It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Obama urges gun control after Colorado Springs shooting: 'Enough is enough'

page: 21
70
<< 18  19  20    22  23 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 29 2015 @ 05:16 PM
link   

Colorado Springs: a playground for pro-life, pro-gun evangelicals


If that's the case weed would have never been legalized in Colorado.

I do so love the propaganda.



After he was named, Barack Obama said on Saturday the US had “to do something about the easy accessibility of weapons of war on our streets to people who have no business wielding them”.


No military in the world carries what cilivians have access to here in the states.

What passes for 'weapons of war' is based on nothing, but how they look.

And Dears 'criminal' history such as it was could have been found out with atf form 4473

www.atf.gov...

Obama and the gun control crowd need to bother reading the damn thing.

www.thedailybeast.com...

Doesn't matter if charges were dismissed or not.

11b,c

Doesn't matter how the courts ruled.

Lying is a felony.

Enough is enough.




posted on Nov, 29 2015 @ 06:15 PM
link   
As I'm mentioned earlier, I'm actually against gun control for the US, but some of this logic is just wow.

You're comparing putting people in a database based on racial ethnicity or religious beliefs with gun owners having to register? Really?

edit on 29/11/2015 by Eilasvaleleyn because: Reasons



posted on Nov, 29 2015 @ 06:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: Eilasvaleleyn
As I'm mentioned earlier, I'm actually against gun control for the US, but some of this logic is just wow.

You're comparing putting people in a database based on racial ethnicity or religious beliefs with gun owners having to register? Really?


Who are you replying too ?



posted on Nov, 29 2015 @ 06:24 PM
link   
a reply to: wildb

Here, sort of: DBCowboy


Weren't you also the ones who were in horror at the thought of Trump putting immigrants in databases? And here you are, wanting to put average gun owning citizens into databases.


Aand here's neo96 comparing it to religion control...


Every time there is a terrorist attack start arguing for religion control.

TWO can play that game.


Seems I was wrong about it being compared with registering for religious or racial reasons. It was being compared with religion control.



posted on Nov, 29 2015 @ 06:27 PM
link   
a reply to: Eilasvaleleyn

Got it, glad your pro gun, I think, gun control kills..



posted on Nov, 29 2015 @ 06:33 PM
link   
a reply to: wildb

I am pro-gun specifically for the US, because I do not believe gun control can work in its current environment without an extremely bloody transition period.



posted on Nov, 29 2015 @ 06:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: Eilasvaleleyn
a reply to: wildb

I am pro-gun specifically for the US, because I do not believe gun control can work in its current environment without an extremely bloody transition period.


HA !! Well put.....



posted on Nov, 29 2015 @ 06:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: Eilasvaleleyn
As I'm mentioned earlier, I'm actually against gun control for the US, but some of this logic is just wow.

You're comparing putting people in a database based on racial ethnicity or religious beliefs with gun owners having to register? Really?


What's the difference?

One is a database based on immigration status (which already exists) and the other is a database on legal, law abiding citizens who have never done anything other than purchase a fire arm.



posted on Nov, 29 2015 @ 06:49 PM
link   
a reply to: DBCowboy




What's the difference?


Rights should not be registered..



posted on Nov, 29 2015 @ 06:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: wildb
a reply to: DBCowboy




What's the difference?



Rights should not be registered..



BINGO!

Might as well register to speak freely.

edit on 29-11-2015 by DBCowboy because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 29 2015 @ 07:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: rossacus
a reply to: stormbringer1701
Quotes from centuries ago. Thankyou for the relevant information. "Plunderers in awe", priceless, shame Obama doesn't use terms like that otherwise everyone would be on the same side.
i don't suppose you know what the supreme court has said about those quotes from centuries ago; hmmmm?

Something about when interpreting the constitution the words mean what the words meant when they were written and with that in mind the record of what the founder's said about the constitution is a primary source of guidance when interpreting the constitution and anything else is anarchy.

www.backwoodshome.com...




The Supreme Court has ruled that the words in the Constitution mean what the Founding Fathers said they meant, and we can't go changing or amending the Constitution by giving new meanings or new shades of meaning to the words. And, if you think about it, it makes sense; otherwise, our rights really mean nothing. Congress or any other governing body can deny you the right to free speech, freedom of religion, a trial by jury, or whatever else it wanted just by claiming the words now have a new meaning. An oppressive government could change the Constitution without ever having to go through the bothersome ritual of submitting it to us, the people, for our approval. And, in the end, the Constitution and, in particular, the Bill of Rights are there for our protection, not for the benefit of the government or those who run it."

edit on 29-11-2015 by stormbringer1701 because: (no reason given)

edit on 29-11-2015 by stormbringer1701 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 29 2015 @ 07:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: dukeofjive696969
a reply to: chuck258

I really don't know much about guns, but i sure know that obama has taken zero guns from americans, he better act quick, cause hes leaving office soon.
the number of ways you are incorrect is vast. lets start with the fact that he has outlawed the import of historically significant WW1 and WW2 semiautomatic weapons being repatriated from overseas back to the U.S. These weapons may have won world war one and world war two in the hands of our fast disappearing greatest generation but they are nothing but ruggedized hunting weapons in terms of form and function.
edit on 29-11-2015 by stormbringer1701 because: (no reason given)


and the historical value of these artifacts is priceless. he is depriving us of history in an incredible pointless display of ignorance as these weapons are surpassed in lethality by many perfectly legal hunting rifles. since this is true he is not doing anything in terms of reducing weapons in the hands of those that should not have them even by his own public stance on gun control.
edit on 29-11-2015 by stormbringer1701 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 29 2015 @ 07:37 PM
link   
a reply to: Eilasvaleleyn

Valid comparison in the sense that both are listed constitutional rights - right to keep and bear arms and right to freedom of religion. And valid comparison in the sense that the same people who want a registry of all gun owners gasp in horror at the idea of a registry of all practitioners of certain religions, even when those religious practitioners have had co-religionists carry out mass murder in the name of the religion in question.

