It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


Obama to Deliver Gun-grabbing Speech Soon

page: 3
<< 1  2   >>

log in


posted on Jan, 28 2011 @ 06:41 AM
It won't happen. The questionable source aside, even if Obama would like a major gun control bill, he won't be able to get it through Congress. The House GOP has already signaled their unwillingness to take up the issue, dropping fellow Republican Peter King's bill like a hot potato a couple of weeks ago. If they won't even consider a minor bill from one of their own, the odds of them taking up a much more extensive and restrictive Dem proposal is virtually zero. It won't even make it out of committee in the House, much less reach a full floor vote.

posted on Jan, 28 2011 @ 07:13 AM
reply to post by ~Lucidity

So tell me what how the discussion will go. Please since I'm obviously missing something due to my bias.

How will this discussion be different or more productive from the countless discussions prior?

Seems to me any discussion is just going to be two walls staring at each other. There is no concession that can be made by either side that will satisfy the other. Any discussion is simply for discussion sake. Like two old men in a coffee shop ranting about the state of the world. Nothing comes of it. It's just an exercise in wasting time. That's fine if pointless conversation is how you like to spend your time. I have other hobbies to engage in.

There is no compromise that will appease both parties. The best you can do is to educate the fear out of the hoplophobes but when one is taught out of darkness two more show up. Its like digging a hole just to fill it in.

It's a full time job to make sure these paranoids dont use force of violent law to trample over even more liberty.

Has nothing to do with clinging to the constitution or yelling. Tear up the piece of paper. It has nothing to do with my liberty. I dont look to it as some magic parchment granting me anything. It's just faded words on crumbling cloth. Has no value to me whatsoever.

I'm telling you it's pointless. I'm not giving an inch (we've already given far too much) they arent giving an inch and in the end the lawmakers are going to do whatever the hell they please anyway.

posted on Jan, 28 2011 @ 08:03 AM
reply to post by ~Lucidity

No actually, the Constitution was not designed to " evolve ", though many would like to claim and argue it does. The principles that lay within were designed to be the " rule ". That's the whole purpose for the " Amendment " process. The " Amendment " process was designed, ( which btw, was implemented by our founding fathers ) to allow for changes with the times. But not to directly change any of the Bill's within the confines of the original document.

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

So yeah, my argument still stands~

posted on Jan, 28 2011 @ 08:06 AM
9/11 gave us the Patriot Act.
Underwear bomber gave us TSA patdowns.
AZ shooting gives us stripped 2nd Ammendment rights.

lets go forward in time and speculate further. . . .

Political Correctness limits 1st Ammendment rights.
Federal bailouts of states gives us limited 10th Ammendment rights.

I dunno, 2nd ammendment issue this is, but I see a pattern. But then again, I'm a crazy gun-owner that visits a conspiracy site.

posted on Jan, 28 2011 @ 08:15 AM
reply to post by Whereweheaded

Yes. Right. We have no due process and no amendments. Silly me.

Anyway, like I said. The Constitutional process will work as it should and the courts will decide. No need to be alarmist and uncivil about it or refuse to even have a dialog with people who have concerns.

posted on Jan, 28 2011 @ 08:42 AM

Originally posted by CosmicCitizen
reply to post by EssenSieMich

In the wake of such tragedies it is hard for advocates of gun control to be rational (unless their raison d'etre or rationale is to forward an anti gun agenda). We dont here proponents of car safety go "ballistic" everytime there is a multi-car, multiple death car/truck accident on the highway (one's odds of being killed inside a motor vehicle is greater by several magnitude than from being killed by a bullet fired from a gun). However, that being said, it is important to keep the mentally incompetent from getting their hands on any firearm (whether it fires 1 shot or 30 and looks scary [ie,black furniture, flash hider, bayonet lug, tactical rails, etc) or is made of pink plastic. Needless to say strong laws should be enforced for keeping guns away from career criminals (especially those apt to use them in the commission of crimes against persons). It is a balancing act between "collective safety" and "individual rights" but we must not forget the language of the 2nd Amendment which says that the right to keep and bear arms should not be infringed. If we are to err then we must err on the side of allowing individuals to own firearms like we take our chances on the highway (which is populated by drunks, drivers with no or a revoked license, etc). Like Einstein's bent space and time we start out with individual rights to firearm ownership but in the end it ends up being for the collective safety also. How is that? Look at the intent of the founders in drafting the 2nd A. It is to protect the republic (collective) from a despotical dictator from seizing and exercising tyrannical control over our country. Not that anyone in our government has such designs but it has happened throughout history (to wit: Hitler's Germany; Stalin's Russia and Mao's China). As Santaanna said, "those who fail to learn the lessons of history are doomed to repeat them."

