Orlando Families Plead With Obama

originally posted by: Sometimes
a reply to: reldra

So you support every government agency buying and stocking up on ammunition as well then? After Sandy Hook, there was a sky rocket purchase of government agencies buying ammunition, The USPS has bought hundreds of thousands of rounds, DHS bout 450 million rounds,the FBI bout 100 million of hollow point rounds, Social Secuurity Agency requested 175,000 rounds, USDA sought 320,000 rounds, and the National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration sought nearly 50,000 rounds. So if it is ok for these sectors of government to own such high quantities of ammo, who exactly is their target? I mean within 2 years or so, agencies requested funds for multi-billions of ammunition.

So if you are for dissarming or restricting the public, just know who you will answer to, every single government officer, and they will make you bow to them.

Just remember that the Nazi's banned Jews from owning weapons and a year later...well I think you know what happened. Is this the same...No, but you take away the right ro defend yourself against your own government then the government is in control of the populace even if they intend to bring war to the homeland, or create a crisis so prevailant that they need to use the FEMA camps and noone will be able to fight back. This is just hypothetical, but to think our/any government is incapable or unwilling to do that to their people, well it happens all the time, and there are people that know history and know why a right so important to protect ourselves from tyrrany is placed only 2nd to freedom of speech.

I was not talking about banning guns and you have gone on an unrelated rant.

originally posted by: NightSkyeB4Dawn
a reply to: reldra

Obama said this, I have said this...the darkness, strobe lights, a crowd and loud music, would make that more of a disaster. Ricochet, confusion, friendly fire.

Didn't he just describe what already happened?

No.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: reldra

Emotional drivel.

Manipulation at it's finest.

"It's for the children!"

If Obama really wanted to honor the families and the dead, he'd be bombing ISIS strongholds. Not this emotional bullcrap.

I'm not moved by this.

If we are going to make decisions based on emotions and not on rational facts, then our country is well and truly ####ed.

But he IS bobming ISIS strongholds. Seems he multitasks. Who knew?

originally posted by: Khaleesi
a reply to: reldra

Yes, we have come to that realization. Remember Stonewall? Some of us were already aware of the dangers. This incident has caused a lot of the rest of us to wake up. You may say it's only one pro gun LGBT organization. You may even believe that. We will protect ourselves. Stonewall proved that. Some think Gay Pride marches are just to strut and shove it in straight people's faces. It's actually the anniversary of Stonewall.

I am aware Pride is the anniversary of Stonewall.

I said that one pro LGBT organization increased in numbers this week, that can be verified.

a reply to: reldra


No, here is what you actually said.

They have not suddenly come to that realization. Just one pro gun LGBT organization increased in membership. It doesn't mean the entire community wasn't aware of their personal danger, on several fronts previously.

You claim that we have NOT suddenly come to the realization that we need to protect ourselves and the you try to back up that claim by saying JUST ONE pro gun LGBT group increased in membership. That one little word, JUST, changes the context of what you said. You are not admitting that there has been an increase. You are attempting to refute the increase by claiming "just one'" group showed an increase.

Some of us have been aware of the dangers and others just got a big shock and woke up. As I said, Stonewall proves we will defend ourselves when push comes to shove. The gay community is not a monolithic voting bloc like some believe. Democrats have strung us along for years with promises, giving lip service to our desire for equality. They give us just enough to keep most of us from leaving the party.

A lot of us have been waking up before this incident. Those of us that don't center our whole life around our 'gayness' abandoned Democrats long ago. Democrats took for granted that we would remain and moved on to attempting to 'show their compassion' to other groups. That would have been fine if their 'compassion' for Islam didn't cause a danger to our lives. Ginning up the rhetoric and calling anyone that showed a desire to make sure background checks were accurate 'Islamophobic". Showing caution is not 'Islamophobia'. Democrats 'compassion' has put us squarely in the crosshairs and we are recognizing that Democrats don't care about us. They just care about our vote.

Obama is a MORON.

FACT.

Gun sales have skyrocketed under Obama.

