It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


President Obama Speaks Today: Directly Addressing Gun Control, Assault Weapons, and Mental Health

page: 2
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in


posted on Dec, 19 2012 @ 09:59 PM

Originally posted by dc4lifeskater
I have no issue really with banning of fully auto or select fire with full auto capacity weapons.

The problem is that banning any type of weapon wont stop gun violence at all how much of the recent stuff that happened was someone using a full auto gun.

This is my problem right here. People that are completely ignorant of the existing gun laws that go around spewing things that they have absolutely no clue about.

Automatic weapons have been illegal since the 1930's when they passed a law requiring them to be heavily regulated and almost impossible to obtain because of the ridiculous price tag and required tax and licensing.

This is the type of ignorance that will get behind an assault weapons ban because they are afraid of what they do not know. Ignorance breeds fear and fear is what they want.

ETA: By the way the shooter in the recent Sandy Hook school tragedy was using a semi-auto Bushmaster rifle. Just to clear up the confusion for you let me throw in the definitions so as to help you better educate yourself.

sem·i·au·to·mat·ic (sm-ôt-mtk, sm-)
1. Partially automatic.
2. Ejecting a shell and loading the next round of ammunition automatically, but requiring a squeeze of the trigger for each shot. Used of a firearm.
A semiautomatic firearm. Also called self-loader.

au·to·mat·ic (ôt-mtk)

3. Capable of firing continuously until ammunition is exhausted or the trigger is released: an automatic rifle.
edit on 12/19/2012 by SpaDe_ because: (no reason given)

posted on Dec, 19 2012 @ 10:00 PM
Being the person I am, I tend to try and let ideas digest - all while looking for the potential angles that might be hidden within the words.

IMO it's these nuances and carefully worded hints that usually point to the ultimate outcomes - at least where politicians are concerned.

The one thing that I do agree with, in principle, is his statement ( generalizing here ) that mental health should be as easily accessible to the american people as weapons are.

Seriously. For the price of a single hour with a mental health professional, one could probably buy 3 or 4 handguns on the street. The rates vary by region and by how good the doctor is. But a cheap shrink, in the US - meaning one that is not very good is still in the two to three hundred dollar per hour range. That is before they whip out their prescription pad and hit you for prescriptions that can run into the hundreds of dollars, per month, per medication.

What I do not like is the seemingly free and very generic associations being used between "mental health" and "guns".

Obviously we don't want lunatics carrying bazookas. But ponder this... a "normal" guy comes home to find a note saying that his wife has left him for some other guy. This, understandably, leaves the normal guy feeling depressed. He goes to his doctor and asks if there might be something to help get him past this bump in life.

Is that guy, in the future, going to get three loud knocks on his door, followed by the words "OPEN UP. THIS IS THE ATF..."?

The danger, now, is not just the debate over what constitutes an "assault weapon" - but also what constitutes "mental health".


posted on Dec, 19 2012 @ 10:00 PM
The rights of the individual.
Our focus in America on individual rights is not unique, however, our focus on individualism sets us apart from many countries of the world where the group or community stands out as most important in there culture.
People have rights; not the government or the state or the country, but the people
Individual rights.
Thats why every one is running to buy a Gun.
Because some one is trying to say they cant ..
stay out of my yard syndrome.
Obama is puting it on the line like
because i said so..theres people that would never dream of haveing a Gun Buying just because
They say we cant.

posted on Dec, 19 2012 @ 10:01 PM
Straight from the Potus own mouth people act like there are no regulations on guns, and there are plenty.

Get real tho gun control and making up names for weapons is the only concern he has anything to further the fascist dictatorship.

We have drones over American skies, the patriot act powers extended, the NDAA and now the last piece of a purly tyrannical goverment........

Go after the guns and after selling them all over the globe to terrorist, and drug cartel alike in fact my fellow Americans

Guns are ok in everyone elses hands but yours.

Potus speech today was nothing but lip service.
edit on 19-12-2012 by neo96 because: (no reason given)

posted on Dec, 19 2012 @ 10:03 PM

Originally posted by pointr97
instead of what I feared, a final removal of our last bastion of defense against an over bearing government....I see this as a two front proposal to not only setup the weakening of the 2nd amendment but allow the government to determine 'who is sane'......Welcome Brave New World = population that is chemically controlled and 1984 in which the population is now reporting all strange behavior....This is not a good scenario at all, and I see the following weeks being the same as just after 9/11 in which anyone that opposes the extreme measure they bring forth will be demonized as did the opponents of the patriot act.

Yup, Take a look at the new DSM V.

