Obama: Mass shootings are 'something we should politicize'

originally posted by: MystikMushroom

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse

originally posted by: MystikMushroom

Well, the tyranical government of the USA has already essentially taken our weapons away.

The guns they sell at the gun stores are just toys compared to what the military is using. To put it in perspective, we would be like farmers with pitchforks and scythes against trained swordsmen with armor and shields. They don't need to take our pitchforks, we've been horribly outclassed since before the Civil War.

Is that a reason to restrict even more firearms? Not really.

What I'm saying is this:

I keep seeing the argument that "right to bear arms" is intended to keep the people armed against an aggressive and rouge government.

That argument isn't valid anymore. We no longer as a people have anywhere near the firepower that the government has. We might as well have nothing at all when it is compared to the arsenal of the US military.

The idea that the people owning guns keeps us secure and safe from the government is an invalid argument in 2015. In 1776 the weapons of war were available to everyone, and most armies were made up of con.regular folks who quit their farms and trade jobs to fight.

We don't like in a world like that anymore. The USA has enemies that have standing armies of millions, with ICMBS and space based intelligence gathering satellites.

This isn't the movie "Red Dawn" -- a group of people with shotguns, handguns and rifles isn't going to win a war against an adversary with air and sea superiority, missiles, tanks, armor, technology...

The argument is invalid, it has been since at least the Civil War. If that argument is going to be used, then the people using it need to be pushing to own nuclear weapons, Apache gunships, UCAVs, and the ability to create their own armies that rival the US military in technology and firepower.

I disagree wholeheartedly. That argument is only invalid when you give up. You may choose to but ALOT of us will not. Most of the people I know will not give in that easily either. What you dont seem to understand is there is still a large portion of this country that still believes in our rights. Tlhe fact that millions keep arms is a reason, not the only one, but a reason the govt has not tried to take our rights.

a reply to: MotherMayEye

You are correct they are attempting to bring in international forces..girlsjustwannahaveguns.com... -us-cities/

a reply to: MystikMushroom

That argument isn't valid anymore. We no longer as a people have anywhere near the firepower that the government has. We might as well have nothing at all when it is compared to the arsenal of the US military.

Yes and No.

We saw a small group of people living in caves bring the US government to it's knees a decade ago.

And we currently see just exactly how panzified the current regime from mordor has become.

In fact.

There is no time like the present if people wanted to.

However I am not suggesting it.

originally posted by: KingIcarus
a reply to: neo96



If you think countries where the general populace don't have guns are being forced to live under the yoke of tyranny, you're even more deluded.

Yet. Not yet.They are waiting for one more thing that needs to be tackled before revealing themselves.

a reply to: shooterbrody

WANNA BET?

www.bob-owens.com...
MOST of the military power besides equipment are those who used it THEY are now vEterans and WELL pissed off.

HERE'S why it is done in the first place ,the infiltrator in Chif is trying to develop and End game for his Cloward and Piven assault...www.bob-owens.com...

a reply to: cavtrooper7

Sometimes I wonder what is in all those injections the troops get and aren't told about. Dormant virus? Some kind of "off" switch? It would make sense ... if you're going to train people to kill, you would want to a way to neutralize them if they started to rise up against you.

originally posted by: MystikMushroom
a reply to: cavtrooper7

Sometimes I wonder what is in all those injections the troops get and aren't told about. Dormant virus? Some kind of "off" switch? It would make sense ... if you're going to train people to kill, you would want to a way to neutralize them if they started to rise up against you.

That's not so farfetched now. Read this thread www.abovetopsecret.com...

a reply to: projectvxn

Asking the same questions.

Trying to obfuscate the issue doesn't make it go away, does it?

The individual little bits of insanity don't get as much attention as the large pieces of insanity, but its still insanity.

Show me where your standpoint brings the people back to life who are killed, and I'll stop asking the questions and raising the points.

a reply to: cavtrooper7

I guess I dont understand what you would like to bet about? That many will resist? I think ALOT would resist, and i think many of those who do will have the skills to be effective. The military industrial complex has succeeded in training alot of veterans over the last 50 years.

I do not think that this issue will in any way be debated or voted on. As long as we choose to have a free society there is no way to stop someone from trading their life for others. That is the ultimate cost of having a free nation. Do I think we have lost the stomach for the cost; no I do not.

a reply to: neformore

Show me where your standpoint brings the people back to life who are killed, and I'll stop asking the questions and raising the points.

Gun control doesn't do that does it ?

a reply to: neo96

Your one of those that cries about gun control but rejoice this shooting is proof your voice is being heard.

