Obama's Gun Control is NOT ABOUT GUN CONTROL. Read this.

page: 1
66
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
+43 more 
posted on Jan, 17 2013 @ 02:46 AM
link   
Guys, [url=http://www.scribd.com/doc/120649190/White-House-fact-sheet-on-President-Obama-s-executive-actions-related-to-gun-violence]Reading the _/url] makes it much clearer. What Obama is proposing is not just another “straight-forward” law. For once in your life, get out of that comfy sofa, take out your earphones, step outside your fake online game reality and take some time out to READ the fricking document as this will affect YOUR life - even if you don’t own a gun.

In essence what is being proposed is to alter and further conditioning of your future generations. You see they already know total control is unachievable for our generation. All this is meant as total RESTRICTION FOR MOVEMENT for your children. Your children are the ones who are going to be victims of your inaction.

There really is no point in stressing anymore because it is guaranteed almost 99% out there will never actually read the specifics hidden behind those nicely worded, politically correct clauses. I mean as it is we are the generation of fools who don’t like to read anything anymore. They have stupefied you by means of iPads, internet and TVs so as not to react when the real SHTF gets implemented for your next generation. If you’re that lazy to read, just copy the document into Word and do a FIND (CNTRL+F) to find the main points (see running commentary below). Always remember to read between the lines – don’t fall for politically correct niceties.

To connect the Sandy Hook incident as a farcical precursor (false flag) - remember Obama, during his election debates with Romney– stressed how the “education sector” was going to be key focal point for his next administration? And how he would enact gun control legislations? That was code to TPTB to select him. Because he will get the job done more than a Mormon puppet could. You see, TPTB place several plans on the table and they decide who is the next POTUS based on whomoever is the most passionate executioner of their policies between the two. Obama, with his executive orders clearly won.

Now coming back to the document: The document states the following:


Background Checks on Gun Sales:

Anyone who is classified with a criminal record (this could be even you with a speeding ticket /DUI) will not be allowed by the system to own a gun.

The document says:


"Addressing unnecessary legal barriers in HEALTH LAWS that prevent some states from making information available about those prohibited from having guns”


What do those words “health laws” mean? It means that if you have taken anti-depressants, your doctor can declare you unfit to own a gun. Do you see where this is going? It is not about just taking your gun. It is to further impose restrictions in movement, decision-making and your God-given freewill to decide for yourself. It is restriction in freedom.

What 9/11 did for air-travel, this proposition will do to your children - who are right now still in schools and condition their upbringing too. Mind you, they are already psychologically conditioned to get pat-downs at airports and malls – thinking to themselves as not “good enough” to decide what to carry in their bags.

Next–


“Improving incentives for states to share information with the system”


This means if you have a record somewhere in the system, you cannot move to another state and hope you can start off in a clean slate. Nope. Same restrictions apply.

Next –

“End the freeze on Gun Violence Research”


This is meant for the NWO-funded CDC to create another research wing again probably funded by the Rockefeller-Soros-Brzenzski types who will dictate to us what “advocacy for gun-control” means and also what “mental health” definitions must be. With this 'research' they can constantly keep updating the definition of who has and what is “mental ill-health” to confine it into their paradigm and declare via their MSM presstitute mouthpieces.

Next – (the real big kahuna)


“Preserve the rights of doctors to protect their patients and communities from Gun violence”


Sounds nice, doesn’t it? Well you didn’t read the fine print moran. It says:


“The Administration is clarifying that no federal law in any way prohibits doctors or other health care providers from reporting their patients’ threats of violence to the authorities”.


Oh, so that means doctors will be coerced to REPORT to “authorities” (who’s authority – I thought they were public servants?) if you are considered mentally unstable. I'd say most doctors would willingly – considering they already participate in the killing of Americans dependent on SSRI drugs and never do any “research studies” to curtail the clinical dependency of anti-depressants. I mean there can be so many of these “psychiatrists” who covertly work at schools with prior background at the US Military and CIA (what, you thought James Holmes popped out of nowhere?).

Next –

“Making school safer - opportunity to hire 1000 resources to ‘act’ as school psychologists, counselors”



Again, nicely worded. But it means restriction of movement for the child who disobeys to what the ‘authorities’ dictate in school. If that happens the role of parenting is over, folks. I would think you better get your child out before it’s too late then. With that any child can be become a victim, forced to be mind-controlled with psychologically altered drugs. Parents will not be told of what drug was given to their child as he was considered a national security risk.


And let’s not forget, these government sponsored psychiatrists and counselors will also add to the fake ‘job creation’ to cook up the stats the TPTB churn out.

