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.

 

White House: Obama ‘Profoundly Frustrated’ — Ready For More Executive Action On Gun Control

page: 12
35
<< 9  10  11   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 23 2016 @ 04:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: awareness10
a reply to: SudoNim

I do believe there is more worry over Nuclear Warfare than mere gun owners whom legally and rightfully have guns written into the Second Amendment by the Founders of America.

The US bombing Hiroshima didn't destroy millions of peoples lives because of a Gun, the Gov't wants to take people who are Lawful and Abiding Citizens Guns away because of a few. Perhaps the Gov't shouldn't have Nukes? They've been proven Guilty, they destroyed a Japanese City of innocent people, and the effects are still on going.

I mean Nukes are highly destructive as we all have seen. People pay the Gov't to watch out for them, not turn their lives into a Nanny State because of the few who cannot abide by 'The Law'. Innocent before proven Guilty.


No they were not innocent,and if you saw documentaries you would had known they were all WEAPONIZED by their emperor. They were legitimate military targets due to them making weapons, as well as supporting the war effort.
They were also taught to die to th every last man woman and child as well. As was witnessed on one island i know of where th emen stayed and fought and the women and children killed themselves after realizing they coudnt win.

Also the death toll WAS NOT MILLIONS OF JAPANESE due to the nukes. it wasnt even in the 300 thousand range.(barely) Anyway twas better to bar b que some and save millions on both sides from dying.




posted on Jun, 23 2016 @ 05:04 PM
link   
Taking one type of gun out of the hands of people won't make a difference except to penalize the majority of Americans who responsibly exercise the 2nd Amendment. Some common sense regulation when it comes to purchasing can help.

Seriously, though, government has access to all the information they need. They track everything. The Patriot Act gives them everything. They have massive databases-- Every time these things come up we ALSO learn how the information was there and slipped through the cracks.

They need better database tracking and better escalation of potential threats. Instead of looking at the American people, they should be examining the intelligence community and fixing the problem there.



posted on Jun, 23 2016 @ 05:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: mrsdudara
I still don't understand why there is even an argument on what the legalities should be with firearms.

The ONLY people who the laws would affect are the law abiding citizens.

WHY would anyone want to disarm the LAW ABIDING citizens???


disarm???????????????....who ever, ever, ever, said they want to pass a law to disarm citizens.......that's like saying if you ban my top-fuel dragster from highway driving...then you must want to ban all cars



posted on Jun, 23 2016 @ 05:54 PM
link   
a reply to: TarzanBeta

I wasn't going to comment on your posts, but now I must. How bad do things have to get before we give up our rights? I will NEVER want to give up my rights, and I know I'm not the only one who thinks this way. The reason for that is if I give up my rights, that will not stop criminals and terrorists from doing what they do. Where would that leave us? Defenseless.


SM2

posted on Jun, 23 2016 @ 06:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: jimmyx

originally posted by: mrsdudara
I still don't understand why there is even an argument on what the legalities should be with firearms.

The ONLY people who the laws would affect are the law abiding citizens.

WHY would anyone want to disarm the LAW ABIDING citizens???


disarm???????????????....who ever, ever, ever, said they want to pass a law to disarm citizens.......that's like saying if you ban my top-fuel dragster from highway driving...then you must want to ban all cars


Charlie Rengal, Diane Feinstein , Elijah Cummings, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, Bloomberg...
is that enough for you or shall i make a larger list? They all have said that ordinary citizens should not have weapons. Those are just the quikest politicians that come to mind, then there are the celebrities like Rosie Odonnel and friends.



posted on Jun, 23 2016 @ 07:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: SudoNim

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: SudoNim

Guns Deaths this year 5,486 / 357,000,000 guns in US circulation
Vehicle Related deaths this year 18,996 / 253,000,000 Cars on US roads.

The numbers for cars and gun owned can not be exact for obvious reasons but it more than makes my point.

www.romans322.com...
www.washingtonpost.com...
www.latimes.com...

So tell me more about how we're banning cars?


I think you need to go back and read my post, you clearly failed to understand it.

I'm struggling to put this in simpler terms than I did before. Why are you posting figures on the number of guns in circulation and the number of cars in circulation?

Ok lets try:

A cars "task" is to transport people from one location to another. Each journes is a completed task.
How often is a car used to perform its task VS how often someone is injured/killed by a car?

A guns "task" is to prevent crime and protect your family.
How oftern is a gun used to perform its task VS how oftern someone is injured/killed by a gun?


Oh I see your logic and I pointed out how it was wrong. An items task is whatever the PERSON using it is. If I wanted to use my car as a showpiece, can I not? If I wanted to turn it into an ORV could I not? If I wanted to use it for parts could I not?

If your goal is to stop people from killing each other you need to look at the actions that bring about this behavior. As has been stated, WITH FACTS. "Banning" firearms would not have your desired effect.

Also, we havn't even begun to discuss the constitutional discrepancies of which you propose.
edit on 23-6-2016 by JinMI because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 24 2016 @ 01:35 AM
link   

originally posted by: DanteGaland
What I see from the RIGHT are a bunch of mall ninjas with "Red Dawn" syndrome ...

...who have BOUGHT into some kind of propaganda that they WILL play a crucial role in defending themselves from the government.

What is WORSE is how the propaganda by the NRA and OTHER lobbying groups use FEAR and RACE to make people think everyone is to GET them and their shiny toys.

The NRA was hijacked back in the 70's by opportunistic groups, and EVERYONE just went along with it, ALLOWING themselves to be BRAINWASHED.

Guns don't keep you safe. A smart BRAIN keeps you safe. Just as guns apparently don't kill, but people do -- smart people don't NEED to be 'strapped' to be safe... we never were in such numbers, and America ISNT more dangerous...despite what FOX and Brietbart tell you.



*Yawn*

Tell all that to THIS KID. Tell it to all the people who've managed to defend themselves because they had the right tool.

Edit: And according to other outlets (NBC won't put it in there because it ruins the narrative) a Colt .45 was found at the seen, so these guys were armed as well.
edit on 24-6-2016 by Wardaddy454 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 24 2016 @ 04:48 AM
link   

originally posted by: SudoNim

originally posted by: awareness10
a reply to: SudoNim

I do believe there is more worry over Nuclear Warfare than mere gun owners whom legally and rightfully have guns written into the Second Amendment by the Founders of America.

The US bombing Hiroshima didn't destroy millions of peoples lives because of a Gun, the Gov't wants to take people who are Lawful and Abiding Citizens Guns away because of a few. Perhaps the Gov't shouldn't have Nukes? They've been proven Guilty, they destroyed a Japanese City of innocent people, and the effects are still on going.

I mean Nukes are highly destructive as we all have seen. People pay the Gov't to watch out for them, not turn their lives into a Nanny State because of the few who cannot abide by 'The Law'. Innocent before proven Guilty.


Nukes are a completely different subject and deserve its own debate.

Someone wrote something over 200 years ago and no-ones allowed to question or change it? Deny ignorance, sheep. The times of changed stop living in the past.


I'm sorry, but your reply is Ignorant. But yes you're right, Nukes are different from Guns.

Guns mame people

Nukes destroy entire Human Lineages.

Nukes are favored by gov't guns are shunned by gov't.

I'm surprised you trust your corrupt Govt so much that you would give them the benefit of anything, and hand over your own family to them because, .... they're cool? they have power over the people to instill gun control?

Do you have a mind? If you do, do you use it wisely or do you listen to the local MSM for critical opinion?

please tell me you are a man who thinks on his own and comes to his own conclusions without intervention from a bunch of as*holes who would rather laugh and mock you.

Peace.



posted on Jun, 24 2016 @ 05:50 AM
link   
a reply to: awareness10

Judging from the fact that the US Constitution is just "something wrote over 200 years ago." I doubt there is much free thought.



posted on Jun, 24 2016 @ 06:03 AM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

You know, come to think of it, the Constitution says that "Congress shall make no laws abridging the right of the citizens to keep and bare arms".

Where does it say the President doesn't have the power to make an "executive decision" and instruct those with in the executive branch of government to do something about gun control. This would be by an executive order, not a law, but could be enforceable upon those who sell guns, because they need a license to do so, or trade through the interstate commerce system. Actually this would not be "making a law" it would be by adding another layer of "hoops" we have to jump through to "legally" buy a gun.

I am not advocating that such be done; I am simply asking for others to let their thoughts an opinions be known on this approach.



posted on Jun, 24 2016 @ 01:10 PM
link   
a reply to: tinymind


There is this class in High school that we all had to take (not sure how dumbed down they have made it in the 25 years since I was in high school), anyway, Its called "Civics". In that class they teach you how Laws are made by Congress and approved by the President. Its a principle called Separation of powers and it works. Its in place to prevent a President from becoming a dictator. When the process breaks down the People have their own remedy to Congress and the President being out of control. That remedy is called the 2nd Amendment.

If more people knew how this system is supposed to work they would not be so quick to try and force limits on the power of the people to enact the final remedy to out of control government power, and maybe they would not be suggesting that the President just try to go it alone and become the dictator that would set that remedy in motion.



posted on Jun, 24 2016 @ 01:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: jimmyx

originally posted by: Dragoon01

originally posted by: jimmyx

originally posted by: xuenchen

originally posted by: jimmyx

originally posted by: Ahabstar
If the government is going to shread the constitution and strip the rights of the people then the terrorists have already won.


how about stripping the rights of terrorists and nut-jobs to buy guns......can't wait to hear your opinion when they massacre 49 white Christian children, and wound 53 others.


How do you stop somebody from getting illegal guns?



ANY terrorist, criminal, or mentally ill person, can just walk into a gun show and buy any weapon available. and you're worried about illegal guns???.......you're funny



Actually no they cant. The only way they can get a gun at a gun show is to purchase it from a private seller, which is to say the exact same way they can just purchase it from anyone via the local newspaper, Craigslist, or any other means that a private seller would connect with a buyer. Dealers at gun shows are FFL deals and have to run background checks.


dealers?.....gun sellers DO NOT have to be dealers at gun shows...and the majority of states where gun shows happen do not require background checks...
www.governing.com...
scroll down to the map



i am well aware that they do not have to be dealers, you failed to apparently read the rest of my post wherein I explained that someone who is not a dealer and makes a sale at a gun show is no different than someone not a dealer making a sale at a yard sale. Its perfectly legal and perfectly normal thing to do.



posted on Jun, 25 2016 @ 12:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: Dragoon01
a reply to: tinymind


There is this class in High school that we all had to take (not sure how dumbed down they have made it in the 25 years since I was in high school), anyway, Its called "Civics". In that class they teach you how Laws are made by Congress and approved by the President. Its a principle called Separation of powers and it works. Its in place to prevent a President from becoming a dictator. When the process breaks down the People have their own remedy to Congress and the President being out of control. That remedy is called the 2nd Amendment.

If more people knew how this system is supposed to work they would not be so quick to try and force limits on the power of the people to enact the final remedy to out of control government power, and maybe they would not be suggesting that the President just try to go it alone and become the dictator that would set that remedy in motion.




Yea, I kind of remember acing this subject.

If you remember the part about the President being in charge of the executive branch, and only the executive branch, you may also remember that he can set or change the way many of its functions operate without trying to make his decisions into law. There are also certain laws which give the office of president a good deal of latitude when making "adjustments" to how some laws and regulations are carried out.
I am not advocating any of these steps be taken: I am just trying to prepare those who read this posting for what could be expected. Of course, the main reason most presidents would not use some of these measures for something like gun control is the simple matter of the next President "undoing" all their work.


SM2

posted on Jun, 26 2016 @ 09:22 PM
link   
a reply to: tinymind

Oh you mean an executive action like the immigration thing that just got slapped down by SCOTUS as over reaching?




top topics



 
35
<< 9  10  11   >>

log in

join