Obama: Mass shootings are 'something we should politicize'

originally posted by: muse7
The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of tyrants and dads, moms, kids, sons, daughters, teachers, grandmas and grandpas, and oh yeah patriots too.

Well that sure is what the current administration was doing during Fast and Furious, and is currently doing over in Syria now isn't it?

originally posted by: muse7
The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of tyrants and dads, moms, kids, sons, daughters, teachers, grandmas and grandpas, and oh yeah patriots too.

Yours?

originally posted by: intrepid
a reply to: Helious

Too bad you don't take life as seriously.

And Neo, saw your post too. Yeah, do nothing, as usual and people continue to die and no one is doing anything. THAT is going to continue. If you want the 2nd OWN the cost.

I take life very seriously my friend, if I did not, I wouldn't be wasting my time debating ideals with you on a message board would I? I would be off playing video games or golfing.

You seem to see what you want to see and only that, I am unconvinced you can see things from a different viewpoint other than your own because I have offered that to you many times in the last couple posts and instead of responding with counter points that reflect real thought you have replied with the likes you have above............

Because, you obviously know me and know I don't take life seriously. My discussion with you my friend, is at an end.

originally posted by: intrepid
a reply to: neo96

Why are mass gun slaughters pretty much an American thing? I can play semantics too. I said keep the guns, own the gun deaths though. No one wants to though. Guilty conscience?

One more time.

We have LAWS that says people can't do that.

We have more laws that say 'bad' people can't get guns.

We have more LAWS that make schools 'gun' free.

On top of all THAT.

There is that law that says THOU SHALL NOT KILL.

And one more time.

I AM NOT responsible for what someone else does.

And if ya want to go down this route.

FINE.

ALL muslims are terrorists.

originally posted by: intrepid
a reply to: Helious

Nope, got it wrong. I said keep your guns BUT own the deaths of those that died for your 2nd Amendment rights. Reread my post. I don't think that will even be accepted.

Curious... Can you describe for me how anyone in the latest incident, or any of the latest incidents, died for our 2nd Amendment rights? Because unless they died actively defending the Constitution from those who'd see it taken away, your comment is as political and agenda driven as it gets.

Shifting the blame from those who commit these travesties to those whom responsibly exercise their rights is just as much reprehensible as the shootings themselves.

originally posted by: intrepid

originally posted by: muse7
The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of tyrants and dads, moms, kids, sons, daughters, teachers, grandmas and grandpas, and oh yeah patriots too.

Yours?

My what?

a reply to: EternalSolace

Proliferation. They are everywhere. Even where mentally ill and psychotic people can get their hands on them easily. Thus not the fault of the gun owner. As I said the are EVERYWHERE. That's cool. 2nd Amendment and all. I just want those people to accept those continual deaths, there will be another before the end of the year, that they are collateral casualties for the Constitution.

originally posted by: muse7

originally posted by: intrepid

originally posted by: muse7
The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of tyrants and dads, moms, kids, sons, daughters, teachers, grandmas and grandpas, and oh yeah patriots too.

Yours?

My what?

Your family. Will you willing give them up for the Constitution? Blood must be spilled as you say.

a reply to: intrepid

Having a moment are we?

I believe muse was being sarcastic.

That is the cost of living in a free society. Our freedom is not without cost. Never forget that. The cost of this freedom we have is not always paid for on a battlefield. The right to bear arms was not written for hunting or sport shooting as many politicians like to banter about. The second was written to ensure the people had recourse to deal with a tyrannical government.

a reply to: intrepid

An increase in firearms has been continually refuted as cause for an increase in gun related incidents. This is especially true considering that almost all of the mass shooting incidents have taken place in a facility that's considered a gun free zone, or soft target. No, proliferation has absolutely nothing to do with it.

They're not collateral due to the 2nd amendment. I would argue that they're collateral of a war waged on the family unit. They are collateral of human garbage who would've killed with or without firearms. Mentally ill in regard to these shooting incidents is nothing more than a catch phrase designed into a talking point. The amount of planning and preparedness that goes into an incident such as the most recent one in Oregon, or even the one committed by James Holmes automatically negates the excuse of being mentally ill. They knew what they were doing through all phases from planning to execution.

originally posted by: shooterbrody
The second was written to ensure the people had recourse to deal with a tyrannical government.

Yeah. That would have been England, with muskets, at least 200 years ago.

a reply to: EternalSolace

OK. What's your take then? What do we do about these almost monthly shootings?

originally posted by: intrepid

originally posted by: shooterbrody
The second was written to ensure the people had recourse to deal with a tyrannical government.

Yeah. That would have been England, with muskets, at least 200 years ago.

Is that what it said England? Can you please show me exactly where in the 2 nd it says that?

a reply to: intrepid

Interesting you only picked that part to reply to. In fact it was because of what the law was in england when they left. They ensured the law would not be the same here. Muskets, swords you pick the weapon, they could not have them to defend themselves in england. Thats why the constitution doesnt say the right to bear muskets it says the right to bear ARMS. You may argue that the govt and its military would destroy citizens with the arms we can legally purchase, and you may be right; but we still have the RIGHT to bear arms and try.

originally posted by: thesaneone

originally posted by: intrepid

originally posted by: shooterbrody
The second was written to ensure the people had recourse to deal with a tyrannical government.

Yeah. That would have been England, with muskets, at least 200 years ago.

Is that what it said England? Can you please show me exactly where in the 2 nd it says that?

No. Sorry. I forgot. The Founding Fathers were talking about The Muppets. You have to especially watch out for Animal. He may be a socialist.

originally posted by: intrepid

originally posted by: shooterbrody
The second was written to ensure the people had recourse to deal with a tyrannical government.

Yeah. That would have been England, with muskets, at least 200 years ago.

Intrepid, I have to ask. Are you American? I have to ask because in more than five years here on ATS that is absolutely the most ridiculous statement I have ever witnessed.

a reply to: intrepid

You are wrong sir, they didnt write that about england they wrote that about the govt they were setting up.

a reply to: shooterbrody

Really? Nuclear arms too? Yes that's ridiculous but so is the extension of the 2nd.

a reply to: Helious

Canadian. That makes a difference when it cones to logic?