Thanks to you guys, the mentally ill can easily get a gun. The lack of strict gun control lets anyone get a gun....no matter what your intentions are. Your winning, so why complain..

a reply to: neo96

Wouldn't the reason a bunch of people in caves brought the US to it's knees were half measures taken by the U.S.?

a reply to: neo96

More obfuscation there.

How about you address the issue instead of side stepping it?

I mean, we know - from your posts on the board - that you are passionate about having a go at muslims, and sticking it to them about terrorism at every available opportunity, and yet more americans have been killed in mass shootings than by terrorists since 9/11.

So how do you reconcile that, exactly?

What - in Neo's world - is the answer to stopping more people getting killed in mass shootings? Why aren't you as passionate about that as you are about the terrorism subject?

Obama says the most arrogant stupid comments that make no sense at all.Right after the mass murdering occured.This president just is a awful leader and very divisive.

originally posted by: queenofswords

originally posted by: MystikMushroom
a reply to: cavtrooper7

Sometimes I wonder what is in all those injections the troops get and aren't told about. Dormant virus? Some kind of "off" switch? It would make sense ... if you're going to train people to kill, you would want to a way to neutralize them if they started to rise up against you.

That's not so farfetched now. Read this thread www.abovetopsecret.com...

Yup, I participated pretty heavily in the DREADDs thread. Does make you wonder... Thanks for reminding me of that, I have some stuff to add in there.

originally posted by: lucifershiningone
a reply to: neo96

Your one of those that cries about gun control but rejoice this shooting is proof your voice is being heard.

Thanks to you guys, the mentally ill can easily get a gun. The lack of strict gun control lets anyone get a gun....no matter what your intentions are. Your winning, so why complain..

Really they can ?

Hey?

Trying READING the Gun Control Act of 1968.

It shall be unlawful for any person to sell or otherwise dispose of any firearm or ammunition to any person knowing or having reasonable cause to believe that such person— (1) is under indictment for, or has been convicted in any court of, a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year; (2) is a fugitive from justice; (3) is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance (as defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802)); (4) has been adjudicated as a mental defective or has been committed to any mental institution; (5) who, being an alien— (A) is illegally or unlawfully in the United States; or (B) except as provided in subsection (y)(2), has been admitted to the United States under a nonimmigrant visa (as that term is defined in section 101(a)(26) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101 (a)(26))); (6) who [2] has been discharged from the Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions; (7) who, having been a citizen of the United States, has renounced his citizenship; (8) is subject to a court order that restrains such person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner of such person or child of such intimate partner or person, or engaging in other conduct that would place an intimate partner in reasonable fear of bodily injury to the partner or child, except that this paragraph shall only apply to a court order that— (A) was issued after a hearing of which such person received actual notice, and at which such person had the opportunity to participate; and (B) (i) includes a finding that such person represents a credible threat to the physical safety of such intimate partner or child; or (ii) by its terms explicitly prohibits the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against such intimate partner or child that would reasonably be expected to cause bodily injury; or (9) has been convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence.

en.wikipedia.org...

Follow that up with the Brady LAW.

Has been adjudicated as a mental defective or committed to a mental institution;

en.wikipedia.org...

It's VERBOTEN.

Easy eh?

a reply to: neformore

No Nef.

Since it's perfectly 'acceptable' to hold entire groups of people accountable for the actions of the few. Like Gun Owners.

I fully expect your support for religion control.

ALL Muslims are responsible for terrorism

a reply to: shooterbrody

AND ....you never read the article that carefully outlines the bet on my end or you wouldn't have asked...

originally posted by: neformore
a reply to: neo96

More obfuscation there.

How about you address the issue instead of side stepping it?

I mean, we know - from your posts on the board - that you are passionate about having a go at muslims, and sticking it to them about terrorism at every available opportunity, and yet more americans have been killed in mass shootings than by terrorists since 9/11.

So how do you reconcile that, exactly?

What - in Neo's world - is the answer to stopping more people getting killed in mass shootings? Why aren't you as passionate about that as you are about the terrorism subject?

We spend billions on terrorism. We don't spend billions on extra police in high crime areas or mental health. We don't compromise on anything. A good compromise would be spending on gun safety courses and marksmanship and a flag when you have major mental health issues.

I would like to see better mental health care for vets. They are an unacceptable number in the suicide rate. Which often include killing themselves with a gun.

originally posted by: cavtrooper7
a reply to: shooterbrody

AND ....you never read the article that carefully outlines the bet on my end or you wouldn't have asked...

I read an opinion of what bob thinks will happen. So what do you bet? That this will happen as outlined by bob? Or that citizens will revolt? Or that citizens would win? Or that no one will win?

Sorry I seem to be blockheaded to your response what do you bet?