Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 28

Thread: Obama says he won't be bound by gun control ban in omnibus bill

  1. #1
    Regular Member oldbanger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    beckofbeyond - Idaho
    Posts
    476

    Obama says he won't be bound by gun control ban in omnibus bill

    The Obama administration won't be bound by a gun control ban in the $1 trillion spending bill for 2012, the president said Friday.

    The funding provision for the federal health agency says that "none of the funds made available in this title may be used, in whole or in part, to advocate or promote gun control." The language aims to ban taxpayer dollars from supporting gun safety research.

    http://thehill.com/blogs/healthwatch...-spending-bill

  2. #2
    Regular Member Sig229's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA
    Posts
    926
    Am I hallucinating from an overdose of turkey and wine from Christmas dinner?
    Or has Obama finally gotten a clue?
    "Let your gun be your constant companion during your walks" ~Thomas Jefferson

  3. #3
    Campaign Veteran MAC702's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Nevada
    Posts
    6,520
    Actually, to me it reads that there is a provision saying these tax dollars can't be used against gun owners, and the 0 said that he doesn't care what it says and he'll spend it as he sees fit.
    "It's not important how many people I've killed. What's important is how I get along with the people who are still alive" - Jimmy the Tulip

  4. #4
    Accomplished Advocate user's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Northern Piedmont of Virginia
    Posts
    2,373
    Like, Eric Holder's going to prosecute for misappropriation of federal funds?
    Daniel L. Hawes - 540 347 2430 - HTTP://www.VirginiaLegalDefense.com

    By the way, nothing I say on this website as "user" should be taken as either advertising for attorney services or legal advice, merely personal opinion. Everyone having a question regarding the application of law to the facts of their situation should seek the advice of an attorney competent in the subject matter of the issues presented and licensed to practice in the relevant state.

  5. #5
    Founder's Club Member PrayingForWar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    The Real World.
    Posts
    1,705
    Countdown until Obama leaves Office
    391 Days, 02 Hours, 49 Minutes, 44 Seconds.

    Until that blithering idiot gets relieved of the office.
    If you ladies leave my island, if you survive recruit training. You will become a minister of death, PRAYING FOR WAR...

  6. #6
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    El Paso, TX
    Posts
    1,877
    391 Days, 02 Hours, 49 Minutes, 44 Seconds.


    ...until he wins a second term. :-(
    Last edited by cloudcroft; 12-26-2011 at 04:48 PM.

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    KC
    Posts
    1,012
    You might want to check your math.

    Sent from my T-Mobile G2 using Tapatalk

  8. #8
    Regular Member Redbaron007's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    SW MO
    Posts
    1,637
    Quote Originally Posted by MAC702 View Post
    Actually, to me it reads that there is a provision saying these tax dollars can't be used against gun owners, and the 0 said that he doesn't care what it says and he'll spend it as he sees fit.
    My thoughts too.

    It is an election cycle.....many things are said....the actions are what count.

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Phoenix, AZ
    Posts
    391
    Congress has forgotten (probably intentionally) that money is fungible. So what if "money under this title" can't be used for gun control? There are anther couple of trillion dollars that can be used for gun control.

  10. #10
    Campaign Veteran skidmark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    North Chesterfield VA
    Posts
    10,682
    So Obama is saying that laws passed by Congress that impede his carrying out the Constitutional duties of the office do not have to be obeyed?

    I was under the impression that community organizers took un-Constitutional laws to the Supreme Court and had them declared un-Constitutional. Or at least that's what I remember about how that whole chrecks-and-balances thing was supposed to work.

    Pop quiz, class! What do we call someone who does not obey the laws? No, Johnny, "criminals" are unfortunate people who have some difficulties dealing with authority figures and mindless rules. Someone who does not obey the laws is called "The President".

    stay safe.
    "He'll regret it to his dying day....if ever he lives that long."----The Quiet Man

    Because stupidity isn't a race, and everybody can win.

