CNN to host Obama town hall on guns in America

a reply to: xuenchen

So tell us. What do you think that the President's executive action will do?
I recall a post of yours claiming the the confiscations would soon begin.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
Back on topic, I hope he whips everyone into a frothy frenzy. In the sake of full disclosure I will be purchasing shares in Smith & Wesson, Olin and Sturm.

Just an FYI, all of these were up noticeably yesterday while the Dow Jones got kicked in the nuts.

Thanks Obama!!!!

If Obama actually gave a crap about American people dying, he would push for laws banning tobacco and alcohol use.
CDC- Tobacco Deaths

Tobacco use is the leading preventable cause of death in the United States.

More than 480,000 deaths annually

NIH- Alcohol Deaths

Nearly 88,0009 people (approximately 62,000 men and 26,000 women) die from alcohol-related causes annually, making it the third leading preventable cause of death in the United States.
In 2013, alcohol-impaired driving fatalities accounted for 10,076 deaths (30.8 percent of overall driving fatalities).

There are no Constitutional issues with banning these substances.
He doesn't give a fiddlers damn about people dying.

originally posted by: macman
a reply to: uncommitted

Infringement is infringement.

Nonsense is nonsense. Did the original 2nd amendment talk about conceal and carry? No, did it consider (or even vaguely mention) restriction based on for example mental health or previous convictions? No it doesn't yet restrictions exist today in those areas don't they? Were those restrictions anti constitutional, or make perfect sense from the perspective of a reasonable person, as do the current proposals IMHO, but then again I'm not American so I'm not subjected to NRA brainwashing - sorry if my perspective doesn't count.

a reply to: Subaeruginosa

What does the 2nd Amendment state???? hmmm??

Does it list or state anywhere within it conditions? What about restrictions? What does it state about "infringement"?

And no, closing the private sale "loop hole" does not stop firearms from reaching the black market.

When at any time has a criminal obeyed a law pertaining to their chosen criminal act?

I find it mind blowing how people blabber on about "smart gun laws" this or "Rational" that, and dismiss totally what is within the 2nd Amendment.

Please, do everyone a huge favor. Before you respond, print out exactly what is stated for the 2nd, go in front of a mirror and read it out loud several times. Then, repeat several times the last part of it.

And then, come back and inform us as to what the 2nd defines.

a reply to: boymonkey74

You as well need to read OUR Constitution and the 2nd Amendment.

a reply to: uncommitted

You use "reasonable person" as if what you are typing is anything other then infringement.

Please, what is that last statement within the 2nd Amendment???

And the statement of "I'm not American" is about all I needed to read.

The most interesting thing about this, to me at least, is how CNN gets the deal. If the President is making live comments regarding a Constitutional issue, why isn't it simulcast on all news networks, if not all broadcast networks?

Sweet for CNN, as I'm sure a Thursday night in January is otherwise pretty ho-hum as far as ratings go.

originally posted by: kosmicjack
The most interesting thing about this, to me at least, is how CNN gets the deal. If the President is making live comments regarding a Constitutional issue, why isn't it simulcast on all news networks, if not all broadcast networks?

Why do you think he is throwing them a bone?

a reply to: macman

So what you are essentially advocating is to turn the US into a 3rd world war zone, by taking a law that was written in the 18 century literally word for word... fundamentalism, I think they call it.

a reply to: xuenchen

It's not a plot it's a ritual?

originally posted by: TonyS
a reply to: xuenchen

Sounds like a bad joke to me. I mean by that......how open a debate is anyone going to see when its with Obama at a University setting and with CNN?

Won't be much of a debate......it'll be a "schooling".

SO true so true.

And we are not going to see anyone stand up and say that his or her family has been in this since 1700s and have fought in all the wars ect ect are constitutionalists and ect ect don't understand why inner city hand gun violence and past gang violence was never a reason to discuss this "problem" ect ect. and why is it democrats and liberals mostly that are on about this ect, ect ect

I hope nobody opens fire or we're done!


No more gun shows!

originally posted by: Subaeruginosa
a reply to: macman

So what you are essentially advocating is to turn the US into a 3rd world war zone, by taking a law that was written in the 18 century literally word for word... fundamentalism, I think they call it.

Its a legal document....so it has to been taken literally and word for word.

Otherwise a partial violation, a gray shaded zone in the thing, the 2nd, is about the same as saying that slavery can still be justified under certain conditions and situations.

Strong speech by the POTUS so far.
Shinning the light on children pulling triggers and how we
can stop that from happening. All in all not all bad so far.
He only went for gun safety, I'm impressed.

originally posted by: macman
a reply to: uncommitted

You use "reasonable person" as if what you are typing is anything other then infringement.

Please, what is that last statement within the 2nd Amendment???

And the statement of "I'm not American" is about all I needed to read.

I appreciate as a non American I couldn't possibly understand the complexities of that piece of paper that is so heavily amended, forgive me for not being so bright. Now, are you going to humble me with the actual answer to any of the points I made, or will you concede that the second amendment is worded woolly enough for ANY restriction on it to render your original comment that I responded to as null and void? Your choice, when you show me reference to conceal and carry in the original amendment as one infringement (albeit one you may agree with) is enough to show that it isn't something carved in stone - hence it actually being an amendment.

a reply to: kosmicjack

I think it would make people's heads explode if he did it on Fox. If I was Obama, I'd do it...just to see what people's reaction would be.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: kosmicjack
The most interesting thing about this, to me at least, is how CNN gets the deal. If the President is making live comments regarding a Constitutional issue, why isn't it simulcast on all news networks, if not all broadcast networks?

Why do you think he is throwing them a bone?

Liberals see CNN as pretty neutral.

Conservatives see FOX as "middle of the road", and every other cable network as liberal-left-wing. Pretty much unless its radical right-wing, it's biased and tainted by left-wingers.

originally posted by: MystikMushroom
Liberals see CNN as pretty neutral.

As someone in the middle I see them as left-leaning. Not as much as Fox leans right but it is noticeable.

a reply to: Subaeruginosa

Yes, because actually adhering to OUR Constitution will auto-magically propel US into the 3rd world status. Clearly you don't have a single clue.

It isn't "fundamentalism", its "Constitutional". But, I don't expect foreigners to understand it.

So, how often do you walk into your neighbors house and tell them how to live? Just wondering.