Obama Signs 23 Executive Actions Pertaining to Firearms

In the words of Gomer Pyle, “Surprise, surprise, surprise.” His NDAA-ship, The Predator King, has issued 23 Executive Actions aimed at firearm control. Funny how quick the presidential pen can move when it wants to: Marijuana is still illegal, gay marriage still a federal no-no, and the world continues to burn with a thousand US-connected brushfire wars, bit the pen doesn’t move an inch until domestic firearm control wanders into its line of sight.

Via CNN:

President Barack Obama on Wednesday proposed background checks on all gun sales and bans on assault weapons and high-capacity magazines as part of a package of steps to reduce gun violence in the wake of the Newtown school massacre last month.

With relatives of some of the 20 children killed in the Connecticut rampage looking on, Obama signed 23 executive actions that don’t require congressional approval that he said would strengthen background checks and expand safety programs in schools.

He also called on Congress to reinstate an assault weapons ban that expired in 2004, to restrict ammunition magazines to no more than 10 rounds, and to require a background check on anyone buying a gun, whether at a store or in a private sale at an auction or convention.

Keep reading.

I’m very interested in hearing your opinions regarding these matters. Good? Bad? Indifferent? Heck, if you feel strongly enough that you’d like to take your hand at writing a post on the topic, drop me a line at matt (at) disinfo (dot) com.


44 Comments on "Obama Signs 23 Executive Actions Pertaining to Firearms"

  1. Aint nobody takin my guns……..

  2. I just saw “A Royal Affair” which was a good movie, About a woman who was married to the King of Denmark in the 18th century. She ends up having an affair with the royal physician, who was a man of the enlightenment. So anyway, the King is kind of crazy/retarded. But he and the Doctor are really close. The doctor has a sort of paternal relationship toward the King, who is like a child, basically.

    So the Queen and the doctor kind of take over the Government and dismiss the court, and use the King to pass all this legislation, banning torture, giving rights to peasants, banning capital punishment for theft all this stuff. But then the original ministers of the court get together and behead the doctor and this other guy in the cabinet and bring an end to the little Enlightened dictatorship they had going.

    It turns out the movie is really close to historically what really happened.

    So it got me thinking. Really even under Monarchy, the King is not the real source of power. He just signs his name on things, decided by other people. These members of the Royal Court, Courtiers, I guess, made up of the Aristocracy. The Land Owners. So they really ran things. The King is a figure head. Maybe originally, when you have some total bad ass on the throne like William the Conqueror, he actually ran things. But usually its just some person there for show. He plays dress up, impresses the commoners.

    So in America we have a King that is only King for four years at a time. But its the same set up. He impresses the Commoners, gives touchy feely speeches, poses for pictures, etc. and does whatever the real Powerful people tell him to do.

    Obviously there are debtates and competing interests and intrigues and things like that. But these are arguments among the Aristocracy. This is not a Dictatorship of Obama. Its powerful interests using his executive orders to enact legislation they want.

    • Chaos_Dynamics | Jan 16, 2013 at 3:46 pm |


      • Right. So the true power base is insulated from the electoral process.

        • Chomsky calls it Private Power. It’s unaccountable and invisible, thanks to a compliant media that makes it look like two factions fighting over gay rights and sales tax.

          • ghostgato | Jan 26, 2013 at 6:44 am |

            Don’t belittle the civil rights causes of others. At least the gun rights you are protecting actually exist. There are people in this country who can’t even share their benefits with long-time partners. If you want to make allies among your countrymen, you need to support (or at the very least not denigrate) their causes and inspire them to ally with you. Otherwise, you sound like a self-centered douchebag. Gay rights are not a media distraction. That’s someone’s 14th Amendment Right, equal protection under the law, that you are belittling.

    • kowalityjesus | Jan 16, 2013 at 4:21 pm |

      I understand that in the Chinese empire (simplistic I know), the emperor had advisors with nothing but soft power in shaping his decisions, a lot like the senate of Rome after Ceasar. This kind of executive order mumbo-jumbo emulates that and is a shame to the Constitution, as the framers realized the tyranny inevitable in this system and put many checks in place.

