Obama would be the most anti-gun President in history.
Ronald Reagan was the most anti-abortion president we ever had and Rowe Vs. Wade is still the law of the land, so what’s your point?
Presidents have little if any control over issues like this, firearms are Constitutionally protected under the legislative branch of the government the president’s power is within the executive branch, John it appears that you need to go back to your social studies teacher and demand a refund.
Could you be anymore irrelevant?:roll::roll::roll:
Go figure, the National Repugnantcan Association is engaged in yet another fear-mongering campaign against the DemocRATic nominee. There are far more compelling reasons to not vote for Obama than his disdain for firearms …
For Joe B. to pretend that a President has very little affect on the laws of this country is
a joke. We are not voting for dog catcher. With the backing of enough democrats,
Obama can affect a lot of laws.
I think you are the one that needs to go back to school my friend.
Indulge us John, how is Obama going to circumvent or abolish the Second Amendment, especially after it was recently reaffirmed by the Supreme Court …
John is convinced that Obama will threaten to hold his breath until he turns blue which will trigger an immediate repealing the 2nd Amendment exactly 10 minutes before the Rapture occurs. It is all there in the book if you would just take the friggin’ time to read it. :mrgreen:
Mikey the point is it really doesn’t matter what Obama’s position on the 2nd Amendment is as he has no control over the legislative branch of government, just as Ronald Regan’s position on abortion had no effect on Rowe Vs. Wade.
Now, I do realize that you have been living under the Bush administration who has blurred the lines between the legislative & executive branches of government and has ruled by decree but this era is now thankfully over.
You will just have to come to the realization that Obama is going to undo all of Bush’s failed policies and restore the balance within government, including no doubt the separation between church & state as the Founding Fathers had designed.
The good news is with a super-majority in both houses on election day Obama can begin to lead this country without having to wait for Bush to vacate the White House in January as he will be effectively contained.
Nick, the Law Makers write the laws, and if they decide to make an amendment to the constitution, the president has veto power, Obama, being anti gun is very unlikely to do that. It is the Supreme Courts job to see that the constitution is adhered too. That’s how he can do it. Australia thought the same as you, look what happened there. BTW Crime has increased in Australia. P.S. Whenever someone points out the truth, it is to counter the lies. Do you think all Republicans should just sit by silently, while our country is turned over to a Socialist.
Ken, I was asking John why I should believe the same old NRA propaganda that the DemocRATS will circumvent or repeal the Second Amendment. I wasn’t asking for conspiracy theories, half-truthes and hyperbole that is found on the NRA link provided.
I do not doubt that Crock Obama favors gun control, something I strongly disagree with. But until it can actually be demonstrated that he and a liberal supermajority are a legitimate threat to this right, I could care less about this otherwise non-issue that has all the markings of a thinly veiled attempt by the NRA to flaunt their political influence.
Red necks have been making these manipulative claims since the Kennedy administration.
It is how the NRA continues to recruit members and collect large sums of money…by creating the illusion that there is a threat to someone banning AK-47’s for squirrel hunting.
A president has no more right or ability to take away a gun than to stop an abortion from taking place. Constitutional issues are interpretted by the Supreme Court…not presidents.
Who appoints the Supreme Court?
Where is your proof that Obama will nominate anti-gun activist justices? :roll:
With the “advice and consent”…meaning, with the approval of the Senate…the President.
If your argument was legitimate…Bill Clinton would have overturned Roe V. Wade and collected everybody’s handguns and pea shooters during his 8-year term.
It is a wonderful means for the NRA to raise money for itself…but there is no agenda to disarm Americans and there is no valid or legitimate means for any president to do so.
Ken, you need to bone up on your schooling. The President does not have any authority or veto power whatsoever when it comes to a Constitutional Amendment. It is completely different than a regular law.
For your learning process.
The Amendment Process
There are essentially two ways spelled out in the Constitution for how to propose an amendment. One has never been used.
The first method is for a bill to pass both houses of the legislature, by a two-thirds majority in each. Once the bill has passed both houses, it goes on to the states. This is the route taken by all current amendments. Because of some long outstanding amendments, such as the 27th, Congress will normally put a time limit (typically seven years) for the bill to be approved as an amendment (for example, see the 21st and 22nd).
The second method prescribed is for a Constitutional Convention to be called by two-thirds of the legislatures of the States, and for that Convention to propose one or more amendments. These amendments are then sent to the states to be approved by three-fourths of the legislatures or conventions. This route has never been taken, and there is discussion in political science circles about just how such a convention would be convened, and what kind of changes it would bring about.
Regardless of which of the two proposal routes is taken, the amendment must be ratified, or approved, by three-fourths of states. There are two ways to do this, too. The text of the amendment may specify whether the bill must be passed by the state legislatures or by a state convention. See the Ratification Convention Page for a discussion of the make up of a convention. Amendments are sent to the legislatures of the states by default. Only one amendment, the 21st, specified a convention. In any case, passage by the legislature or convention is by simple majority.
The Constitution, then, spells out four paths for an amendment:
- Proposal by convention of states, ratification by state conventions (never used)
- Proposal by convention of states, ratification by state legislatures (never used)
- Proposal by Congress, ratification by state conventions (used once)
- Proposal by Congress, ratification by state legislatures (used all other times)
It is interesting to note that at no point does the President have a role in the formal amendment process (though he would be free to make his opinion known). He cannot veto an amendment proposal, nor a ratification. This point is clear in Article 5, and was reaffirmed by the Supreme Court in Hollingsworth v Virginia (3 USC 378 ):
Oh, come on now Stephen, you are just gonna piss off John McKenna who was at peace with his Social Studies teacher thinking all the while he was getting himself a proper education.
And when a President Obama signs a bill authored by a Democrat controlled congress adding additional gun types considered “assault weapons” and ammunition considered “too lethal” to existing federal gun laws will the Supreme court be there to stop it?
Think about it and hide your guns and ammo while your at it.
This isn’t just about the Second Amendment.
Blah, Blah, bull****! bull****!, Obama, Obama, Blah, Blah!
Too tough you to answer, eh Joey? :p:cool:
[Mudcat Saunders (life long NRA Member) for Barack Obama](http://www.nachi.org/forum/Mudcat Saunders for Obama)