Obama: Some Gun Control Measures 'I Can Accomplish Through Executive Action'

page: 4
14
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 15 2013 @ 01:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by macman

Originally posted by Kali74
I wish the Right would engage the debate logically.

Oh, by engaging in logical debate, you mean let the Progressives walk over and stomp on the 2nd Amendment. I see.


AWESOME EXAMPLE!!! THANKS!

Thinking Logically...speaking rationally...Debating Honestly = Stomping on the 2nd Amendment!!! TYRANNY!!! ONLY CRAZY BS WILL SAVE US!!!
edit on 15-1-2013 by Indigo5 because: (no reason given)




posted on Jan, 15 2013 @ 01:14 PM
link   
reply to post by Indigo5
 


What does the 2nd Amendment say again??
Just wondering.

Where does it state that Regulation is fine or Restrictions are okay?



posted on Jan, 15 2013 @ 01:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by 11235813213455

Originally posted by Indigo5


Oh...Ok then, yes...29 years ago Pres. Reagan won by a greater margin...So Pres. Obama doesn't qualify as a "landslide victory"....You got me there


BTW - If you added BOTH Pres. GW Bush's margins of victory together they still wouldn't beat Pres. Obama's in just this last election.



Within the context of the OP I care why?


Good question! Apparently you stopped caring about the point after I disproved your tantrum?


Originally posted by 11235813213455

And landslide victory? For me to point out that Obama did not win by a land slide would be akin to me having to point out that water is wet or fire is hot. C'mon now, use a some integrity when posting. Your dead wrong but at least you'd get a little respect for trying.
edit on 15-1-2013 by 11235813213455 because: (no reason given)
edit on 15-1-2013 by Indigo5 because: (no reason given)
edit on 15-1-2013 by Indigo5 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 15 2013 @ 01:15 PM
link   
Yeah only crazy BS will save us like :

If we get rid on all those evil high capacity magazines everything will be fine no one will die
If we get rid of all those evil guns that fire more than one round everything will be fine no one will die.
If we submit to invasions of privacy and go through background checks and let government decide if we have rights to own things no one will die.

Yeah that sure is some crazy bs...........and it is tyranny when government decides what rights we have.



posted on Jan, 15 2013 @ 01:18 PM
link   
Another possible response is if a student says anything weird in class or writes a weird story - as many of the shooters are guilty of - then the government has full authorization to lock them up and shoot them with drugs to keep them mentally healthy. There're a lot of things they can do. They'll also enact stricter gun control. No doubt about it now. Maybe some bans.

They're taking away freedoms because we can't handle them. Government knows best. They're just looking out for us and doing what they can to ensure we're safe and don't harm others.

You know, I see the danger in 10-30 round clips in semi-automatic pistols. I see the danger in the mini-14 and the ar-15. But it's only a danger in the wrong hands. Understandably, as technology improves, these weapons become more dangerous. The same thing can be said about mental freedoms. When people start prying at the edges of the mental realm, they can trip and fall and go down the road of depression and mania and psychosis and who knows what else. With the internet and education as it's, people now have easy access to large volumes of knowledge. This knowledge can be both harmful to themselves and harmful to others. This means each person has the capacity to be extremely dangerous. Thus, there's a desire to control gun and mental freedoms.

But everytime we restrict freedoms, we're tightening up and reducing potential diversity. Broadly, it's as though we're isolating and being protective. We should be weary of this. Safety is a great thing to have, but it can't be absolute. There's no such thing. We can try to acquire it, but in the long run, it might be better to accept some level of risk to better adapt to adverse conditions.
edit on 15-1-2013 by jonnywhite because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 15 2013 @ 01:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Indigo5
reply to post by Kali74
 


The issue is that the far-right has made dishonesty, not confusion or ignorance, but willful dishonesty an inate component of thier rhetoric. It started with just the occassional BS, but once the originators of the far right rhetoric and talking points realized that thier listeners didn't care about honesty...it just jumped the shark fast..."Born in Kenya"..."Manchurian candidate" ..."Birthers"..."Death Panels"..."Micro-chips"....the BS just got ingrained.

The far right doesn't know how to engage in honest, rational debate anymore...And honestly that hurts everyone. Left, Right and center...cuz we need honest debate to get to honest answers.

You can't arrive at "tested solutions" when one side talks about "Executive Action" in the form of increasing penalties for folks that lie on background checks..or stiffer sentences for gun traffickers...and the other side shouts "The Nazi's are comming!!! They will kick in your door in the middle of the night!!!...Obama is a terrorist Kenyan who secretly killed his gay lover!!!!"

