Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

US gun debate: Obama unveils gun control proposals

page: 14
104
<< 11  12  13    15  16 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 17 2013 @ 03:44 AM
link   

But countries with the most guns don’t necessarily have the most gun-related homicides. The world’s crime figures come from the UNODC annual crime survey, and while it does not include key nations, such as Russia, China and Afghanistan, it does include most other developed countries.



[url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2012/12/14/schoo-shooting-how-do-u-s-gun-homicides-compare-with-the-rest-of-the-world/]Source[/ url]
edit on 17-1-2013 by TidalEnergy because: (no reason given)




posted on Jan, 17 2013 @ 03:56 AM
link   
**ALERT** It is important that all of you read this thread to fully understand the implications. It is NOT JUST ABOUT GUN CONTROL.

www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Jan, 17 2013 @ 05:05 AM
link   
reply to post by WaterBottle
 





With these new executive proposals maybe you all will get the mental health help you need.


You didn't really just say this did you?



posted on Jan, 17 2013 @ 05:35 AM
link   
Just an outsiders curiosity here.
What type of weapons do you
REALLY need to protect you
home, your stuffz and your
peers??

M1A1´s, Grenadelaunchers, Automatic Rifles, Handgrenades, Armorpeircing ammo
,
or even F16´s.



posted on Jan, 17 2013 @ 05:52 AM
link   
reply to post by Miccey
 





M1A1´s, Grenadelaunchers, Automatic Rifles, Handgrenades, Armorpeircing ammo,


All of the above. Johnny must be stopped at any cost.



Fear Sells!!!




posted on Jan, 17 2013 @ 06:04 AM
link   
LOL yea and i also see the standard american on the right there...

IF then that knife would be enough to stop Johnny...
Straight up the throat...No need for AP ammo and
an M16...

But then again im not american...



posted on Jan, 17 2013 @ 06:15 AM
link   
Judging from the so-called "actions" that the President signed, he seems to be stepping very gingerly around the subject of Big Pharma and its relationship to outbrakes of zombie outrage. Big Pharma is the 800 pound gorilla that nobody wants to acknowledge crapping on the living room carpet.

If you want backround checks on gun owners, couldn't you also make an argument for weapon ownership checks for anyone under psychiatric care?



posted on Jan, 17 2013 @ 06:56 AM
link   



posted on Jan, 17 2013 @ 07:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by eriktheawful

Issue a Presidential Memorandum directing the Centers for Disease Control to research the causes and prevention of gun violence.


Uhm.....what?

Okay. I understand that there can be substances, drugs and yes, even some sort of diseases out there that can affect a person's mental health, leading them prone to violence, etc.

While I can support that, I'd really like the CDC concentrating on life threatening diseases that claim all too many lives (much more than guns ever have).


Wouldn't it be funny if the CDC came back pointing its finger to Project MKUltra (or its successor) as the perpetrator of all this insanity


Back on the subject. How friggin' BLIND can sheep be? This is not the first violation of the bill of rights. It sure as hell won't be the last if this power grab is allowed to continue and I'm not only talking about the 2nd amendment here.
The sooner you people wake the hell up, the sooner the (once great) USA can get back on its feet and give 'em hell for what they have done to YOU and US the past few decades.

I'm sorry but I'm so darn frustrated over all this! The world needs you guys...


IT--



posted on Jan, 17 2013 @ 07:29 AM
link   
alright, so if the healthcare asks about the guns, is it manditory to respond? Are we able to exercise our 5th ammendment right to remain silent? i think it is un-nessicary for them to even ask, let alone for us to have to answer. why do they need that info at all? especially if you go in for say a cold, back problem, broken bone etc.etc.?
edit on 17-1-2013 by dirtybird because: i am a horrible speller



posted on Jan, 17 2013 @ 07:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by dirtybird
alright, so if the healthcare asks about the guns, is it manditory to respond? Are we able to exercise our 5th ammendment right to remain silent? i think it is un-nessicary for them to even ask, let alone for us to have to answer. why do they need that info at all? especially if you go in for say a cold, back problem, broken bone etc.etc.?
edit on 17-1-2013 by dirtybird because: i am a horrible speller


How about if they ask your children about guns in the home?
They will be using doctors as an investigative arm for law enforcement.



posted on Jan, 17 2013 @ 07:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by Miccey
Just an outsiders curiosity here.
What type of weapons do you
REALLY need to protect you
home, your stuffz and your
peers??

M1A1´s, Grenadelaunchers, Automatic Rifles, Handgrenades, Armorpeircing ammo
,
or even F16´s.

We 'insiders' aren't really demanding those things.

We are requesting that the federal government NOT ban rifles that are legal to hunt with IN MANY STATES.



posted on Jan, 17 2013 @ 08:01 AM
link   
I guess when you can go on camera and act like your doing something, it reassures people your doing great things. What a joke.

Had Obama acted like a leader with the whole Fast and Furious debacle,MAYBE I'd take him a little more serious.

His handlers to him to standown on the whole subject, and that's what he did.

Now he cares? I'm not buying it.

He just LOVES to look "Presidential." I can't even watch the guy.



posted on Jan, 17 2013 @ 10:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by khimbar
'Military style'. A phrase so ill defined and vague it could encompass anything.

That's the thing that jumps out to me.


Military style guns from the civil war too ?

Way too vague, agreed.

Maybe if it looks sinister that means it gets banned.



posted on Jan, 17 2013 @ 10:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by sonnny1
When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. When the government fears the people, there is liberty. ~ Thomas Jefferson

I fear my Government, and rightfully so.



That's a great quote from Thomas Jefferson.


I wonder if teachers teach that quote to their students?

