Biden's gun control Executive Order comments- what they're really doing

[Matt Collins]

Here is what I think they are really doing when Biden stated that Obama will likely issue an EO regarding gun control...


1- I think it's a trial balloon to test reaction

2- I think they want people to expect some huge sweeping change, when in reality after expectations get raised so high, it makes it easier to get a small incremental change implemented (as in "whew, that's all they're going to do? Ok, we can let that slide, it ain't that bad").

3- I think they are using it to distract from people talking about the economy. The Republican establishment wants to talk about the economy, and with good reason. Obama doesn't want to talk about the economy, and for good reason. The Republican base is still sore from the election, and they are scared to death Obama is coming for their guns; the natives are restless. The more Obama talks about guns, the more the Republican base wants to talk about guns. The Republican establishment doesn't want to talk about guns. But if their base is pissed off, then they won't have a choice except TO talk about guns. That gets them off message and away from attacking Obama where he is weak, the economy. In other words Obama is using this topic to fire up the Republican base so that the Republican establishment is distracted and thrown off.




The danger is all of this is that if Obama does indeed issue an EO on gun cotnrol, the Congress will be unable to stop him. The Senate is too Democrat, and I don't know that all the Republicans in the House would be on board with stopping it. A court challenge would take years more than likely. I would hope that his hubris isn't enough to attempt some sweeping change via EO, but worse thing have happened.

[cbrons]

2- I think they want people to expect some huge sweeping change, when in reality after expectations get raised so high, it makes it easier to get a small incremental change implemented (as in "whew, that's all they're going to do? Ok, we can let that slide, it ain't that bad").

This is Marxian psy-ops, so I'd agree this is a definite possibility. On the other hand, Joe Biden is a pre-Alzheimer's who should've been put on Aricept a while ago, so it is possible that he ran his mouth to a reporter off the cuff not realizing that the stir-up it would create.

[Anti Federalist]

Well, in any event our reaction should be one of total and complete opposition.

[Matt Collins]

On the other hand, Joe Biden is a pre-Alzheimer's who should've been put on Aricept a while ago, so it is possible that he ran his mouth to a reporter off the cuff not realizing that the stir-up it would create.

I am thinking he is dumb like a fox.

[Matt Collins]

Well, in any event our reaction should be one of total and complete opposition.

Absolutely. Again, I just hope it doesn't come to fruition and is nothing more than political tactics because I don't really see any way to fight it legally.

[Philhelm]

Well, in any event our reaction should be one of total and complete opposition.

Our argument in support of our opposition? $#@! you, that's why. Fitting?

[paulbot24]

Our argument in support of our opposition? $#@! you, that's why. Fitting?

Well, that is what our Constitution politely says when it comes to tyranny.

[Anti Federalist]

Absolutely. Again, I just hope it doesn't come to fruition and is nothing more than political tactics because I don't really see any way to fight it legally.

This regime (and the regimes before it) are in no way "legal" - this executive has claimed that he has the right to kill US citizens simply on his say so alone.

We have every right to resist, legally and morally:

That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.

But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

[Brian4Liberty]

3- I think they are using it to distract from people talking about the economy.

Absolutely. A great red herring, guaranteed to distract. Abortion and evolution are kind of played out at the moment. After guns, we'll have more debate about slavery, which will consist of nothing more than the left falsely accusing the right of disagreeing with them. The ultimate straw man debate.

[TheTexan]

This regime (and the regimes before it) are in no way "legal" - this executive has claimed that he has the right to kill US citizens simply on his say so alone.

We have every right to resist, legally and morally:

That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.

But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

Yes. The government is unlawful in every form of the word.

Our responsibility, for the time being, is to get loud. Very loud. This incremental bull$#@!? We've had enough. No more. Not a single piece of gun legislation more.

Then, if such an incremental legislation does occur... our reaction will not be a surprise. They will have fired the first shots in this war.

[LibertyEagle]

Absolutely. Again, I just hope it doesn't come to fruition and is nothing more than political tactics because I don't really see any way to fight it legally.

What the hell are you talking about? Of course there is a way to fight it legally. It's unconstitutional as all hell and there is even legal precedent against something like this.

[TheTexan]

What the hell are you talking about? Of course there is a way to fight it legally. It's unconstitutional as all hell and there is even legal precedent against something like this.

What's the point they'll just call it a tax

[TheTexan]

[LibertyEagle]

What's the point they'll just call it a tax

Actually, the Supreme Court already ruled on it. Remember?

[TheTexan]

Actually, the Supreme Court already ruled on it. Remember?

They're unreliable at best. I wouldn't get your hopes up

[Matt Collins]

What the hell are you talking about? Of course there is a way to fight it legally. It's unconstitutional as all hell and there is even legal precedent against something like this.

This regime (and the regimes before it) are in no way "legal" - this executive has claimed that he has the right to kill US citizens simply on his say so alone.

We have every right to resist, legally and morally:

Of course, but there is a huge gap between fighting something legally and physical resistance. Unless the government starts going door-to-door (doubtful), we're a long way from any sort of physical resistance meaning our only avenues open to fighting this is via the legal avenues. A court case could take years and usually doesn't come out in our favor, and the legislative make up won't allow any sort of restraint on the President. In short, we're stuck with whatever they do for a looooooooooong time.

[paulbot24]

Actually, the Supreme Court already ruled on it. Remember?

Yes and it was a 5-4 ruling if I recall correctly. The drafters of the Constitution were so damn explicit in their explanation of a militia being comprised of armed civilians we shouldn't have even needed a SCOTUS ruling on it. And a 5-4 ruling? That makes me nervous about future petitions regarding this.

[Acala]

It is a bit early to opine on legal attacks since essentially no detail whatsoever is available as to what might even be under consideration.

[kathy88]

I am thinking he is dumb like a fox.

I think he's just the fall guy. If it gets too much opposition he can pull one of his, "I mispoke" excuses. People expect him to be dumb. Like Duyba.

[V3n]

Remember when Biden made the comment about Obama "evolving" on gay marriage..
...positive reaction...
Obama comes out in public and says he's for gay marriage a week later.

He didn't go "off script" - THAT WAS THE SCRIPT!

I agree teh Collins - same thing here!!

[Romulus]

No I do not think this is a distraction. They simply want to actually ban guns. They are seeing if they can get away with it, simple as that. Plus they love instilling fear into every one of us. Its just another tool of domination.

[ninepointfive]

If these threads were what I could expect from Matt on a regular basis - I'd have to like him.

[libertygrl]

This regime (and the regimes before it) are in no way "legal" - this executive has claimed that he has the right to kill US citizens simply on his say so alone.

We have every right to resist, legally and morally:

That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.

But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

Unfortunately, as Ron Paul has once stated, you mention the declaration of independence or the constitution to these politicians and they just laugh in your face. Reminds me when the Founders weren't getting anywhere with their petitions of redress and you know what happened after that. I just wish people were all on an even playing field. I'd rather deal with muskets and cannons rather than all the scary high tech stuff they have these days.

[jllundqu]

Well, in any event our reaction should be one of total and complete opposition.

He can issue whatever freakin order he wants... won't mean anything to most red-blooded armed Americans. We won't be disarmed.... period.

[Brian4Liberty]

3- I think they are using it to distract from people talking about the economy.

A recent Tweet by some guy:

#JackLew shouldn't surprise anyone that much and anybody besides #TimothyGeithner is a win. Lets #focus on #gunrights

[qh4dotcom]

3- I think they are using it to distract from people talking about the economy. The Republican establishment wants to talk about the economy, and with good reason. Obama doesn't want to talk about the economy, and for good reason.

Why would Obama care if people are talking about the economy or not? He's not facing re-election

[nobody's_hero]

Yes and it was a 5-4 ruling if I recall correctly. The drafters of the Constitution were so damn explicit in their explanation of a militia being comprised of armed civilians we shouldn't have even needed a SCOTUS ruling on it. And a 5-4 ruling? That makes me nervous about future petitions regarding this.

It makes me nervous that so many people think their liberties hinge on a Supreme Court ruling whether we win or lose.

[nobody's_hero]

I think if they could get the votes, they'd ban them all. The only thing after that would be trying to figure out how to enforce it.

[Matt Collins]

[Tod]

We need to not only oppose new legislation, but repeal the old. Pre 1934.

Always aim high...