White House Threatens Executive Orders

[kantuckyII]

Biden: Obama Might Use Executive Order to Deal With Guns
11:42 AM, JAN 9, 2013 • BY DANIEL HALPER Single PagePrintLarger TextSmaller TextAlerts
Vice President Joe Biden revealed that President Barack Obama might use an executive order to deal with guns.

"The president is going to act," said Biden, giving some comments to the press before a meeting with victims of gun violence. "There are executives orders, there's 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 the rest of the cabinet members as well as legislative action that we believe is required."

Biden said that this is a moral issue and that "it's critically important that we act."

Biden talked also about taking responsible action. "As the president said, if you're actions result in only saving one life, they're worth taking. But I'm convinced we can affect the well-being of millions of americans and take thousands of people out of harm's way if we act responsibly."

Biden, as he himself noted, helped write the Brady bill.

Eric Holder was scheduled to be at the meeting that's currently take place at the White House.

[kantuckyII]

What is this idiot keep on calling a semi automatic? Then says no one needs a handgun? People, telling you, you better freaking wake up

Piers Morgan and Guests Discuss Shooting Alex Jones

Daily Beast writer Buzz Bissinger says Piers Morgan should “pop” Alex Jones with a semi-automatic weapon.
Aaron Dykes
Infowars.com
January 8, 2013

CNN and the gun grabbing media are now calling for Alex Jones to be shot the day after his heated appearance with Piers Morgan.
In a segment on Piers Morgan’s CNN program, sports columnist for the Daily Beast, Buzz Bissinger, shockingly states:
“I don’t care what the justification is that you’re allowed in this country to own a semi-automatic weapon – much less a handgun. But what do you need a semi-automatic weapon for? The only reason I think you’d need it is, Piers, challenge Alex Jones to a boxing match, show up with a semi-automatic that you got legally and pop him.”
Abby Huntsman (Huffington Post) : “I’d love to see that… [laughter] in uniform.”
Piers Morgan: “I’ll borrow my brothers uniform.”
I
The other guests laugh and say they’d like to see it. Without a doubt, this amounts to a veiled threat.
Earlier in the episode, another guest expressed hope that Alex Jones’ children would not be killed, which Jones’ says terrorized his children and family as they watched on from home.
CNN Guest Says Kill Alex Jones! FPS Russian Executed

This call to violence from those demanding gun control is nothing new.
Shortly after the Sandy Hook shooting massacre, advocates for firearms restrictions flooded Twitter and other mediums, demanding the murder of the NRA president and other NRA supporters.
Here are some of those blatant threats, screen captured below:

This article was posted: Wednesday, January 9, 2013 at 10:45 am
Tags: government corruption, gun rights, mainstream media

Share this article:






Aaron Dykes loses 92 pounds! Watch the shocking transformation now! (Ad)

[kantuckyII]

The White House has issued a glib response to the petition to deport CNN host Piers Morgan, claiming Morgan’s rhetorical assault on the Constitution is protected by the first amendment, despite the fact that Morgan is not a U.S. citizen and therefore does not enjoy a first amendment right.

White House Press Secretary Jay Carney responded to the petition, which has reached over 109,000 signatures, with the following statement;

Let’s not let arguments over the Constitution’s Second Amendment violate the spirit of its First. President Obama believes that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to bear arms. However, the Constitution not only guarantees an individual right to bear arms, but also enshrines the freedom of speech and the freedom of the press — fundamental principles that are essential to our democracy. Americans may disagree on matters of public policy and express those disagreements vigorously, but no one should be punished by the government simply because he or she expressed a view on the Second Amendment — or any other matter of public concern.

The rest of the response is merely a re-hash of Barack Obama’s gun control rhetoric in the aftermath of the Sandy Hook massacre.

In lazily arguing, “Let’s not let arguments over the Constitution’s Second Amendment violate the spirit of its First,” Carney is implying that Piers Morgan’s anti-gun crusade is protected by free speech under the first amendment when it clearly isn’t since foreign nationals do not have absolute first amendment rights.

