Shawnmoore81 623 Posted January 6, 2016 I wouldn't agree to that. It's none of their business what I have. the government doesn't come to ask me for permission to use my tax dollars every time they buy a gun. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jackandjill 683 Posted January 6, 2016 ^^^ I could be wrong here, but If someone were to bring the issue of recording keeping to SCOTUS as violation of 2A, Justices will waste no time in siding with Govt. We all know no anti will take my offer. And even if they did, they will never keep their side of deal. So it remains in the alternative universe for now. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Stonecoldchavez 92 Posted January 6, 2016 I wished he would have shown this much passion for the Paris attacks and San Bernadido. He had crocodile tears. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
paulnj088 9 Posted January 6, 2016 what kind of president cry's on live national television>>>??? IMPEACH THIS MAAAN NOWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Newtonian 453 Posted January 6, 2016 This is 80% politics, 20% the loony left's ongoing battle against individual rights. The politics are obvious. He is doubling down on the bet that most Americans believe in gun control. Hillary can ride this pony all the way to the presidency because despite what we think, despite the polls you may read, the Americans who will decide the next presidential elections are anti-gun. Don't talk to me about swamp-swimming, gator-rassling good old boys from Alabama. The election will be won in Ohio, Pennsylvania, Colorado, Florida, and Virginia, which are all swinging Democrat. The other 20% is an old, old story that does not merit repeating. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nuclearheli 40 Posted January 6, 2016 Hmm - sell too many, need an FFL. Ok - apply to be an FFL, guess what - Once an FFL, no longer need background checks for each gun purchased, OGAM no longer applies, hi cap mags - ok... Is this REALLY what he wants? Very interesting and passionate topic, great reading. But some things are inaccurate and require a little clarification. As an FFL no 4473 or background check required to transfer a firearm from inventory to personal inventory (Correct) OGAM no longer applies (INCORRECT). I am subject to one gun a month just like everyone else to personally own handgun in my inventory. Hi Cap Mags (INCORRECT) I can possess them, sell them out of state etc, but cannot take them and put them in my personal firearm and use them to shoot a match at the range. So no background check required is technically correct however in NJ when I transfer a handgun from inventory to my personal inventory I also need a NJ Permit just like everyone else. And in obtaining that permit I need to complete the State Police forms just like everyone else which in this state means I am subject to a background check. Just for clarification New Jersey FFL's are subject to almost the exact same rules (except 4473's) as everyone else in the state when we want to buy our own personal firearm. Never made much sense but neither does any of the other firearm laws. Bad guys still get guns easier, cheaper and faster than any of us do. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Shawnmoore81 623 Posted January 6, 2016 If you post pics of something illegal on this forum I will 100% guarantee one of the resident statists will take pleasure in turning you in. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Old School 611 Posted January 6, 2016 Hey still waiting for your pics and all I hear are - Nick you are so confrontational. You know you're not supposed to call out a bullshitter. This is the internet. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Shawnmoore81 623 Posted January 6, 2016 Then post whatever pics you want. Goes for both of you. Hell I wouldn't doubt there were anti's on here browsing this. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Shawnmoore81 623 Posted January 6, 2016 I totally understand what you guys are arguing about. But unlike a lot of people I don't want to see anyone get jammed up. Go back to your argument Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
voyager9 3,438 Posted January 6, 2016 Dude you are TOTALLY MISSING THE POINT AND COMMENTING OUT OF THE CONTEXT OF THE CONVERSATION ! What does your point have to do with this thread topic? Perhaps you can move this to a new thread? Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
djg0770 481 Posted January 6, 2016 Very interesting and passionate topic, great reading. But some things are inaccurate and require a little clarification. As an FFL no 4473 or background check required to transfer a firearm from inventory to personal inventory (Correct) OGAM no longer applies (INCORRECT). I am subject to one gun a month just like everyone else to personally own handgun in my inventory. Hi Cap Mags (INCORRECT) I can possess them, sell them out of state etc, but cannot take them and put them in my personal firearm and use them to shoot a match at the range. So no background check required is technically correct however in NJ when I transfer a handgun from inventory to my personal inventory I also need a NJ Permit just like everyone else. And in obtaining that permit I need to complete the State Police forms just like everyone else which in this state means I am subject to a background check. Just for clarification New Jersey FFL's are subject to almost the exact same rules (except 4473's) as everyone else in the state when we want to buy our own personal firearm. Never made much sense but neither does any of the other firearm laws. Bad guys still get guns easier, cheaper and faster than any of us do. NEVER did I say that you could put these in your "personal collection"... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nuclearheli 40 Posted January 6, 2016 NEVER did I say that you could put these in your "personal collection"... Correct, I am sorry I missed your point. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
67gtonut 847 Posted January 6, 2016 So much for acting like adults Sent from my iPhone Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tattooo 220 Posted January 6, 2016 There goes the neighborhood......lol Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
njpilot 671 Posted January 7, 2016 Were the tears real or manufactured? I wouldn't put it past him. Didn't cry right after Sandy Hook happened or all the other times he's talked about it since. http://www.glennbeck.com/2016/01/06/obamas-tears-real-or-manufactured/ "Skeptical of Greenberg’s true intentions, Glenn asked for her “word as an artist,” and she gave it. The result was a secret video of her team applying Vick’s VapoRub under Glenn’s eyes to manufacture tears on demand." "Due to that enlightening experience, Glenn watched the president’s remarks with keen interest. “I was fascinated by the the fact that he [Obama] reached up to touch his eye before there were any tears,” Glenn said. “He reached up to his eye, and he was like, ‘And I’m really feeling horrible now, and I have to reach up to my eye where there is no tear,’ and then suddenly that eye would not stop tearing. It was fascinating.” Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