      Where’s Ron Paul when ya need him? lol The very fact that he was so assiduously and strategically marginalized shows how he pointed out that the Emporer is indeed naked (expanding the executive order clause into astronomically more powerful than it was intended), but I guess MSM can spin clothes from substanceless yarn.

    • The real entertaining part is still to come. I’ve got my popcorn ready. That’s when EVERYONE realizes that they don’t actually have to obey these trite laws. They’ll be mad at first and probably use those guns that they’re not supposed to have now; but later they’ll feel bad when they realize they actually never _had_ to obey from the beginning. Fool me once, shame on you; fool me 16,598,204,594,392 times, I kill you.and start anew.

      • LOL! Right, you can fool all of the people some of the time and some of the people 16 odd quintillion times, but you can’t fool all the people all the time!

  3. Honestly, it seems to me that the internal contradictions in American society are coming to a head, and I’m not sure we even have words to enable us to conceive of a solution.

  4. Orange peanut | Jan 16, 2013 at 3:42 pm |

    Thats the point of being “president” you try to steer the country in the direction you want to. This one happens to dislike pot,guns and gays. but if the war is happening in the middle east, its all good.

  5. DeepCough | Jan 16, 2013 at 3:48 pm |

    The government isn’t trying to take away your guns, it’s just trying to protect you from “domestic terrorists,” mm’kay?

    • kowalityjesus | Jan 16, 2013 at 4:25 pm |

      can’t one of the parent’s of the victims in Newtown go on Fox and give the federal government a face full of shame for exploiting their loss to push a bullshit initiative?

      • Apathesis | Jan 16, 2013 at 5:30 pm |

        It’s sad and disturbing that Fox would probably be the only network to put on a such a person. Of course, their arguments would be written off because they appeared on Fox. Just imagine the resulting ad hominem shit-storm that would be visited upon a parent who voiced an opinion contrary to the president, CNN and the New York Post.

  6. Every time it looks like a major US political party is on its way out of business, the other side throws them a rope instead of an anchor. Coincidence?

    GOP takes back Senate and White House in 2016. Purple goes Red, not Blue.

    Gun control is security theater for the working class and “feel-good” legislation for the people funding the propaganda. Do you feel any safer knowing what’s proposed?

    BTW, I’ve seen claims that 2nd Amendment was about preserving slavery. I’ve also seen claims that gun control state legislation in the 19th century was about disarming free slaves. From what I’ve read of the Founding Fathers, their intent was to allow citizens to organize to protect themselves from the Feds, it was intended to be neutral about personal safety.

    I think the reason why the legacy media is pushing top-down anti-gun talking points is that the 0.001% feel safer with restrictive gun control legislation than with a perhaps temporary alliance with the Religious Right given that the consequences of their social destabilization are already becoming visible in the form of armed apeshits.

    • DeepCough | Jan 16, 2013 at 6:43 pm |

      People keep forgetting how much the Second Amendment has enfranchised the federal government to create numerous “well-regulated militias” for the “security of the State.”

      • Apathesis | Jan 16, 2013 at 7:45 pm |

        God bless standing armies and federally-funded militias.


        Seriously, who thought either of those two things were good ideas?

        • DeepCough | Jan 16, 2013 at 7:50 pm |

          Oh, you know, rich, affluent, land- and slave-owning men with fascist beliefs:
          what we call today the “1%.”

          • Apathesis | Jan 16, 2013 at 7:58 pm |

            Yup. And they just throw gay marriage and abortion rights our way to keep us happy distracted.

          • ghostgato | Jan 26, 2013 at 6:56 am |

            This argument is so ridiculously insular and hegemonic it is disgusting. Your straight white maleness is showing. Not everyone in this country has the same protections as you. The gay community’s desire for equal protection under the 14th Amendment may just be a distraction for you, but it is a lifetime of financial and familial stability for them. Have a gram of empathy for your fellow citizen. Alienating other Americans for the sake of furthering your argument is the most backwards and unproductive thing you could possibly do.

      • My understanding is that the Second Amendment:
        “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

        (1) acknowledges that each state, if it is to be free, must have a well-regulated militia.
        (I acknowledge that we obviously don’t have free states these days; we just have fifty bankrupt administrative districts and ten federal districts waiting for the right emergency to take leadership — and the capital markets favor the security of those ten federal districts and the markets always take precedence)

        (2) the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed

        (This can be true, but increasingly things are going with the de facto “votes” that come out of the way citizens live their economic lives, than with the de iure or merely formal old-time laws which the citizens “vote” in accordance with at the polls. The way you live your life is the ultimate vote; laws mean nothing if the way you live actually defies them.)

        ….and so, (1) and (2) mean that the Second Amendment literally does not “enfranchise the federal government to create numerous well-regulated militias for the security of the State.” It’s the up to the people to form such militias in their home state.

        (Edwin Vieira has some interesting things to say on getting us from where we are back to a more traditional Constitutional way of life, in a practical way.)

        However, the Civil War established that the Federal Government — and the “certain financial element in the larger centers” of which FDR spoke — would supercede the de iure rights of the states on certain issues, as dictated by the political “imperatives” of the real world.

        If one takes the view that the U.S. Civil War was ultimately about setting the precedent that the U.S. should be unified on certain economic matters of paramount importance for the future development of industry — that it was ultimately about deciding “who rules?” for the purposes of inter-state and inter-national business — then one might reason-by-analogy that a new global war will be necessary for purposes of unifying international business standards in the conflict of neo-liberal economic globalization versus recalcitrant cultural tradiations or geo-political regions. For a truly global economic order, a new “Civil War” will be necessary, this time on a bigger scale — but with the same financial and commercial interests driving it.

        * * *

        If anyone tries to construe my words here as supportive of black slavery, you’re wrong. I oppose all slavery — especially mental slavery and wage slavery, which that “certain financial element in the larger centers” has been profiting from, and growing larger and wealthier from, ever since the Civil War ended.

        “Sic semper tyrannis” (“thus always for tyrants”) were the words spoken upon the assassination of recently-re-elected Abraham Lincoln. To whom was he being tyrannical? Mainstream consensus might say “to the anti-abolitionists of the Old South!” but I contend that he was being tyrannical in his principled opposition to the growing power of Paper Capital.

        State of the Union, December 1861

        In my present position I could scarcely be justified were I to omit raising a warning voice against this approach of returning despotism. It is not needed nor fitting here that a general argument should be made in favor of popular institutions, but there is one point, with its connections, not so hackneyed as most others, to which I ask a brief attention.

        It is the effort to place capital on an equal footing with, if not above, labor in the structure of government. It is assumed that labor is available only in connection with capital; that nobody labors unless somebody else, owning capital, somehow by the use of it induces him to labor. This assumed, it is next considered whether it is best that capital shall hire laborers, and thus induce them to work by their own consent, or buy them and drive them to it without their consent. Having proceeded so far, it is naturally concluded that all laborers are either hired laborers or what we call slaves. And further, it is assumed that whoever is once a hired laborer is fixed in that condition for life.

        Now there is no such relation between capital and labor as assumed, nor is there any such thing as a free man being fixed for life in the condition of a hired laborer. Both these assumptions are false, and all inferences from them are groundless.

        Labor is prior to and independent of capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration.

        Capital has its rights, which are as worthy of protection as any other rights. Nor is it denied that there is, and probably always will be, a relation between labor and capital producing mutual benefits. The error is in assuming that the whole labor of community exists within that relation.

        A few men own capital, and that few avoid labor themselves, and with their capital hire or buy another few to labor for them. A large majority belong to neither class — neither work for others nor have others working for them. In most of the Southern States a majority of the whole people of all colors are neither slaves nor masters, while in the Northern a large majority are neither hirers nor hired. Men, with their families — wives, sons, and daughters — work for themselves on their farms, in their houses, and in their shops, taking the whole product to themselves, and asking no favors of capital on the one hand nor of hired laborers or slaves on the other. It is not forgotten that a considerable number of persons mingle their own labor with capital; that is, they labor with their own hands and also buy or hire others to labor for them; but this is only a mixed and not a distinct class. No principle stated is disturbed by the existence of this mixed class.

        …what a fucking tyrant. How fortunate he was assassinated!

    • Apathesis | Jan 16, 2013 at 7:17 pm |

      I certainly don’t feel safer. These new bans did nothing to make schools safer. They’re still shooting galleries.

    • “Every time it looks like a major US political party is on its way out of business, the other side throws them a rope instead of an anchor.”

      Excellent point.

      Every time one of the Parties is “on the ropes”, at risk of being knocked entirely out the the ring, the opposition seems to get distracted by their own shoelaces just long enough for the round to end.

      It’s like they’re afraid that Don King might not own all the guys waiting to get in the ring.

  7. Dumbest country in history.

  8. BuzzCoastin | Jan 16, 2013 at 6:59 pm |

    sure am glad they didn’t elect no rich white dude Prez
    Hope & Change, I’m luvin’ it!

  9. Apathesis | Jan 16, 2013 at 7:02 pm |

    Maybe when the Democrats who’ve been controlling these war-zones they represent start investing in public education and call for an end to the Drug War will the gun violence actually decrease at an impressive rate.

    Until then, I expect to see hundreds of young black men and women in their cities dying needlessly each year because politicians won’t address the core issues. New York has already ensured just that.

    • And when the young black men and women start aiming their guns out towards the white parts of the cities and suburbs (not Hispanic, white), be damned sure that you’ll see a reaction. No investment in education, of course, but watch the white urbanoids welcome a police state into their neighborhoods.

      • Apathesis | Jan 16, 2013 at 11:13 pm |

        Oh, I know. NYPD would have a field day and even the Daily News would defend their actions.

  10. jack jones | Jan 16, 2013 at 7:48 pm |

    Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You give a tenth
    of your spices—mint, dill and cumin. But you have neglected the more
    important matters of the law—justice, mercy and faithfulness. You should have practiced the latter, without neglecting the former.

    matthew 23:23

  11. So it it time, yet, for those noble, brave and patriotic Americans who feel that their existential entitlement to assault weapons is being illegitimately eroded by government tyranny to act upon the reason for which they understand the Constitutional protection of this fundamental right to have been ensured?

    What’s the point of having a right if one elects not to use it, after all?

    And if the purpose for this right is to preserve the citizenry’s practical capacity to oppose tyranny (as distinct from the more recently recognised/created role of the 2nd amendment as a fundamental incident of the right to self-defence), then surely any attempt to curtail this right is an unmistakable indicator of tyrannical intent and must be opposed, relying in doing so on the very safeguards engineered for this end..?

    Personally, I’d find it a lot easier to accept the logic of the NRA et al if there were a coherent case that the 2nd amendment could claim any sort of pedigree in restraining even just the worst excesses of US government perfidy, but it seems to me that y’all have ended up with the worst of both worlds – a despotic and authoritarian set of institutions and individuals making end-runs around the doctrinal separation of powers by relying on the widely discredited but nevertheless practically unchallengable model of the ‘Imperial Presidency’ devised by John Yoo and manifest in the massively increased reliance on Executive Orders as well as signing statements and, most insidious of all, secret legal interpretations of Constitutional powers asserting the legitimate ability of the President to do anything up to and including the extra-judicial killing of US Citizens, but without ever having to submit the legal reasoning to judicial oversight (no remedies = no rights) – all while living (and dying) with a murder rate 20 times higher than anywhere else in the developed world.

  12. Bluebird_of_Fastidiousness | Jan 17, 2013 at 8:36 am |

    I’ve long tried to remind people that the right to bear arms includes the right of the radical Left to bear arms. Of course, the Owners aren’t going to try to rescind the rights of their racist and unknowningly complicit Brownshirts. These new orders and laws effect only the people on my Facebook wall who currently fawn over gun control. In time, they may wish they had armaments. It will be around the time the Owners start treating us like they do the “colonies.” In the mean time, they are exquisitely smug on this issue.

    • Listen Honey Boo-Boo, the radical Left does not REQUIRE your silly pop guns. You piss us off, we’ll go stealth on your ass, sneak up and slit your throat, then watch the life drain from your eyes SLOWLY-LIKE. That’s how a real man (or woman) kills a fool. Up close and personal, where the blood is warm and on your hands, not all pussified and distant with an AR-Whatever.

      • Bluebird_of_Fastidiousness | Jan 17, 2013 at 2:58 pm |

        That’s so romantic. Also completely ineffective. Good luck in the FEMA camp.

  13. Bluebird_of_Fastidiousness | Jan 17, 2013 at 8:44 am |

    Privilege buys a whole lot of patience from the wielders of force. As long as they can ATV through the country and Walmart away their desires, those country folk will prostrate before authority. Unfortunately, the armed populous and the educated populous are generally distinct and separate. This is not a coincidence.

  14. Bluebird_of_Fastidiousness | Jan 17, 2013 at 8:59 am |

    Also, grammar and spelling can be beneficial to understanding, Anon. I’m not even sure what you said.

  15. So his “terrifying” Executive Orders included strengthening EXISTING laws, doing things like making background checks more solid, getting more school counselors to hopefully help kids BEFORE they go off the rails, and hiring more police officers. Oh my, I quake in fear at the Fascism of it all….

    You goobers should be more concerned about the leftovers from the Bush Administration that Obama HASN’T overturned like the Patriot Act or his signing the daft NDAA, that make him an accomplice after-the-fact to Bush’s crimes. THERE’S your Fascism.

    Sorry, but if you have even one gun, you probably have too many, and if you have more than one, seek professional help for your fucking paranoia.

    Basically GET A GRIP. This isn’t Red Dawn. The Chinese commies aren’t going to invade. They don’t HAVE to. Like good Capitalists, the bankers and Walmart drones in this fucking country are going to sell them the rope to hang us all with.

    • Apathesis | Jan 17, 2013 at 6:19 pm |

      The nature of the proposals are disingenuous. Banning guns involved in less than 3% of firearm homicides is really going to affect the number of murders each year? What a fucking joke. At least background checks will be required on all legal sales.

      Only one executive order deals with school safety and it’s a joke:

      12. “Provide law enforcement, first responders, and school officials with proper training for active shooter situations.”

      Training schools for shooting scenarios? I imagine that involves locking the doors and hiding underneath a desk. And doesn’t SWAT have the capability to deal with “active shooter situations” already?

      And yes, you are right about the NDAA and the PATRIOT ACT.

  16. Apathesis | Jan 17, 2013 at 5:52 pm |

    Fuck it. Ban and confiscate them all. I want to see what happens with crime in this country after that. I imagine MS-13 will expand like “http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vOxWfRrb2Sk”

  17. The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed upon. Limiting this right in any way is a form of infringement and is therefore unconstitutional and illegal.

  18. Hey, as an Illinois native I have said many times, never vote for a politician from Illinois, Illinoisans have been waiting for an honest politician since Adlai Stevenson, even my 91 year old mother will tell you that. Of course who knew that Romney was going to come dancing in and scare and alienate the bejeezuz out of the majority of the masses to help him get re-elected.

    Stagecraft at it’s finest! We could have chosen one or the other but as a group we weren’t quick enough to defeat Obamney, though we did have our chance. I think we need to start paying a little more attention to the Bolivarian Movement of America Del Sud.

Comments are closed.