Next –

“Create Safer School Climates”
“The Department of Education will collect and disseminate best practices on school discipline polices and help school districts develop and equitably implement their policies”.


This is meant to ensure uniformity and consistency for their plans. It is meant to streamline and get all schools to follow the same practices, lest one institution decides to stand different they can 'enforce' it upon them. Get it?

Next –


“Improving Mental Health Services”
“Make sure students with signs of mental illness get referred (by teachers) to treatment:


So that means children can be sent straight to the school's recently hired covert "psychiatrist" without any parental consent. And if the "psychiatrist" wants the child to be dependent on Xanax and Prozac. Hey, more sales for pharma and more insurance sales on Obamacare (whoopee doodah). And more sales for mental healthcare system Obama is now proposing.

Oh but you thought this was all about gun-control, right?

Next –


“Ensure coverage of mental health treatment”
“Ensuring that insurance plans cover mental health benefits at parity with other benefits”


What more do you need to have a successful Obamacare implemented if every kid is on SSRIs the day they are admitted to school?

I could go on, but I am exhausted even typing this. Please take time to READ for a change.

For your future generations’ sake.
edit on 17-1-2013 by aryaputhra because: grammatical correction




posted on Jan, 17 2013 @ 03:04 AM
link   
By the sounds of that, no-one will have assault rifles soon..



posted on Jan, 17 2013 @ 03:08 AM
link   
I thought his whole thing was to piggy back the whole mental health parity thing on there. Make insurance companies cover Looney toons the same way they cover medical expenses. Big pharma is going to make a metric S**** ton off that little clause if it happens.



posted on Jan, 17 2013 @ 03:26 AM
link   
Hey I agree with you.

But the state already decided they have more authority to my child than I do.

Guess I have nothing to lose.

Maybe I'll let my kid purchase my rifle for $1 for the event that if I die my weapon would be grandfathered.


+2 more 
posted on Jan, 17 2013 @ 03:30 AM
link   
Right. The doctor will take your gun. If you want a gun, then you must be crazy. Crazy people can't have a gun.

The Obama health agenda is going to attempt a total disarmament of the United States. The Left can't win a hot war, so they continue the cold war.

Don't fall for the big lies.... the Democrats and Republicans are on the same side, the cold war is over, your taxes will not increase, do it for the children, etc. etc.


+2 more 
posted on Jan, 17 2013 @ 03:56 AM
link   

I also believe most gun owners agree that we can respect the Second Amendment while keeping an irresponsible, law-breaking few from inflicting harm on a massive scale. I believe most of them agree that if America worked harder to keep guns out of the hands of dangerous people, there would be fewer atrocities like the one that occurred in Newtown.

That’s what these reforms are designed to do. They’re commonsense measures. They have the support of the majority of the American people.


Thats a lie right there. Who the f^@& is he to preach what the majority of Americans want? From what I'm hearing, most Americans respect their 2nd amendment and want their assault rifles. And even though he says he respects it as well, he is willing to punish the entire population of the States because of a few crazies. This is what he said previously to the above.


Second, Congress should restore a ban on military-style assault weapons, and a 10 round limit for magazines.

The type of assault rifle used in Aurora, for example, when paired with high capacity magazines has one purpose: to pump out as many bullets as possible as quickly as possible, to do as much damage using bullets often designed to inflict maximum damage.


Who is this idiot trying to kid? Americans, your time is running out.. Time to stand up for your rights.. Semi Automatics come with the 2nd amendment, put these a/holes back in their holes.



posted on Jan, 17 2013 @ 04:23 AM
link   
Where is the ACLU on all of this?

This is just the sort of thing that they SHOULD be fired up about.



posted on Jan, 17 2013 @ 04:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by butcherguy
Where is the ACLU on all of this?

This is just the sort of thing that they SHOULD be fired up about.


Uh.

Are we talking about the enemy inside the gate?



posted on Jan, 17 2013 @ 04:34 AM
link   
reply to post by aryaputhra
 



Originally posted by aryaputhra

Next – (the real big kahuna)


“Preserve the rights of doctors to protect their patients and communities from Gun violence”


Sounds nice, doesn’t it? Well you didn’t read the fine print moran. It says:


“The Administration is clarifying that no federal law in any way prohibits doctors or other health care providers from reporting their patients’ threats of violence to the authorities”.


Oh, so that means doctors will be coerced to REPORT to “authorities” (who’s authority – I thought they were public servants?) if you are considered mentally unstable.



