Anonymous User

Do you think Obama will issue an Executive Order to abolish the 2nd amendment?

Average Rating:
Your Rating: 
MiserableBoringEnjoyableInterestingFascinating
 
Anonymous User (Age:18 to 24)     When: 4 months ago
Category: Other

So as we all know, Obama loves Executive Orders. He's issued almost 930 of them since he took office in 2008. Unfortunately, he uses them to get his own way on things that Congress votes against him on, such as the D.R.E.A.M. act.

The recent massive shootings like the Colorado movie massacre and of course Sandy Hook have created a stir about the right to bear arms. There is an amendment in our Constitution (the supreme law of the United States of America) that allows us this right. There are is a stir that Obama will use an Executive Order to abolish this amendment and take gun ownership rights away from Americans.

What is this going to do to America and the interests of it's citizens? Because a couple mentally unfit people use guns to carry out large-scale killings, the mentally sane need to lose their rights as a result? How about those who have served America in the military and own guns, are you going to take away a right they fought for?

This President is out of control with control.

As a citizen, how do you feel about the President doing this?
Gun owners, how will you react if you have to surrender your guns?


Update: Interesting that my question was taken down during "prime" user time and restored, but whatever.

People who are educated would know what happened during Prohibition, when a Democratic President decided to ban alcohol. Drinking didn't go away, crime went up, and it created tons of problems. That is until the repeal movement was started by a wealthy Republican, Pauline Sabin, who said that prohibition should be repealed because it made the US a nation of hypocrites.

Same goes with weed.    4 months ago

Update: Weed is now legalized in several states and you've seen distribution centers in Washington robbed as a result and will make crime increase.

Now back to guns. You cannot take away the rights of someone without a fight being put up. It was Robert A. Heinlein who wrote: "An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life". You aren't going to shoot someone who can shoot you back.

If you make it illegal, people will still get it somehow.    4 months ago

3000 characters left No anonymous answers
Question Id
When you are on a question page, id of that question can be found in your browser address bar (URL). Ex: This question id is 788756

Answers

    From Guys  
8
From Girls  
6
 

Best Answer

Settingemstraight
2315  
4 months ago
First off. I'd like to put it on the record here. That I will not surrender any of my weapons if they are made illegal. Just saying.

And I'm law abiding. So you think a criminal will turn in their guns? Nope. A gun is unusual in comparison to cyanide, a car, windex and a million other things in that it lasts pretty much forever.

So even if you outlaw the sale of guns, and even their manufacture. There will still be guns, and they will still be used.

Also. Libs like to say that "gun violence is higher in the US then places where guns aren't allowed" well quite. Sure that's true. But so what? Because violent crime, murder and real rape are significantly lower.

So Europeans don't have no guns. But they've still found other ways to hurt each other and... they seem to be better at it then us gun waving rednecks

You have 500 characters left
Submit Comment

What Girls Said

  • ixi10
    164854  
    4 months ago
    I kinda agree with it to a certain degree. I don't think guns should be taken away because there definitely are responsible owners that shouldn't be punished. But at the same time getting a fun really isn't that difficult in certain areas and that needs to change. Something clearly needs to be done but taking away guns isn't the solution

    You have 500 characters left
    Submit Comment
    • Question Asker
      4 months ago
      So if they tighten up who can get guns, that's fine. But just like drugs that have been illegal forever, people will still be able to get them! If you limit who can have ownership of guns and grandfather the people who already have been allowed to have them, fine. I'd compromise on that. But if there is an Executive Order handed down that bans guns and makes owners surrender theirs, it's going to be a blood bath in America.
  • kmhco
    17940  
    4 months ago
    How do I feel about the president doing this? He hasn't and there's a 99% chance he won't.

