Jump to content



Photo
- - - - -

Texas congressman threatens impeachment if Obama moves on guns


  • Please log in to reply
159 replies to this topic

#1 concert andy

concert andy
  • VibeTribe
  • 11,050 posts
  • LocationPhilly

Posted 15 January 2013 - 02:21 PM

Texas congressman threatens impeachment if Obama moves on guns



A Texas congressman vowed to try to impeach President Obama if he moves ahead with plans to control guns by executive order.

Rep. Steve Stockman, a Republican from the Houston area, called Obama's plans to skirt Congress and implement some controls administratively "an unconstitutional and unconscionable attack on the very founding principles of this republic." He also threatened to defund the White House.

 

"I will seek to thwart this action by any means necessary, including but not limited to eliminating funding for implementation, defunding the White House, and even filing articles of impeachment," Stockman said.

 

Obama said at a press conference Monday that tracking data on guns that criminals use could be one item done administratively that would not have to go through Congress. Democrats have been calling for new gun control measures since the school massacre in Newtown, Conn.

 

"I think that those of us who look at this problem have repeatedly said that responsible gun owners, people who have a gun for protection, for hunting, for sportsmanship, they don't have anything to worry about," Obama said.

 

But Stockman said any such move requires legislative action.

 

"Any proposal to abuse executive power and infringe upon gun rights must be repelled with the stiffest legislative force possible," he said.

 

"Under no circumstances whatsoever may the government take any action that disarms any peaceable person — much less without due process through an executive declaration without a vote of Congress or a ruling of a court."

 



#2 hoagie

hoagie
  • VibeTribe
  • 19,454 posts

Posted 15 January 2013 - 02:23 PM

Sounds racist to me

#3 u.s.blues

u.s.blues
  • VibeTribe
  • 3,414 posts

Posted 15 January 2013 - 03:15 PM

sounds partisan to me



#4 hoagie

hoagie
  • VibeTribe
  • 19,454 posts

Posted 15 January 2013 - 03:16 PM

country-boys

#5 u.s.blues

u.s.blues
  • VibeTribe
  • 3,414 posts

Posted 15 January 2013 - 03:18 PM

yep



#6 hoagie

hoagie
  • VibeTribe
  • 19,454 posts

Posted 15 January 2013 - 03:20 PM

Im going out on a limb here and saying that none of these Texans voted for Obama. Ill go furthur and say they brobably refr to Obama as a "bluegum" in private company, own a pickup truck and do not listen to rap music...

#7 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 18,576 posts

Posted 15 January 2013 - 03:23 PM

Or it is not partisan at all and instead is about maintaining the 3 branches of government and keeping them within the boundaries that the constitution imposed on each.

 

I'm not from Texas, and yet I find Obama's ever and always willingness to encroach on his powers as a serious threat to what little remains of our republic. YMMV.

 

Many just dont care or even understand how our government is suppose to work vs. how it is working now.

 

I'm no fan of Mark Levin, but he has some legit sentiment in here:

 

by Mark Levin

“I’m not into imperial presidents who act imperial and speak imperial and Obama forgets there’s a Constitution,” Levin said. “Yes, he keeps telling us he won re-election, congratulations. But guess what, the Constitution wasn’t up for election. It’s not up for a plebiscite or referendum. He has to comply with it, too. He was sent back to Washington, but he’s got a strict list of rules that he has to follow as president. So when he gets up there and starts saying, ‘If Congress doesn’t do this I’m going to do this unilaterally,’ it violates separation of powers a lot of the times. And this a man who’s been pushing the edge of the envelope as far as I’m concerned, whether it’s the appointment clause, whether it’s his unilateral on immigration, whether it’s his trashing the commerce clause and tax clause under ObamaCare. Now they’re talking about executive orders on the Second Amendment. They’ve issued regulations on the First Amendment attacking religious liberty. This notion that he might be able to lift the debt ceiling, you know, unilaterally under the 14th amendment.”

