I wanted to separate this from the monster “21st century Right to Arms” thread because although they are tightly related and will undoubtedly overlap I simply don’t have time to read through so many pages to get the conversation to the EOs. :).
This disturbs the shit out of me. This is dangerous.
[quote]Aragorn wrote:
I wanted to separate this from the monster “21st century Right to Arms” thread because although they are tightly related and will undoubtedly overlap I simply don’t have time to read through so many pages to get the conversation to the EOs. :).
This disturbs the shit out of me. This is dangerous.[/quote]
Apparently you now must be a gun dealer to sell your shotgun to your buddy.
Absurd, and has not purpose.
And, in fact, specifically designed not to be enforceable. There is no way they know when or to whom a firearm is transferred. . … unless a registry is created.
Which, of course, is the next step.
And, of course, no Western country has not had firearm registry that was not followed by firearm confiscation.
This is the purpose. It will be slow, methodical, but that is the end purpose.
Are there any better details on exactly what he is doing or is it too soon? I’m not familiar with the process of announcing executive orders from when it actually is finalized written law.
From cnn
“In an effort to expand background checks for buyers, the White House will introduce a new requirement for individuals “in the business of selling firearms” to register as licensed gun dealers, effectively narrowing the so-called “gun show loophole,” which exempts most small sellers from keeping formal sales records.”
These things always…and I mean ALWAYS have the opposite intended effect…
Criminals will continue to do their thing, and get weapons whenever and from whomever…
“Law-Abiding” Citizens will do the same…while stockpiling even MORE weapons…
It all becomes symbolic posturing.
Mufasa
Looks like it also greatly expands the definition of who ‘should not’ own a gun, while also blowing the doors off of what and how info is determined to be relevant and gathered.
Very creepy.
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
These things always…and I mean ALWAYS have the opposite intended effect…
Criminals will continue to do their thing, and get weapons whenever and from whomever…
“Law-Abiding” Citizens will do the same…while stockpiling even MORE weapons…
It all becomes symbolic posturing.
Mufasa[/quote]
You forgot to add, a few more innocent people will be put in jail for violating these new laws and because its gun related their cases won’t stand out as anything for the general public to be concerned about.
[quote]Aragorn wrote:
I wanted to separate this from the monster “21st century Right to Arms” thread because although they are tightly related and will undoubtedly overlap I simply don’t have time to read through so many pages to get the conversation to the EOs. :).
This disturbs the shit out of me. This is dangerous.[/quote]
I think it’s high time congress curtail the power of the executive order. Obama doesn’t even try to work in the system, he just makes an executive order for whatever he wants which is abuse and dangerous. This is the kind of power grab we were always afraid of with this president.
Now he just does it all the time.
Then frame it as a Congressional/Supreme Court issue…not an “Obama one”.
(In fact; my understanding is that other Presidents have used Executive Orders far more than this one).
Mufasa
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]Aragorn wrote:
I wanted to separate this from the monster “21st century Right to Arms” thread because although they are tightly related and will undoubtedly overlap I simply don’t have time to read through so many pages to get the conversation to the EOs. :).
This disturbs the shit out of me. This is dangerous.[/quote]
I think it’s high time congress curtail the power of the executive order. Obama doesn’t even try to work in the system, he just makes an executive order for whatever he wants which is abuse and dangerous. This is the kind of power grab we were always afraid of with this president.
Now he just does it all the time.[/quote]
Name 2 presidents in the last 100 years who had less executive orders than Obama per term.
Well then, I better hurry up and purchase my friend’s Beretta
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]Aragorn wrote:
I wanted to separate this from the monster “21st century Right to Arms” thread because although they are tightly related and will undoubtedly overlap I simply don’t have time to read through so many pages to get the conversation to the EOs. :).
This disturbs the shit out of me. This is dangerous.[/quote]
I think it’s high time congress curtail the power of the executive order. Obama doesn’t even try to work in the system, he just makes an executive order for whatever he wants which is abuse and dangerous. This is the kind of power grab we were always afraid of with this president.
Now he just does it all the time.[/quote]
Name 2 presidents in the last 100 years who had less executive orders than Obama per term.[/quote]
GWB had 118 in his second term and Nixon only had 99 in his second term 
compared to Obama’s 147 in his 1st term.
