It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.

 

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

 

Obama Blames U.S. For Gun Violence In Mexico

page: 4
34
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 3 2013 @ 05:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by neo96
reply to post by Ghost375
 





Background checks would only target those already found guilty in a court of law.


No they don't they target everyone the entire population of the US that violates their civil liberties, and invasion of privacy.

A background check is nothing, but proving to the state that they are worthy of gun ownership, based off a predetermined set of rules of perfection.

People are not perfect.

I will never support that fascism.


You're right to worry that the system could be abused. It could grow into a system that limits conspiracy theorists to buy guns!
But I think we can cross that bridge when it passes. I don't think we need to live in fear that it grows out of control.

But I see no reason why a repeat violent offender should have easy access to guns. I see no reason why a person should be able to get right out of jail and pick up a gun. I don't support banning anyone for life, but at least a year with no violations of parole or something. I think it's a far cry from fascism.




posted on May, 3 2013 @ 05:39 PM
link   
reply to post by burdman30ott6
 


In pushing his political agenda it's baffling how people may actually fall for this to back more gun control (if this is what your saying). He is somehow blaming inconsistent state to state background checks on mass gun violence in Mexico? If people connect new proposals with this we have no hope.

Assault riffle ban - well I suppose you would have to find the people buying more than 1 to blame the general public. Yet people don't think of how reasonable things are (are they even comnected) after they hear his voice. It's like the majority of people run on emotion for decision making.

It's the people who are empowering the manipulation of Obama to make this happen - making amendments to the second amendment. Invite people to ATS and help them to become aware of MSM. One solution. If every person who was aware of the manipulation in MSM told 10 people of a better source I believe people would wake up (hopefully). I just get frustrated by people not thinking critically so sorry for the rant.



posted on May, 3 2013 @ 05:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ghost375
The second part is offensive, and kind of surprised a mod would say that.
Plus you guys do require email verification! there already is a delay! and you guys censor people ALL the time for saying things you deem offensive. Pretty rich coming from a mod on this site.


You lack perspective, my friend. ATS isn't a government entity (contrary to what some may believe). A private enterprise or simply private property has the leeway to essentially regulate Civil Rights expression on their own premeses. ATS is not an open forum.



So answer me this, you are okay with repeat violent offenders to have easy access to gun? You think a guy who just got out of jail should be allowed to go straight to the store and pick up a semi-automatic rifle?

It's so fascist to limit people with a history of violence access to guns..../sarcasm.


...back up your claims. What percentage of convicted fellons attempt to purchase a firearm through legal means? This predates the background check and waiting period laws: www.rkba.org...

Three-quarters of the sample said they had owned one or more firearms at some time in their lives. Seventy-nine percent of these -- more than 1,000 -- said they owned at least one handgun. The handgun owners responded to a number of detailed questions about the methods and sources they used to acquire their most recent handguns. Their answers provide previously unavailable details describing the nature of the criminal gun market. The principal results:
(1) Legitimate firearms retailers play only a minor role as direct sources of handguns for adult felony offenders.

Only about one-sixth of the gun-owning felons obtained their most recent handguns through a customary retail transaction involving a licensed firearms dealer. The remainder -- five out of six -- obtained them via informal, off-the-record transactions involving friends and associates, family members, and various black market outlets. The means of acquisition from these informal sources included cash purchase, swaps and trades, borrowing and renting, and often theft. The criminal handgun market is overwhelmingly dominated by informal transactions and theft as mechanisms of supply.

The off-the-record nature of the market is further illustrated in the responses to a series of questions concerning the ease with which these men felt they could arm themselves upon release from prison. (As convicted felons, of course, all these men are legally prohibited from acquiring guns upon release, under provisions of the Gun Control Act of 1968 and the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968.) Most of the sample (gun owners and nonowners alike) thought it would be "no trouble at all" to acquire a gun upon release; about 80 percent felt they could obtain a suitable handgun in a few days or less. When asked where they would go for guns, their sources were friends, the street, and various black market sources.


The there's this:


Half the men in the total sample had stolen at least one gun at some time in their lives (as shown in Figure 1). Many had stolen more than one. A few, particularly the more predatory felons, had stolen guns in extremely large numbers. At least 40 percent and perhaps has many as 70 percent of the most recent handguns owned by this sample were stolen weapons. These percentages include not only the guns that the felons stole themselves (32 percent), but also guns that the felons knew or believed to have been stolen prior to their acquisition of them.


But to directly answer your question, there shouldn't be such a thing as a "repeat" serious violent criminal in the USA in 2013. Expand the flipping death penalty to such a degree that this sword of Damocles is removed from over the heads of the public and make crime deterrent an actual deterrent rather than a free ride on the tax payer's back for 10-20 years of 3 hots a day, workout facilities, and a warm bunk. The best thing about that idea is that it doesn't re-victimize the victims by passing idiotic restrictions and bullcrap laws which only punish the law abiding.



posted on May, 3 2013 @ 05:43 PM
link   
reply to post by Ghost375
 





But I see no reason why a repeat violent offender should have easy access to guns


Thought that was what Clinton's three strike's and your out is all about.

