Posted on 01/04/2016 3:26:50 PM PST by Eleutheria5
WASHINGTON (AP) -- President Barack Obama defended his administration's plans to tighten the nation's gun-control restrictions without going through Congress, insisting Monday that the steps he'll announce fall within his legal authority and uphold the constitutional right to own a gun.
.....
(Excerpt) Read more at aol.com ...
Is this one of those, “you have to pass the order first, in order to see it?”
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
This is extremely clear. He has zero authority, not to say zero as in obama authority, but NO authority.
Doncha just luv living in a banana republic!
Wow, did NOT see that coming.
All I want to know, is whether his lips were moving or not. When they are moving, you can be sure he’s lying.
I can’t decide if he’s just jerking our collective chain or if he actually has something concrete in mind. If he’s just testing the water, it’s boiling.
If Obama hates guns so much he should fire his secret service detail, for him, his wife, and children. If he wants the rest of us to be unarmed so should he
Good point. Maybe it is all blather and if he throws in a few words like “comprehensive” and “gun show loophole” and “assault weapons” and “reasonable” the average person won’t know any different.
Watch out. Next he’ll send US forces into harm’s way unarmed. Don’t give this person ideas.
But obama found a loophole. Mitch McConnell and Paul Ryan. They will roll over.
I know what your saying but I think if liberals especially politicians hate guns and want to ban them they should start with themselves. Let Harry Reid walk the streets with NO protection, same goes for Obama, his family, and Hillary Clinton and her family. They want to be safe but leave the rest of us as sitting ducks
Did he say whose constitution? Was it N. Korea's or Cuba's or maybe Luxembourg?
I have yet to see what restrictions he is actually considering.
To be constitutional his proposals must not INFRINGE. What is the likelihood?
He’s saying, basically, “What I’m about to do is constitutional”.
OK, so what is he REALLY going to do? Probably not much. I think we’re being baited.
[Another post of mine that was censored in advance as a courtesy to our Moderators]
Nothing this lying bastard says about ANYTHING is worth listening to. Judge his actons not his speech. And he what he plans is, like prior actions, arbitrary, tyrannical and unconstitutional.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.