Barrack Obama Addresses Gun Restrictions In America: "Why Restrict 'Good' Gun Owners?"

Submitted by: daegog 2 months ago in News & Politics


Mr. Obama, Please report to the Oval Office, your country needs you, BADLY.
There are 47 comments:
Male 1,820
The truth is that drunk driving deaths have gone down in the last 40 years or so but the funny thing is for just a quick look at the stats from 2001 to 2010 the stats are relatively flat drunks killed between the high of 41.8 percent of people to low of 39.2 that means that more people that are not under the influence are  killing people at a higher percent, yes there are more of them but remember there not under the influence. And over a period of years you can make a real connection to car safety being the real reason more people don't die, air bags and all.  And as far as guns sold during his tenure its because the already bad habit of the left trying to take guns and they were scared. There are already back ground checks. His notion that there are not and were no background checks is a flat lie. And just because you are on the no fly list does not mean that your a criminal and if you are on the list just investigate him before you give him a gun. If he is on the list there must be a real reason and paper work to follow up on. I think you can hold up at least 3 days before you have to even hand some one a gun and a dealer has the right to refuse to sell to any one if they think there hinkey. To may people are found on the list that should not be there. When I was in the Coast Guard we had a suspect list for boats (of course we have broad discretion on boarding a boat) that we used to profile different boats if we boarded one and found nothing we could not just take the boat because we did not like that they were on the list. Why would the no fly list be any different with guns. They don't even have the gun yet. "I cant even stop some one on the list from buying guns and stock piling ammo another flat lie".
-1
Reply
Male 3,331
You can lose your drivers license, but get it back. You can flat out be denied a pistol purchase permit in my county if any of the various and vague requirements are not met. not a good equivalency.
Most gun owners I know are not worried about their weapons being confiscated, they do have concerns about restrictions on what is available for purchase, and increased fees. Those concerns, historically, have some slight merit.
0
Reply
Male 4,092
The same people that can't see how Guns are public health issue, are the same people who reject global warming, coincidence?


I would surely like to know, to all the conservatives who watched this and hate obama so much, what exactly did he say in this video (or some other video) that makes him so detestable?

I can easily give you a laundry list about trump, but for the life of me i cannot figure out your virulent hatred of obama.
1
Reply
Male 1,553
daegog I can only speak for myself but I personally don’t see the relevance of a government “health” organizations wandering into the area of, what I believe to be, that of criminal activity.  My perspective is that the criminal realm is that of the justice department and the FBI.  I think they should be the agency that takes the lead on addressing gun violence.

Now on the other hand if the CDC were to focus on the mental health issues surrounding gun violence or even maybe social drivers then they have that expertise to offer.
0
Reply
Male 4,092
woodyville06 Well, most of the "government's" scientists are in the CDC.  To the same extent the CDC studied auto accidents and ways to lower the auto fatality rates, we would need scientists funded by the government to study fire arm death. 

The FBI has forensics people, but they are for the aftermath, not about prevention.


0
Reply
Male 1,553
daegog well, that would be expected given their charge is the study and control of disease.  There are also lots of scientists in the EPA but my point was relevence to the issue.

And your example of the CDC involvement in traffic safety would seem to be another example of overreach: that is clearly the domain of NHTSA.  Was this a joint effort or what was the reason for their involvement?
0
Reply
Male 4,092
woodyville06 because the majority of our scientists are in the NHTSA.  The CDCs capacity for research for exceeds practically any other government agency.

Instead of massively expanding the government and giving shit tons of scientists to every branch of the government (that would have to be imported from other countries cause we sure don't have enough) the majority of our scientists are in the CDC and they have the ability to research a huge variety of topics.
0
Reply
Male 41,539
Obama had 8 years to do anything he promised or wants to now do.
8 years and he did exactly... nothing.
He had a super-majority in both houses for a while there too: it was impossible to filibuster without Democrats doing so... and he did nothing.

Meanwhile? White people kept selling machineguns out of the backs of vans to children in the streets of Chicago. THAT is the real reason there is violence there: white people. If only there were some sort of law against selling machineguns to children eh? Especially in Chicago with no gun laws at all...
-4
Reply
Male 1,838
5cats

Just to compound on daegog's point about Chicago:

60% of illegal guns used in shootings in Chicago are imported from neighboring states cities...mostly from other cities in Illinois. If all the other areas around Chicago had gun control laws similar to Chicago's, then those criminals would have had to import their guns from outside the country, which is far more difficult to do.

