Skip to main content

Can Obama pass gun control limits by 'executive order' - as long as public backs it? Comments

U.S. President Barack Obama is expected to weigh in on some theoretical gun laws in response to the Sandy Hook Elementary School shootings in Newton, Connecticut. Vice President is expected to present findings to Obama from a gun panel this coming week. Since the House of Representatives is controlled by Republicans, any new gun laws will have a hard chance of winning approval. In response, the president may pass the laws by ... Continue Reading

1 - 10 of 11 Comments

  1. KarlVDH
    2 years ago

    Jerry... it's a done thing, with no challenge. You're quite incorrect. There's not a thing unconstitutional about it.

  2. Jerry N
    2 years ago

    Karl, as usual, you are quick to claim something is wrong with what I did not write.

    It is you who are in error. I wrote that it is unconstitutional for Obama to create laws using executive orders which is exactly correct. I wrote nothing about the use of executive orders in general. Are you unable to read with comprehension or are you intentionally being deceitful? Yours appears to be a poorly disguised attempt to set up and knock down some phony straw man and then wrongly alter my words into your own work of false witness.

    Yours is a familiar tactic that Obama uses frequently, and he has shown it to be quite effective on people who possess little factual information or cognitive ability.

  3. KarlVDH
    2 years ago

    Vance, your issue is with your President and the Supreme Court, not with me. Agree with it or don't; the clauses I mentioned are the precedent by which Obama (and other Presidents have) issued executive orders. If you think I'm wrong, where's the howling GOP challenge?

  4. vance
    2 years ago

    KarlVDH, sorry, you're wrong again. Your Dear Marxist Leader can only use executive order to enforce "Existing Laws" NOT make new laws. Yes, Jerry N is spot on.

  5. KarlVDH
    2 years ago

    Sorry, Jerry, but according to Article II, section 1, clause 1 and Article II, section 5 of the US Constitution, an Executive Order is neither unconstitutional nor illegal.

  6. Jerry N
    2 years ago

    "In response, the president may pass the laws by "Executive order" - a very unpopular move..."

    Not only unpopular, but illegal and unconstitutional in the extreme. According to our Constitution the President may not "pass the laws" of any type. If he tries it, he should immediately be impeached and removed from office. It is the President's job to enforce existing laws, not "pass" new ones by executive decree.

    Like Pres Obama, the author of this drivel is a transparent left-wing, radical political hack who obviously favors a tyrannical dictatorship over the representative republican form of government established by the US Constitution.

  7. wayne b
    2 years ago

    Every time a nation has allowed itself to be disarmed, it has fallen to tyranny and suffered mass murders. With the current administration's penchant for disregarding our Constitution and God given rights, we should not trust them when they claim they have our best interests in anything they do. I disagree that they have not communicated, there has been a steady flow of propaganda and indoctrination for decades against religion and independence. Recently it has been much more focused against Christians and our Constitution. We should pray that our Country wakes up and recognizes the certain path to tyranny we are on now. The violations of our rights and refusals to follow the laws of our country that our Government is spearheading should be stopped. Only by reversing the slide toward being governed by tyranny can we save our Nation. Only by rejecting that Government is the supreme power can we do so. And only by following God's will can we accomplish that.

  8. Emma
    2 years ago

    "Totalitarianism didn't come quickly, had it happened overnight, my countrymen would have fought to the last breath. Now, our only weapons were broom handles. The state, little by little, eroded our freedom. " Kitty Wertham (Austrian under Hitler's rule)

  9. vance
    2 years ago

    Grim, you're exactly right. The 2nd Amendment was meant for the right of citizens to bare arms to defend themselves against lawless thugs and government thugs like Hugo Chavez, Fidel Castro, Obama and the Marxist Democrat Party. The 2nd Amendment isn't there to hunt ducks. Your guy in the White House already demonstrated that he has no respect for the Constitution of the United States of America.

  10. Emma
    2 years ago

    More "feel good " measures!! Let's not do the real work. Let's grab at the first quick fix that the public will accept. How are they going to keep guns out of the hands of the mentally ill when there are no mental health services available? Most felons already are barred from owning weapons as a condition of their parole. Guns can be modified after they're purchased and who do they think that has an unregistered gun is going to come forward with it? Are they planning on doing a sweep of everyone 's home to check for guns? Yeah, that's gonna work. Where are they getting the personnel from to do this? If we had services that have been cut in the last four years back in place, that might help. M -13 must be laughing their arses off! If only they would have turned to people who actually work with felons in prison ministries or even some who have been rehabilitated and are now working to lift others out of "situations " instead of once again making a political circus out of it. Such a disgrace to see so many taking advantage of the deaths of those children! All the spin doctors are working overtime. These suggestions are a joke and a waste of resources, but hey, if it makes people feel good that's all that matters. Let's not do any real work. Let's not implement any valid solution. Why? Because to do so takes time and it takes communication and they've already demonstrated that they don't want to communicate. The emperor, once again, has no clothes.

Leave a Comment

Comments submitted must be civil, remain on-topic and not violate any laws including copyright. We reserve the right to delete any comments which are abusive, inappropriate or not constructive to the discussion.

Though we invite robust discussion, we reserve the right to not publish any comment which denigrates the human person, undermines marriage and the family, or advocates for positions which openly oppose the teaching of the Catholic Church.

This is a supervised forum and the Editors of Catholic Online retain the right to direct it.

We also reserve the right to block any commenter for repeated violations. Your email address is required to post, but it will not be published on the site.

We ask that you NOT post your comment more than once. Catholic Online is growing and our ability to review all comments sometimes results in a delay in their publication.

Send me important information from Catholic Online and it's partners. See Sample

Post Comment

Newsletter Sign Up

Saint of the Day

March 26 Saint of the Day

St. Margaret Clitherow
March 26: St. Margaret Clitherow was born in Middleton, England, in 1555, ... Read More