    You have 500 characters left
    Submit Comment
    • Answerer
      4 months ago
      Well I left 1% chance that it might happen because I can't say for certain it won't...but anything saying he is going to abolish an amendment to the constitution through executive orders is simply fear mongering crap. PS. This country is much closer to Fascism than Socialism and it would behove you to learn the difference.
    • Question Asker
      4 months ago
      Nothing is out of the rhelm of possibility with him. He wants one big Socialized and Globalist world.
  • onmytiptoestwirl
    340  
    4 months ago
    Out of my cold dead hands will he take my little pink 9 mill(:

    You have 500 characters left
    Submit Comment
  • rubyjeanculyer
    -1  
    4 months ago
    likely he will try to and with the jokes that are in congress he will probably get some kind of ban on 'assault' weapons and magazine sizes.

    it is very bad that any president tries to overrule the constitution.
    what guns ;)

    You have 500 characters left
    Submit Comment
  • Prettygurl12
    17832  
    4 months ago
    I like my guns. My dad likes his guns. Everyone in my family shoots for fun. We're responsible gun owners. He can probably propose it, but I doubt Congress would agree. Also, if he does, it'll probably become like prohibition and not work.

    You have 500 characters left
    Submit Comment
    • Answerer
      4 months ago
      Thanks.
    • 4 months ago
      Wow that's really cool.
    • Answerer
      4 months ago
      An assortment of pistols and hunting rifles. They're really my dad's but I play with them sometimes. And by "play" I mean I go out and shoot at targets. We have a few .22 pistols in our house and a 30-06. I like the pistols better than the rifles though. But I'm a pretty good shot with all of them :)
    • 4 months ago
      What kind of guns do you own if you don't mind me asking pretty? 9mm's and stuff? I know most women Hate guns.
    • Answerer
      4 months ago
      Then that would be my fault for not locking my doors, not for having a gun. You aren't going to convince me not to own guns so you may as well stop trying.
    • 4 months ago
      What if your guns were stolen though? No matter how secured you think you have them, what if one day someone manages to take your guns, and that gun is then used to kill someone.
    • Answerer
      4 months ago
      Because only psychos do the school shootings and whatnot. Normal people (the vast majority of the population) wouldn't. If you don't agree with owning guns, then by all means, don't own one. Problem solved for you :D
    • 4 months ago
      Why not just make shooting ranges the only ones able to have firearms accessible to people who are licensed to shoot? This way, those who want to have fun to shoot with their family, by all means goto a range. I don't agree for personal possession.
  • justme20
    -1  
    4 months ago
    If the 2nd amendment says "you can kill your neighbor" it still doesn't make it right. After so many massacres have been done with guns he needs to abolish it. This is 2013 not the 1800's.

    You have 500 characters left
    Submit Comment
    • Question Asker
      4 months ago
      I am in school and not liberally brainwashed and can see what a cancer to America that Obama is and I am years younger then you. He is not going to take my guns away. Period.
    • 4 months ago
      "people like you" I didn't call you a Republican. I was just making the correlation between all the negative rhetoric and not being liked.

      Young is relative... Demographically 18-35 is deemed young, plus I feel young, and I'm currently being "brainwashed" in school. Stop with the negativity! If you have something cogent to say, say it without tainting your argument with negativity and bias.
    • 4 months ago
      you're libertarian but you hate guns? that makes sense
    • Question Asker
      4 months ago
      I am actually a Ron Paul supporter and he had my vote last November. At 28, you wouldn't qualify as a "young" supporter since you would have had 2 opportunities to vote already and aren't socially brainwashed from being in school. So, I am not a Republican but a Libertarian. I am also a Constitutionalist.
    • 4 months ago
      To be fair, wpmason, just because someone hates young Obama supporters doesn't mean they're republicans. I think both Obama and Romney supporters are (were) morons ;)
    • 4 months ago
      Sorry QA... I'm a young Ovama supporter, and people like are what hurts the Republican Party. We have common ground on this issue, but your generalization is foolish. Also, I was addressing the answerer in my previous comment.
    • Question Asker
      4 months ago
      I agree with benos and there are no stupid answers, only stupid people. Answerer clearly has no education as I've stated earlier.This is common among young Obama supporters. An armed society is a polite society.