    "No matter how much contempt you have for the media in all this, you don't have enough"
    ----Allahpundit

  11. #11
    Regular Member oldbanger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    beckofbeyond - Idaho
    Posts
    476
    When candidate Barack Obama was running for President in 2008 he was highly critical of then-President George W. Bush's use of what are called signing statements. These are written pronouncements by a president when he signs a bill into law.

    Last edited by oldbanger; 12-28-2011 at 10:33 AM.

  12. #12
    Regular Member hermannr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Okanogan Highland
    Posts
    2,332
    It would be advantageous to constitutional government is Mr Holder and Mr Ob learn what "contempt of Congress", "lying to Congress" (aka perjury) and "impeachment" mean. It is always possible that these lessons may be learned before the next election...President Nixon found out to his sorrow.

  13. #13
    Campaign Veteran since9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    6,787
    Quote Originally Posted by randian View Post
    Congress has forgotten (probably intentionally) that money is fungible.
    You'll laugh at Merriam-Webster's definition of fungible: something that is fungible

    Fortunately, their adjective is better described: being of such a nature that one part or quantity may be replaced by another equal part or quantity in the satisfaction of an obligation <oil, wheat, and lumber are fungible commodities> / interchangeable / flexible.

    So what if "money under this title" can't be used for gun control? There are anther couple of trillion dollars that can be used for gun control.
    My take is that neither the President nor any other member of the government should waste taxpayer dollars trying to convince the public that something is "bad" when it's not only established as a Constitutional right, but has been reviewed and adjudicated for 235 years by The People, representatives of The People at all levels of government, and by judiciaries at all levels of government up to and including the Supreme Court.

    Since he's claiming he's doing so on a "constitutional" basis, perhaps he should crack open that document and start becoming familiar with it.

    For that matter, perhaps all Americans should do the same so they can recognize when our President is lying through his presidential teeth as he wastes our taxpayer dollars in violation of Federal Law.
    Last edited by since9; 12-29-2011 at 05:15 PM.
    The First protects the Second, and the Second protects the First. Together, they protect the rest of our Bill of Rights and our United States Constitution, and help We the People protect ourselves in the spirit of our Declaration of Independence.

  14. #14
    Regular Member Beretta92FSLady's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    In My Coffee
    Posts
    5,278
    Quote Originally Posted by skidmark View Post
    [snip]

    I was under the impression that community organizers took un-Constitutional laws to the Supreme Court and had them declared un-Constitutional.[snip].
    Why would President Obama do that? According to some on here, not-Constitutional Laws are never Constitutional. So why would President Obama even consider wasting his time on not-Constitutional Law?

    President Obama is not bound to any Laws passed by Congress unless SCOTUS Finds that he is; and if it is deemed necessary by President Obama to still ignore the Finding for the sake of national security, then President Obama can.

    On a side note: President Obama will be reelected. Let's consider the facts here...Republicans have overplayed their hand. Congress is at its lowest rating in history, and it kept dropping following the election of 'tea party' types. The best candidate Republicans have to put up is Romney, who mind you, is pro-choice, pro-socialized healthcare, pro affirmative action, etc. Enjoy your jagged little pill Republicans! Ron Paul is a wet dream for 'tea party' types, Gingrich is nearly as Liberal as Romney. I am going to really enjoy this election season.

    I wish that we could all get together on election night, have some nachos, beer, and watch Republican faces eat crow.
    Last edited by Beretta92FSLady; 12-30-2011 at 01:48 PM.
    I don't mind watching the OC-Community (tea party 2.0's, who have hijacked the OC-Community) cannibalize itself. I do mind watching OC dragged through the gutter. OC is an exercise of A Right. I choose to not OC; I choose to not own firearms. I choose to leave the OC-Community to it's own self-inflicted injuries, and eventual implosion. Carry on...

