New EO

[M60Gunner]

Executive Order on Reducing Gun Violence and Making Our Communities Safer | The White House

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, I hereby order as follows: Section 1. Policy. Every few days in the United States, we mourn a new mass shooting. Daily acts of gun violence — including community violence...

www.whitehouse.gov

 

[Rebel_Rider1969]

Executive Order on Reducing Gun Violence and Making Our Communities Safer | The White House

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, I hereby order as follows: Section 1. Policy. Every few days in the United States, we mourn a new mass shooting. Daily acts of gun violence — including community violence...

www.whitehouse.gov

Or anything they want to just make up. No pesky fake voting or approval required.

 

[Grits1/5]

What a freaking embarrassment of a President, even his executive order is full of typos and bad grammar! Of course, the main point is that this directive is completely unconstitutional, but everything about it is cringe-worthy.

 

[DAS HUGH!]

Yeah full of lies too. Like how deaths and shooting went down during the AW bans of the past. Dumb people don't realize you could still buy all guns. Just some had to have certain features removed. Even if it did block some being sold, there still was the ones prior still in use. It sounds good in a speech tho

 

[M60Gunner]

The one passage where “gun violence” is repeated five or six times in a row was really too much. Fat? Blame the fork! Wreck? Obviously the vehicle was at fault! Is it aircraft violence when ordnance is dropped? Gtfo

 

[Snake-Eyes]

An EXECUTIVE ORDER to investigate the use of “military imagery”... as a gun sales tactic.

“(h) The Federal Trade Commission is encouraged to issue a public report analyzing how gun manufacturers market firearms to minors and how such manufacturers market firearms to civilians, including through the use of military imagery.”


“through the use of military imagery”...

Minors AND civilians. As if minors weren’t ALL civilians by default (unless you lied about your age or got permission from your parents/guardian to enlist early). So, then it’s ok to market firearms to service members using “military imagery” because they aren’t civilians? In that case, all “military imagery” advertisements should just be explained as targeted at the appropriate “service member” demographic.

And what is “military imagery” going to be pigeon-hole defined as now?

So... a uniformed service member hugging their kid after returning home from a deployment?
How about a white-gloved salute from an Honor Guard member at a funeral?
Standing around outside just talking.
Turning wrenches on pick-a-vehicle.
In uniform, anywhere.
In civvies “off-duty”, with a high-n-tight haircut?
In scrubs at the base/post/station hospital?
Running in formation?
Marching in formation?
Covered in mud.
Covered in blood.
Pictures of memorials.
Pictures of gravestones in a national cemetery.
A shadow box of a retiree on a wall?
A VFW or American Legion meeting?
An ROTC meeting?
A JROTC meeting?
Disaster relief pictures of the National Guard?
USMC Toys For Tots events?

Ooh, I know.

Nothing screams “I was legitimately elected by the most votes ever in history” like an invitation-only regime-installation guarded by the military.

These pieces of “military imagery” would probably be great advertisement for civilians to buy firearms in complete traditional spirit of the Second Amendment:

Personally, I’d be happy if the FTC report was made into a book. All those “military images” associated with firearms advertising should be a pretty sweet compilation.

 

[DAS HUGH!]

An EXECUTIVE ORDER to investigate the use of “military imagery”... as a gun sales tactic.

“(h) The Federal Trade Commission is encouraged to issue a public report analyzing how gun manufacturers market firearms to minors and how such manufacturers market firearms to civilians, including through the use of military imagery.”


“through the use of military imagery”...

Minors AND civilians. As if minors weren’t ALL civilians by default (unless you lied about your age or got permission from your parents/guardian to enlist early). So, then it’s ok to market firearms to service members using “military imagery” because they aren’t civilians? In that case, all “military imagery” advertisements should just be explained as targeted at the appropriate “service member” demographic.

And what is “military imagery” going to be pigeon-hole defined as now?

