.

Actually, the executive order has been implemented in the past....by BOTH parties. If you do the research you will see it is NOT that
unique. I will wait to hear the EXACT nature of the decisions before I will make a comment.

Like if Harry Reid establishes a precedent that the Senate can avoid the filibuster?

Just because he can change 200+ years of Senate tradition doesn't mean he wants to go there.