I think Obama punted. The House of Representatives could easily impeach him.
We were handed 23 placebos yesterday.



posted on Jan, 17 2013 @ 11:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by dirtybird
alright, so if the healthcare asks about the guns, is it manditory to respond? Are we able to exercise our 5th ammendment right to remain silent? i think it is un-nessicary for them to even ask, let alone for us to have to answer. why do they need that info at all? especially if you go in for say a cold, back problem, broken bone etc.etc.?
edit on 17-1-2013 by dirtybird because: i am a horrible speller



To me, all you have to say here when asked is. " No, don't have any guns, ect." The way I see it you haven't sworn any oath to tell the truth to your doctor, so you can't be nailed for lieing.
But, if you invoke your 5th amendment rights, that will deffinately send up warning flags. So just say No.



posted on Jan, 17 2013 @ 11:53 AM
link   
reply to post by Chance321
 

the part you are missing is 'integrated' databases.
your 'lie' shall be detected and then you're labeled ... after that, good luck keeping those guns.

i would change the subject and don't look back.



posted on Jan, 17 2013 @ 12:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Miccey
Just an outsiders curiosity here.
What type of weapons do you
REALLY need to protect you
home, your stuffz and your
peers??

M1A1´s, Grenadelaunchers, Automatic Rifles, Handgrenades, Armorpeircing ammo
,
or even F16´s.


Go back and look at the video of the 1990s L.A riots. Shop owners were having to patrol their own property with rifles to keep back looters.

However, the original intention of the second amendment was clearly put forth by George Mason and Alexander Hamilton.




Alexander Hamilton:
“The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious, if it were capable of being carried into execution. A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, or even a week, that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry, and of the other classes of the citizens, to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well-regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people, and a serious public inconvenience and loss. It would form an annual deduction from the productive labor of the country, to an amount which, calculating upon the present numbers of the people, would not fall far short of the whole expense of the civil establishments of all the States. To attempt a thing which would abridge the mass of labor and industry to so considerable an extent, would be unwise: and the experiment, if made, could not succeed, because it would not long be endured. Little more can reasonably be aimed at, with respect to the people at large, than to have them properly armed and equipped” – Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No.2





George Mason:
“I ask you sir, who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people.” (Elliott, Debates, 425-426)





"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom of Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any bands of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power, and jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination, to resist the execution of a law which appears to them unjust and oppressive. " (Noah Webster, "An Examination into the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution," 1787, a pamphlet aimed at swaying Pennsylvania toward ratification, in Paul Ford, ed., Pamphlets on the Constitution of the United States, at 56 [New York, 1888])


The second amendment is meant to deal with freedom of tyranny from the government or the criminal. It was written at a time when the Continental Congress had tried to field the first automatic firing and cartridge loaded rifle (Belton Flintlock). It was capable of nine shots and four rounds per second. The British had tried to field the Puckle gun which held 12 rounds and fired a shot every 6 seconds, a few years earlier. At the time of the Belton the Nock gun was also being issued to the British navy. It had six or seven barrels that could be fired all at once.

It could be argued that the constitution was aiming to protect the right to own "high capacity" magazines (12 shot Puckle gun) and automatic rifles.

As it stands you can buy automatic rifles with some paper work involved. There are literally thousands of them in private hands. You can purchase old Air Force jets, army helicopters, and tanks. You can buy all of it in a "decommissioned" state.



posted on Jan, 17 2013 @ 12:23 PM
link   

3. "Improve incentives for states to share information with the background check system."


The NRA sucessfully lobbied for this years ago. They did it hand in hand with the Brady Campaign. They helped secure $1 billion over five years for the states.


7. "Launch a national safe and responsible gun ownership campaign."

The NRA has been doing this for decades. They even have Eddie Eagle to help teach children gun avoidance.


"Provide law enforcement, first responders, and school officials with proper training for active shooter situations."

The NRA has been calling for this for over a decade. They have also provided training to police officers.


13. "Maximize enforcement efforts to prevent gun violence and prosecute gun crime."

The NRA helped start Project Exile to get federal firearm law violators off of the street and reduce crime. The Congressional Black Caucus called them racist. The program was so successful that it went statewide in VA. The NRA also helped lobby congress (with the Brady Campaign) to get the money to spread it to Camden and Philadelphia.


18. "Provide incentives for schools to hire school resource officers."

When the NRA proposed this they were accused of being fear mongers and spreading terror.


"Develop model emergency response plans for schools, houses of worship and institutions of higher education."

The NRA proposed to do just this and was called out of touch. We were told that they were peddling fear and avoiding the issue.


22. "Commit to finalizing mental health parity regulations."
23. "Launch a national dialogue led by Secretaries Sebelius and Duncan on mental health."

Again when the NRA said it after Tuscon they were said to be out of touch. When they said it after Sandy Hook they were said to be avoiding the issue and demonizing the mentally ill.

Eight of his twenty three actions were proposed by the NRA or have been in effect already because of the NRA. So, the NRA has been leading the way and Obama is following their lead while demonizing them. Orwell would not have been surprised.



posted on Jan, 17 2013 @ 01:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by TauCetixeta

Originally posted by sonnny1
When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. When the government fears the people, there is liberty. ~ Thomas Jefferson

I fear my Government, and rightfully so.



That's a great quote from Thomas Jefferson.



He forgot about the situation where everyone went crazy and paranoid.

Don't get me wrong, we should definitely be cautious of our government right now. It's probably very corrupt. But they haven't done anything worthy of the response on these forums and from the right in general.

My point is you guys may fear the government, but there isn't tyranny now.
edit on 17-1-2013 by Ghost375 because: (no reason given)





new topics

top topics



 
104
<< 11  12  13    15  16 >>

log in

join