Only 11% of the illegal guns used in shootings in Chicago were purchased from Federal dealers that require background checks.

So while Chicago does have strict gun control laws, they're ineffective since they're not implemented at the Federal level or at the State level. This is the same reason why a lot of women in Texas, with its strict abortion laws, are allowed to obtain abortions. They just drive over the state line and get one in a clinic. Of course, transporting yourself over the state line is much more difficult than paying someone else to import something over the state line, so Texas' anti-abortion laws are far more effective than Chicago's gun control laws, but the analogy is similar.
0
Reply
Male 41,539
bliznik 100% of the cocaine and heroin the very gangs who are killing each other are selling? they are imported from distant nations. You "argument" that the guns are "imported" is both meaningless and disingenuous: a deliberate red herring.
They bring in outside guns because it's CHEAPER duh! And EASIER too. Criminals are cheap, lazy and stupid ok?

And you can fly to Canada and get an abortion there too... so?
0
Reply
Male 1,838
5cats So if we legalized cocaine we wouldn't have more of it in the US? OK, interesting fantasy world you live in.
0
Reply
Male 41,539
bliznik Where the fuck did I say that? That cocaine smuggling would vanish if legalized? You accuse ME of living in a fantasy world and you cannot even read what I wrote?

I said the gangs already import their big-income stuff from far overseas, and if guns were contraband (and thus more profitable) they'd EASILY do the same and nothing could stop them.

So the gangs will always be armed, why disarm the lawful citizens? How about disband and lock-up the gangs like they did with Al Capone and the rest of the prohibition-era mobsters. WHO BTW supplied illegal booze (mostly from Canada) to make millions of dollars in the 20's. Sound familiar?
0
Reply
Male 1,838

Where the fuck did I say that? That cocaine smuggling would vanish if legalized? You accuse ME of living in a fantasy world and you cannot even read what I wrote?

Just pointing out that the issue here is more or less, not presence and not presence. You argued that anyone could fly to Canada to get an abortion. Yes, but do all citizens who want to get an abortion travel to states where abortion is legal? No, only the ones with lots of resources do.

Not all gangs will always be armed. Some gangs will...mostly the ones with lots of resources. There are plenty of gangs in Japan, China, Australia, and the UK who are armed and will always be armed. But a vast majority of criminals aren't...because, as you pointed out, most people in general are cheap, lazy and stupid. 

why disarm the lawful citizens?

Again, you're living in a fantasy world. No law disarms citizens from owning any gun. The proposed laws prevent citizens from purchasing guns if the citizens refuse to educate themselves on basic gun use and gun safety or prevent citizens from purchasing guns that can kill 100 people within a minute. 

Car licenses and car registration reduces the number of cars on the street to people who are able to prove a minimum threshold of car driving education and responsibility. There are still car deaths, but there would be many more car deaths if we didn't require car licenses and car registration. Adding licensing requirements doesn't disarm anyone except for the uneducated, lazy, or irresponsible...who probably shouldn't be owning a gun.
0
Reply
Male 41,539
bliznik Yes, the ENTIRE DRIVE of the Gun Grabbers is to remove all the guns except their own. That is the goal! The top priority! To unlawfully remove guns from the people they "don't allow" to have them. Total confiscation.
And Criminals, who will always have them no matter how many laws are enacted.
0
Reply
Male 1,838
5cats ...and because people like you and NRA supporters believe these lies, guns will continue to flow into the hands of anyone who has enough cash to purchase them irrespective of their knowledge, experience, sanity, or history of domestic violence.
0
Reply
Male 41,539
bliznik What part of "Gun Free America" do you fail to get?

They have done exactly what I've described at every single opportunity. WHY do you think they keep LOSING all those court battles? Because they keep passing ILLEGAL Laws knowing full well they are illegal, but the tiny chance they can grab some guns means the end justifies the means!

Guns WILL ALWAYS flow into those hands! Why blame me for something YOU CANNOT STOP EITHER? That's just deplorable of you... period.

Take away all the lawful guns and add +2,000,000 crimes to the rolls, and what will the ARMED criminals do once everyone else (ie: the victims) is disarmed? Will they lay their guns down? Or will they do what they did in UK and go boldly forth knowing the victims have no guns? 

