NDAA Bill Signed Into Law....

[greg334]

What can Ron Paul do about it if elected?

Boy Layout, you need ... a vacation in Duck hunting land or something like that


What can he do?

Wait it is a great idea ...






Not use it.

The last time I looked, the DoJ is under the executive branch and the military so he can write an executive order that restricts the use of the law - it is a law enforcement law, not something that prevents us from operating.

 

[Turtle]

You must not be talking about the same Anti Constitution League of Americans I am. The ones I referred to are often on the wrong side of issues and take positions based only on liberal ideology and nothing to do with the Constitution.

I guess we're talking about two different organizations then.

 

[layoutshooter]

Boy Layout, you need ... a vacation in Duck hunting land or something like that


What can he do?

Wait it is a great idea ...






Not use it.

The last time I looked, the DoJ is under the executive branch and the military so he can write an executive order that restricts the use of the law - it is a law enforcement law, not something that prevents us from operating.

Only while he is in. The bill needs to be repealed to protect the country. If not repealed the next tin horn god will just write another executive order reversing his.

Besides, I am always worried when a president writes a executive order to override the wishes of the legislative branch even if I agree with the order.

Duck season is over, I can't hunt again until much latter this year. Nothing much to look forward too until then. The boring months are upon me.

 

[RLENT]

A quick primer on the NDAA from WXIX's Ben Swann:

Ben Swann Explains the NDAA and the Obama Imperative

 

[pelicn]

They are also not for some things that are. Like private gun ownership. They believe that the Second Amendment does NOT apply to the individual. The are only "selective" on their protection of the Constitution. I think they are a sham bunch, pretending to protect as they cut down from behind.

2nd Amendment doesn't apply to the individual it applies to the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. The Federal Government can't restrict your right to keep and bear arms. The Federal Government can't restrict your STATE from keeping or bearing arms.
IF your State Constitution says that you can't keep or bear arms then you MOVE! That's the beauty of a REPUBLIC!
Stop the INCORPORATION by the Federal Government. They have no Constitutional authority in matter of the 2nd amendment.

 

[AMonger]

It was not "in force" until he signed it.

Dictator? We are WELL on the way to that. Might happen as early as 2013.

Seems likely, seeing as there's only one recognized candidate known to oppose the executive having such authority, and conventional wisdom says he won't be the nominee, and his own party will likely assassinate him if he is. Oh, that's right...you oppose him too. It's impossible to be both for freedom and against Ron Paul in this election.



--

You know the problem with bad cops? They make the other 5% look bad.

 

[AMonger]

What can Ron Paul do about it if elected? He needs congress to repeal it, they won't. I understand he is against this but he was not able to convince enough in congress to vote against it now, what makes anyone think he could convince them to repeal it in 2013 when he would take office?

For one, he can absolutely refuse to use it. He can tell his subordinates in the executive branch that they'll be unemployed instantly if they try to use it. He can use the bully pulpit (a president's bully pulpit is far bigger than a congressman's). And he can, himself or through others, file suit to push it through the courts and get a ruling on its constitutionality. Those are just the steps off the top of my head. I'm sure more steps can be thought of in time.

--

You know the problem with bad cops? They make the other 5% look bad.

 

[layoutshooter]

Seems likely, seeing as there's only one recognized candidate known to oppose the executive having such authority, and conventional wisdom says he won't be the nominee, and his own party will likely assassinate him if he is. Oh, that's right...you oppose him too. It's impossible to be both for freedom and against Ron Paul in this election.



--

You know the problem with bad cops? They make the other 5% look bad.

I have never said that I oppose Ron Paul's ideas. I have said that I don't believe that Ron Paul can do the job. He has NO practical executive experience. NONE. We have a president now who had no experience and it shows.

While I agree with much of what Ron Paul says, when I can stay awake when he says it, I don't believe he is capable of the job. I would have been far more comfortable with him had he been a governor instead of a congressman. To me he is just another "theory man" with zero track record of putting his ideas into action.

 

[layoutshooter]

2nd Amendment doesn't apply to the individual it applies to the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. The Federal Government can't restrict your right to keep and bear arms. The Federal Government can't restrict your STATE from keeping or bearing arms.
IF your State Constitution says that you can't keep or bear arms then you MOVE! That's the beauty of a REPUBLIC!
Stop the INCORPORATION by the Federal Government. They have no Constitutional authority in matter of the 2nd amendment.

That is what I meant. I know that the Federal Government has no standing to restrict firearms ownership. They do all the time and the ACLU supports those efforts. They are not the "Constitutional Guardian Angles" so many want to make them out to be.

 

[louixo]

The USA would be a better place if the ACLU and the Supreme Court were abolished.

 

[greg334]

This is going to sound liberal but I think each of you need to join the ACLU and understand what is going on here with this and other like issues. IF you want to complain about the ACLU doing the Christmas thing or flag burning, that's great but this issue and others like it go against everything you believe in IF you beleive in the constitution and limited government.

 

[layoutshooter]

This is going to sound liberal but I think each of you need to join the ACLU and understand what is going on here with this and other like issues. IF you want to complain about the ACLU doing the Christmas thing or flag burning, that's great but this issue and others like it go against everything you believe in IF you beleive in the constitution and limited government.

They are anti Second Amendment. Therefore they are opposed to the entire Bill of Rights. One is either for it all or against it all. Period. I don't trust them any more than I trust Obama or the entire Congress. There is NO middle ground.

 

[greg334]

They are anti Second Amendment. Therefore they are opposed to the entire Bill of Rights. One is either for it all or against it all. Period. I don't trust them any more than I trust Obama or the entire Congress. There is NO middle ground.

