Orlando Families Plead With Obama

a reply to: reldra

The problem with pointing out these specific types of semi-automatic rifles which the media mis-characterizes as "assault rifles" is that there are between 5-8 million of these types of rifles legally owned in this country. In 2014 for example, only 248 rifles were used in homicides. That means 99.995% of these rifles that are owned in this country were never used in a homicide.

Yes, mass killings are tragic, but homicides using this type of weapon are minuscule (0.005%) compared to how many are owned that never killed anyone. Some people collect these rifles as investments because they hold value, many people use them for sport, for self defense in the event of calamity or social unrest or invasion, some for hunting, etc.

I don't see a logical, fair argument that these millions of legally owned firearms should somehow be banned or made illegal just because of 0.005%. If Obama and the anti-gunners applied that same logic, then they should support banning Islam in this country, they should support banning knives, cars, etc. The facts do not agree with these appeals to emotions, bottom line. Where is his outrage when 50 people are killed in Chicago with handguns related to gang violence?

For some reason, people want to implicate the NRA and law abiding gun owners. Mateen was investigated multiple times by the FBI, he passed a background check to be an armed security guard, passed a background check to work for a federal contractor that has national security contracts, and he passed background checks when he bought these guns legally.

To say that an inanimate object, and millions of people who legally owned said object should be punished, turned into criminals overnight, and lose the value instantly overnight of said object, just because one of the 0.005% of said object was used in a terror attack is ludicrous. Try applying that logic to anything else, and you will see why many law abiding gun owners are outraged at such a notion.

a reply to: SonOfThor

 Try applying that logic to anything else, and you will see why many law abiding gun owners are outraged at such a notion.

Unfortunately, that same logic is used in numerous other issues that is being pushed by so many, including this president.

The majority no longer rules, it is under attack.

I'll just put this here, as it's relevant to the discussion.



It's not the guns.

Disarming citizens didn't stop the Paris attacks and didn't stop the Brussels attack. In fact the ban forced the terrorist's to buy from the black market enabling them to get fully automatic AK-47's. The terrorists have said multiple times they intend on attacking soft targets. In other words people with no guns.

The fact that Obama and others thought this would have turned into some Hollywood/video game style shootout if someone engaged the shooter with a similar weapon is preposterous. It would have saved lives, even if it only distracted the shooter for a time. These guns are incredibly accurate and if there were even one person with a similar gun the death toll would be far less. I like how the left has the impression of shooting a gun as this uncontrolled chaotic event. Aside from the sound shooting a Sig like the shooter used or AR is like shooting a BB gun.

In the case of the Orlando shooter.
He went to a legitimate gun store and bought the gun. The gun store turned around and reported it to the FBI who did NOTHING!!! There is a system in place to prevent these things. But the authorities seem to drop the ball repeatedly. While the left uses those blunders to promote disarming the peaceful non violent individuals.

I really feel for these family's that lost someone. But their solution to this problem only endangers more people while emboldening the ones who carry out these horrific acts...

originally posted by: Khaleesi
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.

I was focused on guns, as my OP is focused on guns and the constant answer that they are either not relevant to mass shootings and that the answer that nothing can be done to change gun laws in the least. I find those statements incorrect and noted that a bipartisan solution should be forthcoming. I am trying to stay within the scope of that.

So how will outlawing guns stop criminals from getting guns "illegally" ?

a reply to: reldra

Since your OP is focused on guns, would you mind commenting on the video I posted about guns?

originally posted by: xuenchen
So how will outlawing guns stop criminals from getting guns "illegally" ?

Better yet.

How is outlawing guns going to stop terrorist attacks, or stop people from killing one another?

They don't want to deal with the real problem, because that is not what they are interested in correcting.

The only thing that outlawing guns does, is make it illegal for the innocent, and the law abiding, to own guns for protection from enemies foreign and domestic.

Double post.

Been seeing an awful lot of these lately, and some strange posting behavior. I wonder if we are being hacked, tracked or restricted.

Seems to me, religion is more a problem than guns. It's the religious that more often than not want to go backwards, judge people who are different, exhibit xenophobia, discriminate against others, fight against equality, and cause violence.

I say ban religion- or at least demote it to philosophy and consider it abuse to subject a child to its brainwashing before the age of 18. Keep it as a curriculum in universities to teach how it was used to divide and limit thinking.

Getting rid of religion could have much better impact than getting rid of guns.

May I ask again, who is trying to ban all guns? Confiscate all guns?

Democrats in Congress are trying to establish better background checks and insure that known or suspected terrorists can't walk into a shop and buy the weaponry of war.

We're not going to outlaw any religion (First Amendment) and we aren't going to ban guns (Second Amendment) or more exactly, if we do, we will not be the United States of America any more.

a reply to: Gryphon66

Denouncing all religion would be the best thing we could do. Sure, if you want to be backwards and follow it, no problem. But it should be illegal to subject children to it. Let's be honest--- we can thank religion for MOST of the backwards attitudes and unending wars.

End religion. Make earth a better place. Keep your guns.

originally posted by: spiritualzombie
a reply to: Gryphon66

Denouncing all religion would be the best thing we could do. Sure, if you want to be backwards and follow it, no problem. But it should be illegal to subject children to it. Let's be honest--- we can thank religion for MOST of the backwards attitudes and unending wars.

End religion. Make earth a better place. Keep your guns.

I don't disagree with you at all, personally, on religion.

However, the US Constitution is quite clear and both freedom of (and from) religion and right to own/carry guns are a part of our national identity.

a reply to: Gryphon66

I can provide one name: Senator Dianne Feinstein. She wants to ban and confiscate guns in California.

Next question.

a reply to: Gryphon66

I agree with you, too, I'm just saying...

If there was as strong a push against religion as there is against guns; shifting the focus to religion-- that yet again, here is religion playing a role in violence; yet again here is religion playing a role in intolerance-- push, push, push that truth like we do climate change--- the truth of it could be more impactful than the push against guns.

I'm talking about an actual educational curriculum of what religion is, and how to identify it's key divisive traits.

As the pro-gun people point out- it's not guns that kill people-- it's people who kill people-- so let's get specific about that-- religious people killing people.

a reply to: Gryphon66

Perhaps we should just add some registration process for religion? Keep a list of your religion of choice, when you go to church, you need to show an ID, and apply to the state for your permit to practice that constitutional right?

And don't say that religion doesn't kill like a gun....we all know that is hogwash. You want to restrict and infringe upon a right, then perhaps we should do that to a right YOU care about? Perhaps then you would better understand why it is wrong and impossible to control.

originally posted by: Krakatoa
a reply to: Gryphon66

Perhaps we should just add some registration process for religion? Keep a list of your religion of choice, when you go to church, you need to show an ID, and apply to the state for your permit to practice that constitutional right?

And don't say that religion doesn't kill like a gun....we all know that is hogwash. You want to restrict and infringe upon a right, then perhaps we should do that to a right YOU care about? Perhaps then you would better understand why it is wrong and impossible to control.

You are REALLY barking up the wrong tree.

originally posted by: Krakatoa
a reply to: Gryphon66

I can provide one name: Senator Dianne Feinstein. She wants to ban and confiscate guns in California.

Next question.

Care to back that up?

a reply to: Krakatoa

No religious registration-- just denounce it publically. Relentlessly call it out for what it is-- educate the youth to see the limited thinking and the violence linked to religion. Keep it legal-- though, it really should be considered abuse on children-- maybe push that idea for 10-20 years with studies to show how it really does brainwash children- and how it robs their natural spiritual connectedness and replaces it with a false dependency.

Destroy it with truth. Get rid of religion and guns won't be as big of a problem.