Why do so many leftists believe in the Executive Order?

[SassyIrishLass]

You can address where I've noted it can happen if you wish. You are arguing that the Supreme Court is so partisan that they will allow a Trump ban to stand but not a Biden ban.

That's quite a sad statement.

I DO NOT support expanding the court but if it went there, I would.

I can do what I please, Nincompoop.

How's that?

 

[jknowgood]

Why did you not say so to start with?



He does not need to thanks to Trump's EO

The Supreme Court will di away with it.

 

[jknowgood]

If Trump can ban as aspect of a weapon, so can Biden. Both simply made a gun fire faster.

The Supreme Court can do away with it.

 

[pknopp]

The Supreme Court can do away with it.

But they are not.

 

[jknowgood]

But they are not.

Then when Trump is back in 2024. He can do away with it.

 

[pknopp]

Then when Trump is back in 2024. He can do away with it.

Trump never admits he was wrong.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

Trump never admits he was wrong.

Trump's no leftist

 

[BackAgain]

You have no idea what argument Biden will use and it's irrelevant. If Trump can ban one aspect of a gun and get the Supreme Court to let it stand, so can Biden.

You once again ( very common with you and getting old) you miss the point.

I don’t give a rat’s ass what “argument” Brandon might use. The issue is what “law” he purportedly relies upon.

The issue in the bump stock matter was whether the use of a bump stock effectively made a semi-automatic a fully automatic. The legal reasoning for the administrative rule was actually pretty straightforward and logical. But the point is that there was a law on the books upon which the President (actually the ATF) could promulgate a rule.

Brandon can’t do the same thing for all guns (revolver or semi-automatics). And the reason he can’t is clear: there is no analogous law on the books applicable to revolvers or semi-automatics. Nor could there be consistent with the 2d Amendment.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

That isn’t true unless the facts line up. There is some authority for rule making based on laws promulgated to create ATF and various federal laws concerning firearms. The question is what congressional law (if any) authorized Brandon to unilaterally dispense monies collected via taxation for college loan repayments?

The discussion is about guns and things associated with them.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

The Supreme Court will di away with it.

https://www.usnews.com/news/top-news/articles/2022-11-14/u-s-supreme-court-again-spurns-challenge-to-gun-bump-stock-ban

 

[BackAgain]

The discussion is about guns and things associated with them.

Yeah. That’s what we’ve been discussing, Captain obvious. (The same principle applies to his student loan nonsense.)

A machine gun is a gun. A semi automatic is a gun. But a semi automatic is not a machine gun.

Were you attempting to make a point?

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Yeah. That’s what we’ve been discussing, Captain obvious.

A machine gun is a gun. A semi automatic is a gun. But a semi automatic is not a machine gun.

Were you attempting to make a point?

The whole point of the discussion is that due to the precedent set by Trump it is now acceptable to ban accessories and such to firearms via EO. It is a door he opened that will be exploited by the Dems.

 

[pknopp]

You once again ( very common with you and getting old) you miss the point.

I don’t give a rat’s ass what “argument” Brandon might use. The issue is what “law” he purportedly relies upon.

The same one as Trump. I've covered this many times.

The issue in the bump stock matter was whether the use of a bump stock effectively made a semi-automatic a fully automatic.

It does not.

The legal reasoning for the administrative rule was actually pretty straightforward and logical. But the point is that there was a law on the books upon which the President (actually the ATF) could promulgate a rule.

Brandon can’t do the same thing for all guns (revolver or semi-automatics). And the reason he can’t is clear: there is no analogous law on the books applicable to revolvers or semi-automatics. Nor could there be consistent with the 2d Amendment.

Both simply make a gun fire quicker.

 

[BackAgain]

The whole point of the discussion is that due to the precedent set by Trump it is now acceptable to ban accessories and such to firearms via EO. It is a door he opened that will be exploited by the Dems.

No. That’s not the point.

The point is that certain “accessories” convert a perfectly legal semi auto into an illegal fully automatic machine gun. (And it wasn’t actually done via an Executive Order. It was done by the ATF via normal rule making.)

And sure. The Dims might try to “exploit” the lawful precedent. But unless they have an equally defensible basis, it won’t work.

Note: it is a separate point of contention whether or not the 2d Amendment is properly construed as protecting machine gun ownership. I’m not addressing that issue here.

 

[jbander]

Biden making noise about banning guns with an EO, but we in this country seem too stupid to know that it would not effect the population, because a President can not change law on his own, and certainly can't change the Constitution...

Read your own comment idiot , He can change law unless his changes are unconstitutional. And the right supports that historically more than the left ,. You people are idiots. Like dealing with third-graders,

 

[jbander]

Biden making noise about banning guns with an EO, but we in this country seem too stupid to know that it would not effect the population, because a President can not change law on his own, and certainly can't change the Constitution...

What a absolute nothing comment.

 

[jknowgood]

Trump never admits he was wrong.

How would Trump admit he was wrong by doing away with Biden's eo if he does it?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Biden making noise about banning guns with an EO, but we in this country seem too stupid to know that it would not effect the population, because a President can not change law on his own, and certainly can't change the Constitution...

This is a lie.

President Biden is not going to ‘ban guns’ with an EO.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

That's what I am saying, it can't....Well, to be clear it can be banned for those who work under the Executive branch, but if you're talking about enforcing as law, the President can't make law.

And President Biden has likewise made no such claim, he has not stated he can, which is why the thread premise is a lie.

 

[Mr. Friscus]

Biden making noise about banning guns with an EO, but we in this country seem too stupid to know that it would not effect the population, because a President can not change law on his own, and certainly can't change the Constitution...

Biden specifically attacked trumps use of EO’s as proof he was an authoritarian.. then came in and passed the most EO’s in history…

What a fraud he is