Althouse: "The president is going to act... Executive order, executive action that can be taken; we haven't decided what that is yet."

January 9, 2013

"The president is going to act... Executive order, executive action that can be taken; we haven't decided what that is yet."

"But we're compiling it all with the help of the attorney general and all the rest of the cabinet members as well as legislative action, we believe, is required."

Gun control, it's coming, we don't know exactly how we're going to do it, but we're going to do it without the assistance of Congress, says VP Joe Biden.

154 comments:

KCFleming said...: I repeat: this proves we live in a dictatorship, for real.; 1/9/13, 5:40 PM
dhagood said...: good luck enforcing this. got lawsuit?; 1/9/13, 5:40 PM
SGT Ted said...: These criminals fancy themselves as some sort of Ruling Class.; 1/9/13, 5:41 PM
dhagood said...: and by the way, for all the liberals salivating over the gun control issue, how about a thought experiment? substitute "abortion" for "gun control" and see how you like restrictions created and enforced by executive order.

i got yer reasonable restrictions right here.; 1/9/13, 5:42 PM
MaxedOutMama said...: How could that possibly be legal?; 1/9/13, 5:45 PM
Synova said...: It's a jobs program... all the gun smiths are running 24-7 and they just had to hire on additional crew.

And this time Obama really can take credit for the "jobs created".; 1/9/13, 5:45 PM
Anonymous said...: Dangerous talk.; 1/9/13, 5:47 PM
donald said...: Man wants his Lincoln administrating a civil war.

Really.; 1/9/13, 5:48 PM
Oso Negro said...: It is time, perhaps for a Million Rifle March on Washington. If the local authorities cut up stiff about it, we can make it a Million Rifle March with loaded magazines.; 1/9/13, 5:49 PM
Methadras said...: This will immediately be challenged in court and congress will clearly act to stop it.; 1/9/13, 5:50 PM
Chip S. said...: We need to have a national conversation about president control.; 1/9/13, 5:50 PM
Methadras said...: This will immediately be challenged in court and congress will clearly act to stop it.; 1/9/13, 5:50 PM
President-Mom-Jeans said...: And do we trust the Dread Justice Roberts to put a stop to this?

The plan is to tie it up in the courts for years, with many a exploitable "crisis" in the meantime. Fully aided and abetted by the media cheerleaders.

I do not see this ending well for anyone. Scary times we live in.; 1/9/13, 5:51 PM
Oso Negro said...: And Professor, where is your Drudge imagery to go with this? Drudge is making his feelings plain even now.; 1/9/13, 5:51 PM
test said...: I remember the good old days when the left was so outraged by the idea of an Imperial Presidency they pretended we had one.

It annoys me that while this will be shot down his bureaucratic Imperialism continues without a peep from the left.; 1/9/13, 5:52 PM
edutcher said...: Well, it is Halo Joe, after all. And, god knows, they had to walk back everything he said during the campaign.

Tell me again how these guys won.; 1/9/13, 5:53 PM
campy said...: for all the liberals salivating over the gun control issue, how about a thought experiment? substitute "abortion" for "gun control" and see how you like restrictions created and enforced by executive order.

That would be worrisome if there were any possibility of a repub president ever again.

But since there there isn't ...; 1/9/13, 5:54 PM
Dear corrupt left, go F yourselves said...: Biden code:
"We are looking for all loopholes we can use to wiggle out of the constitution".; 1/9/13, 5:56 PM
McTriumph said...: Try to remember Waco and Oklahoma City, now imagine something worse.; 1/9/13, 6:01 PM
Deb said...: There is little ammunition to be had anywhere, and what is available is very expensive.; 1/9/13, 6:03 PM
Revenant said...: A friend and I were speculating, at lunch, about how executive orders could implement any kind of gun control regime.

The only thing we could come up with was that Obama could forbid the US armed forces from reselling old brass. That would jack up ammo prices quite a bit (and raise the deficit a bit too, but who's counting).

By and large, I don't see what he really could do. If he tries unilaterally banning certain kinds of guns it'll never stand up in court. I doubt it would even be obeyed by gun owners in the first place.; 1/9/13, 6:05 PM
AHL said...: I don't own a gun, but within an arm's reach, I have a 3- inch double-hollow ground knife, a pocket knife, and a homemade shank. In my bag behind me are two more knives. I will learn how to use these devises in more ways than whittling my reeds. (The shank was a protection gift from my brother. He's the best.); 1/9/13, 6:07 PM
Tim said...: I was looking at 7.62x39mm rifles online the other day (I really like the CZ 527), and everything is sold out.

I mean, gone. No website anywhere has inventory left - and I don't believe rifles shooting the AK round are the most popular.

So, Obama is stimulating gun and ammunition sales.

I suppose he had to stimulate something other than public sector jobs.; 1/9/13, 6:09 PM
Revenant said...: It's a jobs program... all the gun smiths are running 24-7 and they just had to hire on additional crew.

Seriously.

I bought an AR-15 off a friend a few weeks back. When we went down to the gun store to do the transfer paperwork it was a mob scene. The employees announced that they were totally sold out of AR-15s, AR-15 lowers, and 5.56mm ammunition.

I've been investigating 3d printers. They're a little pricey still, but tempting.; 1/9/13, 6:09 PM
Indigo Red said...: The framework and foundation have already been established for strict gun control. The CDC and Surgeon General have declared gun violence an epidemic in America and have claimed authority over the obvious illness.

Further, there is a section on guns in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act - Obamacare. The new health care providers cannot track gun ownership, but gun owners can be denied health care insurance the data for which can be obtained from the ATF under new regulations or an EO allowing the release and use of such data.; 1/9/13, 6:09 PM
Unknown said...: We can make this sort of thing legal pretty quickly: just hand Pelosi and Reid each a translation of the Ermächtigungsgesetz. Better yet, don't even translate it until after it passes. Then we'll know what's in it.; 1/9/13, 6:12 PM
traditionalguy said...: Impeachment is in order if Tyrantosaurus Obama bears his bloody fangs.; 1/9/13, 6:15 PM
garage mahal said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 1/9/13, 6:18 PM
Icepick said...: These criminals fancy themselves as some sort of Ruling Class.

They've got the support of the people, who voted not only for this but also for a terrible economy and high unemployment.; 1/9/13, 6:20 PM
Gahrie said...: There is not a single, solitart chance in hell that President Obama will be impeached.

We will have to be content with the knowledge that history will both condemn and laugh at him.; 1/9/13, 6:24 PM
Icepick said...: Tell me again how these guys won.

