Tomorrows Executive Mandate on Gun Control

[Pudfark]

Thanx fer the diatribe on responsible.
Consider this?
What you and yours espouse to the "responsible"?
Is viewed by those with experience and common sense as irresponsible.

What you and yours propose is totally ineffective and "ham strings"
the responsible.

What I saw was two idiots on a stage with a bunch of nice impressionable kids.
What I did not see?
Eric Holder and the DOJ.
The Director of the FBI
The acting head of the BATF
Harry Reid
Or any other significant Representative of our Government or it's Agencies.

That oughta tell you something.
Does it?

[callmeslick]

Thanx fer the diatribe on responsible.
Consider this?
What you and yours espouse to the "responsible"?
Is viewed by those with experience and common sense as irresponsible.

how so?

What you and yours propose is totally ineffective and "ham strings"
the responsible.

why, and in what way?

What I saw was two idiots on a stage with a bunch of nice impressionable kids.
What I did not see?
Eric Holder and the DOJ.
The Director of the FBI
The acting head of the BATF
Harry Reid
Or any other significant Representative of our Government or it's Agencies.

why would you? The press conference was for Biden and Obama. You will hear from the elected folks soon enough. The others you name are employees of the Executive branch, and will thus either enact the President's orders or get fired. I suspect the former.

That oughta tell you something.
Does it?

It tells me you like to make inferences out of nothing, and like to make assertions without backing them up.

[Pudfark]

The "lack of teeth" in Obama's proposal?
Along with the "lack of teeth" on stage?
Says it all.

Though, I must admit?
You're doing a dutiful job?
Of providing more lip...than those who were deliberately absent.

Seems...like only the kids agree with Obama?
Other'n yerself.

[callmeslick]

don't know what alternate reality you live in, but there is a bit of 'teeth', if everything goes through on the legislative side, especially. As for public support, I suspect it will be strong, and I also suspect the case will be taken to the general public to put pressure to bear on Congress. Oh, and note that vote on Sandy relief. Passed the House with only 50 GOP members in favor. That margin will become common in the coming two years, and might well be the margin this stuff passes by. I think the moderate GOP membership has grown a set of balls and told Boehner, "either bring the bills to the floor for a vote, or we caucus with the Dems and make Pelosi the Speaker." Nothing said publicly, mind you, but suddenly Boehner is getting a bit less reluctant to hold bills back from a vote........

[Pudfark]

don't know what alternate reality you live in, but there is a bit of 'teeth', if everything goes through on the legislative side

Yup, just not the "Executive Side"..as demonstrated earlier today.

[callmeslick]

either you missed part of the presentation, or lack comprehension. As I stated earlier, enough for me until you can state SPECIFICS, CLEARLY spelling out where you have an issue. Until then, all hat and no cattle, as they like to say down your way.

[Pudfark]

When it wasn't "SPECIFICally, CLEARLY" stated in the first place.
It's more than a dab difficult to "SPECIFICally, CLEARLY" comment on it?


CLEARLY you know that. Which is why you "SPECIFICally" asked it of me.

So...while yer in D.C.?
Why don't you ask Joe and Barry the same thing,"SPECIFICally, CLEARLY" ?
Then we can all read it, after you pass it........on.
So, I can comment on it.

[Barfly]

...all hat and no cattle, as they like to say down your way.

And from you Slick, no beef and constant prattle. There is no need for US taxpayers to fund a 'recovery' that is covered by insurance. And no, the government can't do it better or quicker, as usual. You should no, but you don't.

[Pudfark]

"You should no, but you don't."

That, Slick, says it all.

Barfly, Clearly, we must be related.
That's the finest piece of writing..you ever done.

[callmeslick]

...all hat and no cattle, as they like to say down your way.

And from you Slick, no beef and constant prattle. There is no need for US taxpayers to fund a 'recovery' that is covered by insurance. And no, the government can't do it better or quicker, as usual. You should no, but you don't.

where do you find such a thing in the Exec orders? If it is already covered, the order doesn't have any effect, if not, it does. Why is that so baffling to you?