archer wrote: Bottom line? As has been posted several times, Obama won.....Romney lost. Obama is president, Romney isn't. Whine all you want, it doesn't change the fact that with victory comes all the rights and privileges of being president. When your guy/woman gets elected you can listen to us whine......deal??
archer wrote: Bottom line? As has been posted several times, Obama won.....Romney lost. Obama is president, Romney isn't. Whine all you want, it doesn't change the fact that with victory comes all the rights and privileges of being president. When your guy/woman gets elected you can listen to us whine......deal??
That is really sad.
yeah, it is....but it is what we have become as Americans. Half the nation blames the other half for everything bad that has ever happened, and the half being blamed thinks the the other half are certifiably nutz.
homeagain wrote: 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. .
No argument here, both parties are guilty of growing the reach and power of the central government.
Which is REALLY the bottom line,isn't. I'm an INDY and the partisan politics NEVER cease......you(collectively) have O for the NEXT
4 YEARS. We have many serious items on the agenda, our credit rating,financial fiasco,ATTEMPTING to address the murder of children
in an INTELLIGENT way and provide a compromise that ALL can live with. (we will see how THAT goes : ) JMO
I know Bush signed a considerable number of executive orders. I know that Obama hasn't signed as many. The numbers don't matter. Presidents have historically cited the law that pertains to the Executive order, as they often create task forces, comittees or initiatives.
There won't be an Executive order banning "assault weapons". Obama is smarter than that and knows that would be the third EO shot down as unconstitutional - right along with Truman trying to nationalize the steel mills.
He knows what he can and can't do. He'll create task forces and intiatives within federal agencies. He'll create studies to collect more data. He'll push the limits by enhancing background checks and possibly addressing high capacity magazines (although that's shakey ground as well).
I hope that the majority of them address mental health issues, which is the real problem that everyone is avoiding while bickering about banning certain guns, which in my humble opinion, is just an emotional response that will do no good.
"Whatever you are, be a good one." ~ Abraham Lincoln
I believe that one EO that will be signed is to to place all gun sales on strict liability. This would mean that if anyone (private or dealer) sells to someone who is unable to pass a background check is liable for criminal actions performed with that firearm. So if you decide to forego a background check on a gun sale, then you better have really, really good insurance and/or deep pockets and a really good criminal lawyer.
"Remember to always be yourself. Unless you can be batman. Then always be batman." Unknown
Something the Dog Said wrote: I believe that one EO that will be signed is to to place all gun sales on strict liability. This would mean that if anyone (private or dealer) sells to someone who is unable to pass a background check is liable for criminal actions performed with that firearm. So if you decide to forego a background check on a gun sale, then you better have really, really good insurance and/or deep pockets and a really good criminal lawyer.
The trial lawyers, big Dem contributers, will love that one! So if ATF misplaces guns, like they do after every inventory, and those guns are misused, do you get to sue the goverment?
And will they just go back to the 1920's with people filing down serial numbers?
Thomas Sowell: There are no solutions, just trade-offs.
Something the Dog Said wrote: I believe that one EO that will be signed is to to place all gun sales on strict liability. This would mean that if anyone (private or dealer) sells to someone who is unable to pass a background check is liable for criminal actions performed with that firearm. So if you decide to forego a background check on a gun sale, then you better have really, really good insurance and/or deep pockets and a really good criminal lawyer.
But we also know that a person who can pass a background check today, may develop a mental disorder of some sort in the future or just have some sort of emotional breakdown that sends him over the edge while still legally owning that gun. So then does the gun seller have a liability when that person cracks at some point in the future?
The left is angry because they are now being judged by the content of their character and not by the color of their skin.
: ) JMO