Because this is what the people want. (I won't dignify them by calling them citizens.)

Try to remember Waco and Oklahoma City, now imagine something worse.

More like Ruby Ridge.; 1/9/13, 6:26 PM
Amartel said...: Meaningful Action.; 1/9/13, 6:28 PM
jr565 said...: Abortion by executive order. Because of the millions of kids dying every year. Libs ok with that?

Gun rights are part of the constitution. Abortion is a penumbra. Why would a president not be able to by pass the whole constitutino thingy (Even though it really isn't there anyway) and just say due to the harm comitted we need to regulate abortions more?; 1/9/13, 6:28 PM
Amartel said...: Not clear what the Meaningful Action is going to be.
Not clear about whether the Meaningful Action is constitutional.
The important thing is to converse about it. Nationally.

Chip S. @ 5:50 for Thread Winner.; 1/9/13, 6:30 PM
edutcher said...: Icepick said...

Tell me again how these guys won.

Because this is what the people want. (I won't dignify them by calling them citizens.)

Not if you look at all the gun sales.

Try to remember Waco and Oklahoma City, now imagine something worse.

More like Ruby Ridge.

I was thinking Antietam.; 1/9/13, 6:30 PM
jr565 said...: I'm telling you though, conservatives, sometimes all you have to do is give people enough rope. They will hang themselves.
In addition to overseeing the worst economy for 8 straight years, this president is going to bypass the constitution and enact his anti gun fiats? How is that going to play at the VERY NEXT ELECTION? Do you think gun owners are not going to vote?; 1/9/13, 6:30 PM
chickelit said...: They've got the support of the people, who voted not only for this but also for a terrible economy and high unemployment.

I dunno Icepick. I can see them voting themselves more dole and feeling conflicted if they think about it but this one seems to cross a bright line. This will lead to unprecedented no good.

One of the resident Sullivanists (don't remember which-phx, harrogate, somefeller)--laughed about Obama and Cloward-Piven. It's no joke.; 1/9/13, 6:31 PM
Icepick said...: We will have to be content with the knowledge that history will both condemn and laugh at him.

You've apparently not been around many history departments lately. Mao is only 30% bad, because, you know, the Cultural Revolution got a _little_ out of control.; 1/9/13, 6:31 PM
Amartel said...: Didn't Biden say something fauxman of the people-ish contra gun control at some point? Pry my guns from between my giant fake teeth or some such thing? He's such a Nice man, that Joe.; 1/9/13, 6:32 PM
mtrobertsattorney said...: Well, if he tries he will have to get past the Supreme Court's decision in the Youngstown Sheet and Tube Co. case from 1952. In that case, the Court told Harry Truman that the Constitution prevented him from taking over the steel industry by executive order.

But this may not trouble Obama and his true believers a whit. Just recently (December 30), a professor of constitutional law at Georgetown (and Obama supporter) wrote an opinion piece in the NYT where he argued that it was high time for our political leaders to simply ignore the Constitution "with all its archaic, idiosyncratic and downright evil provisions."; 1/9/13, 6:34 PM
Brennan said...: It's a religion. They believe it will work. They ritualize it as truth even though they know it is fiction.

Government according to liberals is a religion. Just believe.; 1/9/13, 6:35 PM
AllenS said...: I'm really interested in what garage posted and then removed. Was it a winger slam?; 1/9/13, 6:37 PM
Chip S. said...: How is it that a comedian makes more sense than the president?

You should have to have a mortgage to buy a gun. No one who has a mortgage has ever gone on a killing spree … because a mortgage is a real background check. And you know if you go to jail for 30 years, you still have to pay your fuckin' mortgage.; 1/9/13, 6:40 PM
Icepick said...: I was thinking Antietam.

The Civil War really was a War Between the States. Though families were divided, there were clear geographic dividing lines between the main factions. That doesn't exist now. Beyond the state map not being that clear cut with separation (Obama carried Florida, for example), looking at it by a county-by-county basis, or even worse a precinct-by-precinct basis, you see a lot of red in blue states and a lot of blue in most red states. If it comes to a civil war, it won't be like the prior one in our history, it will be more like Lebanon's civil wars over the last few decades.

...

As for gun sales showing the will of the people - good luck with that. The will of the people was and is against the PPACA. Yet somehow that has been passed, signed, had the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court torture logic and law to find it wholly legal, and has just been ratified again at the ballot box. The people want the government to take care of them, they want the government to have maximum power, they want the government to fuck over their neighbors if that's what it takes.; 1/9/13, 6:41 PM
mariner said...: Methadras,
This will immediately be challenged in court and congress will clearly act to stop it.

Just like Obamacare, right?; 1/9/13, 6:41 PM
Icepick said...: mariner said...

Methadras,
This will immediately be challenged in court and congress will clearly act to stop it.

Just like Obamacare, right?

Much pithier than my comment, but the same point. I congratulate you on your concision.; 1/9/13, 6:45 PM
jr565 said...: mtrobertsattorney wrote:
But this may not trouble Obama and his true believers a whit. Just recently (December 30), a professor of constitutional law at Georgetown (and Obama supporter) wrote an opinion piece in the NYT where he argued that it was high time for our political leaders to simply ignore the Constitution "with all its archaic, idiosyncratic and downright evil provisions."

Again though this is not necessarily a winning argument for libs. Especially when we can peg them as the anti constitution party. And that cuts both ways. Your right to abortion is suposedly a constitutionally protected right. Do away with the constitution? Then it can be done away with by fiat. How would libs like THEM apples?

Point being, there is SO MUCH ammo that libs are giving us free of charge that we can use to bury them completely.; 1/9/13, 6:45 PM
Tim Wright said...: My initial reaction was they can't be serious -- they will create a new "Prohibition era" and it will be a lot worse.

Consider that gun owners, probably the most law abiding people in the country, deciding en masse not to obey the law. Have police officials who support gun registration considered this?

But then, think about it. Isn't this something that would divide the people and create a crisis, just what an Obama would wish to do? Of course it won't work. Of course it would create chaos.

All the better.; 1/9/13, 6:46 PM
Icepick said...: Point being, there is SO MUCH ammo that libs are giving us free of charge that we can use to bury them completely.

yeah, too bad there isn't an election coming up soon....; 1/9/13, 6:46 PM
Anonymous said...: I guess we know what all those FEMA camps are going to be used for.; 1/9/13, 6:49 PM
Icepick said...: Of course it would create chaos.

