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: 8
15
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 9 2016 @ 04:56 PM
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.

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!

You are speaking nonsense. If you want to talk reality... go to your local gun shop, and ask them for a "automatic machine gun similar to what the army uses". They will laugh you out of the store.




posted on Jan, 9 2016 @ 10:12 PM
link   



posted on Jan, 9 2016 @ 10:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xcathdra


LOL Was that a real back and forth?
If so Morgan got trounced.



posted on Jan, 9 2016 @ 10:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: chuck258

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!



What the reality is is people just like you who are co.pletely ignorant of how gun aww work. Your average Joe isn't capable of possessing a machine gun. It takes months of background checks by the ATF, hundreds of dollars in fees and I don't know, around 30,000 dollars to come into possession of these automatic machine guns you are talking about. And that's if you can even get someone who owns one to sell the damn thing to you.

The measures Obama has taken will not make a dint in the toll.
Strangers to American society simply cannot imagine how many guns are floating around.
A recent Small Arms Survey estimated 270 million small arms, but there are a remarkable number of military-grade weapons in private hands as a result of exposure to a vast armed services with its galaxy of local military bases, major national guard organizations and facilities in every state, and the past heavy arming of police and numerous agencies such as the TSA.
The kind of police who beat up drug suspects and take their money are also the kind of police who illicitly trade in guns, and America has large numbers of them amongst its rag-tag collection of a million or so.

America swims in guns, and there is a vast market just in private sales and stolen guns.
There will always be a market under such conditions no matter what regulations Washington may impose.



posted on Jan, 9 2016 @ 11:04 PM
link   
a reply to: Punisher75

Yup it was a real exchange. Our 2nd amendment was lost on morgan and every time he brought the subject up he kept pushing his foot farther into his stomach via his mouth. His reasons are the same ones I keep seeing from the liberal left.



posted on Jan, 9 2016 @ 11:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: Spider879

originally posted by: Teikiatsu

originally posted by: Spider879

originally posted by: Teikiatsu

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.


Reaching back a half-century to try and make a point for today?

Why not?? it's called learning from history.


What are you learning? That gun bans are bad ideas no matter who proposes them?

Banning guns naaw not proposing that, but sensible gun control???.why yes I am very much in favor that, I see no reason that one can simply skirt the law of their home state that have tough gun control laws by going to the state next door that lacked such toughness..subverting the very purpose of those laws.


Welcome to federalism.



posted on Jan, 9 2016 @ 11:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: Punisher75

Yup it was a real exchange. Our 2nd amendment was lost on morgan and every time he brought the subject up he kept pushing his foot farther into his stomach via his mouth. His reasons are the same ones I keep seeing from the liberal left.


I just tell them that 'Freedom of the Press' must only apply to papers that a literally printed with a manual printing press that uses little wooden blocks... not typewiters, blogs, internet, etc.

www.google.com... a=X&ved=0ahUKEwie9I7Pv57KAhVFdh4KHZfaBXkQ_AUIBygC&dpr=1#imgrc=O73t5xZPzAoNHM%3A

Or written by hand with an ink quill on lambskin...



posted on Jan, 10 2016 @ 12:06 AM
link   

originally posted by: NoCorruptionAllowed

originally posted by: enlightenedservant

originally posted by: darkwingduck
a reply to: reldra He came right out and called for gun control, and would not call it what it was. And you have never seen him "not like" the NRA? What planet have you been living on?


Wait a second, you're against gun control? I think every sane person in the world is against at least some form of gun ownership.

Or should every convicted felon or legally suspected terrorist be allowed to legally buy unlimited guns & types of guns? Or what about shoulder fire rockets and bazookas?


Anyone, ESPECIALLY terrorists and felons can get anything they wish to get, and no law can stop them. Yes, including bazookas and even a stinger. If you gots the bucks!
And I say especially terrorists and (career) felons, because they will know someone who can get those things for them. See how that works?
No law can stop that.
To answer your question "should every convict or terrorist be allowed to buy any weapon" They already ARE NOT allowed! Did that stop one? NO No NO! DUH...

And why would you think a felon or a terrorist require legality before they would do something? I can see you don't understand how the world works yet, but hang in there little one, you will reach it someday (maybe)..


And of course, you missed my point exactly. Reread my entire post, not just the part you quoted. If career felons and terrorists in America have such easy access to the weapons I mentioned in my post, why aren't they using attack helicopters in America? Why aren't gangs using mortars against rival gangs, and shooting down police aircraft with stinger missiles or fully functional anti-aircraft machine guns?

they aren't using those weapons because they simply don't have access to those weapons. Those weapons are tightly regulated here and that's a good thing. That shows that our country can effectively regulate certain weapons when we want to, aka "gun control". I even used the examples of paramilitaries in other countries to show real life examples of what a situation is like when criminals actually have access to those weapons. But that's difference between my facts & your fearmongering.

Ironically, I actually agree w/Reagan's answer here about gun control.



posted on Jan, 10 2016 @ 12:25 AM
link   
Oh look, they are using the Reagan card now.

that's like all those republicans that are for Sanders (wink, wink).

Yup, yup, yup, tightly regulated ... www.huffingtonpost.com...

Now, I have a question about all these "regulations" so please enlighten me Mr. and Mrs. (or Ms.) Expertologists of the anti-gun forum membership klan .... why can a Navy (or Air Force, or Army, or Marine) aircraft pilot fly a plane through the air with free reign, and have either a tactical nuke or other some such big blowey up bombey type of thing on their aircraft, but when they land that aircraft on base, they cannot carry a personal sidearm like a 9 mm?

because they could have nuked New York just a few seconds prior .... what makes them carrying a 9 mm on base so much more dangerous than them zipping a nuke through the sky?
edit on 10-1-2016 by GeisterFahrer because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 10 2016 @ 12:41 AM
link   

originally posted by: enlightenedservant

originally posted by: NoCorruptionAllowed

originally posted by: enlightenedservant

originally posted by: darkwingduck
a reply to: reldra He came right out and called for gun control, and would not call it what it was. And you have never seen him "not like" the NRA? What planet have you been living on?


Wait a second, you're against gun control? I think every sane person in the world is against at least some form of gun ownership.

Or should every convicted felon or legally suspected terrorist be allowed to legally buy unlimited guns & types of guns? Or what about shoulder fire rockets and bazookas?


Anyone, ESPECIALLY terrorists and felons can get anything they wish to get, and no law can stop them. Yes, including bazookas and even a stinger. If you gots the bucks!
And I say especially terrorists and (career) felons, because they will know someone who can get those things for them. See how that works?
No law can stop that.
To answer your question "should every convict or terrorist be allowed to buy any weapon" They already ARE NOT allowed! Did that stop one? NO No NO! DUH...

And why would you think a felon or a terrorist require legality before they would do something? I can see you don't understand how the world works yet, but hang in there little one, you will reach it someday (maybe)..


And of course, you missed my point exactly. Reread my entire post, not just the part you quoted. If career felons and terrorists in America have such easy access to the weapons I mentioned in my post, why aren't they using attack helicopters in America? Why aren't gangs using mortars against rival gangs, and shooting down police aircraft with stinger missiles or fully functional anti-aircraft machine guns?

they aren't using those weapons because they simply don't have access to those weapons. Those weapons are tightly regulated here and that's a good thing. That shows that our country can effectively regulate certain weapons when we want to, aka "gun control". I even used the examples of paramilitaries in other countries to show real life examples of what a situation is like when criminals actually have access to those weapons. But that's difference between my facts & your fearmongering.

Ironically, I actually agree w/Reagan's answer here about gun control.


Wrong.
They aren't using those weapons because they cost way over their pathetic price range.
An attack helicopter with armaments cost multi-millions. That plus they don't have the connections to find one on the black market, and even if they did, they don't have the bucks.
Gangs spend their money on pea shooters and drugs.
Even terrorists in the USA do not have access to the money required to get their hands on better weapons. I guess you forgot how hard it is to move large sums of money around to buy military grade weapons with, and if you are of east Indian descent, it is going to be a whole lot harder with the FBI and others tracking your activities and bank accounts.



posted on Jan, 10 2016 @ 12:46 AM
link   
Enough said:





posted on Jan, 10 2016 @ 03:10 AM
link   
a reply to: enlightenedservant

Not needed for defense of a home....

The issue I have with that statement is it relies on the fallacy that the Government will never turn on its citizens. The founding fathers specifically addressed that by the 2nd amendment and its part of the base that the government is of the people, by the people and for the people.

The government should not be dictating how a person defends their residence / family unless they are going to station armed guards at every residence.

A private citizen needs an automatic weapon as much as the secret service does. Before you dismiss the Secret service argument it is a double standard to tell citizens how and with what they can use to defend themselves while government officials get armed protection and where that armed protection is carrying weapons they try to deny to the citizens.

Washington DC gun control laws were ruled unconstitutional as it directed how a person must keep the weapon inside their residence. When scotus struck it down DC complied. The problem is they are trying to make the process so difficult and expensive the waiting time is close to a year and the cost, last I saw was about a thousand dollars. They got their asses handed to them so they try a backdoor ban via red tape.

A persons status should not be used to determine how a residence / family is defended. The states / cities with the strictest gun control laws have a crime rate at the top of the rankings - why?

Chicago has shootings every day and during the summer we have seen incidents of 10-20-30 people being involved / shot at / injured by guns. Chicago has very strict gun control laws and all it does is enable the mass shootings to occur because law abiding citizens have no recourse.

Using government officials and their position on guns must be compared to the fact they have armed protection for themselves and their families. When the president leaves office they retain their protection detail. Hillary retained hers from first lady up to her appointment as Sec State, where it was switched to DSS protection and now we are back to SS protection.

If they want to limit the ability of a citizen to defend themselves then they should lose their protection detail.

Finally I am curious what Reagan would say today with everything thats going on.
edit on 10-1-2016 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 10 2016 @ 10:25 AM
link   
a reply to: muse7




posted on Jan, 10 2016 @ 10:39 AM
link   
a reply to: muse7




You can't reason with them, if you do they'll start screaming about the second amendment, even if they just understand half of it.


Is that so?

WHAT hard to understand about the second ?



Amendment II A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.


Thats pretty clear yes ?



Amendment IV The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.


That's pretty clear YES ?



Amendment V No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation


That's clear YES ?



Amendment VI In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.


That's clear too.



Amendment IX The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.


That clear as well.



Amendment X The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.


That's clear YES ?

www.archives.gov...



All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.


www.archives.gov...




Gun nuts are amongst the most selfish people in the US. T


Is that so ?

I don't see us trampling on the RIGHTS to due process, and crimes be PROVEN in courts of law beyond ALL Reasonable doubt.

UNLIKE the anti gun 'nuts' IGNORING the BILL Of RIGHTS.




To them, their fantasy of someday stopping a mass shooting is more important to them than preventing lunatics with histories of mental illness from easily buying rifles and handguns


Guess neither you or OBama, and the rest of his supporters.

NEVER READ the Gun Control Act of 1968 or the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act of 1993.

And I QUOTE.



(4) has been adjudicated as a mental defective or has been committed to any mental institution


en.wikipedia.org...



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


en.wikipedia.org...

'Nut cases' are VERBOTEN from buying 'gunz'.

We gots TWO LAWS ALREADY.

But hey why let a little thing called reality get in the way of all the 'sane' people talking.

One more for the road.



The vast majority of guns used in 15 recent mass shootings, including at least two of the guns used in the San Bernardino attack, were bought legally and with a federal background check.


How They Got Their Guns

The TRUTH shall set you free!

But I digress Obama supporters are not interested in TRUTH or the BILL of RIGHTS.



posted on Jan, 10 2016 @ 10:47 AM
link   
a reply to: neo96

You can't reason with people that are anti-2nd Amendment, if you do they'll start screaming about how the second amendment is ancient and out dated, because they just don't seem to understand any of it.




posted on Jan, 10 2016 @ 10:49 AM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

That's true one can't.

I can't wait for a Trump presidency, or another 'BUSH'.

Then they will be screaming for GUN RIGHTS.



posted on Jan, 10 2016 @ 12:17 PM
link   
LOL I am not worried about Obama taking my guns!!! HAHAHA

I am more worried about the future despot who in 20 years WILL finish the job, and WILL turn on the citizenry. Never know what the future will bring.

Obama capable of leading a mass gun grab??? LMFAO
Even though it would be "for the children" I don't see it happening now. But in the future? If history is an lesson, you can bet your tush.



posted on Jan, 10 2016 @ 12:26 PM
link   
a reply to: reldra

Actions (Especially the Executive kind) speak louder than words my dear.

I will admit, I did give a thumbs up to Anderson Cooper for at least making SOME of the questions tough. I really enjoyed seeing Obama get a little feisty with him good television entertainment.

It also struck me, when Obama said that these executive orders wouldn't have done anything to stop the recent mass shootings, where those firearms were already legally purchased and a background check performed. So... Why do it then? I guess because if it saves one life...

I suppose an un-intended consequence to this, would be people's reluctance now to seek medical help for mental illnesses. Who would want to go talk to somebody about there issues, if it's gonna land them on some sort list/database and prevent them from exercising the same liberties as everyone else? I suppose those lives don't matter.



posted on Jan, 10 2016 @ 12:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: reldra

originally posted by: GeisterFahrer
let me take a wild guess. You voted for Obama right?

If you did, we have nothing further to discuss.


townhall.com...


That is not relevant to this post and I wasn't exactly discussing anything with you, in particular.

Of course it is relevant. Goes to understanding how good your decision making skills really are.



posted on Jan, 10 2016 @ 12:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: reldra

originally posted by: GeisterFahrer
Ok, my question was answered.

We have nothing further to discuss, thank you.


you discussed it twice.

Not after your quoted sentence. Early drink?




top topics



 
15
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join