My God, Americans have completely forgotten what it means to be free.

There is no need to limit guns. You will not keep them out of the hands of criminals who are "apt to use them in the commission of crimes". The laws put in place to do so will only serve to make it harder for you, the law abiding citizen, to get a gun and level the playing field.

A convict who has served his time has served his time. The with holding of rights for such a person is tyranny. Let them vote, let them own a gun. That is what "freedom" means.

To say we will keep guns away from the mentally deranged....that is so subjective. Sanity is a tenuous dance, with most people drifting in and out of it on a daily basis (anger is a derangement). Anyone can be labelled "mentally ill"....and a mentally ill person is still a mentally ill person. Right are inalienable,

You cannot balanced "collective safety" and "individual rights". Anyone who attempts to do so deserves neither. Life is risk, and i prefer "personal responsibility".

posted on Jan, 28 2011 @ 06:46 PM
From what I understand Mexico has the most restrictive gun laws there could be. It doesn't seem to have done anything for them.

posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 06:54 PM
The second amendment has nothing to do with hunting.

The second amendment has nothing to do with sports.

The second amendment is not based on need either; it was written by men who had had enough of an oppressive regime in the form of Great Britain and its king, and who wanted to be certain that form of central government would never appear in America.

The second amendment was written with the specific intent that American citizens should have the tools to overthrow the central government, should that government become despotic, oppressive or criminal.

If people don't like this, they can feel free to try and repeal it through lawful means, the amendment process.

But nobody tells me what it means; I know what it means.

I will darned sure wave the constitution like the flag and guiding light is, defend it till I draw my last breath.

posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 07:05 PM
This is yet another propaganda bs thread...

Guess what, they said this during Bush years, it was BS then also! It was BS in Clinton years and it was BS in the Bush before him..

Sorry op, but you are part of the trouble.. You and the spread of propaganda, outdated fear tactics, while claiming 'they' are out to get us... Well, i ask you who do you help with this misinformation? No one, you help an idea you like.. You help to exacerbate a conspiracy theory you have decided to turn into a way of life and not a "what if"

posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 07:12 PM

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by EssenSieMich

Paul Helmke, president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, the nation’s largest anti-Second Amendment group.

How do they even allow a group that is opposed to the constitution?

Shouldn't they be classed as criminals and be arrested?
Are they not in fact terrorists according to DHS rulings?

Well...if they don't allow the group then they violate the Constitution based upon First Amendment rights. Sorry. I don't like the group and find them misguided and I know you don't like the group, but how does opposing the Constitution (outside of a public officer who is duty bound to protect it) make one a criminal?

If we follow your logic, I should be a criminal because I adamantly oppose the 17th Amendment and fight it where I can. Should I be characterized as a criminal? Be arrested?

Like I said, I don't like the group mentioned, but it is their Constitutional right to assemble peacefully, redress the Government and speak freely about it. All protected as it should be.

posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 07:31 PM

Originally posted by ~Lucidity
reply to post by backinblack

That's oversimplifying it a bit.

First, let's be realistic and face it...the founding fathers didn't envision a country this large with automatic weapons available online or virtual arsenals in every (or even most) homes.

While maybe they didn't envision to what extent the evolution of arms would come about they indeed understood that there should be specifics when talking about arms. Where do you limit arms at? Should we be so regulated that the arms we possess make the Second Amendment mute?

Madison wrote the following in Federalist Papers No. 46, "To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence."

Notice he continues the use of the word "arms" because of the knowing evolution of what arms may be or become. Otherwise, as noted in the precise words and careful planning, he would have said firearms. There was no need for brevity.

Samuel Adams wanted an amendment that stated "Constitution shall never be construed . . . to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms,..."

