.
January 9th, 2013
10:42 PM ET
Toobin: No common ground in gun debate
Jeffrey Toobin, Margaret Hoover and Peter Beinart discuss the likelihood that legislators will reform U.S. gun laws.
 |
Post by: Anderson Cooper Filed under: Congress • Guns • NRA • President Obama |
About this Show:
Anderson Cooper goes beyond the headlines to tell stories from many points of view, so you can make up your own mind about the news. Tune in weeknights at 8 and 10 ET on CNN.
Questions or comments? Send an email
Want to know more? Go behind the scenes with AC361°
Subscribe to the podcast
Subscribe to the AC360 podcast on iTunes!
On Twitter
Search the AC360 blog
OK, Obama can't use executive powers to infringe on the right to possess guns. Can he issue an executive order banning the manufacture of assult weapons, or large magazines, or certain kinds of ammunition, except to support military or police needs? Unfortunately it wouldn't have the same impact as a ban on ownership. Does the constitution establish a right to produce firearms or ammunition?
First: great to see an honest effort to talk about the gun control issue.
I am shocked to see Beinart allowed to get away with his repetitive assertion that there is no common ground. He was just emphasizing the split and working for his limited view of things.
The common ground is both sides want to eliminate the mad violence. The not common ground is that one group thinks control of military style guns will solve the problem. Note Holmes also had bomb knowledge.
Control of military style guns would be a good first step. Finding a way to emphasize personal responsibility in our society would be a good second step. What is the third?
In CT. The police can take your weapons, without a warrant, without resonable cause if they choose, if they determine you or the guns are a hazzard!? To get your property back you must show proof that they or you are not a hazzard. From what I see on CNN, mearly owning a gun creates a hazzard, therefor it (the gun) should/can be taken away until the law abiding citizen can show proof that he or the gun is not a threat to police. Don't think it's true? Take a look.
Maybe we should allow police to shut down the first amendment (news) if in some way it can be a threat until the (news) agency can show proof that it is not a hazzard. ... I know, how can one equate guns and the damage they can cause to news, speech, expression. If you take a little time to ponder the thought, you may see how CT. can violate the second amendment, and if OK, then what's the big deal about violating (and takind away) the first amendment.