Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

/watch?v=7jO1QOvQ7Nk

He will be blocked in federal court just like his executive amnesty was, if the court does not block him, congress will, if they don't, the people will.

As someone who heavily supports gun control / restrictions, this seems like good news to me.

Obama has failed at everything else, no suprise you back a failure.

Reported for unprovoked insulting.

And nah, Obama's certainly had his fails but overall I've enjoyed his presidency.

Where was the insult?

I said "no suprise you back a failure.

Obama is a failure.

If he wants to control semi auto's, fine. He needs to leave my hunting rifles and shotguns alone though. It's a waste of time though. Regulating guns will be like the war on drugs. People still gonna get their hands on them.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
He will be blocked in federal court just like his executive amnesty was, if the court does not block him, congress will, if they don't, the people will.

Congress does something to OPPOSE Obama's illegal actions?

Since when?

I thought their main reaction was to drop trou bend over and say please sir may we have another.


*goes off to hide guns where Obama's SocioNazis won't find em*

I forgot the republicans are full of shit cowards and are spineless empty suits.

Good thing it only takes one federal judge in any circuit to stop Obama.

He'll fail, like he always has.

Tbh though, it's fine, as long as it's strictly on semi-automatic/automatic guns.

Leave my bolt-action rifles, shotguns, and magnums alone.

All of his failures are touted as successes.

Executive Amensity: Failure as a policy and failed to get it enacted.

Obama care: care for illegal immigrants

Iran deal: Gives Iran the equipments of $8 trillion in cash. And a 2 month break out time in ten years.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Obama has failed at everything else, no suprise you back a failure.

Originally posted by Tattoos N Scars
If he wants to control semi auto's, fine. He needs to leave my hunting rifles and shotguns alone though. It's a waste of time though. Regulating guns will be like the war on drugs. People still gonna get their hands on them. This is a failed analogy. Guns and drugs are not the same thing. Drugs are much easier and cheaper to produce than a gun.

Can't wait for the first Tazer Death Victim to come out of Shy Town. So then Obama can put a ban on electricity.

Originally posted by Newjak
This is a failed analogy. Guns and drugs are not the same thing. Drugs are much easier and cheaper to produce than a gun.


Illegal arms deals is a big business. You can sneak damn near anything into this country. They don't have to be made here.

Don't mind new jack, he's an Internet sharpshooter with a big ego who's apparently never wrong about anything.

I bet this is just the tip of the Screwy Socialist Stuffing Obama is going to pull now that is his Lame Duck Last year.

I can't wait till he starts in with his Pardoning of Criminals and Terrorists.

Originally posted by Tattoos N Scars
Illegal arms deals is a big business. You can sneak damn near anything into this country. They don't have to be made here. They are also harder to sneak in, harder to conceal, and harder to transport than drugs. There is also the issue of ammunition and supplying it.

Yes there are international arms rings but they generally flourish in more poverty stricken countries where there are less rules and regulations like Africa or the former Soviet Union countries.

It's not like the UK has an influx of firearms after they were banned.

I'm not saying guns couldn't make it into the country but trying to pretend that banning guns will end up with the same effect as banning drugs is a improper analogy in this context. Banning Guns =/= the same problems as banning Drugs.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Don't mind new jack, he's an Internet sharpshooter with a big ego who's apparently never wrong about anything. Do you really believe illegal drugs are not easier to obtain, transport, make, secure than illegal firearms would be?

Don't you know?

Originally posted by Flyattractor
Can't wait for the first Tazer Death Victim to come out of Shy Town. So then Obama can put a ban on electricity.

Originally posted by NewGuy01


Oh you think its funny now, but wait until you walk into a store to buy some double A's and have to pass a back ground check and then set thru a 5 day waiting period.

This is a pointless gesture, but it will piss off conservative dumb****s, which is always a good thing. Anything that reminds people that conservatives are degenerate sacks of shit, is alright in my book.

I think it's obvious to anyone who isn't a brain dead liberal what Obama's real "end-game" intentions are considering all of his actions.

1. He makes an insane deal with Iran which gives them a huge chunk of cash to finance terrorism which also practically guarantees that they'll have a nuke in about ten years. Oh, and of course the Iranians get to police themselves. Yeah, I'm sure they'll tell on themselves if they break the deal. LMAO.

2. He warns ISIS oil truck drivers before bombing them by dropping thousands of leaflets on them about 45 minutes (iirc) ahead of time. LOL. I mean, could he be anymore obvious about whose side he's really on?

