Virginia Gun Owners Forum - VGOF

Perhaps he prefers the title "Premier" instead of Prez.

http://politics.gather.com/viewArticle. ... 4981200622

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-off ... eparedness

Is he trying to tell us something?

Should we be or getting prepared?

we should all just say: ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

Between this and the militarization of police forces around the country, you'd almost think that the government is expecting angry citizens to rise up in protest.

They must be concerned about all the bitter clingers in flyover country, or something.

Nothing to see here, folks. Just move along.

And people called me stupid for saying the government owns everything by virtue of its ability to take it by force. This just puts it on paper and gives it rule of law.

Gorsh, I feel sure do feel dumb as a rock now.

Looks like the 4A was first on the chopping block, not the 2A like everyone feared.

In time I guess.

Be great if the SOB would try to get them in person.

VBshooter wrote:Be great if the SOB would try to get them in person.

THIS, EXACTLY!

they expect sheep. for the most part that's what they'd find. for the most part... and then, they'd get something else.

Sorry POS. We have a word for this, theft. Taking what does not belong to you is stealing (as any 6 year old would know) and is not looked upon with favor in any society. It is one thing to give to ceaser what is ceasers it is another thing for Cesar to say that all you have belongs to him.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

I think if you have a beef with this Executive Order, you ought to take it up with Congress. The Act this is implementing says, " the President may
prescribe such regulations and issue such orders as the President may determine to be appropriate to carry out this Act." Obama is doing exactly what Congress is allowing him to do.

Also, from looking at the Act, it seems like what he is doing is delegating much of his authority to the Cabinet-level Secretaries. Not a bad idea, actually, especially in times of national emergency.

Don't get me wrong: I don't like the same things you don't like....the Act and this E.O. go pretty far. But the basic problem is the existence and details of the Act. You'll accomplish more by writing your Congress-folk than bitching about Obama on this site.

Take it up with Congress for something they didn't vote on or pass?? An Executive Order be definition bypasses Congress. Correct?

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

Can you imagine the hysterical, breathless rantings from the media if George W Bush had signed such an Executive Order?.

So I ask, is this EO better or worse than the Patriot Act?. Or is it just another government over-reach?.

All I can hear from the MSM is crickets.

It should be another nail in the coffin of this administration

Kreutz wrote:And people called me stupid for saying the government owns everything by virtue of its ability to take it by force. This just puts it on paper and gives it rule of law.

Gorsh, I feel sure do feel dumb as a rock now.

Looks like the 4A was first on the chopping block, not the 2A like everyone feared.

In time I guess.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Kreutz, my boy, I really worry about you sometimes. One of these days you're going to fall and break your neck from jumping so far between conclusions.

You fail to recognize the vast gap between what you think/wish and reality. Reckon that's a common failing amongst you liberals. Just because the POTUS wishes it were so and signs an EO to that effect does not MAKE it so. The rub comes when someone has to rear up on his/her hind legs and TELL him it ain't so to his face. THAT's why we have a Second Amendment, by at least some folks' lights.

If there is any doubt in anyone's mind that this Executive Order (or at least it's legitimacy and efficacy) is a complete fantasy on the part of power-hungry totalitarian bureaucrats and a POTUS who is the most self-impressed with the least justification in the history of the Republic, just consider the following language from it, which alleges one of the reasons for such undertaking would be to:

"improve the efficiency and responsiveness of the domestic industrial base to support national defense requirements"

OBVIOUSY, anybody who doesn't know that what utter nonsense the proposition that the US GOVERNMENT could "improve the efficiency and responsiveness" of ANYTHING lives WAY out in LaLa Land.

dorminWS wrote:Kreutz, my boy, I really worry about you sometimes. One of these days you're going to fall and break your neck from jumping so far between conclusions.

Its a pretty plainly stated declaration in a case of "emergency" private resources can be commandeered as the Prez sees fit. I fail to see this "jump".