      @wpmason- I am not upset about people not following laws, I am upset that the gun owner is having their rights put into jeopardy by the clinically insane. New laws only piss people off, just like new taxes. Then couple that with losing an amended right? That will just make a civil war.
    • 4 months ago
      First, you misquoted me. I said that the USE of guns is regulated. Who, what, where, when, why, how one may discharge a gun. Second, your upset about people not following the laws, while claiming that more laws will fix it. Any new laws will be broken by criminals just the same as it is now. It only effects law abiding citizens.
    • 4 months ago
      so what if it's not right? IT's the f***ing law of the land. Don't like it? Leave.
      Why do you want to live in America if you hate it's founding principles. I like guns. You don't. I live in a country that has laws to protect guns. You should go to one that doesn't. Problem solved. And hey, maybe since we are all so uncivilized we'll kill each other off eventually and you can come back and take over. It's a win win. Or maybe you're worried that you're wrong
    • 4 months ago
      and can only be used for the death and murder of innocents, does it? How about this summer when a man went on a stabbing spree in a sporting goods store and was stopped by an armed citizen. Didn't make it on national TV either, did it?

      Pull your head out of your ass. Stop listening to the media. More guns are used in this country to deter or stop crimes than are used to kill innocent people. Just because your ignorant and easily manipulated, don't try to take my rights away.
    • 4 months ago
      This is why stupid people shouldn't be allowed to vote..Did you know that Connecticut has some of the strictest gun laws? Didn't help. Hell, look at Illinois. Super strict laws, gun murder everyday...gun laws don't work.

      Did you know that within like a week of Newtown, three other shooting happened and none of them made it on the news? Want to know why? Armed citizens stopped the violence before it became a massacre. Doesn't really go with the brain dead lefts narrative that all guns are evil
    • Question Asker
      4 months ago
      Your answer lacks any educated rationale and component to it. Yes it is 2013, and people are more advanced then the 1800's. Beer is legal, but people still drink and drive. Weed is now legal in some states and people smoke their brains out? You will never disarm an armed society without a major fight. The actions of the few insane shouldn't supersede the responsibility of the sane. Come to my house and try and take my guns, watch what happens. They'll never take me alive.
    • Answerer
      4 months ago
      He stated "there are regulations to owing a gun" really? its actually really easy to buy a gun illegally and there have been massacres where the killer brought some legally. Not enough restrictions or regulations to stop it. Something needs to be done.
    • 4 months ago
      "Outlaw it! Regulations obviously haven't been effective enough"

      ughh what?
    • Answerer
      4 months ago
      As I said before. Just because it says something doesn't make it right. Outlaw it! Regulations obviously haven't been effective enough
    • 4 months ago
      But it says "you can own guns" how is mere ownership inherently right or wrong? We do have laws regulating their use, 2nd A just guarantees possession.
 

What Guys Said

  • benos4752
    406  
    4 months ago
    Gun control is the belief that the woman found raped and strangled to death with her own pantyhose is somehow morally superior to the woman explaining to the cops why her attacker took three shots the chest and is dead on the ground.

    You have 500 characters left
    Submit Comment
    • Question Asker
      4 months ago
      LOL!
  • 6Paul11
    8541  
    4 months ago
    You want them? Come and take them: from my cold dead hands.

    You have 500 characters left
    Submit Comment
  • doctorwhofan23
    19531  
    4 months ago
    Our founding fathers gave us that right for a reason,the rights given to us in the bill of rights are ones they believed were needed for our country to be run right. Taking them away is not the right idea.

    You have 500 characters left
    Submit Comment
    • Question Asker
      4 months ago
      I mean order of importance:

      1) Freedom of speech
      2) Owning guns

  • imonfire
    2245  
    4 months ago
    "This President is out of control with control"

    That sentence makes me feel pretty disinterested in engaging in conversation, as this seems like a rhetorical exercise in sensationalism.

    Yes, a national conversation about American gun ownership (legal and illegal) is happening.
    Yes, the president (recently reelected) has made this a platform issue for his office.
    Yes, the 2nd amendment of the Bill of Rights deeply entrenches a protected interest in the right to bear arms.

    There are far more interesting conversations to have than an abolition of the 2nd amendment.

    That would be the least effective way to accomplish the goals of the administration. It would turn into a political power struggle that would be a waste of resources and great minds.

    However, you can expect your guns and ammunition to be taxed. You can expect the access at gun shows to be challenged. You can expect regulations about what kinds of weaponry can be sold in this country to be enforced and enhanced.

