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 vows to pursue gun control ‘with or without Congress’

page: 6
37
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 29 2014 @ 01:25 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 




posted on Jan, 29 2014 @ 01:27 PM
link   
Lets look at mexico:

Guns for the most part are illegal there, Yet in the past several years over 60,000 people have been killed with guns.



How can that be possible?

Since the majority of people obey the law for the most part they don't own guns because it is illegal. Meanwhile the criminal drug cartels don't care about the law because it hurts their business so they have no problems killing the unarmed people who get in their way.

But wait it gets better some Mexicans decided to break the law form citizen militias and have armed themselves and have over all had great success in pushing back against the murdering drug cartels. Meanwhile the Mexican government says Heeey that's our job slave....

Private ownership of firearms can not only deter crime but they can also respond to an prevent more crime.




posted on Jan, 29 2014 @ 01:27 PM
link   
reply to post by game over man
 





Not going to get anywhere in this friendly thread discussing our safe America.

Test scores are down

Income down

Livelihood expenses up

Obesity on the rise

Transportation costs on the rise

Increase security

Answer: more guns into American Society



What a Minute Now
You're Really Saying the above Statement all has to do with Law Biding Americans Owning Guns

WOW!
That is just a Stupid Observation.
You or your kids being Obese has nothing to do with guns, if it does, you need Counseling!
If you or your MOM and DAD are paying for Increased Security, MOVE!
Test Scores, I blame TV and MOM and DAD and the Education System and Your own Self-esteem.
Yea, if you can't afford to drive or take public transportation, Walk some of the Key Board Fat Off!
Look around for a better job, there are jobs out there, you just have to want to sacrifice a little of your comfort level.
Your income still depends on you and your willingness to move or sacrifice.

I need to add. Your so call statics from other countries, WHY?
This is America, Not South America with Large Drug Cartels Fighting for the control of entire cities or Africa where Dictators control entire provinces and large cities.

Maybe one reason you're so easily debunked is because you don't understand your own Freedoms or your own Rights Granted To You By Your Constitution and The Bill Of Rights.

You know, That is the Reason, my husband say's, Every American needs to pass the Same Test, His Wife ( me ) and Our Daughter had to Pass to become Naturalize American Citizens.
Thank You America and All The Fighting Men and Women Through Out This Countries Great History That Has Giving Their ALL For Our Freedoms!

Love You
guohua



posted on Jan, 29 2014 @ 01:32 PM
link   
reply to post by TDawgRex
 


Don't you know that taking them away from law abiding citizens is the perfect solution for the criminals! Don't waste your time trying to argue with someone that has already been brainwashed. Some people will never understand the agenda until game over. I'll keep my guns even if it is illegal, which I'm sure millions of others will do the same. Then, there will be millions more to add to the criminal list, geesh.... where do they draw the line!



posted on Jan, 29 2014 @ 01:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Bassago
 


I'm saying the citizens should stand up to the theatrical left and right scam show and say, "what's up." The moment the right and left agree its all an illusion and start pointing the finger at the politicians for waisting our time is when we will all get the rights we deserve.

I can't even get into politics when the government and media encourages all of us neighbors online or in person going for each others throats when we would never do so in the first place. They are putting the debate out there, not us. Unless everyone in this thread works in the firearm industry then whatever, make sales.

Otherwise we all need to stand up and say, yeah ok we get it, but what is going on with THIS OR THIS OR THIS AND THAT?!?! Nope let the minions post online about high school debate type topics while we gather all their data. That is the government's plan, and sooooo many people take the bait.

Im anti-debate. Solve problems instead, the debate is the problem. If youre an outsider to msinstream society then you would observe the two same groups of political people arguing. Stupid.



posted on Jan, 29 2014 @ 01:45 PM
link   
reply to post by game over man
 

Debating? You cal insulting,belittling and outright opinions debate? Anyway There should be NO DEBATE at all on this. Its in the constitution. It just IS. If you want to change it do it the proper way. Obama is going down the road of the tyrant in the making
and ignoring the constitution for shame.



posted on Jan, 29 2014 @ 01:47 PM
link   
reply to post by game over man
 




The most serious issue of all issues in the world, are gun owners in America earning more gun rights? Or losing gun ownership privlidges?


