Thursday, January 17, 2013

President Obama and the Federal Firearm Control Debate...

by: Les Carpenter
Rational Nation USA
-vs- Tyranny

A proper government can accomplish positive things for the society it governs. In fact the founding fathers realized this and recognized that government indeed has a role in establishing and enforcing the rule of law. Law determined to be desirable by the majority of the citizens governed by said government.

Finding a proper balance between the government's authority to impose it's will on the people is the rightful domain of the governed to determine. With respect to firearm control and the President's determination to impose increased federal restrictions the nation finds itself in the middle of this debate.

In as much as our government bears the responsibility to insure the general welfare and safety of it's citizens it must also guarantee it preserves the freedoms and liberties protected in the Constitution.

Freedom and liberty carries with it a great and awesome responsibility.

Listen to, and read the following with the above in mind.

In response.
POLITICO - Sen. Rand Paul is pledging to undo some of President Barack Obama’s executive orders on guns that the Kentucky Republican believes overreach. “In this bill we will nullify anything the president does that smacks of legislation,” Rand said Wednesday on Fox’s “Hannity,” referencing his legislation that is slated to be introduced in Congress next week. “And there are several of the executive orders that appear as if he’s writing new law. That cannot happen. Rand’s comments came several hours after Obama unveiled his plan to curb gun violence, an initiative that included 23 executive actions he promised to take to address the matter. Unilateral actions from the president include pushing for research into the causes of gun violence, improving the federal background check system and calling on federal law enforcement to trace guns that are collected during criminal investigations. “I’m afraid that President Obama may have this ‘king complex’ sort of developing, and we’re going to make sure it doesn’t happen,” Paul said, adding that the Founding Fathers specified that Congress should make law. {Read More}
There exists reasonable measures to accomplish what the President and much of the nation wants to accomplish. At least in part. What must be avoided is knee jerk reaction to what is a very emotional issue. Some of the Presidents proposals make ultimate sense. Some are questionable. At the end of the day Rand Paul is correct. Final determination of law must rest with the people. Via: Memeorandum


  1. Replies
    1. You just now figured that out?

      Google wiped a blooger on the innerpipez...

  2. When you claim that "final determination of law must rest with the people." What are you exactly saying? That is not what Rand Paul was stating because he did not use the words, "the people" but rather "the legislature."

    Are you claiming that Obama does not represent the people? If Congress refuses to act, or not act in a manner that is consistent with the expressed desires of the American people, then what?

    Do nothing?

    1. 1) - The Congress critters are the representatives of the people. Law should come from the people's representatives.

      2) - The intent of the post was to provoke thought. And no, I did not say Obama does not represent the people, even though his capacity is executive and Congress is representative.

      3) - Of course I am not saying do nothing. I have stated my position on semi auto assault weapons, high cap (extended) magazines, and enhanced background checks. Further I don't have a big problem with registering firearms. I do have a big problem with those who have a problem with the right of law abiding citizens to keep and bear arms.

      A long way from doing nothing TAO. Something I have not advocated since I started posting on this issue.

      Oh, another thing, I have no problem with the NRA being brought down a peg or three.

      Thanks for visiting.

    2. "Are you claiming that Obama does not represent the people?"

      Obama represents Obama, and whatever interests he chooses to represent. The legal restraints of his office, along with the Constitution, the rest of US law, and a threat of impeachment if he gets way way out of line, are what encourage him to act in ways that represent the people.

      If you had said this prior to the relection vote in Nov 2012, we could add to this list "trying to get re-elected".


      " If Congress refuses to act, or not act in a manner that is consistent with the expressed desires of the American people, then what? "

      If this is true, none of them get re-elected.

    3. Having framed the issue with respect to President Obama as you did I ask this question... So, what is different between say GWB (the executive proclamation champion) or other recent Presidents in that regard?

  3. Senator Paul is who he is and so his response to an otherwise harmless executive action may seem loony to some liberals and main-streamers, but it has merit. We do, as American citizens, want to keep an eye on what information the federal government mines.

    Or do we?

    If the Congress wants to stop the President, they have to repeal or change existing law. So, Congress? How will you change the law?

    Give Obama some credit. He plays the idiots in Congress like Dominoes. He won't get bans, but he will get backgrounds and sales regulations in the end. I guarantee it.


    1. Well jmj, for once I find myself actually agreeing with your logic. I suspect he may get a bit more. A ban on semi automatic assault weapons perhaps?

      Oh, by the way, I do give the President credit for 1) his patience, 2) the way he plays his hand, 3) his ability to out smart Congress critters with the R designation, and 4) his smile.

      I would not enjoy playing either chess or poker with the guy. He reminds me of Wiley Coyote.

    2. "Give Obama some credit. He plays the idiots in Congress like Dominoes."

      I too have to agree with Jersey on this point.

      And do I detect a bit of principle in Jersey?

      Until We The People can make principle-based evaluations of our politicians and their actions, regardless of party, our country will continue it's slide to soft tyranny.

      May God give us more politicians like Rand Paul.

    3. I like Rand Paul when I read him. When I hear him, and he sounds like Goober who just fell of a turnip truck, and can't even pronounce "social security", I wonder how someone like him can get in any position of power.

      I guess I should stop listening to the radio and watching TV, and turn down the volume when watching news-related Youtubes.

    4. Aside from the gaffes, Bush had a better grasp of the language of his mother country.

      Is it really that hard to pronounce "social security"? And if you don't know what it the program is even called, should you opine on it?

  4. "I too have to agree with Jersey on this point."

    And who won on the tax debate? The Democrats who always hated Bush's middle class tax cut plan were thwarted. The Republicans caved on just the tiniest percent of people, allowing the government to steal more from the, but still keeping the Bush tax plan almost entirely intact.

    1. Follow the money.... And the Oligarchs.

      Now, back to firearm issues.

  5. I agree with Jersey that Mr. Obama's actions are harmless. How effective they'll be is an entirely different story.

    1. Will.

      Can you actually use "Obama" and "effective" in the same comments? Name one reason why any American should have voted for this guy based on the first four years of his reign. All this executive action nonsense...distractions from other issues: Fast and Furious, Benghazi...

  6. Les,

    I'm sure you have heard by now of the shooting in New Mexico by a 15-year old kid, slaughtering a family in their house. Details are still sketchy, so I will refrain from saying more.

    Anyhoos, I mention this because the old media will have a field day with it. For the statists though, this is a bittersweet victory, since one of the people killed was a Christian pastor. He obviously had it coming, of course...

  7. "Being fat and physically inactive now has a name--Sedentary Death Syndrome or "SeDS." Approximately 2.5 million Americans will die prematurely in the next ten years due to SeDS, a number greater than all alcohol, GUNS, motor vehicles, illicit drug use and sexual behavior related deaths combined. Research has identified SeDS as the second largest threat to public health (heart disease remains the number one cause of death for Americans) and is expected to add as much as $3 trillion to healthcare costs over ten years, more than twice the tax cut recently passed by the US Senate."



RN USA is a No Judgement Zone (to steal from Planet Fitness), so please, NO JUDGEMENT of others. We reserve the right to delete any such posts immediately upon detection.

All views are welcome. As long as the comment is on topic (off topic will be deleted) and respectful of others.