Gunboards Forums banner

1 - 20 of 45 Posts

·
Copper Bullet member
Joined
·
4,850 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Rand Paul Introduces Bill To Kill Obama Gun Controlhttp://www.infowars.com/rand-paul-introduces-bill-to-kill-obama-gun-control/

Would render executive action “advisory only”
Paul’s legislation, named the Separation of Powers Restoration and Second Amendment Protection Act, would render any action on gun legislation by the president which circumvents Congress as “advisory only” in nature.
Paul’s bill would apply to “any execution action on gun control that either infringes upon congressional authority or potentially violates the Second Amendment.”
The bill then mandates that once an executive action has been classified as “advisory only,” it would require Congress to pass it in order for it to take effect.
The bill also outlines that it is within their power for a “state official, member of Congress or person affected by an executive action on gun control to launch a civil lawsuit.”
The legislation will be fast-tracked through the Senate and is expected to be made a priority after the Christmas recess.
In a statement released Monday, Paul said, “In the United States, we do not have a king, but we do have a Constitution. We also have the Second Amendment, and I will fight tooth and nail to protect it.”

Here is the full bill:
HEN15F53 Firearms EXOs
 

·
Gold Bullet Member and Noted Curmudgeon
Joined
·
95,367 Posts
We do NOT have 'a Constitution and a Second Amendment". The Second Amendment (like the rest0 is an integral part of the Constitution. But why would I expect an eye doctor to know that? After all, a Constitutional Law expert and teacher (so-claimed, though now without a law license for reasons not completely clear, like a lot of other things about him) doesn't seem to understand that either.
 

·
Silver Bullet Member
Joined
·
3,654 Posts
We have both and saying we have both doesn't mean that the 2nd isn't part of the constitution. I am sure he knows that and I think you are reading way too much into that. I hope this gets to the point of voting to override a veto so we can see where everyone really stands. Right now it will go down as a show vote until it really counts.

We do NOT have 'a Constitution and a Second Amendment". The Second Amendment (like the rest0 is an integral part of the Constitution. But why would I expect an eye doctor to know that? After all, a Constitutional Law expert and teacher (so-claimed, though now without a law license for reasons not completely clear, like a lot of other things about him) doesn't seem to understand that either.
 

·
Gold Bullet member
Joined
·
13,808 Posts
We do NOT have 'a Constitution and a Second Amendment". The Second Amendment (like the rest0 is an integral part of the Constitution. But why would I expect an eye doctor to know that? After all, a Constitutional Law expert and teacher (so-claimed, though now without a law license for reasons not completely clear, like a lot of other things about him) doesn't seem to understand that either.
Good points Clyde. Hey, Billy bob Clinton lost his license, but of course he did nothing wrong?? That is why he lost his license. Hillary should have hers pulled, if she still has it. She obviously has violated many laws IMO, regarding classified info and has endangered our national security. Of course nobody is gonna find out why BO has no license since he is "different". As a result we are all the R word. As a politician in many states one need not do their Continuing Legal Education and their Bar dues are zip or near it, at least in NC that is the case. If his has gone away there is little good common sense reason for that. The lap dog media will continue to cover for him till we have a terror attack more serious than 9/11, and maybe after.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
92 Posts
We do NOT have 'a Constitution and a Second Amendment". The Second Amendment (like the rest0 is an integral part of the Constitution. But why would I expect an eye doctor to know that? After all, a Constitutional Law expert and teacher (so-claimed, though now without a law license for reasons not completely clear, like a lot of other things about him) doesn't seem to understand that either.
I'm sure the Senator from Kentucky knows the Constitution encompasses the Bill of Rights and the other amendments, DESPITE his words.

I tip my hat to any politician with the balls to support the 2nd.
 

·
Silver Bullet Member
Joined
·
3,654 Posts
Senator Paul knows the constitution and BOR better than most that sit in the same chamber. It doesn't have to be "despite" his words as his words didn't exhibit any ignorance of the constitution or BOR.

I'm sure the Senator from Kentucky knows the Constitution encompasses the Bill of Rights and the other amendments, DESPITE his words.

I tip my hat to any politician with the balls to support the 2nd.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
510 Posts
Senator Paul knows the constitution and BOR better than most that sit in the same chamber. It doesn't have to be "despite" his words as his words didn't exhibit any ignorance of the constitution or BOR.
Absolutely. I agree with your statement, and would only add that Rand could probably mop the floor with all the other GOP candidates combined with his knowledge AND understanding of the Constitution and BOR. With a Dad like Ron, how could he not know it front to back?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
123 Posts
.