Banning things,background checks are not the answer or more laws.

En



posted on May, 3 2013 @ 07:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ghost375

So answer me this, you are okay with repeat violent offenders to have easy access to gun? You think a guy who just got out of jail should be allowed to go straight to the store and pick up a semi-automatic rifle?






How about someone who is a Rapist?

Should he have access to women if he gets out of jail? Since we are talking hypothetically of course. Should he be allowed to go right to a store and pick out his next victim? How far does one play into this way of thinking?



posted on May, 3 2013 @ 07:27 PM
link   


Massive corruption in the Mexican government is the reason they don't eliminate the cartels.



Massively compromised media is why we have Obama.



posted on May, 3 2013 @ 07:48 PM
link   
reply to post by neo96
 


Did I say that Holder wasn't responsible for Fast and Furious? Did I? DID I?

No, I didn't, I didn't say that Holder wasn't responsible for Fast and Furious.

Course you are so hell bent on blaming everything including your own flatulence on Obama that you are so blinded to see what REALLY is going on.

Course you don't CARE what's really going on neo, you just want to blame it all on Obama, talk about personal responsibility, how can one be a proponent of personal responsibility when they shift blame on a figurehead?

It's simple business...

The drug cartels have a product the American people want.

They supply this product to the willing masses.

They make a crapton of money off of this product, they grow their business into an empire, competition springs up, as it's an illegal product, and therefore an underground market, competition is cutthroat (literally) and so, each cartel gets more and more violent with each other. They get more and more weaponry, and get more and more violent.

MEANWHILE.

The US Government profits on both sides of the border. They stop some of the shipments entering the US, (thereby creating more demand with less supply, and so the price for unit of product goes up), and they bust low level dealers and users getting more money in fines and legal fees on this side of the border.

Of course to YOU, there were no drug cartels before Obama, I guess to YOU, they are a creation of the Obama administration. And they had no weaponry at all before Eric Holder botched a sting operation.

Is Holder responsible? YES HE IS.

Is Obama responsible? In the immortal words of Reagan ("I don't recall")

But keep just blaming Obama for everything including your cereal getting soggy in milk, I'm sure that if you throw enough mud at the wall, SOMETHING will stick, and you will feel justified in some petty way.

But god forbid, don't lay the blame where it really belongs, on the customers buying the product. Ya think maybe, if no one bought the cartel's products, the cartels would have any money for weaponry?

But of course, again, it appears your under the delusion that the drug cartels had no weaponry at all until Fast and Furious, if that's your opinion, I have little more to add to this topic.



posted on May, 3 2013 @ 08:02 PM
link   
reply to post by HauntWok
 





Course you are so hell bent on blaming everything including your own flatulence on Obama that you are so blinded to see what REALLY is going on.


Nice guess some would rather discuss me than Obama pretty much par for the course when anyone tries to hold Obama accountable.




Course you don't CARE what's really going on neo, you just want to blame it all on Obama, talk about personal responsibility, how can one be a proponent of personal responsibility when they shift blame on a figurehead?


Sorry don't buy that lame excuse Obama has no 'personal responsiblity' ever,!!!

That really was hilarious




Is Obama responsible? In the immortal words of Reagan ("I don't recall")


Hmmm






But keep just blaming Obama for everything including your cereal getting soggy in milk, I'm sure that if you throw enough mud at the wall, SOMETHING will stick, and you will feel justified in some petty way.


Nope As the video clearly said ' the buck stops there'.




But god forbid, don't lay the blame where it really belongs, on the customers buying the product. Ya think maybe, if no one bought the cartel's products, the cartels would have any money for weaponry?


Am placing 'the blame' where it belongs.




But of course, again, it appears your under the delusion that the drug cartels had no weaponry at all until Fast and Furious, if that's your opinion, I have little more to add to this topic.


Only thing I saw added to the topic was more excuse's for Obama, and juvenile repartee.
edit on 3-5-2013 by neo96 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 3 2013 @ 08:44 PM
link   
So it's ALL Obama's fault, I guess he's the one that forces millions of Americans to buy drug cartel products, he's the one that set up the drug cartels in the first place, and I guess to YOU, he solely armed them to the teeth.

Nice, let's just shift everything to blame Obama. Not that Americans buy products from vicious dangerous thugs that have no problem peddling poison and destroying families if they aren't outright killing them. Oh no, can't blame the customer. Got to blame the unattached figurehead in the white house.

Again, if no one bought the drug cartel's products, would they have money for weaponry or even be in business to begin with?



posted on May, 3 2013 @ 08:48 PM
link   
reply to post by neo96
 


maybe he was partly right, after all isn't that what Fast and Furious was about? He just forgot to mention it was his DOJ that did the gunrunning.



posted on May, 3 2013 @ 08:56 PM
link   
reply to post by Ghost375
 





But I see no reason why a repeat violent offender should have easy access to guns. I see no reason why a person should be able to get right out of jail and pick up a gun.


