Rounds Statement on President
Obama’s Gun Control Announcement
PIERRE—U.S. Senator Mike Rounds (R-S.D.) today issued the following statement on President Obama’s recently announced gun control executive actions:
“The executive actions the president announced today will make it more difficult for law-abiding citizens to legally obtain firearms and do nothing to fix the problem of gun violence,” said Rounds. “Criminals and terrorists aren’t going to obey the law anyway. I will continue to fight against the president’s endless attack on our 2nd amendment rights.”
###
Well, I guess as long as we’re on the subject of hyperbole: http://dailycurrant.com/2014/08/27/georgia-legalizes-handgun-vending-machines/
Doesn’t Mr. Rounds’s argument, taken to its logical conclusion make his job unnecessary? “Why pass laws if people are just going to break them?” argues against the passage any law whatsoever, not just gun control laws doesn’t it?
— argues against the passage any law whatsoever, not just gun control laws doesn’t it?
It does?
Please explain.
Thanks Obama …
Executive Actions have been around a very long time including those permitted by State Constitution’s Governors. The difference for the past few hundred Presidential ones are the complete knee jerk reaction the POTUS appears to be governing by instead of planned good public policy run through Congress. For anyone who cares about proper process this POTUS’s reactionary unthought-of consequences are quite bothersome. Rules are rules and should be followed as only Kings and Queens get to make up their own.
Nobody is going take your guns, slick Mike beating the drum as usual.How about fixing the problem you had when you were Governor.
So you can’t follow the path the liberals are taking us down with everything they are doing? They intend to try to get rid of the 2nd Amendment, and if you can’t see that you are foolish, and if you can and say they’re not, you’re a liar. Which are you?
It is time that Senator Rounds, Thune, Congresswoman Noem, and all other federal legislators who claim to champion gun rights, also champion the rights of children who want to go to school without fear, workers who want to go to work without fear, consumers who want to go to the mall without fear, sports enthusiasts who want to attend an events center without fear, and the list continues on.
Instead of criticizing President Obama’s position on gun control, our South Dakota congressional delegation should tell us what their solution is to gun violence in America today, but they can’t because they don’t have one. Because like their advocacy for the repeal of Obamacare, they have no answers rather only criticism.
Just as the Republican party’s position on health care is “Don’t get sick, but if you do, then die quickly.” The Republican party’s answer to the gun menace in America today is to arm everyone, that somehow the American dream has become the reality of O.K. Corral and that that is some how okay…
I challenge Thune, Rounds, and Noem to make gun manufacturers financially and legally responsible for the guns they make. It is time to end the tort shield laws which protect the gun industries financial assets, while the average citizen is given no shield from the growing gun violence menace in America today other than the advice to show up each and everyday in your day to day lives as if it is O.K. Corral time and to hope you are faster and more accurate than the bad guy.
You want to talk about constitutional rights? Well, how can we call ourselves free do to rights? if we are increasingly living in a state of growing fear and a growing collateral indifference to our fellow citizenrys’ victimization do to guns.
If another person can slip and fall on the sidewalk adjacent to your property, a property that the city owns and not you, yet you can still be held responsible for that fall under tort law as an adjacent property owner, then certainly a gun manufacturer can be held responsible for the violence which they produce each and every day.
When we bring the gun manufactures to the table of responsibility only then can we begin to get a true hold on this menace in America today, through the production of smarter guns, a stronger documentation of titling and the transfer of gun ownership, and a greater enforcement of the verifications concerning the sale of guns. All realities which the manufactures will demand like many of us do today as soon as the manufactures are told to live in the real world which all other Americans and especially gun victims do each and every day.
Quit protecting the gun manufacturers Senator Rounds, Thune, and Congresswoman Noem….. Quit protecting them! The children, the workers, the consumers, and the sport enthusiasts need your protection too!……
Yeah, protecting the US Constitution is so over rated.
Winston, careful what your advocating. If your new standard is to go around congress, the courts and the states for causes that you support then what’s to stop the next president from re-writing law that you agree with? I really don’t think the left has thought this through very well.
The republicans in theory should have lost all these elections if the public was backing the president. Like health care, he has misread the public. The public should have thrown their elected officials out if your above post had any merit. But in reality they haven’t and there is no indication that it will happen. The opposite has actually happened. The republicans control more senate seats, house seats, governors and control more state houses at anytime since the 1920’s. The facts don’t align to the realities on the ground.
