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 On San Bernardino Shooting: 'We Have A Pattern Now Of Mass Shootings'

page: 2
66
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:
+1 more 
posted on Dec, 2 2015 @ 05:06 PM
link   
a reply to: theNLBS

Bottom of that picture had links too.

Do i need to link the Bill of RIGHTS ?

About the limitations placed on the STATE. Not the people ?




posted on Dec, 2 2015 @ 05:07 PM
link   
a reply to: Toseekthetruth
Hold it right there To... That arguement? We hear it all the time. Just like all the other arguements on BOTH sides of the issue. But how about this as you say, what if all those people had guns. As your point basically says "who knows how many" here is another 'who knows"
If those twenty eight people had guns too, who knows how many innocent people would have been shot in the melay. Who knows how many of THOSE people would have just started shooting back at anyone else who had a gun out and was shooting. Who knows how many of them would have just been so freeked out that they would have been firing at anyone who moved. You are absolutely right. Who knows.


We need every ameican to be armed and able to defend themselves!


Give me a freeking break, we need every american to be armed, are you out of your ever loving mind??????



posted on Dec, 2 2015 @ 05:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: theonenonlyone

Mentally ill people do not have access to guns.

Because the LAW. TWO of them. Verbatim says they are not allowed to own them.

The Gun Control Act of 1968. and the Brady Law of the 90s.



You can say that with a straight face. The laws in place are obviously not strict enough and need to be updated.

Where is the harm in making it harder for mentally ill people to gain access to guns?



posted on Dec, 2 2015 @ 05:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: BlueJacket
a reply to: chr0naut

That is insane itself and unconstitutional. All you obvious city people, who don't raise livestock and fruits and veggies, but rather buy your sustenance from others have this same ignorant rant based on a total disconnect from the natural world.

I need a gun or two just to run my farm, should I humanely Inject the next rabid coyote?


1) Run your farm, I don't want your guns taken that you need to run your farm or for personal protection.
2) I go to farmer's markets when I can. I would buy direct from you, if I had a car.
3) You already have a gun license, I would guess.

I have no idea why you are complaining.
edit on 2-12-2015 by reldra because: (no reason given)


I forgot, go ahead and shoot the rabid coyote. And I am a left wing, liberal, Democrat that is trying to eat less meat. Shoot it, please.
edit on 2-12-2015 by reldra because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 2 2015 @ 05:10 PM
link   
a reply to: theonenonlyone

How do you determine if someone without criminal record is determined to go on a shooting spree? How do you stop a terrorist or criminal from obtaining firearms if France with thier strict gun laws cannot not prevent it? Do we not already have laws on the books that make it illegal for criminals and the metally ill to purchase them? What do you suggests we should do?
edit on 2-12-2015 by joemoe because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 2 2015 @ 05:13 PM
link   
a reply to: theNLBS

Can you name a 10 year span in human history when we weren't killing each other somewhere on the planet?



posted on Dec, 2 2015 @ 05:13 PM
link   
a reply to: theonenonlyone

My point is, there is a hugely, changing subjective character to mental illness. A right is a right and not all people being treated for mental disharmony are blatant mass killers.

However Obama pushing through the TPP, Congress awarding bankers cash for criminal actions, banks raising the price of housing to impossible levels for the less fortunate. ....this is the real problem. ..not guns...not organic...not republicans.


+1 more 
posted on Dec, 2 2015 @ 05:14 PM
link   
And if this turns out to be ISIS affiliated, with guns acquired illegally

How will that narrative work for the Obama administration and the left?

Already Obama coming out and spouting political talking points, and we have NO idea who these people were, how they got the guns or anything else other than the fact that they moved like a freaking SWAT team or military trained group, in , execute and then out.......

Im so sick of the left bullcrap with the gun issue

We ARM ISIS, while screaming about gun control

We yell about how Global Warming is the biggest threat, while people are being Beheaded across the middle east and massacred in Paris...

Enough is enough

The left politically correct BS and madness needs to halt.......you guys are completely out of touch with reality



posted on Dec, 2 2015 @ 05:15 PM
link   
What an idiot. He must own stock in several gun companies.



posted on Dec, 2 2015 @ 05:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: joemoe
a reply to: theonenonlyone

How do you determine if someone without criminal record is determined to go on a shooting spree? How do you stop a terrorist or criminal from obtaining firearms if France with thier strict guns laws cannot not prevent it? Do we not already have laws on the books that make it illegal for criminals and the metally ill to purchase them? What do you suggest we should do?


We don't have enough laws. Maybe that isn't right, as I have not counted the laws and compared them to each other for redundancy.

I do know that legal gun owners have guns stolen, sell without paperwork and loan or give to family members. A gun is as dangerous as a car, if not more so. We are missing some holes in the laws. Adam Lanza got his mother's guns. People who own guns need a good gunsafe. They need a receipt for it and it needs to be quality. They need to register every 2 years. They need to declare if they have given them to someone else.

And Yes. We need better psychological testing and longer waiting.



posted on Dec, 2 2015 @ 05:16 PM
link   
a reply to: theonenonlyone

Pretty easy to say it with a straight face.



