Trump warns Obama is coming after guns

[Morphine Prince 109,766]

 

[mcoop 628]

A real man shows emotion and isn't afraid to shed tears, especially about something so important. He's not a baby in the slightest. Proud of my President.

[SISTERV 3,887]

13 hours ago, jojuun said:

First of all it's Carly Fiorina not Florina.

Secondly, please visit http://carlyfiorina.org and return to this thread when you can see that CEO's like Trump and Fiorina are NOT going to bring any actual change to the US anytime soon. Fiorina was FIRED at HP. FIRED. And somehow, because of her PowerPoint presentation-like "master plan" people think she's going to be the sh*t in running the economy. Are you kidding me? She's an executive, all she's ever done in her life is building personal wealth and corporate wealth. She's DRIVEN by money. Also please research how both Trump and Fiorina have done business in the Middle East but are quick to jump on any Muslim related issue. Especially Trump.

Fiorina and her failed career can f*ck off and Trump and his delusional internet shutdown and wall can f*ck off too. How there's any Republicans left with these poor candidates is beyond me. 

It's Palin all over again. People with no relevant experience talking about issues they know jacksh*t about. Jumping on Hillary's emails and Benghazi but all they've done is run companies. Trump has gone bankrupt several times in his career and Fiorina was fired, so it's not like they were flawless while doing that. The both of them have 0 years of relevant political experience. Between Bernie and Hillary are over 100 years of relevant experience carrying titles such as senators, first lady or secretary of state. 

I hope Katie Couric interviews both of them and exposes them like she did with Palin.

OMG. My phone made that error. 

I'm aware it's Fiorina haha

And actually you are very very off about Fiorina. She's done more diplomacy work and worked on more international coalitions than Hillary has. She has Alot of experience and she is very well versed. She understands technology on a level that Hillary doesn't. And she wasn't fired from HP on bad terms. The guy that made that decision even said it was a mistake they fired her after they did it. (Think L.A. Reid dropping Gaga from Def Jam)

She's not really power hungry so much as she believes in herself and she runs one of the largest charity funds in the world for kids in poverty. She's a cancer survivor, lost a daughter to drug addiction, and a Stanford graduate. 

She has advised the past three presidents and helped prevent terrorist threat during 9/11.

Unlike Trump, she started out as a lower class girl working in a small 9 people business in real estate as a secretary and worked her way up to become a CEO. 

She is eloquent, smart, and honest. She never dodges a question, and she believes that the republican party should work more with the democrats.

She also was the first CEO of a Fortune 500 company to enact same sex couples the same benefits as heterosexual couples 

[SISTERV 3,887]

6 hours ago, LebaneseDude said:

No offense but shut up.

Trump calls names, tells people to go to hell, and consistently lies about everything. 

Some times it's just better to stay quiet rather than defend someone like that for no reason at all when they aren't in actual danger of being lynched.

You're not proud of being different. You're proud of the attention you're receiving. It's kinda transparent.

You don't get to decide what I'm proud of. And you think I'm excited about getting all this negative attention. You're excited to bc saying you like Bernie or Hillary is easy paws up on this site. 

BTW please find an example where Trump told someone to go to hell. You're the one calling names and spitting out rhetoric.

3 hours ago, LebaneseDude said:

 

People have the right of free speech.

It doesn't mean they have the right to say what they want in any given time and place.

 

Um....Do you understand what "free speech" means? Lol

[Goosey 3,017]

"All of us need to demand a Congress strong enough to stand up to the gun lobby's lies"

Get out Obama.

"We need the wide majority of responsible gun owners ... who ... feel like your views are not being properly represented ... to join with us to demand something better."

The irony. Yeah, they'll demand something better... in the form of a Republican president. 

 

[Kayla 7,595]

4 hours ago, MJHolland said:

Right. But it's your opinion that Trump is wrong, it's not fact. So be respectful of others and not a little whiney brat.

And you didn't hurt my feelings. I'm just pointing out the hypocrisy and bias on this site when it comes to the moderators. If someone told a Clinton/Sanders/socialist supporter to "shut up", they'd be slapped with two warning points for being disrespectful and probably flame bait.

But your right I guess. Let's let Obama take away all of our guns and make American a progressive happy-fun-playland and everything will be better and there will be no crime and there will be a Whole Foods in every town in America and we'll all eat organic free-range kale until the end of days and no one will have to work or worry about getting into college because it'll all be free! Yay!

Stop trying to point out bias that isn't there. For the record, before you were making these posts, this morning I gave someone a warning for saying the only reason they'd want to see Trump president is so they could see him get assassinated. I would be on the verge for giving someone a soft warning for telling others to "shut up," but I'm only on for a few minutes and haven't checked the Reports to see if there was already a discussion going on about those posts by the moderators determining the best method of handling it. 

[Kayla 7,595]

When it comes to guns it's not necessarily more or less that will stop the problem- it's our mentality around them. Other countries with much less gun violence but large usages of guns view having a gun totally different from how people in the US tend to view having a gun. In the US we get up in arms (no pun intended) about our guns. We make guns a statement, we elevate them to a level that we don't put other belongings on. We cite them as a reason to be safe, a representation of patriotism and what our country stands for. When you give an item that much importance, you create a society that, excuse the silliness, has no chill.

So if you want people to stop using guns in forms of violence, don't treat guns like something meant to be used for protection and/or crime- treat them like hobby items meant for hobby shooting and hunting. If you want people to stop hurting themselves and others with guns, don't take them away- reinforce education and proper usage. 