Your side has nothing but emotion and lies. Sorry but that's how it is.
0
Reply
Male 1,838
5cats 

Cite a single proposed law with the support of more than 10 senators that bans all guns. Just one. Go. I'm waiting.

Oh wait, THEY ONLY EXIST IN YOUR IMAGINATION.

That is why people make fun of a lot of your comments man. They're not grounded in reality.
0
Reply
Male 41,539
bliznik I did not say "At the Federal Level" I actually said "wherever they get in power" ok? So at the Municipal, City, State levels? YES hundreds of times. WHERE do you think all those illegal and stupid laws in JUST Chicago come from? Republicans?? FUCK no.

And there have been HUNDREDS of bad laws TOSSED OUT by various courts... that's MY IMAGINATION eh? I don't half hardly think so, don't be dumb ok? They know they cannot ban all the guns at once: so they will add one gun at a time until they are all gone. That's how it works, it is their openly stated plan. Don't be an idiot and demand I show things that don't exist and I NEVER SAID EXISTED.

Unless you can show me that NO Democrats passed bad laws to try to illegally restrict guns? The real reality tops your lies. Don't swallow the Kool-Aid and pretend no other form of truth exists, you are regurgitating propaganda and outright lies.
0
Reply
Male 1,838
5cats 

Oh, so now you're arguing that any poorly drafted law related to gun-control is actually part of a master-plan to ban all guns.

OK.

So interesting how much you've diverged from the point of the original post, which is that guns are given massive preferential treatment over car control, airplane control, explosives control, nuclear power control, and pretty much every other weapon that can destroy multiple lives in a single action.

But that's the name of the game eh? Distract, distract, distract.
0
Reply
Male 41,539
bliznik Not 'poorly drafted' did you not pay attention?

 Deliberately unconstitutional, deliberately illegal and they knew it. But they passed these illegal laws anyhow because it gave them a window of opportunity to grab/restrict some guns, made them 'look like' they were doing something and maybe, just maybe, the courts might let them stand.
These people aren't idiots, they know exactly what they are doing: avoiding the Constitution to push their anti-gun agenda.

I've avoided what? How have you paid attention to the fact none of those things are remotely in the US Constitution and that the US Supreme says the 2nd applies today same as it did back then? YOU are ignoring all the facts and harping on nonsense, emotional appeals and yes distractions of your making.

When has answering YOUR questions become me making a distraction? You're just filled with lies eh? The truth is alien to you now.

I've already spoken all there is to say about airplanes and submarines. If you want to go all '3rd grade' and stat crying about nuclear weapons? Be my guest.

Clinton gave the nukes to North Korea. Obama gave the nukes to Iran. Your side is the one allowing dangerous nations to have nukes, not mine.
0
Reply
Male 1,838
Deliberately unconstitutional, deliberately illegal and they knew it.

Source? Oh wait, you have none.

they passed these illegal laws anyhow because it gave them a window of opportunity to grab/restrict some guns, made them 'look like' they were doing something and maybe, just maybe, the courts might let them stand.

Source? Oh wait, you have none.

These people aren't idiots, they know exactly what they are doing: avoiding the Constitution to push their anti-gun agenda.

Source? Oh wait, you have none.

Again, this is why people ignore many of your arguments. You have a lot of arguments, but no facts to back it up. I mean, it's a nice little theory, and it must be fun to argue, but I back up my points with citations to peer-reviewed reports and you back up your points with...more arguments.

...and you call my arguments lies. Interesting.

How have you paid attention to the fact none of those things are remotely in the US Constitution and that the US Supreme says the 2nd applies today same as it did back then?

Actually, in 1875, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that it was perfectly fine for states to restrict arms sales, and since 1939, the U.S. Supreme Court looked at the totality of the 2nd amendment: "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." That is, the 2nd amendment only applied to militias. It wasn't until 2008 when Scalia basically argued that the first part of the bill of rights doesn't mean anything, and he effectively rewrote the 2nd amendment to say, "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." That interpretation is new, and that is what the NRA fought for. So, no, the 2nd amendment means something completely different today than what it meant just 10 years ago.

^ See that? that is an example of an argument backed with factual references. Something that your arguments completely lack. Your arguments contain passion, anger, and name-calling, but no citations to evidence.
0
Reply
Male 41,539
bliznik Actually? I have their own words on the matter, but I'm not some psychopath who keeps volumes or references and data round to argue with idiots on the internet.
Why not do your own research and learn to think for yourself?