Anyone can be insane now.

posted on Dec, 19 2012 @ 10:07 PM
reply to post by Hefficide

Well, as is always the case with Obama, it's a very nice speech. It also highlights the agenda clearly and just how much finesse they believe it will require to enact it. A nice token gesture by mentioning mental health in brief.. and of course no other issues raised.
No reflection required.. unless you are a gun owner, "maybe you guys could reflect a little bit and make this job easier" he seems to ask gingerly.
No talk about some of the physical causes for the increases in mental health problems such as the toxins we feed ourselves and bathe ourselves in.
No talk about turning around the sense of hopelessness that has permeated our culture.
Certainly no talk about the government taking some responsibility for this mess.

We all know it's only a matter of time before the general consensus is that we need to disarm the civilian population completely. Just as we know that eventually it will just be too risky for us to have any privacy at all.
Eventually when the technology exists we'll just move straight to thought policing.

Never any real preventative measures. Never an admission that we need to change course entirely.. always just another outdated small step. By the time weapon bans have a chance to actually have a positive effect we'll be dealing with a new generation who grew up not in the John Wayne/Rambo era but the drone/IDE era. Armed not with tricks learned at boot camp but with the knowledge of 1000 would-be assassins sharing lethal information over the internet. Assault weapons? That will just be another hobby that square old dad practices in the garage with his 3D printer. The average loony today could easily ricin bomb Times Square at midnight on New Year's using an RC quadcopter and probably slip away without a trace. That doesn't happen because that isn't where we're at in the collective consciousness of our culture. We still call that terrorism. Tomorrow they'll call that lolz.
edit on 19-12-2012 by Rineocerous because: spelling

posted on Dec, 19 2012 @ 10:11 PM

Originally posted by Hefficide

The danger, now, is not just the debate over what constitutes an "assault weapon" - but also what constitutes "mental health".


Interesting that you bring that up. Recently, the senate tried passing a bill claiming that veterans who could not handle finances be deemed unable to own a firearm.

Conspiracy theorists have also been "memed" to be unstable.

The undercurrent has also been that conservatives are unstable, Tea Party members unstable.

I'm beginning to see a trend.

posted on Dec, 19 2012 @ 10:11 PM
I believe this is being used to force gun owners to agree, or risk looking like one of the bad guys. He's painting us into a corner. If we don't go along, we are the "problem" he can point a finger at and say" It's their fault my plan didn't work". What really worries me is, they get to decide who is mentally incompetent.

But you know what, I am also betting that the majority -- the vast majority -- of responsible, law-abiding gun owners would be some of the first to say that we should be able to keep an irresponsible, law-breaking few from buying a weapon of war. I’m willing to bet that they don’t think that using a gun and using common sense are incompatible ideas -- that an unbalanced man shouldn’t be able to get his hands on a military-style assault rifle so easily; that in this age of technology, we should be able to check someone’s criminal records before he or she can check out at a gun show; that if we work harder to keep guns out of the hands of dangerous people, there would be fewer atrocities like the one in Newtown -- or any of the lesser-known tragedies that visit small towns and big cities all across America every day.

posted on Dec, 19 2012 @ 10:17 PM

We’re going to need to work on making access to mental health care at least as easy as access to a gun.

Mental health concerns and the prescribing of SSRIs are the most important issue that needs to be addressed in regards to stemming mass killings.

It got one sentence.

I got the message....nothing important will be done to correctly and positively impact the problem.

posted on Dec, 19 2012 @ 10:20 PM
reply to post by Hefficide

I thought it was a good speech. He said the words that should assuage fears of a gun ban or a thwarting of the 2nd Amendment. I think he addressed other critical points as well, the fact that we cannot prevent every single tragedy and the fact that mental illness was the main factor. I think he was also correct in stating that most gun owners are responsible law abiding individuals.

I guess the catch for me is, does he really mean it? Will he actually do what is needed to crack down on illegal guns? An AWB won't mean a thing if not. We know that the war on drugs is pathetic and if we're honest and have our eyes open, we know that it was intentionally pathetic. The war on drugs was and is more of a war on the desperate and the weak minded, creating generations of fatherless children and children growing up in a dealer lifestyle, not to mention keeping our prison labor fully stocked.

I'm not sure it is worth it to piss off nearly half the country if we're going to end up with the same results as the drug war. We have the resources to really clean up not just illegal guns or drugs but prostitution rings, gang related crimes so much crime in general... not to perfection but to noticeable levels but we don't and that seems intentional. It seemed like to me Obama wants to address this but then I think about drones, continuation of wars, new wars, the NDAA, the assault on internet freedom and so much more, it makes me wonder. I think the guy is genuinely a nice guy, acting upon his morals but he has done somethings that really go against my grain.

Personally, I think there does need to be an assault weapons ban. I don't see a need for them, but that should also mean that only the military gets them... not cops etc BUT only if there is going to be serious action taken to get the illegal ones off the street, and as a show of good faith, get them off the streets before any passed legislation goes into effect.

The definitions of what an assault weapon is needs to be clearly defined and the definitions for rejecting permit requests or enacting revocations also needs to be clearly defined.

posted on Dec, 19 2012 @ 10:21 PM

Originally posted by olaru12
This is just political rhetoric to placate the anti gun segment of the electorate.
Nothing will be done and no weapons will be confiscated.

Guns and shooting sports are BIG business and their lobbyist hold sway in DC; not to mention the huge NRA lobby.

All this "they're gonna take my guns" BS is so lame and predictable.
You can start worrying when the manufacturers shut down. Ain't gonna happen though!
edit on 19-12-2012 by olaru12 because: (no reason given)

The stores are pulling them off the shelfs because the manufacturers have ran out they sold over 1000 clips in one little store in two hours ...
they see big money in the future your $1000.00 gun will be $3000.00
they made there $$$ for 2012 there not suporting any anti Gun.
Every thing will double 2013

posted on Dec, 19 2012 @ 10:27 PM
reply to post by DontTreadOnMe

I got the message....nothing important will be done to correctly and positively impact the problem.

Yeah news said today he snapped after being told he was going to be committed.

The message is loud and clear.

posted on Dec, 19 2012 @ 10:43 PM
reply to post by pointr97

Yep, I agree. What they will do is to make it mandatory that people seeking to buy guns are going to have to have a professional "evaluation".
Obamacare is going to be used to regulate many parts of our lives in an unreal fashion once it's all said and done.

Sorry but I have to say it but what right does an administration who sends thousands of assault weapons to Mexican gangs have to lead a national referendum on gun reform?

edit on 19-12-2012 by Asktheanimals because: (no reason given)

edit on 19-12-2012 by Asktheanimals because: (no reason given)

posted on Dec, 19 2012 @ 10:47 PM
reply to post by Asktheanimals

Thats crap if that is the case then psychological profiles, and testing should be mandatory for all sitting congressman,.

But they wouldn't stand for that.

posted on Dec, 19 2012 @ 10:49 PM
reply to post by Kali74

Criminals rarely use assault weapons in violent crimes.
They are large and so not easily concealed.
They are heavy and therefore not conducive to carrying around all day. And, they aren't as nimble as a handgun for close quarters "work" like that required at a liquor store or other "stop and rob" convenience store.
What does it matter if you have an assault weapon.
The nature of the weapon is based on how you use it.
You can bet when assault style weapons are used to defend families in their homes, they aren't labeled as home defense weapons, even though that is exactly how they're used.
One gun ban follows another.
Im going to have to buy ammo in some bad lands where they dont care what are government says,
& risk getting shot...this is just great

posted on Dec, 19 2012 @ 11:32 PM
What is an 'assault' weapon anyway?

If I grab a pair of scissors and stab someone with them is it then a pair of assault scissors?

'Assault' is a behavior not a 'thing'. If I don't use my weapon to assault someone, how then could it be considered an 'assault weapon'?

posted on Dec, 19 2012 @ 11:46 PM
"I asked Joe to lead this effort in part because he wrote the 1994 Crime Bill that helped law enforcement bring down the rate of violent crime in this country."

Flat out LIE. Did nothing to crime rates.


posted on Dec, 19 2012 @ 11:57 PM

Originally posted by beezzer
*beezzer shakes head*

America wants this. I can't believe it, but America actually wants this! We have tens of thousands of people wanting to curtail free speech with the Westboro petition, we have even more wanting to restrict/manipulate the 2nd Amendment!

This is Obama's New America.

I don't like it.

Obama didn't shoot a mess of people, it is pretty pathetic that neocons use it
As a way to belittle the president.

posted on Dec, 19 2012 @ 11:59 PM

Originally posted by projectvxn
What is an 'assault' weapon anyway?

If I grab a pair of scissors and stab someone with them is it then a pair of assault scissors?

'Assault' is a behavior not a 'thing'. If I don't use my weapon to assault someone, how then could it be considered an 'assault weapon'?

They call it an assault weapon because it producing an overwhelming amount of lead
That a pistol, riffle or shotgun cannot provide.

posted on Dec, 20 2012 @ 12:02 AM

Originally posted by projectvxn
What is an 'assault' weapon anyway?

If I grab a pair of scissors and stab someone with them is it then a pair of assault scissors?

'Assault' is a behavior not a 'thing'. If I don't use my weapon to assault someone, how then could it be considered an 'assault weapon'?

If that is the case,and it most certainly is the President's speech today, and the anti gun crowd is assualting the intelligence of Americans, and gun owners.

The assault on gun owners who have done nothing wrong using government as an "assault weapon".

True anything can be used.

top topics

<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in