Notice this quote from the article: "The focus on executive orders is the result of the White House and other Democrats acknowledging the political difficulty of enacting any new gun legislation, a topic Biden did not address in Monday’s meeting." So, not only are they not interested in acknowledging the fact that they aren't going to propose any AMENDMENT to the Constitution, they are not even interested in the idea of putting the question to the Congressional representatives. That process wouldn't be Constitutional, but the fact that the Executive Branch is trying to avoid Congress indicates that they know it is not popular.

Actually? No. There are none. And there are none in the powers granted by the Constitution to Congress. IN FACT, Mr. President, you and Congress are EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED from infringing on the right to keep and bear arms. ANY ARMS. If you would like to uphold your oath of office to "protect and defend the Constitution", then don't move by executive action, and try to AMEND the Constitution. It's pretty simple.

Oh, what's that? It would be nigh impossible to win enough votes to amend the Constitution? So you'll just do what you want anyway and continue to pretend you're "defending the Constitution"?

What a surprise.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/obama-some-gun-control-measures-i-ca...

Not surprising. One doubts that the agents of the state will be held to this standard if the bill passes.

http://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local/Gun-Control-Assault-Weapons-Ban-Mag...

One of the things many politicians fear, but will not mention in public, is the idea of large numbers of armed protesters. If large crowds of disaffected and put-upon citizens confronted police officers the way protesters at anti-globalist or "occupy" protests have, by the thousands compared to dozens of police, the politicians know that the citizens would begin to see that they DO have the ability to push back against the state.

Galt's Gulch? Will the feds plant a few 'special' friends in the population to claim abuses are happening inside?

http://cnsnews.com/blog/gregory-gwyn-williams-jr/patriotic-group-build-a...

Be Seeing You!

This is the second time this accusation has been leveled. If true, that means that those shut down by BoA got to see their tax money taken from them by the Feds in order to bail out BoA and help BoA buy Merrill Lynch at a cheap price. That bank is now arbitrarily blocking the lawful sale of the guns and gun parts. Nice. Anyone have money with BoA? Investments with Merrill? It might be a good idea to show them how the market works...

http://cnsnews.com/blog/gregory-gwyn-williams-jr/bank-america-freezes-gu...

Be Seeing You!

Ahh, yes. Despite the clear provisions of the 4th amendment, that a judge mmust issue a warrant upon his or her determination of probable cause, Bush started this and Obama has not only continued it, but asked for it to be renewed.

Welcome to 19842013...

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_OBAMA_SURVEILLANCE_LAW?SITE=AP...

Ex parte communication with the judge ain't a wise thing to do, Team Obama...

Sometimes, soooooome-times, judges will try to retain their integrity, rather than going with the Administration on it. Good for this judge.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/under-the-radar/2012/12/judge-rebuffs-feds...

The case is still unresolved.

Be Seeing You!

But, but... Isn't the current President "different" on civil liberties than Bush?

Yeah, he's clearly worse. FISA, NDAA, DRONE STRIKES, Eradication of Habeas Corpus, Assassinations.... All part of the current President's activities...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/dec/28/senate-approves-government-s...

Be Seeing You!

Contrary to the Second Amendment and the most basic foundations of human rights.

http://www.feinstein.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/assault-weapons

Be Seeing You!

This is one of the reasons liberty-minded people stress that people should not be forced to get "permits" to own firearms. Just the act of forcing people to get "permission" is an abridgement of the Second Amendment and is unconstitutional. It also inspires people to NOT get permits, and operate in the black market.

Ironically, the areas where more people own guns will likely be attractive to folks who would like to be safer from violent crime, because the criminals will avoid those areas and target areas where people are unarmed. This has been statistically proven by resarchers such as John Lott...

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/abc-blogs/newspaper-publishes-gun-owners-nam...

He says they violate the free speech rights of drivers who might disagree, who might be 'pro-choice'. And that is certainly true. But why is the consideration only given for people who might have conflicts over this statement? Why not broaden the viewpoint to looking at ANYTHING on the license plate, or the license plate being forced on drivers in the first place? What if a driver protests being forced to put numbers on his car? Why should that have any less bearing than any other subjective objection or desire on the part of the CAR OWNER being forced to apply something to his car against his will?

But don't forget, these are the cats who are all in favor of "privacy", and this is the guy who openly admitted to smoking pot (even has a pic of himself toking)...

The Obama admin has increased three-fold the arrests for drugs in the US. Hey, former Obama fans, as Johnny Lydon said, "evver get the feeling you've been cheated?"

http://rt.com/usa/news/marijuana-federal-law-state-541/

Be Seeing You.

Not surprising.

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2012/11/ninth-circuit-gives-ok-warrantless...

Be Seeing You!

As disturbing as the revelation is the implicit admission that this euthanization is already being done to the elderly in Britain.

When one relies on the government/state for the supply of health measures, one should not be surprised when it begins making broad policies that cut costs through elimination of high-risk patients - by death.

Welcome to state-run health "care".

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2240075/Now-sick-babies-death-pa...

Be Seeing You!

Again, we have to note that the issue is even larger than this suit suggests. First, when you read about "contraceptives" in this linked article, be reminded that many of the drugs they are discussing are not "contra-ceptives". Plan B and the so-called "morning-after pill" do not stop conception. They are abortafacients, which flush the already conceived fetus out of the body, prevent it from attaching to the lining of the uterus. You can decide whether that is the taking of a human life (technically, it is), and whether you believe government should be involved in policing that (it can only do so by stealing money from people).

The people who run that college must be evil. That's the only explanation.

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/11/21/Surprise-PA-College-S...

Be Seeing You!

Anyone surprised? How about that transparent gubment we were gonna get, huh?

Mmm. Feels go good, Chuck Mangione...

http://www.infowars.com/nsa-refuses-to-release-secret-obama-directive-on...

Be Seeing You!

Hold on now... Isn't it the GOP that invades privacy? The Dems would NEVER do this kind of thing. Nor would they get your private medical data without warrants.... Nooooooo.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-57552225-38/senate-bill-rewrite-lets-f...

But, look, even if the great civil libertarians in the Donkey Party DID invade your e-mails and medical records, it's for a good cause, so it's NO PROBLEM! See?

Be Seeing You!

Well done. The Constitution strictly stipulates that a judge must issue a warrant to have this search done.

http://libertycrier.com/front-page/nurse-refused-to-draw-blood-from-a-dw...

None of this is constitutional.

And does it smell a bit off for the gubment to claim it can save web security when some of the most egregious data leaks have come from the gubment?

Ask anyone who's visited a VA hospital. And perhaps the folks trying to prosecute Bradley Manning can offer us more lies about how the feds are so good at handling their secret information...