Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Have the orders been announced yet? Not finding much online.

I saw this online today -- https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/01/05/president-obamas-executive-orders-on-guns-are-very-popular-even-if-he-isnt/

Despite the exaggerated histrionics of the Tea Party people, even the NRA acknowledges that President Obama's executive order is not taking away anyone's gun rights: 'What's included in the package is largely incremental, so much so that a National Rifle Association spokesperson said to the New York Times, "This is the proposal they've spent seven years putting together? They're not really doing anything."'

That is not true. 41p is a very big deal which will decimate the NFA industry.

It's only going to put scrutiny on high volume gun sales. Anyone buying a dozen AR-15s deserves scrutiny.

What does that have to do with 41p?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Have the orders been announced yet? Not finding much online.

I saw this online today -- https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/01/05/president-obamas-executive-orders-on-guns-are-very-popular-even-if-he-isnt/

Despite the exaggerated histrionics of the Tea Party people, even the NRA acknowledges that President Obama's executive order is not taking away anyone's gun rights: 'What's included in the package is largely incremental, so much so that a National Rifle Association spokesperson said to the New York Times, "This is the proposal they've spent seven years putting together? They're not really doing anything."'

That is not true. 41p is a very big deal which will decimate the NFA industry.

It's only going to put scrutiny on high volume gun sales. Anyone buying a dozen AR-15s deserves scrutiny.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Have the orders been announced yet? Not finding much online.

I saw this online today -- https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/01/05/president-obamas-executive-orders-on-guns-are-very-popular-even-if-he-isnt/

Despite the exaggerated histrionics of the Tea Party people, even the NRA acknowledges that President Obama's executive order is not taking away anyone's gun rights: 'What's included in the package is largely incremental, so much so that a National Rifle Association spokesperson said to the New York Times, "This is the proposal they've spent seven years putting together? They're not really doing anything."'

That is not true. 41p is a very big deal which will decimate the NFA industry.

Anonymous wrote:Have the orders been announced yet? Not finding much online.

I saw this online today -- https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/01/05/president-obamas-executive-orders-on-guns-are-very-popular-even-if-he-isnt/

Despite the exaggerated histrionics of the Tea Party people, even the NRA acknowledges that President Obama's executive order is not taking away anyone's gun rights: 'What's included in the package is largely incremental, so much so that a National Rifle Association spokesperson said to the New York Times, "This is the proposal they've spent seven years putting together? They're not really doing anything."'

Anonymous wrote:Have the orders been announced yet? Not finding much online.

Last night.

41p is implemented as a final rule, taking effect in 180 days. However, the final rule changes the required CLEO sign-off to CLEO notification.

Also, in the conference call with reporters last night, Jarret announced the re-definition of "licensed individual" (requiring an FFL) to include a person selling as few as 2 or 3 guns. The AG then amended that to say a person selling as few as ONE (1) gun might be prosecuted for not having an FFL "depending on the circumstances."

Anonymous wrote:Some have also proposed that the White House use its control of federal contracts to pressure gun manufacturers from selling certain large capacity ammo clips and certain weapons on the civilian market. Basically say to the weapons manufacturers, you've got a choice -- play ball on this or risk losing Pentagon, FBI, Homeland Security contracts.

Eliot Spitzer was initially responsible for that suggestion; he proposed it in an editorial following Sandy Hook.

If followed, it could lead to far ranging consequences well beyond the gun industry.

Have the orders been announced yet? Not finding much online.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Much ado about nothing. Literally. I wish the administration did SOMETHING for a change. Something that would make any difference for anybody anywhere.

It's not for lack of trying. It's Congress that is stopping everything and not doing anything. Your frustration is misplaced.

Yup. Somebody else's fault. Again.

Yet another simpleminded conservative who refuses to accept the facts?

Simple-minded. You're welcome

Ummm ... http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/simpleminded

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Much ado about nothing. Literally. I wish the administration did SOMETHING for a change. Something that would make any difference for anybody anywhere.

It's not for lack of trying. It's Congress that is stopping everything and not doing anything. Your frustration is misplaced.

Yup. Somebody else's fault. Again.

Yet another simpleminded conservative who refuses to accept the facts?

Simple-minded. You're welcome

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Much ado about nothing. Literally. I wish the administration did SOMETHING for a change. Something that would make any difference for anybody anywhere.

It's not for lack of trying. It's Congress that is stopping everything and not doing anything. Your frustration is misplaced.

Yup. Somebody else's fault. Again.

Yet another simpleminded conservative who refuses to accept the facts?

PaleoConPrep wrote:We have a bet! I'll make it even better. If Hillary is elected, I'll NEVER post on DCUM again.

Excellent. I'll bookmark this page on my calendar for November 2016, so we can settle up. I also have a couple bets with DCUM people on whether or not Hillary Clinton will be the Democratic nominee, and barring some meltdown, it looks like I'll prevail in those tilts.

I assume I can trust you to stand by your word, right? You won't just drop your screen name and start posting anonymously, will you?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Much ado about nothing. Literally. I wish the administration did SOMETHING for a change. Something that would make any difference for anybody anywhere.

It's not for lack of trying. It's Congress that is stopping everything and not doing anything. Your frustration is misplaced.

Yup. Somebody else's fault. Again.

Anonymous wrote:Much ado about nothing. Literally. I wish the administration did SOMETHING for a change. Something that would make any difference for anybody anywhere.

It's not for lack of trying. It's Congress that is stopping everything and not doing anything. Your frustration is misplaced.

Much ado about nothing. Literally. I wish the administration did SOMETHING for a change. Something that would make any difference for anybody anywhere.

Anonymous wrote:

PaleoConPrep wrote:A Republican would NEVER vote for Clinton. Those who would should become Democrats. I don't want them in my party.

Fortunately or unfortunately, you are not the GOP party police. Some people will vote party line from birth til death, but many others will vote for what they perceive as the best candidate, which is ideally in their party but sometimes is not.

How droll. The kid that's barely old enough to vote presuming to tell the rest of us how the rest of us are or are not allowed to vote. LMAO!