LogicIsForSquares Posted January 5, 2016 Report Share Posted January 5, 2016 We haven't addressed the fact that the President can sign executive orders that side step all of those elected representatives who are supposed to vote on and create laws. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gftChris Posted January 5, 2016 Report Share Posted January 5, 2016 Not to mention the left screaming about invasion of privacy. I suppose everyone should be required to have all that information readily available for all to see. WSS All relevant parties, for sure. Why shouldn't the FBI be able to have access to someone's mental health records (or anything else for that matter) if there's a good reason? We haven't addressed the fact that the President can sign executive orders that side step all of those elected representatives who are supposed to vote on and create laws. That's pretty fucked up, yes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted January 5, 2016 Report Share Posted January 5, 2016 Ironically I am on the Gallup poll mailing list and just today the poll questions included one about more security vs more privacy. Personally I think information should be much more easily accessible. WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gftChris Posted January 5, 2016 Report Share Posted January 5, 2016 Ironically I am on the Gallup poll mailing list and just today the poll questions included one about more security vs more privacy. Personally I think information should be much more easily accessible. WSS It's only if you mistrust the people accessing the data that you should be worried. And, inevitably, whichever side is in power some people will mistrust them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted January 5, 2016 Report Share Posted January 5, 2016 It's only if you mistrust the people accessing the data that you should be worried. And, inevitably, whichever side is in power some people will mistrust them.While I believe that one side of the political spectrum incorporates a lot more scumbags than the other I generally doubt that even if Obama had my transcripts on his desk he would have no interest in it.I suppose if I were cheating on my taxes or harboring a fugitive or downloading child pornography I'd worry about that, but I'm not and I don't. I think I recently told the story of a close friend and tenant who called me in the throes of the DT's and was eventually sent to the psych ward of one of our local hospitals. I needed basic information about her pets and apartment and even though I spent a great deal of time there with the police and EMS none of the area hospitals would either confirm or deny she'd been taken there. Actually they lied to me. WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bbedward Posted January 5, 2016 Report Share Posted January 5, 2016 The far right and many on the left don't want any NSA type of surveillance on people. Many citizens don't want it, either. I think it's ok "to an extent" Things like public social media sites should definitely be fair game. However, the way we handle and use the information is a gray area. You can say, "well you can use the no fly list to keep people from buying guns" - but others can say "What qualifies you for the no fly list? How do I know if I'm on it? How do I get off of it?" I guess there's a pretty big debate about monitoring terrorist activity and all of that stuff. Some basic ass common sense gun laws should be background checks are required when you buy a gun....including when you buy it at a gun show Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LogicIsForSquares Posted January 5, 2016 Report Share Posted January 5, 2016 Oh jesus. This scumbag is crying on TV and bringing up the end of slavery and women's voting rights to equate that gun legislation is in the same ball park. What a fucking hack. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pumpkin Eater Posted January 5, 2016 Report Share Posted January 5, 2016 Douchebag Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Browns149 Posted January 5, 2016 Report Share Posted January 5, 2016 Oh jesus. This scumbag is crying on TV and bringing up the end of slavery and women's voting rights to equate that gun legislation is in the same ball park. What a fucking hack. He kept saying those things took time and didn't happen overnight, which is true, but comparing those two things to sidesteping the second amendment by executive order isn't even close Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted January 5, 2016 Report Share Posted January 5, 2016 Am I thinking of another amendment with the words shall not be infringed? edit nope its the 2nd. WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Cysko Kid Posted January 5, 2016 Report Share Posted January 5, 2016 And now our gay president is in tears on live tv. What a pussy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldBrownsFan Posted January 5, 2016 Report Share Posted January 5, 2016 Our narcissist president. It is always about him: Montage: In 33-Minute Speech on Guns, Obama Refers to Himself 76 Times https://grabien.com/story.php?id=44989 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Axe Posted January 5, 2016 Report Share Posted January 5, 2016 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbluhm86 Posted January 6, 2016 Report Share Posted January 6, 2016 Am I thinking of another amendment with the words shall not be infringed? edit nope its the 2nd. WSS “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” - Second Amendment, United States Constitution “There seems to us [the United States Supreme Court] no doubt, on the basis of both text and history, that the Second Amendment conferred an individual right to keep and bear arms. Of course the right was not unlimited, just as the First Amendment’s right of free speech was not…Thus, we do not read the Second Amendment to protect the right of citizens to carry arms for any sort of confrontation, just as we do not read the First Amendment to protect the right of citizens to speak for any purpose... "Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited...Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment , nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms." …We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. [united States v. Miller, (1939)] said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those “in common use at the time…It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service—M-16 rifles and the like—may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment’s ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks. But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right.” - Judge Antonin Scalia, U.S. Supreme Court's majority opinion, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER, 2008. https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZO.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbluhm86 Posted January 6, 2016 Report Share Posted January 6, 2016 And for those of you bent out of shape about Obama and his executive orders, Congress has the power to overturn an executive order by passing legislation in conflict with it, any time they choose to do so. Congress can also refuse to provide funding necessary to carry out certain policy measures contained with the order or to legitimize policy mechanisms. In the former, the president retains the power to veto such a decision; however, the Congress may override a veto with a two-thirds majority to end an executive order. And, as a further measure, the Supreme Court can also overturn Presidental executive orders; In 1935, the Supreme Court overturned five of President Franklin Roosevelt's executive orders, and at least two of Clinton's in the 90's. Bush 2.0 had several executive orders ruled unconstitutional in part or in whole, and at least one executive order by Obama has been overturned as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Axe Posted January 6, 2016 Report Share Posted January 6, 2016 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbluhm86 Posted January 6, 2016 Report Share Posted January 6, 2016 Scalia and the rest of SCOTUS kill alot of babies, do they? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pumpkin Eater Posted January 6, 2016 Report Share Posted January 6, 2016 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Axe Posted January 6, 2016 Report Share Posted January 6, 2016 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbluhm86 Posted January 6, 2016 Report Share Posted January 6, 2016 Ah, I see, Neither one of you, Axe and Pumpkin, have a decent rebuttal to the points I've addressed, so you'll just post anti-Obama pictures instead. Well, post away then, I suppose. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Axe Posted January 6, 2016 Report Share Posted January 6, 2016 No, you just simply aren't worth my time .. Get over yourself.. Pics simply make a point much quicker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbluhm86 Posted January 6, 2016 Report Share Posted January 6, 2016 No, you just simply aren't worth my time .. Get over yourself.. Pics simply make a point much quicker Ok. What, exactly, is the point you are trying to make then? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Axe Posted January 6, 2016 Report Share Posted January 6, 2016 Ok. What, exactly, is the point you are trying to make then? That you aren't worth my time.. Is your problem reading? or comprehension? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbluhm86 Posted January 6, 2016 Report Share Posted January 6, 2016 Hmm. So you posted pictures of anti-Obama nonsense as a reply to the points I addressed...because i'm not worth your time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erie Dawg Posted January 6, 2016 Author Report Share Posted January 6, 2016 I haven't seen the tears yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted January 6, 2016 Report Share Posted January 6, 2016 I'm not sure if you believe I'm the kind of guy who buys into every word Anthony Scalia has to say just because he's slightly more conservative than other members of the Politburo. Sorry the Supreme Court. The Bill of Rights is basically meaningless especially when viewed in the context of the time they were written. WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chicopee John Posted January 6, 2016 Report Share Posted January 6, 2016 From USA Today White House: Obama gun actions coming 'soon' http://usat.ly/1OD50R1 To me, the actions are benign and steeped with common sense. At the same time, I believe this is nothing more than 'feel good legislation' - without the legislation - that will have little to no true impact on anything. Actually, overall gun violence is down across the country. Like plane crashes vs. automobile accidents, however, the mass killings get all the attention. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DieHardBrownsFan Posted January 6, 2016 Report Share Posted January 6, 2016 Crocodile tears from the fag. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldBrownsFan Posted January 6, 2016 Report Share Posted January 6, 2016 I will never forget when Obama was informed while on vacation with the news we had our first American hostage beheaded by ISIS. He gave a quick five minute speech to the nation that read more like a sympathy card and minutes later he was golfing and fist bumping his golf buddies on the golf course. He would later say that it was "bad optics". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbluhm86 Posted January 6, 2016 Report Share Posted January 6, 2016 The far right and many on the left don't want any NSA type of surveillance on people. Many citizens don't want it, either... ...However, the way we handle and use the information is a gray area. You can say, "well you can use the no fly list to keep people from buying guns" - but others can say "What qualifies you for the no fly list? How do I know if I'm on it? How do I get off of it?" I guess there's a pretty big debate about monitoring terrorist activity and all of that stuff... It's only if you mistrust the people accessing the data that you should be worried. And, inevitably, whichever side is in power some people will mistrust them. We haven't addressed the fact that the President can sign executive orders that side step all of those elected representatives who are supposed to vote on and create laws. Not to mention the left screaming about invasion of privacy. I suppose everyone should be required to have all that information readily available for all to see. WSS Interesting side note: All of the controversial data collection activities by the NSA, which many consider to violate the Fourth Amendment's protections against unreasonable search and seizure...was first authorized by Executive Order 12333 by President Obama Reagan back in 1981, and further expanded upon by President Bush 2.0 with two further Executive Orders, 13355 and 13470, in 2004 and 2008, respectively... https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/meet-executive-order-12333-the-reagan-rule-that-lets-the-nsa-spy-on-americans/2014/07/18/93d2ac22-0b93-11e4-b8e5-d0de80767fc2_story.html https://www.aclu.org/cases/executive-order-12333-foia-lawsuit https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2014/06/primer-executive-order-12333-mass-surveillance-starlet ...But, i'm sure most people knew that already, due to the overwhelming condemnation and uproar by both Republicans and Democrats against Presidents Reagan and Bush for abusing their authority by sidestepping Congress and violating the Constitution. ...oh...wait... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.