Remember that thanks to last year's defense authorization bill the President can detain Americans at will, and possibly have them killed, as long as he declares them terrorists first. There is no judicial, or any other, review of this process. All the President has to do is declare gun owners terrorists and then do as he pleases. After all, those evil people with guns are shooting up public gatherings and movie theaters and even schools houses with little children in them - what could be more terroristic than that?; 1/9/13, 6:50 PM
Revenant said...: Tell me again how these guys won.

You picked a terrible candidate.; 1/9/13, 6:50 PM
Icepick said...: The only funny thing in my scenario using last year's defense authorization bill is that the only person on the left defending gun owners will be Glenn Greenwald.; 1/9/13, 6:52 PM
Anonymous said...: According to Biden, if it saves even one life we should spend/sacrifice whatever it takes. I doubt they'll apply that to healthcare when the costs really start to mount and that medication/treatment/device you need is not covered.; 1/9/13, 6:54 PM
DADvocate said...: When will Obama pronounce himself president for life?; 1/9/13, 6:55 PM
Revenant said...: It isn't a realistic scenario, Icepick. Who's going to carry out such an order? Left-wing anti-gun Marines?

It isn't even a scenario where we need to take up arms. Just ignore the silly son of a bitch.; 1/9/13, 6:55 PM
Henry said...: It's about time that Congress pull a Grand Remonstrance on the Imperial Presidency. The White House can take its executive action and it can take its trillion dollar loopholes and see how it functions when Congress finally decides to actually exercise its budget authority.; 1/9/13, 6:58 PM
Revenant said...: I wouldn't hold your breath on Harry Reid doing anything of the sort, Henry.; 1/9/13, 6:59 PM
DADvocate said...: Plus, this is further proof that it's not about making our children, or anyone else, safer. It's not just about gun control either. It's about government control. The government controlling all of us.

Which is just natural since we all belong to the government. The government owns us and can do with us as it pleases.; 1/9/13, 6:59 PM
sunsong said...: Revenant said:

By and large, I don't see what he really could do. If he tries unilaterally banning certain kinds of guns it'll never stand up in court. I doubt it would even be obeyed by gun owners in the first place.

That's what I see as well. It doesn't make sense that *the people* will obey laws if the president doesn't.; 1/9/13, 7:02 PM
Michael K said...: " Revenant said...
Tell me again how these guys won.

You picked a terrible candidate."

Yeah, the last honest man. Too bad.

Our fault.; 1/9/13, 7:06 PM
jr565 said...: "yeah, too bad there isn't an election coming up soon...."

Evem better. More time for disaster to play itself out then run against that disaster.; 1/9/13, 7:07 PM
Bob said...: You'd think Obama would pick his fights and focus on his obscene spending re: debt ceiling, continuing resolution, and sequestration. This is just enraging the opposition.

As for stimulating the gun economy, my AR15 maker has a 15-month backlog. Maybe I can find some ammo by then.; 1/9/13, 7:08 PM
caplight45 said...: Revnent why would you do transfer paper work? That just let's the Feds keep track of the gun.; 1/9/13, 7:09 PM
pm317 said...: His whole presidency is one big slap in the face to all he dislikes and that is pretty much everyone. You think he may spare the Blacks who voted for him in droves. But no, he makes them look like the biggest suckers. This guy does not seem normal.; 1/9/13, 7:15 PM
Big Mike said...: Is Joe Biden planning to give up his Beretta shotgun after all?; 1/9/13, 7:21 PM
AllenS said...: So far, Obama hasn't said anything. This is just Biden running off at the mouth.; 1/9/13, 7:21 PM
pm317 said...: I think the idea is to make the opposition feel helpless. But why? There are so many serious problems. Why poke the other party in the eye over and over again?; 1/9/13, 7:21 PM
KCFleming said...: And the "McCain woulda been worse" excuse slinks away.; 1/9/13, 7:22 PM
AllenS said...: I know a lot of liberal Obama-voting deer hunters. Take their guns first, please.; 1/9/13, 7:23 PM
Revenant said...: Revnent why would you do transfer paper work?

California requires it. Not sure if the feds get a copy or not.

Two reasons:

1. Because the risks associated with not doing the paperwork (i.e., going to prison if I ever had to use the rifle) outweigh the risks of doing it.

2. Because I'm not going to ask a friend to me commit a felony.

Now, if they end up being banned and confiscated, well, the black market value of the gun will be enormous. I wouldn't be surprised if many, even most, AR-15 owners discovered that their rifles had been stolen from their homes by criminals hoping to cash in on the new black market. Who knows, that could happen to me too.; 1/9/13, 7:23 PM
Big Mike said...: @gutless, whose talk seems dangerous to you? Joe Biden's? Or ours?; 1/9/13, 7:24 PM
Rusty said...: Deb said...
There is little ammunition to be had anywhere, and what is available is very expensive.

Try buying primers and powder. Not that I use those things. Whatever they are.; 1/9/13, 7:25 PM
McTriumph said...: If the government is stupid enough to attempt the confiscation of guns they'll start in the suburbs. There will be the occasional shoot-out, a downed police or media helo, then nothing for months, then cops' homes, police stations and federal buildings start exploding. There will be assignations of public officials, media and academics, it will go badly for everyone. We will prove Sengler correct in the end.; 1/9/13, 7:27 PM
Icepick said...: It isn't a realistic scenario, Icepick. Who's going to carry out such an order? Left-wing anti-gun Marines?

It isn't even a scenario where we need to take up arms. Just ignore the silly son of a bitch.

Perhaps it's a silly scenario. But so is the idea that the President can can unilaterally detain US citizens indefinitely without any review process whatsoever. (Something that Republicans in the House supported, we shouldn't forget. They're on the other side too.) So is the idea that the President can MANDATE that people must purchase certain products or have the IRS ass fuck them until they're dead and/or broke. So is the idea that the President can unilaterally declare hundreds of years of contract law null and void so that he can send tens of billions of dollars from the US Treasury to his own cronies. So is the idea of a trillion dollar coin. So is the idea of Joe Biden a heartbeat away from the Presidency.

Please, tell me what this President does that isn't silly?

But here's a fun idea: How about the idea of instituting a $100,000 annual fee for every fire arm owned? The President can have this instituted as a mandate through healthcare, given that guns are an epidemic in this country. Better still, $10,000 for every round of ammo. Do that through the EPA, because we don't want any lead polluting the environment. Executive actions all, with no need to bother with a pesky Congress. And we already know that Roberts will not deny this President sweeping powers to force the American people to do whatever the fuck the President insists they do for his amusement and pleasure.; 1/9/13, 7:32 PM
Methadras said...: mariner said...

