Orlando is worst attack on US since 9/11, but POTUS uses incident to pivot against guns

originally posted by: thenightisours
Orlando is worst attack on US since 9/11, but POTUS uses incident to pivot against guns

What a fool!
Everyone knows that guns don't kill and wound 100 people in moments, knife and sword bearing lunatics do!
And bullets!

Folks act like someone is trying to take away their 'penis'...
If I had a little red button, right now, that would exterminate the human race...
You better eat that Twinkie that you saved because you are being 'good'... *__-

originally posted by: imod02
I dont understand how the muder of 50 people by a terrorist has anything to do with gun control.This guy was a terrorist that means he had surport from other people, if he could of not been able to buy the guns he would of been given them, just as the killers in France were given ak47s. Baning guns would of not stopped him.

Agreed, tell that to POTUS, that was purpose of the thread. Exposing the fact that this massacre by a Radical Islamic Terrorist is the story, but Obama took the moment to harp on gun controls, very political and just deaf to the realities that America is under attack and all Obama wants to do is take our guns away with his pal Crooked Hillary. Peace

originally posted by: JimiBlack

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin

originally posted by: thenightisours
a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

This will not get better until America makes drastic changes to gun control laws.

I am really curious. What drastic changes would you lke to see the American citizenry adopt to make it better/

Criminal record.... no gun.
Mental health issues..... no gun.
Suspected ties to terrorist organisations..... no gun

Restrictions on number of guns that can be owned
Restrictions on number of bullets one can own.
Full ban on assault rifles.

Man if you have the money you can get what you want. Laws bedamned. Really??? Laws don't mean jack when it comes to restrictions or bans for weaponry. Be serious. And the logistics for rounding up every revolver, pistol, or long arm would be mission impossible.

So we can round up 300 million gun, but not 10-30 million illegal aliens?

originally posted by: namelesss

If I had a little red button, right now, that would exterminate the human race...
You better eat that Twinkie that you saved because you are being 'good'... *__-

There you go, no gun needed. Just that infamous reset red button to blow everyone up. Already tested at the Boston Marathon. You sure know how to kill 'em.

originally posted by: namelesss

originally posted by: thenightisours
Orlando is worst attack on US since 9/11, but POTUS uses incident to pivot against guns

What a fool!
Everyone knows that guns don't kill and wound 100 people in moments, knife and sword bearing lunatics do!
And bullets!

Folks act like someone is trying to take away their 'penis'...
If I had a little red button, right now, that would exterminate the human race...
You better eat that Twinkie that you saved because you are being 'good'... *__-

Sorry but I dont understand your post, can you explane a bit better ( and as the brits say im not taking the piss)

a reply to: namelesss

Well considering how some guy in China killed about 30 people in a short period of time with a knife not too long ago...

originally posted by: game over man
All President Obama said was there are guns available to the public that allow people to go into a school, church, movie theater, or club and kill everyone inside. Is that what kind of country we want to be? Clearly the answer is yes we want those guns available to the public. Therefore we live in a country where you have the freedom to purchase a high power assault rifle and take it to a public place and kill everyone there...that is the type of country we live in, and that is what people believe freedom is.

Just be glade these guys believe the hype and keep using "high powere assult rifles" in these attack. A good 12GA pump "hunting" shoot gun would have done a LOT more damage. EACH shot would have KILLED 2-5 people and probably wounded another 2-5 in a packed club. 00 buckshot at closed range and a wide choke pattern is BAD. If I had the choose between that or and AR at close range, take the AR every time.

Oh and by the way there is NO SUCH thing as an "assault rifle". Made up term in the 80's we have to live with now.

Here's some reading:

assaultweapontruth.com...
www.nytimes.com...

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin
a reply to: AntiDoppleganger

suspected connections to terrorist organisation.

Quite simple "hmmmm sorry sir can't sell those high powered fire arms because the FBI have red flagged you because you
were chatting to a suicide bomber a few weeks ago in Syria".

So the crack/meth/drug/white slavery/etc dealers would not sell him a gun in this case ether?

Because they are fine outstanding citizens that would never break a law.

That is the problem with people that cry for MORE laws. Show me ANY time in history the a law written on a paper stopped someone from doing what they wanted to do.

a reply to: thenightisours

Chicago shooting victims Last updated June 12, 2016 The map below shows where people were shot in Chicago, broken down by community area. Darker shades of blue indicate greater numbers of victims in those community areas. This data is compiled from reporting done by the Chicago Tribune Breaking News staff and is typically updated more than once per week. Therefore, the most recent shootings may not be displayed immediately.

