Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Obama to unveil gun control plan within the hour

page: 8
20
<< 5  6  7    9  10 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 16 2013 @ 01:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by ChesterJohn

Q. what arms do we need to fight off and invading military force or our own tyrannical govt forces?

A. The same as they have. which would include helicopters, war planes, missiles and rocket launchers, automatic weapons and 30 to 50 round clips and more. Night vision, smart bullets, drones, 50 Cal machine guns, War ships, Tanks and what ever other arms we will need to throw of any tyrannical govt whether foreign or domestic


edit on 16-1-2013 by ChesterJohn because: (no reason given)


Actually I think the guerilla forces in Afghanistan would beg to differ. They have successfully waged a guerilla campaign against arguably the most advanced military force on the planet. They do not have aircraft, night vision, drones, war ships, or many of the other things that our military has, but yet they held their ground.

Never underestimate the resolve of a people to defend their home.




posted on Jan, 16 2013 @ 01:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Chrisfishenstein

WOW!! This is the 23 executive orders signed by Obama......Look, we can roll mental instability insurance right into Obamacare!!


Not "executive orders" which clarify policy, "executive actions" which leverage existing laws through stricter enforcement and penalties etc.



posted on Jan, 16 2013 @ 01:13 PM
link   
As I understand, a health professional can have his patients weapons confiscated if he poses a threat to himself or others.

Does this ability extend to members of congress? To military doctors?

Can the presidents doctor remove his access to the military if deemed a threat to himself or others?

Just to put things into perspective....



posted on Jan, 16 2013 @ 01:13 PM
link   
Ok. I was having acute panceatitis. I went to an ER I do not usually go to, because it was closer to where I was. The doctor asked me, "How much do you drink?"

I replied, in agony, "None. I don't drink. I have chronic pancreatitis, that would be stupid!"

The doctor replies, "Come on. You can tell me. People with your condition are always heavy drinkers. The conditions go hand in hand. Just tell me how much you drink."

When I was discharged a week later, after standing my ground and insisting my condition was from 10 years of misdiagnosed gallbladder disease, I got a copy of my medical record to take to my regular doctor.

On the record, the doctor had noted, "patient drinks regularly"

I went back and demanded it be changed.

Just a few weeks ago, my regular generic meds were no longer being carried by any pharmacy in my state. They gave me a new med which caused me to go into anaphylactic shock. Both meds had codeine. When I called the pharmacy, the pharmacist insisted, to the point of argument, he was putting "allergic to codeine" on my account.

You see, I have provided two very good reasons why gun background information should not be linked to ONLINE health records.

Aside from the fact records should not be online to begin with, how long until things outside the scope of "mental health" are used against people?


Oh, I see you are a heavy drinker. You go to a pain clinic. You know, it's dangerous to combine those two? You must have issues...


Just WoW.

The potential is stunning.

edit on 16-1-2013 by Libertygal because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 16 2013 @ 01:15 PM
link   
I am unveiling my gun control plan now:

Molon Labe.



posted on Jan, 16 2013 @ 01:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zarniwoop
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 



The founding principle of the United States Criminal Justice System is that it be better 10 guilty men go free than 1 innocent man be made to pay for crimes he did not commit.


Come on now. Stuff like this seldom gets out of control.



After all...It's for our own good.


WOW, shocking reminder,



posted on Jan, 16 2013 @ 02:25 PM
link   
www.adn.com...

The president's long list of executive orders also include:
[SNIP]
- Ending limits that make it more difficult for the government to research gun violence, such as gathering data on guns that fall into criminal hands
.- Requiring federal law enforcement to trace guns recovered in criminal investigations.



"Now wait a minute Barry, let's not do anything hasty!"
edit on 16-1-2013 by burdman30ott6 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 16 2013 @ 02:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Surfrat
"This year will go down in history. For the first time, a civilized nation has full gun registration. Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient, and the world will follow our lead into the future!" ~Adolph Hitler, 1935,on The Weapons Act of Nazi Germany

How did that work out


Yeah.
Let's get guns to anyone with a grudge or agenda.

How did Somalia work out? Nigeria? Uganda? Israel? Palestine? Afghanistan? Columbia? Rhowanda? etc. etc. etc.



posted on Jan, 16 2013 @ 02:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by anon4m05
As I understand, a health professional can have his patients weapons confiscated if he poses a threat to himself or others.

Does this ability extend to members of congress? To military doctors?

Can the presidents doctor remove his access to the military if deemed a threat to himself or others?

Just to put things into perspective....


I'm pretty sure the president has to be determined to be fit for service by a doctor. I'm not sure if it's just ceremonial or not, but I know for a fact he had a thorough medical examination, and was declared to be fit for service.

Same with soldiers in the military, they go through rigorous physical and mental examinations.
edit on 16-1-2013 by Ghost375 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 16 2013 @ 02:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Golf66
Not to come down hard on you but saying one is a liar in general but in this particular scripted and rehearsed speech there is no evidence of it seems fairly easy to comprehend. Also, saying later that when he is off script he seems to give more indicators of deception than when the TPOTUS is in charge.

Well, you know the saying...Its not a lie if you really believe its the truth.
Most of what the current potus says is his idealism..his belief. So, in your opinion its wrong...therefore a lie, but in the perspective of a moderate left, its true enough. This could be said on just about any subject based in idealism on either side...

I have a lot of hate and anger towards policy...as far as politicians..well, they are just doing their job. they are regular folks that got people to vote for them to do a job...being a far left, right, or centrist approach is simply their job description.
As far as attitudes I hate, People like Rush Limbaugh, and Ed whatshisname on MSNBC..abrasive fatheads catering towards the tiniest of partisan minds whom refuse to fact check...people I enjoy listening to would be Rachael Maddow and (at times) Bill O'Reilly...Bill being actually calm sometimes when discussing his philosophy..and amusing. But wishing death on someone..naa..that just makes em a martyr anyhow...rather them have their philosophy tested and completely crushed without any external opposition making it fail.
That to me is what needs to die..the idea, not the person behind it believing in it..most ideologies have some sound and good points...but eventually you gotta deal with reality.


ETA: Just for you SaturnFX there is a distinct difference between having ill wishes for someone's health or welbeing and a threat to make it so.
edit on 16/1/2013 by Golf66 because: (no reason given)


Oh, I didn't say you were making threats...just that you truly want a person to die..not the ideals behind the person..but the person itself.
That is an unhealthy way of living imo. Its not common to truly want someone whom has a different way of thinking dead. silenced maybe...shown up certainly...but dead? that's how dictators and the worst players in history think...hard to criticize then those you suspect being that way if you yourself think as such.

I think the expression is, Don't hate the player, hate the game. But street, but wise nonetheless.

Anyhow, ducking out of this convo..this sideline chat is off topic anyhow...have a good rest of the day...and go 24 hours with no news whatsoever..not even ATS...watch how at the end of the 24 hours, you probably feel physically and mentally better.



posted on Jan, 16 2013 @ 02:49 PM
link   
Not to take away from the snark, but with the gun laws Obama has put into place, how many deaths will we be able to pinpoint on the Obama legacy?



posted on Jan, 16 2013 @ 02:53 PM
link   
reply to post by beezzer
 


Mind explaining how less assault rifles will lead to more deaths?



posted on Jan, 16 2013 @ 02:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ghost375
reply to post by beezzer
 


Mind explaining how less assault rifles will lead to more deaths?


I believe Beezer was refering to Obama's Fast and Furious legacy in which Obama and Eric Holder orchestrated the illegal sale of numerous "assault rifles" to various criminal elements in both the US and Mexico. You see, much in the same vein as "we have to pass the bill before we know what is in the bill", apparently "we have to get the weapons into criminal hands before we know who will be killed with the weapons."



posted on Jan, 16 2013 @ 02:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by anon4m05
As I understand, a health professional can have his patients weapons confiscated if he poses a threat to himself or others.


No a health professional cannot have his patients weapons confiscated. A health professional is too loose a definition - it applies to the EMT's, Nurses, and even technicians who take the X-rays.

A medical doctor trained in psychology or psychiatry can and is actually obligated to violate patient doctor privilege under two circumstances.

If he perceives the patient to be in imminent danger of harming himself.

If he perceives the patient to a danger to (an)others. This danger must be articulated and specific and not general in nature.

Should this be the case the doctor and only the doctor can petition the court to have the patient involuntarily committed for a 72 hour observation period. In that time a panel of other doctors - ones who are not the one making the initial referral will decide if the person is a danger to himself and/or others. They will either recommend a course of in or outpatient treatment.

It is key to note it is not the doctor who is having anything confiscated.

They will report that finding to the court who will inform the local law enforcement authority who if the person has a CCW they will likely revoke it and the court might or might not issue a warrant to search the premises of the individual for weapons.

If the person has no permit and claims to have no weapons there exists no probable cause for a search of the premises. Guns are not the only lethal weapons in a person's home any number of blunt and sharp implements are available to everyone in America. Chemicals in various mixtures are lethal. Over the counter medicines can be lethal etc....

So what this new law will do is open the door for the government to violate your 4th amendment rights, 2nd amendment rights and 5th amendment rights if you do or say the wrong thing to your doctor.

The unintended consequence of this law will be that people in need of help will no longer seek it for fear they will be disarmed because what was once done at the doctors discretion and expertise will be mandated by law. taking the informed and educated discretion from the professional doctor and putting it in the hands of faceless nameless bureaucrats and government functionaries.

These people in charge are acting emotionally - using children at the podium to make others do the same. There is no good that can come of this.



posted on Jan, 16 2013 @ 02:59 PM
link   
reply to post by beezzer
 


Obama's legacy will be filled with far more important issues and numbers than anything that can be tied to "gun violence"

It isn't the "actionable" that is going to have a major impact on the "messiah's" legacy, it is the unavoidable, and inevitable that will matter, even more than the body count.



posted on Jan, 16 2013 @ 03:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ghost375
reply to post by beezzer
 


Mind explaining how less assault rifles will lead to more deaths?


Thank you for clarifying. I wasn't aware of the fact that Obama has stopped CRIMINALS from buying weapons ILLEGALLY.



posted on Jan, 16 2013 @ 03:09 PM
link   
It seems as if though children are being used as political pawns to support gun control in the U.S.

They would make a move like this.


Children write letters to Obama



posted on Jan, 16 2013 @ 03:17 PM
link   
I wish that he was as interested in SPENDING CONTROL as he is in gun control. It is just absurd how this government is focused on the wrong things.



posted on Jan, 16 2013 @ 03:19 PM
link   
Let me remind the Anti-gun crowd of an important angle to this

(for the record I do not own an AR-15, but I have in the past and know plenty about them)

OK SO HEAR ME OUT HERE.....



Let's say.. I go out and buy a decent AR-15..

Since you probably have never purchased one I'll fill you in... Let's say I pay 1600 bucks for it..

Then I dump another 300 (which is a low end) on optics after spending another 200-300 on a rail system.. $50 on a handle and another 100 bucks on magazines...

That brings the final price of my AR-15 to $2,250.00..... (not to mention the cost of ammo)

------------

Now the government just banned my rifle... I can't have it anymore....

So these are my options

1. I can go along with the government gun ban, turn in my firearm and take a loss....


or.


2. I can sell it and at least get my two thousand two hundred fifty dollars back (that's decent cheese for a lot of people)..... with what could possibly be quite the profit.....

-------------------------

If even a fraction of AR-15 / AK-47 / SKS /Mini-14 / ACR owners out there decide to pick option 2.... what do we have left?

That's right... a bunch of newly illegal, totally unaccounted for "assault type" (still not what they are) weapons out there in the hands of whomever would buy an illegal gun....

That is why banning them is dangerous...... They were an investment... now they are only worth anything to criminals.... and that is who will buy them.
edit on 16-1-2013 by DaMod because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 16 2013 @ 03:20 PM
link   
reply to post by Doom and Gloom
 


$500 million dollars is a ridiculous amount in my opinion.





new topics

top topics



 
20
<< 5  6  7    9  10 >>

log in

join