If you honestly believe that so many experienced politicians and entire legal departments pass laws (every word of which have been checked and triple checked) that are "poorly drafted" and just by sheer coincidence are anti-gun laws? OR that all recent (since the Brady Bill, which also was useless as shit) anti-gun laws (so far) have been by sheer coincidence "poorly drafted"? Well then! That takes a special kind of stupid right there!

And I don't give a farting fuck what the OLD laws were. They no longer fucking apply! You DO KNOW it used to be perfectly legal to own a slave, right? That a Constitutional Amendment changed that. The previous Supreme Court rulings on the legality of slavery DON'T MEAN A FUCKING THING. They were wrong and so were the ones about the 2nd in 1875 and 1939. Idiot. You call that an 'argument'? Wow...

Who makes up the Militias? All the US Citizens. Thus the 2nd applies to them. Period, end of discussion. Don't like it? Overturn in the SC or overturn the 2nd. Until then quit your bitching. (QYB)

0
Reply
Male 1,838
I have their own words on the matter, but I'm not some psychopath who keeps volumes or references and data round to argue with idiots on the internet.

You mean you don't base your decisions on peer-reviewed, fact-checked, recorded documents. Because those people are psychopaths. You just argue with passion and heart to prove what you wish were true. Got it.
0
Reply
Male 531
bliznik Maybe they should arrest the people who pull the triggers? Or is that too difficult?

0
Reply
Male 433
Shelworth Most important, it's difficult to un-kill the victims. Also: Minority Report.
0
Reply
Male 1,838
Shelworth 

One is preventative care and the other is diagnostic care. 

For example, to prevent cancer it's better to eat just a bit of red meat every year instead of eating a LOT of red meat every day (preventative), and you should also go see your doctor and cut out or irradiate malignant tumors you find (diagnostic).

It's common sense to do diagnostic care, but for some reason it's not common sense to do preventative care if it means giving up something that they love just to reduce the chance that something bad will happen in the future.
0
Reply
Male 41,539
bliznik Guns are lawfully and successfully used to stop or deter crime about 2 million times a year in the USA. take away the legal guns and you'll add 2 millions crimes: robberies, rapes, murders & etc. Increasing crime for what? A tiny drop in one specific crime's rate? 

That isn't good for the patient, is it? It's like giving them chemotherapy before they get cancer... the 'prevention' is worse than the disease.
0
Reply
Male 1,838
5cats Because Guns are the only way to stop or deter crime. OK, yeah. Live in that fantasy world.
0
Reply
Male 41,539
bliznik No... because guns ARE used 2 million times a year or more to ACTUALLY (not 'in theory') stop crimes.
0
Reply
Male 5,307
bliznik, "60% of illegal guns used in shootings in Chicago are imported from neighboring states...mostly from Illinois. If all the other states had gun control laws similar to Chicago's..."

Chicago is not a state, it's a city in that neighboring state you called Illinois.
 
2
Reply
Male 1,838
markust123 Ugh, I need more sleep. You are completely correct. I corrected my statement.
-1
Reply
Male 4,092
5cats YOu 100% full of shit.

Over 8 years, Obama had democrats in control of both houses for FOUR MONTHS.

In that four months, he passed the ACA and his stimulus package which fixed our economy.  in four months, he gave millions healthcare and made our economy the strongest it had been in decades.

How can you be so stupid about chicago all the time? 

You can pass every law in the world to prohibit gun sales in chicago, but as long as people have cars, they can drive to neighboring states, who have almost no gun control laws and buy whatever they want.

Do you think chicago is an island?
2
Reply
Male 41,539
daegog Yes, so you admit I am correct, thx. Rare for you to be so honest...

You think America would never import guns illegally if they were all banned? You truly are delusional... after all? Criminals don't import cocaine or heroin illegally, right? They'd NEVER break a gun-ban law!
0
Reply
Male 4,362
Liar. 
0
Reply
Male 41,539
trimble So many lies, mixed in with the stammering...
1:09 Feinstein and Pelosi have both openly said they want to take everyone's guns away. Dozens if not hundreds of Democrats have openly agreed and more secretly do so. He's flat out lying.
1:40 Lawyer-speak. He never proposed 'confiscating' but that wasn't the question: restrictions was and Democrats across America have illegally used their elected office to do so, especially Chicago.
3:10 No, that's a lie. Congress rejected a specific sort of study that was both meaningless and had only one purpose: to back Gun Grabbers. The study is already covered by 1-2 other institutions and would be entirely redundant. The CDC does indeed still study gun fatalities and always has, as does the FBI and others.
3:40 No he's lying again. Anyone can BUY a car, just plunk down the money and it is yours. You need a license to legally DRIVE a car on public roads...
4:20 That's right, because US Citizens have Constitutional Rights which aren't subject to illegal restrictions. Being on the 'No-fly list' is NOT a valid reason to search and seize without due process. He's supposedly a 'constitutional lawyer' and he has no clue about this or simply doesn't care.
4:40 Visiting an ISIL site doesn't make you a known sympathiser... he lied again!