It shall be unlawful for any person to sell or otherwise dispose of any firearm or ammunition to any person knowing or having reasonable cause to believe that such person— (1) is under indictment for, or has been convicted in any court of, a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year; (2) is a fugitive from justice; (3) is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance (as defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802)); (4) has been adjudicated as a mental defective or has been committed to any mental institution; (5) who, being an alien— (A) is illegally or unlawfully in the United States; or (B) except as provided in subsection (y)(2), has been admitted to the United States under a nonimmigrant visa (as that term is defined in section 101(a)(26) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101 (a)(26))); (6) who [2] has been discharged from the Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions; (7) who, having been a citizen of the United States, has renounced his citizenship; (8) is subject to a court order that restrains such person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner of such person or child of such intimate partner or person, or engaging in other conduct that would place an intimate partner in reasonable fear of bodily injury to the partner or child, except that this paragraph shall only apply to a court order that— (A) was issued after a hearing of which such person received actual notice, and at which such person had the opportunity to participate; and (B) (i) includes a finding that such person represents a credible threat to the physical safety of such intimate partner or child; or (ii) by its terms explicitly prohibits the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against such intimate partner or child that would reasonably be expected to cause bodily injury; or (9) has been convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence.


Gun Control Act of 1968



Has been adjudicated as a mental defective or committed to a mental institution;


Brady Act.

By LAWS AFT form 4473 has to be filled out, and a BACKGROUND CHECK(constitutional violation) be performed.

11b,c,e,f,h,i

Atf Form 4473

I particularly like 11b. Because it doesn't matter how the courts actually ruled. It's about what a person could have been charged with.

That's that 'common sense' laws Obama likes so much.



posted on Dec, 2 2015 @ 05:21 PM
link   
a reply to: neo96


"It shall be unlawful for any person to sell or otherwise dispose of any firearm or ammunition to any person knowing or having reasonable cause to believe that such person—" That is the problem in the wording right off the bat. Say "uncle Bob" gives rifle to "nephew Jim" dioesn;t fill out paperwork and "Nephew Jim" is a lunatic and "uncle Bob" had no idea.
"Nephew Jim" has also been trained how to use it and seems to be a normal, avid hunter with skill, according to "Uncle Bob". "Uncle Bob" doesn't think the paperwork is necessary and is a hassle.

"Nephew Jim" kills people, instead of deer, the next day.

edit on 2-12-2015 by reldra because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 2 2015 @ 05:23 PM
link   
If guns are removed from the public in the states and then there are still shootings because, well those who want to shoot others will get them illegally anyway.

How does that solve the problem?

Paris is not the US and they suffered a shooting, why did this happen if there were strict gun laws?

I don't think removing guns from the public will solve anything except disarming the population which is the real agenda here.



posted on Dec, 2 2015 @ 05:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: bitsforbytes
If guns are removed from the public in the states and then there are still shootings because, well those who want to shoot others will get them illegally anyway.

How does that solve the problem?

Paris is not the US and they suffered a shooting, why did this happen if there were strict gun laws?

I don't think removing guns from the public will solve anything except disarming the population which is the real agenda here.


I don;t think anyone called for removal of all guns.


+2 more 
posted on Dec, 2 2015 @ 05:24 PM
link   
a reply to: reldra

And the point is what ?

People aren't psychic, and people aren't criminals until they do something.

Even then going around shooting other people is against the law.

Except when it comes to police, and the US government.

And giving weapons to people that shouldn't have them is something the US government has a AAA rating at.



posted on Dec, 2 2015 @ 05:28 PM
link   
Yes neo lets compare cancer to gun death, that makes so much sense, maybe we should try banning cancer lol, or maybe make people buy a license before they can get cancer.

My youngest cat got killed by coyotes, damn you obama

edit on 2-12-2015 by dukeofjive696969 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 2 2015 @ 05:28 PM
link   
a reply to: reldra

We have thousands of gun laws in the US some say more than 20,000. We have so many that many are ignored or ill enforced. Adam Lanza killed his mom to get to her guns and last I checked murder is already illegal too.

What we need is to improve on current existing systems, not adding more useless laws becuase we "feel" like it accomplishes something. If you look at the FBI stistics you would see that gun homicide have decrease by over 50% since the 90's, even as the numbers of firearms has skyrocketed to over 300 million. If we really want to cut down the numbers of gun related homicides, we should look into solving gang violence in large urban cities.
edit on 2-12-2015 by joemoe because: (no reason given)

edit on 2-12-2015 by joemoe because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 2 2015 @ 05:29 PM
link   
I keep on repeating this, obama has to do a very quick job if he wants to take guns away from americans.

Obama should be the nra president, guns sales have been going up since he is in office.



posted on Dec, 2 2015 @ 05:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: reldra

And the point is what ?

People aren't psychic, and people aren't criminals until they do something.

Even then going around shooting other people is against the law.

Except when it comes to police, and the US government.

And giving weapons to people that shouldn't have them is something the US government has a AAA rating at.


In general, people are not psychic. I think especially "Uncle Bob" in my example.

The US government, in my opinion, is rating about a C- in who they give guns to, maybe a D+ as people who get them often shoot other people, looking at stats in regard to other similar countries.

You bring up a very important thing I agree with....that the US government itself and police shoot people they should not shoot.

So, the whole thing needs fixing.
edit on 2-12-2015 by reldra because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 2 2015 @ 05:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: dukeofjive696969
Yes neo lets compare cancer to gun death, that makes so much sense, maybe we should try banning cancer lol, or maybe make people by a license before they can get cancer.

My youngest cat got killed by coyotes, damn you obama


Why not ?

After all every time there is a shooting I am some how responsible.

I must yield my rights for something I don't do.

Like a few hundred million other people.




top topics



 
66
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join