Barack Obama today announced a sweeping set of directives that he intends will cut down on Americans’ access to guns, setting the stage for a constitutional battle with states where lawmakers already are openly defying the latest power grab by the White House.
Tenth Amendment Center national communications director Mike Maharrey summarized the resistance to more gun control, and the resistance.
“When you’ve got people like [Sen. Dianne] Feinstein talking about major bans and Biden telling us that all they need is an executive order, you know these folks are willing to go all the way. So, it’s good to see these folks in Missouri go all the way as well, all the way in support the 2nd Amendment without any ifs, ands, or butts. The feds have absolutely zero constitutional authority to make any laws over personal firearms. Period.”
The center noted, “The Second Amendment was not created to give...
Ladeeda wrote: What Europe has done for the UK is all bad - red tape, meddling with our financial and legal regulations, diluting our sovereignty at every turn etc.
It was the British parliament that diluted its own sovereignty with the unlawful and unconstitutional passing of the European Communities Act 1972 under the Conservative government (of which Margaret Thatcher was a very approving cabinet minister).
Both left and right were warned by men such as Enoch Powell and Tony Benn. The issue was very straightforward.
Ladeeda wrote: Their fabrications ruined the reputation of Margaret Thatcher, and yet we know for a fact that Blair admired her.
Too funny. Margaret Thatcher ruined Margaret Thatcher's reputation. Her own party kicked her out for her lies and deceit 4 long years before Blair became Labour Party leader.
Of course Blair admired her, he was a Thatcherite and in the wrong party.
Mike wrote: The infringement is real enough. The Republicans of the ruling class mentality have no real opposition motivation. They value their positions, and imo prefer being out of leadership, for it affects not their job, income, nor benefits. They are, quite frankly, timid career politicians, not statesmen. (Making waves is uncomfortable) They aren't quite as corrupt as Democrats, so work hard at putting on a show of opposition before giving in to them. They want to be liked by the media, which doesn't allow them time nor stomach to demand accountability. As Thomas Jefferson said(1796): "Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the boisterous sea of liberty."
Bro, that may well be the way of it.
But is there anything stopping a citizen from bringing the president to justice? How 'bout it?
John UK wrote: Normally an opposition party would pounce on any infringement, and make use of it for their own ends of looking good, in readiness for the next election. Maybe there is no infringement? Or maybe it all comes down to interpretation of the fine print, which might take months of legal wrangling to sort out. ---
The infringement is real enough. The Republicans of the ruling class mentality have no real opposition motivation. They value their positions, and imo prefer being out of leadership, for it affects not their job, income, nor benefits. They are, quite frankly, timid career politicians, not statesmen. (Making waves is uncomfortable) They aren't quite as corrupt as Democrats, so work hard at putting on a show of opposition before giving in to them. They want to be liked by the media, which doesn't allow them time nor stomach to demand accountability.
As Thomas Jefferson said(1796): "Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the boisterous sea of liberty."
Ladeeda wrote: I am with you on that! A project that costs us approx. ÂŁ45m a week but which delivers very little financial reward makes no sense. What Europe has done for the UK is all bad - red tape, meddling with our financial and legal regulations, diluting our sovereignty at every turn etc. What I dislike about UKIP is that they didn't have the guts to stay with heterosexual marriage, and with the other parties are prepared to wave the sodomite flag and advance their cause.
Ah, I didn't know that, as I don't keep up with politics, having little interest. Oh well, there's goes my last chance to vote, unless it's for the Monster Raving Loony Party.
Democracy is not as free as people make it out to be.
But we've known nothing else, so maybe the alternative would be even worse.
John UK wrote: Ladeeda I don't have any respect for any political party, as I regard them all as murderers and corrupt pocket-liners. But if voting was enforced I would tick the UKIP box. We were tricked into Europe via the "common market", with Tories duping the populace in the referendum, and I would like to see us come right back out again.
I am with you on that!
A project that costs us approx. ÂŁ45m a week but which delivers very little financial reward makes no sense.