He never gets around to the second part, hopefully that's on  another video which can also get posted (or at least linked here) too.
-1
Reply
2,919
the CDC cant study gun violence

Thats a flat out lie. They can. He's referring to the dickey amendment of 1996 which basically said the CDC cant use public funds for gun control propaganda. Take 3 seconds on google to find CDC gun violence studies...they're not hard to find.  
-2
Reply
Male 2,716
skypirate 
It's my understanding that your CDC are still able to record and report statistics, but are no longer allowed to use funds to do research to prevent deaths (by firearms).
1
Reply
2,919
jaysingrimm

 That none of the funds made available for injury prevention and control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention may be used to advocate or promote gun control

That boils down to, you can study how to prevent them, but you cant say that simply say owning a gun means you're more likely to be shot by a gun. Well no shit, owning a piano means you're more likely to be crushed by a piano...

This was a rider in a spending bill of all things and basically a reaction to the kellerman study of 93 and clinton doing his AWB of 94 and still working to get rid of pistols. So you can prolly argue that it was rather poorly defined, but passed none the less. 

You can take a look here tho, page 244, last paragraph and draw your own conclusions. Also take a look at the kellerman study if you have the time. 

https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-104publ208/pdf/PLAW-104publ208.pdf
0
Reply
Male 2,716
skypirate
Thank you. I'll look for the Kellerman study, but your quote seems to be the only specific reference in that spending bill.

I agree that it's poorly defined. It makes it sound worse - that research can technically be done, but they can't come to that conclusion.
1
Reply
2,919
jaysingrimm 

Ya, because the dickey amendment was rider in like a 800 page spending bill that did a hell of a lot more than just CDC gun stuff. But, luckily its rather shot and doesnt take a whole lot of time to read lol.   
0
Reply
Male 1,533
Mister Obama, please return to Kenya where you were born!
-3
Reply
Male 433
spanz Fun fact: White skin, blonde hair, blue eyes are inherited from Neanderthal DNA. How is your cave?
0
Reply
Male 41,539
7eggert No they aren't, only a small % of modern people have Neanderthal DNA in them at all, and there's a lot more people with blue eyes or indeed WHITE skin... so no.
0
Reply
Male 433
5cats It's about 3 % of the genes in _each_ non-african human which are inherited from Neanderthals, not 3 % of the people having one gene from them.
0
Reply
Male 41,539
7eggert Never heard that before. I recall reading that 4-5% of all Europeans have SOME Neanderthal DNA in them... and slightly less globally, but that was a long while back. Maybe it was 4-5% had a LOT of it? :-/

This says it's just melatonin levels: https://www.asurekazani.com/video/F_GxbLrXS-E

This agrees with you that lots of people have some small amount of DNA, but is inconclusive about eye colour since we don't know (for sure!) what colour eyes Neanderthals had... they were probably fair since they lived in the far north a lot longer than homo-sapiens did, but there were mutations that they know came from Asia too...
https://www.eupedia.com/europe/neanderthal_facts_and_myths.shtml

It also says that Blonde and Red hair was not found in ancient Europeans, so it probably didn't come from Neanderthals then eh?

But hardly definitive! Just a quick look. Cheers!
0
Reply
Male 433
5cats You hear a lot of numbers, and IMO it's not important weather it's 1 % or 50 %, I'm just repeating the last number I heard. The important part is that exactly our most defining traits are derived from them.

As far as I recently read, only red hair isn't part of the Neanderthal genome; "white" skin, fair hair and blue eyes are controlled by genes not found in San people but in Neanderthals.
0
Reply
Male 10,297
spanz Ughh. It literally nauseates me that people as stupid as you exist. You're old right? So we don't have to deal with you much longer?
3
Reply