You made your point though…
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/data/orders.php
Notice how few the founders used.
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]Aragorn wrote:
I wanted to separate this from the monster “21st century Right to Arms” thread because although they are tightly related and will undoubtedly overlap I simply don’t have time to read through so many pages to get the conversation to the EOs. :).
This disturbs the shit out of me. This is dangerous.[/quote]
I think it’s high time congress curtail the power of the executive order. Obama doesn’t even try to work in the system, he just makes an executive order for whatever he wants which is abuse and dangerous. This is the kind of power grab we were always afraid of with this president.
Now he just does it all the time.[/quote]
Name 2 presidents in the last 100 years who had less executive orders than Obama per term.[/quote]
GWB had 118 in his second term and Nixon only had 99 in his second term compared to Obama’s 147 in his 1st term.
You made your point though…
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/data/orders.php
Notice how few the founders used. [/quote]
Seriously? I asked for average per year and you give me single term examples of two term presidents. Don’t you do something with numbers for a living? You should know better.
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]Aragorn wrote:
I wanted to separate this from the monster “21st century Right to Arms” thread because although they are tightly related and will undoubtedly overlap I simply don’t have time to read through so many pages to get the conversation to the EOs. :).
This disturbs the shit out of me. This is dangerous.[/quote]
I think it’s high time congress curtail the power of the executive order. Obama doesn’t even try to work in the system, he just makes an executive order for whatever he wants which is abuse and dangerous. This is the kind of power grab we were always afraid of with this president.
Now he just does it all the time.[/quote]
Name 2 presidents in the last 100 years who had less executive orders than Obama per term.[/quote]
GWB had 118 in his second term and Nixon only had 99 in his second term compared to Obama’s 147 in his 1st term.
You made your point though…
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/data/orders.php
Notice how few the founders used. [/quote]
Seriously? I asked for average per year and you give me single term examples of two term presidents. Don’t you do something with numbers for a living? You should know better.
[/quote]
Ah, no you didn’t…
Edit: An average wouldn’t even make sense anyway.
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]Aragorn wrote:
I wanted to separate this from the monster “21st century Right to Arms” thread because although they are tightly related and will undoubtedly overlap I simply don’t have time to read through so many pages to get the conversation to the EOs. :).
This disturbs the shit out of me. This is dangerous.[/quote]
I think it’s high time congress curtail the power of the executive order. Obama doesn’t even try to work in the system, he just makes an executive order for whatever he wants which is abuse and dangerous. This is the kind of power grab we were always afraid of with this president.
Now he just does it all the time.[/quote]
Name 2 presidents in the last 100 years who had less executive orders than Obama per term.[/quote]
GWB had 118 in his second term and Nixon only had 99 in his second term compared to Obama’s 147 in his 1st term.
You made your point though…
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/data/orders.php
Notice how few the founders used. [/quote]
Seriously? I asked for average per year and you give me single term examples of two term presidents. Don’t you do something with numbers for a living? You should know better.
[/quote]
You asked for 2 presidents in the last 100 years who had fewer executive orders than obama and he gave you two presidents in two terms who had less than obama.
If you were looking for an average you should have asked for that.
Now of all the executive orders produced by any president, how many have directly targeted the Bill Of Rights as this order has?
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]Aragorn wrote:
I wanted to separate this from the monster “21st century Right to Arms” thread because although they are tightly related and will undoubtedly overlap I simply don’t have time to read through so many pages to get the conversation to the EOs. :).
This disturbs the shit out of me. This is dangerous.[/quote]
I think it’s high time congress curtail the power of the executive order. Obama doesn’t even try to work in the system, he just makes an executive order for whatever he wants which is abuse and dangerous. This is the kind of power grab we were always afraid of with this president.
Now he just does it all the time.[/quote]
Name 2 presidents in the last 100 years who had less executive orders than Obama per term.[/quote]
GWB had 118 in his second term and Nixon only had 99 in his second term compared to Obama’s 147 in his 1st term.
You made your point though…
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/data/orders.php
Notice how few the founders used. [/quote]
Seriously? I asked for average per year and you give me single term examples of two term presidents. Don’t you do something with numbers for a living? You should know better.
