BF2S Forums Gun politics, firearms ownership, and US 2nd amendment discussion

13urnzz wrote:

-Sh1fty- wrote:

Hypothetically, if Obama just signed some random law to be effective immediately and didn't pass through the normal procedures who would stop him or who would stop those trying to enforce it? The Second Amendment pretty much enables the citizens to have the power over the government in that way. They mutually are in check. Does that make sense? I am not the most educated on the matter but that kind of makes sense to me.

the executive branch enforces (executes) the law that the Legislative branch (congress) writes; the president doesn't sign laws into existence, the supreme court interprets both law that congress writes and the actions the executive branch makes (case law).

you are so going to fail your citizenship test, say "hi" to zurich for me when they deport you.

I'm already a citizen.

That's not the point though. I don't see how you could miss it. I know the road a bill has to take to become a law. What I was saying is that if Obama just disregarded that and started making his own laws, who would stop him, and with what?

I always thought Europeans were more enlightened then we are.  Apparently Switzerland belongs in southern europe, with all those tax evading guinea fuckers

-Sh1fty- wrote:

13urnzz wrote:

-Sh1fty- wrote:

Hypothetically, if Obama just signed some random law to be effective immediately and didn't pass through the normal procedures who would stop him or who would stop those trying to enforce it? The Second Amendment pretty much enables the citizens to have the power over the government in that way. They mutually are in check. Does that make sense? I am not the most educated on the matter but that kind of makes sense to me.

the executive branch enforces (executes) the law that the Legislative branch (congress) writes; the president doesn't sign laws into existence, the supreme court interprets both law that congress writes and the actions the executive branch makes (case law).

you are so going to fail your citizenship test, say "hi" to zurich for me when they deport you.

I'm already a citizen.

That's not the point though. I don't see how you could miss it. I know the road a bill has to take to become a law. What I was saying is that if Obama just disregarded that and started making his own laws, who would stop him, and with what?

Do you even know how the democracy you are so keen on killing sand people over works?

Whos next.to tell shifty to fuck off. even jay should be starting to get annoyed.

13urnzz wrote:

apparently, there are many members world wide that understand the american process better than swiss emigres . . .

Funny that shifty is calling Cali Mexifornia now. Guy came over and adopted the whole republican identity the same way some unnamed poor guy tried to become a self made LIBERTARIAN

-Sh1fty- wrote:

13urnzz wrote:

-Sh1fty- wrote:

Hypothetically, if Obama just signed some random law to be effective immediately and didn't pass through the normal procedures who would stop him or who would stop those trying to enforce it? The Second Amendment pretty much enables the citizens to have the power over the government in that way. They mutually are in check. Does that make sense? I am not the most educated on the matter but that kind of makes sense to me.

the executive branch enforces (executes) the law that the Legislative branch (congress) writes; the president doesn't sign laws into existence, the supreme court interprets both law that congress writes and the actions the executive branch makes (case law).

you are so going to fail your citizenship test, say "hi" to zurich for me when they deport you.

I'm already a citizen.

That's not the point though. I don't see how you could miss it. I know the road a bill has to take to become a law. What I was saying is that if Obama just disregarded that and started making his own laws, who would stop him, and with what?

Jaekus wrote:

-Sh1fty- wrote:

13urnzz wrote:

the executive branch enforces (executes) the law that the Legislative branch (congress) writes; the president doesn't sign laws into existence, the supreme court interprets both law that congress writes and the actions the executive branch makes (case law).

you are so going to fail your citizenship test, say "hi" to zurich for me when they deport you.

I'm already a citizen.

That's not the point though. I don't see how you could miss it. I know the road a bill has to take to become a law. What I was saying is that if Obama just disregarded that and started making his own laws, who would stop him, and with what?

obviously shifty didn't read the constitution.

military overthrow of his own government.

Shifty - next Washington.

So a summary of shifty's argument to date.

Guns are fun and should not be taken away from anyone, because in the event of tyranny - caused by the prez writing any laws he wants that no one can stop - a revolution would be needed. This would not be against the US military though because they would not fight their own people, hence they're on the same side as the revolutionaries.

So it boils down to guns are needed to kill the president if laws are enacted that are tyrannical. Okay...

Jaekus wrote:

So a summary of shifty's argument to date.

Guns are fun and should not be taken away from anyone, because in the event of tyranny - caused by the prez writing any laws he wants that no one can stop - a revolution would be needed. This would not be against the US military though because they would not fight their own people, hence they're on the same side as the revolutionaries.

So it boils down to guns are needed to kill the president if laws are enacted that are tyrannical. Okay...

See it all makes sense.