I'm still reading the rest but please clarify which word in the above means coerced exactly.

And what's a moran?



posted on Jan, 17 2013 @ 04:51 AM
link   
reply to post by aryaputhra
 


Thank you for posting this. It's even more Draconian than I imagined. And to think that numbers of people here on this site are on board with it.



posted on Jan, 17 2013 @ 04:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by butcherguy
Where is the ACLU on all of this?

This is just the sort of thing that they SHOULD be fired up about.


The ACLU is a leftist front group with an interest in collective rights, not in individual rights. They always go for the leftist agendas.



posted on Jan, 17 2013 @ 06:13 AM
link   


The ACLU is a leftist front group with an interest in collective rights, not in individual rights. They always go for the leftist agendas.
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus
 

The ACLU was founded by Ralph Baldwin and modeled after the communist revolution in Russia almost 100 years ago.
www.redstate.com...


The origins of the American Civil Liberties Union are deeply entangled with Communism. Not the idealistic “liberals in a hurry” stuff of fellow-travelling fairy tale, but the bloody-minded sedition and revolutionary terror of hard historical reality.

[ACLU founder Roger] Baldwin’s radicalism caught the eye of the FBI, which quoted him in a 1924 report as having said: “The right to advocate a violent revolution, assassination, and proletarian Red guard, are all clearly within scope of free speech …”

The ACLU founder traveled to Stalin’s Russia in 1927 and wrote a book titled “Liberty Under The Soviets” the following year, which defended the Lenin’s and Stalin’s repression of dissent because they “are weapons in the transition to socialism.”



Obama wishes the same for the US, namely his definition of "Liberty" modeled after the miserable life that Russians had under communism for over 70 years. Imprisonment of the masses, including secret police, children taught to report on their parents, poverty for all but those in power, with the modern toys of thousands of drones, internet spying and mass propaganda perpetrated by both the "government" and the MSM.



posted on Jan, 17 2013 @ 08:33 AM
link   
An interesting read. I would have loved to have downloaded it, but it would not allow a download without a signup which, given the nature of this beast, is probably not a prudent thing. I tried a copy-and-paste into Open office, and that didn't turn out well, either. huge letters, turning one page into 13.

Ah well. Someday it will be archived by someone in the history books written concerning the Second American Civil War.

I was particularly taken by the following passage towards the top:



Most gun owners are responsible and law-abiding, and they use their guns safely. ThePresident strongly believes that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual rightto bear arms. But to better protect our children and our communities from tragic massshootings like those in Newtown, Aurora, Oak Creek, and Tucson, there are fourcommon-sense steps we can take right now.


Emphasis mine. "But"? "BUT"? There is no "but" - one either "strongly" believes in the Second Amendment, or one does not.

"But" my butt!

Nice, how the "for the children" is worked in there, too...

"Common sense"? It seem that common sense is not all that common any more, since those proposals are nonsensical. In particular, the "Assault Weapon Ban" has been done before, with NO net effect on crime or rampages.

All it did was piss lawful people off, and cause them to contemplate being unlawful. They are, as we speak, creating their own enemy out of whole cloth, pulling "criminals" out of thin air where none existed before, by the stroke of a pen "converting" lawful folk into outlaws.

Welcome to 1984 indeed!






edit on 2013/1/17 by nenothtu because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 17 2013 @ 08:46 AM
link   
reply to post by aryaputhra
 


So this could make certain people instant criminals ? Just add democracy ?



posted on Jan, 17 2013 @ 08:46 AM
link   
To all:
Regarding the ACLU, I am well aware of their political leanings.

My post was a jab at them, and their name, which is not really appropriate....IMO.



posted on Jan, 17 2013 @ 09:12 AM
link   
I'm happy this document is addressing how insurance companies refuses to pay-out for mental health services except for the bare minimums.

In 2 professional jobs, looking at 5 different health plans over the last few years one thing has been consistent. Insurance plans only want to do the bare minimum for mental health issues. This means that they'll pay for 10 mental health services per year, which is enough to go to a psychiatrist to get your prescription renewed. This doesn't offer a method of actually assisting anyone through counseling, or other forms of therapy which are designed to fix issues, not cover them up.

Frankly forcing insurance companies to actually pay for THERAPY will have a positive effect on American society. You all complain about how mental health is always treated with drugs in this country, and that is how the insurance industry has designed it. I have paid out over $10,000 to get the therapy needed to get off a prescription regimen of 5 medications a day, and can happily say that the therapy has worked wonders.