Methadras,
This will immediately be challenged in court and congress will clearly act to stop it.

Just like Obamacare, right?

Yes, but as we know, when Justice Roberts had his kill shot, he aimed to the left. And on purpose. I don't know what will happen if it does go to court and I hope it does, but the clear and pernicious attack on the 2nd Amendment will be a clear delineator of who in the court will stand up for it.

Maybe I'm kidding myself in thinking that common sense will prevail in the wake of a horrific tragedy like Newtown, but then I'm reminded of who is in power and why the 2nd Amendment is even more sacred than it was before. This is the glaring problem with why leftists are a danger and a menace to a free thinking peoples. They wish you to neither be free nor thinking, but instead to be reactionary and afraid and that only they can save you from yourself. Hence, this political exploitation theater we are seeing today that will have dire consequences for our union later.

I was actually putting off a gun purchase, but now I will be accelerating that purchase.; 1/9/13, 7:33 PM
Michael said...: I went to buy some shotgun shells today and went into a gun store I hadnt been in before. A huge one with shooting gallery etc. At 2pm on a Wed the counter in front of the scary looking rifles was packed. And people were filling out papers, buying not looking.

I would look to see if Obama has any RGR or SWHC in his portfolio because he has created a gun rush of some magnitudes above those that have gone before.

I was shocked at how many people were crammed in front of thise guns and how many were buying pistols and revolvers.; 1/9/13, 7:33 PM
lonetown said...: These are the guys who figured out how to get high capacity weapons to Mexican drug runners. Seems they know a lot about gun control.; 1/9/13, 7:34 PM
Michael said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 1/9/13, 7:34 PM
Rusty said...: Methadras said...
This will immediately be challenged in court and congress will clearly act to stop it.

Until then you're an outlaw.; 1/9/13, 7:37 PM
edutcher said...: Icepick said...

I was thinking Antietam.

The Civil War really was a War Between the States. Though families were divided, there were clear geographic dividing lines between the main factions. That doesn't exist now. Beyond the state map not being that clear cut with separation (Obama carried Florida, for example), looking at it by a county-by-county basis, or even worse a precinct-by-precinct basis, you see a lot of red in blue states and a lot of blue in most red states. If it comes to a civil war, it won't be like the prior one in our history, it will be more like Lebanon's civil wars over the last few decades.

You mean like 1776? That was, among other things, our first civil war.; 1/9/13, 7:38 PM
Methadras said...: jr565 said...

Do you think gun owners are not going to vote?

There may not be enough of them after this last election. 2 million republican/conservatives sat it out. And now that we know that moderates are no longer a cause celeb amongst the politerati because the low-hanging fruit, retard moron obama voter has supplanted them all.; 1/9/13, 7:39 PM
Cinderellastory said...: I remember two bumpers tickers from the 1980's.

"My wife yes, my dog maybe, my gun never!"

"If guns are outlawed, outlaws will have guns!"

Funny back then, not so funny now....; 1/9/13, 7:44 PM
Icepick said...: I don't know what will happen if it does go to court and I hope it does, but the clear and pernicious attack on the 2nd Amendment will be a clear delineator of who in the court will stand up for it.

Yeah, but how long until Obama gets to replace one of the "conservatives" on the court?

The big problem with the Second Amendment is that it should have been the First Amendment. Just to make things clear.; 1/9/13, 7:45 PM
chickelit said...: Pogo said...
And the "McCain woulda been worse" excuse slinks away.

Not so fast, Pogo. McCain was still against gay marriage, which trumps all for some and always will.; 1/9/13, 7:46 PM
McTriumph said...: edutcher

1776 or the Klan insurgency of 1870.

Methadras

I was talking to some union members in a neighborhood bar last night. A month ago they were all bragging about Obama's victory, not so much now, they are fucking pissed.; 1/9/13, 7:48 PM
Revenant said...: Icepick, the government has had alarming powers for decades. Nobody aside from libertarians particularly gives a shit because only a microscopic fraction of the public is affected.

For example, since long before Obama was even a state senator, let alone a President, it has been legal for police to seize your house and car, sell them, and keep the money without ever having to show you've committed a crime. Police departments steal millions of dollars from private citizens this way every year. Nobody cares because the affected people are mostly either poor minorities, affiliated with the drug trade, or both.

Now, if Obama decided "hey, I know how to fix the budget deficit! Let's just start taking middle-class white people's homes from them at gunpoint and selling them!", you can bet your sweet fanny that Americans would take notice in a big fuckin' hurry.

The same holds true for detention and assassinations. So long as Obama's only doing that stuff to people who are Muslims and/or far away, nobody much cares. If drones start blowing up cars in the suburbs of Kansas City, though? Yeah, that will be noticed.; 1/9/13, 7:49 PM
Revenant said...: Until then you're an outlaw.

Well, no. See, the thing about outlaws is they operate outside the law. An executive order isn't a law.

So: enemies of the state, yes. Outlaws, not so much.; 1/9/13, 7:52 PM
Revenant said...: McCain was still against gay marriage, which trumps all for some and always will.

He has also spoken in favor of limits on "assault weapons" and magazine sizes. Oh, and in favor of "closing the gun show loophole", i.e. requiring that all firearms transfers go through the government.

McCain was, and is, just another big-government shit for brains. Anyone who expects to find him on the side of liberty and individual rights needs to pay more attention. :); 1/9/13, 7:53 PM
Icepick said...: You mean like 1776? That was, among other things, our first civil war.

You think it will go that easily? The Colonies were sparsely populated and the military tech of the time was fairly primitive.

In 1780 (in the middle of the fight) the population of the colonies was about 2,800,000 people, spread out over the original 13 colonies and their territories. Today we have about 20 Metro areas with that much population. Hell, even Orlando's Metropolitan Statistical Area is estimated to be almost 2,200,000 people!

Add to that improvements in standard fire arms technology.

You really think a new Revolution would come off with the dead under three or four million?; 1/9/13, 7:54 PM
Methadras said...: Icepick said...

I don't know what will happen if it does go to court and I hope it does, but the clear and pernicious attack on the 2nd Amendment will be a clear delineator of who in the court will stand up for it.

Yeah, but how long until Obama gets to replace one of the "conservatives" on the court?

The big problem with the Second Amendment is that it should have been the First Amendment. Just to make things clear.

