Obama Bin Stalin threatens EO on gun grab

[mjollnir]

In regard to what?

Waterboarding? What section of the constitution would you claim that violates?

US CODE: Title 18,2441. War crimes

Congress has enacted 4 statutes and also ratified 2 treaties that prohibit torture of all kinds. Period. Any reasonable reading of the statutes clearly show that waterboarding is a crime. It is also considered illegal under both Senate-ratified treaties.

The laws that apply here are:

A. The federal Anti-Torture Act
B. The federal War Crimes Act that even as amended by the Military Commissions Act, bans acts such as waterboarding
C. Various federal criminal assault laws that under the PATRIOT Act, apply to all assaults by or against Americans on or in overseas facilities designated for the use of the federal government
D. The McCain Amendment in the Detainee Treatment Act
E. The Senate-ratified Convention Against Torture
F. The Senate-ratified Geneva Conventions (particularly Common Article 3, which prohibits torture and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment of detainees).

The last POTUS himself admitted he ordered acts contrary to these laws to be carried out.

A US Federal Judge overseeing Gitmo has already admitted that he have tortured, contrary to our laws.

You're welcome.

Glad I could help.

 

[catzmeow]

hahahaha my claims are bogus? I'm not claiming they are unconstitutional, they ARE unconstitutional. Educate yourself on the Constitution of the United Sates and then cross-reference what I posted and you will see for yourself.

Read up and get educated. That's the best way to see what the difference between a claim and a fact is.

I've already proven you are completely wrong on at least two of them.

Your integrity is shot.

You really are clueless.....but please feel free to believe you have proven me wrong

I hope you will use your tight connection with the FBI to notify us in advance of the firearm grab.

 

[beretta304]

To do things like improve data sharing between LE agencies and tighten up background checks.

I wouldn't get too het up about it.

You're right..it's not going to amount to anything...at first. Beyond that, none of us know. Right now much ado about nothing. Let's see what he proposes first.

Next, the round up and the indoctrination camps. After that, the ovens.

A bit of a stretch, no?

 

[catzmeow]

You're right..it's not going to amount to anything...at first. Beyond that, none of us know. Right now much ado about nothing. Let's see what he proposes first.

Next, the round up and the indoctrination camps. After that, the ovens.

A bit of a stretch, no?

Praise jeebus and past the tinfoil.

 

[g5000]

Clearly all the hyperbolic idiots who circle jerked in the first couple pages of this topic have no clue what Obama is contemplating doing by Executive Order.

That's because the puppet masters who orchestrate their small minds want them to believe some manufactured bullshit.

What these dumbasses don't know is that we have been here before. Obama tipped his hand about what he would do with EOs a long time ago. If the retards had a critical thinking brain cell in their bodies, they would have found this out for themselves rather than drink the piss being poured for them by their Svengalis.

2011:
Obama Looking For Ways Around Congress On Gun Policy

The Department of Justice held the first in what is expected to be a series of meetings on Tuesday afternoon with a group of stakeholders in the ongoing gun-policy debates. Before the meeting, officials said part of the discussion was expected to center around the White House's options for shaping policy on its own or through its adjoining agencies and departments -- on issues ranging from beefing up background checks to encouraging better data-sharing.

Administration officials said talk of executive orders or agency action are among a host of options that President Barack Obama and his advisers are considering. “The purpose of these discussions is to be a productive exchange of good ideas from folks across the spectrum,” one official said. “We think that’s a good place to start.”

Beefing up background checks and encouraging better data-sharing.

Not. Unconstitutional.

And there's a thing called prosecutorial privilege/discretion.

Dipshits.

I can't say I disagree with you but should he be looking for a way around at this juncture or maybe have least given a try at getting Congress to do something as inert as they may be?

I clearly showed you Obama thought about doing these things at least as far back as 2011.

Your "at this juncture" comment is therefore ridiculous. This is not the first time this has been considered. It isn't like this is something sudden and out of the blue or new, except to the piss drinkers in this thread who are fantasizing about imaginary shit.

This is why Obama succeeds when he does. The dumb fucks are over there punching at shadows while Obama casually strides along untouched, doing what he does.

 

[beretta304]

Next, the round up and the indoctrination camps. After that, the ovens.

A bit of a stretch, no?

Praise jeebus and past the tinfoil.

You can pass it but I don't need it. I'm not predicting the dire gloom without hearing what he plans to do.

My only beef is that I would have liked to have seen it done without going right for the EO.

 

[WillowTree]

Next, the round up and the indoctrination camps. After that, the ovens.

A bit of a stretch, no?

Praise jeebus and past the tinfoil.

I don't like past tinfoil, I want knew tinfoil.

 

[catzmeow]

Knew tinfoil is shinier.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Which is creepier: Plasma, or RGS inviting people to his house to touch his "rifle"?

Obama, declaring himself dictator and revoking the bill of rights.

Why do you ask?

