Here Are The 23 Executive Orders On Gun Safety Signed Today By The President

  • metta

    Posts: 39099

    Jan 17, 2013 6:49 AM GMT
    Here Are The 23 Executive Orders On Gun Safety Signed Today By The President


    http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2013/01/16/here-are-the-23-executive-orders-on-gun-safety-signed-today-by-the-president/
  • metta

    Posts: 39099

    Jan 17, 2013 6:50 AM GMT
    Sandy Hook Promise

    http://www.realjock.com/gayforums/2941840
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 17, 2013 7:24 AM GMT
    In other words - 23 practical responses to the gun violence we frequently see in the US.

    Or - 23 reasons why Fox News viewers hate Obama EVEN MORE.

    I have a couple issues with this list...

    #14 - The CDC is going to look at video games and movies as a potential source of gun violence. I don't think there's a connection but politicians may see differently.

    #20-#22 - These are slightly vague.

    Overall I think this is a decent approach to addressing the issue of gun violence.
  • Webster666

    Posts: 9217

    Jan 17, 2013 8:56 AM GMT
    It isn't much.
    But, it's better than nothing, which is what we'll get from Congress.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 17, 2013 2:17 PM GMT
    The title should be "23 Executive Actions." Some of these are not orders...having some cabinet members initiate a discussion on gun violence mental health or having a permanent ATF bureau chief are NOT executive orders.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 17, 2013 3:37 PM GMT
    It's somewhat amazing that what much of the public supports correlates with these executive orders and legislative directions that Obama wants to take:

    guncontrolPew.png?1358289036

    And yet we hear this:
    http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2013/01/rand-paul-nullify-obama-gun.phpSen. Rand Paul (R-KY) has a plan to undo President Obama’s executive actions on guns.

    Paul plans to debut the proposal on Wednesday’s edition of Hannity on Fox. Details of the plan shared with TPM Wednesday show Paul plans to say the executive actions violate the Second Amendment and the powers given to the Congress in the Constitution, facts he says allow Congress to declare them “null and void.”

    “We only have descriptions of the executive actions, yet many could be construed to describe an attempt by the executive to make laws in violation of the Article 1, Sec. 8 of the Constitution and the 2nd Amendment,” reads the one-page summary of the Paul plan shared with TPM by his staff.

    Paul’s bill will set out to nullify Obama’s executive actions, deny any federal funding for their implementation, and allow members of Congress and state officials to challenge the actions in court.

    Obama’s executive actions have caused a stir among conservatives, with some state lawmakers trying to pass laws making their enforcement illegal and some Republicans saying they could open Obama up to impeachment proceedings. Before Obama announced the 23 executive actions to curb gun violence, Paul was among the most vocal critics of the idea.

    “I’m against having a king,” Paul said Monday.


    He's against governing, in general.icon_mad.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 17, 2013 8:47 PM GMT
    God Forbid there's a balance of power in Washington. No, just let Obama do whatever he feels like, since he "cares" so much.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 17, 2013 9:01 PM GMT
    Blakes7 saidGod Forbid there's a balance of power in Washington. No, just let Obama do whatever he feels like, since he "cares" so much.

    Well, between the senate never doing anything and the congress completely focused on abortion, someone has to be doing something.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 17, 2013 9:03 PM GMT
    Gridlock is a good thing, unless you want a dictatorship.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 17, 2013 9:11 PM GMT
    Blakes7 saidGridlock is a good thing, unless you want a dictatorship.


    False dichotomy.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 17, 2013 11:15 PM GMT
    q1w2e3 said
    Blakes7 saidGridlock is a good thing, unless you want a dictatorship.


    False dichotomy.


    Look to the Weimar Republic: It is precisely when the political system is dysfunctional that dictators arise.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 18, 2013 12:35 AM GMT
    It's not disfunctional, the left almost always gets what it wants, sooner or later. You just want it all, right now.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 18, 2013 1:28 AM GMT
    Blakes7 saidIt's not disfunctional, the left almost always gets what it wants, sooner or later. You just want it all, right now.


    When the greatest threat to the American economy is Congress, as we've seen in the debt ceiling, fiscal cliff etc, yes the system is dysfunctional.

  • musclmed

    Posts: 3274

    Jan 18, 2013 3:41 AM GMT
    TigerTim said
    Blakes7 saidIt's not disfunctional, the left almost always gets what it wants, sooner or later. You just want it all, right now.


    When the greatest threat to the American economy is Congress, as we've seen in the debt ceiling, fiscal cliff etc, yes the system is dysfunctional.



    History never has judged a President that avoids congress kindly.

    Its not as if the President tried and failed and gave up. He never really tried at all. In highlighting executive orders he poisoned the waters for any legislation. And nearly guaranteed both Democrats and Republicans would vote against it in the Senate.