So... a uniformed service member hugging their kid after returning home from a deployment?
How about a white-gloved salute from an Honor Guard member at a funeral?
Standing around outside just talking.
Turning wrenches on pick-a-vehicle.
In uniform, anywhere.
In civvies “off-duty”, with a high-n-tight haircut?
In scrubs at the base/post/station hospital?
Running in formation?
Marching in formation?
Covered in mud.
Covered in blood.
Pictures of memorials.
Pictures of gravestones in a national cemetery.
A shadow box of a retiree on a wall?
A VFW or American Legion meeting?
An ROTC meeting?
A JROTC meeting?
Disaster relief pictures of the National Guard?
USMC Toys For Tots events?

Ooh, I know.

Nothing screams “I was legitimately elected by the most votes ever in history” like an invitation-only regime-installation guarded by the military.

These pieces of “military imagery” would probably be great advertisement for civilians to buy firearms in complete traditional spirit of the Second Amendment:

View attachment 215121


View attachment 215123


View attachment 215122



Personally, I’d be happy if the FTC report was made into a book. All those “military images” associated with firearms advertising should be a pretty sweet compilation.

Yeah they're own military recruitment ads not only glorify the use of guns, but also have frikken jets in them. When do I get to sue Boeing for making me wanna purchase a jet and go fly over and bomb evil Putler!? Lol

 

[IronBeard]

F-J-B

 

[DAS HUGH!]

F-J-B

View attachment 215159

Oh man that reminds me of my first bb/pellet rifle. It was the old school Crossman pellet guns when they made them resemble M16s with the carry handle and all. After that Christmas day I shot any dam thing that moved lol. Within a few mins I had it stripped and onto a little fire in no time flat! Heck some days I'd skip eating at home I think. Until the ammo ran out that is. Then every small rock within about a 1 mile radius was scavenged and then it was game on yet again lol.

 

[Deersniper270]

(c) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.

I read this as: This order does not create any rights enforceable by law by any party against any other person.

So this is just an EO to write out a bunch of nonsense that non gun owners don’t understand, waste more tax dollars on pointless studies in the hopes they finally prove something substantial, and creates no enforceable actions by anyone to anyone.

Nice job prez

 

[IronBeard]

Yeah, but we also know laws don't have to be constitutional either, they just have to be passed, then we can spend decades fighting in court. Not a far reach for the supporting crowd to proceed as if the man's word is law.

 

[Rebel_Rider1969]

Yeah, but we also know laws don't have to be constitutional either, they just have to be passed, then we can spend decades fighting in court. Not a far reach for the supporting crowd to proceed as if the man's word is law.

Maybe they should send "laws" thru the Supreme Court to approve ( that is if legal to do so) before voting on them???

 

[IronBeard]

Maybe they should send "laws" thru the Supreme Court to approve ( that is if legal to do so) before voting on them???

Man, I agree with that 110%. Law-making is one of those "Constitutional" duties our elected representatives like to gloat over, yet they decide what Constitutional is based on agenda/circumstance vs proving and ensuring Consitutionality. Question their questionable actions and they tell you, you guessed it, they're carrying out their Constitutional duty. It's no better at the local level, either...

 

[Rebel_Rider1969]

Man, I agree with that 110%. Law-making is one of those "Constitutional" duties our elected representatives like to gloat over, yet they decide what Constitutional is based on agenda/circumstance vs proving and ensuring Consitutionality. Question their questionable actions and they tell you, you guessed it, they're carrying out their Constitutional duty. It's no better at the local level, either...

Especially if it comes with free stuff for them and the "voters" Now everyone get back to work to help them line their pockets with more fat cash.

 

[IronBeard]

Especially if it comes with free stuff for them and the "voters" Now everyone get back to work to help them line their pockets with more fat cash.

Yep. I'm all for removing even the potential for profit from governing. Further, I don't accept that significant strides could not be made in that direction. Absolutely, they are stuffing their pockets to overflowing while telling us that's an unintetional side effect of all the good they do for us.