paulnj088 9 Posted January 7, 2016 ever watch wrestling ITS CALLED ACTING did any sandy hook photos get released?. I'm not saying i want to see dead bodies but i think its the only mass killing where nothing was seen except ACTORS Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
9X19 125 Posted January 7, 2016 Troy please keep this in the Gun Law dissussion thread. Threads often times seem to be perceived as of not being taken as serious once they are moved to the 1st Ammendment forum. I think more people will also see it here in this forum. Thanks, Roland Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
67gtonut 847 Posted January 7, 2016 Oh ... I am keeping it here..... Just amazed at times how certain members act.... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
1LtCAP 4,264 Posted January 7, 2016 There is no constitutional provision nor statute that explicitly permits executive orders. The term executive power Article II, Section 1, Clause 1 of the Constitution, refers to the title of President as the executive. He is instructed therein by the declaration "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed" made in Article II, Section 3, Clause 5 or face impeachment. Most executive orders use these Constitutional reasonings as the authorization allowing for their issuance to be justified as part of the President's sworn duties,[2] the intent being to help direct officers of the U.S. Executive carry out their delegated duties as well as the normal operations of the federal government: the consequence of failing to comply possibly being the removal from office.[3] An executive order of the president must find support in the Constitution, either in a clause granting the president specific power, or by a delegation of power by Congress to the president Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
1LtCAP 4,264 Posted January 7, 2016 so where does the power come from that he thinks he has? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NJGF 375 Posted January 7, 2016 so where does the power come from that he thinks he has? Presidents can pretty take as much power as they want. The recourse is impeachment (a majority in the House and 2/3 of the Senate). A lesser method is to pass an explicit law that stops the president from doing something. This requires a simple majority in both houses of Congress (ignoring the 60 votes needed to overcome a filibuster in the Senate). But the president will likely veto the law. Congress can override the veto but that requires 2/3 of the Senate which is very unlikely. A more successful method is going to court and having the Supreme court declare the action unconstitutional. This had occurred with the current president more than others. It does take time and he will likely be out of office by the time a case is heard or decided. If he disobeys or ignores a Supreme Court action he greatly would increase his chance of being successfully impeached. So a President can pretty much do what he wants at the end of his term. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
njpilot 671 Posted January 7, 2016 If he disobeys or ignores a Supreme Court action he greatly would increase his chance of being successfully impeached. . Unfortunately this is not true anymore, especially with the corrupt democrat party. You will always have big govt progressive republicans that will go along with Dems against a repub president, but no Dems will go against obummer or any other dem president. No honor, no honesty, no morals with democrats anymore. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jackandjill 683 Posted January 7, 2016 Only time both parties will go for impeachment is if someone were to do things to them that they do to Average Joe everyday.Spying ( on powerful politicians)Remove ability to protect life and property (armed escort)Travel restrictionsForced disclosuresImplement permit schemesOtherwise it's business as usual in DC. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
45Doll 5,881 Posted January 7, 2016 so where does the power come from that he thinks he has? In my opinion it comes from a Republican congress that will not do what it should ultimately do when a president is way out of line: stop funding the presidential violations. And that means doing the funding job for real; 8 to 10 funding bills that deal with specific government segments, not one giant omnibus that will 'shut down the government if we don't pass it'. But hey, the last federal election really didn't matter at all. It appears that at the federal level the 'Republican' party as an opposition party is mostly a fiction. As far as I can see. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NJGF 375 Posted January 7, 2016 And that means doing the funding job for real; 8 to 10 funding bills that deal with specific government segments, not one giant omnibus that will 'shut down the government if we don't pass it'. I think Ryan got elected speaker on the promise to conservatives that starting in 2016 the giant omnibus spending bills will be gone. Only time will tell. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
xXxplosive 827 Posted January 7, 2016 This 2A BS is a smoke screen for what is unfolding in the middle east and the new Clinton e-mails that were released during the holidays that nobody's talking about. Wake up........ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
M1152 713 Posted January 7, 2016 Meanwhile while the spin continues Obama is doing a CNN special tonight on guns tonight with Anderson Cooper. The NRA was invited but declined. NRA turns down offer to be a part of “spectacle” in CNN town hall on guns Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zeke 5,504 Posted January 7, 2016 This 2A BS is a smoke screen for what is unfolding in the middle east and the new Clinton e-mails that were released during the holidays that nobody's talking about. Wake up........ Angry troll is right A Benghazi movie is coming out on the 15. Both sides are doing their propaganda. If, jus for one second, we could actually help Americans.... I'm tearing up here now Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
45Doll 5,881 Posted January 7, 2016 If, jus for one second, we could actually help Americans.... I'm tearing up here now PM me if you want some 1960's Kleenex I rescued from my mother's house. I used a whole box on Tuesday. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites