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

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.

Absolutely crazy.

I don't want to bash Obama, especially in Heff's thread, but I find it insulting to say the least. Here's a man who "outs" Congress for NOT confirming a director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms in six years, while he can even get a Budget passed ?? "Laughing" Joe, is going to head this?

Banning guns is an idea whose time has come. -- U.S. Sen. Joseph Biden, then-chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, in a Nov. 18, 1993, Associated Press interview.

I'm consistently on record and will continue to be on record as opposing concealed carry. ~Barrack Obama

And BTW.......

Germans who wish to use firearms should join the S.S. or the S.A. -- ordinary citizens don't need guns, as their having guns doesn't serve the state. -- Heinrich Himmler

One man with a gun can control 100 without one....Make mass searches and hold executions for found arms. Vladimir I. Lenin



I know where this is going........

Originally posted by DontTreadOnMe

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.

That's the same message I gleaned from it. Like I said in my earlier post, I am actually insulted by this.

www.sfgate.com... -nets-hundreds-4121621.php

Hurtado was among hundreds of Bay Area residents who dropped off their firearms at buyback locations in Oakland and San Francisco on Saturday, collecting $200 cash for their weapon, no questions asked.

Perhaps they should have gun buy-back programs like this in every city, every day of the week. I think that could get guns out of the hands of some bad people.

So what's the answer folks? Those of you who are so insulted, what is the answer? Do we arm everyone and have an all out melee? You gonna forciblly remove the criminal element out of your communities? Let vigilanties roam the streets in the middle of the night? None of that is feasible. Weekend Rambos who wish to feel power in the palm of thier hands. Let's be honest, the propsed "assult rifle ban" is not about the 2nd ammendment...its about control freaks with egos as large as their magazine capacity, who want to keep their "toys" because its fun and they paid hard earned money for 'em. And by god, they gonna use 'em!

I don't think that is what the founding fathers had in mind. In fact, they may say, "My God what have we done." See many don't give a second thought as to what could happen if their weapons fall into the wrong hands. Where do criminals get these weaponse in the first place...by burglerizing law abiding gun owner's homes. So, we should ask ourselves, "Is it really necessary to have weapon which can empty a 30 round clip as fast as one can pull the trigger?"

If it is a matter of home defense, less is really more. Why use 30 rounds when 3 could do the job just fine?

I'm not anti-gun, and I believe in concealed carry to protect oneself and others. I just don't see the sanity of having a semi-auto rifle with high capacity clips. What's wrong with bolt action rifles and the trustly revolver?

IMO this is a valid argument. When the Framers wrote the Constitution, guns, while common, were highly inaccurate, took a lot of effort to load, and warfare had advanced little since Roman times. Soldiers were lined up, and then took turns shooting at one another, in an orderly fashion.

Skirmishing troops ( picket lines ) and non-traditional troops were used, but were not the norm.

Guns, in 1776, were a much different subject than they are today - where anyone with a hundred bucks can buy a gun, on the black market, that can send out anywhere from 6 to 30+ bullets, in seconds, and much more accurately than a musket.

They also had cultural outlets for violence that we've since lost. There was more personal responsibility to be exercised when one could be challenged to a duel. That had to mitigate many socially aggressive traits.

Oh, and I also imagine that eighteenth century inmates didn't have 3 squares, a clean and warm bed, and cable either.

There is a point to ponder what the Framers might say today about this issue. They armed us to protect us from the government. But, seriously, other than the Bourne Legacy? Who is actually going to take out a drone with a rifle?

Such a complicated issue.

~Heff

reply to post by DontTreadOnMe

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

In another thread a member said something similar, albeit less bold, by mentioning some 90% of mass shooters were on prescribed anti-depressants. Suggesting a link in causality.

My response was... roughly 30 million US citizens are on prescription anti-depressants. What is the percentage of all of those Americans that have not mass murdered? Surely this should be weighed into the argument.

If anything anti-depressants are a co-factor among many. The underlying cause is the underlying psychiatric issue, and not the medication (at least not in of itself)

Obama NEVER should have been elected as a US Senator, HE WAS NOT QUALAFIED! He had NO military experience, he had NO police experience, NO city council experience, NO experience as Mayor, No experience as Governor. He did run for Congress–but failed. He was a U.S. Senator for a VERY short time, however, he NEVER authored a bill, he NEVER voted for, or against one either. He only ever voted “present.” He couldn’t even take the time to study an issue and make a decision as to whether or not an issue brought before the senate for a vote would be a good thing, or a bad thing for his constituents. “PRESENT.” It’s shameful, really! How does a man with his lack of experience, get elected to the highest office in the land–in the world? It makes absolutely NO sense….

reply to post by madenusa


So you didn't vote Obama?

Just because Obama's name is in the thread title doesn't mean any post with Obama's name is on topic...

How does what you say tie into Obama's speech concerning gun control?

Why wont somebody ask: "Mr. Obama, isnt it true that CT has an Assault Weapons Ban and isnt it true that the firearms used in Newtown were all compliant with this ban and if so how would renewing the ban on the federal level affect in any way incidents like these?"

People wholly ignorant of a subject should not be legislating said subject.

This is as ridiculous as politicians trying to shut CERN down for fear of some black hole Armageddon. How many politicians are particle physicists?

I bet the U.N. is happy over all of this.

I'm glad I'm not on the president's cabinet. I could circumvent the second amendment
and make all domestic guns obsolete within about twenty years.

I'd just suggest he introduce a bill to control the sale of ammunition.

Let Americans have their beloved Second Amendment--go ahead...let them keep and bear their arms.

Just make the sale of ammunition illegal to anyone other than law enforcement. Then make the possession
of reloading equipment illegal and in a few years there will be no more viable bullets.

....and I would end my presidential presentation with the words...

"...And then (if you ask nicely) the men who actually run this country, might let you come back and be KING!"

reply to post by rival


The only problem is that you ARE obviously attempting to circumvent the 2nd amendment, even by your own admission, and in doing so, are placing into effect a de-facto ban on the right to bear arms for traditionally lawful purposes. Its unconstitutional.

reply to post by madenusa


Think Obama is bad? Look at this guy.

1816 His family was forced out of their home. He had to work to support them.
1818 His mother died.
1831 Failed in business.
1832 Ran for state legislature - lost.
l832 Also lost his job - wanted to go to law school but couldn't get in.
1833 Borrowed some money from a friend to begin a business and by the end of the year he was bankrupt. He spent the next 17 years of his life paying off this debt.
1834 Ran for state legislature again - won.
1835 Was engaged to be married, sweetheart died and his heart was broken.
1836 Had a total nervous breakdown and was in bed for six months.
1838 Sought to become speaker of the state legislature - defeated.
1840 Sought to become elector - defeated.
1843 Ran for Congress - lost.
1846 Ran for Congress again - this time he won - went to Washington and did a good job.
1848 Ran for re-election to Congress - lost.
1849 Sought the job of land officer in his home state - rejected.
1854 Ran for Senate of the United States - lost.
1856 Sought the Vice-Presidential nomination at his party's national convention - get less than 100 votes.
1858 Ran for U.S. Senate again - again he lost.
1860 Elected president of the United States.

Who was this man.... Abraham Lincoln

Statistically, Obama had a better policial career and did not suffer a six month nervous breakdown.
So who is more fit to be president? Wait, he wants to try to ban military style assult rifles and prevent someone from shooting off of a water tower somewhere. Meh, ok.

The cost of ammo was already on the rise be for the shooting. Now it's just gone off the charts, I'm betting with in a week powder and primers will be hard to find.

In the spirit of compromise, I would like to offer the following suggestion.

Let's create a panel composed of equal parts law enforcement and average citizens, but no politicians. I personaly would like to see the homeless represented on this panel based on population. This panel can determine which weapons should be banned. But, whatever weapons this panel bans cannot be in the arsenal of any law enforcement agency. For instance, if they ban a high capacity magazine, then no police department can have them, no SWAT team, FBI, CIA, ATF, whatever. If a weapon is cleared for use by a law enforcement agency, then they are legal for all citizens.

So far as mental illness, shouldn't Obamacare take care of this? If we're going to be forced into paying for health insurance, shouldn't that insurance cover mental health as well?

I am so saddened with the state of America.... If a message on television spurs a mass murder, should television be censored or that channel removed? If websites on the Internet sparked an event involving murder, should the Internet be removed or censored? It is a dangerous thing when you look at an event such as this and immediately make the provisions the Obama administration is making. Gun owners, you will do nothing. Supporters of gun control, people that abhors the use of these murderous vessels, really think about who and what is causing the most death and destruction. Maybe motor vehicles, maybe fast food resturaunts, maybe war, but not our domestic guns. Long live freedom

reply to post by AxelAxel


Didn't they already put a limit on softdrinks in NY for fastfood.

Mr. Obama,

What about the children that are killed in your drone strikes? This needs to END as well. Just because I live in America, doesn't mean I don't care about their lives too.

Sincerely,
Thunder Heart Woman

Originally posted by AxelAxel
I am so saddened with the state of America.... If a message on television spurs a mass murder, should television be censored or that channel removed? If websites on the Internet sparked an event involving murder, should the Internet be removed or censored? It is a dangerous thing when you look at an event such as this and immediately make the provisions the Obama administration is making. Gun owners, you will do nothing. Supporters of gun control, people that abhors the use of these murderous vessels, really think about who and what is causing the most death and destruction. Maybe motor vehicles, maybe fast food resturaunts, maybe war, but not our domestic guns. Long live freedom

edit on 20-12-2012 by AxelAxel because: (no reason given)

Everything is going to start being censored or removed.

reply to post by Siberbat


Everyone better prepare themselves, because there will be a national AWB and after that, they will go after other types of guns. They are going to disarm this country. Obama has made it pretty clear that they don't care about political divides, or what people really want, they are going to do what they want "for the good of the people".