FACT.

LGBT's are now arming themselves.

The ONLY people that want gun control?

IS Obama.

Something seriously wrong with this picture.

What's a good totalitarian to do?

Play EMO.

originally posted by: Krakatoa
If he can guarantee, 100% that due process will be REQUIRED in every case before a right is stripped from an American citizen, then I am on-board. Anything less is on the road to tyranny. And I am not exaggerating that at all.

This. 100%, so much this.

Due process must be in place. I can get on board with some common sense regulation as long as due process is in place before an act occurs where people lose rights and an appeal process is in place after someone loses some right in case of mistakes.

originally posted by: eXia7
The solution is to stop letting terrorists into the country.

And if they're born in the US?

originally posted by: Khaleesi
a reply to: reldra


No, here is what you actually said.

They have not suddenly come to that realization. Just one pro gun LGBT organization increased in membership. It doesn't mean the entire community wasn't aware of their personal danger, on several fronts previously.

You claim that we have NOT suddenly come to the realization that we need to protect ourselves and the you try to back up that claim by saying JUST ONE pro gun LGBT group increased in membership. That one little word, JUST, changes the context of what you said. You are not admitting that there has been an increase. You are attempting to refute the increase by claiming "just one'" group showed an increase.

Some of us have been aware of the dangers and others just got a big shock and woke up. As I said, Stonewall proves we will defend ourselves when push comes to shove. The gay community is not a monolithic voting bloc like some believe. Democrats have strung us along for years with promises, giving lip service to our desire for equality. They give us just enough to keep most of us from leaving the party.

A lot of us have been waking up before this incident. Those of us that don't center our whole life around our 'gayness' abandoned Democrats long ago. Democrats took for granted that we would remain and moved on to attempting to 'show their compassion' to other groups. That would have been fine if their 'compassion' for Islam didn't cause a danger to our lives. Ginning up the rhetoric and calling anyone that showed a desire to make sure background checks were accurate 'Islamophobic". Showing caution is not 'Islamophobia'. Democrats 'compassion' has put us squarely in the crosshairs and we are recognizing that Democrats don't care about us. They just care about our vote.

Thank you for sharing this. Your sentiments echo the thoughts and feelings many of my gay friends have shared with me.

Milo Yiannopolous said in a speech in Orlando the other day, "Armed gays don't get bashed." Poignant, that. And in front of a rainbow colored Gadsden flag no less.

This speaks to the commonality we all share in liberty and if it is as you say and many in the gay community did need a wake up call, I hope that is happening. It certainly seems to be the case in my personal life.

We all strive for the same liberty, sexuality does not define us. What does define us is the human condition that we share and the struggle against politicians that care nothing about us should be a unifying front for citizens of all kinds.

The Republicans trashed gays, the Democrats took them for granted. The only people we can trust is one another.

a reply to: neo96

Consider this fact. A former self-proclaimed constitutional law professor is advocating we strip citizens of a constitutional right without any due process and without any redress from the government. Shouldn't someone so educated in constitutional law that that he was "constitutional law professor" at the University of Chicago Law School know this is wrong? So, that means there has to be another reason for what he seeks to enact. Why doesn't he tell these families that plan instead?

a reply to: Krakatoa

President Barack Obama said Thursday that grief-filled parents in Orlando pleaded with him to take steps preventing the kind of gun violence that took their children. But he acknowledged, exasperatedly, that he could offer them few promises

I think he was LYING out his snip.

Marteen was a government contractor. That passed all the state requirements.

a reply to: neo96

He could have said we will investigate why those emergency exit doors were locked to prevent rapid escape of your children during this emergency. But, then, that does not advance anyone's agenda but the grieving families.

Surprise!

originally posted by: Khaleesi
a reply to: reldra


No, here is what you actually said.

They have not suddenly come to that realization. Just one pro gun LGBT organization increased in membership. It doesn't mean the entire community wasn't aware of their personal danger, on several fronts previously.