Sir, we accept the fact of the powers of a president and don’t whine about those powers being un-constitutional—If Obama had done anything un-constitutional the wackos in congress would have impeached him years ago
Not quite true. He’s the first Black president, and can you imagine the riots in the streets if he were actually to be impeached. I don’t care if the President is black, brown, purple, or striped, it is the policies and obeying the Constitution that matter. And your comment above is also exactly why he has not been impeached; people who care about the Constitution and the rule of law are NOT wackos. It’s easier to call people names than to make an effort to understand the concerns of Obama critics.
The fact is that he is ruling like a king – if he doesn’t get what he wants, he simply uses executive orders to go around Congress and the will of the people to get it. And he uses departments like the EPA etc and their regulations if Congress doesn’t do his bidding. And if he couldn’t even be honest about Obamacare; he had to use Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi to get his Obamacare passed through trickery, bribes, and lies; after all, in Obama’s mind, the ends justify the means.
That us start with the last paragraph first. Republicans (or I should say, the Bush family) have won three of the last seven presidential elections, while the Democrats have won more, four, but only the first one in ’88 for the Republicans was by any decisive margin. 2000 was a flip of the coin with the help a slim conservative majority Supreme Court deciding to ignore states’ rights and decide a state ballot count for themselves. 2004 came down to Ohio and the brilliance of Karl Rove, who made sure there was a gay marriage initiative on the Ohio ballot to in turn make sure that fundamentalists (Republican lovers) got out to vote against gay marriage and for Bush; and even with all of that, Bush (and the Republicans) barely won Ohio with the help once again of an Ohio Republican Secretary of State (Florida any one?) , who had an out of state firm count their ballots in Tennessee for first time in Ohio’s history, not to mention the controversy over the provisional ballots that year in Ohio, as well. So to sum it up, the Democratic party and not the Republican party are the true majority party in contemporary American presidential politics.
Did Obama “misread” or mislead the American public? Yes he did, if you were stupid enough to believe him when he said, “….You can keep your current policy.” When have any of us been allowed to keep our policies “as is” before or after Obamacare? Every year and for many years before Obamacare, many of us have renewed our private health insurance policies in the fall with us maintaining our policies in name only with the coverages constantly being changed from year to year and no one called our employer or health insurance company a liar for doing it. Conservatives call Obama a liar for this because he promised a benefit, which then conservatives were then expecting, yet a benefit or guarantee which goes against any conservatives fundamental belief in self-reliance and no dependency…. This assertion by conservatives about a lie just blows my mind. What were conservatives expecting from Obama some kind of hand-out guarantee? Plus, I would rather be a member of a political party that lied about a dress or whether you were going to be able to keep your policy intact versus a party which lied and still has not found the WMD in Iraq; a latter lie that has unnecessarily killed and injured tens of thousands of people.
As far as throwing the Republicans out of office, or it hasn’t happen yet. Well, the Republicans are on shaky ground if they want to keep their Senate majority after 2016 according to current polls; especially after Thune loses later this year ;-), which surprisingly will help the Democrats majority in the Senate even more….. ( 😉 )
The Republicans House majority is only because of gerrymandering by state governments. State governments primarily run by Republicans because the GOP as out foxed Democrats over the last 30 years in controlling statehouses, while Democrats have put most of their energy and talent in maintaining a Presidential dominance. Heck, the Democrats, 7 years after 9/11 elected the first black American as President, whole middle name is Hussein, and whose father was a Muslim. If that doesn’t prove that America is for all, it has to at least prove that Democrats can win and do dominate the presidential game…… The aforementioned are the true facts!
Now to your first paragraph, why do you think they call any President the leader of the free world or the most powerful person in the world? Because the President or any president is personified in them themselves as the complete power of one branch of our federal government, while the other two branches conceivably divide their power between 435 or 9 individual leaders. And then it just so happens that our country is the lone super power in the world, thus, the titles, which come with being POTUS.
However, it does not stop there for the POTUS. Because the POTUS has the constitutional right to issue or disavow prior executive orders in enforcing laws, which they or a predecessor have issued. What Obama did today in terms of gun control comes from that presidential power. If you or anyone else does not like what he has done, then sue him, if in your wild dreams you think it was unconstitutional, or hope that your false premise Republican majority in the Congress can somehow muster up enough veto proof votes to put a stop to what Obama did today. That is how the system works. It is called presidential powers with checks and balances coming from the two other branches. If you do not like it there are constitutional remedies found within the aforementioned balance of power capabilities which I have mentioned. Don’t worry, the constitution is still intact and Presidents have always had a lot of legal constitution powers to execute the duties and responsibilities of those laws which have been enacted, and that my friend is what Obama did today.
Now to your contention on protecting the US Constitution, people can still buy guns even after what Obama announced today, and the SCOTUS for the first time in 2008 (contrary to what many had already assumed and the NRA as affectively pushed as their true political narrative on the issue for years), stated that an American citizen has the right to bear arms and that legal precedence still stands. Obama has not taken that right away or legal precedence nor can he. Although, that legal precedence is a relatively new right contrary to most gun owners beliefs or assertions or the historic NRA narrative since the 1960s.
In conclusion, I want you to know, that I do not take the rights mentioned in the constitution lightly. But that said, I don’t think when my father fought in World War II in the jungles of the South Pacific, that he and others were successfully fighting an aggressor so that future generations could live in an America where you had to bring your gun just to go to McDonalds….. Instead, I think a Happy Meal should merely be a happy experience……
Make the gun manufacturers responsible? What an idiotic statement that I’ve heard made by other idiots before. Then make liquor manufacturers responsible for drunk drivers, make car manufacturers responsible for car wrecks.
Gun makers don’t produce violence, people produce violence. Should we make knife manufacturers responsible when someone is stabbed?
You are truly a nonsensical person, and your arguments are idiotic.
–and all other federal legislators who claim to champion gun rights, also champion the rights of children who want to go to school without fear, workers who want to go to work without fear, consumers who want to go to the mall without fear, sports enthusiasts who want to attend an events center without fear, and the list continues on.
Those champions are alleviating the fears just as you argue.
Far out Winston I think the wrong, guy is in the senate.
Well composed, Sir Winston.
More enforcement of existing laws, more mental health checks, even more background checks is what most of “these people” have been yammering for.. All they want is to bitch , moan and show their ignorance.
After hearing Obama this morning, our sewing group went to Cabelas and put in our orders for some pistols and some high-capacity clips. Some of the ladies ordered some petite and pink handguns, and Ginny, who had never owned a gun, became the proud owner of a Taurus…or so the salesman called it. Ha, she will have the gun to match her car. However, in all seriousness, we disagree with Obama. We are not lawbreakers. We are a kindly group of devout Republican ladies who feel we have an inalienable right to protect ourselves from bad guys. Guns kept the red coats away, and mine will be close to my Bible.
Speaking of “red coats,” here is good historic primer on gun rights in America:
Winston the sewing ladies got to have something to gossip about , like slick Mike in .D.C.
Obama is the nation’s #1 gun salesman, ammo salesman, and reloading salesman the industry has ever had. Thanks to Obama there are tens of millions more guns in the hands of the citizenry. The gun industry is going to miss him but, on this matter, he has helped arm the citizenry and I am grateful. Thank you Mr. President.
P.S. Kudos on the tears. Irony served with emotion will make your efforts to arm the citizenry forever memorable. And, I thank you for putting some states in play this Presidential election. Who would have thought Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania could now be toss-ups if not better?
They won’t be “toss-ups” with Hillary at the top of the ticket. The women will come out of the woodwork to vote for her. Multitudes of Republican women will vote for her because they know she can win and be the first female president, but they will never admit their votes publicly.
What I want to know is, what is the GOP going to do once they lose Texas in the electoral college in the next decade?
Women will come out of the woodwork to vote for Hillary!???! Some will, those who pay no attention to the news, who don’t know or care about the lies she has told, and some just because she has a D before her name.
Hillary was asked by MSNBC’s Chris Matthews on Hardball if she was a socialist, to which she answered she was a progressive Democrat. But Matthews asked her to define the difference between Democrat and Socialist, and her answer was unbelievable; she did not even attempt to answer the question. Here is a link to her response if you haven’t heard it yet. And then you think women are going to vote for a socialist Democrat just because she’s a woman???!!
http://dailycaller.com/2016/01/05/hillary-cant-explain-the-difference-between-a-democrat-and-a-socialist-video/
BTW, Debbie Wasserman Schultz couldn’t explain the difference either when asked the same question by Chris Matthews on Hardball a few months ago. She instead shifted the question to the difference between Democrat and Republican.
Actually there is very little if any difference between the present Democrat party and socialism.
Have you ever used a public library? If your house ever catches on fire do you plan to call the fire department or will your garden hose suffice? Did you ever attend a public school? How many college students do you know who are not dependent upon federal financial aid? How many farmers do you know who farm without federal aid? How much of our state budget is balanced without federal dollars? How many people are dependent upon a very popular retirement program called Social Security? How many people are allowed to retire with dignity because of Medicare? Who doesn’t have a relative living in a nursing home on Medicaid? Have you ever used the federal interstate highway system? Who do you think built it and with whose money?
“Actually there is very little if any difference between the present Democrat’ic’ party and” reality…. and I would hate to think of a world without the aforementioned programs….
Springer is retired so she’s taking full advantage of Social Security and Medicare. I wonder what she’ll think if she ends up in a nursing home and can’t self pay for her care. Medicaid would be her only option. Welfare. Oh, the agony!
Yes, I’m on SS and Medicare for hospital. But, I am on private insurance for doctors etc. And we planned ahead and have nursing home insurance so are taking care of ourselves there. And I PAID INTO SS all my working life, and Medicare since it became a fact of life about the time I started working, so it’s not like these are welfare benefits to me. Personal responsibility is just the pits isn’t it?
Medicare covers doctors appts and hospitals. Supplemental insurance should pay what medicare won’t. And if that’s not how it works for you, then your ‘personal responsibility’ IS the pits. And sure you have nursing home insurance. Sure.
Since you obviously don’t know, Medicare Part A covers hospitals and nursing homes and hospice, and all eligible are automatically enrolled in Part A. Part B is medical insurance, and everyone eligible can enroll by paying the premiums, but our private insurance policy pays better than Medicare Part B so we kept it instead. For those on Part B, I know that it doesn’t cover everything, and that is the reason for a supplemental policy. I am always glad to educate the uninformed.
And just for calling me a liar, I am informing you that we did plan ahead and have self-funded paid up nursing home insurance.
You’re obviously very stupid. Medicare DOES NOT pay the bill for permanent nursing home residents. Only for patients who have been in the hospital and need short term assistance or rehab or hospice care. Since the average yearly cost of LTC nursing home insurance is $2,207 per year, you must have paid a huge premium for your ‘self-funded paid up nursing home insurance.’
Click and learn so you don’t end up on Medicaid and society has to pay for your care: http://longtermcare.gov/medicare-medicaid-more/
I’m always glad to educate idiots. 🙂
You are right; Medicare only pays a certain time after hospitalization and does not pay for nursing home care, but Medicaid does pay for nursing home care after you have exhausted all of your assets. I know the difference but used the wrong word. We can’t all be as exceptionally brilliant as you; so sorry.
You are correct, you cannot be ‘exceptionally brilliant’ as me. And should you require future nursing home care, I wish you all the luck in the world. You’re going to need it.
Not so fast Winston.
In the recent Rasmussen poll, Hillary was at 37% and Trump at 36%. This was consistent with an October poll and wit ha CNN poll in Dec.
Furthermore, most pollsters have noticed a significant gap in who women are choosing depending whether they are anonymous or not–a social-expectation gap. So the female support for Trump is likely under-reported since the perception is that women support women like Hillary. You’ve made the same mistake.
I doubt that women have much sympathy for a woman who was humiliated by the two men in her life, and who viciously attacked any woman who reported the sexual assaults of her husband. Woman don’t like weak women, especially in the WH.
Winston,
Interesting (and insulting to women in my opinion) you think women will make body parts the primary criteria on which to vote. But, I do agree your best argument for Hillary is based on “gender identity” as she fails at the more substantive qualifications related to being President of the most powerful nation in the world.
Where did he state he thinks women will make body parts the primary criteria on which to vote?
Springer debate somebody else .Winston makes you look bad.
Anonymous 10:43: “Where did he state he (Winston) thinks women will make body parts the primary criteria on which to vote?
Winston: “The women will come out of the woodwork to vote for her. Multitudes of Republican women will vote for her because they know she can win and be the first female president, but they will never admit their votes publicly.”
If this isn’t about having female parts, what is it?