It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Obama to announce new executive action on guns

page: 4
9
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 31 2015 @ 07:56 PM
link   




posted on Jan, 2 2016 @ 03:55 AM
link   
I was kinda hoping he would use his executive powers to release all the non violent prisoners arrested for having pot.
Could he have used his power to just legalise it?.
He would have been the best pres ever then.



posted on Jan, 2 2016 @ 06:09 AM
link   

The BBC's Laura Bicker in Washington says the president could use his executive authority in several areas, including expanding new background check requirements for buyers who purchase weapons from high-volume dealers.


www.bbc.co.uk...

As I am British I hold an ideological aversion to the private ownership of guns, but then again this is a cultural acceptance which I am comfortable with. You really can have a relatively peaceful society free of private gun-ownership, one that does not suffer the amount of gun rampages that America experiences yearly. Gun rampages in America are undoubtedly tied to America's gun culture, which has served only to present itself as a breeding ground of distrust. In fact, it is this particular point where America's multicultural society actually fully integrates, a distrust of other ethnicities. America's 'gun problem' is also an issue about distrust, which also serves to drive the following point.

Guns are primarily bought for 'what if...' scenarios, and the sense of needing a pre-emptive defence against the possibility of 'this' or 'that' violent scenario occurring. Americans are far from comfortable with each other, and rather than beguile Americans from this neurosis, self-interested gun groups massage this need for pre-emptive defence against 'what if...' scenarios with relish and an eye on the profits they can make.

Just as I have both an ideological aversion to, and a comfortable cultural acceptance against gun-ownership, I perceive many Americans to have an idealogical acceptance of gun-ownership (citing many reasons based on distrust) to such a degree that gun-ownership has become a culture they have habituated themselves to.


Last month a Texas police chief warned the president that trying to disarm Americans could spark a revolution.

www.bbc.co.uk...

This un-named Texas police chief is right. it will take a revolution to sort out America's gun culture and gun problem. It can either be a violent revolution or a relatively peaceful one done through legislation after long and careful debate by getting Americans to convince themselves that they don't need guns in the way they think they do (of which they are already many Americans who understand this). It certainly could not happen overnight, it is a debate that has been on-going for many decades, and will probably continue to rage on for many more. Arguments in the debate have to be definitive and specific. They have to rebut the reasons for gun-ownership, and authorities have to be mandated to protect and serve society in such a demonstrable way that it will give confidence to Americans to freely give up their guns. I know I will probably not live to see such a hoped-for scenario come about.

Many Americans love to tell the world that their's is the "...land of the free...", but the rest of the world differs. You are not the land of the free, but you could be, and only by giving up the gun will you ever be so.



posted on Jan, 2 2016 @ 08:29 AM
link   

originally posted by: elysiumfire

The BBC's Laura Bicker in Washington says the president could use his executive authority in several areas, including expanding new background check requirements for buyers who purchase weapons from high-volume dealers.


www.bbc.co.uk...

As I am British I hold an ideological aversion to the private ownership of guns, but then again this is a cultural acceptance which I am comfortable with. You really can have a relatively peaceful society free of private gun-ownership


Your society isn't really all that peaceful. If you're an advocate for the destruction of other people's rights (and most British people on the internet are) you are not being very peaceful. You are doing everything you can legally do to end someone else's freedom. The irony of which is the fact that you're doing it with free speech.

Britain actually seems to be a pretty oppressive place in a lot of ways that have nothing to do with guns. Every country has minorities and I would imagine most of the minorities in the UK are people who wish they had the rights Americans have traditionally had. I'm betting they feel pretty oppressed and uncomfortable living where they do.

edit on 2-1-2016 by BrianFlanders because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 2 2016 @ 08:45 AM
link   
Ok a couple of thoughts...
Let's say you have an arrest history in some small town. Who know what resources that town or county may have to share information nationally. You could easily go to another city and nothing show up.

As far as mental illness, would this violate doctor/patient confidentially? With, I'm sure, a vast number of Americans take some sort of anti-depressant or anxiety drugs, would doctors and pharmacies for that matter need to be included in any data relating?



posted on Jan, 2 2016 @ 02:50 PM
link   
BrianFlanders:

Your society isn't really all that peaceful.


British society abides in a more comfortable societal peace than that of America. America cannot compete with the UK in regards to tolerance to other ethnicities, even though many Brits (and I am one of them) who vociferously criticises many ideological aspects of other ethnic ideas and concepts which many Brits (and I am one of them) perceive as wholly incompatible with the long historical legacy that is British culture. It's an argument and a debate that has been silenced by the use of the 'race card' for too long, and many Brits are no longer remaining silent.