 

[catzmeow]

Which is creepier: Plasma, or RGS inviting people to his house to touch his "rifle"?

Obama, declaring himself dictator and revoking the bill of rights.

Why do you ask?

Is Obama the boogie monster who inhabits the closet of your nightmares?

 

[Dr Grump]

So go on record and tell us what this EO will entail.

Will? Or could?

Obama could order a halt to all firearm and ammunition manufacturing. It would be consistent with the abuses that are a constant from this administration.

Personally, any EO from Obama on this would be viewed as an act of war by me. The question is where we draw the line when a Hitler or Lenin seize power. For me, this is the line, if Obama crosses it, then I must view it as an open declaration of war against the United States Constitution by the regime.

Do you actually believe some of the shit you type? Seriously?

 

[catzmeow]

I think he really does. If Obama comes, Uncensored is going to be ready with a full arsenal of knifes, staffs and swords.

 

[beretta304]

Which is creepier: Plasma, or RGS inviting people to his house to touch his "rifle"?

Obama, declaring himself dictator and revoking the bill of rights.

Why do you ask?

Is Obama the boogie monster who inhabits the closet of your nightmares?

Fair question to you catz. Would it not been more cohesive for a divided nation to first try legislation before going for the EO on such a divisive issue?

 

[mjollnir]

Which is creepier: Plasma, or RGS inviting people to his house to touch his "rifle"?

Obama, declaring himself dictator and revoking the bill of rights.

Why do you ask?

^^^^^

 

[g5000]

hahahaha my claims are bogus? I'm not claiming they are unconstitutional, they ARE unconstitutional. Educate yourself on the Constitution of the United Sates and then cross-reference what I posted and you will see for yourself.

Read up and get educated. That's the best way to see what the difference between a claim and a fact is.

I've already proven you are completely wrong on at least two of them.

Your integrity is shot.

You really are clueless.....but please feel free to believe you have proven me wrong

I have. Conclusively.

Customs and Immigration Enforcement is part of the Executive branch's responsibilities. Presidents can, and do (as I showed Bush did), exercise latitude within the boundaries of the laws through Executive Orders.

You have not even cited the law Obama violated. You think all you have to do is cite the Constitution which just demonstrates you haven't a clue about the Constitution or the way our government works.

You need to cite the law which Congress wrote under their Constitutional powers to legislate immigration, and then prove Obama broke that law.

I bet you would not even know how to begin to do that.

You seem to believe saying something is unconstitutional is evidence it is. But that is actually the most basic of ipse dixit logical fallacies.

 

[cereal_killer]

 

[catzmeow]

Fair question to you catz. Would it not been more cohesive for a divided nation to first try legislation before going for the EO on such a divisive issue?

Executive orders typically address functionality issues of federal agencies (the president is, in essence, the CEO of the government). I suspect that Obama's EO will deal specifically with the federal law enforcement agencies and will cover fairly non-offensive loopholes that don't pose an actual threat to the 2nd amendment.

In other words, he will go through the motions of action without making major, sweeping changes. In that way, he can be responsive to the current events of the day without distracting from more pressing concerns, like the fiscal cliff.

 

[Dr Grump]

I've already proven you are completely wrong on at least two of them.

Your integrity is shot.

You really are clueless.....but please feel free to believe you have proven me wrong

I have. Conclusively.

Customs and Immigration Enforcement is part of the Executive branch's responsibilities. Presidents can, and do (as I showed Bush did), exercise latitude within the boundaries of the laws.

You have not even cited the law Obama violated. You think all you have to do is cite the Constitution which just demonstrates you haven't a clue about the Constitution or the way our government works.

You need to cite the law which Congress wrote under their Constitutional powers to legislate immigration, and then prove Obama broke that law.

I bet you would not even know how to begin to do that.

Netiquette has always been to back up assertions when posting on a messageboard. I haven't seen CK do that. Saying "i'm right because I say I am" is not proving a point. Don't hold your breath...

 

[beretta304]

Fair question to you catz. Would it not been more cohesive for a divided nation to first try legislation before going for the EO on such a divisive issue?

I suspect that Obama's EO will deal specifically with the federal law enforcement agencies and will address fairly non-offensive loopholes that don't pose a threat to the 2nd amendment.

In other words, he will go through the motions of action without making major, sweeping changes. In that way, he can be responsive to the current events of the day without distracting from more pressing concerns, like the fiscal cliff.

I would say you are correct. But what about going for legislation first. I know it likely would go nowhere but what would the harm have been.

Look at the division here. Imagine it nationwide. Sometimes one has to go through the motions to validate controversial steps.

 

[CrotchetyGeezer]

The second civil war will occur if he does. I swear to god. The king shall regret attempting such action.

Go on record and tell us what this EO would entail.

No one knows at the moment what it will entail as Biden is keeping hush hush on the matter and is giving no details. However, who cares what it will entail? That he's threatening to use EO as a means to usurp Americans' Constitutional rights is all we need to know and it doesn't matter what it might entail.