Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Lap Dog Gets "Task Force"....POTUS at White House with Feet up on the Desk.

page: 1
4

log in

join

posted on Jan, 8 2013 @ 05:25 PM
link   

Obama: I’m Betting The Majority Of Gun Owners Don’t Want Weapons Of War On Our Streets


Link

Fact is, its not a majority question. Its a constitutional right not subject to the majority.

At any rate weapons of war raked the city streets for years without much effort to stop the killing along the lines were are seeing now. Lets face it, there was little outcry from liberals over the 1000s of black youth in city gangs killing themselves and onlookers with high power weapons. This went on for years. It makes one wonder if drug money wasnt fueling the city political mechines like in the days of Al Capone.

Now the Vice will meet with select heads.....and tails... to make it look like the upcomming anti gun bill was formed based on the ideas of those brought in for questioning before the Vice. Truth is the gun bill is most likely already written and setting on Frankenstein's desk. POTUS is back at the ranch with feet up.

Biden plans to have a "session" with the NRA. The NRA shouldnt get near the place and just hold its ground. If they talk to anybody the should hold out to talk with POTUS and not his little me. In fact maybe not even the POTUS.....he might put his shoes up on the desk.


“There is no rational reason why a person can walk into a store, fill their shopping cart with hundreds of rounds of ammo, pay up, and walk out without so much as giving their name,” Blumenthal said on a conference call with reporters.


Well its not going to seem rational to a modern politico. But its called the constitution and the 2nd Amendment. Remember Aesop here.


A lion that had grown too old and weak to hunt pretended to be sick as a ruse to make the other animals come and pay their respects. When they did so, he ate them one by one. The fox also came to see him but greeted him from outside the cave. When the lion asked the fox why he didn’t come in, he replied, ‘Because I can only see the tracks going in, but none coming out.’



Buzzards over The Killing Fields






edit on 8-1-2013 by Logarock because: n




posted on Jan, 8 2013 @ 05:32 PM
link   
I think the President is being lied to or is blind. Obviously he can't be reading his own FBI's sale background check numbers showing radical jumps in demand for weapons nation wide. Further, he must be oblivious to the fact that, right now, there are plain jane AR-15's selling for thousands of dollars (I just saw a CMMG AR-15 for $4,000) on the national auction sites...with bids, no less.

I mean, an intelligent man wouldn't make such a statement so contradictory to fact if he were aware of all those facts.. right?



posted on Jan, 8 2013 @ 05:38 PM
link   
Yes its the old tactic of ignoring the facts, act like nothing is happening. Its child psychology, mind games.



posted on Jan, 8 2013 @ 05:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
I think the President is being lied to or is blind. Obviously he can't be reading his own FBI's sale background check numbers showing radical jumps in demand for weapons nation wide. Further, he must be oblivious to the fact that, right now, there are plain jane AR-15's selling for thousands of dollars (I just saw a CMMG AR-15 for $4,000) on the national auction sites...with bids, no less.

I mean, an intelligent man wouldn't make such a statement so contradictory to fact if he were aware of all those facts.. right?


He's obviously speaking to the koolaid drinkers and those that go no farther in the news than soundbites. He knows his audience.



posted on Jan, 8 2013 @ 05:47 PM
link   
I am sick to death of those DC idiots they act like there are no laws already on the books hell millions of Americans are turned down every day from background checks you know the things that leftists fascists say we need more of.

Facts don't matter to them they never have they tell you 1+1 equals 5


Obama: I’m Betting The Majority Of Gun Owners Don’t Want Weapons Of War On Our Streets


Past few years I have never heard the majority of gun owners say this only liberals.
edit on 8-1-2013 by neo96 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 8 2013 @ 05:47 PM
link   

Rudolph Joseph Rummel (born October 21, 1932, Cleveland, Ohio) is professor emeritus of political science at the University of Hawaii. He has spent his career assembling data on collective violence and war.

Rummel is the creator of the term democide: "the murder of any person or people by a government, including genocide, politicide, and mass murder". His research shows that the death toll from democide is far greater than the death toll from war. After studying over 8,000 reports of government-caused deaths, Rummel estimates that there have been 262 million victims of democide in the last century. According to his figures, six times as many people have died from the inflictions of people working for governments than have died in war.