Criticism of an ethnicity does not equate to a hate of of the ethnic group itself, whose ideology is being criticised, it means an opposition to certain ethnic ideas...race and skin colour and genetics never did nor does it ever play a part in the criticism. It is the same for America, the only difference in the UK is that the British do not allow their concerns to drive a wedge of distrust between the diverse ethnicities that abide in physical 'presence' only of one another.

In America, gun culture has been part of the breeding ground for a many and diverse polarised society that is America today. Where people, aligning to their own kind, either by skin colour or ideological belief group, have come together like homesteaders taking refuge behind a barrier of wagons, because they fear the other groups (ethnicities) circling around outside the wagons they are hiding behind. Not all of America is like this, but I would hazard a guess that if a most comprehensively detailed survey was carried out, the most vapid areas of gun culture presence would be those areas, those states, filled with people who believe there is a God, are religious, and are more resonant to Confederacy than Union.

To the outside world, there are two Americas, as designated by the political choice of either Republican or Democrat. Each political party has a large hardcore support that tends to evenly balance each other out. In the middle is the larger group of Americans that are not signed up to be either Republican or Democrat, but they are the people whose support each party seeks to gain at every election. It is these people that sway the decider for who goes to the White House. I am not religious, but I know that Jesus never sought to convert the converted. So even though each party panders to the hopes and wishes of their hardcore support, it is to the people not of their party they are more interested in. It is this group that will eventually bring about the correct form of gun control to America.


Every country has minorities and I would imagine most of the minorities in the UK are people who wish they had the rights Americans have traditionally had.


Okay. Apart from gun ownership, you tell me what rights would immigrants receive immediately in America that they would not equally receive immediately in the UK, or any continental European county. What specific rights are you talking about? With regards to political oppression, Britain is no more oppressed by politics than America is, but what America is more oppressed by than Britain is its people and the ideologies they hold that polarise the whole country into very eclectic and diverse groupings of people. If left to their own devices, Americans would gun culture themselves into an early grave.

Americans are so scared of each other it is unreal. They need the 'comfort blanket' of a gun...that is what they have convinced themselves of. Even your law enforcement is scared witless, which is why they now come across as cold-hearted brutal killers. All they want to do is simply make it to the end of their 'work' shift alive, because that to them makes it a good and successful day. They've stopped asking questions first, they act out a response to their fear of being killed at any moment. The fault of this can be laid at the feet of every American, because the way you live your lives and have organised yourselves today has created this country-wide ambience of fear and distrust of one another. The perception of any form of difference is taken offence at or as a slight, or as a challenge.

For me personally, the most frustrating aspect of many Americans is just how blind they are to the denial they live under.
edit on 2/1/16 by elysiumfire because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 2 2016 @ 03:11 PM
link   



posted on Jan, 2 2016 @ 03:52 PM
link   
a reply to: antar
You left a few out. Here's one.

This level of violence must be stopped. Sarah and Jim Brady are working hard to do that, and I say more power to them. If the passage of the Brady bill were to result in a reduction of only 10 or 15 percent of those numbers (and it could be a good deal greater), it would be well worth making it the law of the land.

fusion.net...


edit on 1/2/2016 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 2 2016 @ 04:32 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

Good addition.
Reagan was a traitor too.



posted on Jan, 2 2016 @ 05:52 PM
link   
a reply to: butcherguy

Reagan was a traitor too.

Too? Stalin was a traitor?

Interesting point of view.
Anyone who is in favor of gun control is a traitor?

edit on 1/2/2016 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 2 2016 @ 05:57 PM
link   
a reply to: elysiumfire

This coming from someone who's nation instigated colonialism on a massive scale, which ultimately led to the problems we have in the middle east with made up borders roping different tribes into zones on a map.

You know the first National anthem played in Iraq was God save the King?

As for gun control, have you ever lived here? Have you ever personally met firearms enthusiasts? I'm a libertarian, who follows the teachings of the old norse gods, who lives in Texas.

All you demonstrated with your comment is arrogance, ignorance, and generalized opinion, whicheck are common traits of the anti gun argument.
edit on 2-1-2016 by SonOfThor because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 2 2016 @ 06:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: butcherguy

Reagan was a traitor too.

Too? Stalin was a traitor?

Interesting point of view.
Anyone who is in favor of gun control is a traitor?

I think he was a traitor for running up the debt.
The 'too' was referring to all the politicians that have supported or helped to pass gun contol measures.
And course Stalin was a traitor to his own countrymen.
edit on b000000312016-01-02T18:06:52-06:0006America/ChicagoSat, 02 Jan 2016 18:06:52 -0600600000016 by butcherguy because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 2 2016 @ 07:28 PM
link   
The NWO plan and the false flags havent worked and is behind schedule ,so he has to something to speed it up ,of course there are the usual dummies who cant see the forest for the trees and the real Agenda



posted on Jan, 2 2016 @ 07:28 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jan, 2 2016 @ 08:46 PM
link   
SonOfThor :

All you demonstrated with your comment is arrogance, ignorance...


And all you demonstrated with your entire post was an absence of a grip on reality. Even your chosen moniker demonstrates this.

I must ask, that which I have quoted of you, do you really understand the words written? Come now, be honest, did you not have to silently mouth the words over and over to yourself as you typed with one of your pudding digits? You make about as much sense as pouring petrol on a fire to extinguish it. This is the problem you have when you give a troglodyte a keyboard and computer, amidst all the senseless bashing on the keys, some words will form by accident, but in the making of them the troglodyte is no more wiser, nor more enlightened.



posted on Jan, 4 2016 @ 05:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: Iamnotadoctor
Destined to strike fear into gun toting citizens.
I personally agree with any new legislation that curbs deaths.
Background checks as a pre-requisite are so ridiculously logical and NEEDED.
I find it hard for anyone to disagree with such actions.
Any thoughts?




Yes, many many thoughts.

So, violating peoples rights, by infringing on a Constitutional Right, because you and a handful of others believe it will change criminals getting firearms to commit crime is about as juvenile as it gets.

Have you ever read the Constitution and specifically the 2nd?



posted on Jan, 4 2016 @ 05:08 PM
link   
a reply to: maybee

No, no you can't. That is not how any of this works.

Arrest, if convicted are logged into a NATIONAL database, which ALL federal, state and local agencies are connected to.
FFLs have one of those agencies to conduct the FBI driven background check.



posted on Jan, 4 2016 @ 05:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: Iamnotadoctor
Destined to strike fear into gun toting citizens.
I personally agree with any new legislation that curbs deaths.
Background checks as a pre-requisite are so ridiculously logical and NEEDED.
I find it hard for anyone to disagree with such actions.
Any thoughts?


You're right of course, anyone who opposes common sense is not supporting sensible gun ownership. These same irrational people keep bringing up the same nonsense when you raise gun control, saying "then only the bad guys will have guns!" but when you suggest common sense laws they reject them all without contemplating them, meaning that the bad guys can easily get guns!

They can't have it both ways. Being a responsible gun owner means you accept that there has to be sensible gun laws. You cannot claim to be a lawful and sensible gun owner while rejecting all legislation to make it harder for anyone but lawful and sensible people from owning guns!



posted on Jan, 4 2016 @ 05:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: macman
So, violating peoples rights, by infringing on a Constitutional Right,


No rights have been infringed upon.
Even when legislation is revealed, no rights will have been infringed upon.
You can still legally own guns.
Nothing is stopping you from legally owning guns.
Enough with this victim mentality, you are NOT BEING OPPRESSED.


originally posted by: macman
because you and a handful of others believe it will change criminals getting firearms to commit crime is about as juvenile as it gets.


It will prevent a large number of criminals and the mentally unstable from having access to those legally purchased guns.
Here's how it works: Person applies to buy a gun. Person is checked. Idf their background shows criminality or mental instability they don't get a gun.

How on Earth can you claim that this is anything but reasonable and sensible?
Unless, of course, you are a criminal or you are mentally unstable, and therefore you're worried that you won't be able to pretend to be a "sane and sensible" gun owner?

This will not halt all shootings, and no one thinks it will, there are enough nutters out there with guns already (the Bundy clan for instance!)
But this will, absolutely, 100% make it harder for criminals and the mentally ill from having easy access to guns.


originally posted by: macman
Have you ever read the Constitution and specifically the 2nd?


Have you?
Read the part about "well regulated militia" please.

You're lucky that: "the Supreme Court of the United States has ruled that the right belongs to individuals, while also ruling that the right is not unlimited and does not prohibit all regulation of either firearms or similar devices."

So, what should have been a limited right to militias (sensible) was extended to the individual by the supreme court. But that IS NOT WITHOUT legislation.

How come so often it's foreigners telling Americans about their own Constitution and their own History? Ironic that a Brit seems to know more about this than an American, isn't it?



posted on Jan, 4 2016 @ 05:37 PM
link   
i wonder what new checks will be proposed. im all for an IQ test and maybe some sort of ethical or psych test. weed out the crazies and fundamentalists.
edit on 4-1-2016 by vjr1113 because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
9
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join