There is a reason why the 2nd amendment wasn't the first in the end. It clearly was going to be the 1st, but the internal arguments at the time on why would take to long to illustrate here in this post. Suffice to say that in the end freedom to speak without government reprisal held more sway and power than making the right to bear arms did. Also, the understanding that if the 1st amendment failed, the 2nd would back it up. However, no one seems to understand that if the 2nd goes away (which it won't) the 1st will immediately fall as well right behind it. Then you have nothing. The 2nd amendment, in my opinion must be protected at all costs against any more incremental damage that it has been taking.

The 4th amendment is a goner and I suspect that if the 1st amendment fails, without a 2nd amendment, then the 5th amendment would go the way of the dodo bird as well. No, I think Obama clearly knows what he is doing in this regard, his dictatorship may have been sly and quote, but he's showing it now. this isn't America anymore as we know it. He's clearly moving us into a perilous time of massive government overreach and he intends to do it by exploiting Newtown to get it done. Wagging the dog so to speak.; 1/9/13, 7:56 PM
Michael said...: Icepick. Any revolution would have the army on the side of the rebels I believe. Where do you think the volunteer army comes from? The upper West Side?; 1/9/13, 8:04 PM
Henry said...: @Revenant -- I did draft another line of my analogy to excoriate "senatorial bishops" but it dragged the whole thing out too much.

It's depressing. We have states that have ceded their power to Washington in exchange for a line of credit against their own citizens. We have a Congress that has frittered away its power to the presidency in exchange for petty perks. The Senate Majority Leadership is a notoriously powerless position, but the talented Harry Reid has somehow managed to make it more so.; 1/9/13, 8:04 PM
McTriumph said...: Icepick
It all would come down to which side the military came down on, because there are not enough civilian authorities to stop a mass insurgency. My guess is that the enlist personnel would refuse or become part of the insurgency. I also think most of the brass would resign, except for the ivy league educated, nuff said. They won't go after the intercity, the inhabitants would burn the place down.; 1/9/13, 8:04 PM
Seeing Red said...: Fundamentally transform America.

How does The Professor feel about teaching a dead document & ideals?; 1/9/13, 8:06 PM
Michael Haz said...: good luck enforcing this. got lawsuit?

Nino Scalia is in his 70s and overweight. One more liberal Supreme and Obama will get anything and everything he wants.; 1/9/13, 8:16 PM
MadisonMan said...: The Imperial Presidency as interpreted by Joe Biden. Not sure how much credence I should give it.

If Obama wants to stimulate a black market, however, and be ignored, he's on the right track.; 1/9/13, 8:19 PM
Revenant said...: There isn't going to be a mass insurgency because there isn't any need for one. Why actively resist when passive resistance is perfectly adequate?

He's one person. His announcements only have power to the extent that people pay attention to them.; 1/9/13, 8:23 PM
Revenant said...: One more liberal Supreme and Obama will get anything and everything he wants.

Don't assume that just because something supports a left-wing outcome, the left-wing Justices will support it. They smacked down the EPA 7-0 when it tried claiming it could issue fines that couldn't be appealed in court.

Historically they have taken a dim view of executive orders that fell outside the Presidential war-making power.; 1/9/13, 8:25 PM
Seeing Red said...: Richard Fernandez of The Belmont Club is outstanding again. A Must Read!

One person remarked on Twitter that never before has the US Constitution seemed so fragile and wondered why so “few people seem to care about it.” But Mario Loyola at American Interest has an explanation. The Constitution now obstructs the way both parties do business. It’s in the way so it’s got to go.

For decades, Democrats and Republicans alike have invested heavily in governance schemes that erode the Constitution’s separation of powers and mar its proper functioning. The Federal judiciary has uniformly rubber-stamped these schemes. The consequence has been an unsustainable spree of borrowing, spending and overregulation at the Federal level, cyclical fiscal crises at the state level, and less accountable and less representative government at every level....; 1/9/13, 8:28 PM
Guimo said...: 90% of all gun deaths occur with inner city blacks. Will there be an executive order deporting them?; 1/9/13, 8:32 PM
edutcher said...: Icepick said...

You mean like 1776? That was, among other things, our first civil war.

You think it will go that easily? The Colonies were sparsely populated and the military tech of the time was fairly primitive.

Your history is different from mine. The Continental cause had a Hell of a time getting to Yorktown and military technology wasn't as much an issue as tactics. The Limeys were just learning counter-insurgency warfare back then; once they mastered it, the sun never set, as they say...

But you raised the fact that population patterns - red vs blue - aren't what they were in 1861; they are, however, similar to 1776.

And, if, by density, we're talking about people being rounded up, that only works with an unarmed, cowed populace.; 1/9/13, 8:34 PM
Icepick said...: Icepick. Any revolution would have the army on the side of the rebels I believe. Where do you think the volunteer army comes from? The upper West Side?

What makes you think they'll take an active role either way? And IIRC correctly, about 25% of the military has approved of the job the President is doing. Add to that a certain percentage that will simply follow orders, period. It's isn't all that clear cut how the military would go. Besides, once they get it into their heads that they can depose a government, there won't be much to stop them the next time things don't go their way.

Regardless, any outcome is a bad outcome. The best hope we've got is that the President is as ineffectual as he usually is at everything other than elections.; 1/9/13, 8:34 PM
edutcher said...: Seeing Red said...

Richard Fernandez of The Belmont Club is outstanding again. A Must Read!

One person remarked on Twitter that never before has the US Constitution seemed so fragile and wondered why so “few people seem to care about it.” But Mario Loyola at American Interest has an explanation. The Constitution now obstructs the way both parties do business. It’s in the way so it’s got to go

There's a simpler explanation. You know the "low-information" voters? They're the ones who've passed through the public school systems in the last 40 years. The Constitution seems fragile because it isn't taught any more and nobody knows how it works and what their rights really are.

Just the way that "distinguished educator" William Ayers and his friends at the Columbia University School of Education intended.; 1/9/13, 8:38 PM
edutcher said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 1/9/13, 8:40 PM
Icepick said...: And, if, by density, we're talking about people being rounded up, that only works with an unarmed, cowed populace.

I'm talking about carnage. If a civil war were to really break out in this country, how many will die?