Noah Webster said it best, "Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword, because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States"
edit on 1-2-2011 by ownbestenemy because: (no reason given)

edit on 1-2-2011 by ownbestenemy because: (no reason given)

posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 07:34 PM
OK, so the article states that Obama is pushing for background checks....

I am pro gun.... But.... Is wanting laws that wants a better background check a big deal? Is that really infringing on your rights? Are you suggesting that anyone and everyone should be able to go in and buy a gun with out any checks what so ever?

If so, I disagree.... Besides, it's not like there are no background checks in place already when purchasing a gun ( legally)

posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 07:56 PM

How much more clear can the 2nd Amendment be?


Pretty cut and dry there.

Posted Via ATS Mobile:

posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 08:02 PM
By the way, gun grabbers …

Debate this!

Posted Via ATS Mobile:

posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 08:06 PM
"You can't win tomorrow, with yesterday's government."


They are guilty, not just obama, but his handlers. Of course they'll try to disarm us. Else, how do they sleep at night?

posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 09:28 PM

Originally posted by lewman
reply to post by mileslong54

if the police came and raided your house and took your guns, do you really think your neighbours are going to start firing at them.

anyway background checks can not be a bad thing even if they stop only one murder.

True - just like having to register as a Jew in Germany in the late 1930's. After all - nothing bad happened there did it?

Anybody that thinks that Homeland (In)Security doesn't keep a record of background checks and gun sales, should immediately check themselves into the nearest psychiatric unit for observation.
edit on 1-2-2011 by mtncharlie because: Spelling

posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 10:15 PM

Originally posted by ~Lucidity
Gun control does not necessarily equate to gun grabbing. There's clearly a problem or two in this country with illegal and automatic weapons and the like and clearly some of our citizens have some very real concerns. Shutting down any and all debate about it doesn't do the country as a whole any good.

Looks like you've been listening to our national main stream media, real bastions of truth there. The only real illegal guns are the ones coming North across our Southern border. Some of the "automatic weapons" they seize from drug runners actually DO come from the US, they are weapons given to their military by OUR government. The Mexican Army has a desertion rate of approximately 40%, When the deserters leave, they generally take their issued weapons with them. Many of the illegal weapons are some of the 150 million AK47's that communist countries have flooded the world with over the past sixty years. These can be purchased in many third world countries for a price equivalent to $5.00 US. Doesn't take a brainiac to see how easily thousands of these could be smuggled in by illegal aliens. But - by all means, lets blame it on our Constitutional Rights, which Obama insists is just a meaningless piece of paper that has no place in a modern society. Oh - but the Quran does!
The Obama Administration and their shills, would have you believe that you can walk into any gun store, and leave with a truckload of fully automatic firearms, hand grenades, rocket launchers, and other military weapons. Go try it, see how long it takes for the first patrol car to show up.

posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 10:49 PM

Originally posted by ~Lucidity
reply to post by backinblack

That's oversimplifying it a bit.

First, let's be realistic and face it...the founding fathers didn't envision a country this large with automatic weapons available online or virtual arsenals in every (or even most) homes.

Where do you get this crap? Directly from the "Brady Bunch" web site? Why don't you try to buy an automatic weapon online, and when you get internet privileges at whatever prison they put you in, let us hear from you. They also didn't envision cars and cellphones (both of which are responsible for more deaths than guns), but I bet you have one or more of both, and you don't even HAVE a Constitutional right to EITHER of those.

Second, there are steps we can take to make things easier to find the illegal guns or from people to get them. Things like standardizing the laws from state to state regarding licensing. Inspecting more shipments. Waiting periods. Tracing ammo. Required safety courses.

All this stuff exists under federal laws already on the books!

All I'm saying is that there's clearly some room for discussion and debate and maybe even some sane control here. People are concerned and rightly so. And if we don't do it now, we will in the future.

Why don't we put the same controls on automobiles that we ALREADY have on guns? That would take about three fourths of cars off the road and allay our worries about "global warming" (as I type this, it is now 8 degrees with a wind chill of minus 15) for a few more years. Cars kill and maim far more people than guns do, but I certainly have never heard of "Car Control Inc,"! Have you?

top topics

<< 1  2   >>

log in