What you end up with is more and more of one view...the left...cuz the right? they have to battle thier own effen crazy "far" right just to be able to speak any rational thought publicly.
edit on 15-1-2013 by Indigo5 because: (no reason given)


Oh HELL no you did not go there about left honesty. When Bush was in charge there was Plenty of dishonesty from the left. And what about Harry reid saying that bull about romneys taxes? he was proven wrong when he released his statements. And what about the famous Pelosi? We have to pass the bill to see whats in it. Please do not even TRY to say the left is always Honest,and rational when there are just as irresponsible as the right. Both of them are like spoiled children who want to get their way all the time..



posted on Jan, 15 2013 @ 01:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by macman
reply to post by Indigo5
 


What does the 2nd Amendment say again??
Just wondering.

Where does it state that Regulation is fine or Restrictions are okay?


Wow...OK



A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.




In 2008 and 2010, the Supreme Court issued two landmark decisions officially establishing this interpretation. In District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), the Court ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm, unconnected to service in a militia[1][2] and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. In dicta, the Court listed many longstanding prohibitions and restrictions on firearms possession as being consistent with the Second Amendment.


en.wikipedia.org...



This is the current interpetation of the 2nd Amendment as defined by the CONSERVATIVE court, the most generous interpretation so far in our history of the 2nd amendment...and it allows for regulation and restrictions..



In General
[P. 1275, add at the end of the section:]
It was not until 2008 that the Supreme Court definitively
came down on the side of an “individual rights” theory. Relying
on new scholarship regarding the origins of the Amendment, the 1
Court in District of Columbia v. Heller confirmed what had been 2
a growing consensus of legal scholars – that the rights of the
Second Amendment adhered to individuals. The Court reached
this conclusion after a textual analysis of the Amendment, an 3
examination of the historical use of prefatory phrases in statutes,
and a detailed exploration of the 18th century meaning of phrases
found in the Amendment. Although accepting that the historical
and contemporaneous use of the phrase “keep and bear Arms”
often arose in connection with military activities, the Court noted
that its use was not limited to those contexts. Further, the 4
Court found that the phrase “well regulated Militia” referred not
to formally organized state or federal militias, but to the pool of
“able-bodied men” who were available for conscription. Finally, 5
the Court reviewed contemporaneous state constitutions,
post-enactment commentary, and subsequent case law to conclude
that the purpose of the right to keep and bear arms extended
beyond the context of militia service to include
self-defense.
84 AMENDMENT 2–BEARING ARMS
128 S. Ct. at 2818. 6
128 S. Ct. at 2817 n.27 (discussing non-application of rational basis review). See 7
id. at 2850-51 (Breyer, J., dissenting).
Using this “individual rights theory,” the Court struck down
a District of Columbia law that banned virtually all handguns,
and required that any other type of firearm in a home be dissembled
or bound by a trigger lock at all times. The Court rejected
the argument that handguns could be banned as long as other
guns (such as long-guns) were available, noting that, for a variety
of reasons, handguns are the “most popular weapon chosen by
Americans for self-defense in the home.” Similarly, the require- 6
ment that all firearms be rendered inoperable at all times was
found to limit the “core lawful purpose of self-defense.” However,
the Court specifically stated (albeit in dicta) that the Second
Amendment did not limit prohibitions on the possession of
firearms by felons and the mentally ill, penalties for carrying
firearms in schools and government buildings, or laws regulating
the sales of guns. The Court also noted that there was a historical
tradition of prohibiting the carrying of “dangerous and
unusual weapons” that would not be affected by its decision. The
Court, however, declined to establish the standard by which
future gun regulations would be evaluated. And, more impor- 7
tantly, because the District of Columbia is a federal enclave, the
Court did not have occasion to address whether it would reconsider
its prior decisions that the Second Amendment does not
apply to the states.


See here starting at page 83..
www.gpo.gov...



posted on Jan, 15 2013 @ 01:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by yuppa

Originally posted by Indigo5
reply to post by Kali74
 


The issue is that the far-right has made dishonesty, not confusion or ignorance, but willful dishonesty an inate component of thier rhetoric. It started with just the occassional BS, but once the originators of the far right rhetoric and talking points realized that thier listeners didn't care about honesty...it just jumped the shark fast..."Born in Kenya"..."Manchurian candidate" ..."Birthers"..."Death Panels"..."Micro-chips"....the BS just got ingrained.

The far right doesn't know how to engage in honest, rational debate anymore...And honestly that hurts everyone. Left, Right and center...cuz we need honest debate to get to honest answers.

