Amazing Storyville about undercover FBI informants. The guy didn't notify the FBI he was filming all this.
edit : Holy fuck plot twist.
Amazing Storyville about undercover FBI informants. The guy didn't notify the FBI he was filming all this.
edit : Holy fuck plot twist.
Lads you need to watch that on iPlayer.
Bump.
So Obama is now considering what powers he can use with regards to gun laws without Congress' say so. Does anyone (including Mert if he can stay off the ANTI-LIBERUL rhetoric) know exactly what he can do without approval from Congress?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-35211294
Not much constitutionally, but Obama doesn't care much for legality. Curious to see what he'll come up with.Originally Posted by Byron
Guns don't kill people, legality does.
Actually, he has leeway to do essentially what he wants through Executive Orders. Of course if he does something crazy there are legislative repercussions, but in theory he could issue an order that says anythinb
...that's not true. He can act only within the boundaries of the enumerated powers given to the Executive branch in the Constitution (and Executive Orders in particular are subject to judicial review i.e. can be deemed unconstitutional).
I guess theoretically since he's commander-in-chief he can do whatever he wants and then say "watcha gunna do about it'" but that would probably lead to him immediately getting impeached.
The Court is not going to deem an executive order on gun control unconstitutional.
I mean if it was unconstitutional they would. That's why I'm curious to see what exactly he's planning on doing, because I'm not sure how much leeway he has to do anything meaningful.
Have you forgotten where you are?
Surely he could just red-tape the shit out of the process? Technically, everyone can still own a gun - but the process is a bureaucratic nightmare/clusterfuck...
Either way, this whole things feel like too little, too late.
Yes one of those crazy nations that believes in the democratic process over tyrannical decrees. Backwards I know.
Uh no. He doesn't get to decide how gun ownership is regulated, that's left to the States and Congress.
Looks like you're fucked then.
Do you own a gun, Mert?
Lol I know democracy and checks and balances are so stupid haha
Can't own one on campus so I do not. Will 100% buy one once I graduate.
I'm talking about the idea of gun control, not the process of government.
Apologies for hoping that your country could become safer.
Your soul and lifeblood Ronald Reagan issued more executive orders than any president in the last 50 years. Suck on it, you bitch
The chimpouts if he goes ahead and bans guns.
Would even make the next debate worth watching. Maybe.
Why will you buy one? Do you feel scared?
Because freedomz!
Yes and the means by which you're hoping it gets accomplished is undemocratic.
I have no issues with Executive Orders (as long as they are Constitutional), there is a firm historical precedence in their use and they are a fundamental tool in ensuring the "Take Care" clause is responsibly executed.
He can't. He has no power whatsoever to do so. An executive order cannot contravene the Constitution.The chimpouts if he goes ahead and bans guns.
Would even make the next debate worth watching. Maybe.
Why not? So I can protect myself and for recreational use.
Mert, given that you value the Constitution so much - if they were to make an amendment and outlaw the ownership of guns - would you the support the ban on gun ownership?
Protect yourself from what? Would you keep the weapon locked up somewhere safe, or hide it under the pillow?
If the gay business is anything to go by, it's easier for the Supreme Court to re-write the dictionary than cause the government problems.
When the Republicans are quite happy to just obstruct and let everything go down the shitter, he'd probably have been better served taking this approach much earlier on.
I mean it would be the Law of the Land. I wouldn't agree with it, just like I don't agree with other laws, but that doesn't mean I wouldn't support its enforcement.
In an accessible safe.
Ehh kinda, the original intent of the 14th Amendment almost certainly was never intended to apply to marriage equality (but it kinda sorta could if you squinted hard enough; deliberately vague language to apply to unforeseeable future circumstances and all that). With the case of the gun regulation, there is far far less flexibility. But then again the Commerce Clause was never meant to be used to force desegregation of private businesses and yet you had the Civil Rights Act of 1964 upheld. So yes there are cases where the Supreme Court will twist itself into a doctrinal pretzel to get out the outcome it desires, but really only does so in practice when the compelling moral/public interest/consensus is so undeniable that to rule otherwise would seriously damage the integrity/legitimacy of the Court itself in the public eye.
tl;dr: The court won't let Obama get away with any sort of significant Executive overreach on gun control
That's what they're supposed to do you realize? Checks and balances exist for a reason. Maybe Obama would have been better off and the government more productive if he was more willing to meet the Republicans half way with desired legislation.
