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.
originally posted by: FamCore
a reply to: xuenchen
Perhaps the unveiling of a new mental health "form" / test to see if you are fit to own a firearm? I'd be for that (depending on the terms).
But it's more likely a shaming game where we are all supposed to feel guilty if we are gun owners
originally posted by: FamCore
a reply to: xuenchen
Perhaps the unveiling of a new mental health "form" / test to see if you are fit to own a firearm? I'd be for that (depending on the terms).
But it's more likely a shaming game where we are all supposed to feel guilty if we are gun owners
originally posted by: xuenchen
U.S. President Barack Obama is taking the gun control issues to the people !!
He is going on CNN with Anderson Cooper later this week to make the case for more controls.
The comfort zone setting will be a "town hall" meeting at George Mason University.
He has been shouting at Congress to do something, but no new legislation is pending anywhere on the Federal level.
So he must be ready to "announce" his intentions for a few more useless Executive Orders.
It seems like every time we see new "regulations", the problems get worse.
Maybe they are not focusing on the *REAL* sources of the problems?
2016 looks like another year of error-panic-mania at the government levels.
CNN to host Obama town hall on guns in America
President Barack Obama is mounting a final-year push to make gun control part of his legacy despite Republican opposition and is expected to announce unilateral action soon.
He will join CNN's Anderson Cooper Thursday for an exclusive one-hour live town hall on gun control at George Mason University in Fairfax, Virginia, in hopes of mounting a final pitch to the public.
It's an issue he has had zero success on so far in his presidency, despite his repeated, emotional appeals for change. Congress has remained a roadblock even in the face of widespread public support for Obama's past calls for universal background checks or bolstered mental health support, with near uniform opposition from Republicans and a split on the issue among Democrats.
What will any new EOs be about?
originally posted by: reldra
We have no idea of exactly what Obama is planning. I would welcome a few executive orders as Congress spends time doing nothing. Not that I want a President to take over the world with executive orders, but I think he has been more than patient. If it were me, for many issues on both sides, my pen would be on FIRE by now.
originally posted by: greencmp
originally posted by: thesaneone
a reply to: crazyewok
Most likely it would get shot down but after how many years and after how much money?
Yes, like the supreme court shot down the ACA.
originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
originally posted by: reldra
We have no idea of exactly what Obama is planning. I would welcome a few executive orders as Congress spends time doing nothing. Not that I want a President to take over the world with executive orders, but I think he has been more than patient. If it were me, for many issues on both sides, my pen would be on FIRE by now.
The President of the United States is not supposed to create law, that is the Legislative Branches job and if there is gridlock there, too bad for him, because that is how the Framers intended it to function.
originally posted by: crazyewok
originally posted by: greencmp
originally posted by: thesaneone
a reply to: crazyewok
Most likely it would get shot down but after how many years and after how much money?
Yes, like the supreme court shot down the ACA.
But there is no amendment for or against that so the ability for the supreme court to shoot that down is limited as it would be a debate to say it was unconstitutional.
Im not saying its right or wrong. Just the constitution doesnt cover it.
Gun rights though it does and clearly.
originally posted by: reldra
Years of deadlock and blocking just because congress doesn't like the President is NOT what the framers planned.
Republicans have said they would try to block ANYTHING Obama wants just because and in advance of even knowing what that might be.
The framers could not have known of this outrageous slow down of government over years. It is either because Obama is not republican or that he is black. I cannot read their minds, so I won't hinge on either or both but it is at least one.
originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: reldra
But the laws all fail because criminals break laws.
I really hope Obama isn't planning a real big surprise when his next moves fail.
originally posted by: reldra
originally posted by: crazyewok
originally posted by: greencmp
originally posted by: thesaneone
a reply to: crazyewok
Most likely it would get shot down but after how many years and after how much money?
Yes, like the supreme court shot down the ACA.
But there is no amendment for or against that so the ability for the supreme court to shoot that down is limited as it would be a debate to say it was unconstitutional.
Im not saying its right or wrong. Just the constitution doesnt cover it.
Gun rights though it does and clearly.
The constitution does not cover gun rights CLEARLY. In fact, it is so unclear, it is constantly debated as to the scope and intention.
originally posted by: reldra
originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: reldra
But the laws all fail because criminals break laws.
I really hope Obama isn't planning a real big surprise when his next moves fail.
Criminals in definition break laws. It does not mean that new regulations of any kind should not be passed. That is a ridiculous position.
originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
originally posted by: reldra
Years of deadlock and blocking just because congress doesn't like the President is NOT what the framers planned.
Yeah, it is. There is no, 'The President gets to do whatever he wants allowance after a certain amount of time clause in the Constitution.
Republicans have said they would try to block ANYTHING Obama wants just because and in advance of even knowing what that might be.
Of well, that is tough cookies for Dear Leader then. Maybe he should have helped to get more Democrats elected during the past midterm election.
The framers could not have known of this outrageous slow down of government over years. It is either because Obama is not republican or that he is black. I cannot read their minds, so I won't hinge on either or both but it is at least one.
Have you read any minutes of the Continental Congress? They were just as much of a bunch of dithering politicians as our current ones. Hell, they even argued on whether to pay the Continental Army or not.
originally posted by: reldra
In this day and age the dithering should not continue in that way.
The government was set up a lot differently. You could travel by horse to meet with the president and complain that the farmer next to you was stealing your horses.
Executive orders are allowed. Obama has not made more than other Presidents. Maybe he should create a couple more.
originally posted by: ManBehindTheMask
originally posted by: reldra
originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: reldra
But the laws all fail because criminals break laws.
I really hope Obama isn't planning a real big surprise when his next moves fail.
Criminals in definition break laws. It does not mean that new regulations of any kind should not be passed. That is a ridiculous position.
The only ridiculous position is the supposition that more laws will stop criminals
After all murder is illegal already
originally posted by: reldra
originally posted by: ManBehindTheMask
originally posted by: reldra
originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: reldra
But the laws all fail because criminals break laws.
I really hope Obama isn't planning a real big surprise when his next moves fail.
Criminals in definition break laws. It does not mean that new regulations of any kind should not be passed. That is a ridiculous position.
The only ridiculous position is the supposition that more laws will stop criminals
After all murder is illegal already
It is illegal. It might be that less people who have thought about it did not do it because they knew the consequences and thought it was not easy to get away with it.
originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
originally posted by: reldra
In this day and age the dithering should not continue in that way.
Sure it should, it was set up that way for just that reason.
The government was set up a lot differently. You could travel by horse to meet with the president and complain that the farmer next to you was stealing your horses.
That really has nothing to do with anything we are discussing.
Executive orders are allowed. Obama has not made more than other Presidents. Maybe he should create a couple more.
I did not say they were not allowed, I said that they were not able to be used to create legislation and Dear Leader knows that.
originally posted by: reldra
The dithering we pay these people for is outrageous.
Yes, it does, the universe of this government was a lot smaller and real people could actually voice their concerns more directly.
Dear Leader? I had no idea you were a citizen of North Korea. My sympathies.