CNN to host Obama town hall on guns in America

a reply to: uncommitted

Thanks for trying again.

What is within the Ratified Constitution?

And again. You really don't have any clue.

There is no "granting" of rights within the founding documents.

Obama is *REALLY* pouring it on !!!

Published on Jan 5, 2016

During his speech on new gun control laws Obama teared up talking about the children shot at Newtown.

Barack Obama Cries for Gun Control

What a surprise, anti 2nd amendment CNN giving Obama air time to push his dreams for gun control.

originally posted by: MystikMushroom
a reply to: seagull

-Not strawman purchasing for someone

That's a gray area that needs careful definition. If I buy a firearm, say a shotgun, for my niece so we can go hunting, that would be outlawed?

-Keeping your guns locked up and out of the reach of children

I don't need a law to tell me that. Nor did my parents. As a child I knew, upon sure and certain punishment that I'd forever remember, that they were not to be touched...ever. Didn't need to "lock them up".

-Reporting shady FLL dealers when you buy from, and have a questionable experience

Of course, they're in violation of existing laws already. Why do we need more?

-Reporting stolen firearms promptly

Same as I would if my TV were stolen. Or my car. etc...

-Taking gun safety classes and learning how to properly take down/strip/clean/use a gun safely

Now on this, we can most assuredly agree. I was taught from a very young age how to use, and maintain my firearms. While I can't do it blindfolded, I'm not far from that. That's just common sense.

-reporting gun shops that don't seem to follow the law

Like any other business I think may be violating the law. Whether they sell firearms or not.

The above are things gun owners should be doing right now anyway. Part of that maturity is that Americans rush to guns to solve their problems. Look at America's history, we "won the west" at the end of a barrel. We won our independence with muskets. We tamed frontiers and won WWII with guns.

Rush to guns to solve their problems? Since when? If that were the case, wouldn't there be far more shootings then there are?

Guns were only part of what "won the west". The railroad was a much bigger part of that. ...and the sheer number of people coming west.

Won our independence with muskets, we surely did. Have kept it with the gun, too, as in WWII.

Look at our movies and our culture, guns are used to make us feel safer. Guns appear as more than just something to keep a boogyman from raping us, guns are something that give us power. We feel as if WE are in control of a situation if we're the one with the gun.

Guns don't make me safer. I make me safer. A gun is a tool, nothing more, nothing less. If someone thinks otherwise, they're fools.

We're a powerless people today, and some think walking around with a gun somehow gives them back that personal power. We look around and see our votes don't matter. Corporations do whatever the hell they want. The poor are getting poorer, the rich richer -- and there's not a damned thing any of us can do about it. Criminals get away with everything, and yet the law abiding citizen is taken for a ride on a daily basis. Owning a gun is way to emotionally and mental recapture some sense of power in life.

I get very tired of hearing this, y'know? We're only powerless because someone has convinced you, and many others, that we are. Power is there if we choose to utilize it. Those very people/corporations want you to think that, and you're playing right along. Guns don't give power, as I said before, they're tools. Nothing more, nothing less. I give away, or take away, power by my actions, not my tools. ...and a gun is a tool of very last resort. When all else has failed...which according to you, has happened.

That, right there is an irresponsible reason to own a gun. The same things I mentioned above happen in Canada, the UK, France, Austrailia, NZ -- and yet those people don't feel the need to arm themselves to make up for some kind of inferiority complex and sense of powerlessness.

You'd be shocked, I think, to learn that most gun owners aren't foaming at the mouth morons out to shoot it out with the govt. I own guns because I can. Because I enjoy going to the range. Because they are a tool to help me keep myself fed, and safer from those who might want to take what isn't theirs.
Inferiority complex? Seriously? Powerlessness? Only because they've allowed themselves to be convinced of it.

Disagree all you want, denial is strong about this -- but the stronger people react in denial the more I know I've hit an exposed nerve of the truth...

Denial of what? That guns are tools? Nothing more, nothing less? Because others don't realize that, I'm supposed to give up my rights? For what reason, MM? Give me one good reason why I should?

I am no danger to anyone, unless pushed too far. Hasn't happened yet, nor is it likely to.

I react because I'm, along with other law abiding citizens, considered little more than wanna be criminals. So, yeah, I'm going to react strongly. Question should be why isn't everyone reacting strongly. Which freedom is next, MM? All in the name of security, or safety, or whatever silly reason someone comes up with next.

a reply to: macman

But, since there is not one piece of proof for such things, seeing that firearm ownership in the US was basically unrestricted until 1968, and we weren't descending into 3rd world chaos is about as concrete proof that your theory is BS as it gets.

Obviously that claim is completely false, clearly there's been good reason to regulate firearms since 1934... but you already knew that, right?

National firearms act 1934

The impetus for the National Firearms Act of 1934 was the gangland crime of the Prohibition era, such as the St. Valentine’s Day Massacre of 1929, and the attempted assassination of President Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1933. Like the current National Firearms Act (NFA), the 1934 Act required NFA firearms to be registered and taxed. The $200 tax was quite prohibitive at the time (equivalent to $3,538 in 2016). With a few exceptions, the tax amount is unchanged.

Originally, pistols and revolvers were to be regulated as strictly as machine guns; towards that end, cutting down a rifle or shotgun to circumvent the handgun restrictions by making a concealable weapon was taxed as strictly as a machine gun.[5]

Conventional pistols and revolvers were ultimately excluded from the Act before passage, but other concealable weapons were not.

Federal Firearms Act of 1938

In addition to the licensing component of the FFA, the law required licensees to maintain customer records, and it made illegal the transfer of firearms to certain classes of persons, such as convicted felons. These classes of persons are commonly referred to as "prohibited persons."

Hey, what's the count on robberies and home invasions in AUS again? What about assaults with deadly weapons like knives?

All Anglo countries are fairly relative when it comes to crime in general. The US just stands out with all the murders and roughly 30,000 gun deaths a year.

Oh, and just love your stats there. I bet you glossed over the little fact that that number is about a corrupt as the 0bama admin? That stat includes gang on gang crime and suicides.

Don't forget about all those accidental shootings.

Oh, so nothing face to face then, so long as you have the keyboard and screen to protect you.

lol, is that a threat? I'd love to debate any American face to face on this issue... If it infuriates them enough to be aggressive, it just kind of proves there wrong, or don't have the mental capacity to understand the issue in the first place.

Yeah, so at what point does MY Constitutional rights extend to a foreigner on the internet?
Should we bring democracy to your home country as well?

So your passion for the US Constitution is more of a narcissistic "I've got mine" mentality then, rather than a fundamental belief of rights human beings should have?

This will probably blow your mind dude, but Americans aren't the only ones on this planet who have freedom of speech and an elected government.

originally posted by: Subaeruginosa
a reply to: macman


Obviously that claim is completely false, clearly there's been good reason to regulate firearms since 1934... but you already knew that, right?

National firearms act 1934

The impetus for the National Firearms Act of 1934 was the gangland crime of the Prohibition era, such as the St. Valentine’s Day Massacre of 1929, and the attempted assassination of President Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1933. Like the current National Firearms Act (NFA), the 1934 Act required NFA firearms to be registered and taxed. The $200 tax was quite prohibitive at the time (equivalent to $3,538 in 2016). With a few exceptions, the tax amount is unchanged.

Originally, pistols and revolvers were to be regulated as strictly as machine guns; towards that end, cutting down a rifle or shotgun to circumvent the handgun restrictions by making a concealable weapon was taxed as strictly as a machine gun.[5]

Conventional pistols and revolvers were ultimately excluded from the Act before passage, but other concealable weapons were not.

Federal Firearms Act of 1938

In addition to the licensing component of the FFA, the law required licensees to maintain customer records, and it made illegal the transfer of firearms to certain classes of persons, such as convicted felons. These classes of persons are commonly referred to as "prohibited persons."

yes, SOOO much 3rd world action going on.

The background check is what we are discussing. Hence, what I stated is correct.
But, lets go back before all that and see that the US very much was not within the 3rd world status you are pitching.

originally posted by: Subaeruginosa

All Anglo countries are fairly relative when it comes to crime in general. The US just stands out with all the murders and roughly 30,000 gun deaths a year.

So, deflect and attack is your game.
Can you just answer the question.

originally posted by: Subaeruginosa
Don't forget about all those accidental shootings.

So, what is the real number then? Remove the Gang on gang violence. Remove suicides.

But, let me guess. You will yell "Look at this baby" and expect what again?

originally posted by: Subaeruginosa

lol, is that a threat? I'd love to debate any American face to face on this issue... If it infuriates them enough to be aggressive, it just kind of proves there wrong, or don't have the mental capacity to understand the issue in the first place.

Honestly.....if you take it as such, I wonder what you also assume.
But, if you ever visit, please do let me know.

originally posted by: Subaeruginosa
So your passion for the US Constitution is more of a narcissistic "I've got mine" mentality then, rather than a fundamental belief of rights human beings should have?

Deflect and attack again.
This is not about your talking point retorts about "i got mine" or what ever you can pull from Media Matters or Moveon.org.
This is about the 2nd Amendment, please try to keep up and stay on topic.

originally posted by: Subaeruginosa
This will probably blow your mind dude, but Americans aren't the only ones on this planet who have freedom of speech and an elected government.

And again, at what point did I tell you to stop speaking?
Please.....pretty pretty please provide me with my direct quote stating this.
Funny again, how you want some form of "freedom of speech" protected, yet have no qualms about dismissing other rights like...........the 2nd.

Any more hypocritical nonsense you want to try?

a reply to: macman

Funny again, how you want some form of "freedom of speech" protected, yet have no qualms about dismissing other rights like...........the 2nd.

That's the thing, I've got no issue with guns or the 2nd. But the fact is there's been laws since 1938 to prevent certain people from obtaining them.

So, you either believe the 2nd gives violent gang members the right to own ak-47's, or you support what Obama's doing, which is simply making it harder for people who already aren't supposed to own firearms from getting them.

originally posted by: Subaeruginosa
a reply to: macman

Funny again, how you want some form of "freedom of speech" protected, yet have no qualms about dismissing other rights like...........the 2nd.

That's the thing, I've got no issue with guns or the 2nd. But the fact is there's been laws since 1938 to prevent certain people from obtaining them.

So, you either believe the 2nd gives violent gang members the right to own ak-47's, or you support what Obama's doing, which is simply making it harder for people who already aren't supposed to own firearms from getting them.

Now that's where I get a little confused. As I understand it, all Obama has done is made a statement, which is not a law that anyone has to follow; to close loopholes, which really didn't exist in the first place; to stop gun violence, which will occur anyway.

What exactly did he do? Are violent gang members going to say, "Well, gee. It's not really more illegal for us to use AK-47s to kill people. But Obama said something, so we should just use revolvers instead."

Are mentally ill people going to start using logic and reason? "I'd really like to shoot everyone in a movie theater, but Obama said something. I'll just see how many people I can stab with a carving knife instead."

a reply to: VictorVonDoom

That's where 'I' get a little confused, tbh.

Are you angry that he couldn't get congress to allow him to do enough? Or are you angry that he even attempted to do anything at all in the first place, in the face of lack of political & corporate support?

Clearly the US has a very serious problem, due to there overly lax gun laws... But all you here from the NRA and corporation overloads is feeble minded slogans, like, "more guns" or "shall not be infringed", which in reality doesn't solve a single thing.

At least Obama actually tried to do something positive about it... Instead of just playing politics.

originally posted by: macman
a reply to: uncommitted

Thanks for trying again.

What is within the Ratified Constitution?

And again. You really don't have any clue.

There is no "granting" of rights within the founding documents.

Ok, I'll stop playing because it's clear that some people on here are rabidly trying to oppose anything that they see as an infringement on their liberty rather than sensible proposals to try and help avoid other peoples liberty to live be infringed. I get it, have fun.

Oh, let's think about what is actually being proposed though instead of the kneejerk ATS reaction of 'they're a coming for our guns mama' that we see on here so often, perhaps this will help -

www.bbc.co.uk...

The NRA is being very vocal about this, so that must mean it's a step in the right direction.

originally posted by: kosmicjack
The most interesting thing about this, to me at least, is how CNN gets the deal. If the President is making live comments regarding a Constitutional issue, why isn't it simulcast on all news networks, if not all broadcast networks?

Sweet for CNN, as I'm sure a Thursday night in January is otherwise pretty ho-hum as far as ratings go.

I would say CNN and it's advertisers have the best lobby.

originally posted by: Subaeruginosa

At least Obama actually tried to do something positive about it... Instead of just playing politics.

I have to disagree with that 100%.

He did not try to do anything positive about gun violence in America. At best, it could be said that he is trying to get someone else (Congress) to do something. That is, if you believe him. It has already been established that he is a liar. In any case, it is not the President's job to create laws, that is the job of Congress. If Mr. Obama was really concerned about gun violence, he could have proposed some legislation when he was a senator. At least then he could have claimed to have done something as a senator, rather than just show up on occasion. Or, he could have done something when Democrats had control of the White House and Congress, but decided to push through Obamacare instead.

He is 100% just playing politics with this issue. He knows he can't do anything. He knows Congress won't do anything in an election year. I think his only purpose in bringing all this up now is to keep Americans distracted and divided. Start a conversation on gun violence in America so no one talks about the US/Turkey connections to ISIS. Or the Federal Reserve Bank in February. Or why he keeps renewing the Patriot Act. Or our shifting policies in Syria. Or the secret prisons in Chicago and other cities.

There is a whole host of things he could actually do something about, but he focuses on an issue he can't do anything about right now, although he could have in the past. He is just playing politics.

originally posted by: Subaeruginosa


That's the thing, I've got no issue with guns or the 2nd. But the fact is there's been laws since 1938 to prevent certain people from obtaining them.

Annnnnndd you completely avoid the statement again.
Before 1938, the US was not spiraling into a 3rd world state.

originally posted by: Subaeruginosa
So, you either believe the 2nd gives violent gang members the right to own ak-47's, or you support what Obama's doing, which is simply making it harder for people who already aren't supposed to own firearms from getting them.

The 2nd has NO qualifiers for Bearing of Arms.
These actions, or laws don't stop criminals from obtaining firearms. If you believe that, than you are gullible and ignorant.

If someone is released from prison after a conviction, they have served their time and are the same as any other US citizen. plain and simple.

a reply to: uncommitted

a reply to: macman

I don't think the Great Depression (1929-1939) was all that awesome. People were making soup out of ketchup and standing in bread lines. That's pretty 3rd world to me, dude.

a reply to: MystikMushroom

And firearms had nothing to do with that. Still didn't put the US in the 3rd world standing.

What's weird to me is this "right to bear arms" is taken as a "HAVE TO OWN GUNZ!" thing.

It's almost like upon birth, every American infant should have a Glock shoved into their crib with them.

"Here is your 9mm Glock, issued to you at the time of your birth as part of your birthright as an American citizen". Oprah might as well throw hand guns at her crowds..."You get a .40 S&W and YOU get a S&W!"

People's irrational obession with firearms in this country is bordering on mentally ill. It seems as if it's a form of over compensation for some perceived lack of control over their own lives...some kind of visual statement of available power they have over their lot in life. They may have a crap job, hate the world -- but they have a gun to "right things" if it goes any further south.

a reply to: macman

You made a false claim about the USA "not sliding into a 3rd world". I wanted to correct you...

originally posted by: MystikMushroom
a reply to: macman

I don't think the Great Depression (1929-1939) was all that awesome. People were making soup out of ketchup and standing in bread lines. That's pretty 3rd world to me, dude.

I bet there's more people locked into "3rd world status" today right here in the big U.S. cities than in the 1930s.

a reply to: MystikMushroom

While I assume that you are just generalizing here, I would say that talking about obsessions, Americans have many obsessions, but guns is a right regardless of how you perceive our second amendment.

No, my husband a retired marine and owner of guns is not mentally ill and neither have an irrational obsession. He is just exercising his second amendment rights legally.