And yes, I mean technology not tactics. I personally prefer a much more expansive view of the Second Amendment than currently taken. (Why can't I own a tank, or a howitzer? Why should I need a license for any weapon?) But the truth is that weapons are a lot more deadly NOW than they were when the Second Amendment was written. It would have been damned near impossible for anyone to shoot up a school or movie theater in the manner we've seen in recent months using 1780 firearms technology. How many freakin' single shot pistols would a gunman have to carry to pull that off in 1780?; 1/9/13, 8:40 PM
AllenS said...: LOL, can you imagine Inga's daughter showing up to confiscate your weapons?; 1/9/13, 8:45 PM
edutcher said...: Icepick said...

Any revolution would have the army on the side of the rebels I believe. Where do you think the volunteer army comes from? The upper West Side?

What makes you think they'll take an active role either way? And IIRC correctly, about 25% of the military has approved of the job the President is doing

It does? What poll?

And, even if true, I'd say that's an even smaller split than 1861. And, in 1776, the Continentals outnumbered the Loyalists about 2 to 1.

And, if, by density, we're talking about people being rounded up, that only works with an unarmed, cowed populace.

I'm talking about carnage. If a civil war were to really break out in this country, how many will die?

And yes, I mean technology not tactics. I personally prefer a much more expansive view of the Second Amendment than currently taken. (Why can't I own a tank, or a howitzer? Why should I need a license for any weapon?) But the truth is that weapons are a lot more deadly NOW than they were when the Second Amendment was written. It would have been damned near impossible for anyone to shoot up a school or movie theater in the manner we've seen in recent months using 1780 firearms technology. How many freakin' single shot pistols would a gunman have to carry to pull that off in 1780?

Ever hear of a sword? Or a tomahawk? Or a hammer?

A lot of massacres were carried out with blunt instruments and edged weapons. How many died what the Crusaders took Jerusalem?

And they did have grenades back then.; 1/9/13, 8:45 PM
edutcher said...: AllenS said...

LOL, can you imagine Inga's daughter showing up to confiscate your weapons?

Knowing Oop, she'd want to blow you first.; 1/9/13, 8:46 PM
Icepick said...: For the record, I also meant that a revolution now would be a helluva lot more deadly than the one starting (officially, at any rate) in 1776. That's a function of population densities and firearms (and other) technology.

Here's about what I remember about the first American Revolution:

About 8,000 combat deaths. About twice that number dead from other causes. Somewhere between 20,000 and 30,000 other casualties. Pretty bloody for the times and the vastness of the territory, but nowhere near what we'd expect from a new revolution.; 1/9/13, 8:48 PM
Icepick said...: A lot of massacres were carried out with blunt instruments and edged weapons. How many died what the Crusaders took Jerusalem?

yeah, no shit, Sherlock. how many got hacked to death with machetes in Rwanda? The point is that it's a helluva lot easier to kill people in bunches with modern firearms instead of the firearms used 240 years ago. Are you disputing that?

Or are you claiming that hand held weapons are just as dangerous as modern firearms? Are you claiming that I could kill several adults and 20 elementary school children just as fast and easily with a Ginsu knife as with semi-automatic weapons that use clips for loading and reloading ammunition?

Are you claiming that we could have a revolution/civil war now that would last several years (or even several months) without tremendous loss of life? Did you forget about what automatic weapons can do?

We wouldn't even have to resort to explosives to get widespread carnage, is my point.

What's your fucking point, dumbass?; 1/9/13, 8:55 PM
Revenant said...: There's a simpler explanation.

Maybe, but Fernandez' explanation was correct.; 1/9/13, 8:56 PM
chickelit said...: revenant scolded: McCain was, and is, just another big-government shit for brains. Anyone who expects to find him on the side of liberty and individual rights needs to pay more attention. :)

Sorry, revenant but the comparative example was Obama v. McCain, not McCain v. sane. If you still think Obama was a better choice than McCain...well you're in good company with Cedarford, Althouse & Sullivan, etc. :); 1/9/13, 9:03 PM
Paul said...: Well skippie can try but he can also be impeached for violating the Constitution (not unlike Bill Clinton and Richard Nixon.) See when Prohibition came there as no right to booze, but there sure are RIGHTS TO GUNS in the Constitution.

So if Obama and Biden try some 'executive shit' then there will be MASSIVE disobedience and a move to impeach them to.; 1/9/13, 9:08 PM
McTriumph said...: No one on either side would nuke cities or neighborhoods. Insurgencies don't work that way. Imagine thousands of Timothy McVeys, think of bill Ayers only professional and competent.; 1/9/13, 9:08 PM
Titus said...: I don't give a shit about guns.

tits.; 1/9/13, 9:10 PM
Titus said...: I grew up in a gun family. My father has a gun cabinet with tons of guns. And I turned out fag.

It's a state issue.

tits.; 1/9/13, 9:13 PM
Rusty said...: Any administration that would propose a trillion dollar coin is just arrogantly dumb enough to think draconian gun control will work.
logistically it would be a nightmare. Plus if just one percent of 80 million people decide they aren't going to cooperate what is the administration going to do?; 1/9/13, 9:30 PM
Synova said...: Ed and Allen... Inga's not even participating in this thread and her daughter certainly didn't ask for it. Get into knock-down fights with her if you like, but no need to be entirely gratuitous assholes.; 1/9/13, 9:53 PM
Bob said...: All these comments and no one said "Molon Lobe".

2013, interesting times.; 1/9/13, 9:58 PM
Bob said...: The left has claimed for a decade we couldn't round up and deport 10 million illegal aliens but now O and Joe are going to get a hold on 60-100 million weapons. About 5 million "assault weapons". Really?

Molon Lobe; 1/9/13, 10:00 PM
Revenant said...: All these comments and no one said "Molon Lobe".

I was waiting until after they actually *said* to hand over my weapons.; 1/9/13, 10:02 PM
Bruce Hayden said...: So if Obama and Biden try some 'executive shit' then there will be MASSIVE disobedience and a move to impeach them to.

I am liking the million gun march more and more. Have it D.C. And, with every one of those guns having a "high capacity" magazine, defined in D.C. as being capable of containing 10 or more rounds.

So, we would have a protest march with a million guns and magazines illegal in D.C. What are they going to do? Arrest them all? Or, just a couple to make a point? The great thing is that both the 1st and 2nd Amdts. would be applicable, since the guns would be carried in protest to gun laws.