We don't have to earn more rights, they're already there. Ownership isn't a privilege you know.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed

Or do you not believe in the Constitution and Bill of Rights? And it was Obama who tossed this gun issue out last night in his SOTU address, not us.



posted on Jan, 29 2014 @ 02:51 PM
link   
I guess Old Barak Obama needs to get his Pen Out and Take Away Hammers from Home Owners!
Remove that Deadly Item from Ace Hardware and Home Depot and other home improvement stores then just maybe we'll have to register our Hammer's with our Local Police Department or County Sheriff.

It is a Tragic that this happen. But then again, NYC has some of the most stringent gun laws and this woman and her daughter were both killed with a hammer by her boyfriend.
The daughter or mother could have Shot The A$$hole!


A madman bludgeoned his girlfriend and her adult daughter to death with a hammer in Queens early Wednesday in a massacre that could be heard down the block because he believed the women were witches who cast a spell on him, police sources and witnesses said.

Estrella Castaneda, 56, and Lina Castaneda, 25, were found with their .s bashed in at their home on 87th St. in East Elmhurst about 12:15 a.m., officials said.

Cops arrested Carlos Amarillo, 44, on charges of murder and criminal possession of a weapon. He told cops he believed the women were witches and had put a spell on him, police sources said.

link

Again, it's NOT THE GUN or in this case the HAMMER that KILLED, it was the HUMAN!
Inanimate objects need the human to function as their kill force. Sorry to say, this is just so sad. If this woman or her daughter or neighbor that heard the Screams, had the Opportunity to be trained to safely operate a hand gun or shot gun, at least one life may have been saved or both!

edit on 29-1-2014 by guohua because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 29 2014 @ 03:38 PM
link   

yuppa
reply to post by game over man
 

Debating? You cal insulting,belittling and outright opinions debate? Anyway There should be NO DEBATE at all on this. Its in the constitution. It just IS. If you want to change it do it the proper way. Obama is going down the road of the tyrant in the making
and ignoring the constitution for shame.


You may want to reread the constitution because you are only quoting part of it. The right to bear arms is not given to the general population but rather to a well regulated militia.

2nd Amendment

In United States v. Cruikshank (1876), the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that, "The right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution; neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence" and limited the applicability of the Second Amendment to the federal government. In United States v. Miller (1939), the Supreme Court ruled that the federal government and the states could limit any weapon types not having a “reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia”.


edit on 29-1-2014 by buster2010 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 29 2014 @ 03:50 PM
link   

neo96

muse7

Bassago

muse7
I watched the whole speech and I never once heard him say he was going to take your guns away.

Maybe this is a propaganda thread too?


And maybe you just read the title and skipped right over his quotes.


Quote where he says that he's going to take guns away?



Why by Executive Order he did close the so called 'corporate loophole' that was not nor has it ever been used in a 'mass shooting'.

So what does that say ?

www.washingtonpost.com...

He clearly already has.


There IS another political point to be made with this comment.

Remember 'Corporations are not people'.

Well they have to get background checks.

Last time I checked that was for 'people'. !



posted on Jan, 29 2014 @ 04:04 PM
link   
reply to post by buster2010
 


But then the Supreme Court said....



District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), was a landmark case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held in a 5-4 decision that the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution applies to federal enclaves and protects an individual's right to possess a firearm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. The decision did not address the question of whether the Second Amendment extends beyond federal enclaves to the states,[1] which was addressed later by McDonald v. Chicago (2010). It was the first Supreme Court case to decide whether the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms for self-defense.[2]

On June 26, 2008, the Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit in Heller v. District of Columbia.[3][4] The Supreme Court struck down provisions of the Firearms Control Regulations Act of 1975 as unconstitutional, determined that handguns are "arms" for the purposes of the Second Amendment, found that the Regulations Act was an unconstitutional ban, and struck down the portion of the Regulations Act that requires all firearms including rifles and shotguns be kept "unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock." "Prior to this decision the Firearms Control Regulation Act of 1975 also restricted residents from owning handguns except for those registered prior to 1975."

District of Columbia v. Heller



Hmmm.



posted on Jan, 29 2014 @ 04:05 PM
link   
reply to post by Bassago
 


How many impeachable offenses does this guy have to make before SOMEONE has the balls to start proceedings against him?!



posted on Jan, 29 2014 @ 04:10 PM
link   

Freenrgy2
reply to post by Bassago
 


How many impeachable offenses does this guy have to make before SOMEONE has the balls to start proceedings against him?!