3. He makes it extremely hard for any Christian refugee to get in this country but he doesn't mind flooding it with tens of thousands of Muslim refugees.

4. At the same time he desperately wants to take away our only means to protect ourselves from these potential terrorists. Do people really think these extra gun control laws are going to stop terrorists from getting assault rifles? So he wants to make sure Americans are armed with only shotguns and hunting rifles while the terrorists have automatic or semi-automatic weapons. That way he ensures we don't have much of a fighting chance. Oh, and of course shotguns and hunting rifles won't be much use against the government either when he finally oversteps his boundaries and goes too far. That's the other real reason that he's singling out assault rifles.

5. He releases 4 or 5 Gitmo terrorists prisoners while the world was distracted by the Paris attacks and the aftermath. Those terrorists are most certainly now back on the battlefield.

6. He released another 4 or 5 terrorists in exchange for a traitorous POS who deserted his post.

7. He refuses to acknowledge exactly who it is and what it is that we are actually fighting. Guess that's because he doesn't actually really wanna destroy his muslim brothers.

8. Has always made it crystal clear that he favors Islam over Christianity. As does Hillary. And please don't insult my religion by claiming the Christian God and Muslim one are one and the same. They're not.

9. He also wants to distract us from the real threats while trying desperately to convince us that the weather is the biggest threat to us. LMAO.

And lo and behold, exhibit B for conservative dumb****ery. Hey, hey Star. Guess what. Your god and Allah are the same. That's right, I said it mother****er. Eat it.

Originally posted by Lucius
This is a pointless gesture, but it will piss off liberal dumb****s, which is always a good thing. Anything that reminds people that liberals are degenerate sacks of shit, is alright in my book.


Couldn't agree more!!!

Originally posted by Tattoos N Scars
Couldn't agree more!!!

That doesn't even make sense though, why would it piss off liberals.....

Next Repub Prez and just Exec Order all of Obama's crap off the tables anyway so no big deal.

Originally posted by Flyattractor
Next Repub Prez and just Exec Order all of Obama's crap off the tables anyway so no big deal.



Yeah, sure... if Obama hasn't already completely destroyed our country by then or declared martial law and suspended the Constitution indefinitely. A whole year is plenty of time for the race-baiting Obama to do A LOT more damage.

Trump will save us from all the shit Obama started. Al-Baghdadi is a sitting duck.

I agree Trump is probably the only chance we have to turn the country around. But even he doing it seems like such a long shot after all the damage Obama has done.

Originally posted by Nephthys
That doesn't even make sense though, why would it piss off liberals.....

Liberals are always pissed. That is why we are so politically correct. Liberals don't want to say or do the wrong thing because it would piss another liberal off. If every liberal gets pissed, they all start shaking rabidly and open their big mouths like King Hippo. Then it is up to the conservatives to punch them in the mouths and knock em on their asses.

Obama could not even get executive amnesty through the courts

Try guns

What a failure he is.

Originally posted by Newjak
This is a failed analogy. Guns and drugs are not the same thing. Drugs are much easier and cheaper to produce than a gun. Tattoos thinks they are.

Originally posted by quanchi112
Tattoos thinks they are.

Has that rash cleared up yet?

UPDATE...
/watch?v=PgQYtdOoewQ

Originally posted by Tattoos N Scars
Has that rash cleared up yet? This post was directed at Robbie no doubt. You'd have to ask him.

Originally posted by quanchi112
Tattoos thinks they are.

Quan is it true newjack put you on ignore?

Originally posted by Tattoos N Scars
Liberals are always pissed. That is why we are so politically correct. Liberals don't want to say or do the wrong thing because it would piss another liberal off. If every liberal gets pissed, they all start shaking rabidly and open their big mouths like King Hippo. Then it is up to the conservatives to punch them in the mouths and knock em on their asses. So you said some dumb shit that didn't make sense and made you look like a dumbass, but you're trying to rationalize it anyway?

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Quan is it true newjack put you on ignore? Yes, a year or so ago.

Originally posted by NemeBro
So you said some dumb shit that didn't make sense and made you look like a dumbass, but you're trying to rationalize it anyway?


What ya talkin about, princess? Liberals are always mad. Like you, their panties stay in a wad.

Originally posted by Tattoos N Scars
Illegal arms deals is a big business. You can sneak damn near anything into this country. They don't have to be made here.
America supplies a massive amount of the illegal guns worldwide, so if America were gun free it'd be much, much harder to get a gun.

Originally posted by NemeBro
So you said some dumb shit that didn't make sense and made you look like a dumbass, but you're trying to rationalize it anyway?

Originally posted by Omega Vision
America supplies a massive amount of the illegal guns worldwide, so if America were gun free it'd be much, much harder to get a gun.


If we were gun free, there would be a huge underground market available here. I'm sure someone would accomodate that demand.

Sure, banning guns might keep the deranged freaks from getting them and shooting up schools, but how does that hinder organized crime? I'm sure the Mafia, drug cartels, yakuza, etc. would still bring these weapons in.

Not to mention the fact that it's preposterous to think that America will ever be "gun free". Not without the government trying to forcibly take guns away, anyway. And if they ever tried that crap there'd be a Hell of a lot of blood on their hands. An amount that will make what's happening already today look like a sweet dream.

Originally posted by Star428
Not to mention the fact that it's preposterous to think that America will ever be "gun free". Not without the government trying to forcibly take guns away, anyway. And if they ever tried that crap there'd be a Hell of a lot of blood on their hands. An amount that will make what's happening already look like a sweet dream.

Originally posted by quanchi112


Agreeing with your butt buddy, huh!!

Originally posted by Tattoos N Scars
Agreeing with your butt buddy, huh!! What you say doesn't make much sense.

9MIuISE3eSM

Disgusting Obama should be removed from office NOW. Any type of gun control is a DIRECT violation of the Constitution and should be treated as such.

Everysingle tyrant/mass murderer was anti-gun and supported "gun control". hitler, stalin, mao, pol pot, king george the third, idi amin, fidel castro, hugo chavez, mussolini.

The more guns the less crime. Thats a proven FACT. The second amendament is what FOUNDED this country. Look at the most violent cities in America chicago, detroit, st. louis total fascist gun bans.

The second amendement wasint made for duck hunting it was made for citizens DEFENSE against the GOVERNMENT. if you want gun control go live in north korea complete and total gun ban and a socialist HELL HOLE.

100% true.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Bh5KWM2IQAAkS80.jpg

Originally posted by Agusto Pinochet
Disgusting Obama should be removed from office NOW. Any type of gun control is a DIRECT violation of the Constitution and should be treated as such. Originally posted by Agusto Pinochet
100% true.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Bh5KWM2IQAAkS80.jpg






Liberals hate the founding fathers though and they hate the Constitution because it gets in the way of their socialist agenda. In fact, they hate pretty much anything that is truly American.

Originally posted by Star428



Liberals hate the founding fathers though and they hate the Constitution because it gets in the way of their socialist agenda. In fact, they hate pretty much anything that is truly American.

Everysingle tyrant has come for the guns first. Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, King George, Ferdinand Marcos etc. Without the right to bear arms we are nothing that is our final and most important defense to protecting our republic against the government and thugs.

https://sp.yimg.com/xj/th?id=OIP.M4352b27a108fb44cd22f920f5441841aH0&pid=15.1&P=0&w=300&h=300

https://sp.yimg.com/xj/th?id=OIP.M484b352e43aa1a816ff30c99c72e5d8eo0&pid=15.1&P=0&w=300&h=300

To be honest, I just hate America in general.

Originally posted by Star428
Yeah, sure... if Obama hasn't already completely destroyed our country by then or declared martial law and suspended the Constitution indefinitely. A whole year is plenty of time for the race-baiting Obama to do A LOT more damage.

Yeah and also Jeb/Rubio etc are completely pro-amnesty/open borders and support 100% total amnesty like hillary and obama. the only anti-amnesty candidate is donald trump and maybe ted cruz.

Originally posted by Tzeentch
To be honest, I just hate America in general.

Why not move to Cuba than or North Korea. It has everything you want "free" healthcare, gun bans, 100% tax rates etc...

Oh wait..

LIBERALS BUSTED!

http://bearingarms.com/harvard-gun-control-doesnt-work/

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2012/12/16/stats-prove-gun-control-does-not-work/

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/05/06/the-firearms-statistics-that-gun-control-advocates-dont-want-to-see/

Originally posted by Agusto Pinochet
Why not move to Cuba than or North Korea. It has everything you want "free" healthcare, gun bans, 100% tax rates etc...

Oh wait.. Because I'm a terrorist sleeper-cell waiting for my opportunity to subvert American values.

Originally posted by Agusto Pinochet
100% true.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Bh5KWM2IQAAkS80.jpg

Obama joins al one list of Terrosrist fascist dictators

Ppl act like the ppl behind obama dnt make the calls. President is a mascot.

Originally posted by Tzeentch
Because I'm a terrorist sleeper-cell waiting for my opportunity to subvert American values.

most liberals on the ground are more of dupes to the system

Obama should have been arrested along with the Clinton/Bush family along time ago.

Originally posted by Flyattractor
Can't wait for the first Tazer Death Victim to come out of Shy Town. So then Obama can put a ban on electricity.

It actually has already happened a couple of times in the last few years here. One specific instance was cops confronting an old man at a nursing home.

http://c4strategies.com/ACNImages/guncontrol.jpg

Here is another

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Bh5KWM2IQAAkS80.jpg

Why are people not more peope a bit weary of losing their guns.

History always repeats itself.

Because liberals enjoy too much living in their fantasyland of nothing but sunshine and rainbows. They think ignoring what has happened in history will somehow make it different the next time around. They're a lost cause.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Here is another

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Bh5KWM2IQAAkS80.jpg

Why are people not more peope a bit weary of losing their guns.

History always repeats itself.

I thought Gandhi was supposed to be a pacifist.

I'm peaceful and I believe in guns for self defense.

But I thought pacifists abhorred violence of any kind.

People cause violence, not guns. We both know this

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
http://c4strategies.com/ACNImages/guncontrol.jpg



The Hitler one has been debunked several times in KMC already. Hitler restricted guns to Jews, specifically, while making it easier for non-Jewish German citizens to acquire them. Lowering age limits, longer permits, little to no requirements on hunting weapons etc. This came up recently when Carson tried using the Hitler-card: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/oct/26/ben-carson/fact-checking-ben-carson-nazi-guns/

It's similar in how some Americans want laws to be made that only target certain people of a certain faith now.

You didnt debunk anything, you just backed it up.

Hitler took the jews guns.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tunnel_vision

And Obama is doing a similar thing, he is importing Syrians and taking away the rights of citizens.

Originally posted by Robtard
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tunnel_vision

So you resort the trolling then wrong.

Nice

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
And Obama is doing a similar thing, he is importing Syrians and taking away the rights of citizens.

I see no real connection to Hitler there. edit: Unless you seriously think Obama's gun regulation is not to protect people, but to start murdering citizens after he declares himself Forever King/Emperor of Mankind. I don't think you actually believe that, not really.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
So you resort the trolling then wrong.

Nice

Not wrong; not trolling, just pointing it out like I see it. You're welcome to disagree.

Originally posted by Robtard
I see no connection to Hitler there.



Not trolling, just pointing it out like I see it.

I said similar.

Originally posted by Surtur
I thought Gandhi was supposed to be a pacifist.

https://trutherator.files.wordpress.com/2012/12/dijidjgi.png

Context: That was in regards to WW1 and Indians not being armed to join in the war/form a military

shocking but true hitler himself was extremley anti-gun like obama same with stalin, mao and pol pot. very disgusting obama should be thrown out of office total basket case he is insane. also its a well known fact that the first gun control laws in the US were meant against black people and supported by the KKK so i guess its librals supporting the racist position hahaha.

http://freedomoutpost.com/2013/01/gun-control-dictator-style-tyrants-who-banned-firearms-before-slaughtering-the-people/

https://sp.yimg.com/xj/th?id=OIP.M1d3bd2fcc998d74d5faa25c594c28a58o0&pid=15.1&P=0&w=300&h=300

Originally posted by Agusto Pinochet
https://trutherator.files.wordpress.com/2012/12/dijidjgi.png



Well Surtur, what you think?

Originally posted by Agusto Pinochet
shocking but true hitler himself was extremley anti-gun like obama same with stalin, mao and pol pot. very disgusting obama should be thrown out of office total basket case he is insane. also its a well known fact that the first gun control laws in the US were meant against black people and supported by the KKK so i guess its librals supporting the racist position hahaha.

http://freedomoutpost.com/2013/01/gun-control-dictator-style-tyrants-who-banned-firearms-before-slaughtering-the-people/

https://sp.yimg.com/xj/th?id=OIP.M1d3bd2fcc998d74d5faa25c594c28a58o0&pid=15.1&P=0&w=300&h=300

The liberal left and most in the dark conservatives will never face up, or accept the fact that Obama is Muslim, not Christian, that he is a fanatical far left wing zealot, and his purpose is to destroy the American way of life.

Even his own admission of his agenda as "In 5 days I will fundamentally transform America." Is still not enough proof of this and his subsequent actions. People run from the 800lb gorilla every time.

Obama is anti-american and anti-christian.

Originally posted by Robtard
Context: That was in regards to WW1 and Indians not being armed to join in the war/form a military

ghandi was a pacifist but he was very pro-gun and pro-self defense. ghandi was not the peace loving ultra-pacifist that liberals make him out to be he believed in self-defense and was traditionalist.

true here to

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/8c/af/9a/8caf9a5d7841e5eceb0a22c3bad894be.jpg

Originally posted by Robtard
Context: That was in regards to WW1 and Indians not being armed to join in the war/form a military

Actually that does not disprove what Ghandi said, good effort though with the context argument though.

The fact is

PRO-GUN/PRO-SECOND AMENDEMENT

-George Washington
-Thomas Jefferson
-Ghandi
-James Madison
-Dali Lama

PRO-GUN CONTROL/ANTI-GUN

-Stalin
-Mao
-Hitler
-Pol Pot
-Idi Amin
-Lenin
-Marcos
-Fidel Castro
-Hugo Chavez

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Actually that does not disprove what Ghandi said, good effort though with the context argument though.

I wasn't disproving what Gandhi said. I was explaining the context of the quote and it was in regards to India having a military and being able to defend itself, instead of relying on the British and being under their rule. It was a quote in regards to Indian sovereignty.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
You didnt debunk anything, you just backed it up.

Hitler took the jews guns.






LOL@ libs still trying to dispute that fact.

Originally posted by Agusto Pinochet
ghandi was a pacifist but he was very pro-gun and pro-self defense. ghandi was not the peace loving ultra-pacifist that liberals make him out to be he believed in self-defense and was traditionalist.

true here to

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/8c/af/9a/8caf9a5d7841e5eceb0a22c3bad894be.jpg

And the context on this Rob?

The way it seems, I suppose. I wouldn't think Gandhi would be for abortion, probably not on any grounds.

Since we're quoting Gandhi for some reason, here's a good one:

"Poverty is the worst form of violence." -Gandhi.

Who's fault is poverty?

Obviously it's white conservative's fault.


LOL.

Originally posted by Robtard
The way it seems, I suppose. I wouldn't think Gandhi would be for abortion, probably not on any grounds.

Since we're quoting Gandhi for some reason, here's a good one:

"Poverty is the worst form of violence." -Gandhi.

How does that go against anything me, TI, or star have said?

Originally posted by Star428
Obviously it's white conservative's fault.


LOL.



Most liberals would hate Ghandi. The guy was pro-gun/pro-life/patriotic/extremely religious (but not in the way they like). Opposite of the BLM thugs they idolize.

I just read these new executive orders enforce what is already law, so in essence it's a public political move with zero effort.

Thanks Obama!

Obama in essence is doing this to distract us from SB and his failed foreign policy.

It will only work against him now because now this election will be determined a lot on this issue.

Whether to elect a liberal who won't revoke his executive orders, or Trump who will remove them. This will now be up to the people this November.

I suspect that with the hard numbers like in Chicago that proves laws against guns does not work.

Chicago proves gun laws don't work.

This will only weaken the liberal party and Hilary Clinton.

Its a basic fact that gun control dosint work and is a complete failure look at chicago or detroit (CHICAGO were OBUNGOS from).

Regarding gun control, Trump destroys Clinton with one tweet:


http://americanactionnews.com/articles/trump-destroys-hillary-clinton-with-one-tweet


Someone needs to slap that b**** upside the ****ing head when she makes idiotic statements like this: "Guns don't keep people safe".


What a stupid ****ing b****.

"Hillary said that guns don't keep you safe," Trump tweeted. "If she really believes that she should demand that her heavily armed bodyguards quickly disarm!" - See more at

BURNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN LATA ***** YOU JUST GOT PWNED!

QFA

"Hillary said that guns don't keep you safe," Trump tweeted. "If she really believes that she should demand that her heavily armed bodyguards quickly disarm!"

Lata bbitch!!

Trump has a point, if guns don't keep people safe then she should disarm her guards and just give them some tazers to use. In fact if she becomes president the secret service just plain shouldn't be allowed to carry guns.

For someone apparently smart that is a retarded thing to say. Hell a year or two ago I was watching a video where this guy was at a gas station and he was pumping gas in his car and two thugs come up to try to rob him, one of them had a gun. Well dipshits messed with the wrong person: dude had a gun and one of the people trying to rob the guy ended up dead and honestly? That is a happy ending to that story.

Or the instance where a man was holding up a convenience store with a gun and a customer with a conceal and carry permit stopped him with his own gun. Keep in mind for that incident the kids mother got on the news and whined over it and actually said the guy should of just minded his own business and let the punk rob the place. Which of course explains why the kid turned out a criminal in the first place if that is the person who raised him.