It should also be pointed out that publications in this country have gotten ahold of law enforcement lists of gun owners in certain jurisdictions and published their private information, and yet, recently when a paper did this with practitioners of a certain religion, the same kinds of people who fully believe they have a right to know this kind of information about gun owners were aghast at the thought of that kind of information being published about religious practitioners.

The purpose in pointing all this out is to expose the double standard at work. Either those constitutionally protected freedoms are no one's business or they are everyone's, but you can't really expect one to selectively be private while the other deserves to be exposed in at attempt to shame people into following your line of thought.



posted on Nov, 29 2015 @ 07:56 PM
link   
not only that but state governments have already used gun registration data bases to confiscate legal guns from the law abiding in various natural disasters and emergencies. Hurricane Katrina is the latest example. it was only those with legally held guns on whose doors the State troopers, police and national guard knocked and sometimes peacefully and sometimes not removed the means of protection from the criminals and looters. they did not have a list of unlawfully owned guns so the criminals got to keep theirs. and many of the lawful owners were unable to provide the degree of proof of ownership required by the state to get their legally owned weapons back.

And the hapless citizens of Louisiana were not the only people this has happened to under the color of emergency and emergency powers. It has also happened on the east coast.

At a time when the lawful needed their guns the most the government confiscated them while leaving the unlawful armed. What good is taking a law abiding person's weapons? A lawful person is not inclined to murder or maim or steal or destroy in the first place and so removing their guns is not necessary to maintain order. A lawless person will not comply with laws like gun registration which is the key of any order to confiscate guns en masse. The lawless person's guns are not subject to registration and therefore not subject to confiscation except when caught in the commission of a crime where their gun would be confiscated anyway registered or not.
edit on 29-11-2015 by stormbringer1701 because: (no reason given)

edit on 29-11-2015 by stormbringer1701 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 29 2015 @ 08:14 PM
link   

And valid comparison in the sense that the same people who want a registry of all gun owners gasp in horror at the idea of a registry of all practitioners of certain religions, even when those religious practitioners have had co-religionists carry out mass murder in the name of the religion in question.


Being a member of a certain religion =/= owning a gun. Owning a gun implies intent to use it (not necessarily for murder, of course.) Being religious does not imply intent to go crazy and slaughter in the name of jihad.


It should also be pointed out that publications in this country have gotten ahold of law enforcement lists of gun owners in certain jurisdictions and published their private information, and yet, recently when a paper did this with practitioners of a certain religion, the same kinds of people who fully believe they have a right to know this kind of information about gun owners were aghast at the thought of that kind of information being published about religious practitioners.


I don't want that information being published, period.

Strangely enough, you can do that selectively, since they're different things. The constitution has nothing to do with this, unless you're going to talk about your practically non-existant fourth amendment.

Really, I think the biggest issue with the lack of gun control comes from the effect it has on the police and judicial system.



posted on Nov, 29 2015 @ 08:16 PM
link   
what good is gun ownership if the government has the power to take your guns (through registration) whenever they wish?

Thus far this has happened during the times the gun owners needed them most and this not even because the government became tyrannical though in taking the weapons under color of emergency they certainly were tyrannical.

Gun registration laws and background check records of any permanence are antithetical to the second amendment.



posted on Nov, 29 2015 @ 08:38 PM
link   
a reply to: Eilasvaleleyn


Being a member of a certain religion =/= owning a gun. Owning a gun implies intent to use it (not necessarily for murder, of course.) Being religious does not imply intent to go crazy and slaughter in the name of jihad.


Actually you are operating from a flawed assumption that the ONLY possible reason anyone would have a gun would be to use it against a fellow human being. As has been discussed over and over throughout this thread, there are valid reasons for someone to choose to own a gun that are removed from shooting other people, which is just as much a personal choice as choosing to follow any religion.

And with more than a third of Americans having made that choice, the statistics seem to more than back the idea that the overwhelming majority of people who choose to own guns do not put them to murderous or violent intent.

This is exactly like the majority of people who have chosen to follow a religion.



posted on Nov, 29 2015 @ 08:47 PM
link   
a reply to: neo96

Don't bother trying to reason with insanity, some people are not here for the facts but to discredit.
But to them I say this, the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again. People have learned NOTHING from prohibition.




In a world where everyone owns a gun, there are no victims. However, prohibition gives rise to cartels and power to the black market.

I think the first 20 seconds of this video recaps what occurred with alcohol.




posted on Nov, 29 2015 @ 08:53 PM
link   
a reply to: SoulSurfer

Nice post Byakuya Kuchiki.

It really does boil down to prohibition. Either way, the ship for gun control in the US has long sailed away. It isn't possible to effectively institute gun control, and even if they repealed the 2nd Amendment tomorrow they would have to go door to door confiscating firearms.

It would not be a pretty scenario and it would be a massive logistical nightmare to boot.



posted on Nov, 29 2015 @ 08:55 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

I seemed to specify that I wasn't making that assumption with the "not necessarily for murder" clause.

The difference between owning a gun and being religious is that religion is not intrinsically dangerous like a gun is. Do you understand the distinction I'm trying to make?

@Project: That's why I'm anti gun control for the US specifically. It is simply no longer feasible. (Like exterminating Rabbits in Australia, for instance.) You are past the event horizon.
edit on 29/11/2015 by Eilasvaleleyn because: Reasons



new topics

top topics



 
70
<< 18  19  20    22  23 >>

log in

join