Of course, none of this has anything to do with guns which are present in Mexico, but Obama's Fast and Furious does.

After all, the average gun owner in America doesn't just go bopping over to Mexico any time he feels and start shooting people up, or even more ludicrous...leaving their guns there.


edit on 3-5-2013 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 3 2013 @ 08:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
reply to post by neo96
 


maybe he was partly right, after all isn't that what Fast and Furious was about? He just forgot to mention it was his DOJ that did the gunrunning.


Were not suppose to talk about that!!!

The only thing were suppose to do is make excuses for Obama and blame Americans!!
edit on 3-5-2013 by neo96 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 3 2013 @ 09:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by captaintyinknots
Like the others have said, the first step is to stop selling them guns.

the second step is to remove american corporate influence. Anyone think it is a coincidence that Coca-cola has a headquarters in Juarez, which just happens to have become one of the murder capitals of the world?


What does coca cola have to do with gun violence. We give them jobs and they blame us for their guns????



posted on May, 3 2013 @ 09:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by sonnny1


How about someone who is a Rapist?

Should he have access to women if he gets out of jail? Since we are talking hypothetically of course. Should he be allowed to go right to a store and pick out his next victim? How far does one play into this way of thinking?

You buy women at stores? I've heard of objectifying women, but that's a little far.



posted on May, 3 2013 @ 10:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ghost375

Originally posted by sonnny1


How about someone who is a Rapist?

Should he have access to women if he gets out of jail? Since we are talking hypothetically of course. Should he be allowed to go right to a store and pick out his next victim? How far does one play into this way of thinking?

You buy women at stores? I've heard of objectifying women, but that's a little far.


Violent Rapists treat woman as objects. They usually find their victims at places that are frequented by woman, or victims of opportunity.

Obviously you dont get it.




Nice sidestepping the hypothetical BTW.
edit on 3-5-2013 by sonnny1 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 3 2013 @ 10:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by Covertblack
What about if we secured the bor................. never mind.


RACIST!!!!!!!!!!




I don't think theres anything racist about securing the border. Nor suggesting more is done in order to do it. No one I know living in a border state has a problem with making sure our border is properly protected.

You two can make jokes all you like, but that border (and the northern) are potential floodgates for all kinds of nasty. My position is and has always been simply that not everyone coming over it is coming with drugs or harm in mind.

Back on sub, the public and sec agencies alike, need to look at what can be done to secure those arms before they even leave the country in the first place. We already know theyre ending up in the wrong hands as it is.



posted on May, 3 2013 @ 10:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by HauntWok

Course you are so hell bent on blaming everything including your own flatulence on Obama that you are so blinded to see what REALLY is going on.





You do know the President accepted ALL responsibility, when he took the Job ?

I could Quote him, but Apologists dont care about that. They are "hell bent" at deflecting anything that Criticizes him.



posted on May, 3 2013 @ 10:34 PM
link   
The rise in gun violence has been due to the drug war, so we've got to go further back than Obama or Bush. Fast and Furious confuses me, sounds like the same stupid tactic we tend to do each time were confronted with a problem: treat the symptoms with a pill that has its own side-effects; creates its own new problems...kind of like a layer cake of convoluted problem-generating solutions, one on top of the other.

I think we all know how to curtail the plague of violence in Mexico, take away the financial motive. Remember, the tell-tale sign that shows this to be the case: the focus of lethal violence in Mexico, with the exception of a few major population centers in the south, is in the Mexican states that run along OUR border.



posted on May, 3 2013 @ 11:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by MDDoxs
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


I will not banter on the definition of capitalism with you as their is always a disconnect between theoretical definitions and pragmatic realities.

But the America, or the west/industrialized countries, would be considered to have adopted capitalist practices.

Cartels live and die by the demand for their product, nuff said.


Sure, America was founded upon Capitalism, but it has been a fascist state for quite a long time. There isn't a such thing as free market in the US.



posted on May, 3 2013 @ 11:03 PM
link   
reply to post by grandmakdw
 


A lot of the Mexicans that come here to this area are very nice people. Of course I'm not with them 24/7 but the most crimes that are committed, in this area, seem to be drunk driving (alcohol) and driving without a valid license. That being said and what I have read, the Mexicans coming across our borders may be mostly drug free and are trying to escape the tyranny of the drug cartels.

The drug cartels exist because stupid Americans buy and use their drugs.
The drug cartels have always had weapons, and this administration has helped by allowing more weapons into their hands.

Maybe a solution would be to send all the drug users to Mexico, where they could be closer to the cartels and allow the Mexicans, trying to escape the cartels violence, free passage to America.



new topics

top topics



 
34
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join