And, impeachment would be good too. Easy to get an impeachment in the House. But, the problem is that the Senate would have to vote, and the "Red State" Senators (including Harry Reid) would have to go on the record, one way or another, on gun control, and whether ever being reelected was more important than party solidarity. This isn't something that Reid can dodge by not allowing it to come to the floor of the Senate (like he does budgets and other inconvenient subjects). They would all have to vote, and do so publicly. Should be great theater.; 1/9/13, 10:02 PM
Revenant said...: Sorry, revenant but the comparative example was Obama v. McCain, not McCain v. sane. If you still think Obama was a better choice than McCain...well you're in good company with Cedarford, Althouse & Sullivan, etc. :)

I voted for McCain, although if I had it all to do over again I wouldn't have bothered.

I'm just mocking the idea that we'd be better off if he was President. We'd have different liberty-killing big-government bullshit, not necessarily *better*. :); 1/9/13, 10:04 PM
Revenant said...: Well skippie can try but he can also be impeached for violating the Constitution (not unlike Bill Clinton and Richard Nixon.)

Have you looked at the composition of Congress lately? Walk me through how you get votes to remove Obama from office.; 1/9/13, 10:06 PM
Synova said...: So... I google and I get molon labe, mostly, and just a few for molon lobe.

What is the difference?; 1/9/13, 10:16 PM
traditionalguy said...: The internet is the last danger to fascists because of Web Sites that speak the truth to their power liars.

The day Obama throws that kill switch, who you gonna call then?; 1/9/13, 10:17 PM
Aaron said...: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oath_Keepers

This should be interesting.; 1/9/13, 10:18 PM
Anonymous said...: AllenS said...

"LOL, can you imagine Inga's daughter showing up to confiscate your weapons?"

Edutcher replied,

"Knowing Oop, she'd want to blow you first."

1/9/13 8:46 PM

--------------------------

You disgusting swine, you better not be talking about my daughter, despicable jerk.; 1/9/13, 10:24 PM
Peter V. Bella said...: Joe Biden says a lot of stupid things.; 1/9/13, 10:45 PM
Anonymous said...: Edutcher is the Joe Biden of Althousia.; 1/9/13, 10:51 PM
Bruce Hayden said...: The left has claimed for a decade we couldn't round up and deport 10 million illegal aliens but now O and Joe are going to get a hold on 60-100 million weapons. About 5 million "assault weapons". Really?

Really surprised about there only being maybe 5 million "assault weapons". I have seen several places that AR type semiautomatic rifles were almost half (49%) of the rifles sold last year, and it really looks like it could be higher this year.

One of the basic problems with gun grabbing legislation or executive action is that those grabbing guns don't really understand the technology all that well.

High capacity magazines, defined to hold no more than 10 bullets? Standard for most handguns (outside places like CA) and rifles using magazines. They are easy to make, or upgrade, and probably many tens of millions in civilian hands by now.

Scary looking AR type semiautomatic rifles? A large part of the rifles being sold, and black scary looking weapons are scary precisely because they use modern technology. The standard wood stock semiautomatic rifle was standardized by the U.S. military in 1936, officially replaced in the 1950s, and completely replaced by fully automatic versions of the black scary looking rifles in the mid-1960s. We are nearing 50 years that our military has been using this technology, and have that many veterans trained on that weapons platform. Going back to the pre-black-scary-gun technology would, essentially, require going back to late 1950s era technology. The AR (and related) semiautomatic rifles are popular for a lot of reasons. They are highly modular, with calibers (from .17 to .50BMP), uppers, lowers, butts, etc. being easily switched out. Thus, you don't need to cut down or replace the stock to get a custom fit. You can easily add and replace accessories, using their rail systems, including scopes, night vision, flash lights, etc. After 50+ years of development, the guns are also now light, sturdy, reliable, with comparatively low recoil. This is what they want to ban.

Finally, the part of the AR type rifle with the serial number is the lower receiver. With the same lower receiver, you can swap calibers, uppers, butts, barrels, etc. fairly easily. The guns are very modular. And, making things worse - a working lower receiver has been fabricated utilizing 3D printing technology. And, as long as the resulting gun assembled with that lower and off-the-shelf parts is not sold, it is apparently legal, even without a serial number. And, ditto for magazines having been constructed using 3D printing technology.; 1/9/13, 11:54 PM
Paul said...: "Have you looked at the composition of Congress lately? Walk me through how you get votes to remove Obama from office."

Revenant,

Sure.. Massive revolt. Dems up for re-election in 2012. Obama a lame duck.

He is not as strong as people think. People in office will look after their own neck first.

The articles if impeachment will be in the House. Trial in the Senate. Just scare enough Dems in the Senate and yes, he can be impeached and forced out.; 1/9/13, 11:56 PM
Revenant said...: Sure.. Massive revolt. Dems up for re-election in 2012. Obama a lame duck.

I assume you mean 2014, since 2012 is last year. There are 21 Democratic Senators up for re-election in 2014. Many of those are from deep-blue states that wouldn't elect a Republican even if the Democratic incumbent voted to posthumously award the Medal of Honor to Osama bin Laden.

You need at least 22 Democrats to vote for impeachment. So even if you think you can get die-hard partisans like Al Franken and Dick Durbin to do the right thing, and even if you get EVERY Republican to go for it... you still don't have enough votes.

Anyone seriously suggesting impeachment as a solution isn't thinking clearly. It has never worked and in all likelihood never will. Best-case scenario you pressure the President to resign, and how the hell's Joe Biden an improvement?; 1/10/13, 2:14 AM
Kirk Parker said...: "Richard Fernandez of The Belmont Club is outstanding again"

Yeah, but that's not exactly news. Don't you all read him regularly?; 1/10/13, 5:33 AM
Kirk Parker said...: Synova,

The difference is that "molon labe" is spelled--errr, actually, transliterated--correctly.

Bruce,

.50BMG upper for an AR? Srsly?????; 1/10/13, 5:34 AM
Rusty said...: Bob said...
The left has claimed for a decade we couldn't round up and deport 10 million illegal aliens but now O and Joe are going to get a hold on 60-100 million weapons. About 5 million "assault weapons". Really?

80 million firearm owners. At least going by the records. 300 million firearms.

How's that going to work? Exactly?; 1/10/13, 5:58 AM
edutcher said...: Icepick said...

Blah, blah...

What's your fucking point, dumbass?

That you're a sockpuppet for Diamond?; 1/10/13, 6:16 AM
Joaquin said...: All this is, is Joe Biden talking out his a$$.; 1/10/13, 6:57 AM
Crimso said...: "yeah, no shit, Sherlock. how many got hacked to death with machetes in Rwanda?"

