馃攳
Why restrict 'good' gun owners, resident asks President Obama at town hall - YouTube
Channel: unknown
[0]
the good guys- why then do you and Hillary
want to control and restrict and limit gun
[6]
manufacturers, gun owners and a responsible
use of guns and ammunition to the rest of
[12]
us- the good guys, instead of holding the
bad guys accountable for their actions. And
[16]
Mr. President if I may, I'd like to use Chicago-
your hometown, a city that has some of the
[24]
strictest gun laws in the nation, a city that
for decades and still is under Democratic
[29]
control, a city that has an outrageous and
even embarrassing murder rate- as my first
[35]
example. Why can't we round up these thugs,
these drug dealers and gang members and hold
[41]
them accountable for their actions or allow
the good people in Chicago the access to firearms
[46]
to protect themselves.
[48]
Obama: Alright well let me- it's
a multi-part question. So let me just say
[55]
a couple of things. First of all the notion
that I or Hillary or Democrats or whoever
[65]
you want to choose are hell bent on taking
away folks' guns is just not true. And I don't
[77]
care how many times the NRA says it. I am
about to leave office. There have been more
[83]
guns sold, since I have been president, than
just about any time in U.S. history. There
[89]
are, there are enough guns for every man,
woman and child in this country, and at no
[96]
point have I ever proposed confiscating guns
from responsible gun owners. So it's just
[107]
not true. What I have said is precisely
what you suggested, which is why don't we
[113]
treat this like every other thing that we
use. We used to have really bad auto fatality
[124]
rates. The auto fatality rate has actually
dropped precipitously, drastically since,
[131]
since I was a kid. Why is that? We decided
we had seat belt laws. We decided to have
[140]
manufacturers put air bags on, in place. We
decided to crack down on drunk driving and
[148]
texting. We decided to re-design roads so
that they were less likely to have a car bank.
[156]
We studied what is causing these fatalities
using science and data and evidence and then
[165]
we slowly treated it like the public health
problem it was and it got reduced. We are
[171]
not allowed to do any of that when it comes
to guns, because people- if you propose anything,
[177]
it is suggested that we are trying to wipe
away gun rights and impose tyranny and martial
[183]
law. Do you know Congress won't allow the
Center for Disease Control to study gun violence?
[194]
They're not allowed to study it, because the
notion is that by studying it the same way
[201]
we do with traffic accidents somehow that's
going to, to lead to everybody's guns being
[206]
confiscated. When we talked about background
checks- if you buy a car, if you want to get
[216]
a license- first of all you have to get a
license. You have to take a test; people have
[223]
to know that you know how to drive. You don't
have to do any of that with respect to buying
[228]
a gun and when we talked about doing
effective background checks it was resisted,
[234]
because the notion was that we were going
to take your guns away. I, I just came from
[239]
a meeting today in the situation room in which
I've got people who we know have been on ISIL
[250]
websites, living here in the United States,
U.S. citizens and we're allowed to put them
[258]
on the no fly list, when it comes to airlines,
but because of the National Rifle Association
[265]
I cannot prohibit those people from buying
a gun. This is somebody who is a known ISIL
[277]
sympathizer and if he wants to walk into a
gun store or a gun show right now and buy
[286]
as much, as many weapons and ammo as he can
nothing is prohibiting him from doing that,
[293]
even though the FBI knows who that person
is. So sir, I just have to say respectfully
[299]
that there is a way for us to have common
sense gun laws, there is a way for us to make
[307]
sure that lawful, responsible gun owners,
like yourself, are able to use it for sporting,
[314]
hunting, protecting yourself. But the only
way we're going to do that is if we don't
[321]
have a situation in which anything that is
proposed is viewed as some tyrannical destruction
[330]
of the second amendment. And that's how the
issue too often gets framed.
Most Recent Videos:
You can go back to the homepage right here: Homepage