Obama Exercises Executive Actions

[Tinykong]

I do find the comments about how Obama has a team of Secret Service packing guns to protect him pretty funny. HE'S THE PRESIDENT, YOU IDIOT.

While I understand protecting his life is pretty important to the overall function of the government, I don't understand why his kids needs Secret Service protection. If standard school security is good enough for our kids, it should be good enough for his.

[Templar 331]

And that makes his life more valuable than anyone elses because why exactly?

Because there ARE people that would like to see him dead if possible. The average person normally wouldn't have anyone wanting them dead, I would hope. :/

[Endus]

And? The warrant wasn't issued until the DEA placed them under surveillance, and a sworn affidavit based on that DEA surveillance was submitted to the court. The thing you apparently missed in assuming that mentioning this case would somehow automatically win you the argument is the fact that the tip was first corroborated using standard police work, without a warrant.

Which established that the witness testimony was reliable. The surveillance just confirmed that they were, in fact, following the itinerary the letter laid out.

You're trying to attack this on minutiae so as to avoid admitting that your overall point, that hearsay can't be used to obtain a warrant, is false.

Which is all only relevant to the thread because you tried to claim that the cops would never be able to search people's houses for illegal guns, which was a ludicrous claim.

[Ausr]

And that makes his life more valuable than anyone elses because why exactly?

Yeah, let's not prevent the death of the leader of the free world, master of one the largest economic power houses, military, etc.

While I understand protecting his life is pretty important to the overall function of the government, I don't understand why his kids needs Secret Service protection. If standard school security is good enough for our kids, it should be good enough for his.

To prevent kidnappings? Ello.

[Beazy]

10 extra seconds that one teacher would have had to hide after hiding her students. One saved life is worth it. If something MIGHT work, just MIGHT save a life, is it not worth trying? What the fuck is wrong with gun advocates? If all you want your guns for is personal protection and "sport shooting", then you have ZERO reason for a magazine that size. Stop being a pussy and hiding behind the constitution when we all know the only reason you want guns is because you can.

I love how your argument gets stomped in the face and you have to resort to calling me a pussy. GG. I dont want my guns for the reason you listed, I want them because they are my right to have them.

Also, by your logic, arming teachers MIGHT save lives, so shouldnt we at least try to arm teachers? GTFO of here.

[Adam Jensen]

While I understand protecting his life is pretty important to the overall function of the government, I don't understand why his kids needs Secret Service protection. If standard school security is good enough for our kids, it should be good enough for his.

Jesus, you'd think this is common sense. His kids are targets. A terrorist would have a field day if they had easy access to his kids. It'd be a good way to try to get leverage on the president or otherwise hurt him, if they can't get him directly. Of course they require extra security than other people's kids. Normal kids aren't typically targets for assassination or kidnapping. Not to the same degree, not nearly the same degree.

If you are closely related to a president, you are a target.

[ScottsdaleHokie]

Yeah, let's not prevent the death of the leader of the free world, master of one the largest economic power houses, military, etc.




To prevent kidnappings? Ello.

Master??? BWAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

[Priestiality]

Which established that the witness testimony was reliable. The surveillance just confirmed that they were, in fact, following the itinerary the letter laid out.

You're trying to attack this on minutiae so as to avoid admitting that your overall point, that hearsay can't be used to obtain a warrant, is false.

Hearsay wasn't used to obtain a warrant.

"In Illinois v. Gates, probable cause was achieved for the warrant under the new "totality-of-the-circumstances" standard because the investigation by DEA and Detective Mader would have, on its own, been probable cause for a search warrant. The Gateses' actions were suspicious because Florida is a known source of illegal drugs. Lance Gateses' stay at a motel for one night and immediate return to Chicago suggests that he was not going for a vacation and also implies that he might be involved in something illegal. The Court, after having heard oral argument, furthermore requested in November 1982 that the parties and amici submit briefs on the broader issue of whether the exclusionary rule should be modified. When the opinion in Gates was rendered, however, the Court declined to rule on the issue, stating that the issue was "not pressed or passed upon below"[2] and that the exclusionary rule had become too difficult as an issue of great public importance to have been re-examined at the time."

I even bolded the important shit, and italicized the REALLY important shit for you.

You seem determined to ignore the fact that there's a step in between hearsay and warrant, and that step is "ACTUAL FUCKING POLICE WORK."