Just to give perspective on this incredible murder by government, if all these bodies were laid head to toe, with the average height being 5', then they would circle the earth ten times. Given popular estimates of the dead in a major nuclear war, this total democide is as though such a war did occur, but with its dead spread over a century.


www.hawaii.edu...

The gentle government that promises to hold your hand as you cross the street refuses to let go on the other side. – Theodore J. Forstmann



posted on Jan, 8 2013 @ 05:51 PM
link   
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 


I mean, an intelligent man wouldn't make such a statement so contradictory to fact if he were aware of all those facts.. right?
since when do 'puppets' consult 'news' of any kind ?
and who said we're dealing with an intelligent man anyway ??
i thought this was Obama we're discussing.

the puppet master at work ... always has his feet up



posted on Jan, 8 2013 @ 06:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Logarock

Obama: I’m Betting The Majority Of Gun Owners Don’t Want Weapons Of War On Our Streets


Link

Fact is, its not a majority question. Its a constitutional right not subject to the majority.



Actually that's not quite right...
It does become a MAJORITY question if they wish to amend the Constitution to remove "The right to bear arms".
If Congress votes as a MAJORITY to remove that right, then the right is removed.



posted on Jan, 8 2013 @ 06:49 PM
link   
reply to post by Sovaka
 

Umm... I don't know how it might work in Australia...but, no. That isn't how it works for the United States. I wish people would do some basic checking before making sweeping statements about how our Government operates. Our own leaders are barely better these days though, so I can't be too harsh.

There are only 2 ways the Constitution itself can be modified in form or substance. Only 2.


The first method is for a bill to pass both houses of the legislature, by a two-thirds majority in each. Once the bill has passed both houses, it goes on to the states. This is the route taken by all current amendments. Because of some long outstanding amendments, such as the 27th, Congress will normally put a time limit (typically seven years) for the bill to be approved as an amendment (for example, see the 21st and 22nd).



The second method prescribed is for a Constitutional Convention to be called by two-thirds of the legislatures of the States, and for that Convention to propose one or more amendments. These amendments are then sent to the states to be approved by three-fourths of the legislatures or conventions. This route has never been taken, and there is discussion in political science circles about just how such a convention would be convened, and what kind of changes it would bring about.



Regardless of which of the two proposal routes is taken, the amendment must be ratified, or approved, by three-fourths of states. There are two ways to do this, too. The text of the amendment may specify whether the bill must be passed by the state legislatures or by a state convention. See the Ratification Convention Page for a discussion of the make up of a convention. Amendments are sent to the legislatures of the states by default. Only one amendment, the 21st, specified a convention. In any case, passage by the legislature or convention is by simple majority.
Source

What DOES really upset me is that our LEADERS play like they don't know better and most of those in Congress as well as the President are or were practicing lawyers with active bar cards. Our President claims to have had enough knowledge of the Constitution to have lectured on the topic. I'm starting to wonder how much those students could have gained from his classes.....and what grades he DID get in those classes himself when he took them.

Recall.... Dems may have the coasts...but the VAST MAJORITY of the actual states by count are Red... DEEP red... There is no way on this Earth they get the required # of states to make a run directly at the Document itself.



posted on Jan, 8 2013 @ 06:54 PM
link   
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 


Thank you for correcting me.

But it still comes down to a Majority... It doesn't come to the people at all.
All the people can do is REACT when it happens... When it happens, what are they supposed to do? Fire them for not listening to them?



posted on Jan, 8 2013 @ 07:00 PM
link   
reply to post by Sovaka
 

Like I said.. I'm sorry about being harsh.. My anger is about the fact I'm hearing this on news reports from elected officials. They know better. ANYONE In the United States who has attended College and received a degree at ANY level was required by law to take a course and pass it that detailed this. Everyone.

However, here is where it matters about the difference between the "majority" the President won the election by ..and the MAJORITY he'd utterly be stomped by if trying for a majority state vote to pass or repeal a U.S. Constitutional Amendment.



