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

The White House has announced that President Obama is frustrated about the gun control failures.

They indicate Obama will once again revert to Executive Action.

Looks like he is all worked up about the gun control issues.

The WH suggested Republicans are to blame for not passing measures that are obviously unConstitutional.


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

President Barack Obama again failed to push through additional gun control efforts in Congress — even after blaming the terrorist attack in Florida on Republicans and supporters of the Second Amendment.

White House press secretary Josh Earnest revealed that Obama was “profoundly frustrated” after Senate Republicans again blocked anti-gun legislation.

Earnest suggested that the president would again turn to executive authority to try and enact gun control policies on his own.

Jealousy is a Powerful Emotion

I think it's interesting that Earnest noted that if the deaths of 49 minute Americans is not enough to convince us, then what will?

Kind of terrifying implication right there.

Does he not realize that he doesn't have the support polls claim he has, or does he not care?

Amending an amendment to the Constitution seems like what he wants to do but isn't willing to actually try calling a constitutional convention.

The White House has announced that President Obama is frustrated about the gun control failures.

a reply to: xuenchen

Well, at least it is just another executive action because they carry no legal weight.

Presidential wish list is what they should call it.

If the government is going to shread the constitution and strip the rights of the people then the terrorists have already won.

President Barack Obama again failed to push through additional gun control efforts in Congress — even after blaming the terrorist attack in Florida on Republicans and supporters of the Second Amendment.

I DARE someone try to argue that.

a reply to: xuenchen

One of my friends posted a video to Facebook and asked me specifically comment on it.

What I saw scared the bejeezus out of me and here is why:

PBS NewsHour
June 2 at 6:27pm ·

President Obama stuck around after last night's ‪#‎POTUSonNewsHour‬ to answer more questions. Here's his answer to a question about Second Amendment rights and gun control. Watch the full town hall special here: www.pbs.org...…/watch-live-president-obamas-town-hall…/ [www.pbs.org...

Here is the video in question:





My reply to him regarding the video he linked:

First of all, he never answered the gentleman's question, rather he executed several logical fallacies.

Nothing about holding the people who commit these acts accountable, nothing about the fact that Chicago, in a state with some of the most restrictive gun laws there are, continues to lead the nation in gang violence (handguns mostly, btw) consistently,

I took notes though and have a point by point rebuttal for what the president did say.

First was his comparison to automobiles (because people do indeed die from auto accidents, so you might think the comparison fits) and our push for laws to make them safer, seatbelt laws etc. All well and good excet for the fact that this comparison is false because those are accidental deaths.

Once more, accidental deaths.

If guns were suddenly going off on their own killing people or malfunctioning while being used properly for hunting, target practice, or just sitting in a safe as part of a collection which resulted in death on a grand scale, you know accidental deaths, then maybe he might have a point.

To make his comparison apt, we would have to have had a surge of people purposely using cars to kill people. In that circumstance I don't think we would be trying to figure out how to make cars softer so that they woudln't injure someone if hit, would we? Would we make licensing harder? Make it so that cars could only go 5 miles an hour? No, instead we would be trying to figure out why people decided to go on killing rampages using a car. Or at least that makes the most sense to me, I don't know, maybe I'm dumb.

Next he went on to call it a "Public health crisis" and then brought up wanting to study gun violence under the aegis of the CDC but not being allowed to because congress was being obstructionary.

Do you realize that the CDC has the authority to suspend the consitution?

"The federal government derives its authority for isolation and quarantine from the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution."

"Section
s 201 and 301 of the National Emergencies Act
50 U.S.C. §§ 1621, 1631

The National Emergencies Act authorizes the President to declare a “national emergency.” The proclamation of a national emergency must be transmitted immediately to Congress and published in the Federal Register. The declaration of emergency (or contemporaneous or subsequent executive orders) must specify the powers or authorities made available by virtue of the declaration. A national emergency can be terminated if the President issues a proclamation or if Congress enacts a joint resolution terminating the emergency. A national emergency will terminate automatically upon the anniversary of the proclamation unless the resident renews the proclamation by transmitting notice to Congress and publishing it in the Federal Register."

What happens if attacks like the one in Orlando happen more frequently, much more frequently?

Once a national emergency is declared he can then issue a quarantine, modified by executive order.

Yes, I admit that it sounds crazy.

But shouldn't we focus on figuring out why people want to do these things rather than focusing on what they choose to use to perform these acts?

Rgarding the situation in Orlando:

You notice that from the very beginning president Obama did not address the person who perpetrated the heinous act of violence, rather he began on gun control right off the bat. Nothing about finding out why this guy did what he did or if there was a purpose behind his actions.

What about the fact that this guy's mosque was on the FBI radar, but the FBI was told to back off by DHS and the State Department?

"But the investigation was shut down under pressure from the Clinton-ran State Dept. and DHS’s Civil Rights and Civil Liberties Office out of fear of offending Muslims, according to recently retired DHS agent Philip Haney."

Isn't finding out why the organization which is responsible for investigating counterintelligence threats in our country and could have stopped this from happening was told not to do it's job is maybe just a little more important than passing yet more laws?

If Obama decides that gun violence can be declared a "National Health Emergency" he can weasel his way into putting aside the constitution via the CDC.

Watch for this "public health crisis" angle to be pushed more and more.

a reply to: xuenchen

Both parties need blame in this, they both tried to pass almost the same thing. Also both parties are now working together to come up with another no fly list gun ban law to put up for a vote.

a reply to: neo96

Got one on Facebook that might have start trying to argue it.

Restricting guns will not stop people from killing other people so the White House is trying to climb an ice hill.

We've been hearing about gun control for years now and nothing has come from it, I doubt this will be any different. Just another talking point to get people outraged over nothing in my opinion.

a reply to: Grimpachi

I wasn't surprised to see breitbart pushing some click baity scaremongering. People never seem to learn that an executive actions and executive orders are completely different.

a reply to: jadedANDcynical

If Obama decides that gun violence can be declared a "National Health Emergency" he can weasel his way into putting aside the constitution via the CDC.

If he comes to that decision, I think that there will be trouble.

a reply to: butcherguy

What's troubling to me is I bet there are people who would agree with such a decision.

There are probably some here on this forum.

I have to admit, either people aren't reading the same article as me, or y'all just aren't getting the real point of it. The major implication here is that they don't know how much we will have to suffer before we give up our rights.

Come on now. I don't like feeling alone.

originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
Restricting guns will not stop people from killing other people so the White House is trying to climb an ice hill.

We've been hearing about gun control for years now and nothing has come from it, I doubt this will be any different. Just another talking point to get people outraged over nothing in my opinion.

Nothing has come from it?
I guess you don't deal with firearms much. The restrictions are nonsensical and far spread.

originally posted by: Ahabstar
a reply to: neo96

Got one on Facebook that might have start trying to argue it.

a reply to: jadedANDcynical

I'm sure Obama is "exploring" all the "Legal" ways.

Scary is an understatement.

This guy is super jealous and very very dangerous when backed into a corner like he has been.

originally posted by: TheAmazingYeti
a reply to: Grimpachi

I wasn't surprised to see breitbart pushing some click baity scaremongering. People never seem to learn that an executive actions and executive orders are completely different.

Well said. Now tell me which of those are revealed to the public and which aren't.

a reply to: xuenchen

www.usatoday.com...

► An amendment by Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., would allow the attorney general to deny a gun sale to anyone if she has a "reasonable belief" — a lesser standard than "probable cause" — that the buyer was likely to engage in terrorism. The proposal is popularly known as the "no-fly, no-buy" amendment, but wouldn't just apply to people on the "no fly" terrorist watch list.

► An Republican alternative by Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, which would require that law enforcement be alerted when anyone on the terror watch list attempts to buy a weapon from a licensed dealer. If the buyer has been investigated for terrorism within the past five years, the attorney general could block a sale for up to three days while a court reviews the sale.

► An amendment by Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, would make it more difficult to add mentally ill people to the background check database, giving people suspected of serious mental illness a process to challenge that determination.

► An amendment by Sen. Chris Murphy, D-Conn., that would close the "gun show loophole" by requiring every gun purchaser to undergo a background check, and to expand the background check database.

these are the bills that failed now if the dems didn't vote down Corbin's measure which would have protected due process rights they may have actually gotten something accomplished with out infringing rights