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's Pro-Gun stance: Was it wrong?

page: 1
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 01:45 PM
link   
It is easier to own a gun in the United States now than it was at any time during George W. Bush's presidency, and months of skyrocketing gun sales, even in a lax economy, are evidence of that. Obama has made it lawful to carry guns into our national parks and onto Amtrak trains.

Was it a mistake to do so?

Did Obama make the right call?
edit on 18-12-2012 by DoYouEvenLift because: (no reason given)




posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 01:47 PM
link   
We should be able to carry guns anywhere we choose.

The more armed people there are, the less people will be willing to put their life on the line to do something stupid.



posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 01:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by MentorsRiddle
We should be able to carry guns anywhere we choose.

The more armed people there are, the less people will be willing to put their life on the line to do something stupid.


Do you have evidence to back that up, or are you merely speaking from emotion?



posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 01:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by DoYouEvenLift

Originally posted by MentorsRiddle
We should be able to carry guns anywhere we choose.

The more armed people there are, the less people will be willing to put their life on the line to do something stupid.


Do you have evidence to back that up, or are you merely speaking from emotion?


Sigh....

I'm not even going to post studies anymore. If you research it, you will find that areas where there are more gun control laws has more crime. Areas with more lax gun conrol laws has less crime.

Also, you can use common logic.

Example:

You are going to rob a store, or shoot up a place. But you know every single person in that store, or place has a gun on their hip.... Are you still going to do it?

An armed citizen is a protected citizen.

Honestly, its a cycle that has repeated itself though history. People who can defend their lifestyle are more free, and happier than those who cannot.



posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 01:53 PM
link   
reply to post by DoYouEvenLift
 


kennesaw, georgia. its the polar opposite of the rest of atlanta. you got a little # running down your chin.



posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 01:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by MentorsRiddle

Originally posted by DoYouEvenLift

Originally posted by MentorsRiddle
We should be able to carry guns anywhere we choose.

The more armed people there are, the less people will be willing to put their life on the line to do something stupid.


Do you have evidence to back that up, or are you merely speaking from emotion?


Sigh....

I'm not even going to post studies anymore. If you research it, you will find that areas where there are more gun control laws has more crime. Areas with more lax gun conrol laws has less crime.

Also, you can use common logic.

Example:

You are going to rob a store, or shoot up a place. But you know every single person in that store, or place has a gun on their hip.... Are you still going to do it?

An armed citizen is a protected citizen.

Honestly, its a cycle that has repeated itself though history. People who can defend their lifestyle are more free, and happier than those who cannot.



So you are merely talking from emotion.

Understood.

Are you saying you agreed with the President when he opened up parks and Amtrak to guns?



posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 01:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by TryhardSandy
reply to post by DoYouEvenLift
 


kennesaw, georgia. its the polar opposite of the rest of atlanta. you got a little # running down your chin.


Kennesaw, Georgia is not statistically different than many other small towns of similar population. Though, I fail to see what this has to do with whether or not you agree with Obama.



posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 01:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by DoYouEvenLift

Originally posted by MentorsRiddle

Originally posted by DoYouEvenLift

Originally posted by MentorsRiddle
We should be able to carry guns anywhere we choose.

The more armed people there are, the less people will be willing to put their life on the line to do something stupid.


Do you have evidence to back that up, or are you merely speaking from emotion?


Sigh....

I'm not even going to post studies anymore. If you research it, you will find that areas where there are more gun control laws has more crime. Areas with more lax gun conrol laws has less crime.

Also, you can use common logic.

Example:

You are going to rob a store, or shoot up a place. But you know every single person in that store, or place has a gun on their hip.... Are you still going to do it?

An armed citizen is a protected citizen.

Honestly, its a cycle that has repeated itself though history. People who can defend their lifestyle are more free, and happier than those who cannot.



So you are merely talking from emotion.

Understood.

Are you saying you agreed with the President when he opened up parks and Amtrak to guns?


I will not give into your childish retort.

If you wish to think I am speaking from emotion, then proceed.

If you wish to educate yourself like an adult, then research for yourself and find the answers that thousands of studies have all agreed upon.



posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 01:58 PM
link   
reply to post by MentorsRiddle
 


You replied to MY thread with groundless or baseless information.

Do not attempt to paint yourself as the victim. If you want some credibility, show some evidence.

You wont even comment on whether or not Obama was correct with his choice of legislation! Let's get back on topic, eh?
edit on 18-12-2012 by DoYouEvenLift because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 02:00 PM
link   
He didnt change any ownership laws what so ever. And it was the NRA paying millions that made it legal to carry in national parks.



posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 02:01 PM
link   
Seems pretty clear to me that he's in agreement that the more places allowed to carry the better, not sure what you're trying to read into his replys. Seems like you just want to troll/argue with responders to your thread. You weren't asking for evidence, you were asking if we agreed with Obama or not.
Yes. We agree he did the right thing in those cases and should continue.



posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 02:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by zonetripper2065
He didnt change any ownership laws what so ever. And it was the NRA paying millions that made it legal to carry in national parks.


So Obama agreeing with and signing it into law doesn't mean anything?


you don't know how that process works, do you?
edit on 18-12-2012 by MrPlow because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 02:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by zonetripper2065
He didnt change any ownership laws what so ever. And it was the NRA paying millions that made it legal to carry in national parks.


The laws have the signature of President Obama, not the NRA.



posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 02:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by tjack
Seems pretty clear to me that he's in agreement that the more places allowed to carry the better, not sure what you're trying to read into his replys. Seems like you just want to troll/argue with responders to your thread. You weren't asking for evidence, you were asking if we agreed with Obama or not.
Yes. We agree he did the right thing in those cases and should continue.



This is a discussion, is it not?


Oh, I see now- and I see your sig line.

So, anyone who challenges something / someone you agree with is a "troll"?
edit on 18-12-2012 by MrPlow because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 02:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by tjack
Seems pretty clear to me that he's in agreement that the more places allowed to carry the better, not sure what you're trying to read into his replys. Seems like you just want to troll/argue with responders to your thread. You weren't asking for evidence, you were asking if we agreed with Obama or not.
Yes. We agree he did the right thing in those cases and should continue.


No, that is what YOU are agreeing to.

The others are NOT saying that, and are going out of their way to say anything of the sort. They are attempting to make statements of FACT without evidence. When asked for evidence they didn't offer any. I even attempted to get them to discuss Obama.

Do you feel Obama should continue with what he feels is right in regard to our gun policies?
edit on 18-12-2012 by DoYouEvenLift because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 02:10 PM
link   
reply to post by DoYouEvenLift
 



Originally posted by tjack
~snip~
Yes. We agree he did the right thing in those cases and should continue.



posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 02:12 PM
link   
reply to post by MrPlow
 


Actually I am quite aware. The NRA petitioned it, congress passed it. Then he had 10 days to sign it for it to become law, if he didnt sign it it would still become law after 10 days. If he vetoed it then they override his veto with 2/3rds majority vote. Signature or no signature the bill would be passed.



posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 02:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by tjack
reply to post by DoYouEvenLift
 



Originally posted by tjack
~snip~
Yes. We agree he did the right thing in those cases and should continue.




You are aware that he will probably sign any anti-gun legislation likely to pass his desk, right?



posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 02:16 PM
link   
OP, the only thing that has happened in 4 years that I know of which has positively effected the rights of gun owners has been the LACK of anything being done.....NOT positive action. By that, I mean the BLM hasn't pursued some bans on lead bullets on public land shooting areas and things of that nature. There was a favorable ruling about CCW on Federal land. Thank GOD for that one though because it was a total NIGHTMARE otherwise. Imagine, for one minute, how many interstate highways cross federal land, if only briefly? Each crossing would have made the CCW come under a different jurisdiction. THAT, I believe, was finalized under Obama.

However, I don't know that the whole premise here isn't false to begin with because I don't know a single, solid thing Obama has said or done that is pro-gun in any form. At most, he's said the words necessary to meet min. requirements not to outright offend gun owners.......but even that goes clear out the window in his Illinois statements while in Office.

Obama pro-gun? I simply don't know any item that indicates that in any way.



posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 02:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by zonetripper2065
reply to post by MrPlow
 


Actually I am quite aware. The NRA petitioned it, congress passed it. Then he had 10 days to sign it for it to become law, if he didnt sign it it would still become law after 10 days. If he vetoed it then they override his veto with 2/3rds majority vote. Signature or no signature the bill would be passed.


He signed the thing.

He did.

The President signed it. He signed it into law. He did it. He didn't have to as you pointed out, and he DID. He didn't veto it. He didn't let it expire. He SIGNED IT.



new topics

top topics



 
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join