State legislatures who would be voting within the state houses to determine the vote of each state come from the local levels. The fact a couple big cities ...as you can see happened in Pennsylvania for the 2012 election...could carry a state for the Presidency means nothing whatsoever when it comes to a vote within the Statehouses. Two radically different systems. In the state by state count, coming from the local reps? There isn't even a point in attempting it. It'd lose so badly it would be talked about in civics classes for a century to come.



posted on Jan, 8 2013 @ 07:03 PM
link   
This is how far we have fallen once upon a time in America our grandfathers would walk in to a hardware store and buy a thompson machine gun in one aisle then walk over to the next and buy some dynamite without a second thought or look from anyone.

Anyone able to do that today?

Nope all gun control laws are thought crimes and convicted us all for something we have not done. In a country where lawyers say we are guaranteed due process and a trial by jury in one breath in the next breath the lawyers have written the most asinine laws ever read.

What a bunch of hypocrites all gun owners are guilty until proven guilty without parole and a lifetime sentence.,.
edit on 8-1-2013 by neo96 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 8 2013 @ 07:06 PM
link   
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 


It does seem like it would be pushing water up hill, but it is still a possible scenario... however unlikely.

I guess that is why they are trying to get the U.N. to enforce it?



posted on Jan, 8 2013 @ 07:07 PM
link   
BTW... for others outside the US who would be confused by the terms.... the "Amendments" they're talking about passing all the time are NOT Constitutional ones. Those are amendments to legislative bills on their way to become law.....and those are subject to the main document.

There have been over 11,000 attempts to amend the Constitution in our nation;s history. 27 of them have made it. Obama isn't the leader to get a 28th, IMO. He couldn't lead a parade down main street without staff and committees to assist.

History of US Constitutional Amendments

* .. I have other links to passages of the Constitution dealing with Ultimate Supremacy over any treaty or international agreement signed by the President OR passed by the Senate. Wouldn't matter if they all agreed and the UN was backing them for whether it could be legally allowed...... Although, if they flat don't care about the rule of law anymore? Of course.. All bets are off and none of this matters.

Oh.. and stars for ya for being a good sport and not getting pissed. Sorry again I was harsh.. The news tonight is frustrating for seeing these people in Washington acting like the law says things it doesn't or doesn't say things it does. lol
edit on 8-1-2013 by Wrabbit2000 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 9 2013 @ 04:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by Sovaka
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 


Thank you for correcting me.

But it still comes down to a Majority... It doesn't come to the people at all.
All the people can do is REACT when it happens... When it happens, what are they supposed to do? Fire them for not listening to them?


When its subject to so many bodies of representatives, two bodies in each state ect, the people will be heard.



posted on Jan, 9 2013 @ 04:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by Sovaka
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 


It does seem like it would be pushing water up hill, but it is still a possible scenario... however unlikely.

I guess that is why they are trying to get the U.N. to enforce it?


What they want to do is put so much law on top of the 2nd that it will remain on paper only. There is no way that droping the 2nd would pass enough states.



posted on Jan, 9 2013 @ 04:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by Sovaka
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 


Thank you for correcting me.

But it still comes down to a Majority... It doesn't come to the people at all.
All the people can do is REACT when it happens... When it happens, what are they supposed to do? Fire them for not listening to them?

yes. very literally.

"a democratic republic is two wolves and a sheep deciding what's for dinner, but the sheep has a gun"



posted on Jan, 9 2013 @ 05:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by Bob Sholtz

Originally posted by Sovaka
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 


Thank you for correcting me.

But it still comes down to a Majority... It doesn't come to the people at all.
All the people can do is REACT when it happens... When it happens, what are they supposed to do? Fire them for not listening to them?

yes. very literally.

"a democratic republic is two wolves and a sheep deciding what's for dinner, but the sheep has a gun"


Yes and they can do more than bleat!



posted on Jan, 10 2013 @ 09:03 AM
link   
anyone care to guess where his scribe will fall next ?
my bet is Vermont or NJ

Vermont because it would be a permanent stain on their record or NJ because the ppl there are very pliable right now.

and, let's not forget that Christie is all about gun control ...

philadelphia.cbslocal.com...
“I think we have to have a conversation about it,” he said on CBS This Morning. “But if all we talk about is just controlling guns, which we should talk about, we’re not doing enough.”
since they are already doing more than their authority permits, what more does he want ??
keeping in mind that NJ has the 2nd toughest gun laws in the country





new topics

top topics



 
4

log in

join