    Also, it's not just the president doing this. He is certainly the most powerful political and administrative person in this country, but he's not executing his whims here. There is a very loud constituency of educated and considerate American citizens who are very concerned with this policy. And that constituency is a spectrum of people, with a spectrum of goals and ideas.

    It's pretty reductive to call this OBAMA v The Constitution

    You have 500 characters left
    Submit Comment
    • Answerer
      4 months ago
      maybe it was a glitch
    • Answerer
      4 months ago
      blocked
    • Question Asker
      4 months ago
      If I didn't block someone like KingsOfLeon, I wouldn't block you.
    • Question Asker
      4 months ago
      I didn't block you?
    • 4 months ago
      Wow:
      First, you're anonymous on this post for a reason, obviously.

      Second: YOU BLOCKED ME FROM COMMENTING? WHY?

      I intended to engage a discussion. Not what you were looking for when you asked the question?

      i.e. see

      Mississippi v. Johnson 71 U.S. 475 (1867), United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683 (1974), Article Five of the United States Constitution, Coleman v. Miller, 307 U.S. 433 (1939).
    • Question Asker
      4 months ago
      That sentence can make you feel however you please, because it is true. Obama has the want and desire to control you and everything you do. They want to regulate everything about you, especially your gun ownership. I am not interested at all in you thinking that there are far more interesting conversations to have then this, but I wanted to have it - so I did. I am well aware of the Presidents power and those of Congress. But, Executive Orders override things Congress passes, and he does it.
  • Xwtxx
    2498  
    4 months ago
    No. This will lead to people to refuse to comply. I already have my gulch.

    You have 500 characters left
    Submit Comment
    • Question Asker
      4 months ago
      People will refuse to comply, yes. It will not end well for the United States.
  • KingsOfleon88
    7814  
    4 months ago
    I would hope they abolish the second amendment. There is no reason for ANYONE to have a gun. I still maintain that the only people who should be allowed to carry are the police and only while on duty, and same with the armed forces. However, once they have civilian status, they should not be allowed to have them.

    You have 500 characters left
    Submit Comment
    • Question Asker
      4 months ago
      @KingsOfLeon- you've wasted everyones time because you're NOT AMERICAN and are enstiling your personal beliefs on everyone. That is just downright arrogant. I don't care at all that you disagree with the NRA because YOU DON'T LIVE IN AMERICA. Just as benos4752, there were other potential mass shootings that were detered by an armed citizen, which saved many lives. Why aren't you listening to the positive factors of having armed citizens? Oh ya, you're not from America, that's right.
    • 4 months ago
      Answer my previous question, turd. You said there is no reason for ANYONE to own a gun. Would you tell that to the women and the kid I posted about below? Those aren't hypothetical stories. Those all happened within the last year, plus many more like them. They all had to take action long before cops could get there. You wanna act like you value human lives more than us, but you wish to deprive people of the very tool that saved the lives of those below.
    • Answerer
      4 months ago
      Really? I've wasted everyone's time because I don't agree with the Majority of NRA supporters/gun advocates...I'd rather be arrogant and stick by a cause I believe, than be a douche who clearly doesn't seem to value human life
    • Question Asker
      4 months ago
      KingsOfLeon, you've wasted everyones time. I wouldn't go to whatever crap country you live in and make conversation about how I think it should be run. That's arrogance.
    • 4 months ago
      As far as only police being armed, tell that to the families who had their doors kicked in by SWAT teams, their dogs shot and fathers arrested...only for it to turn out that "Oops..got the address wrong...you're free to go sir...ummm...sorry about the dogs, by the way. Oh, and we won't be paying for that door." Some utopia we're in for..fool.
    • 4 months ago
      Tell you what. Scrap the gun range. Go tell your theory to the mother who just last week used a revolver to shoot an intruder who found her and her daughters hiding in the closet. Or the mother last year who was recently widowed and used a shotgun to defend herself and her baby from intruders. Or the boy a month ago who hid his younger siblings upstairs and shot an armed intruder with his dad's rifle..yeah, they had no need. I bet you'd be okay with them all being beat, raped, killed, etc, huh?
    • Answerer
      4 months ago
      What you're essentially saying, is that you would rather be able to possess a gun, than have guns fall into the wrong hands and have people murdered. If that means I have a screw loose or a couple for believing in the value of human life, then I'm fine with that
    • Answerer
      4 months ago
      It's things like this that make me PROUD TO NOT BE AN AMERICAN. My opinion is unwarranted, because most of you Americans feel that you are entitled to this "right" when it's absolute bullsh*t, considering it shows you have no value for human life.
    • Answerer
      4 months ago
      And why the hell would I goto a gun range to ask, when people in a gun range are more likely to be NRA supporters or trigger happy folk? That's like me going to a toyota car dealer ship and asking them if a toyota is a useless automobile to own.
    • Question Asker
      4 months ago
      Are you American? If you're not, your opinion is unwarranted and inappropriate. Also, the 12 down votes show that you might have a screw or two loose.
    • Answerer
      4 months ago
      You clearly don't understand my point, and arguing with people who seem to have a bias opinion towards possessing a gun is futile. I am able to look at both sides of the argument, and despite it being part of your "constitutional right" the only way to save lives, is to abolish it, and that's the truth.
    • Question Asker
      4 months ago
      Wait, are you even American? The Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the United States of America. The first three Articles of the Constitution establish the rules and separate powers of the three branches of the federal government: a legislature, the bicameral Congress; an executive branch led by the President; and a federal judiciary headed by the Supreme Court. The last four Articles frame the principle of federalism. I am not ignorant, I am just following what is allowed.
    • Answerer
      4 months ago
      I'm sorry, but many of you Americans are blatantly ignorant, and feel that you deserve the right to own a gun, just because it is in the constitution. There is a reason why the death and crime rates in America are damn high in comparison to other developed nations, and the obvious IS because of this archaic right. If you want to protect your family or your self, there are non lethal forms like pepper spray, or a taser. However, allowing people to be armed will only make things stay the same.
    • 4 months ago
      The funny thing is, too, that in two of the three different shootings that happened after Newtown, it was armed, off-duty officers that stopped the shooter. So, by your own proposal, we would have seen massacres in both those of those situations...nice to know you support the murder of innocent people.