Chicago
YEARLY TOTALS

JAN. 1, 2016 - JUNE 12, 2016
1,6511
shooting victims
JAN. 1, 2015 - DEC. 31, 2015
2,988
shooting victims

If you want to call mass killing a 'one' incident fine, but if you go to this website, It clearly shows that the largest killing is happening in Chicago, with well over 50 shooting victims in June thusfar.......Mr. President, stop playing games with the heart and safety of Americans. Go to your proclaimed home state where your despicable mayor Rahm Emanuel just sits back with chicago crime bosses and watch a mass slaughter of innocent life.

Here are the facts and statistics.......but you will never admit this, because it is all because Black Lives Matter, if that were true, then you'd drop your putter, and go back to the community and help these poor, and I mean poor people.

The ugly truth that POTUS never wants to reflect on. Chicago is a city in a state of constant terror.
The truth behind the Chicago killings - source

originally posted by: woogleuk
I'm sorry, I try to stay out of gun debate issues, but Obama is right, he tries to protect US citizens by speaking out against guns. You all cry 2nd amendment, but I honestly believe you have no idea what it means.

"A well regulated militia", regulated, regulate, Google it. Having everybody armed is does not fall under the definition.

How many shootings (do not bring religion into this, death by gun is death irrespective) will you deal with before you start to question your idiotic beliefs?

You are correct to a point. Means that only MALES between 17-45 may have weapons. Sorry ladies. (per US Code 10 -311)
And yes it does include the ORGANIZED Militia (IE National Guard) AND UNORGANIZED militia ("which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.")


But then again there are those pesky commas in there. "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." With this in mind it could be inferred that ALL gun laws that have been passed to date are illegal sense they "infringe" on this right. One of the reasons SCOTUS has been VERY careful about seeing gun laws at that level. They have all been peripheral laws or local laws, they have refused to hear any on the FEDERAL laws, as far as I know.

originally posted by: AmericanRealist
a reply to: woogleuk

Mass shootings are literally barely on the radar of how people die. I am more likely to be killed while riding my bike lawfully by an automobile (or even by sheer accident of a fall off the bike) than being shot in a mass shooting.

See how many people die and how here at the CDC .

Prescription drugs are more dangerous than guns technically. And more people die that way too.

Don't waste facts. This is well known, but those "evil black guns" MUST go. You can keep your pretty colorful pills.

originally posted by: woogleuk
a reply to: EternalShadow

It could be interpreted in many ways, and when it was written in 1791 the most you had was a single shot musket which had to be manually loaded with powder and a ball.

This is the 21st century, not the 18th.

Oh so NOT true. Why do people always say this.

First machine gun: 1717 Puckle gun
en.wikipedia.org...

First repeating rifle used by military troops: 1780 Girandoni rifle
en.wikipedia.org...

Multi shot weapons 1700's
www.antiquestradegazette.com...

Don't forget that MANY of the Founding Fathers where inventors, Scientist, Doctors and newspaper people. They where WELL aware of what was going on in their day. To think they had NO idea of the coming advancement in arms would be crazy. In fact they also included in the Constitutions the right for Congress to grant letters of Marquee. Which would mean that they expected PRIVATE citizens to have ships armed with cannons that could be use to attack other ships. So to them it was OK to have a ship with lots of cannons, but limit what rifle they could own?

a reply to: thenightisours

That why the don't talk about Chicago. Got to keep the numbers up to be able to ban those "evil" guns. The fact that almost all the numbers come from Chicago is no issue. Nothing to see here, move along.

originally posted by: BO XIAN
a reply to: xuenchen

It seems to me that some folks are sooooooooooooooooooo bone marrow biased against red-necks that they have lost all capacity for rational thought when there's any possibility--however remote--of injecting "rednecks" into a discussion.

One hypothesis might be that they had a redneck father that was quite horribly abusive toward them.

Or perhaps they were made to walk to Sonday school on too hot a day.

Or perhaps they were whacked for being overly rebellious toward their little brother or sister.

Or maybe their RAD never got the slightest degree of treatment.

Or perhaps their Jr High Communist cell was realllly a LOT of rebellious fun.

Or maybe their contrarian perspectives got LOTS of early reinforcement from really cool dudes.

Or maybe they just persistently got their jollies poking sticks in other folks soft spots or eyes.

Hard to guess, accurately. But it's a bit curious to watch such be paraded about with such haughty prissy-ness periodically.

Kind of triggers one's pondering and curiosity.

Maybe they went on a canoe trip down the Cahulawassee one weekend, that went horribly wrong.