The fact that the first amendment does not apply to non-citizens was established in the Supreme Court’s affirmation of Bluman v. FEC in January 2012. The court’s decision rubber-stamped a District Court decision which found under its first amendment analysis that, “The United States has a compelling interest in limiting the participation of foreign citizens in such activities, and “thereby preventing foreign influence over the U.S. political process.”

Legal precedent also dictates that foreign nationals can be deported from the United States for subversion against the Constitution. In Harisiades v. Shaugnessy (1952), the US Supreme Court upheld Harisiades’ deportation by ruling that the first amendment did not protect Harisiades’ membership of the Communist Party.

In issuing its glib response, the White House has completely failed to even address these cases and has erroneously claimed that the first amendment applies to non-citizen foreign nationals like Piers Morgan, when it does not.

The fact that the White House’s response was timed to coincide precisely with the national media furore over Alex Jones’ appearance on CNN’s Piers Morgan Tonight is also curiously synchronous, given that Jones was the author of the original petition and Morgan is a personal friend of the Obama’s.

The Obama administration has also revealed yet another side to its rampant hypocrisy – defending the first amendment while aggressively attempting to eviscerate the second via gun control measures that were planned well in advance of recent events.
*********************
Paul Joseph Watson is the editor and writer for Infowars.com and Prison Planet.com. He is the author of Order Out Of Chaos. Watson is also a host for Infowars Nightly News.

[abuck76]

-*********************
Paul Joseph Watson is the editor and writer for Infowars.com and Prison Planet.com. He is the author of Order Out Of Chaos. Watson is also a host for Infowars Nightly News.

These words above say a lot about people.........So do the below words......... :12224

[mikepike]

I'm not a gun enthusiast, although I own a 12-guage. I fail to understand why guns that can shoot 30+ rounds in a second are needed, butI don't want to see the government run roughshod over the 2nd Ammendment either. I will not let the government tell me I can't skeet shoot, or have the option of defending my family if the need arises. If more gun control is the answer, then there needs to be specific criteria for what is and is not legal. People violating the law then need to be punished severely. And people who kill someone while in violation need to be put to death as well.

[dazed&confused]

And people who kill someone while in violation need to be put to death as well.

Two thoughts on this:
1) Most of these mass killers off themselves. You can't put them to death twice
2) Please reference Aurora, Colorado. The shooter is probably going to be deemed insane. He will never even go to trial, let alone die for his actions.

[Paladin]

I have read enough to know that IF the Administration WANTS, it can put a SERIOUS HOLE into the 2nd Amendment in limiting, registering, selling guns or use of "cop" killer bullets, extra large magazines or assault rifles. Most think you have to legislate. Sorry, it you keep open hunting rifles and shotguns, you can legally limit guns while making them available per the 2nd Amendment on a limited basis. Besides, too many Einsteins think that the NRA is all abpout protecting their rights. It isn't -- its about protecting the gun companies who laugh all the way to the bank while stirring up all the ignorant folks who think guns are going to be taken away. This site has the classic example.

[mustang_lvr]

wonder how many of these so called insane people are good actors?

[Tigercannon71]

I have read enough to know that IF the Administration WANTS, it can put a SERIOUS HOLE into the 2nd Amendment in limiting, registering, selling guns or use of "cop" killer bullets, extra large magazines or assault rifles. Most think you have to legislate. Sorry, it you keep open hunting rifles and shotguns, you can legally limit guns while making them available per the 2nd Amendment on a limited basis. Besides, too many Einsteins think that the NRA is all abpout protecting their rights. It isn't -- its about protecting the gun companies who laugh all the way to the bank while stirring up all the ignorant folks who think guns are going to be taken away. This site has the classic example.

Its a slippery slope if you allow Obama to unilaterally ban certain ammo or magazines whats to stop him from banning guns? Nothing.

[kantuckyII]

I can remember for the last election being in a sporting goods store that I will not reveal the name. There was a man in there looking at guns, Wearing an expensive suit, and he and I were talking and I said it's a good thing to buy now before Obama takes them away. The man was beside himself and shouted me, "Obama is not going to take away our guns!"