    If the issue was that important to the president he would lobby Congress the old fashion way. Behind closed doors, without the underhanded double crossing leaks and political games of his first 4 years. Frankly I think he know it has no chance of passing, and would enjoy just blaming the Republicans for it.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 18, 2013 3:53 AM GMT
    There you go again...they are NOT executive orders. NONE of them are even orders...only 3 are presidential memoranda. This Rubio-esque term "poisoning the waters" is such BS.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2013/01/16/reagans-solicitor-general-scoffs-at-rights-fantasy-about-obama-tyranny/Guess who disagrees? The former Solicitor General of the United States … under Saint Ronald Reagan.

    “These are either standard exercises of presidential power, or even more benignly, standard examples of the power of the president to exhort the public or state officials to be aware of certain problems and to address them,” Charles Fried, who was Reagan’s solicitor general during his second term, told me today.


    Read the rest of his comments.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 18, 2013 3:53 AM GMT
    musclmed said
    TigerTim said
    Blakes7 saidIt's not disfunctional, the left almost always gets what it wants, sooner or later. You just want it all, right now.


    When the greatest threat to the American economy is Congress, as we've seen in the debt ceiling, fiscal cliff etc, yes the system is dysfunctional.



    History never has judged a President that avoids congress kindly.

    Its not as if the President tried and failed and gave up. He never really tried at all. In highlighting executive orders he poisoned the waters for any legislation. And nearly guaranteed both Democrats and Republicans would vote against it in the Senate.

    If the issue was that important to the president he would lobby Congress the old fashion way. Behind closed doors, without the underhanded double crossing leaks and political games of his first 4 years. Frankly I think he know it has no chance of passing, and would enjoy just blaming the Republicans for it.


    Don't you think that Congress is just a little teensy-weensy bit to blame?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 18, 2013 3:56 AM GMT
    As for Obama being the most divisive president, you might credit the most divided Congress ever.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/01/17/its-official-the-112th-congress-was-the-most-polarized-ever/

    And it's mostly the Republicans' fault, starting around 1980:

    house_means_112.jpg
  • musclmed

    Posts: 3274

    Jan 18, 2013 4:47 AM GMT
    q1w2e3 saidAs for Obama being the most divisive president, you might credit the most divided Congress ever.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/01/17/its-official-the-112th-congress-was-the-most-polarized-ever/

    And it's mostly the Republicans' fault, starting around 1980:

    house_means_112.jpg


    First I have no idea what that graph is showing. Polarized base on what frame of reference? The washington post? Even if i stipulate the congress is the most polarized ever, some guys blog post on the Washington post is not unbiased research. Good try though.


    The Exec orders are not that spectacular or controversial. But it was the manner in which it was undertaken.

    Obama chooses instead of negotiating with Congress, he gives a lecture via a press conference then asks the voters to call there Congressman and lobby for him. Every American should be upset with this strategy. He should sit down like every other President before him and negotiate.

    Because its very likely there will BE NO GUN CONTROL LEGISLATION.

    He worsened Senate Democrats position by inflaming paranoia of those who see the second amendment as a check against tyranny. Throw some executive orders out there before Congress has a chance to adopt them. What will likely happen is that almost every single order will be nullified by Congress.

    Yes they can easily nullify a executive order.

    Even if we have 50 decades of democratic presidents give me a Bill Clinton any day. At least he had a track record of getting something done.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 18, 2013 5:00 AM GMT
    Since you will not even click on the convenient link, I'll paste it for you.


    Stats geeks, rejoice: The newest DW-NOMINATE figures are out! DW-NOMINATE, devised by political scientists Keith Poole (now at the University of Georgia) and Howard Rosenthal (now at NYU), is the industry standard system for measuring how members of the House and Senate compare to each other ideologically.
    The approach uses roll-call votes to plot members across two left-to-right axes: one for economic issues, and one for social/racial/regional issues. The latter is primarily of interest for analyzing civil rights politics and the movement of segregationist Democrats into the Republican party in the 1960s and ’70s, so for looking at contemporary politics, analysts tend to focus on the first, or economic, dimension.

    And for the last time, read what the former solicitor general of Reagan said. And they are not executive orders!

    It would have been so appropriate for Bush to have done even what Obama has done.
  • musclmed

    Posts: 3274

    Jan 18, 2013 5:19 AM GMT
    q1w2e3 saidSince you will not even click on the convenient link, I'll paste it for you.


    Stats geeks, rejoice: The newest DW-NOMINATE figures are out! DW-NOMINATE, devised by political scientists Keith Poole (now at the University of Georgia) and Howard Rosenthal (now at NYU), is the industry standard system for measuring how members of the House and Senate compare to each other ideologically.
    The approach uses roll-call votes to plot members across two left-to-right axes: one for economic issues, and one for social/racial/regional issues. The latter is primarily of interest for analyzing civil rights politics and the movement of segregationist Democrats into the Republican party in the 1960s and ’70s, so for looking at contemporary politics, analysts tend to focus on the first, or economic, dimension.