A gun depends on the user..they are not sentient. A person could use a gun to shoot a bunch of innocent people. Or a person could use a gun to shoot a motherf*cker who was about to shoot innocent people. Context Hilary, context.

Originally posted by Surtur
Trump has a point, if guns don't keep people safe then she should disarm her guards and just give them some tazers to use. In fact if she becomes president the secret service just plain shouldn't be allowed to carry guns.

For someone apparently smart that is a retarded thing to say. Hell a year or two ago I was watching a video where this guy was at a gas station and he was pumping gas in his car and two thugs come up to try to rob him, one of them had a gun. Well dipshits messed with the wrong person: dude had a gun and one of the people trying to rob the guy ended up dead and honestly? That is a happy ending to that story.

Or the instance where a man was holding up a convenience store with a gun and a customer with a conceal and carry permit stopped him with his own gun. Keep in mind for that incident the kids mother got on the news and whined over it and actually said the guy should of just minded his own business and let the punk rob the place.

Very well said

I'm so tired of her asinine statements. So ****ing clueless she is.

Everything Obama does from now till November weakens her and makes Trump stronger.

If she becomes president I expect her first action to be disarming our military of all guns and just equipping them with tasers and all that. After all guns don't keep people safe, so there is literally no point to even have them. I'd say sell them to other countries, but who would want to buy totally useless items?

I'm glad you got on board with her stupid statement, its borderline insanity.

If the Republicans had any balls they would impeach this clown right now! Registered Republican over here but the Republicans dont do shit McConell is a total joke!

Originally posted by Surtur
Trump has a point,

No, he really doesn't. It's a distraction tactic. Considering who she is, having armed and trained private security makes sense and it's an entirely separate issue to gun regulation.

Might as well conflate gun regulation with disarming our police and military. Though the funny thing there, some of the biggest "don't take my guns!" shouters have a problem with the police being well armed.

Originally posted by Robtard
No, he really doesn't. It's a distraction tactic. Considering who she is, having armed and trained private security makes sense and it's an entirely separate issue to gun regulation.

It's a distraction with a point though. Also Hilary flat out said guns do not keep people safe. So why would her security need guns if they don't keep people safe?

Who she is..is no real excuse for it though. She didn't say "guns don't keep people safe unless you are rich and well known and can hire armed security guards".

Of course Trump will use it as a distraction..which is why she should of known better then to say it at all. I expect someone running for friggin president to know better. The fire is already burning, why help by tossing a shitload of gasoline on it? I was under the impression she was supposed to be intelligent.

Truth is guns can keep people safe..and they can also be used to harm. As for cops, they should be well armed, but they shouldn't be given military grade equipment. If a specific police department wants military grade shit then every single person in said department should be required to undergo the training soldiers in the military need to undergo.

Originally posted by Surtur
It's a distraction with a point though. Also Hilary flat out said guns do not keep people safe. So why would her security need guns if they don't keep people safe?

Who she is..is no real excuse for it though. She didn't say "guns don't keep people safe unless you are rich and well known and can hire armed security guards".

Of course Trump will use it as a distraction..which is why she should of known better then to say it at all. I expect someone running for friggin president to know better. The fire is already burning, why help by tossing a shitload of gasoline on it?
You are taking that out of context though. What she means is that guns in the hands of private citizens do not keep people safe. You can argue with that of course, but pretending she meant security professionals misrepresents her stance.

Originally posted by Bardock42
You are taking that out of context though. What she means is that guns in the hands of private citizens do not keep people safe. You can argue with that of course, but pretending she meant security professionals misrepresents her stance.

But no matter which context you take it in..it is a silly statement. We have had a variety of instances where private citizens prevented crime or saved lives due to a legal conceal and carry permit.

So yep, it is indeed about context...even if you want to talk about just private citizens. The context of the specific situation matters. Shouldn't someone running for president know this?

She could say maybe a majority of the time guns do not help, but a blanket statement of "they don't keep people safe" is asinine no matter the context...and YES, she needs to be friggin specific about the shit that comes out of her mouth. So there is no "well she didn't mean guns literally have never kept people safe".

Funny you dodge the immigration threads, Bardock

Dodging Dodger

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Funny you dodge the immigration threads, Bardock

Dodging Dodger

I've been on vacation for over a week, mate.

Sure you have, socialist

You're awfully adversarial today.

You can't even joke around apparently

Originally posted by Surtur
But no matter which context you take it in..it is a silly statement. We have had a variety of instances where private citizens prevented crime or saved lives due to a legal conceal and carry permit.

