PEAX Equipment

No AWB in Senate Gun Bill

I actually looked into this a long time ago and, I'm sorry, but you got that wrong too. Obamacare originally allowed the doctors to ask about guns, but not report or record. .

But, but, you can't put it on the internet if its not true. I saw that on the internet. :D
 
Still no response personally to me....must be short on staffers. Thanks for posting up what you did have, theat.

Talked with some folks yesterday. They are working up a more detailed response. DC staffers have said they've been flooded with questions about this.
 
Rob, I suggest you read the actual law as it was passed, and then read the reversal as the EO was written. Also, go back and study how Federal agencies are chartered and their powers are limited by Congress. Obama circumvented the Constitutional process with these EOs, just as he has done with many others. When comparing the EOs of previous Presidents, it's also imperative to read what those actual orders contained. I will concede that every POTUS since the criminal Lincoln(he started a war if you remember, and started conscription without Constitutional authority), has issued controversial orders; but in most instances the majority of them didn't violate Constitutional Law. Obama on the other hand has broken more laws than FDR, who previously held the distinction of being the most socialist POTUS in our history.

Look for Obama to continue his blatant disregard for the Constitution as he issues more EOs on gun control issues, and tries to bypass the Senate with an agreement with the UN in spite of it's failure to garner a consensus on it's Gun Ban Treaty. I certainly don't believe in Christian beliefs, but if there is such a thing as the Anti-Christ, Obama is it!!!!!! Those who don't believe he will attempt to destroy the Constitution are in for a very unpleasant surprise when they wake up and find our country no longer exists.
 
RobG---That article in your forbes link is about as slanted and biased as anything I've ever seen out there in print!!!

I agree, but if anything that (and the fact it was written long before Newton) just reinforces the original point I was trying to make.

Laws are subject to interpretation. Obama clarified his own law. When Rhomas passes Rhomascare he can tell us what his law means.
 
Rob, I suggest you read the actual law as it was passed, and then read the reversal as the EO was written. Also, go back and study how Federal agencies are chartered and their powers are limited by Congress. Obama circumvented the Constitutional process with these EOs, just as he has done with many others. When comparing the EOs of previous Presidents, it's also imperative to read what those actual orders contained. I will concede that every POTUS since the criminal Lincoln(he started a war if you remember, and started conscription without Constitutional authority), has issued controversial orders; but in most instances the majority of them didn't violate Constitutional Law. Obama on the other hand has broken more laws than FDR, who previously held the distinction of being the most socialist POTUS in our history.

Look for Obama to continue his blatant disregard for the Constitution as he issues more EOs on gun control issues, and tries to bypass the Senate with an agreement with the UN in spite of it's failure to garner a consensus on it's Gun Ban Treaty. I certainly don't believe in Christian beliefs, but if there is such a thing as the Anti-Christ, Obama is it!!!!!! Those who don't believe he will attempt to destroy the Constitution are in for a very unpleasant surprise when they wake up and find our country no longer exists.

Nevermind.
 
Last edited:
Perhaps this will shed some light on Obama's plans for those of you who are skeptical and unwilling to accept the fact that he's a liar!!!!!!!!!!

NSSF Objects to U.S. Government Abandoning
Position that U.N. Treaty Must be based on International "Consensus"

NEWTOWN, Conn. -- The National Shooting Sports Foundation today strongly objected to the last-minute reversal of the U.S. government position regarding the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty. In the closing hours of negotiations on Thursday, March 28, the government abandoned its previous insistence that the treaty be approved only through achieving “consensus” of all the member states. Requiring consensus had been the United States position going back to earlier administrations.

At the end of the session, a U.S. government spokesperson told reporters “It's important to the United States and the defense of our interests to insist on consensus. But every state in this process has always been conscious of the fact that if consensus is not reached in this process, that there are other ways to adopt this treaty, including via a vote of the General Assembly.” The spokesperson went on to say that the United States would vote “yes” on the treaty in the General Assembly, regardless of the positions of other member states. By abandoning the requirement for consensus the United States is assuring passage of the treaty by the United Nations.

“This abrupt about-face on the long-standing United States requirement for ‘consensus’ illustrates that the Obama Administration wants a sweeping U.N. arms control treaty,” said Lawrence Keane, NSSF senior vice president and general counsel. “We are troubled by the timing of the Obama Administration’s decision to abandon consensus on the eve of the Senate debate on pending gun control measures. The United Nations treaty would have a broad impact on the U.S. firearms industry and its base of consumers in the U.S.”

Industry analysts have identified three major areas of concern with the treaty text. The treaty clearly covers trade in civilian firearms, not just military arms and equipment. It will have a major impact on the importation of firearms to the United States, which is a substantial source for the consumer market. And it will impose new regulations on the “transit” of firearms, the term defined so broadly that it would cover all everything from container ships stopping at ports to individuals who are traveling internationally with a single firearm for hunting or other sporting purposes.

“We hope that the Members of the U.S. Senate are closely watching the White House abandon its principles and promises in the rush to ramrod this flawed treaty into effect. Not only will they later be asked to ratify this attack on our constitution and sovereignty, but they will also be lavished with new promises from the administration in its drive to push a broad gun control agenda through the U.S. Senate when it returns from recess. They would be right to question those promises strongly,” concluded Keane.
 
Rhomas, you are 0 for 3 on this EO thing (which weren't actually EOs)... Out of curiosity I looked how your Republican Reps voted on FISA and NDAA... maybe you should too (and Patriot Act, HR1505, Real ID, etc), and then start worrying about the bigger threats to the Constitution than Obama's wish list.
 
Rob, your fact finding seems to be thwarting our ideological bents.
The reality is that entities on both sides of the Dem and Rep lines are continuously posing threats to the Constitution that should worry us.
Depending on our ideological and political attitudes, we read and believe what supports our views ... especially if the content, opinion, and analysis gets us charged up emotionally.
Your factual information. reasoning, and logical conclusions really throw a monkey wrench into the machinery that drives our ideological rants.
 
Rob,
Your factual information. reasoning, and logical conclusions really throw a monkey wrench into the machinery that drives our ideological rants.

It's Jose without the trolling effect. ;) Although I'll admit with guys like rhomas the Jose effect can be quite entertaining.
 
Every one is free to interpret what's occurring under this administration as they like. Just remember that The Patriot Act, FISA, and NDAA were all written and passed by a Democrat controlled House and Senate. Most of us at the time felt that the Patriot Act was a measure that would possibly prevent another 9/11, and I was one who approved of it and the intent that we believed it was designed for. At the time we believed there was a "clear and present danger", just as our elected officials in both parties also believed.

If you are content with Obama and his actions, then hopefully you won't regret that decision worse than many of us now regret the results of The Patriot Act.
 
Every one is free to interpret what's occurring under this administration as they like.

Obama's executive action 11: Nominate an ATF director (directly from Obama's EA list).
Rhomas interpretation: Barack Obama issues unconstitutional executive order appointing AFT Director without Senate approval.

Do as you like, but methinks interpretations should be based on actual events.
 
I wonder if the Dems will push for background checks and limitations to pressure cookers. You know, because if guns kill people, so do pressure cookers. And with pressure cookers there is no laws at all.
 
Tester just lost any and all credibility he had with me. Baucus still needs to pay for his vote on the AWB back in the 90's. Kick them to the curb.

He hopes we will flip back to Dancing with the Stars and American Idol, making us forget about such items in 2018 :rolleyes:.
 
Yeti GOBOX Collection

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
110,805
Messages
1,935,062
Members
34,883
Latest member
clamwc
Back
Top