Here and
here.
But now [The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives] says that since the bullets can be used in semi-automatic handguns they pose a threat to police and must be banned from production, sale and use...Federal agencies will still be allowed to buy the ammo.
Well, uh, that is sort of the point. The Second Amendment wasn't put in place to make sure that hunters can still have guns for hunting--no 18th Century fool would have thought otherwise. It was put in place because the Founders put the brakes on governments' tyranny and complete monopoly on the use of force. The well regulated militia
ain't the National Guard.
![Tullius est [et Tullius non est Cicero]](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhwDG4xhsMn9o9J6nFVbJuaWEgUYVbxr7B9gbOXGZ3gwOu55lJg3q0Ev-z3MhLy29603_fkvvngkYmsTvRd4BATcVzZvVOhgkPSy-GIAuaFE0sCVBc_zcTW_d2mKKeCWhMxsZhAPyqXzymO/s1600/cicero-right-1024x603.jpg)
http://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/ammoban.asp
ReplyDeleteThat's fair enough, as far as it goes. Of course this came down from Holder who ultimately speaks for Obama. To say as the Snopes article does that "President Obama was not involved through executive action of any description" is misleading since surely Obama has had conversations with Holder about the issue. If Obama doesn't want it, it ain't gonna happen.
ReplyDeleteExecutive action is very specific language meant to be associated with the process of being an executive order. That is not happening hear.
ReplyDeleteIt's a dumb regulation, but we don't need to lie to make it sound bad, it's bad enough on its own.
Heavens, no, an executive action is FAR broader than an executive order. An executive order is one very specific type of executive action. Any action done in the capacity of President is an executive action. Holder speaks for and acts for Obama. His position is quite similar to an ambassador or Press Secretary in whose capacity he can speak on behalf of the President; an ambassador can speak in the name of the President, perform actions which count as the Presidents actions, etc. If Obama has not given the order or consented to Holder's actions, then it's Holder himself and not Obama who has taken executive action in this regard. But who thinks Obama isn't ultimately responsible for this?
ReplyDeleteI can't take you seriously anymore.
ReplyDelete"Anymore"? The point is pedantic. Change the title to "Executive Branch Under Obama and Surely With His Approval and Support to Take Executive Actions--Qua Executive Branch-- Such That AR-15 5.56 mm Ammo Banned." Not as pithy, but would that make you happier?
ReplyDeleteYes. And you still get your boogeyman. It's a win win
ReplyDeleteConsider it changed (that is, it won't be changed but consider it as having been changed).
ReplyDeleteExecutive action is very specific language meant to be associated with the process of being an executive order. That is not happening hear.
ReplyDeleteIt's a dumb regulation, but we don't need to lie to make it sound bad, it's bad enough on its own.
Jordan, you're silly. You seem from your silliness to be very anxious to catch me in a lie given my posts on Obama's actual lying, but there is no lie here. I put up nothing I believed to be false with the intention to deceive. I pretty much copied the title of one of the links I put up which I didn't think was factually inaccurate. If you want to think that Holder's actions don't count as the President's actions go for it. Holder is banning the Ammo. No, it's not Holder, it's the ATF. NOT OBAMA. He has nothing to do with it! It's not him. You're a liar!! He's not in charge of this! You lied to us!! You deceived us!! He isn't banning the AMMO! It's only the people who work for him. But it's not HIM!! NO. Not OBAMA. It's not OBAMA.
ReplyDeleteGO for it. It's a free country (no thanks to more-government leftists)
"Executive action" is vague; it's not specific. Or are you thinking of some technical legal definition of "executive action" of which I am unaware? If so, I wasn't using any technical legal definition. An executive action is an action done by someone in the executive branch in the capacity of the executive branch (to repeat myself). That's it. Or at least that's all I mean by it.
I caught you in leading your reader, which you bitch about "leftists" doing all the time.
DeleteI haven't even addressed the lie in your post title, and I won't. I want to see if you're honest enough to fix it yourself.
Executive action: "...a presidential executive action is kind of a catch-all term, writes NBC, which quoted an unnamed administration official in 2011 as saying: "It just means something the executive branch does. The use of any of a number of tools in the executive branch's toolbox.""
ReplyDeleteThis agrees with Tully's understanding of executive action, and I got it from somewhere that Jordan can trust. NPR: http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2014/11/20/365467914/so-just-what-is-an-executive-action-anyway