“What the hell is this?” Levin said. “He was elected president. Congratulations. This guy makes Richard Nixon look like a man who followed the law all the time. I think we have an imperial president. He sounds imperial, he’s arrogant as hell and so, I’m furious about this and I’m going to tell you why. We are a magnificent country. We don’t need to be turned upside-down. We don’t need to run from crisis to crisis to crisis. He’s bankrupting this country. He says, ‘We’ve had a discussion about the debt.’ When did we have a discussion about the debt? We’ve had a debate about taxes. The man is never around to have a discussion about anything. So, yes, he causes me to be furious when I watch and listen to him.”

Levin, author of “Ameritopia: The Unmaking of America,” said much of this was part of a larger track record with the president and then reiterated his insistence on honoring the Constitution.

“They can talk about past presidents,” he said. “We can talk about Lincoln. We can have a grand old time. We can go through all the past presidents. Nobody compares to this guy though. I mean, this guy is having a hell after time bankrupting the country, seizing power from Congress, threatening the courts, attacking successful people. You know, even when it came to bankruptcy and the automobile industry, rewriting the bankruptcy laws. People better wake up to this. This is not what Bush did or what anybody else did. This president is different and in a very, very negative way. And the fact that a lot of people voted for him, that’s extremely troubling, but the Constitution, as I said, that wasn’t up for grabs and it’s still not up for grabs.”

The conservative talker also had criticisms of the media for not asking tough enough questions for some of these proposed efforts that have been mentioned as possibilities with Obama and acting on the debt ceiling.

“There are a lot of big lies with this president,” Levin said. “First of all, I call it the pretend media. I mean what do the media do? When he talks about the debt ceiling and the 14th Amendment, do they say, ‘Mr. President, that’s not actually been done before and that’s not the point of it. Can you explain that being the constitutional genius you are? No, we have a debate on the debt ceiling. Can we actually talk about the debt? Oh, all Bush’s fault, OK. Let’s talk about guns, there’s not a single idea that’s leaked out of this White House or pushed on Capitol Hill that would have prevented the horrific mass murder in Connecticut. They’re dusting off all their wants and demands and they’re trying to pour it into this tragedy like they always do. We have a Second Amendment. The Second Amendment matters. And so it’s not up for grabs whether Biden and Obama or the goofball governor of Maryland or all the rest of them"



#8 u.s.blues

u.s.blues
  • VibeTribe
  • 3,414 posts

Posted 15 January 2013 - 03:25 PM

little bit of both?



#9 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 18,576 posts

Posted 15 January 2013 - 03:34 PM

Im going out on a limb here and saying that none of these Texans voted for Obama. Ill go furthur and say they brobably refr to Obama as a "bluegum" in private company, own a pickup truck and do not listen to rap music...

 

I hope you realize how much irony you have displayed in this post.



#10 concert andy

concert andy
  • VibeTribe
  • 11,050 posts
  • LocationPhilly

Posted 15 January 2013 - 03:41 PM

Or it is not partisan at all and instead is about maintaining the 3 branches of government and keeping them within the boundaries that the constitution imposed on each.

 

I'm not from Texas, and yet I find Obama's ever and always willingness to encroach on his powers as a serious threat to what little remains of our republic. YMMV.

 

Many just dont care or even understand how our government is suppose to work vs. how it is working now.

 

I'm no fan of Mark Levin, but he has some legit sentiment in here:

 

by Mark Levin

“I’m not into imperial presidents who act imperial and speak imperial and Obama forgets there’s a Constitution,” Levin said. “Yes, he keeps telling us he won re-election, congratulations. But guess what, the Constitution wasn’t up for election. It’s not up for a plebiscite or referendum. He has to comply with it, too. He was sent back to Washington, but he’s got a strict list of rules that he has to follow as president. So when he gets up there and starts saying, ‘If Congress doesn’t do this I’m going to do this unilaterally,’ it violates separation of powers a lot of the times. And this a man who’s been pushing the edge of the envelope as far as I’m concerned, whether it’s the appointment clause, whether it’s his unilateral on immigration, whether it’s his trashing the commerce clause and tax clause under ObamaCare. Now they’re talking about executive orders on the Second Amendment. They’ve issued regulations on the First Amendment attacking religious liberty. This notion that he might be able to lift the debt ceiling, you know, unilaterally under the 14th amendment.”

“What the hell is this?” Levin said. “He was elected president. Congratulations. This guy makes Richard Nixon look like a man who followed the law all the time. I think we have an imperial president. He sounds imperial, he’s arrogant as hell and so, I’m furious about this and I’m going to tell you why. We are a magnificent country. We don’t need to be turned upside-down. We don’t need to run from crisis to crisis to crisis. He’s bankrupting this country. He says, ‘We’ve had a discussion about the debt.’ When did we have a discussion about the debt? We’ve had a debate about taxes. The man is never around to have a discussion about anything. So, yes, he causes me to be furious when I watch and listen to him.”

Levin, author of “Ameritopia: The Unmaking of America,” said much of this was part of a larger track record with the president and then reiterated his insistence on honoring the Constitution.

“They can talk about past presidents,” he said. “We can talk about Lincoln. We can have a grand old time. We can go through all the past presidents. Nobody compares to this guy though. I mean, this guy is having a hell after time bankrupting the country, seizing power from Congress, threatening the courts, attacking successful people. You know, even when it came to bankruptcy and the automobile industry, rewriting the bankruptcy laws. People better wake up to this. This is not what Bush did or what anybody else did. This president is different and in a very, very negative way. And the fact that a lot of people voted for him, that’s extremely troubling, but the Constitution, as I said, that wasn’t up for grabs and it’s still not up for grabs.”

The conservative talker also had criticisms of the media for not asking tough enough questions for some of these proposed efforts that have been mentioned as possibilities with Obama and acting on the debt ceiling.

“There are a lot of big lies with this president,” Levin said. “First of all, I call it the pretend media. I mean what do the media do? When he talks about the debt ceiling and the 14th Amendment, do they say, ‘Mr. President, that’s not actually been done before and that’s not the point of it. Can you explain that being the constitutional genius you are? No, we have a debate on the debt ceiling. Can we actually talk about the debt? Oh, all Bush’s fault, OK. Let’s talk about guns, there’s not a single idea that’s leaked out of this White House or pushed on Capitol Hill that would have prevented the horrific mass murder in Connecticut. They’re dusting off all their wants and demands and they’re trying to pour it into this tragedy like they always do. We have a Second Amendment. The Second Amendment matters. And so it’s not up for grabs whether Biden and Obama or the goofball governor of Maryland or all the rest of them"

 

 

While all true, the same can be applied to W.  A point I make often.  Different lies, but still lies.  Both used his powers in the same way, remember Bush suspended habeas corpus?



#11 Joker

Joker
  • VibeTribe
  • 11,572 posts

Posted 15 January 2013 - 03:42 PM

I hope you realize how much irony you have displayed in this post.

trolls-01.jpg



#12 concert andy

concert andy
  • VibeTribe
  • 11,050 posts
  • LocationPhilly

Posted 15 January 2013 - 03:42 PM

My point is, why do we expect different results from whomever is president?



#13 JBetty

JBetty
  • VibeTribe
  • 19,774 posts

Posted 15 January 2013 - 03:49 PM

My point is, why do we expect different results from whomever is president?

 

 

 

I love how you guys argue and argue and go round and round when you all agree on the crux of the argument.    :lol:



#14 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 18,576 posts

Posted 15 January 2013 - 03:51 PM

And again, it goes back to the voter. I didn't expect different results. It's funny though that while Bush abused powers, he was ripped over it daily by the same folks who are now essentially silent on the matter of power abuse. And those who sat silently through Bush doing it, are now all about nailing Obama.

 

It's a citizen problem. So we all go down in flames....or in this case, back into bondage. 250 years was all we could manage of a "free" society.



#15 JBetty

JBetty
  • VibeTribe
  • 19,774 posts

Posted 15 January 2013 - 03:54 PM

Free for whom?

250 years ago only the white males were truly free, and even then many were indentured servants, Irish slaves, etc...



#16 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 18,576 posts

Posted 15 January 2013 - 03:55 PM

Bush didn't suspend Habeus Corpus. That was Obama.



#17 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 18,576 posts

Posted 15 January 2013 - 03:56 PM

Free for whom?

250 years ago only the white males were truly free, and even then many were indentured servants, Irish slaves, etc...

 

Free from a ruler. And that is mostly exaggerated history. Nothing was going to push the advance of social issues such as slavery and tabboo (women's rights) except the feet of time. All the government did was exacerbate the problems with segregation laws, etc..



#18 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 18,576 posts

Posted 15 January 2013 - 04:02 PM

Bush didn't suspend Habeus Corpus. That was Obama.

I take this back. Bush stripped foreigners (and in some cases, citizens) charged with being a terroist of HC. That was restored in 2007 to Guanton detainees. Now, under NDAA 2012 provisions, even Americans can be subjected to indefinie detention without due process if deemed a "terrorist" or an associate of one deemed a "terrorist".



#19 concert andy

concert andy
  • VibeTribe
  • 11,050 posts
  • LocationPhilly

Posted 15 January 2013 - 04:14 PM

Bush didn't suspend Habeus Corpus. That was Obama.

 

While I was unaware of Obama suspending this, I find it hard to believe that you forgot Bush did this in 2006.

 

See Olberman loose his S**t.

 

 

The death of habeas corpus Olbermann: ‘The president has now succeeded where no one has before’

 

 

Also, Lincoln suspended Habeus Corpus too:

 

Bush and Lincoln both Suspended Habeas Corpus There were differences and similarities

 

http://usgovinfo.abo...abeuscorpus.htm



#20 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 18,576 posts

Posted 15 January 2013 - 04:19 PM

Post 18.



#21 concert andy

concert andy
  • VibeTribe
  • 11,050 posts
  • LocationPhilly

Posted 15 January 2013 - 04:20 PM

I love how you guys argue and argue and go round and round when you all agree on the crux of the argument.    :lol:

 

The semantics get in the way.

 

I see lying as part of human nature, and to expect politicians to be held to their word is in part an oxymoran.  Call them out fine, but to expect different results, that is insanity.  I accept the flaws of the system and people who run it.



#22 concert andy

concert andy
  • VibeTribe
  • 11,050 posts
  • LocationPhilly

Posted 15 January 2013 - 04:21 PM

Post 18.

 

Ah, now i see.  I only read a few of the other responses first.  Damn work getting in the way.



#23 JBetty

JBetty
  • VibeTribe
  • 19,774 posts

Posted 15 January 2013 - 04:22 PM

The semantics get in the way.

 

 

Hence my amusement.



#24 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 18,576 posts

Posted 15 January 2013 - 04:24 PM

The difference is I dont accept the system for what it is. Much like the 13 colonies didn't accept british rule over them. It's teh same thing on repeat....over and over and over again. We never learn. We just become docile and complacent.



#25 concert andy

concert andy
  • VibeTribe
  • 11,050 posts
  • LocationPhilly

Posted 15 January 2013 - 04:37 PM

The difference is I dont accept the system for what it is. Much like the 13 colonies didn't accept british rule over them. It's teh same thing on repeat....over and over and over again. We never learn. We just become docile and complacent.

 

Other than this nuance, we agree on most things.

 

Like mentioned above and IMO, we need leaders, not elected officials to make our government work effectively.



#26 MeOmYo

MeOmYo
  • VibeTribe
  • 7,476 posts

Posted 15 January 2013 - 04:41 PM

ban elected officials?



#27 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 18,576 posts

Posted 15 January 2013 - 04:43 PM

A leader of the free world?

 

Am I the only one who finds anything completely ironic about such a statement.

 

We have a leader. its the constitution of the US. The nice thing about these kinds of contracts is they are suppose to render any tyrant impotent to the system of checks and balances. I do not agree that we need a leader, unless that leader is going to lead to the restoration of our principles.



#28 syd_25

syd_25
  • VibeTribe
  • 1,049 posts
  • LocationNorthwest Ct

Posted 15 January 2013 - 04:45 PM

 I accept the flaws of the system and people who run it.

 I expect the flaws....  I do not accept them.  :)



#29 concert andy

concert andy
  • VibeTribe
  • 11,050 posts
  • LocationPhilly

Posted 15 January 2013 - 04:48 PM

A leader of the free world?

 

Am I the only one who finds anything completely ironic about such a statement.

 

We have a leader. its the constitution of the US. The nice thing about these kinds of contracts is they are suppose to render any tyrant impotent to the system of checks and balances. I do not agree that we need a leader, unless that leader is going to lead to the restoration of our principles.

 

Semantics again.  I nebver said leader of the free world, you did.

 

I meant a LEADER.  Someone who can lead people, and who has morals and integrity.

 

AND This leader will work within the rules of the constitution.

 

Jeebus.



#30 concert andy

concert andy
  • VibeTribe
  • 11,050 posts
  • LocationPhilly

Posted 15 January 2013 - 04:49 PM

 I expect the flaws....  I do not accept them.  :)

 

May be this is what I meant, but I do not get upset by the hypocrisies that some may.  



#31 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 18,576 posts

Posted 15 January 2013 - 04:54 PM

Semantics again.  I nebver said leader of the free world, you did.

 

I meant a LEADER.  Someone who can lead people, and who has morals and integrity.

 

AND This leader will work within the rules of the constitution.

 

Jeebus.

 

 

We don't elect those types any more. We elect snake oil salesmen. That's why i just take my time waste jabs at the system. It's broken adn only the constituency can fix. But they will not. So it's back to bondage for us.



#32 concert andy

concert andy
  • VibeTribe
  • 11,050 posts
  • LocationPhilly

Posted 15 January 2013 - 04:58 PM

We don't elect those types any more. We elect snake oil salesmen. That's why i just take my time waste jabs at the system. It's broken adn only the constituency can fix. But they will not. So it's back to bondage for us.

 

Not saying we can elect this person, just saying we need a person like that.



#33 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 18,576 posts

Posted 15 January 2013 - 05:00 PM

I get it.



#34 cheeseweasel

cheeseweasel
  • VibeTribe
  • 802 posts

Posted 15 January 2013 - 05:24 PM

So much vitriol over a hobby. Seriously if it isnt just a hobby then how fucking paranoid do you have to be to own a gun solely to defend yourself from creeps and your government?
There is nothing wrong with limits. The 2nd was writtem when the only guns fired one shot before reloading. I am sure if they had rapid-fire, high capacity magazine weapons, they would have been a little more cautious in their wording of the 2nd and who can own these weapons.

#35 Joker

Joker
  • VibeTribe
  • 11,572 posts

Posted 15 January 2013 - 05:26 PM

Not saying we can elect this person, just saying we need a person like that.

I doubt we'll ever have one as long as people continue to vote either the Dem or Rep candidates that are pretty much beholden to  the powers that be who set them up in position to get elected.

 

And as we've seen, most voters will only vote their team if for no other reason than the fear of what the other team will do if they win. 



#36 Joker

Joker
  • VibeTribe
  • 11,572 posts

Posted 15 January 2013 - 05:31 PM

So much vitriol over a hobby. Seriously if it isnt just a hobby then how fucking paranoid do you have to be to own a gun solely to defend yourself from creeps and your government?
There is nothing wrong with limits. The 2nd was writtem when the only guns fired one shot before reloading. I am sure if they had rapid-fire, high capacity magazine weapons, they would have been a little more cautious in their wording of the 2nd and who can own these weapons.

Some people believe that having the right and the ability to defend themselves and their families is more than a hobby. How is that being paranoid?