      Remember, when seconds count, the police are minutes (if you're lucky) away.
    • 4 months ago
      Do you realize that in America, more guns are used to deter and stop crimes than will eve be used to commit them? For every massacre you can show me, I an show you at least two examples of armed citizens stopping shooters before massacre status was reached that received no national media attention. It's propaganda. And there is always a reason to own a gun. Protection of yourself and your family from criminals and from tyranny.
    • Question Asker
      4 months ago
      So a police officer who serves and protects society with a weapon to keep YOU and I safe, should have to surrender their weapons after service? Why is that? Clearly they've demonstrated the maturity and ability to carry-out their job duties while being in possession of a weapon. Are you going to tell a returning military veteran they can't own a weapon they used to fight with for YOUR freedom? It's just not going to happen. Please take wpmason's advice and go to a local gun range and ask this.
    • 4 months ago
      Wow... Just... Wow. Will you participate in a social experiment? Go to a gun shop, or better yet a shooting range and just give it a whirl. You don't have to change your mind, just talk to folks and try it, for objectivity.
  • wpmason
    5889  
    4 months ago
    There's no way he's even considering that. He's too good of a statesman, a lame duck, and wants to make it as easy as possible for a Democrat to follow him in 2016. That sort of move would not serve his interests.

    Plus the whole one man cannot abolish a constitutional right thing. The Supreme Court would overturn it fast enough to give Biden whiplash.

    He may do something (AWB, hi cap mag ban, etc), but it will not be what you proposed and it will be open to challenges in the courts.

    You're just trollin anyway, but it's worth mentioning that Boehner is less popular than cockroaches now... At least POTUS has a moderate level of approval.