  15. #15
    Regular Member Jack House's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    I80, USA
    Posts
    2,661
    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    I wish that we could all get together on election night, have some nachos, beer, and watch Republican faces eat crow.
    Same here, it would a blast regardless the outcome.


    Posted using my HTC Evo

  16. #16
    Campaign Veteran since9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    6,787
    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    Why would President Obama do that? According to some on here, not-Constitutional Laws are never Constitutional. So why would President Obama even consider wasting his time on not-Constitutional Law?
    Because he has little respect for the Constitution. Are you even remotely aware, B92FSL, how many laws have been passed in his regime which are un-Constitutional and which will, in due course of time, be struck down?

    The question is, why would Obama waste his time and that of the predominantly Dem Senate passing laws which will never stand up against the face of closer scrutiny?

    The answer is because they know it'll take time to overturn them, but THEY DON'T CARE!!! They could care less about hour government. They simple want to hobble it until they get their way.

    President Obama is not bound to any Laws passed by Congress unless SCOTUS Finds that he is....
    Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong.

    ALL U.S. Citizens are ALWAYS bound by any and all laws. Furthermore, we are more bound by our higher laws, those of our Constitution, at all times. SCOTUS only enters the picture when we've violated the law and have been required to give a clear account.

    ...if it is deemed necessary by President Obama to still ignore the Finding for the sake of national security, then President Obama can.
    He can face treason for violating the mandates of his office under the Constitution.

    On a side note: President Obama will be reelected.
    Heaven help us! Ok, more to the point, if you were both true to our 2A rights and had half a clue as to his intentions, you'd no longer still be here. That, however, assumes rationality.

    I'm done with 92 whatever.

    Let's consider the facts here...
    We have. Endlessly. You haven't, nor have you been listening.

    Congress is at its lowest rating in history...
    When you delve into the facts, you will find that's largely due to the Dem's idiotic responses to the Tea Party types.

    The best candidate Republicans have to put up is Romney...
    Hardly. Sounds like a Dem party line along the Straw Man attack - put up someone you can easily defeat.

    ...who mind you, is pro-choice, pro-socialized healthcare...
    Egads! You really think we GOPs want health care for those who paid NOTHING into it so that we would have to foot their bill????

    Enjoy your jagged little pill Republicans!
    Truth is smooth and easy. My soul, conscience, and intellect remain well-rested knowing they're siding with logic and moral fiber.

    Ron Paul is a wet dream...
    So, change your diaper.

    I wish that we could all get together on election night, have some nachos, beer, and watch Republican faces eat crow.
    I'm not as big as Jack House. I think I'd puke if I were to associate with liberal idiots.
    The First protects the Second, and the Second protects the First. Together, they protect the rest of our Bill of Rights and our United States Constitution, and help We the People protect ourselves in the spirit of our Declaration of Independence.

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,011
    I think there will be a lot of exploding teapublican heads in 2012 when President Obama is re-elected. They have really worked themselves into a frenzy. No big loss, really.

  18. #18
    Regular Member Beretta92FSLady's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    In My Coffee
    Posts
    5,278
    Quote Originally Posted by beebobby View Post
    I think there will be a lot of exploding teapublican heads in 2012 when President Obama is re-elected. They have really worked themselves into a frenzy. No big loss, really.
    You are right, there will be no big loss; tea party types weren't using their heads anyhow.

    Many Republicans on here know that their candidates, all of them, this go-around, are WEAK! It sounds to me like they are holding to some Hope, and Change. I can't help but relish the irony of all of this. After the Republicans finish reducing their so-called Principles to the infinite degree of pander, they will have gained zero on November second.

    I don't mind watching the OC-Community (tea party 2.0's, who have hijacked the OC-Community) cannibalize itself. I do mind watching OC dragged through the gutter. OC is an exercise of A Right. I choose to not OC; I choose to not own firearms. I choose to leave the OC-Community to it's own self-inflicted injuries, and eventual implosion. Carry on...