The New Speaker Paul (Boehner) Ryan is a anti gun socialist who kiss Obama's ass. I am glad Rand Paul is a true Conservative.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
54 Posts
Senator Paul knows the constitution and BOR better than most that sit in the same chamber. It doesn't have to be "despite" his words as his words didn't exhibit any ignorance of the constitution or BOR.
+1. He does indeed know the Constitution. It's good to hear that someone in Washington is sticking up for the Constituiton.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6 Posts
Why do we feel the need to eat our young? Paul Ryan is a fine man who didn't want to be Speaker. He was strong-armed into it "for the sake of the party." Then people in the party want to run him down before he has even been given a chance?

We really are our own worst enemy most of the time.
 

·
Platinum Bullet member
Joined
·
20,509 Posts
I applaud RP for standing up on his hind legs and expressing what we all think. Unfortunately, nothing will come of it, since the Nancy Boy, Metrosexual Repubs don't have the balls to follow through in this any more than on all the other legislation they've fallen down on.

I'm not optimistic they could do much more than come to consensus on a taxpayer-funded lunch menu.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8 Posts
We do NOT have 'a Constitution and a Second Amendment". The Second Amendment (like the rest0 is an integral part of the Constitution. But why would I expect an eye doctor to know that? After all, a Constitutional Law expert and teacher (so-claimed, though now without a law license for reasons not completely clear, like a lot of other things about him) doesn't seem to understand that either.
As long as you're building your case on needless splitting of hairs at least put in between your quotation marks the actual quotation and not a construct that supports your distinction without a difference, in this case. Paul said, AND I QUOTE, "...we do have a Constitution. We also have the Second Amendment..." Such phraseology is perfectly consistent with stating we have a Constitution which also includes the 2nd Amendment. The problem with many conservatives is they are so busy tearing down each other and trashing each other over who is the true defender of freedom, who has the most exact understanding of liberty, etc., that they seem oblivious when one of their own takes such a strong public stand for that liberty. That old saying seems appropriate in your case: "It is better to keep you mouth shut and have people think you are ignorant than to open it and remove all doubt." I'm sure Rand Paul doesn't give a rat's ass that he hasn't met your precise understanding of the truth. And, frankly, neither should any of us.
 

·
Silver Bullet Member
Joined
·
3,654 Posts
He's a pro amnesty, pro big government, pro crippling debt, pro Obama policies and just funded everything the Dems and Obama wanted through next year. I don't consider that the marks of a "fine" man and I don't consider him one of us. Anyone who thinks he didn't want to be speaker doesn't know the art of the dance in playing coy. He only wanted to be speaker if he could lock in a surrender from opposition on the floor. He got that.

Why do we feel the need to eat our young? Paul Ryan is a fine man who didn't want to be Speaker. He was strong-armed into it "for the sake of the party." Then people in the party want to run him down before he has even been given a chance?

We really are our own worst enemy most of the time.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,677 Posts
He's a pro amnesty, pro big government, pro crippling debt, pro Obama policies and just funded everything the Dems and Obama wanted through next year. I don't consider that the marks of a "fine" man and I don't consider him one of us. Anyone who thinks he didn't want to be speaker doesn't know the art of the dance in playing coy. He only wanted to be speaker if he could lock in a surrender from opposition on the floor. He got that.
+1
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11 Posts
It appears that this, or at least a very similar piece of legislation, was introduced by Senator Rand Paul into the Senate as S. 82 "Separation of Powers Restoration and Second Amendment Protection Act of 2013", on 23 Jan 2013. Hopefully this time it will gain a little more traction. Some support from people like us could help.

We certainly have some world-class snipers here. I'm referring to an alternative definition of snipe; to criticize someone or something in a harsh or unfair way. We, the people, have the ability to correct most, if not all, defects in our society if we would simply stick together and act with the common good in mind. Instead, our biggest goal is to stroke our own egos and sadly many of us are quite accomplished self-strokers.

It's not a requirement that we like each other for if it were we would be soundly screwed without any doubt. However, we had better soon put some petty differences and gigantic egos aside or we can kiss what's left "goodbye".

If we weren't all firearms owners and enthusiasts we probably wouldn't be here. If that's not reason enough, in today's legal climate, to bury the hatchet somewhere other than in each other's backs I have no idea what is.

Sorry to those I've offended. From what I see here lately it's impossible to say anything without offending someone.
 
1 - 20 of 45 Posts
Top