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 Town Hall: Obama Rips Gun Control Fiction

page: 12
15
<< 9  10  11   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 30 2016 @ 12:35 AM
link   
anyways here's one

1993 brady bill


federal background checks. i can tell you from direct experience most gang members get their guns thru legal means, they can do so too easily because there is no limit to how many guns one can buy. so i can buy 1000 guns sell them to gang members or crazies, they erase anyway of tracing it back to the owner, then crime can happen.

im sure its nice to own an arsenal, but do you really need an arsenal to protect yourself from someone else?

edit on 30-1-2016 by vjr1113 because: (no reason given)


now this is a federal law, most gun laws are state based, so the paranoia that obama is going to radically change gun laws is impossible. a myth
edit on 30-1-2016 by vjr1113 because: (no reason given)




posted on Jan, 30 2016 @ 12:42 AM
link   
a reply to: vjr1113
Thats a strong correlation.
Which admin and legislature?


Ok....I'm done. That was my last one.



posted on Jan, 30 2016 @ 12:48 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage

you force me to learn i like that

it was passed in the Clinton administration, proposed by a democrat.



posted on Jan, 30 2016 @ 12:49 AM
link   
a reply to: vjr1113




you force me to learn i like that

Oh hell no.
You can lead a horse to water...



posted on Jan, 30 2016 @ 01:41 AM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra
Here is what I asked:

What gun bills have the Republicans allowed out of committee? What gun bills have been brought to the floor? What gun bills have made it to the President's desk for veto (or not)?

What gun bills have been filibustered?


This was in response to this post from you:


Do you know how a bill is vetoed?
Does the house / senate have the votes to override?
Filibuster?

I know how our government works thank you.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

 


Your first link is rather non specific. Which of the bills, if any, left committee?

Your second link does not involve a bill.

Your third link is about Republicans stifling a bill.

You answered none of my questions. Nor have you answered your own.
 

The "other side" seems to have presented evidence that gun control legislation, which has become law (from a Democrat administration and legislation, btw) has actually had an impact on gun violence.

Whatcha got?
edit on 1/30/2016 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 30 2016 @ 03:49 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
Here is what I asked:
"What gun bills have the Republicans allowed out of committee? What gun bills have been brought to the floor? What gun bills have made it to the President's desk for veto (or not)?

What gun bills have been filibustered?

This was in response to this post from you:
www.abovetopsecret.com...


Which was in response to your question a page back.

I was pointing out the counter to your question about government and how it works. You targeted Republicans while ignoring they key issues I raised as to courses of action against legislation. I never claimed a bill was filibustered. You have a bad habit of putting words in peoples mouth's while missing the point completely.

To use your logic why didnt the dems pass gun control laws when they held both house of Congress and the Presidency? If its such a priority then maybe they should have done something eh?




originally posted by: Phage
Your first link is rather non specific. Which of the bills, if any, left committee?

No its specific. You would need to click on whichever gun control bill interests you and check its status.



originally posted by: Phage
Your second link does not involve a bill.

Yup and that was evident by the title of 23 executive orders. However thank you for pointing out executive orders arent bills, which is needed in order to change a law. Executive orders are not bills nor laws and have no legally binding effect. Something Obama doesn't understand or he just doesn't care, either of which is frightening.



originally posted by: Phage
Your third link is about Republicans stifling a bill.

No its about an Obama gun grab while bypassing Congress and violating the Constitution. Maybe you should go back and read it because your response suggests you didn't.



originally posted by: Phage
You answered none of my questions. Nor have you answered your own.

Actually I have you just chose to ignore the info.



originally posted by: Phage
The "other side" seems to have presented evidence that gun control legislation, which has become law (from a Democrat administration and legislation, btw) has actually had an impact on gun violence.

Whatcha got?

Which has to do with what in our conversation? If you look at stats going back to about 2010 and work backwards you will see the opposite effect. Crime rates are up across the board -
FBI Crime Stats 2015


Violent crime +1.7
Murder +6.8
Rape (revised) 1.1
Rape (legacy) +9.6
Robbery +.03
Aggravated Assault +2.3
Property Crimes -4.2
Burglary -9.8
Larceny Theft -3.2
MV theft +1.0

and that the total number of gun related deaths in the US have consistently gone up since Obama took office.

As for the low crime rate strict gun laws you have a link? I would like to see it.
edit on 30-1-2016 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 1 2016 @ 10:34 AM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra

I asked you a direct question, after answering others.

How about you just answer the question, instead of cherry picking what you don't want brought into the discussion.

Are you scared about what your answer will bring?



posted on Feb, 1 2016 @ 10:35 AM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra Here's you f%&*ing cookies.




originally posted by: SM2
infringe

verb

1
[transitive] to break a law, rule, or agreement

"Making an unauthorized copy of the article infringes the copyright."


