Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I'm very confused by your post. Obama listened to the somewhat deranged character and was polite to him. Obama then refuted the notion that Dems are trying to repeal the 2nd amendment and even stated that more guns were sold under his admin that under the previous president.
So, like, what is your problem? What more do you want from your president?
I'm very confused by your post. Obama listened to the somewhat deranged character and was polite to him. Obama then refuted the notion that Dems are trying to repeal the 2nd amendment and even stated that more guns were sold under his admin that under the previous president.
So, like, what is your problem? What more do you want from your president?
Where do you get this somewhat deranged character BS. The man made good sense in everything he said.
Where do you get this somewhat deranged character BS. The man made good sense in everything he said.
He was talking to the president. On and on and on he went -- yap yap yap. He could have summed it all up in ten seconds. Definitely a verbal tl;dr. Apart from that is his kooky left eye -- check it out, it's a malady of extremists.
I'm very confused by your post. Obama listened to the somewhat deranged character and was polite to him. Obama then refuted the notion that Dems are trying to repeal the 2nd amendment and even stated that more guns were sold under his admin that under the previous president.
So, like, what is your problem? What more do you want from your president?
in what way did he address the question that was asked of him about the gun violence in Chicago??
FURTHER, the President changes the subject to make it about himself, and that he is not coming for people’s guns; he totally fails to answer the man’s question entirely. No answer was provided. He then proceeds to further dodge the question by changing the topic to automobile injury and death statistics? How is this relevant to the discussion of violence in Chicago? Especially considering that Firearms are involved in fewer than 1 percent (0.5 percent) of all unintentional fatalities in the United States??
Additionally Over the last decade the rate of unintentional firearm-related fatalities has declined by 33 percent (from 0.3 in 1999 to 0.2* in 2009). Firearm-related homicides declined 39%, from 18,253 in 1993 to 11,101 in 2011.Nonfatal firearm crimes declined 69%, from 1.5 million victimizations in 1993 to 467,300 victimizations in 2011.While the number of firearm crimes declined over time, the percentage of all violence that involved a firearm did not change substantively, fluctuating between 6% and 9% over the same period. In 1993, 9% of all violence was committed with a firearm, compared to 8% in 2011. The above statistics are from Obama’s onw U.S. Department of Justice ,Office of Justice Programs ,Bureau of Justice Statistics,Special Report MAY 2013 NCJ 241730
The President’s answers are incredibly ignorant and unintelligent and in no way is a reasonable comparison to why Chicago is a violent city, as the original question was posed. The President is clearly dodging an answer to the causes for violence in Chicago, an answer that has very deep socio economic variables behind it, and certainly has nothing to do with him “coming for our guns” or some random CDC study, that’s irrelevant anyway. There are plenty of studies on firearms by think tanks and law enforcement agencies, and Obama’s own Bureau of Justice Statistics!!! for him to be whining about the CDC is as weak a response I have ever heard. The whole automobile comparison is a crock of fecal materials anyway, driving is a privilege, not a RIGHT…..Depending on the study one adheres to, there are anywhere from 800 to 10,000+ laws regarding firearms in this nation, between city, county, state and federal laws.Considering the last two monumental Supreme Court cases have involved city laws in Chicago and Washington DC (Heller vs DC), the number is more in the 5,000 plus count.
More importantly we don’t regulate one’s right to be Catholic or Jewish the way we regulate automobiles do we? Freedom of Religion is a RIGHT. The Bill of Rights limits government, not the individual. Do you need a license to pray? Do you have to register your religion with the State of New York? See my point? Maybe the President ought to compare firearms injuries and deaths to alcohol related injuries and deaths. it would be a more appropriate comparison than any other he has made in this lame video. Better yet, why doesn't Obama explain why the Federal Northern District of Illinois (Chicago) ranked 80TH in the http://trac.syr.edu/tracreports/crim/249/ nation and the lowest level for federal weapons prosecutions???
I'm very confused by your post. Obama listened to the somewhat deranged character and was polite to him. Obama then refuted the notion that Dems are trying to repeal the 2nd amendment and even stated that more guns were sold under his admin that under the previous president.
So, like, what is your problem? What more do you want from your president?
First Obama never would want to admit he is against the 2nd Amendment though he has said in the past that no one should own a gun.
Second, because this is known is why gun sales have been up during his tenure just as it would be under Hillary Clinton.
He is trying to turn a criticism of himself into securing points.................sad.
First Obama never would want to admit he is against the 2nd Amendment though he has said in the past that no one should own a gun.
Second, because this is known is why gun sales have been up during his tenure just as it would be under Hillary Clinton.
He is trying to turn a criticism of himself into securing points.................sad.
He doesn't need to secure "points," babe, he's out de door! He's s a short-timer. Well, obviously you know more about the president's motivations than HE does about his own motivations, so I'll take your word for it. I mean, he's just the president while you're a member of the elite -- an anonymous poster on the Internet!
The man didn't ask him about banning guns, he asked about limiting types of guns, not confiscation.
Obama's trying to compare cars to guns was also not factually correct.......you do not need a drivers license to buy a car, nor to operate one on private property.
Wouldn't it be great if they allowed follow up questions so the man could have called him out on his complete dodge of an answer?
It was normal question from a pro-gun guy answered in normal Obama style - nobody was deranged and nobody was silenced.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