What Europe has done for the UK is all bad - red tape, meddling with our financial and legal regulations, diluting our sovereignty at every turn etc.
What I dislike about UKIP is that they didn't have the guts to stay with heterosexual marriage, and with the other parties are prepared to wave the sodomite flag and advance their cause.
Lurker wrote: Good question. The opposition party just doesn't seem to be able to put together any kind of opposition.
Normally an opposition party would pounce on any infringement, and make use of it for their own ends of looking good, in readiness for the next election. Maybe there is no infringement? Or maybe it all comes down to interpretation of the fine print, which might take months of legal wrangling to sort out.
Ladeeda I don't have any respect for any political party, as I regard them all as murderers and corrupt pocket-liners. But if voting was enforced I would tick the UKIP box. We were tricked into Europe via the "common market", with Tories duping the populace in the referendum, and I would like to see us come right back out again.
John UK wrote: Yes I begin to see the problem. But surely his political enemies will want to make use of any infringement. Where are they?
John, we had the same problem when Labour came to power and lied and lied about what they had inherited from the Conservatives. Their fabrications ruined the reputation of Margaret Thatcher, and yet we know for a fact that Blair admired her.
Labour got away with blue murder because the opposition was so ineffectual. In fact they were in total disarray.
Even now, they seem unable to pin the mess on Labour, which is why we have Labour representatives, bold as brass, scolding the coalition on the media, as though they had nothing whatever to do with it and are in a position to lecture others!!
We're in just as big a mess here as those over the pond! May God have mercy on us!
Lurker wrote: Now you've got it. It can and should be done but it won't if good people sit back people sit back and do nothing. That is why so many groups are crying foul such as the National Rifle Association, Gun lobbies, constitional hawks, etc. Many believe these groups are just defending their special interest but in fact they are defending the rights of the people from confiscation. Some of the things Obama is seeking in gun control may well be granted by the people, for the common good, especially in light of the continuing senseless school schootings, if only he would seek them by the means the constitution provides. And today, he'll swear to defend and uphold the constitution he is seeking to circumvent. But what is happening here is exactly the reason republics eventually evolve into dictatorships. The same thing is happening to religeous freedoms as a side effect of the ObamaCare legislation and has already happened as a result of the Patriot Act (Bush Administration) and the abuses of personal space by the TSA and their airport security program.
Yes I begin to see the problem. But surely his political enemies will want to make use of any infringement. Where are they?
Mike wrote: Here's a link to the quote: If you can keep it As to your question, no, I don't see opposition to government employees breaking the law as hypocritical. Are you not saying to them, "Keep your oath"? Consider how the country is set up i.e. who is answerable to whom?
Thanks, Mike. It was Franklin.... not Washington. And thanks for affirming what I had suspected.
Lurker wrote: Good on you, Mike! Do it. I believe it was George Washington who was asked "What did you give us?" to which he answered something on the order of "I gave you a republic. It is yours to keep if you can." If someone remembers the quote and could provide a link I would be grateful. This is where we are at in this nation. We are steadily seeing the evolution of our republic into a dictatorship and I for one do not like it. As seasoned citizens, we need to speak up with one clear and loud voice for the benefit of our children and grandchildren. As I write this I hear Obama preparing to swear on two bibles to defend and uphold the constitution of the United States. Liar! Hypocrite! Btw, on other occasions I've made it known that I am not into political activism. I don't see resisting the confiscation of constitutional rights as political activism. Am I being hypocritical?
As to your question, no, I don't see opposition to government employees breaking the law as hypocritical. Are you not saying to them, "Keep your oath"? Consider how the country is set up i.e. who is answerable to whom?
Mike wrote: Excellent, Lurker I'm seriously thinking of rejoining the NRA,(I was a member when younger) if for no other reason than to add one more voice. Getting tired of ghoulish politicians who lust for power, using tragedies for their personal gain.
Good on you, Mike! Do it.
I believe it was George Washington who was asked "What did you give us?" to which he answered something on the order of "I gave you a republic. It is yours to keep if you can." If someone remembers the quote and could provide a link I would be grateful.