[/quote]
You asked for 2 presidents in the last 100 years who had fewer executive orders than obama and he gave you two presidents in two terms who had less than obama.
If you were looking for an average you should have asked for that.
Now of all the executive orders produced by any president, how many have directly targeted the Bill Of Rights as this order has?[/quote]
Average or total is implied, how else do you compare a 4 term president with an 8 term? Obama has not completed his term so it needs to be based on a fraction of an 8 year term as of today.
If your issue is with the way they target the bill of rights why not say that first instead of backtracking to there now?
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]Aragorn wrote:
I wanted to separate this from the monster “21st century Right to Arms” thread because although they are tightly related and will undoubtedly overlap I simply don’t have time to read through so many pages to get the conversation to the EOs. :).
This disturbs the shit out of me. This is dangerous.[/quote]
I think it’s high time congress curtail the power of the executive order. Obama doesn’t even try to work in the system, he just makes an executive order for whatever he wants which is abuse and dangerous. This is the kind of power grab we were always afraid of with this president.
Now he just does it all the time.[/quote]
Name 2 presidents in the last 100 years who had less executive orders than Obama per term.[/quote]
GWB had 118 in his second term and Nixon only had 99 in his second term compared to Obama’s 147 in his 1st term.
You made your point though…
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/data/orders.php
Notice how few the founders used. [/quote]
Seriously? I asked for average per year and you give me single term examples of two term presidents. Don’t you do something with numbers for a living? You should know better.
[/quote]
You asked for 2 presidents in the last 100 years who had fewer executive orders than obama and he gave you two presidents in two terms who had less than obama.
If you were looking for an average you should have asked for that.
Now of all the executive orders produced by any president, how many have directly targeted the Bill Of Rights as this order has?[/quote]
Average or total is implied
[/quote]
You may have meant to imply average, but it isn’t implied in what you wrote. I suppose total was implied, but Obama doesn’t have an 8 year total.
The only way to compare a president that served 2 terms (8 years) and a President that served a full term (4 years) and is working on his 2nd term (4 years) would be to compare the completed term with other completed terms (which is what I did) or compute a daily average.
Neither is particularly useful in my opinion, but whatever.
Sure. It would literally mean nothing though. He could sign 300 executive orders this year if he felt so inclined.
*Edited
Who was it that said there were statistics…then there were DAMN statistics?
(Or something like that…!)
Mufasa
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]Aragorn wrote:
I wanted to separate this from the monster “21st century Right to Arms” thread because although they are tightly related and will undoubtedly overlap I simply don’t have time to read through so many pages to get the conversation to the EOs. :).
This disturbs the shit out of me. This is dangerous.[/quote]
I think it’s high time congress curtail the power of the executive order. Obama doesn’t even try to work in the system, he just makes an executive order for whatever he wants which is abuse and dangerous. This is the kind of power grab we were always afraid of with this president.
Now he just does it all the time.[/quote]
Name 2 presidents in the last 100 years who had less executive orders than Obama per term.[/quote]
GWB had 118 in his second term and Nixon only had 99 in his second term compared to Obama’s 147 in his 1st term.
You made your point though…
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/data/orders.php
Notice how few the founders used. [/quote]
Seriously? I asked for average per year and you give me single term examples of two term presidents. Don’t you do something with numbers for a living? You should know better.
[/quote]
You asked for 2 presidents in the last 100 years who had fewer executive orders than obama and he gave you two presidents in two terms who had less than obama.
If you were looking for an average you should have asked for that.
Now of all the executive orders produced by any president, how many have directly targeted the Bill Of Rights as this order has?[/quote]
Average or total is implied, how else do you compare a 4 term president with an 8 term? Obama has not completed his term so it needs to be based on a fraction of an 8 year term as of today.
If your issue is with the way they target the bill of rights why not say that first instead of backtracking to there now?[/quote]
No, you asked for something specific. Now you are back tracking.
And I am backtracking probably for the same reason you are, I made a mistake and should have been that specific in the first place. Like you, I assumed the relation to the actual Constitution vs. regulating prairie land was implied.