  19. #19
    Regular Member hammer6's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    1,169
    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    Why would President Obama do that? According to some on here, not-Constitutional Laws are never Constitutional. So why would President Obama even consider wasting his time on not-Constitutional Law?

    FYI she's talking about me
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    doubt is a distraction from reality. fear is acknowledging doubt as reality.

    it's time to tap in to a higher reality; the one you were made for.

  20. #20
    Regular Member Beretta92FSLady's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    In My Coffee
    Posts
    5,278
    Quote Originally Posted by hermannr View Post
    It would be advantageous to constitutional government is Mr Holder and Mr Ob learn what "contempt of Congress", "lying to Congress" (aka perjury) and "impeachment" mean. It is always possible that these lessons may be learned before the next election...President Nixon found out to his sorrow.
    Funny you mention Nixon. Over the past several decades, the Republicans have been hell-bent on impeaching a Democrat from office. How is that working out for Republicans, by the way? The best they came-up with was Clinton for lying about having sex with someone other than his wife; heaven knows that is as bad as say, breaking into offices, and illegal wire-taps.
    I don't mind watching the OC-Community (tea party 2.0's, who have hijacked the OC-Community) cannibalize itself. I do mind watching OC dragged through the gutter. OC is an exercise of A Right. I choose to not OC; I choose to not own firearms. I choose to leave the OC-Community to it's own self-inflicted injuries, and eventual implosion. Carry on...

  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Phoenix, AZ
    Posts
    391
    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    The best they came-up with was Clinton for lying about having sex with someone other than his wife; heaven knows that is as bad as say, breaking into offices, and illegal wire-taps.
    They had a much better case prosecuting the Clintons for giving military secrets to the Chinese.

  22. #22
    Regular Member Beretta92FSLady's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    In My Coffee
    Posts
    5,278
    Quote Originally Posted by randian View Post
    They had a much better case prosecuting the Clintons for giving military secrets to the Chinese.
    The the Republicans bear the weight of the blame for not impeaching him for that - if it was an impeachable offense. What you are stating is that the Republicans were condoning a Treasonous Act, by inaction. I will go with that.
    I don't mind watching the OC-Community (tea party 2.0's, who have hijacked the OC-Community) cannibalize itself. I do mind watching OC dragged through the gutter. OC is an exercise of A Right. I choose to not OC; I choose to not own firearms. I choose to leave the OC-Community to it's own self-inflicted injuries, and eventual implosion. Carry on...

  23. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Phoenix, AZ
    Posts
    391
    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    The the Republicans bear the weight of the blame for not impeaching him for that - if it was an impeachable offense. What you are stating is that the Republicans were condoning a Treasonous Act, by inaction. I will go with that.
    All felonies are per se impeachable. I'm quite certain Federal law prohibits it, even if you couldn't make a case for treason per se.

  24. #24
    Regular Member Beretta92FSLady's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    In My Coffee
    Posts
    5,278
    Quote Originally Posted by randian View Post
    All felonies are per se impeachable. I'm quite certain Federal law prohibits it, even if you couldn't make a case for treason per se.
    "Impeachable." Meaning a person CAN be impeached for it, not that they OUGHT, or WILL. A felony IS and impeachable offense, but not necessarily one that an individual is impeached for.
    I don't mind watching the OC-Community (tea party 2.0's, who have hijacked the OC-Community) cannibalize itself. I do mind watching OC dragged through the gutter. OC is an exercise of A Right. I choose to not OC; I choose to not own firearms. I choose to leave the OC-Community to it's own self-inflicted injuries, and eventual implosion. Carry on...

  25. #25
    Regular Member Jack House's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    I80, USA
    Posts
    2,661
    Lovely deflection. Not that it's helping your argument any, just the fact that you believe that it is.

    Posted using my HTC Evo

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •