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: 9
15
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 10 2016 @ 12:46 PM
link   
1. Obama and most liberals want to remove all guns from citizens.
2. Obama only issued these executive orders to save face since he couldn't do anything of substance.

Translation...

1. Obama and most liberals don't give a crap about the Constitution.
2. Obama is selfish and only cares about how HE looks.




posted on Jan, 10 2016 @ 01:24 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.



This sort of "enforced ignorance" is getting harder to tolerate...

My weapon: A Winchester lever action 30-30!

130 years ago it was the M4 of it's day. It allowed the user to load 5 or so rounds into it's mag and fire as fast as One could operate the lever.

In a world of breech loaders...it was devastating!!!

Todays "military" weapons are no different...just newer!


edit on 10-1-2016 by tanka418 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 10 2016 @ 11:13 PM
link   
a reply to: reldra

We need a national database similar to fingerprints of gun ballistics. So every time someone gets shot we can trace it back to a gun to a person.



posted on Jan, 11 2016 @ 04:23 AM
link   

originally posted by: SpecialSauce
a reply to: reldra

We need a national database similar to fingerprints of gun ballistics. So every time someone gets shot we can trace it back to a gun to a person.


Defacto gun registration will not work in the manner you think it will.

Personally I dont see criminal elements rushing out to register their firearms / have ballistics info entered into a database. Once again we are back to law abiding citizens being affected and the criminal element ignoring it.

The only way to ensure criminals dont get guns is an outright ban on all guns and even then the criminal element will acquire guns elsewhere.

What this administration is doing, along with members of his party, is chipping away at the 2nd amendment.

Guns do not kill people anymore than knives, cars or chainsaws do... Its the person controlling the object that does.



posted on Jan, 11 2016 @ 07:27 AM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra

I completely agree with your assessment.

The only way to stop the thousands of gun deaths every year is to educate, educate, educate. Proper storage alone will save lives because pillows are not the best place for Glocks.

Once people begin to realize that bullets do not solve problems or elevate social standing, maybe they'll turn to better solutions.



posted on Jan, 11 2016 @ 12:09 PM
link   
a reply to: SpecialSauce

Yeah, good luck with that.



Oh....the science behind ballistic forensics hasn't caught up to the NCIS show you are basing your statement off of.

And...the ballistic "fingerprints" of a firearm can be altered inside the barrel.


So..............



posted on Jan, 11 2016 @ 10:39 PM
link   
a reply to: reldra

Soooo... You were expecting the extreme left-wing source CNN, founded by Ted Turner who stated CNN was an idea fidel castro gave him as an "unbiased source to President Obama's gun control policies?...

Hummm....



posted on Jan, 11 2016 @ 10:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: reldra

I'm sorry you feel that way. I worked the phones for him in both elections. I don;t see that he has declared himself king. That is kind of a paranoid and delusional mind state.

Possibly you want to speak to the 25 or so monarchies personally?


Really?... declaring that he will make sure to implement his gun control policies without Congress approval is not "proclaiming to be king by his actions"?...

Since when?... and then to actually claim anyone who thinks such an action is dictatorial is delusional?... Wow, the delusional ones are those like you who keep claiming "he is just doing it for the good of all"...



posted on Jan, 11 2016 @ 10:52 PM
link   
a reply to: masqua

This should be gilded. While I agree with gun control on principle as an idealist, it simply wouldn't work with the obscene mass of Guns the US already contains. Education is the best option, especially since if it is highly successful it will show that gun control is not necessary.



posted on Jan, 12 2016 @ 01:22 AM
link   
a reply to: Agit8dChop

Who's using automatic machine guns similar to what the army uses? To the best of knowledge only very few people own fully automatic weapons and the number of people killed by those is so small they don't even have a stat for it.



posted on Jan, 13 2016 @ 02:04 AM
link   
a reply to: nancyliedersdeaddog

This is one of the many pieces of disinformation that the gun-grabbers use to instill fear on people... By claiming they are "just outlawing assault rifles" and most people think those weapons are fully automatic when they are not. Mostly it is the Federal government agents and the LEOs who can use those weapons that are fully automatics. The weapons that citizens can own for the most part are semi-automatics. Yet Obama and his trolls want to ban those weapons, plus ban clips that hold more than 10 rounds, and some other weapons. They have been doing this for a long time. Remember that the second amendment to the Constitution states "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"

The Feds already infringed this right by banning most Americans from owning fully automatic weapons, which is UnConstitutional. Now they want to go after "semi-automatic weapons that look like assault rifles" among other things. They have been chipping away at our second amendment and we still get morons claiming this is not happening... That "no one is going after your arms"...

Idiots, the lot of them.

If you don't want to own and bear arms, you don't have to do it. But don't force your views on everyone else because that is tyranny.




edit on 13-1-2016 by ElectricUniverse because: add and correct comment.



posted on Jan, 13 2016 @ 04:52 PM
link   
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

2 things...

Not all LEO's have access to / get to use fully automatic weapons. Its been my experience as a LEO in 2 different states that SWAT has access to those weapons and not regular patrol officers.

Second -
The constitution, with clarification from the US Supreme Court in 2008 and 2010 ruled the 2nd amendment is an individual right. The types of weapons are NOT protected.

Its just like traveling... whether inside a state or across state lines travel is constitutionally protected. The method of travel is not protected. You dont like TSA at airports you aren't required to go through the check points. You can walk, drive, get a ride, take a bus, etc to the destination you are trying to get to.

Any government action that bans all guns or creates a system that makes the ability to get a gun impossible is unconstitutional. Banning certain types of guns is NOT unconstitutional and that was reaffirmed by SCOTUS recently when they ruled a city ordinance that classified what an assault rifle was and then banned those specific weapons was lawful and constitutional (there was no state preemption laws).



posted on Jan, 14 2016 @ 12:13 PM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra

Just because Progressive Activist Judges ruled on something, doesn't mean it is set on what the 2nd amendment states.

"Shall not infringe" is about as clear as it gets.

Infringement on the people, in the form of restricting certain types of firearms is still infringement. Why is this so difficult to understand.

And traveling within a vehicle is not outlined within the Constitution.



posted on Jan, 14 2016 @ 07:30 PM
link   
a reply to: macman

Because people like to interpret the 2nd amendment to mean something it doesn't. Infringement in this case means preventing a person from acquiring a weapon - period.

How is your right to possess a firearm infringed upon when you can purchase another? Should glock go out of business and their weapons are no longer available a violation of the 2nd amendment?

Travel inside a state and across state lines is constitutionally protected. The method of travel is not.
Being able to possess a fire arm is constitutionally protected.. The type of weapon is not.



posted on Jan, 14 2016 @ 07:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: WeAreAWAKE
1. Obama and most liberals want to remove all guns from citizens.
2. Obama only issued these executive orders to save face since he couldn't do anything of substance.

Translation...

1. Obama and most liberals don't give a crap about the Constitution.
2. Obama is selfish and only cares about how HE looks.


What a load of malarkey

Turn off Fox news, brainwashing is a horrible waste of a mind



posted on Jan, 14 2016 @ 07:42 PM
link   
a reply to: yesyesyes

What part do you not agree with and why?



posted on Jan, 14 2016 @ 07:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: yesyesyes

What part do you not agree with and why?


The majority of liberals do not want to TAKE people's guns away, neither does Obama.

Both propose to expand background checks and prevent anonymous private sales so that they become public record instead.

Can any one here claim that the federal government has come to their door and confiscated their guns?
edit on 14-1-2016 by yesyesyes because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 14 2016 @ 07:47 PM
link   
a reply to: yesyesyes

How do those actions prevent criminals from obtaining a firearm?

As for gun confiscation - Gun ‘Seizure’ Bill Introduced by Democrats That Will Likely Send a Chill Down the Spines of Georgia Gun Owners

edit on 14-1-2016 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 14 2016 @ 07:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: yesyesyes

How do those actions prevent criminals from obtaining a firearm?

As for gun confiscation - Gun ‘Seizure’ Bill Introduced by Democrats That Will Likely Send a Chill Down the Spines of Georgia Gun Owners


Criminals can no longer use private anonymous sales as a way to hide gun purchases used to commit crimes.

Some of the mentally ill and homicidal who apply will hopefully be flagged during the back ground check procedure.

Now that I have answered your question.

How does asking for firmer background checks and eliminating anonymous private gun sales prevent law abiding citizens from buying guns?



posted on Jan, 14 2016 @ 08:05 PM
link   
a reply to: yesyesyes

Criminals are not going to submit to a background check to get a gun.

Mentally ill are already restricted by state law and the federal action is a violation of state AND federal law (HIPPA). Background checks, just like laws that say you cant carry a gun into a bar, stadium or theater, apply only to law abiding citizens, not criminals. The very "law" that they think will save lives in reality costs law abiding citizens their lives by not being able to defend themselves.

Its a hollow gesture.



new topics




 
15
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join