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.

 

CNN to host Obama town hall on guns in America

page: 3
25
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 3 2016 @ 04:10 PM
link   
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




posted on Jan, 3 2016 @ 04:34 PM
link   

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


Can I give this a codename? Oh, please!

How about: "Operation You Can Run but not Hide"?

As long as they keep Anderson Cooper's face in front of us, this is exactly what it's about.

Tis just a matter of parameters.

Betcha you answer all the questions beautifully.

# 568



posted on Jan, 3 2016 @ 04:37 PM
link   

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


Besides there being no qualifications to the second amendment, allowing the academy to specify the parameters for sanity and, therefore, capability and authorization to defend oneself is not acceptable.



posted on Jan, 3 2016 @ 05:31 PM
link   
Who gets to determine who is "mentally" unfit?

Study: 70 Percent Of Americans On Prescription Drugs

Lots of medication has "side effects" that might nullify gun ownership.




posted on Jan, 3 2016 @ 05:33 PM
link   

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?







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.



posted on Jan, 3 2016 @ 05:35 PM
link   

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 Branch's job and if there is gridlock there, too bad for him, because that is how the Framers intended it to function.



edit on 3-1-2016 by AugustusMasonicus because: Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn



posted on Jan, 3 2016 @ 05:36 PM
link   

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.



posted on Jan, 3 2016 @ 05:39 PM
link   

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.


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.



posted on Jan, 3 2016 @ 05:41 PM
link   

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.



posted on Jan, 3 2016 @ 05:41 PM
link   
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.




posted on Jan, 3 2016 @ 05:42 PM
link   

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.



edit on 3-1-2016 by AugustusMasonicus because: Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn



posted on Jan, 3 2016 @ 05:43 PM
link   

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.



posted on Jan, 3 2016 @ 05:45 PM
link   

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.


The only people it's unclear to are the ones who want to see that right impeded or taken away

To everyone else it's crystal clear


As a side note you talked about your pen being on fire, I'd love to see how excited you are about that if it were a strict conservative in the presidency , I have a feeling you and many others would then be changing your tune to how the sitting POTUS is violating the constitution and legislative branch

Careful what you advocate for
edit on 1/3/2016 by ManBehindTheMask because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 3 2016 @ 05:46 PM
link   

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



posted on Jan, 3 2016 @ 05:46 PM
link   

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.




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.



posted on Jan, 3 2016 @ 05:48 PM
link   

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.



posted on Jan, 3 2016 @ 05:49 PM
link   

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.



posted on Jan, 3 2016 @ 05:51 PM
link   

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.


That's circular logic

What's more likely is that people who decide to murder aren't concerned w the fact that it's against the law

Hence the term criminal

Much like those who are intent on getting a gun despite any laws in place

What seems to be the objective instead, is that liberals , since they cant ban guns, will just try to make as many people who own guns as they can, criminal........
edit on 1/3/2016 by ManBehindTheMask because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 3 2016 @ 05:52 PM
link   

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.


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.



posted on Jan, 3 2016 @ 05:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: reldra
The dithering we pay these people for is outrageous.


Then follow the process and help elect people who will then follow your political objectives.



Yes, it does, the universe of this government was a lot smaller and real people could actually voice their concerns more directly.


You can pick up these magical things called a telephone and call your Congressperson from hundreds or thousands of miles away. People actually answer, believe me, I have done it and have even gotten calls back.


Dear Leader? I had no idea you were a citizen of North Korea. My sympathies.


No sympathies required. Dear Leader will soon depart and then we will have another moron in there.



edit on 3-1-2016 by AugustusMasonicus because: Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn



new topics

top topics



 
25
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join