I know, right? Rednecks are in 5 more countries than radical jihadis, raising all kinds of redneck hell.

originally posted by: woogleuk
I'm sorry, I try to stay out of gun debate issues, but Obama is right, he tries to protect US citizens by speaking out against guns. You all cry 2nd amendment, but I honestly believe you have no idea what it means.

"A well regulated militia", regulated, regulate, Google it. Having everybody armed is does not fall under the definition.

How many shootings (do not bring religion into this, death by gun is death irrespective) will you deal with before you start to question your idiotic beliefs?

You seem to have applied the meaning of the term 'well-regulated' to modern day gun regulations, which is what many on the side of gun regulation do. It's a debate that still rages. Certainly, googling the term 'regulated' as you suggest would be a rather idiotic way of reaching a conclusion on the meaning of the phrase in the 2nd Amendment.

The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it.

It's certainly not idiotic to interpret the writing as it was intended and not by simply applying modern day language without historical context. It's true that gun advocates also use modern day interpretation when it suits... that is why this issue is a lot more complex than googling a dictionary definition.

Just remember as our freedoms are being attacked by terrorist, external, our greatest threat to the safety and survival of America comes from within. Terror, and the appearance of terror in many instances (not this orlando incident, clearly Radical Islamic terrorism), but the Obama social agenda to flood this nation with illegals, violent refugees (the trojan horse), it is all meant to bring America down.

President Lincoln was very prophetic in his own time, even suspecting his own death, but his thoughts transcend even today, especially today. America is under attack within.

America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves. Abraham Lincoln

Lincoln warned that mobs or people who disrespected American laws and courts could destroy the United States.

It is to deny what the history of the world tells us is true, to suppose that men of ambition and talents will not continue to spring up amongst us. And when they do, they will as naturally seek the gratification of their ruling passion as others have done before them. The question then is, Can that gratification be found in supporting and maintaining an edifice that has been erected by others? Most certainly it cannot. Many great and good men, sufficiently qualified for any task they should undertake, may ever be found whose ambition would aspire to nothing beyond a seat in Congress, a gubernatorial or a presidential chair; but such belong not to the family of the lion or the tribe of the eagle. What! think you these places would satisfy an Alexander, a Caesar, or a Napoleon? Never! Towering genius disdains a beaten path. It seeks regions hitherto unexplored. It sees no distinction in adding story to story upon the monuments of fame erected to the memory of others. It denies that it is glory enough to serve under any chief. It scorns to tread in the footsteps of any predecessor, however illustrious. It thirsts and burns for distinction; and if possible, it will have it, whether at the expense of emancipating slaves or enslaving freemen. Is it unreasonable, then, to expect that some man possessed of the loftiest genius, coupled with ambition sufficient to push it to its utmost stretch, will at some time spring up among us? And when such an one does, it will require the people to be united with each other, attached to the government and laws, and generally intelligent, to successfully frustrate his designs. Distinction will be his paramount object, and although he would as willingly, perhaps more so, acquire it by doing good as harm, yet, that opportunity being past, and nothing left to be done in the way of building up, he would set boldly to the task of pulling down.

Lyceum Address Source

a reply to: thenightisours

Thanks

You go to sleep for a couple hours and the rules all change and I don't know what is right --- UH left? anymore.

So unPC of me I know

originally posted by: dismanrc
a reply to: thenightisours

Thanks

You go to sleep for a couple hours and the rules all change and I don't know what is right --- UH left? anymore.

So unPC of me I know

Thanks, but I really love the history and Greatness of America and all of the great things she has done to help the world. I am just sad to see it slowly crumbling away under threat of incompetent leaders both parties, and we see it in slow motion, the slow death of a wonderful symbol of love, liberty and pursuit of happienss.

a reply to: thenightisours

I agree 100%.

Its hard being an American overseas sometime. We get yelled at for doing something and then yelled at for doing nothing. We are asked to step in and do something almost everywhere in the world and then get yelled at for sticking our nose in where it doesn't belong.

Sometimes I think we SHOULD just pull back to the US for a couple of years and tell everyone else "handle it yourself for a while." No more aid, nor more military support.

Yea we may not be perfect, but I don't see many other countries doing the amount we do when there is a problem and then asking for so little in return.

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin
a reply to: JimiBlack

It could never be done over night, changing Americas gun laws will take at least a generation but by putting it of at the behest of the Gun lobbies is only delaying the chance that is needed and as such more and more people in America are going to as a result of these mass shootings.

This will not stop until gun laws change.

All this anti-gun propaganda seems to come from people living in countries where there are no gun rights.....thanks anyway, well decide for ourselves . If you'd just look at the record number of background checks on gun sales, it would clearly indicate our choices.