#37 little frog

little frog
  • VibeTribe
  • 3,626 posts

Posted 15 January 2013 - 05:34 PM

why are gun owners so scared of registered guns? you're ok with every car being registered and insured before allowed to be used on america's highways but guns (made for no other purpose than to maim or kill) should not be regulated. I don't get it.

 

i agree that presidents should follow the law of the land .. but this congress has stonewalled him at every turn just for the sake of stonewalling. none of them are interested in a preserved america or what the majority of citizens think, they're in office to fix the system for their cronies and get kickbacks. period.



#38 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 18,576 posts

Posted 15 January 2013 - 05:48 PM

You can still buy a car without registering it or even having a license. You can drive that car on you private property without insurance, registration or a license. The minute you drive that car unlicensed, unregistered and uninsured on the roads, you're breaking the law. So the comparison is poor.



#39 Joker

Joker
  • VibeTribe
  • 11,572 posts

Posted 15 January 2013 - 05:55 PM

i agree that presidents should follow the law of the land .. but this congress has stonewalled him at every turn just for the sake of stonewalling. none of them are interested in a preserved america or what the majority of citizens think, they're in office to fix the system for their cronies and get kickbacks. period.

There is no ...but, he should follow the law of the land, I'm pretty sure he swears to do just that when he takes the oath of office.

 

Hell, he's already started to assassinate American citizens and now there's a push to start removing the rights of those citizens to defend themselves as they best see fit.

 

Blaming this on congress is just making excuses for his actions. To think Obama isn't in there to do the same fixing you accuse congress of being there for is rather naive, especially when there are many of the same people corporations backing them all.



#40 little frog

little frog
  • VibeTribe
  • 3,626 posts

Posted 15 January 2013 - 06:02 PM

You can still buy a car without registering it or even having a license. You can drive that car on you private property without insurance, registration or a license. The minute you drive that car unlicensed, unregistered and uninsured on the roads, you're breaking the law. So the comparison is poor.

 

 

so everyone with an unregistered gun never leaves home with them? no range shooting? no hunting? really?



#41 little frog

little frog
  • VibeTribe
  • 3,626 posts

Posted 15 January 2013 - 06:04 PM

There is no ...but, he should follow the law of the land, I'm pretty sure he swears to do just that when he takes the oath of office.

 

Hell, he's already started to assassinate American citizens and now there's a push to start removing the rights of those citizens to defend themselves as they best see fit.

 

Blaming this on congress is just making excuses for his actions. To think Obama isn't in there to do the same fixing you accuse congress of being there for is rather naive, especially when there are many of the same people corporations backing them all.

 

 

explain the assassinate americans please. also, who is obama getting kickbacks from?



#42 concert andy

concert andy
  • VibeTribe
  • 11,050 posts
  • LocationPhilly

Posted 15 January 2013 - 06:06 PM

I doubt we'll ever have one as long as people continue to vote either the Dem or Rep candidates that are pretty much beholden to  the powers that be who set them up in position to get elected.

 

And as we've seen, most voters will only vote their team if for no other reason than the fear of what the other team will do if they win. 

 

I do not think it matters if it is Dem or Rep, no matter who the person ends up being, they will more than likely not a leader.



#43 MeOmYo

MeOmYo
  • VibeTribe
  • 7,476 posts

Posted 15 January 2013 - 06:07 PM

so everyone with an unregistered gun never leaves home with them? no range shooting? no hunting? really?

 

I think what he's saying is now you cannot even purchase a gun without registration whereas you can purchase a car without.

 

Home defense weapons rarely leave the house.  I understand that does not speak for all weapons.



#44 Tim the Beek

Tim the Beek
  • VibeTribe
  • 16,146 posts

Posted 15 January 2013 - 06:07 PM

LF, I'll tell you what the rationale for those thoughts is, and it's the last I'll say on the subject for a while.