I understand but here is the thing, no matter what you may say or do, the NDAA act is more of a danger to all of our freedoms than their fight against the second amendment - preconceived or otherwise.

The danger of them, an member organization, reflects their membership at large (a point I made a long time ago) and even if they are a problem, it can be better solved if we join and change them internally while the danger of this act seems to overshadow all of the things that they do or not do.

I am not a fan of them but I see them as a tool to get rid of some of these things that endanger our rights and the constitution. No matter how one would feel about our rights, when tyranny shows up, we all must fight - do you agree?

 

[layoutshooter]

I understand but here is the thing, no matter what you may say or do, the NDAA act is more of a danger to all of our freedoms than their fight against the second amendment - preconceived or otherwise.

The danger of them, an member organization, reflects their membership at large (a point I made a long time ago) and even if they are a problem, it can be better solved if we join and change them internally while the danger of this act seems to overshadow all of the things that they do or not do.

I am not a fan of them but I see them as a tool to get rid of some of these things that endanger our rights and the constitution. No matter how one would feel about our rights, when tyranny shows up, we all must fight - do you agree?

If one joins an enemy they support that enemy. They are equal in the attack on freedom as that law is. They only oppose it because it may restrict them some day. IF they could craft a law that would not, they would. They are as evil as Obama.

 

[greg334]

But see Joe, in all honesty, I see the ACLU not as a enemy but as a problem. It has been discussed among us Classic Liberals what they stand for and how they identify themselves, which is different than what the MSC seem to do. They are evil if you let them be evil but they have brought more change than most any other group.

Does this mean that you have to join with them on every issue?

Hell no, I hope you don't but because this law, which was started by a republican led congress is worse than most of the other onslaughts upon the constitution (barring Wilson and Lincoln), there has to be a point where level headed people who believe in that the government needs to be limited comes to grips that other people and these evil organizations are also seeing the same things and will fight for the same outcome.

Just to add to this, the ACLU's position on the 2nd amendment is one that is shared by a lot of people. Although I do not agree with it - you should read it to get the understanding and reasoning behind it;

http://www.aclu.org/racial-justice_...law-reform_immigrants-rights/second-amendment

 

[layoutshooter]

But see Joe, in all honesty, I see the ACLU not as a enemy but as a problem. It has been discussed among us Classic Liberals what they stand for and how they identify themselves, which is different than what the MSC seem to do. They are evil if you let them be evil but they have brought more change than most any other group.

Does this mean that you have to join with them on every issue?

Hell no, I hope you don't but because this law, which was started by a republican led congress is worse than most of the other onslaughts upon the constitution (barring Wilson and Lincoln), there has to be a point where level headed people who believe in that the government needs to be limited comes to grips that other people and these evil organizations are also seeing the same things and will fight for the same outcome.

You are entitled to your opinion. I do not trust them. I view them as an enemy of my Constitution. Have they come out against Obama Care and it's use of force to provide health care? Not that I am aware of.

I have no use for them. That is my opinion. I would not have had the Soviets as an ally in WWII either. I see no difference.

Leaving soon for Green. So that is it for a few hours.

 

[RLENT]

I have never said that I oppose Ron Paul's ideas.

Well actually, I think you have said that you do oppose at least some of his ideas ..... although perhaps I may have misunderstood ....

I have said that I don't believe that Ron Paul can do the job. He has NO practical executive experience. NONE.

Like your statement about Obama, that is wrong .... and is easily seen to be so ....

Similar to your statement below, it's possibly based on some unstated, hidden standard of what that "experience" ought to be .....

We have a president now who had no experience and it shows.

No - that's entirely incorrect - wrong.

What we have now is a president with the wrong ideas ......

In strictly practical terms, and relative importances, having the correct ideas is far, far more important - since, as a leader (and an executive), one can always get others to do the actual execution and implementation.

Further, having someone who is steadfast and resolute in terms of adherence to those ideas is absolutely vital.

The reality of the matter is that today, the President provides leadership, makes high level executive decisions (in terms of policy, and important specific implementations) and largely delegates his authority to others for the overall implementation, within the general policy guidance that he provides.

While I agree with much of what Ron Paul says, when I can stay awake when he says it,

That problem may not lie with the speaker, but the listener ....

I don't believe he is capable of the job.

Understandable.

I would have been far more comfortable with him had he been a governor instead of a congressman.

Ok.

To me he is just another "theory man" with zero track record of putting his ideas into action.

To say such a thing is tantamount to an admission that you really don't have any familiarity with the man, or what he has done ....

"...... the perfect is the enemy of the good ......" - Voltaire​

 

[RLENT]

Dana is worried ..... very worried ....

Dana is worried ....

 

[AMonger]

I have never said that I oppose Ron Paul's ideas. I have said that I don't believe that Ron Paul can do the job. He has NO practical executive experience. NONE. We have a president now who had no experience and it shows.

While I agree with much of what Ron Paul says, when I can stay awake when he says it, I don't believe he is capable of the job. I would have been far more comfortable with him had he been a governor instead of a congressman. To me he is just another "theory man" with zero track record of putting his ideas into action.

What are your options? You have one man proposing a change of course, and every other candidate plus the incumbent promising more of the same. You keep running down the only man who's in favor of freedom.

The problem with Obama isn't that he has no prior experience; it's that he's a Marxist-Leninist.

--

You know the problem with bad cops? They make the other 5% look bad.

 

[layoutshooter]

My options? NONE, as per normal. I will vote for someone in the Michigan primary and against Obama in the general election. I will, as always, hold my nose and try not to vomit as I do.

I may just write in someone in the primary. Then I won't get sick on that day.