You fail to recognize the vast gap between what you think/wish and reality. Reckon that's a common failing amongst you liberals. Just because the POTUS wishes it were so and signs an EO to that effect does not MAKE it so.

Actually, the executive order did make it so. We cannot know how this will play out in the future of course, but it establishes a decent framework for seizure of assets. And you know, its not like the government is broke and in need of assets...right?

The rub comes when someone has to rear up on his/her hind legs and TELL him it ain't so to his face. THAT's why we have a Second Amendment, by at least some folks' lights.

Pray tell how telling this to his face will make this order go away?

If there is any doubt in anyone's mind that this Executive Order (or at least it's legitimacy and efficacy) is a complete fantasy on the part of power-hungry totalitarian bureaucrats and a POTUS who is the most self-impressed with the least justification in the history of the Republic, just consider the following language from it, which alleges one of the reasons for such undertaking would be to:

Look up executive order 9066. That broadly worded order led to the internment of many Japanese Americans and some other ethnic groups. You can try and dismiss me, but there is a precedent for these things leading to wholesale degradation of liberty and property.

Your blase attitude makes me wonder why you have a short view of history when you should know governments want more power over time, never less.

The "jump" is when you assume that that Mr. Obama's saying it makes it so. It doesn't. Just like the government's then doing it doesn't make it right. It isn't. The fact that the government may interfere with your right to property doesn't mean you don't have them and they own everything. And that WWII order on the Japanese-Americans has been decried far and wide as an abuse of human and constitutional rights for decades.

In my book, when someone interferes with your rights, you don't meekly cede them to the usurper and tell yourself you must never have had them; you DEFEND them. If we lose that, we have truly lost what it means to be an American. We will have lost the legacy of the founding fathers.

You do if you're planning on voting for the idiot!

CCFan wrote:Take it up with Congress for something they didn't vote on or pass?? An Executive Order be definition bypasses Congress. Correct?

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

No.
Especially when the E.O. is explicitly an implementation of a law. Congress makes the laws, not the President.

You guys want to blame the administration for everything wrong with the government, especially the budget. Hey, Congress passes out the money, not the President.

Maybe you actually mean Congress when you gripe about the administration, but I think you are griping about the President when you say administration. Most of your gripes ought to be about Congress.

The administration has taken responsability for NOTHING!

Are you aware that the president can actually put forward legislation? If congress is so remis, why hasn't he? His budget was a DOA disaster. He doesn't want a workable budget because it would limit his spending.

He has stated and directed the DOJ again and again to not enforce the law of the land. As he choses...

He enforces through regulation of idological programs that are NOT LAW and are against the will of the people.

His DOJ contunually dismisses voter fraud and intimidation cases even when proven on video, if they aren't likely to produce a beneficial outcome for the administration.

I hope there are few sleepers like you in the electorate.

By the way, this started with the Act in 1950, under President Truman, and has had a number of Executive Orders delegating authorities. This one from Obama appears to be mostly an edit of one in 1994 from Clinton, updated to include Homeland Security.

The Clinton E.O., 12919, has Dormouse's favorite phrase in it, as Section 102, Policy. It is word-for-word the same as Obama's E.O.

The Clinton E.O. was mostly an amalgamation and replacement of 13 previous E.O.'s extending back to 1939, all of which delegated some kind of Presidential authority to some department or agency.

tursiops wrote:By the way, this started with the Act in 1950, under President Truman, and has had a number of Executive Orders delegating authorities. This one from Obama appears to be mostly an edit of one in 1994 from Clinton, updated to include Homeland Security.

The Clinton E.O., 12919, has Dormouse's favorite phrase in it, as Section 102, Policy. It is word-for-word the same as Obama's E.O.

The Clinton E.O. was mostly an amalgamation and replacement of 13 previous E.O.'s extending back to 1939, all of which delegated some kind of Presidential authority to some department or agency.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

All of which proves exactly WHAT, turnips?