Obama to issue executive order regarding guns?

[pr_capone]

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepa...ntrol-n1485645

Vice President Joe Biden is meeting with victims of gun violence today. Speaking with reporters beforehand, Biden said President Obama may use an executive order to push through more gun control and Second Amendment restrictions. More from the Weekly Standard.

"The president is going to act," said Biden, giving some comments to the press before a meeting with victims of gun violence. "There are executives orders, there's executive action that can be taken. We haven't decided what that is yet. But we're compiling it all with the help of the attorney general and the rest of the cabinet members as well as legislative action that we believe is required."

Biden said that this is a moral issue and that "it's critically important that we act."

Biden talked also about taking responsible action. "As the president said, if you're actions result in only saving one life, they're worth taking. But I'm convinced we can affect the well-being of millions of americans and take thousands of people out of harm's way if we act responsibly."

We knew this was coming. The White House has been saying for a month that they are acting "quickly" on new gun control measures. Senator Dianne Feinstein's sweeping new gun control legislation hasn't even been introduced yet and Obama isn't the kind of president who has shown a willingness to wait on Congress.

If Obama pushes through new regulations using executive powers, the process will unfold in different parts. After an order is signed, the Department of Justice led by Attorney General Eric Holder, will be in charge of enforcement through the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms. Now, how far the order will go is the big question. You can bet it will ban semi-automatic rifles and large ammunition magazines, but how Obama grandfathers in old, lawfully purchases semi-automatic rifles remains unknown. Will he require citizens who already own these weapons to be fingerprinted as Feinstein's bill requires? Or will he go so far as confiscation as New York Governor Andrew Cuomo has suggested? Time will tell.

Can the SCOTUS overturn an executive order? (at work and don't hav ethe time to look it up)

[HC_Chief]

Originally Posted by KChiefer

Good to know. What's the percentage of single incident mass murder by hammer?

LOL, jumping from red herrings to strawmen. Nice. Do you receive official moonbat training, or is it simply in the marching orders?

[KChiefer]

Originally Posted by frazod

And what percentage of murders are mass shootings?

It's likely very small. Under 1%.

[Aries Walker]

Originally Posted by petegz28

I believe the FBI data shows murders by rifles are 3%. AR's would be a subset of that 3%.

You're pretty close. The FBI shows 12,664 homicides in 2011, 8,583 of which were by firearms. Of those, 6,220 were by handguns, 323 by rifles, 356 by shotguns, and 1,684 by firearms of an indeterminate type.

A little quick math tells us that 3.76% of firearm deaths, and 2.55% of all homicides, were known to have been committed by rifles.

(The number, of course, must be more, because some of those 'indeterminate type's are bound to have been rifles also, but these are just the known rifle homicides.)

(Also note that, for whatever reason, the FBI doesn't include information from Alabama or Florida.)

The more you know!

[KChiefer]

Originally Posted by HC_Chief

LOL, jumping from red herrings to strawmen. Nice. Do you receive official moonbat training, or is it simply in the marching orders?

No strawman. I'm fighting against weapons used in mass shootings, you're fighting against blunt objects that cause murder. I commend you for that however, my wish seems more likely to come true.

[frazod]

I'll bet if you removed criminal on criminal crime, where illegally obtained weapons were used, that percentage would become even more infinitesimal.

[frazod]

Originally Posted by KChiefer

No strawman. I'm fighting against weapons used in mass shootings, you're fighting against blunt objects that cause murder. I commend you for that however, my wish seems more likely to come true.

There were eight of them last year. 69 people were killed.

Do you think we'll survive as a species?

[cosmo20002]

Originally Posted by teedubya

Damn gravity kills about 35,000 people a year here in the US. I hope Obama passes an EO banning gravity, so people will stop falling and shit.

Now that is a great idea, although it would create a whole bunch of other problems, what with having no atmosphere and stuff. But, keeping this gun-related though, I imagine that the recoil in zero gravity might be kind of inconvenient.

[HC_Chief]

Originally Posted by KChiefer

No strawman. I'm fighting against weapons used in mass shootings, you're fighting against blunt objects that cause murder. I commend you for that however, my wish seems more likely to come true.