After he left, the guy who ran the store told me that he was a big wheel Union rep. I have nothing against unions, As a matter fact I was a steward once myself but I am not naïve nor am I going to turn a blind eye to what I see going down. As you can now see, I had it right.

One reason the NRA and other gun proponents are not willing to bend on a lot of things is the deep mistrust with the government. (Which is ironic because that is often the reason the union will not bend with the companies because they have a deep mistrust of the companies)

Case in point on the mistrust is a recent incident where in New York they are publishing the list of names of all the people who have registered guns in their home. They should not be allowed to do that! One thing they inadvertently done was published prison guards home addresses and prison guards are reporting they have now been threatened by inmates who now know their addresses. One woman is raising nine kinds of cane because her abusive ex-husband, who she has been hiding from, now has her address as well and knows that she has a registered gun in her home.

Piers Morgan and other guest on his show were joking that they wished a pro-gun advocate would be shocked now. This was just was on his show the night before last I believe. I don't not know if I'll pierced noses or not but if that guy is shot I'm sure that he be charged!

I too see the need to screen citizens better as far as their mental health before they receive a gun. As far as closing the so called gun show loophole that would require all guns be registered. I think that the New York paper publishing those peoples names is going to cause people to digging their heels in deeper and resist that! I also do not know why anyone needs a 30 round clip. I don't know how anyone could call for a ban against a 10 round clips or semi automatics.

As far as the NRA, their membership has increased 100,000 members in the last 18 days! That takes them up to 4.2 million members and they expect to reach 5 million within the next few months.

And for police protection. Look, Scherff Lawless in Lawrence county has had to make dramatic drastic cuts to his force. His is a huge county to watch over. And I'm sure that he does the best he can but with the limited resources he as he is not able to protect people out in the county. People need a means to protect himself. No one owns automatic weapons legally, to watch the movies everyone has a machine gun LOL Semi automatic's must have the trigger pulled each and every time before the gun goes off

[kantuckyII]

I can remember for the last election being in a sporting goods store that I will not reveal the name. There was a man in there looking at guns, wearing an expensive suit, and he and I were talking and I said it's a good thing to buy now before Obama takes them away. The man was beside himself and shouted at me, "Obama is not going to take away our guns!"

After he left, the guy who ran the store told me that he was a big wheel union rep. I have nothing against unions, As a matter fact I was a steward once myself but I am not naïve nor am I going to turn a blind eye to what I see going down. As you can now see, I had it right.

One reason the NRA and other gun proponents are not willing to bend on a lot of things is the deep mistrust with the government. (Which is ironic because that is often the reason the union will not bend with the companies because they have a deep mistrust of the companies)

Case in point on the mistrust is a recent incident where in New York they are publishing the list of names of all the people who have registered guns in their home. They should not be allowed to do that! One thing they inadvertently done was published prison guards home addresses and prison guards are reporting they have now been threatened by inmates who now know their addresses. One woman is raising nine kinds of cane because her abusive ex-husband, who she has been hiding from, now has her address as well and knows that she has a registered gun in her home.

Piers Morgan and other guest on his show were joking that they wished a pro-gun advocate would be shot now. This was just was on his show the night before last I believe. I don't not know if I'll pierced noses or not but if that guy is shot I'm sure that he be charged!

I too see the need to screen citizens better as far as their mental health before they receive a gun. As far as closing the so called gun show loophole that would require all guns be registered. I think that the New York paper publishing those peoples names is going to cause people to digging their heels in deeper and resist that! I also do not know why anyone needs a 30 round clip. I don't know how anyone could call for a ban against a 10 round clips or semi automatics though, that's silly!

As far as the NRA, their membership has increased 100,000 members in the last 18 days! That takes them up to 4.2 million members and they expect to reach 5 million within the next few months.