Probably after the 2014 elections if the GOP retains the House and takes the Senate. Best guess anyway IMO.



posted on Jan, 29 2014 @ 04:27 PM
link   
While I tend to come down hard on the GOP (that sounded dirtier than I meant) over their just lunancy towards Obama, I am no fan of G W Obammy, but he's not taking our guns. How he goan get mine?

This is all a hobgoblin to keep us distracted from threats to us.

It is all around us, our enslavement to the few and all gov'ts actions on behalf and @ the behest of the few.

What I just said is the true threat to liberty. Not the "oh noes our guns", not the "oh noes Obammycare"...

Open your eyes, please.

Derek



posted on Jan, 29 2014 @ 05:04 PM
link   
reply to post by muse7
 


Our president never says exactly what he's going to do.
Sometimes he says what he wants to do.
If he says what he intends to do.
You can believe the opposite.
It's called POLOTICS.
Thought we all knew that by now.



posted on Jan, 29 2014 @ 05:11 PM
link   
reply to post by NiZZiM
 


From Quigley Down Under.
We sent our misfits packing.
Back to ENGLAND.
LOL



posted on Jan, 29 2014 @ 05:17 PM
link   
reply to post by buster2010
 


You forgot about the militia act of 1903 that said the militia is composed of all able bodied males 16-45 years old. The composition of the militia has never been successfully challenged. Then DC vs Heller said it was an individual right.



posted on Jan, 29 2014 @ 05:23 PM
link   
reply to post by SWCCFAN
 


Just to add to your point about DC v Heller, not only did they indicate that it protected an individual right, the Supreme Court also ruled that the individual right that is protected is unconnected to militia service. Until such time as the Supreme Court revisits and overturns DC v Heller, the 'militia' argument is essentially irrelevant. The anti-2A crowd can believe whatever they want in that regard, but it doesn't change the fact that the SC has ruled against them on that particular issue.



posted on Jan, 29 2014 @ 05:30 PM
link   
reply to post by vor78
 


We all seem to forget that the entire reason they left the concept of the Militia ( armed citizen ) in the constitution was to be a safeguard against tyranny. If the populaces is armed you can only push them so far and they will fight back. The Liberals want to take the guns away because they want control.

Its not that they are anti-gun, they are very much pro gun. The issue is who they are willing to allow to possess the guns.

I will go further to say any politician that votes to restrict the peoples right to own and carry firearms is guilty of treason. Buy promoting the disarmament of the people they effectively demonstrate their desire to give aid and comfort to Americas enemy's.

edit on 0832014-01-29T17:32:08-06:002014-01-29T17:32:08-06:00fpm1 by SWCCFAN because: (no reason given)

edit on 5832014-01-29T17:32:58-06:002014-01-29T17:32:58-06:00fpm1 by SWCCFAN because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 29 2014 @ 06:09 PM
link   
Having followed with some interest the entire gun control debate the following can be stated:

There are several things here that should be addressed. The first is the President of the USA. The problem is not the President, he is doing what he believes is his mandate, to ensure the public welfare, but lies in the congress. If he is abusing his power and authority, then do not look at him as the reason, but the people in congress as they gave him that power and authority. If they are not willing to exercise those checks and balances, taking him to task, holding him accountable for his actions, then what is their purpose? Nature abhors a vacuum, and in politics and the running of the country the question is who is going to make the laws, if the congress refuses to act?

The reality is that the congress is ultimately failing at their jobs and maintaining those checks and balances to keep the power of the government split three ways as it is suppose to. We elected those officials into office, and perhaps if they are not willing to do the job, like any boss, we should consider removing those from office who are not working out, sending them on their way and send someone who is going to do the job.

If gun control laws are the answer to all of the violence, then perhaps those who would advocate having more gun control laws could answer why Detroit, Chicago, New York, Oakland, and Los Angeles have such high rates of gun violence, when they have the toughest laws in the country? The facts are clear, and the sad part is that those who would advocate gun control fail to take into account one detail, and that is criminals do not follow the laws. They break the laws and do what they want to do until they are caught by the law and then when they get shot or killed or imprisoned, according to their families, the criminal is not at fault.

The reality is that the laws are a mess, and more laws will not fix the problem or issue. The reality is that if the law makers were going to be serious to curb gun crimes, more control is not the answer, but make the laws where the penalty for committing a crime with a gun is going to be far worse, then what it is now. Make it where if a person uses a firearm in the act of committing a crime it is a minimum prison sentence for the first time and then far worse for the second time.



new topics

top topics



 
37
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join