No, you are being obtuse and attempting to dodge. Fine, since you obviously don't know anything about the subject anyway, outside of your marching orders (huff post maybe?), have a good night. I'm not wasting any more time on you.

[KChiefer]

Originally Posted by frazod

I'll bet if you removed criminal on criminal crime, where illegally obtained weapons were used, that percentage would become even more infinitesimal.

Really? I'd think percentage of murder by rifle would go up. "Criminals" aka thugs is what I assume you mean, like their easily concealed pieces. Of course there's drive-bys I guess, which depending on how many people are there and/or hit, is much like a mass shooting, in which case, MAKE IT HARDER for those weapons to get on the street.

[KChiefer]

Originally Posted by HC_Chief

No, you are being obtuse and attempting to dodge. Fine, since you obviously don't know anything about the subject anyway, outside of your marching orders (huff post maybe?), have a good night. I'm not wasting any more time on you.

What am I dodging? I answered your questions.

[CoMoChief]

Originally Posted by KC native

Apparently you missed the huge fine HSBC just had to pay for laundering money for cartels. But yea the government wants cartels to launder money through Wall St

The fine was just under $2 Billion ...and how many people went to jail because of this? NONE Think of the many incidents where they DON'T get caught.

Now with tech/internet etc, you can't keep these secrets for too long like you could 30-40 yrs ago. You can't hide them, bury them close to the back of your daily paper. Our govt and companies on Wall St have gotten so out of control that the stink is starting to get so bad, and eventually it gets hard to ignore and someone eventually has to do something about it...or make it look that way.

Here's Bill Clinton's ol' buddy, Asst Attorney General Lenny Breuer's announcement on the case

http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2012/D...-crm-1478.html

As a result of the government's investigation, HSBC has . . . "clawed back" deferred compensation bonuses given to some of its most senior U.S. anti-money laundering and compliance officers, and agreed to partially defer bonus compensation for its most senior officials during the five-year period of the deferred prosecution agreement.

Wow. So the executives who spent a decade laundering billions of dollars will have to partially defer their bonuses during the five-year deferred prosecution agreement?

Are you ****ing kidding me?

That's the punishment?

See no one really gets into major trouble for any of this and whats to keep them from doing it again....and again....and again....etc.

[frazod]

Originally Posted by KChiefer

Really? I'd think percentage of murder by rifle would go up. "Criminals" aka thugs is what I assume you mean, like their easily concealed pieces. Of course there's drive-bys I guess, which depending on how many people are there and/or hit, is much like a mass shooting, in which case, MAKE IT HARDER for those weapons to get on the street.

Got any stats on that?

Other than the ones that destroy your argument and make you look foolish?

[KC native]

Originally Posted by CoMoChief

The fine was just under $2 Billion ...and how many people went to jail because of this? NONE Keep in mind this is just one of many incidents they DON'T get caught on.

Now with internet etc, you can't keep these secrets for too long like you could 30-40 yrs ago. Our govt and companies on Wall St have gotten so out of control that the stink is starting to get so bad, it's now getting hard to ignore.

Here's Bill Clinton's ol' buddy, Asst Attorney General Lenny Breuer's announcement on the case

http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2012/D...-crm-1478.html

As a result of the government's investigation, HSBC has . . . "clawed back" deferred compensation bonuses given to some of its most senior U.S. anti-money laundering and compliance officers, and agreed to partially defer bonus compensation for its most senior officials during the five-year period of the deferred prosecution agreement.

Wow. So the executives who spent a decade laundering billions of dollars will have to partially defer their bonuses during the five-year deferred prosecution agreement?

Are you ****ing kidding me?

That's the punishment?

See no one really gets into major trouble for any of this and whats to keep them from doing it again....and again....and again....etc.

A crappy settlement and no criminal prosecutions does not equal a government sanctioning of money laundering by cartels

[KChiefer]

Originally Posted by frazod

Got any stats on that?

Other than the ones that destroy your argument and make you look foolish?

Nope. Do you have any stats for the assertion you made that it would become infinitesimally small?

[frazod]

Originally Posted by KChiefer

Nope. Do you have any stats for the assertion you made that it would become infinitesimally small?

313,000,000 people in this country. 323 killed by rifles in a year.

You know what "infinitesimally" means, right?