To paraphrase Richard Gabriel on (IIRC) Cannae: "70,000 dead in an area roughly twice that of New York's Central Park. Now think about that. How long would it take to kill 70,000 men using spears and swords, one-by-one? The answer appears to be about 6 hours."; 1/10/13, 7:20 AM
Bruce Hayden said...: You need at least 22 Democrats to vote for impeachment. So even if you think you can get die-hard partisans like Al Franken and Dick Durbin to do the right thing, and even if you get EVERY Republican to go for it... you still don't have enough votes.

You are probably right that not enough Dem Senators could be flipped for conviction. But, I think that the real goal would be to put them between a rock and a hard place. The Harry Reids are going to be forced to vote for impeachment, while the Al Frankens are unlikely to, and they will face reelection with that critical vote hanging over them. It may be enough to flip the Senate this next election, and certainly in two elections.

So, yes, an impeachment would be highly symbolic, but I think with a defection of a good number of Dems in the Senate, would visibly weaken the President. The Clinton impeachment vote was fairly straight party line, and I think that Obama would come out looking worse.; 1/10/13, 7:42 AM
Brian Brown said...: Revenant said...
A friend and I were speculating, at lunch, about how executive orders could implement any kind of gun control regime.

The only thing we could come up with was that Obama could forbid the US armed forces from reselling old brass. That would jack up ammo prices quite a bit (and raise the deficit a bit too, but who's counting

He's going to order the ATF to track gun sales.

Just watch.; 1/10/13, 7:42 AM
Bruce Hayden said...: .50BMG upper for an AR? Srsly?????

From Wikipedia (And, yes, I know the problem of citing Wikipedia):
In addition, the AR15 lower receiver can be used as a trigger mechanism for single shot or side-fed upper receiver platforms that shoot in a variety of larger calibers, including .50 BMG

And here is Google link to some examples.

It may appear silly, but it has apparently been done.; 1/10/13, 7:58 AM
Tank said...: If they don't respect the 2nd Amendment, will they respect the 22nd?; 1/10/13, 7:58 AM
Bruce Hayden said...: He's going to order the ATF to track gun sales.

I think that tracks with some of the other things that I have heard. And, there may be some wiggle room there to redefine some ATF regulations and interpretations.

But, I don't think that it is a one way street here, and with that agency already being under fire for Fast and Furious, plus the general distain in the gun community for the organization, they are not likely to receive the funding from a Republican House for implementing this. Plus, I think that the House may work to get their funding cut, and possibly a budget (or continuing resolution) vote on this as a major recorded gun control vote, which could be deadly for the Harry Reids, etc. in the Senate.; 1/10/13, 8:07 AM
Bruce Hayden said...: BTW - the reason that I am using the Harry Reid example is that I lived through his last reelection (and, yes, voted against him). Nevadans love their guns, and it is the state where you can rent and shoot machine guns, apparently up to the .50 BMP M2 (I think to make this work legally, the guns need to stay at the range where they are rented). He has always been tight with the NRA, and famously met with them at a range in LV while Sarah Palin was in his home town of Searchlight with her bus tour. And, yes, he is the Senate Majority leader who has managed to keep his house from voting for a budget for over three years, or anything really that would embarrass him or other similarly situated Dem Senators.

There are other Dem Senators who are equally vulnerable in this regard. This election cycle, I was in Montana, watching back-to-back advertisements by Jon Tester driving his combine to show how he was a good-old-boy farmer, while his opponent was a greedy lawyer (despite Tester being a top recipient of lobbying money and rarely going home over the legislative season). This is a state where open carry is unremarkable. Max Baucus is going to face the voters there next election, and should be very scared of making a high visibility anti-gun rights vote.; 1/10/13, 8:27 AM
X said...: be careful what you tear up lefties. the constitution is the only reason you can collect onerous taxes and that obama is president.; 1/10/13, 8:57 AM
President-Mom-Jeans said...: You disgusting swine, you better not be talking about my daughter, despicable jerk.

Easy there Inga, I know you are very sensitive about the supposed lack of chastity by your figment of an imagination offspring, but save us your indignation for one second.

You took the time to post on the thread, tell us whether you think Obama should be able to use executive orders to impose gun control.

You answer is relevant to any discussion of what level of whore your pretend daughter can be accused of without violating the "new civility."; 1/10/13, 9:13 AM
Steve Koch said...: Icepick is not a sock puppet for Jake Diamond.; 1/10/13, 11:13 AM
Kirk Parker said...: Bruce,

Yeah, after I posted my question, I thought, "Wait--that's lmgtfy bait", so I went and looked myself.

Holy cow, I guess technically it's a .50BMG upper, just barely (though the "trigger mechanism for" aspect falls a bit short of being a fully-functioning lower, doesn't it?) And plenty of detractors pointing out that why don't they just buy a purpose-built .50BMG rifle, they aren't any more expensive...; 1/10/13, 1:36 PM
Revenant said...: The Harry Reids are going to be forced to vote for impeachment

Harry Reid isn't up for re-election until 2016. He's not going to vote for impeachment.

And like I pointed out, next in line is Joe Biden. You will get exactly ZERO Democratic votes to impeach him, because next in line after Biden is a Republican.; 1/10/13, 2:35 PM
Revenant said...: He's going to order the ATF to track gun sales.

Congress has already signed off on giving the CIA authority to access whatever information it wants on Americans and keep it for five years. You're worrying about the barn door well after all the horses have gotten out, I'm afraid. If you're legally purchased any guns or ammunition in a manner traceable to you, you can safely assume the federal government knows about it at some level.

I don't know what he could do via executive order that would actually adversely affect gun owners, though. Other than the ammo thing.; 1/10/13, 2:39 PM
30yearProf said...: Watch out duck hunters, pheasant hunters, trap and skeet shooters, etc. They are coming for you too. Oh my! a shotgun in a school.

Claiming "hunter" status is no longer a sure way to sit out the fight. The Mayor's and Brady's "divide and conquer" strategy just came off the wheels.

A gun is a gun, is a gun, is a gun, is a gun. There are no "evil" guns. But there certainly are evil people.; 1/10/13, 2:59 PM
Steve Koch said...: Impeaching is done strictly by the House, the Senate has no say in who gets impeached. If the House impeaches somebody, the trial for those charges is in the Senate. Even if the impeached official is not convicted by the Senate, the trial process could be very useful in terms of educating the public and forcing the admin to yield relevant documents.

Obama's admin is pretty lawless so the House might be forced to impeach Obama to rein him in. Just because the Senate might not do their job is no reason for the House to not do their job.; 1/10/13, 6:03 PM