You should be right, but if he has the balls to try it I reckon they will let him get away with it. They will always take the cowardly decision, and 'legitimacy' these days means how much grief they get in the trendy newspapers, so it will end up being easier to come up with some nonsense decision and ride it out.
Would you support enforcement for an amendment to the Constitution, whether you personally agreed with it or not?
I don't think we're quite there yet (court has rebuked Obama on some more minor less controversial power grabs), but we're close enough that it's not totally unfeasible. Which is why we need to elect King Trump to clear out all the cuckservatives and cuckliberals and make America Great Again.
I wouldn't support the Amendment, but after it passed of course I would support its enforcement (although I think if guns were banned I would be living in the newly seceded Republic of Texas at that point).
'Cuckservative' is the word of 2015.
Serious question: if the government wanted to subjugate and oppress the people, is an armed populace really going to be able to stop the full might of the US WAR MACHINE? Or does the line of thinking go that an armed populace acts as a deterrent? Because for me, the smart money is with heavily trained soldiers, automatic weapons, etc.
It's a deterrent which raises the potential cost of enforcing a policy of subjugation/oppression; who would be easier to subdue, a populace armed to the teeth or one which has no means of fighting back? And additionally, it provides the capacity for sustained guerrilla warfare even if/when major population centers were brought under control.
And anyways it's a fundamental Natural Right to bear arms, amirite guys?
Do you think the soldiers of the US would go along with a Government instruction to take control of the streets (which they already have control of anyway)...
You are not rite.
It's not checks and balances, it's an ideological desire to stop the government functioning. That's literally their aim. You only have to look at the flak Ryan's receiving at the minute.
If people had actually voted for these Republican majorities than you could argue that people want them to obstruct the government; but the fact they were just installed by Fox and the Koch Brothers makes them illegitimate as far as I'm concerned.
No. The Congress is acting exactly how it's supposed to act and there is plenty of historic precedent on both sides of the aisles of similar periods of seemingly intractable partisanship. There are more Republicans right now holding public office than at any point since Reconstruction Era following the Civil War. This is how democracy works, Obama's policies have been totally repudiated at the ballot box.
I would have maybe gave credence to this a year ago, but the Establishment's total failure in bringing down Trump shows that the Republican base has far more of an independent streak than Democrats would claim.
If the government ordered wide scale confiscation of weapons there would be a revolution. So no.
That reminds me of something... I was watching a video and some presenter mentioned the Civil War clearly in the context of the English Civil War, to which the American guests all assumed that 'Civil War' was the American Civil War, and didn't understand why the American Civil War had been involved in this context. The presenter had to remind them that there has been more than one Civil War. God, some Americans are dumb.
Not even related to the point I was making. Well done.
These nutters who have taken over a wildlife refuge seem like they have the potential to shoot a few people.
History will judge that Obama's biggest mistake was attempting to work with the Republicans. They don't want any of it and he was a fool to try that approach.
Err what? His mistake was trying to take part in the democratic process instead of ruling unilaterally like a dictator? Are you listening to yourself, this is why people think all Leftists are crazy authoritarians who see democracy merely as an inconvenience standing in the way of them implementing their deluded world view.
"And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to the facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
- Thomas Jefferson
"Whenever the Legislators endeavor to take away, and destroy the Property of the People, or to reduce them to Slavery under Arbitrary Power, they put themselves into a state of War with the People, who are thereupon absolved from any farther Obedience, and are left to the common Refuge, which God hath provided for all Men, against Force and Violence. Whensoever therefore the Legislative shall transgress this fundamental Rule of Society; and either by Ambition, Fear, Folly or Corruption, endeavor to grasp themselves, or put into the hands of any other an Absolute Power over the Lives, Liberties, and Estates of the People; By this breach of Trust they forfeit the Power, the People had put into their hands, for quite contrary ends, and it devolves to the People, who have a Right to resume their original Liberty."
- John Locke
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote