maxparrish
Veteran Member
- Joined
- Aug 30, 2005
- Messages
- 2,262
- Location
- SF Bay Area
- Basic Beliefs
- Libertarian-Conservative, Agnostic.
Few issues gets our eternal partisan campaigner and lavish DECREE maker, in a rage quite like gun control. In an ad-lib speech today the angry, sarcastic, and disdainful "leader" was doing his best to contain heartfelt emotions, as well as channeling "der Fuhrer's" ranting. It was a roller coaster of emotion, issuing demands and promising legal decrees (er actually agency "clarifications"). He Wow.
Perhaps Obama's anger was further fueled by someone giving him a semi-reality check to his unquenchable ambitions because the promised controls turned out, for the most part, to be pretty tepid stuff. No extended magazine ban, banning firearms to those on the no-fly list, etc. What happened to check, with perhaps one exception, his otherwise imperial sentimentality?
Several days ago, Eric Schultz reported “...he [Obama] has asked his team to scrub existing legal authorities to see if there’s any additional action we can take administratively.” Apparently Obama didn't want to know what was lawful, and then to examine his options. Nope, he knew what his "options" should be and he wanted his staff to "scrub (or scour?) the law to find a way to provide a fig leaf of legal authority for an unconstitutional/illegal decree.
So what happened? I suspect Obama got strong push back from some legal advisers and/or there is a growing awareness that Obama's unconstitutional imperial 'orders' might start generating political damage in an election year.
In any event, as dear leader has been unclear on one talking point, that of defining a "gun dealer". White House officials said someone could sell as few as one or two guns yet still be considered a dealer whose sales are subject to background checks - clearly an attempt to drive hobbyists from doing business. (It takes a YEAR just to complete the process of getting a gun license).
We shall see - in the meantime, its pretty clear that his actions could be unlawful if pushed too far.
PS: Original Edited to be fairer to Obama. After all, this may be the first time I have seen him show real empathy over human tragedy (well, other than when playing the race card).
Perhaps Obama's anger was further fueled by someone giving him a semi-reality check to his unquenchable ambitions because the promised controls turned out, for the most part, to be pretty tepid stuff. No extended magazine ban, banning firearms to those on the no-fly list, etc. What happened to check, with perhaps one exception, his otherwise imperial sentimentality?
Several days ago, Eric Schultz reported “...he [Obama] has asked his team to scrub existing legal authorities to see if there’s any additional action we can take administratively.” Apparently Obama didn't want to know what was lawful, and then to examine his options. Nope, he knew what his "options" should be and he wanted his staff to "scrub (or scour?) the law to find a way to provide a fig leaf of legal authority for an unconstitutional/illegal decree.
So what happened? I suspect Obama got strong push back from some legal advisers and/or there is a growing awareness that Obama's unconstitutional imperial 'orders' might start generating political damage in an election year.
In any event, as dear leader has been unclear on one talking point, that of defining a "gun dealer". White House officials said someone could sell as few as one or two guns yet still be considered a dealer whose sales are subject to background checks - clearly an attempt to drive hobbyists from doing business. (It takes a YEAR just to complete the process of getting a gun license).
We shall see - in the meantime, its pretty clear that his actions could be unlawful if pushed too far.
PS: Original Edited to be fairer to Obama. After all, this may be the first time I have seen him show real empathy over human tragedy (well, other than when playing the race card).
Last edited:
