The executive action list.

[bakerjw]

I am not sure if these are executive orders or not. Most are fairly innocuous.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/01 ... ence-plan/

[mk23]

I am not sure if these are executive orders or not. Most are fairly innocuous.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/01 ... ence-plan/

Things like this can always be dangerous... Depending on how you start reviewing individuals.

4. Direct the Attorney General to review categories of individuals prohibited from having a gun to make sure dangerous people are not slipping through the cracks.

[bakerjw]

I also noted

16. Clarify that the Affordable Care Act does not prohibit doctors asking their patients about guns in their homes.

I really expected something much more draconian.

[L1A1Rocker]

I also noted

16. Clarify that the Affordable Care Act does not prohibit doctors asking their patients about guns in their homes.

I really expected something much more draconian.

But that's wrong. Harry reid put such verbage it there.

[L1A1Rocker]

A couple of seemingly harmless directives in there are VERY dangerious.

Doctor's will be required to become snitches and add people to the prohibited list while at the same time .gov makes the prohibited list bigger and bigger.

Go to the doctor and mention that you can't sleep do to bad dreams? Your now on the prohibited person list and the county sheriff or local leo's show up the next day to take possession of all your guns.

[L1A1Rocker]

Hey bambam, read the damn law you signed!

It seems that in their haste to cram socialized medicine down the throats of the American people, then-Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and Barack Obama overlooked Senate amendment 3276, Sec. 2716, part c.
According to reports, that amendment says the government cannot use doctors to collect "any information relating to the lawful ownership or possession of a firearm or ammunition."

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government ... gistration

[poikilotrm]

7, 12, 22, and 23 are potentially hazardous.

[jreinke]

Ok, I missed the news confrence as I was doing my obligatory good son duty of driving my parents to a doctor's appointment. So, has s--t head, I mean the President signed any of these Executive Orders or are they still proposals?

[MV10]

7, 12, 22, and 23 are potentially hazardous.

I agree, but it's a lot worse than that.

2 is troublesome simply because I don't trust their judgement.

6 could simply be made prohibitively complex and expensive.

11 simply can't turn out well for us, given who is signing the order.

14 is smoke-and-mirrors cover for recommendations for expanded restrictions.

15 is an open door to stupid Democrat darlings like microstamping.

But hey, there are still 14 which are "mostly harmless."

[poikilotrm]

I agree.

[doubloon]

...
But hey, there are still 14 which are "mostly harmless."

I'm not so sure, "clarify" could portend change. To clarify doesn't always mean simply explain what's there, sometimes it means to alter the nature of what's there. Item 16 could easily mean try to put more legislation or amendments through to strike the Reid text.

Right now I'm standing by my interpretations from an earlier, parallel thread but maybe I'm just a little more paranoid than some of you.

I don't like the sound of 1 - 5 at all, too open ended.

6 sounds like prep work for something evil this way comes

7 is a decent idea on the surface but I predict it will have all the warts of planned parenthood and be less fruitful (pun in there somewhere)

8 is going to cost me money somehow, somewhere

9 - 11 raise the hair on the back of my neck a little, there's something squeezed in there somewhere to screw me

I think 12 is an absolutely awesome idea which means it's bound to backfire like week old jalapeno beans and weenies

Except for the word prevent 13 is what gun rights people have been saying for years but I know what they mean to use it for is to go after legal gun owners

14 ... zombies? wtf? there goes more of my money

15 micro stamping, biometrics, lions, tigers and bears OH MY

16 screw the constitution some more

17 bypass the constitution some more

18 what the hell is a "school resource officer"? is he armed? or is this a cloaked federal drone?

19 food pyramid for bullets, one escape plan fits all situations

20 - 22 screw health care beneficiaries some more

23 bring out the dog and pony

[MV10]

I'm thinking this just proves what I said earlier -- they're playing the long game. If you haven't read this thread about Eric Holder's comments relating gun control strategy to the shaping of public opinion about cigarette smoking, you should take a moment to review it. They're laying out their strategy in plain sight.

As a result of these EOs, King Obizzle benefits by appearing to be reasonable and moderate on this polarizing topic, and the way is clear to portray angry gun owners as overreacting and irrational. The women of CNN will pout and sigh heavily and shake their heads with regret as they conduct light but constant attacks on Congress for failing to "Do Something" under the already-established (but not proven) presumption that most Americans are "demanding" action.

Meanwhile, an array of federal agencies are now primed to spend the next few years releasing staggered announcements that after careful study and reflection, they (no doubt regretfully) are forced to conclude that gun control is the only answer. This will ensure gun control remains an open topic, even if there is a shortage of conveniently gruesome mass murders to exploit. TV talking heads will adopt their most sober face as they host "conversations" on these federal studies, ensuring the public is "properly" informed.

The long game is very difficult to fight because it looks relatively moderate and perhaps even reasonable at each step of the way.

[doubloon]

Agreed. Everything is a half truth and open ended so they can adjust course as they go.

I think you got a bad link there for the Holder comments.