People cite Sweden (or is it Switzerland?) when supporting gun ownership because they have a high rate of gun ownership and a low rate of crime. The biggest difference between the US and them isn't gun laws- it's how they treat their guns. 

[ShockPop 7,747]

Pretty soon they'll stop letting paedophiles have access to kids. #Freedom 

What a **** slice.

[Whispering 18,865]

6 hours ago, MJHolland said:

 

But your right I guess. Let's let Obama take away all of our guns and make American a progressive happy-fun-playland and everything will be better and there will be no crime and there will be a Whole Foods in every town in America and we'll all eat organic free-range kale until the end of days and no one will have to work or worry about getting into college because it'll all be free! Yay!

Stop. You know full well that Obama has not set forth initiatives to "take away all of our guns". You are being ridiculous with this statement and you know it. The new guidelines are a very mild move to try and take a small step towards doing something in this country....other than ignoring the issue and hoping it gets better. The government has a duty to protect the people of the US, not to please the NRA like they have been doing. The statistics show that the large majority of American citizens, including those who own guns, are for stricter gun laws when it comes to background checks and restricting certain types of guns and ammo. The President IS doing what the people of the US want to see done, because Congress doesn't have the balls to do it! 

No one is going to take away all the guns. 

[ItsTommyBitch 12,640]

2 hours ago, Kayla said:

When it comes to guns it's not necessarily more or less that will stop the problem- it's our mentality around them. Other countries with much less gun violence but large usages of guns view having a gun totally different from how people in the US tend to view having a gun. In the US we get up in arms (no pun intended) about our guns. We make guns a statement, we elevate them to a level that we don't put other belongings on. We cite them as a reason to be safe, a representation of patriotism and what our country stands for. When you give an item that much importance, you create a society that, excuse the silliness, has no chill.

So if you want people to stop using guns in forms of violence, don't treat guns like something meant to be used for protection and/or crime- treat them like hobby items meant for hobby shooting and hunting. If you want people to stop hurting themselves and others with guns, don't take them away- reinforce education and proper usage. 

People cite Sweden (or is it Switzerland?) when supporting gun ownership because they have a high rate of gun ownership and a low rate of crime. The biggest difference between the US and them isn't gun laws- it's how they treat their guns. 

THIS

[Goosey 3,017]

2 hours ago, Whispering said:

 The statistics show that the large majority of American citizens, including those who own guns, are for stricter gun laws when it comes to background checks and restricting certain types of guns and ammo. The President IS doing what the people of the US want to see done, because Congress doesn't have the balls to do it! 

The NRA is composed of 5,000,000 Americans who the president is supposed to represent, and a majority of Americans oppose assault weapons bans.

 

[Whispering 18,865]

The NRA would represent less than five per cent of Americans. 

Fifty five per cent of Americans are in favor of stricter gun laws. 

92 per cent of Americans are for stricter background checks, including 88 per cent of Republicans. 

The popularity of background checks transcends age, political party, gender, education and even gun ownership. Last month, Quinnipiac University asked Americans whether they support a law requiring background checks for sales at gun shows or online. At least 84 percent of every one of 15 subgroups — including Republicans, men, gun owners and people living in rural areas — said “yes.”

[Goosey 3,017]

1 minute ago, Whispering said:

The NRA would represent less than five per cent of Americans.

To put that in proportion, black people represent 13%. The NRA is not some shill for the profits of the military industrial compex, its members are concerned citizens.

 

[MJHolland 12,725]

22 hours ago, Kayla said:

Stop trying to point out bias that isn't there. For the record, before you were making these posts, this morning I gave someone a warning for saying the only reason they'd want to see Trump president is so they could see him get assassinated. I would be on the verge for giving someone a soft warning for telling others to "shut up," but I'm only on for a few minutes and haven't checked the Reports to see if there was already a discussion going on about those posts by the moderators determining the best method of handling it. 

Well I definitely congratulate you on that. 

To stay on topic, more gun regulation and less gun violence really have no correlation whatsoever. If you look at the data and the states with the least gun restrictions, the actual gun violence is surpringly low. 

I'm not trying to say that less gun regulation is the answer though, because it probably isn't. But what I can tell you is that now gun regulation certainly isn't the answer either. 

And what I can also certainly say, is that nowhere in the Constitution does it give the president power to cut congress out of a decision like this. I'm not saying I don't want background checks (I do), but i want it done in a democratic way through congress because the fact of the matter is that this action taken by Obama could easily be overturned by the next president. It's really not a long term solution and this disincentives congress to pass actual public policy because they'll just be fighting the executive branch for their powers back. 

[DeleteMyAccount 11,881]

On January 5, 2016 at 10:06 PM, Goosey said:

Really? Because in "Now Is The Time: The President's Plan to Reduce Gun Violence" the third action on his list is "a new, stronger ban on assault weapons".

https://www.whitehouse.gov/issues/preventing-gun-violence

The 2nd Amendment does protect the individual right to posess guns.

The Supreme Court, in District of Columbia v. Heller, concluded:

"The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home."

Here is the court's full decision: http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

Exactly, but do you honestly think everyone will interpret the law that way? No. I'm just frustrated that so many people think that guns are going to be banned when they aren't. This issue is pointless and I wish society would move on. There's no possible way of controlling guns in the US.