You can't arrive at "tested solutions" when one side talks about "Executive Action" in the form of increasing penalties for folks that lie on background checks..or stiffer sentences for gun traffickers...and the other side shouts "The Nazi's are comming!!! They will kick in your door in the middle of the night!!!...Obama is a terrorist Kenyan who secretly killed his gay lover!!!!"

What you end up with is more and more of one view...the left...cuz the right? they have to battle thier own effen crazy "far" right just to be able to speak any rational thought publicly.
edit on 15-1-2013 by Indigo5 because: (no reason given)


Oh HELL no you did not go there about left honesty. When Bush was in charge there was Plenty of dishonesty from the left. And what about Harry reid saying that bull about romneys taxes? he was proven wrong when he released his statements. And what about the famous Pelosi? We have to pass the bill to see whats in it. Please do not even TRY to say the left is always Honest,and rational when there are just as irresponsible as the right. Both of them are like spoiled children who want to get their way all the time..


I didn't see where he said the left was ALWAYS honest. It looks more like he's saying the right has systematically started introducing willfull dishonesty into it's official rhetoric. Do you have an argument about that or just more flailing about Reid and Pelosi? If both sides are irresponisible and dishonest then you agree with the sentiment that the Right is willfully dishonest.

The greater point here is the right does seem to have a larger issue with the inmates running the asylum than does the left. When it comes to the primaries a moderate Democrat can still win but a moderate Republican might as well be the same as a Communist. Do you agree with a difference there? A Democrat has more lee-way on how much of the "party platform" he/she must completely agree with. A Republican has a much bigger problem expressing individual opinions that have not been signed off on by the Party.



posted on Jan, 15 2013 @ 01:41 PM
link   
Is he just trying to start a civil war?

He is going to be thrown out on his butt if he is lucky
if things keep getting pushed like that.

Sorry we are not going to fall for germany dictator's any
longer, we have all seen the effects they have.

The more i read the more i see things are getting closer and
closer to getting set off.
The ones in power should take a few days off and seriously think about
what they are pushing and the type of reactions that is going to cause.



posted on Jan, 15 2013 @ 01:46 PM
link   
reply to post by macman
 




Oh, by engaging in logical debate, you mean let the Progressives walk over and stomp on the 2nd Amendment. I see. Yeah, sure, go ahead with that.


That's exactly what they're going to do if you all are going to continue to call "executive action" Nazi tyranny as opposed to digesting what those actions actually are and discussing them.



Why is it so hard to comprehend?


It isn't, but there is a fair amount of the population that wants some common sense regulation put in place, do you want only 'Progressives' deciding what common sense is? Or if common sense is even applicable?



It states, as the law of the land that it shall not be infringed upon.


It also states that any American shall not be detained without trial. Oopsie, no one wanted to talk logically about that one either. Freedom of speech? Free speech zones, oopsie again, I believe some of y'all were even in favor of that one 'cuz hippies. Circumvention happens and needs to be discussed logically if anyone is going to listen.



If you and other Progressives


I'm not a Liberal or a Progressive and you really need to work on your reading comprehension, you must have missed my supporting gun rights because I refrained from using red button words such as Nazi and dictator... or maybe you can't see me because I'm not flailing my arms.



hold a Constitutional Convention and do it the Lawful and legal way.


It could progress that far, if it does are you going to be standing in townhall talking about dictators and how executive actions are illegal (they aren't) and dictatorial (they aren't)? Because what's going to happen is the Jackie Chan face I posted earlier.



working towards the ultimate goal of all Progressive Liberals, to ban guns.


Maybe you should stop telling people what they believe and actually listen to what they say.



But, since he can't get all guns banned, he will work to make it difficult for anyone to own/purchase them.


Finally some logic. Why not discuss with people how it's unfair to law abiding citizens?



What documents are you and other Progressives standing on, other then "Rules for Radicals" and articles put out by ThinkProgress?


By American politics I am a radical, I'm a Libertarian Socialist aka Anarchist, I assure you that Progressives and Liberals are most definitely not Radical, you may want to learn somethings about various ideologies since you hurl them like insults so as to stop looking so foolish and ThinkProgress is a pretty good source for clearing up the utter BS FOX and The GOP spew.

This radical, by the way, is on your side... to a very large degree. I believe in the 2nd amendment but I also believe we can get some common sense laws in place that don't burden law abiding citizens and only make it harder for criminals. What those are, I'm not sure... I sure wish I had someone better educated on guns than I am to talk to about it, that wouldn't just turn around and scream at me.



posted on Jan, 15 2013 @ 01:51 PM
link   
reply to post by Kali74
 


So?

