Obama Town Hall: Obama Rips Gun Control Fiction

a reply to: reldra

Hi Reldra this was the NRA's leadership position before they sold themselves and their souls to small arms manufacturers

The NRA once supported gun control. So how did we get here?

1934: The NRA supports the first federal gun law, cracking down on machine guns and sawed-off shotguns commonly used in robbery and other crimes. NRA president Karl Frederick said, “I have never believed in the general practice of carrying weapons. I seldom carry one…. I do not believe in the general promiscuous toting of guns. I think it should be sharply restricted and only under licenses.”
[urlmedium.com...@ajplus/the-nra-once-supported-gun-control-so-how-did-we-get-here-6c27507af682#.112hoqj78[/url]

www.salon.com...

Some where between then and now something happened $$$$$$$...

a reply to: Spider879

Government adopted the mentality the people answer to the government and not the other way around.

a reply to: muse7

I think using the mental health angle will be very dangerous.

People who are potentially ill struggle to ask for help. This is just another reason not to seek help. You will be treated differently for the rest of your life.

a reply to: Xcathdra

And the worst part is the people think the government won't turn against them.

Soldiers have pensions and fear prison too, not following orders can achieve gaining one thing and losing another. I don't think soldiers will disobey....and I HATE saying that.

a reply to: Vector99

I doubt the military will follow illegal orders, especially from this president (who has shown his dislike for our armed forces / country over and over). The FLEE will also refuse any of those orders. I know first hand local / county / state law enforcement will not support illegal orders / actions issued by Obama, including gun confiscation or illegal executive orders that restricts the 2nd amendment.

Finally there is no way to disarm the people to the extent of being able to overpower their sheer numbers.

Any law worthy of the name must restrict the enforcers of the law as much as the people its applied to. Setting aside the fact I stole that line from the tv movie Conspiracy (based on the wannsee conference during WWII) the US armed forces took an oath to defend the constitution against ALL enemies, foreign and domestic. Unlike the SS, who has to swear an oath directly to Hitler, our military will do whats right and will protect the people.

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.

Also, he's not taking away guns or stopping you from getting guns, he's closing loop holes on background checks.

You'd think (by the reaction of some) that he was going door to door demanding you turn in your guns or you will have your house bulldozed. A completely disproportionate response to reality!

First off machine guns are not legal in most places for private ownershio. Where they are still legal requires a class 3 license with extremely stringent checks / background investigation.

Secondly, do you support our Government giving automatic weapons to various rebel groups across this planet?

a reply to: Spider879

The NRA also supported gun control in California when Reagan was Governor, especially w/the California legislature's attempts to disarm the Black Panther Party.

a reply to: SonOfThor

Ah yes...

Nothing like this government wanting to tighten the screws to US citizens while handing out military grade weapons to groups who hate us and restricting the information background investigators can look at for refugees or people wanting to come to the US.

His priorities are backwards.

a reply to: Xcathdra

The thing is I don't think the military personnel will even realize they are illegal orders. I don't come to this conclusion without reason.

a reply to: reldra

The trouble is, that his answers on the topic of actually solving mass shooting events, were not very insightful, and the thing about that which concerns me, is that although it is true that just because you cannot solve all problems, does not mean you should not try to solve some problems, it is also true that the biggest problems need solving FIRST!

Here is one of the big problems. People with mental health issues so severe as to induce them to mass murder, being in a position to lay hands on a gun. Now, I am not saying that their families should not be allowed weapons in case the individual with the malady gets a hold of them. I am not saying that at all. What I am saying is that the state of mental health care provision in the States needs to be improved to the point where it is as near to impossible as can be, for an individual to harbour a condition which endangers others, without being institutionalised WELL before they ever act.

Here's an article from the UK, which involves no guns, just heaps of tragedy.

www.dailymail.co.uk... -helped-Josie-Russell-heal.html

Josie Russell, her sister Megan, and her mother Lin were attacked by a deranged, hammer wielding individual. He should not have been out and about, but locked up somewhere safe, for his protection, and the protection of the population. It does not matter that "just" two people died, and that "just" one family and social circle were affected. What matters is that it happened at all, and that it could, and should have been prevented.

ANYONE who poses a significant risk to public safety by way of the particulars of their mental health problems, should not, under any circumstances, be wandering around, unidentified, or for that matter unsupervised. This applies here in the UK, and in the States. But both nations have a really terrible record of keeping those at most risk of harming themselves or others, out of the way of people who might become their victims. A better solution to the mass shooting problem, would be the same solution as applies to a great deal of violent crime, and that would be that everyone in the country has to be psychologically evaluated yearly, and anyone found to have a significant malady of the mind should be checked not weekly, monthly, or yearly, but EVERY DAMNED DAY FOR THE REST OF THEIR LIVES, to make SURE that they do not pose an immediate risk to public health.

Anyone found to be at risk of pulling a Rambo on a school bus, or causing any kind of violent mayhem, should find themselves institutionalised the very SECOND the concern arises, and should not be released until there is an absolutely nil threat to public health in the doing of it.

That will solve the mass shooting issue really well. It will not stop terrorists, or gangsters, but it will stop one individual taking it into his head to kill a whole grade of school children, or shoot up a church, purely because they have lost their reason and no longer have psychological formats which allow for proper morality and good conduct. That is the ONLY answer to that problem, and it is the one which should be answered first.

a reply to: Vector99

Luckily our military is composed of a lot of intelligent people, from the highest levels down to the lowest. Secondly each state has its own guard units who answer to the governor and not the president.

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: Vector99

Luckily our military is composed of a lot of intelligent people, from the highest levels down to the lowest. Secondly each state has its own guard units who answer to the governor and not the president.

My best friend just got promoted to First Sergeant in the AF. He still thinks the war on Iraq was needed and Saddam had to go. Despite all the real world evidence saying it was a bad idea with bad information.

Re-checked, it was First Sergeant, not Sergeant Major, I knew it didn't sound right,

a reply to: reldra

Your links all go to the same article. Was that intentional?

Regardless, from what I saw of the 'town hall' every person got to ask one question. Seeing as this was invite-only with several days of preparation, it would be naive to think it was a spontaneous discussion. According to the NRA, yes they were invited but they would only be allowed one question. There would be no robust debate. Obama had prepared responses for everything.

And to be perfectly honest, I do not trust anything Obama says. So what was the point of the 'town hall', again?

originally posted by: enlightenedservant
a reply to: Spider879

The NRA also supported gun control in California when Reagan was Governor, especially w/the California legislature's attempts to disarm the Black Panther Party.

Yeah so it all depends on the political climate, I don't want to get into a "racial" angle here but I can see that urban Black folks who are pro gun control ,look around their respective communities that is being devastated and think there are way too many weapons of small destruction both legal and illegal on the streets, while suburban and rural white folks with an anti gun control bent think in terms of black helicopters and blue helmets marching down main street..it's not as simplistic as that but that's the vibes I am getting.

This is what I am talking about..btw saw it not bad and done with humor.

a reply to: Vector99

I share the same mindset as your friend. Actually I am a firm believer use of military force should be allowed when only humanitarian interests are involved.

A prime example is N. Korea.

a reply to: Xcathdra

The region was a lot more stable with Saddam in power.

Does anyone else find it Ironic that Obama is pushing hard for "stricter gun control measures" (which we already have) here at home? And everywhere else in the world he is literally the worlds biggest arms dealer. Last year the US increased its foreign weapon exports by a third or 10 billion.

Pot meet kettle.

originally posted by: Vector99
a reply to: Xcathdra

The region was a lot more stable with Saddam in power.

and more people were killed under Saddam..

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: Vector99
a reply to: Xcathdra

The region was a lot more stable with Saddam in power.

and more people were killed under Saddam..

That's subjective...
www.quora.com...

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.

Also, he's not taking away guns or stopping you from getting guns, he's closing loop holes on background checks.

You'd think (by the reaction of some) that he was going door to door demanding you turn in your guns or you will have your house bulldozed. A completely disproportionate response to reality!

Where can you buy a automatic machine gun similar to what the army uses.
I was in the military and have NEVER seen one sold to the general public.