 

The last I'll say because I'm tired. Not of the discussion itself, but because of posts like cheeseweasel's above, and some of the stuff I've seen on Facebook today. There's so much condescension and disrespect on both sides of this argument. Saddens me when people I like and respect act that way without considering its effects.

 

So, back to LFs question...if you believe in preserving gun ownership rights because you believe that the public might one day need the tools to try to take back its freedom, then lists of gun owners in the hands of the very people whom the public would be resisting sounds like a really bad idea.

 

Nuff said outta me. You all have fun with the conversation...



#45 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 18,576 posts

Posted 15 January 2013 - 06:09 PM

so everyone with an unregistered gun never leaves home with them? no range shooting? no hunting? really?

 

NO, they do. And without the proper permits to carry them into public spaces (many of which have laws against doing so) you're breaking the law. This, of course, changes by state law.



#46 Joker

Joker
  • VibeTribe
  • 11,572 posts

Posted 15 January 2013 - 06:37 PM

explain the assassinate americans please. also, who is obama getting kickbacks from?

What needs to be explained? He's ordered the targeting and execution by drone strike of American citizens (including at least one American child) 

 

 

Here's one of Obama's top advisers trying to justify that child's targeting and execution

 

 

 

And here's an article concerning his "license to kill"

 

 

Congress Wants to See Obama's "License to Kill"

 

 

Congress is finally standing up to President Barack Obama on targeted killing. Almost a year after three American citizens were killed in US drone strikes, legislators are pushing the administration to explain why it believes it's legal to kill American terror suspects overseas.

 

Congress is considering two measures that would compel the Obama administration to show members of Congress what Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) calls Obama's "license to kill": internal memos outlining the legal justification for killing Americans overseas without charge or trial. Legislators have been asking administration officials to release the documents for nearly a year, raising the issue multiple times in hearings and letters. But the new proposals, including one from Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) first flagged by blogger Marcy Wheeler and another in aseparate intelligence bill, aren't requests—they would mandate disclosure. That shift shows both Republicans and Democrats are growing impatient with the lack of transparency on targeted killings.

 

After radical American-born cleric Anwar al-Awlaki, alleged American Al Qaeda propagandist Samir Khan, and Awlaki's 16-year-old son, Abdulrahman, were killed by drone strikes in Yemen in September and October of last year, Republican and Democratic members of Congress sent letters asking the Obama administration to explain the legal justification for targeted killing of American citizens. "We got a license to kill Americans, and we don't know the legal basis for the license to kill Americans…because our letters haven't been answered," Grassley complained during a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing last week. 

 

More here

http://www.motherjon...d-killing-memos



#47 cheeseweasel

cheeseweasel
  • VibeTribe
  • 802 posts

Posted 15 January 2013 - 07:50 PM

Some people believe that having the right and the ability to defend themselves and their families is more than a hobby. How is that being paranoid?

Then why isnt owning one 6-shot revolver or single shot rifile or shotgun enough and why cant that be the legal limit of ownership if it is really just about protection?

#48 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 18,576 posts

Posted 15 January 2013 - 07:51 PM

It's a bill of rights, not a bill of needs. That's why..



#49 Joker

Joker
  • VibeTribe
  • 11,572 posts

Posted 15 January 2013 - 08:08 PM

And if not because it's a BoR then one might simply need more firepower in order to defend oneself.

 

You could also argue one could need at least the amount of firepower necessary to protect themselves from more than one armed assailant possessing the firepower of weapons that are already available. I doubt one 6-shot  would do the trick.

 

Or what if one was attacked by a gang of 10-12? Maybe in a situation where there's looting and rioting occurring? 



#50 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 18,576 posts

Posted 15 January 2013 - 08:14 PM

That would never happen, Joker. You're being paranoid. LOLberal mental utopia. If you close your eyes tight enough, you can almost see it!

 

Rioters? Not in America! We have police and big government!

 

A gang? We dont have gangs in America!

 

The government? They have your best interest at heart!

 

 

I'm quickly becoming intolerant to LOLberal thinking.