The left has no problems calling Bush a nazi and there is a historical record of nazis banning weapons.



posted on Jan, 15 2013 @ 02:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by neo96
reply to post by Kali74
 


So?

The left has no problems calling Bush a nazi and there is a historical record of nazis banning weapons.


No one is Hitler. Hitler was Hitler and Hitler is dead. Australia bans guns unless you can demonstrate clear need and self defense doesn't count. Are they Nazi's? Israel also has strict gun control where you must demonstrate need and be re-permitted every 6 months...Are Israeli's Nazi's?

Honestly just kind of sad at the level of debate comming from ATS lately. The best the far right can muster is shouting "Nazi".



posted on Jan, 15 2013 @ 02:09 PM
link   
It comes down to this.

Do you want to be responsible for your own safety or do you want to cede your freedoms and have government responsible for your own safety.

If you trust government to take better care of you, your family, your property, than you yourself can, then ban guns.

If you think you can do a better job of protecting yourself, your family, your property than the government then keep your guns.

It really is that simple, folks.



posted on Jan, 15 2013 @ 02:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Indigo5
 


Take that condescension elsewhere seriously some people claiming the want an honest debate then go around calling the "whackos" and other insulting terms.

Don't really care.

Can't exercise my constitutional right to own firearms, can't exercise our rights to free speech.

If I want to call Obama hitler I will deal with it.



posted on Jan, 15 2013 @ 02:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Indigo5
 


I did not ask what the Supreme Court has bastardized it into.

I asked what the 2nd Amendment states.

The first portion states the right to bear arms and that right shall not be infringed upon.


What the Courts have wrongly interpreted, from a very simple and easy to understand Law of the Land is not what I asked for.

Anyone can look at the 2nd Amendment, read it and see that it is in fact simple and straight forward.



posted on Jan, 15 2013 @ 02:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kali74
That's exactly what they're going to do if you all are going to continue to call "executive action" Nazi tyranny as opposed to digesting what those actions actually are and discussing them.

Oh, I do love tit for tat.
It is Tyranny, when the people fear the Govt and the Govt's actions.
So, we have moved from semantics on 0bama's statements, to what is and is not tyranny. Ok then.



Originally posted by Kali74

It isn't, but there is a fair amount of the population that wants some common sense regulation put in place, do you want only 'Progressives' deciding what common sense is? Or if common sense is even applicable?

Any and all restrictions go directly against the 2nd Amendment.
The Progressives are the sole group wanting to skirt the law of the land by playing word games and having gaggles of lawyers pushing the agenda.
The 2nd Amendment is simple and clear. Yet, you and others seem hell bent in violating the law and pushing for BS.
If you want to change the Law of the Land, then do it the legal and lawful way. Why is it that when this process is brought up, you and every single Progressive Liberal ignores that.





Originally posted by Kali74

It also states that any American shall not be detained without trial. Oopsie, no one wanted to talk logically about that one either. Freedom of speech? Free speech zones, oopsie again, I believe some of y'all were even in favor of that one 'cuz hippies. Circumvention happens and needs to be discussed logically if anyone is going to listen.

And all are wrong.
I forgot, what is the topic again???



Originally posted by Kali74

I'm not a Liberal or a Progressive and you really need to work on your reading comprehension, you must have missed my supporting gun rights because I refrained from using red button words such as Nazi and dictator... or maybe you can't see me because I'm not flailing my arms.

Are you sure???
Anything revolving around restrictions or bans are Progressive Liberal wet dreams. You must be dreaming then.






Originally posted by Kali74
It could progress that far, if it does are you going to be standing in townhall talking about dictators and how executive actions are illegal (they aren't) and dictatorial (they aren't)? Because what's going to happen is the Jackie Chan face I posted earlier.

When the EO even hints that it will infringe upon, then yes, it is illegal and it is pushed via a dictator'ish Govt.
I will stand in that meeting.



Originally posted by Kali74

Maybe you should stop telling people what they believe and actually listen to what they say.

Ok, so what do you believe in. I am listening.






Originally posted by Kali74

Finally some logic. Why not discuss with people how it's unfair to law abiding citizens?

Does it infringe upon?
Very simple.






Originally posted by Kali74

By American politics I am a radical, I'm a Libertarian Socialist aka Anarchist, I assure you that Progressives and Liberals are most definitely not Radical,

Better go tell Bill Ayers.