2
[intransitive/transitive] to limit or reduce someone’s legal rights or freedom

"court decisions that infringe civil liberties
infringe on/upon:"

"The investigation infringes on people’s privacy."
www.macmillandictionary.com...



I felt the need to post that seeing as though many people are unaware of the definition of the word. I hope this helps.


Special attention on the part in bold please. Regardless of your personal feelings on firearms, you can not randomly change the definition of a word to suit one's own agenda. Telling me I can not purchase a certain type, make, model, caliber, action type etc, is indeed limiting and reducing my legal rights and freedom. Telling me I need someone's permission to exercise said legal rights and freedom is also limiting and reducing the same said rights. Like it or not, opinions do not matter really, it's facts that count. If it is really true what the gun control advocates claim, and the "vast majority of Americans" truly do want these measures taken, then by all means, change the constitution. There is a process for that you know.



posted on Feb, 1 2016 @ 10:46 AM
link   
a reply to: macman

Yeah...


So nothing on topic or relevant to the discussion... typical and not surprising. How about you put the cookies away and brush up on con/stat law then come back and join the discussion.


To borrow a line from your last post -
Special attention on the part in bold please.



posted on Feb, 1 2016 @ 11:23 AM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra

I always find it amusing and interesting when someone won't answer a question.

So, you are okay with just a bit of infringement. Can I get an address to send you the cookies with just a little bit of piss in the mix???

And, you are okay with the Govt using business, to limit the Rights of the people?

So much for Constitutional thought...



posted on Feb, 2 2016 @ 07:05 AM
link   
a reply to: macman

I told you my view of infringement is not the same as yours and explained why. My position is based on law and experience.

Your question is not relevant.

That would become evident if you brush up on your con law / stat law.



posted on Feb, 2 2016 @ 10:32 AM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra

Just state the truth,

originally posted by: Xcathdra I refuse to answer your direct question for fear of what my answer will bring

There ya go.


And no. Your position is based on court ruling based upon Case Law. How exactly do you have "experience" in this matter? Oh wait......is that another question you won't answer because it is scary?

At least you are adhering to the actions within your signature. I will at least give you that much.

edit on 2-2-2016 by macman because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 2 2016 @ 11:00 AM
link   
a reply to: macman

Don't edit anything to make it look like I said it.

My position is based on the Constitution and over 200+ years of case law. Refusing to acknowledge that because it doesn't support your position is your problem.

Law Enforcement in 2 different states with over a decades worth of experience. A degree in Political Science - Public law and a minor in Law Enforcement w/ leadership emphasis..

Again brush up on your con law / stat law. If you had a valid position supported by facts you wouldn't be continually attacking me while ignoring the facts.


edit on 2-2-2016 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 2 2016 @ 11:04 AM
link   

originally posted by: Agit8dChop
a reply to: AmericanRealist

a rifle, yes. No problems. Self defense is fair game..

But an automatic machine gun similar to what the army uses?

no.


The fact you would even suggest this shows you have no clue what you're talking about. Neither do any of the people who gave you a star for the post!



posted on Feb, 2 2016 @ 11:55 AM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra

What case laws will you use to stop[ me from posting?


I know a want to be lawyer when I see one.

You go ahead and not answer direct questions. Refusal to answer a question speaks more than actually answering the question.



posted on Feb, 2 2016 @ 12:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: macman
a reply to: Xcathdra

What case laws will you use to stop[ me from posting?


I know a want to be lawyer when I see one.

You go ahead and not answer direct questions. Refusal to answer a question speaks more than actually answering the question.



Why would I stop you from posting? You need to stop making stuff up as I never said anything about you and posting. I am concerned though that as a member of law enforcement / military you have no issues claiming someone said something they didn't by making up a false quote on your own or making a claim based on something I never said, like wanting you to stop posting. I really hope you don't do this in cases you work or during court appearances.

Trying to attack me because I know what I am talking about is pretty petty on your part. Brush up on your con law / stat law and get back to us. Aside from that I am not going to engage any more of your temper tantrum.

When you can debate this topic rationally and in a civil manner let me know. Absent that you are on your own.
edit on 2-2-2016 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 2 2016 @ 02:00 PM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra
Clearly you have little to no reading comprehension.

How about this Mr. Legal Scholar. Why don't you go back and actually read what I posted.
Maybe answer a question or two and we can rally back here once you have accomplished this.


You do realize that every one of your retorts are classic, textbook replies when someone has nothing to respond back with.

Can I suggest you move from the "temper tantrum", which clearly is happening as I am SOOOOO mad, and move directly to grammar policing. Then, maybe add a comparison to Hitler maybe? Or, an evil militia member that is blood thirsty for a revolt..



As for concern??? You do realize that this is the internet, don't you? Or did you trip and fall into the matrix?



new topics

top topics



 
15
<< 9  10  11   >>

log in

join