This is where we are at in this nation. We are steadily seeing the evolution of our republic into a dictatorship and I for one do not like it. As seasoned citizens, we need to speak up with one clear and loud voice for the benefit of our children and grandchildren.
As I write this I hear Obama preparing to swear on two bibles to defend and uphold the constitution of the United States. Liar! Hypocrite!
Btw, on other occasions I've made it known that I am not into political activism. I don't see resisting the confiscation of constitutional rights as political activism. Am I being hypocritical?
Lurker wrote: Now you've got it. It can and should be done but it won't if good people sit back people sit back and do nothing. That is why so many groups are crying foul such as the National Rifle Association, Gun lobbies, constitional hawks, etc. Many believe these groups are just defending their special interest but in fact they are defending the rights of the people from confiscation. Some of the things Obama is seeking in gun control may well be granted by the people, for the common good, especially in light of the continuing senseless school schootings, if only he would seek them by the means the constitution provides. But what is happening here is exactly the reason republics eventually evolve into dictatorships. The same thing is happening to religeous freedoms as a side effect of the ObamaCare legislation and has already happened as a result of the Patriot Act (Bush Administration) and the abuses of personal space by the TSA and their airport security program.
Excellent, Lurker I'm seriously thinking of rejoining the NRA,(I was a member when younger) if for no other reason than to add one more voice. Getting tired of ghoulish politicians who lust for power, using tragedies for their personal gain.
John UK wrote: Thanks bro. So it sounds as though your president has broken the laws of the land, and needs to be taken to task. Surely the presidency is not so despotic that it cannot be done?
Now you've got it.
It can and should be done but it won't if good people sit back people sit back and do nothing. That is why so many groups are crying foul such as the National Rifle Association, Gun lobbies, constitional hawks, etc. Many believe these groups are just defending their special interest but in fact they are defending the rights of the people from confiscation. Some of the things Obama is seeking in gun control may well be granted by the people, for the common good, especially in light of the continuing senseless school schootings, if only he would seek them by the means the constitution provides. And today, he'll swear to defend and uphold the constitution he is seeking to circumvent.
But what is happening here is exactly the reason republics eventually evolve into dictatorships. The same thing is happening to religeous freedoms as a side effect of the ObamaCare legislation and has already happened as a result of the Patriot Act (Bush Administration) and the abuses of personal space by the TSA and their airport security program.
Ladeeda wrote: No different to the Labour party in the UK using the "parliament act" (which was only ever meant to be used for the most important constitutional changes) to force through parliament measures that promote the sodomite cause. Labour did this time and again with impunity, because they had such a majority and the general public could not give a monkeys!!
Thank you. I am beginning to see a bit of how politics works; and being a typical part of the general public, who know virtually nothing about politics, I am not surprised that very few show any interest.
John UK wrote: Thanks bro. So it sounds as though your president has broken the laws of the land, and needs to be taken to task. Surely the presidency is not so despotic that it cannot be done?
No different to the Labour party in the UK using the "parliament act" (which was only ever meant to be used for the most important constitutional changes) to force through parliament measures that promote the sodomite cause.
Labour did this time and again with impunity, because they had such a majority and the general public could not give a monkeys!!
Lurker wrote: Ah, now I see why this is confusing for you. We have three branches of government.... legislative, executive and judicial. It's supposed to provide checks and balance of power. The legislative branch (the elected representatives of the people; state senators and district representatives) are the law makers elected to pass legislation for the benefit of their constituents (states or districts within states). Obama, whose job it is to execute the laws enacted by the legislative branch, is attempting to bypass that branch and enact laws of his own making on the order of a king. This is what I was referring to as executive order. It's a power grab and he should be impeached, imo.
Thanks bro. So it sounds as though your president has broken the laws of the land, and needs to be taken to task. Surely the presidency is not so despotic that it cannot be done?
COMMENTS | 
beaver: "
mike
maybe you'd like to pick a more suitable adjective.
my, my,..."