[Seranthor]

Them loopholes in background checks allowed ANYONE access to firearm purchases and that ANYONE includes TERRORISTS and MURDER'S if you dont do background checks and are against them how can you be sure a TERRORIST and a MURDER isnt buying guns? Really if you dont check the background how can you say you are keeping assault rifle out of the hands of criminals and TERRORISTS. By the lack of control you are creating a path for these violent criminals and TERRORISTS to get armed, in a way that is technically legal since it hasnt been outlawed.

So let me get this right, you are screaming about demanding background checks. But they already exist. So what exactly are you screaming about, or are you screaming to just be screaming so someone will notice you?

[vaeevictiss]

Yeah, let's not prevent the death of the leader of the free world, master of one the largest economic power houses, military, etc.




To prevent kidnappings? Ello.

regardless...anyone can take his spot...its just a bad taste in the mouth because at face value it makes it seem like his life and his families lives are more important than yours or mine.

[Templar 331]

It didn't work, so what's the point?

nothing. aside from the fact that it dropped the cases of murder with one. and even george W. bush was for it's continuation.

Hmmmmm. Who do I believe, :P.

[Sky High]

"bans on assault rifles"

Yeah surely sounds like they aren't taking your freedom away.

Seems like you are harrasing me. Got a problem mate?

funny. i didn't see an assault weapons ban being one of those points. and if you really take me to calling you out as harassment then that's more of a personal problem. if you cant take what you say and defend it and have to resort to "oh he's bulling me", then it has more to say about YOU then me.

[ScottsdaleHokie]

Hmmmmm. Who do I believe, :P.

http://www.law.virginia.edu/html/news/2003_spr/cook.htm

http://today.duke.edu/2000/09/brady901.html

[Adam Jensen]

regardless...anyone can take his spot...its just a bad taste in the mouth because at face value it makes it seem like his life and his families lives are more important than yours or mine.

So we should just let him be assassinated.

Great plan there sparky, lets put you in charge of the Secret Service.

---------- Post added 2013-01-16 at 05:58 PM ----------

"bans on assault rifles"

Yeah surely sounds like they aren't taking your freedom away.

Seems like you are harrasing me. Got a problem mate?

^ Did not actually read the EOs.

[Dazzy]

So you're seriously going to sit there and tell me that hundreds of years ago, guns, fundamentally a type of technology, were invented to hunt?

I'm sorry this is wrong. The first guns were called "hand cannons". Their direct descendants were actually created to kill enemy infantry from out of range of pikes in use at the time. Once they were introduced into the battlefield, all other kingdoms started to adopt them, and the technology matured into different types of loading, cartridges, projectiles, sizes, and rates of fire... all for the purpose of allowing the infantryman with a gun to kill more of the enemy more efficiently, while himself not being killed first.

So just don't forget what a gun is. Your favorite toy is a direct ancestor of a technology created to slaughter other human beings en masse and allow one kingdom to conquer and pillage another.

And the difference is one of scale. Video Gaming is inexpensive. Gun ownership is not. There is also nothing morally wrong with video gaming, whereas with gun owners, just remember, the only purpose of a gun, from it being aimed at a Buck or a Human, is to extinguish life.

How is gun ownership more expensive? SKS's were $80 five years ago, AR-15's could be had at most gun retailers on the planet for $250, I just bought a Ruger RS40C last friday for $430, and I don't have to buy $60 addons (games) to use it. Xbox 360 was what, $299? PS3 was $399 for some versions.

Cars started as a method to get from point A to point B faster, now we have NASCAR...I'd vote for a ban on that. The internet was invented as a way for medical centers to share information and help the world, now it's a bunch of psychos and porn...

Doesn't matter what something started as. As for the intent to extinguish life....I haven't been hunting in 6 years, and I've never killed anyone while not in the military, and I've shot well over 30,000 rounds in the last 6 years.

Sorry got distracted, what was it my guns were made for again?

[Ausr]

Master??? BWAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

In title only Some are more qualified than others, heh.

[Sky High]

Hmmmmm. Who do I believe, :P.

granted it raised the use of a hand gun but of course the use of an assault rifle in these cases dropped.

[Mormolyce]

While I understand protecting his life is pretty important to the overall function of the government, I don't understand why his kids needs Secret Service protection. If standard school security is good enough for our kids, it should be good enough for his.

Because it's not like the children of the President of the United States are at any kind of risk due to their father's position or anything.

[Screwtape]

What I've concluded from this thread is that the constitutionality is irrelevant as long as they are fighting for your side.

[Seranthor]

Should have probably stated "some conservatives." Not everybody is going to blindly jump on a headline, and my remark made it sound like I was implying that they would.

I'm clearly Conservative, however, as I've previously posted, I'm looking at his executive orders with an open mind, so far.