You claim that we have NOT suddenly come to the realization that we need to protect ourselves and the you try to back up that claim by saying JUST ONE pro gun LGBT group increased in membership. That one little word, JUST, changes the context of what you said. You are not admitting that there has been an increase. You are attempting to refute the increase by claiming "just one'" group showed an increase.

Some of us have been aware of the dangers and others just got a big shock and woke up. As I said, Stonewall proves we will defend ourselves when push comes to shove. The gay community is not a monolithic voting bloc like some believe. Democrats have strung us along for years with promises, giving lip service to our desire for equality. They give us just enough to keep most of us from leaving the party.

A lot of us have been waking up before this incident. Those of us that don't center our whole life around our 'gayness' abandoned Democrats long ago. Democrats took for granted that we would remain and moved on to attempting to 'show their compassion' to other groups. That would have been fine if their 'compassion' for Islam didn't cause a danger to our lives. Ginning up the rhetoric and calling anyone that showed a desire to make sure background checks were accurate 'Islamophobic". Showing caution is not 'Islamophobia'. Democrats 'compassion' has put us squarely in the crosshairs and we are recognizing that Democrats don't care about us. They just care about our vote.

I have no idea what you are arguieing with me about. I pointed out a quote from a gun store guy about the Pink Pistols. You seem like I am at odds with you somehow.

originally posted by: neo96
Obama is a MORON.

FACT.

Gun sales have skyrocketed under Obama.

FACT.

LGBT's are now arming themselves.

The ONLY people that want gun control?

IS Obama.

Something seriously wrong with this picture.

What's a good totalitarian to do?

Play EMO.

Your opinion is that Obama is a moron.

Your opinion is that only Obama wants gun control.

originally posted by: Krakatoa
a reply to: neo96

Consider this fact. A former self-proclaimed constitutional law professor is advocating we strip citizens of a constitutional right without any due process and without any redress from the government. Shouldn't someone so educated in constitutional law that that he was "constitutional law professor" at the University of Chicago Law School know this is wrong? So, that means there has to be another reason for what he seeks to enact. Why doesn't he tell these families that plan instead?

Where is Obama saying he wants to remove the 2nd ammendment or strip your right to own a gun? Absolutely nowhere.

a reply to: reldra

That isn't opinion.

There's eight years worth of facts to back that up.

He wants it.

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: reldra

That isn't opinion.

There's eight years worth of facts to back that up.

He wants it.

No, it is your opinion. There is no way tp prove these assertions, no matter how you feel.

originally posted by: reldra

originally posted by: NightSkyeB4Dawn
a reply to: reldra

Obama said this, I have said this...the darkness, strobe lights, a crowd and loud music, would make that more of a disaster. Ricochet, confusion, friendly fire.

Didn't he just describe what already happened?

No.

From what I have seen, this did actually occur.

Ricochet, confusion, friendly fire.

The president ignoring that fact, leads me think that the risk of people being injured from friendly fire by people protecting themselves, is to be feared, but it is supposed to be accepted, and ignored, if it comes from 10 + police officers with military grade weapons.

I am not holding any police officer responsible for any injury or death of any of those victims. I just think is more than disingenuous for the president to use the fear of injury from friendly fire from those attempting to stop the shooter, as being more of a problem than if it came from some place else.

a reply to: reldra



a reply to: reldra

You have no idea? How about this quote from your OP?

I hope the two sides can come up with something. After the largest terrorist massacre on US soil since 9/11, we need to have a good answer for the families other than 'nothing can be done about guns'.

You are focused on guns. I am focused on Obama's policies and his constant deflecting. "Islam is not the problem. Guns are the problem." Paraphrasing for brevity. Watch this video.

a reply to: reldra

When he stated that it was ridiculous that people who are on the no fly list can still buy a firearm. So, to him it is ridiculous that you can be put on a list without due process and still be able to legally exercise your protected 2nd Amendment rights to purchase a firearm. Sure sounds like he is in favor of linking the two lists, which requires ZERO due process at this point in time.

Please, understand what the man is saying before you try to debate its meaning.