So yep, it is indeed about context...even if you want to talk about just private citizens. The context of the specific situation matters. Shouldn't someone running for president know this?

She could say maybe a majority of the time guns do not help, but a blanket statement of "they don't keep people safe" is asinine no matter the context...and YES, she needs to be friggin specific about the shit that comes out of her mouth. So there is no "well she didn't mean guns literally have never kept people safe".

And we have instances were the gun did the opposite. Old study, but it found that having a gun in your home increased the chances of a homicide: http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM199310073291506

Yet you have no answer on why the strictest gun laws in the nation: Chicago, produce zero results.

Probably because of how incredibly easy it is to get a gun in America, that.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Yet you have no answer on why the strictest gun laws in the nation: Chicago, produce zero results.
Because people only need to drive an hour or so to get one somewhere else. Same reason Mexico has so much gun violence yet only has a single legal gun store in the whole country--they get their guns from us.

Please don't compare us to Mexico. We actually have law and order here hence why we need a wall.

It's actually not difficult to get guns illegally in Chicago. I can almost guarantee you not all of these people are driving to another city to get their weapons. Gang bangers don't just sell drugs and shoot innocent children in the face...they will sell guns to people as well. Usually to other gangs they are "allies" with.

Yea I like how Omega just makes up what is happening and replaces it with what is actually happening. I bet with $400 in my pocket I could pick a gun up off the street within an hour.

Why would you risk that when you could take a short drive and do it both legally and in a safe environment though?

Lol please

Like they care about doing anything legal when they about to shoot someone.

Originally posted by Bardock42
You are taking that out of context though. What she means is that guns in the hands of private citizens do not keep people safe. You can argue with that of course, but pretending she meant security professionals misrepresents her stance.




LOL. THat's not what she said though. I don't care what her "intent" was and it's not "taking it out of context". She said "guns don't make people safe". PERIOD. It was just yet another one of her stupid ass inflammatory statements. Sorry but politicians shouldn't get extra rights that the rest of us don't have. The BIll of Rights applies to EVERY AMERICAN. Not just Presidential candidates or their security detail.

Yea I like how they selectively apply the constitution.

Where is it stated because you are famous you deserve more protection then anyone else.

I thought Hilary touted herself as an everyday woman

TIL: The Bill of Rights only applies to Americans

According to you the bill of rights would apply to aliens as well, shellhead.

Originally posted by Star428
LOL. THat's not what she said though. I don't care what her "intent" was and it's not "taking it out of context". She said "guns don't make people safe". PERIOD. It was just yet another one of her stupid ass inflammatory statements. Sorry but politicians shouldn't get extra rights that the rest of us don't have. The BIll of Rights applies to EVERY AMERICAN. Not just Presidential candidates or their security detail.

So context isn't important in what politicians say?

I mean it's pretty clear she meant in regards to the gun control debate, which isn't a debate about the use of firearms by trained professionals like the secret service or the military.

Again, I don't really care "what she actually meant". It's hypocritical to claim "guns don't keep people safe" while at the same time you have a huge security detail protecting you with guns. Obviously, those guns do keep her safe or else they wouldn't have them. Same thing applies to private citizens. We have just as much right to protect ourselves as that b**** does. PERIOD. Trump put her in her place with that tweet.

Are people really trying to put Hilary in the right here?

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
According to you the bill of rights would apply to aliens as well, shellhead.

The Bill of Rights does apply to aliens, that's why foreigners have rights and you can't just beat and rape "illegals" for fun.

Unless you meant extraterrestrials, but that's an entirely different subject since they wouldn't be human and it's open to debate.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Are people really trying to put Hilary in the right here?



Of course. That surprises you?

Originally posted by Robtard
The Bill of Rights does apply to aliens, that's why foreigners have rights and you can't just beat and rape "illegals" for fun.

Unless you meant extraterrestrials, but that's an entirely different subject since they wouldn't be human and it's open to debate.

How do you know they sent humans Rob?

Haven't you ever watched Ancient Aliens?

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
How do you know they sent humans Rob?

Haven't you ever watched Ancient Aliens?

I think you misread what I said

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/obama-we-are-here-prevent-next-mass-shooting-n490566

"Weeping at the memory of the children murdered during a shooting spree at Sandy Hook Elementary School, President Obama unveiled a series of executive actions Tuesday aimed at preventing more mass killings. "

I wonder..does he weep about all the people ISIS have killed with the guns he gave them?

Originally posted by Robtard
Why would you risk that when you could take a short drive and do it both legally and in a safe environment though?