Let's get this type of treatment into the hands of every american, and we'll start seeing a startling turn-around in mental health in this nation.



posted on Jan, 17 2013 @ 09:16 AM
link   
a Typical response would be *fingers in ears* "lalalalala they are grabbing my guns, my freedom, my rights to give a mentally challenged kid a gun"


People just want to own gun illegally.



posted on Jan, 17 2013 @ 09:19 AM
link   
I found the following to be humorous:



A 2010 survey by the Police Executive ResearchForum found that more than one-third of police departments reported an increase in criminals’ use of assault weapons and high-capacity magazines since the prohibition on high-capacity magazines and assault weapons expired in 2004. To protect lawenforcement and enhance public safety, we must redouble our efforts to:


Wait... far less than HALF of all police departments are finding criminals in possession of "assault weapons" and "high-capacity magazines"? My question is, WHERE are these criminals finding LOW capacity magazines, and why is there such a preference for them? Precisely how is forcing all magazines to be low capacity going to change that?

With the touted "ease of availability" currently with "assault weapons", WHY are ONLY 1/3 of police departments finding them in association with criminal types at all? If they are all that more dangerous than other firearms, AND easy to get to boot, WHY are they not being found overwhelmingly in association with criminals, or being used overwhelmingly in crimes?

See? it's all in how the "facts" are presented, and in how critically one reads the claims. Semantics only, designed to gin up unreasoned fear among the uneducated.

This was good, too:



Finish the job of getting armor-piercing bullets off the streets:
It is alreadyillegal to manufacture and import armor-piercing ammunition except formilitary or law enforcement use. But it is generally still not illegal to possess or transfer this dangerous ammunition. Congress should finish the job ofprotecting law enforcement and the public by banning the possession of armor-piercing ammunition by, and its transfer to, anyone other than the military and law enforcement.


Oh my. The ancient "cop killer bullet" boogey man has been dragged out of mothballs to frighten the sheep with. A few points:

1) because of my line of work, I happen to have a couple of "bullet proof" vests. ANY bullet is a "cop killer", especially steel-jacketed rifle rounds. You don't have to have tungsten cores or teflon - ANY rifle bullet will sail right through kevlar of the grade normally worn by police. A better practice is not to allow yourself to be shot by one. I had a friend who was shot when a .22 round sailed through his kevlar. There is no such thing as these alleged "cop killer" bullets as a distinct class from other bullets. they'll ALL do the trick.

2) The Second Amendment is specifically written to provide PARITY between the people and any potential governmental aggressor, specifically TO make those potential aggressors think twice before tackling. Why then are police and military exempt from a ban on "cop killer" bullets? WHY, specifically, would COPS need "cop killer" bullets more than non-police?

3) When dealing with armored opponents, I aim for non-armored body parts. Easy-peasy. Drop 'em and deal with 'em after the fall. Why worry about "armor piercing" bullets at all? It's a scam, a boogey man to frighten the children - because it's FOR the children, y'know?

4) ban 'em all day long - if anyone wants armor piercing ammo, they can have it with just a couple hours work in the workshop. No, I'm not going to tell how, but it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure it out. What a "ban" does is remove the ability to track armor piercing rounds, since they then become home workshop projects that aren't listed in inventory any where.

GEEZ! This whole thing is sounding like the Dictator's Wish List which the "left" has been pushing for over 30 years, just dragged out of mothballs and re-painted!



edit on 2013/1/17 by nenothtu because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 17 2013 @ 09:26 AM
link   
reply to post by nenothtu
 




4) ban 'em all day long - if anyone wants armor piercing ammo, they can have it with just a couple hours work in the workshop. No, I'm not going to tell how, but it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure it out. What a "ban" does is remove the ability to track armor piercing rounds, since they then become home workshop projects that aren't listed in inventory any where.

Yes. If big game hunters in Africa could find a way to shoot non-deforming solid bullets in the late 1800's... I'm fairly certain an enterprising individual would be able to make them in this day and age!



posted on Jan, 17 2013 @ 10:36 AM
link   
All the "black rifle" makers are in illinois.

With Obama yelling "Gun Control" he's poured BILLIONS into illinois as everyone's rushing to buy rifles, magazines, and parts for those weapons from illinois.

The State of illinois is BOOMING right now.

If Obama really banned guns the State of illinois will dry up and die. It's their bread and butter.
When Secretary of the Treasury Snow went and worked for that Group that bought up all the gun makers....we all knew what was coming.

Secretary of the Treasury Snow KNEW where all the money was going to be going.





new topics
top topics
 
66
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join