Originally posted by Kali74
you may want to learn somethings about various ideologies since you hurl them like insults so as to stop looking so foolish and ThinkProgress is a pretty good source for clearing up the utter BS FOX and The GOP spew.

Oh, let me guess. You shall inform me on this topic.

I don't need, let alone watch.listen to Fox.
I know a duck when I see one.





Originally posted by Kali74
This radical, by the way, is on your side... to a very large degree. I believe in the 2nd amendment but I also believe we can get some common sense laws in place that don't burden law abiding citizens and only make it harder for criminals.

Where does it state that in the 2nd Amendment?




Originally posted by Kali74
What those are, I'm not sure... I sure wish I had someone better educated on guns than I am to talk to about it, that wouldn't just turn around and scream at me.

I will offer any and all information I have. But, I will hold no punches when it comes to the topic of the 2nd Amendment.



posted on Jan, 15 2013 @ 02:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Indigo5

Originally posted by 11235813213455

Originally posted by Indigo5


Oh...Ok then, yes...29 years ago Pres. Reagan won by a greater margin...So Pres. Obama doesn't qualify as a "landslide victory"....You got me there


BTW - If you added BOTH Pres. GW Bush's margins of victory together they still wouldn't beat Pres. Obama's in just this last election.



Within the context of the OP I care why?


Good question! Apparently you stopped caring about the point after I disproved your tantrum?


Originally posted by 11235813213455

And landslide victory? For me to point out that Obama did not win by a land slide would be akin to me having to point out that water is wet or fire is hot. C'mon now, use a some integrity when posting. Your dead wrong but at least you'd get a little respect for trying.
edit on 15-1-2013 by 11235813213455 because: (no reason given)
edit on 15-1-2013 by Indigo5 because: (no reason given)
edit on 15-1-2013 by Indigo5 because: (no reason given)




And long term unemployment is the worst its been since world war 2 and I fail to see where that has anything to do with the OP either. All you've proven is that you can do grade school arithmetic...... (golf clap)



posted on Jan, 15 2013 @ 02:53 PM
link   
reply to post by SKMDC1
 


Let me be brutally honest here. I WAS NOT TALKING TO YOU. But since you want to interject yourself who am I to say no?

HE Basically said that the LEFT was HONEST in NO UNCERTAIN TERMS. I take Offense to that as a outright lie and talking point. I happen to think BOTH SIDES are puppets and as corrupt as a Hard drive full of viruses.The problem here is ALL POLITICIANS LIE. I have no problem calling out both sides here. With the way tech i snow a days we do not really even Need a senate or congress to pass laws and such. cell phone voting would revolutionize the government by cutting out the middle man. keep the president and supreme court as checks and balances.



posted on Jan, 15 2013 @ 02:55 PM
link   
reply to post by macman
 




Any and all restrictions go directly against the 2nd Amendment.


By the letter of the 2nd amendment, no, they don't... "well regulated militia". Somewhere along the the lines SCOTUS defined the 2nd to apply to all Americans whether they were militia or not. Since you're firmly against any and all restrictions, should a 6 year old be allowed to walk into Wal-Mart and buy a rifle? A convicted felon?



Are you sure??? Anything revolving around restrictions or bans are Progressive Liberal wet dreams. You must be dreaming then.


Yes, I'm sure... are you going to continue claiming to know me better than I know myself? And again, I don't support a ban or punishing law abiding citizens.



When the EO even hints that it will infringe upon, then yes, it is illegal and it is pushed via a dictator'ish Govt. I will stand in that meeting.


I was talking about the process of changing the Constitution.



I am listening.


Clearly... as you show here:



Better go tell Bill Ayers.




Does it infringe upon?


I agree what Cuomo is trying to pass is infringement, but I think people need to hear why it is. Not necessarily here on ATS per se but in the national debate.



I will offer any and all information I have. But, I will hold no punches when it comes to the topic of the 2nd Amendment.


Yeah, just watch where you're swinging.



posted on Jan, 15 2013 @ 02:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by macman
reply to post by Indigo5
 


I did not ask what the Supreme Court has bastardized it into.

I asked what the 2nd Amendment states.

The first portion states the right to bear arms and that right shall not be infringed upon.


What the Courts have wrongly interpreted, from a very simple and easy to understand Law of the Land is not what I asked for.

Anyone can look at the 2nd Amendment, read it and see that it is in fact simple and straight forward.



Oh...you forgot the "well regulated" part of it...as long as we are opting to ignore any court interpretations and stick with the simple, literal meaning of an amendment that was passed when Muskets were the "arms" and AR-15s were science fiction.





new topics
top topics
 
14
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join