    And for the last time, read what the former solicitor general of Reagan said. And they are not executive orders!

    It would have been so appropriate for Bush to have done even what Obama has done.


    I am not disagreeing with the executive orders at all. I am pointing out how Obama maneuvers policy debates in a fashion only Andrew Johnson so artfully perfected.

    No matter how cloaked it is in research, you cannot quantify "partisanship" or "polarization" without a common frame of reference. There are too many variables.

    So the reason why Obama refuses to engage Congress , both democratic and Republican is because they are too partisan? Pick up Bob Woodwards book.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 18, 2013 5:31 AM GMT
    And there goes the Republican disdain for political science.

    And I did read parts of the Price of Politics, and I agree with this:
    http://www.tnr.com/book/review/bob-woodward-price-of-politics#“Obama celebrated the bill’s passage on February 21 in the White House’s South Court Auditorium. Surrounded by individuals who would benefit from the payroll tax cut, but no members of Congress, he was the champion of the tax cuts,” Woodward writes. Then he quotes Obama: “With or without Congress, every day I’m going to be continuing to fight for them.” The quote is intended to be damning, of course—what species of cretin would stiff-arm Congress and then crow about it?

    In truth, it is damning, except not in the way the author imagines. What’s damning is that the mythology of establishment Washington could exert such a powerful grip on its most famous chronicler. As it happens, “with or without Congress” was the most logical sentiment of Obama’s presidency. He could not be re-elected without it.


    And so he was re-elected. So much for Woodward's book published right before the election. I just wish Obama grows more backbone.

    My final thoughts:
    Comproimise-GOP-Style.gif

  • musclmed

    Posts: 3274

    Jan 18, 2013 5:40 AM GMT
    q1w2e3 saidAnd there goes the Republican disdain for political science.

    And I did read parts of the Price of Politics, and I agree with this:
    http://www.tnr.com/book/review/bob-woodward-price-of-politics#“Obama celebrated the bill’s passage on February 21 in the White House’s South Court Auditorium. Surrounded by individuals who would benefit from the payroll tax cut, but no members of Congress, he was the champion of the tax cuts,” Woodward writes. Then he quotes Obama: “With or without Congress, every day I’m going to be continuing to fight for them.” The quote is intended to be damning, of course—what species of cretin would stiff-arm Congress and then crow about it?

    In truth, it is damning, except not in the way the author imagines. What’s damning is that the mythology of establishment Washington could exert such a powerful grip on its most famous chronicler. As it happens, “with or without Congress” was the most logical sentiment of Obama’s presidency. He could not be re-elected without it.


    And so he was re-elected. So much for Woodward's book published right before the election. I just wish Obama grows more backbone.

    My final thoughts:
    Comproimise-GOP-Style.gif



    Excluding Woodwards accounts. What evidence is there that Obama engages congress? History will have to judge.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 19, 2013 4:32 AM GMT

    http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2013/01/david-brooks-now-totally-pathological.htmlThis is all Obama’s fault because it makes Republicans “look like whackos willing to endanger the entire global economy.” Brooks displays an almost surreal lack of interest in the underlying reality that Republicans actually are whackos willing to endanger the entire global economy. It is his responsibility to conceal this reality from America.

    Worse, argues Brooks, Obama is nastily choosing an agenda intended only to harm Republicans. Obama’s proposals on gun safety and immigration, he writes, are “wedge issues meant to divide Southerners from Midwesterners, the Tea Party/Talk Radio base from the less ideological corporate and managerial class.”

    Brooks asserts, but does not actually explain, that Obama chose these issues for the purpose of dividing the opposition — as opposed to trying to cut down on mass murders and fix a huge field of broken policy. Brooks concedes that Obama’s proposals here are moderate, but believes that the moderation is what makes them so nasty. By appealing to mainstream Republicans, he is splitting them from the most extreme Republicans!

    You would think proposing policies that large numbers of Republicans agree with would qualify as the kind of centrism and bipartisanship Brooks has spent the entire Obama presidency calling for, but now that it’s here, it turns out to prove just the opposite to him.


    Similarly, when Rubio comes out with his immigration ideas that are similar to Obama's, he's hailed as a leader trying to moderate the extreme Republican position, but when Obama brings them up AGAIN, he's being divisive!

    Heads I win, tails you lose.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 19, 2013 4:37 AM GMT
    Moderate proposals or not, one cannot assume Republicans will vote for them.

    http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/01/18/1471891/virginia-senate-republicans-obstruct-gun-violence-prevention-measures/
  • musclmed

    Posts: 3274

    Jan 19, 2013 8:02 PM GMT
    q1w2e3 saidModerate proposals or not, one cannot assume Republicans will vote for them.

    http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/01/18/1471891/virginia-senate-republicans-obstruct-gun-violence-prevention-measures/


    it will fail because senate democrats will not vote for them.