    You have 500 characters left
    Submit Comment
    • Question Asker
      4 months ago
      They do matter. You know what else matters? Putting your hand over your heart during The Pledge of Allegiance and wearing a tie when you stand in front of the Seal of The President of the United States. The man has swagger, and swagger isn't stately at all.
    • Answerer
      4 months ago
      Look up the word statesmen, and you'll see that none of those things matter.
    • Question Asker
      4 months ago
      Obama isn't a good statesman. What has he done while in office? His foreign policy is absolute crap. We outsed the Libyan leader and they were replaced with the Muslim Brotherhood. Mubarak who loved the United States is no longer in charge in Egypt and the Muslim Brotherhood runs there. Syria is running a muck on their own citizens, and Iran is advancing it's nuclear capabilities. He blew off a meeting with Netanyahu to go on 'The View' talk show. Explain how that is being a good statesman.
    • Answerer
      4 months ago
      Is he or is he not a good statesman? You don't have to like him at all. In fact, hitler was probably one of the top ten statesmen in history. Admit you were wrong, it won't hurt.
    • Question Asker
      4 months ago
      He got reelected because he's black, told women he'd support whatever unconditionally, and he gives out free things. Let's be real here about why he got reelected. He was a community organizer, and what has he done for America in the first term!? There are still no jobs, still a huge deficit, and now he wants to take away amended rights?
    • Answerer
      4 months ago
      All presidents use executive orders, especially when congress is gridlocked. He's only a dictator because his name is Obama. He is a good statesman, how the hell do you think he got reelected? I'm not saying that he's a morally righteous person, I'm just saying that he's good at communicating and winning people over. He possesses skills in the realm of politics. You cannot deny that. You can disagree with his policies, but don't tell me that he doesn't have the skills to do the job.
    • Question Asker
      4 months ago
      A good statesman? No. He is very much the modern day Karl Marx and that is no secret. His executive orders need to be regulated and controlled as he is just one man. Congress has the Senate and the House and the President is supposed to follow what is voted as majority with regards to the best interest of this country. In turn, if he uses an EO to override this - then he would be what's called a "dictator". You find those in Communist countries (the ones he adores and hopes to emulate).
  • JohnScofield
    3941  
    4 months ago
    I am simply going to say that he can Executive Order anything he wants... and he will try to do something here. If someone takes him to court, he could get overturned that way. I do not think Congress could actually do it. The Senate would support him, the House would not. So if he goes an EO route, it is going to depend on whether any group, and one know they will, take him to court. If they do, this could go all the way to the Supremes...

    You have 500 characters left
    Submit Comment
 
   
Home > Other Questions > Do you think Obama will issue an Executive Order to abolish the 2nd amendment?
 
Join GirlsAskGuys
 
Earn Xper Points to get Tshirts, Amazon & Netflix Gift Cards and more!
 
 

 Open Contests  
Best Vacation Ideas For Couples
Summer has come! Are we all ready for a vacation? Some of us have already planned their summer vacation and some are still looking for best vacation ideas. For couples it's a bit tricky...First...
$25 Amazon Gift Card   $25 Amazon Gift Card
Check out the winner of the last contest!
Best Love Songs Videos
Winner received $25 Amazon Gift Card
View All Contests >>
Is there a minimum number of previous long-term relationships needed before marriage?
Anonymous User asked Yesterday

At least 1, you'd shouldn't dedicate your life to the first person you meet

At least 2, you know you won't settle for just anyone

3 or more, to figure out what you like and what you don't

There is no magic number, but you should experience a breakup before marriage

No, if the partner is everything you've imagined as the perfect one, then go for it!

Other Articles
 
●  Busting Myths About Modern (Non-Extreme) Feminism
by  why-makoto-kun
Feminism is a widely debated topic of today. However, what exactly is it? Many people are unsure of what feminism means (besides the women’s suffrage movement and others of the 20th century) and do...
●  How to Succeed in College
by  Moderatordoctorwhofan23
I have seen a number of people ask questions about college and going to school, friends, and many things relating to that. I thought I would just give my top 10 tips and then maybe a few other pieces...
Other Xpers
  
ixi10
164854  
ixi10
Dating, 26 years old
United States
173 Questions - 10762 Answers
Other Xper: 35390
ihatework
36060  
ihatework
21 years old
United States
126 Questions - 5038 Answers
Other Xper: 17560
Belgie
69593  
Belgie
Single, 40 years old
Belgium
35 Questions - 3867 Answers
Other Xper: 13821
peace.love.couture
56138  
peace.love.couture
19 years old
Antarctica
225 Questions - 3563 Answers
Other Xper: 12820

What is Xper? View Rankings