And for police protection. Look, Sheriff Lawless in Lawrence county has had to make dramatic drastic cuts to his force. His is a huge county to watch over. And I'm sure that he does the best he can but with the limited resources he as he is not able to protect people out in the county. People need a means to protect himself. No one owns automatic weapons legally, to watch the movies everyone has a machine gun LOL Semi automatic's must have the trigger pulled each and every time before the gun goes off

[C-Bolt]

Did anybody see that interview on CNN with Piers Morgan and Alex Jones? OMG he goes completely off the deep end on Morgan on this gun issue,the guy definetly has a screw loose, but I do agree with some of what he said.

[NYBuckeye96]

http://aattp.org/surprise-fox-news-lies ... ech-video/

How did Fox “News” deceptively edit a speech by President Obama in order to convince their idiot viewers that the President’s position on guns was hypocritical? See for yourself.

[C-Bolt]

I just don't believe that, Fox news would never lie about anything as they are fair and balanced ,more liberal propaganda being thrown around LOL

[dazed&confused]

An Executive Order could be reversed on 1-20-2016 if an NRA friendly President is elected. I prefer sensible gun regulation that specifically prohibits/limits hi-capacity gun clips, military assault weapons and hollow point ammo. In addition, background checks should be a must for ALL future gun sales. But it should be legislation.

[Space Cowboy]

I have read enough to know that IF the Administration WANTS, it can put a SERIOUS HOLE into the 2nd Amendment in limiting, registering, selling guns or use of "cop" killer bullets, extra large magazines or assault rifles. Most think you have to legislate. Sorry, it you keep open hunting rifles and shotguns, you can legally limit guns while making them available per the 2nd Amendment on a limited basis. Besides, too many Einsteins think that the NRA is all abpout protecting their rights. It isn't -- its about protecting the gun companies who laugh all the way to the bank while stirring up all the ignorant folks who think guns are going to be taken away. This site has the classic example.

Its a slippery slope if you allow Obama to unilaterally ban certain ammo or magazines whats to stop him from banning guns? Nothing.

Certain types of ammo have been banned for years now....which I find ironically insane due to the fact that military ammo is full metal jacketed and will plow right through bone and tissue, whereas civilian ammo starts opening up, on impact with flesh and creates a much larger cavity wound.
One exception though is the teflon coated "cop killers".....but they are already illegal to own.

[Tigercannon71]

I know certain ones have been banned like the "cop killers", but the point was if you let him start to just banning things without going through Congress then whats to stop him from banning guns period.

[dazed&confused]

I know certain ones have been banned like the "cop killers", but the point was if you let him start to just banning things without going through Congress then whats to stop him from banning guns period.

Slippery slope argument. You know and I know he will not get half of what is being discussed now. The sausage grinder of Congress will ensure that.

[Paladin]

There isn't a slippery slope. Machine guns were banned years ago ( and gun sales went up). Grenades were banned years ago ( and gun sales went up). TECHNICALLY, gun companies could be banned from making & selling ANYTHING but .22 rifles and .410 to.12 guage shotguns and the 2nd Amendment would still be surviving. Gun registration & background checks still keeps the 2nd alive. Some guns MUST be allowed, BUT NOT ALL.

The Constitution is alive & well but soon to be limited as THE GOVT HAS THE RIGHT TO DO.

[Tigercannon71]

There isn't a slippery slope. Machine guns were banned years ago ( and gun sales went up). Grenades were banned years ago ( and gun sales went up). TECHNICALLY, gun companies could be banned from making & selling ANYTHING but .22 rifles and .410 to.12 guage shotguns and the 2nd Amendment would still be surviving. Gun registration & background checks still keeps the 2nd alive. Some guns MUST be allowed, BUT NOT ALL.

The Constitution is alive & well but soon to be limited as THE GOVT HAS THE RIGHT TO DO.

When where you ever allowed to buy grenades for the public? Thats like saying Tanks were banned and gun sales went up. All it takes is one Presidential order to ban certain guns then next thing you know he is banning all guns. History shows that if you give a little the politicians will take a lot and in the end the public and liberty will suffer.