I do love how you use logic here. I would ask..why take risks by pulling drive bys and shooting people up? Answer: these people don't take logic into account. They have no problem committing a variety of other crimes here, why would guns be any different then shooting innocent kids in the face?

You see if they were using their brains in the first place they'd have no reason to go get a gun because they wouldn't be dumb enough to join one of these shitty gangs. They'd realize "wow these gangs are a huge huge part of the problems we face" and not take any part in it. Instead you have low life's that will kill people *just* to gain entry into these gangs.

But if they get killed by someone you can be guaranteed a family member(usually not the father) will be on tv saying they were a good boy. Most people if they have a family member who is a dangerous criminal and gets killed? They don't suddenly hate their kids, but they also don't usually go on live tv and utterly embarrass themselves.

Originally posted by Surtur
I wonder..does he weep about all the people ISIS have killed with the guns he gave them?

How much does Reagan weep for directing the CIA to train and arm the Mujaheddin, including Osama bin Laden, to fight Soviets in Afghanistan, only for them to become al-Qaeda?

How much does W. Bush weep for destabilizing the region, leading al-Qaeda to splinter and form ISIS?

Apparently, it is okay for Republican presidents to create terrorist organizations to fight proxy wars, but it is an outrage when a Democratic president air drops munitions to an ally and it is intercepted by the enemy. Got it.

So there is this thing about an increase in gun stocks:

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-01-04/gun-stocks-soar-ahead-reported-gun-control-executive-action-tomorrow

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
How much does Reagan weep for directing the CIA to train and arm the Mujaheddin, including Osama bin Laden, to fight Soviets in Afghanistan, only for them to become al-Qaeda?

How much does W. Bush weep for destabilizing the region, leading al-Qaeda to splinter and form ISIS?

Apparently, it is okay for Republican presidents to create terrorist organizations to fight proxy wars, but it is an outrage when a Democratic president air drops munitions to an ally and it is intercepted by the enemy. Got it.

I don't see anywhere that I said it's okay for one side to do it but not the other. ISIS is a relevant current topic now and Obama is the one in office. Reagan is dead, but if he armed people who then used those same weapons to kill innocents then yes he should weep. People also criticize Bush all the time for various f*ck ups(or things they perceived that way). But again he is not the one in office right now and the topic literally has Obama's name in the title so...

Let's try to keep this thread specifically about the gun control legislation that he's announced. If you want to talk about one of Obama's perceived foreign policy blunders then I'm sure one of the many "Obama is the antichrist, the end is nigh" type threads littering the forum will do.

I would argue that at least his history of arming people would be relevant to a discussion about his attempts at gun control. I think past behavior involving firearms is important if he is going to take such a stance against it.

Then argue that. Your initial statement about arming ISIS didn't come off as a sincere attempt to engage in any meaningful discussion about the issue of gun control, but a strange and misguided attempt to show him as being hypocritical because he was upset at the memory of a bunch of young children being murdered in school.

The entire point of providing a link to the article was to provoke a discussion. I picked out a tiny portion of it to quote because yes I find it hypocritical. But hypocrisy involving guns still is relevant to the discussion.

Especially since I replied to someone quoting it back to me who brought up valid points about a potential hypocrisy of the situation in order to clarify what I meant.

But I think I get what you are saying and I should be taking my own advice about other subjects..in that I think no you don't have to necessarily be obnoxious or anything like that in order to get people to discuss a certain issue or pay attention to it. I should of gone about approaching the subject in a better manner that would make people actually care about what is being discussed.

That's fair enough. Feel free to continue the discussion just so long as it is still relevant to the topic of the thread. If, however, it starts to go down the road of lambasting Obama for foreign policy errors without having any relation to the topic, then the conversation will have to end or be moved to an appropriate thread.

Gun registration will not solve anything. Increased laws on purchasing wont either.

Gun violence sentences needs to be increased.

Any crime committed with a gun should have a 10 year sentence minimum added to whatever the crime was.

300 million guns in America.

320 million people in America

8,124 deaths per year involving guns.

90% of those death involve hardcore criminals.

Liberals want to take the guns away of 320 million people not only seems bizzare, but completely retarded.

You cant leave sentencing to local judges anymore. if you want to control gun violence on a national level.

As I mentioned above, anyone convicted of a gun related crime should get 10 years in prison on top of what they get for the crime.

I think Dubya said it best:
"For every fatal shooting, there were roughly three non-fatal shootings. And, folks, this is unacceptable in America. It's just unacceptable. And we're going to do something about it." --Philadelphia, Penn., May 14, 2001