• Welcome to the PopMalt Forums! Whether you're new to forums or a veteran, welcome to our humble home on the web! We're a 20-year old forum community with thousands of discussions on entertainment, lifestyle, leisure, and more.

    Our rules are simple. Be nice and don't spam. Registration is free, so what are you waiting for? Join today!.

Obama to ban some bullets

Hilander

Free Spirit
Staff member
V.I.P.
I've been hearing lately that Obama plans on using executive action to ban some bullets. Like the one they use in assault style riffles. Has anyone heard anything about this? Is this something he has said he is going to do?
 

CaptainObvious

Embrace the Suck
V.I.P.
I haven't heard that but I would argue there is no power under Article II to ban them, but it doesn't matter. Nobody cares. He can do whatever he wants and if you complain you're a racist and the Left will blame Congress when they don't have the power to ban them either, but it's an exercise in futility.
 

Hilander

Free Spirit
Staff member
V.I.P.
It something I've been hearing but I haven't heard where Obama actually said he was. So I don't know if he plans on doing this or if this is just something the ATF wants.
 

Major

4 legs good 2 legs bad
V.I.P.
If Obama doesn't have the legal authority to do this, then it's time for Congress to get something done. Over 90% of Americans were in favor of tighter gun regulation for things like background checks and yet Congress voted not to pass the bill. There's something wrong there.
 

CaptainObvious

Embrace the Suck
V.I.P.
If Obama doesn't have the legal authority to do this, then it's time for Congress to get something done. Over 90% of Americans were in favor of tighter gun regulation for things like background checks and yet Congress voted not to pass the bill. There's something wrong there.
1. Just because the people want it doesn't mean Congress can act on it. 90% of the population could want to all guns taken away and destroyed, yet Congress can't do that because of the 2nd Amendment.

2. Then vote for those people out of office. Congress doesn't have to follow the will of the people, if your representative isn't voting for things you want, then vote for somebody else.

3. This has to do with banning bullets, which no branch of the government has the authority to do, no matter how many people want it.
 
Last edited:

Major

4 legs good 2 legs bad
V.I.P.
1. Just because the people want it doesn't mean Congress can act on it. 90% of the population could want to all guns taken away and destroyed, yet Congress can't do that because of the 2nd Amendment.

2. Then vote for those people out of office. Congress doesn't have to follow the will of the people, if your representative isn't voting for things you want, then vote for somebody else.

3. This has to do with banning bullets, which no branch of the government has the authority to do, no matter how many people want it.
1. Congress can certainly pass a bill requiring more background checks. To compare that to "taking all guns away" is a little bit extreme.

2. Both senators from my state, one a Republican and the other a Democrat, voted yes on the bill. Kind of hard for me to do anything about the bill not passing. Congress doesn't HAVE to follow the will of the people, but they're supposed to. They're elected to represent us. So when they don't do that, it's more than fair to put blame on them.

3. Which part of the Constitution prevents the government from banning a certain type of bullet?
 

CaptainObvious

Embrace the Suck
V.I.P.
1. Congress can certainly pass a bill requiring more background checks. To compare that to "taking all guns away" is a little bit extreme.

2. Both senators from my state, one a Republican and the other a Democrat, voted yes on the bill. Kind of hard for me to do anything about the bill not passing. Congress doesn't HAVE to follow the will of the people, but they're supposed to. They're elected to represent us. So when they don't do that, it's more than fair to put blame on them.

3. Which part of the Constitution prevents the government from banning a certain type of bullet?
1. The point wasn't about taking guns away, the point is even if you accept the idea that 90% approve of something doesn't mean Congress can or will act. You made the If, Then conclusion, If Obama doesn't have the power then Congress has to act based on that 90% figure you quoted. I don't know about that 90% figure but even if it's true, that doesn't mean Congress has the power to act. I'm not making an analogy between taking all guns away and that 90% figure, all I'm saying is whatever the majority may want doesn't mean Congress can act.

Even then, do you know why it didn't pass? Was cost an issue? Was there pork added to it that many objected to? Were there other provisions of the act that was objected to? We already HAVE background checks, did the act just reiterate what is already law? Making the proposition that IF Obama lacks the power THEN Congress must act fails.

2. Not really. They aren't supposed to. If they followed the will of the people the 13th Amendment would not have passed. It took the votes of some Southern Democrats voting against the will of their constituents for it to get passed. That's the way it's supposed to be. My local Senators voted against it if I remember correctly, and I have no problem with that.

3. That's not the correct question, the correct question is what part of the Constitution GRANTS them the power to ban these bullets. Article I sec. 8 enumerates the powers granted to Congress and their powers are limited to those powers only.
 
Top