Leweman
Platinum Member
- Aug 5, 2010
- 6,822
- 3,500
- 955
What are you complaining about? In your opening two sentences, you seem to think that the president is overstepping his authority. But you wind up worried that there has not been enough authority projected to complete prosecutions.My freedom of speech is not an absolute freedom. It is restricted to make slander and libel and unfounded calls of danger such as crying "FIRE!" in a theater a crime. The freedom of the press is also not an absolute, again making crimes of slander. My freedom of religion is also not an absolute as any Voodoo worshipers cannot sacrifice animals.
I wonder why the gun lovers believe that their right to own any and all firearms should not be restricted in order to maintain public health and safety? If the founders knew of any technology beyond musketry, would they turn a blind eye to the obvious public safety concerns once weapons designed for the military are held by the public? If the 2nd amendment was written today, wouldn't it make sense to clearly define what "arms" are?
The President's power isn't absolute either. I wonder why he thinks there should be no limits on his executive actions. There are already restrictions on gun ownership to maintain public safety. Background checks have caught tens of thousands of people and stopped them from purchasing firearms. Only a handful of them stopped have ever been prosecuted.
Correct ... He's not enforcing the current laws. More laws will just make it more inconvenient for law abiding citizens because they are already not breaking the law and won't break any new laws. The law breakers will continue to skate ... while good citizens are punished. You really don't get it do you?