Obama On San Bernardino Shooting: 'We Have A Pattern Now Of Mass Shootings'

a reply to: Spider879

You know what??? I am say it...TAKE THE GAWDDAMED GUNS. screw your fantasies about storming the white house, we have a vote to do that less bloodily lets cherish and protect that, what a bunch o paranoid manics running with excuses for every mass killings, illegal guns flood the streets, legal means is already rendered useless with loopholes you could drive a tank through, in the parts of the old west you had to turn in your guns upon entering town and that's when we were considered less civilized.

You going to take them?

Who will you send? Men with guns?

By not having effective gun regulation in the US I think you make terrorist attacks much easier to execute.

Please do something about this America.

a reply to: ~Lucidity

If you really want to address the issue,, it's a mass killing. Not a mass shooting. A mass shooting only addresses the way someone killed.

It's a mass killing.

Now, if you are serious about the subject and not just a political hack who wants to remove rights, you can start by why there are so many mass killings.

I think that would get everyone on board and there'd be so much support to finding a means to reduce so many mass killings.

Or you can continue to call it a mass shooting and attempt to remove rights while ignoring the problem.

Meh.

I'm not being derogatory to you, OP. Not in the least. But that word "pattern" disturbs me. I see no "pattern" in His Magisties, STATEMENT or political use, thereof. ...Allow me to "formulate", for the ATS "educated" types? A "pattern" is something that, repeats itself, Over and over, in a mathematical sequence? This, violence is NOT, a "pattern". Funny how I/we never hear, the cops have got the gun! But the gun has always been the first culprit/criminal. Ubsurd!

This story will disappear quickly once they realize that one of the shooters was actually illegal here in the United States or even better was a Felon that shouldn't be able to own the gun.. because you know the system usually fails.. but it's the fault of those who are actually are responsible.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: eriktheawful

Interesting point.

Say the anti 2nd people got their way and guns went away.

And the next time there's a mass shooting, what freedoms would they remove next?

Take your pick. Most of them are being slowly removed right now, right in front of us, and people are just letting it happen.

Law enforcement and the courts are more and more not really concerned with our 4th amendment rights.

Federal government has pretty much been stamping out States Rights for a long time now.

The 2nd has been under attack since at least 1934, earlier in some cases.

Plenty of groups that are actively working quite hard to get rid of that pesky 1st one because it's so bad that someone might say, show or do something that really offends someone else....or does not agree with their point of view.

I can certainly say that after my almost 50 years of life, this country is nothing like it was before. It's a pale shadow in many ways of what it was when I was a kid. Some things we've made great strides in, and I'm glad to see that. However, those are very few and far. They are vastly out numbered by the things that clearly show our country crumbling and falling apart.

At the center of it? Greed, discord, discontent and above all else: divisions that have split the population so bad that no one will talk to each other anymore.
Now instead, it's all about who can scream the most and the loudest that they are right, and that it all has to be done their way.

People used to compromise. But too many times (with either side) those that agreed to compromise ended up getting the shaft for it, so that now, no one on either side wants to compromise anymore.

The biggest joke of it all? The biggest joke of it all is that while all of us are screaming and yelling at each other over who is right, who is wrong and what "should" or "should not" be done, the real "powers that be" are the ones doing whatever they want to.

And that would be all the corps and people that have all the money...because they are the ones that actually control those people that are "elected" to office. You know, the ones that are suppose to represent me....you...and everyone else? But in reality are really representing the people that bought them their office.

So in the end, it doesn't really mater what I want, or what you want, or what any of us "common" folk want. Because it's going to be what those that control all the money want. It's been that way for a long, long time now.

But most don't realize it because they are too busy yelling how "their side" is right and everyone else is wrong. In the mean time, those with the money and power are the ones pulling the strings. They'll decide what the rest of us little guys get.

Better hope there is still some meat left on that scrap bone they throw.

The biggest issue that I see is that the new generation actually likes this kind of system and appreciates it which is so bizarre to me and I am in mid 30s.

a reply to: Toseekthetruth

We need every ameican to be armed and able to defend themselves!

Including the disabled, the mentally ill, the stupids, the irresponsible, the coke dealers, college students.... Yeah right.

Life in America should be like gun fight at the OK Coral or gun fight at the disabled persons medical center or Walmart.

You wont need ISIS or the Russians to destroy America you can carry on doing it yourselves.

a reply to: DBCowboy

I believe I addressed your point in my post. And I believe people are keeping track now using consistent definitions. But that was something I looked into earlier in the year.

originally posted by: projectvxn
a reply to: Spider879

You know what??? I am say it...TAKE THE GAWDDAMED GUNS. screw your fantasies about storming the white house, we have a vote to do that less bloodily lets cherish and protect that, what a bunch o paranoid manics running with excuses for every mass killings, illegal guns flood the streets, legal means is already rendered useless with loopholes you could drive a tank through, in the parts of the old west you had to turn in your guns upon entering town and that's when we were considered less civilized.

You going to take them?

Who will you send? Men with guns?

Well I certainly would not want to start shoot outs, but any combination of means may show a decrease for example, buy back incentives, stop selling guns and bullets to the public at large, repeal ridiculous open carry laws, stop the importation of guns by criminal gangs, which is linked to the war on drugs, by making drugs legal as we did with prohibition, go after known domestic terrorist groups of what ever stripe and disarm them.
Ban the NRA from lobbying..yeah controversial I know, until they go back to the idea of responsible gun use..like I said before they and their bought politicians stopped a bill that would ban the sale of fire arms to terrorist even though they are on a terrorist watch and no fly list.

originally posted by: Spider879

originally posted by: projectvxn
a reply to: Spider879

You know what??? I am say it...TAKE THE GAWDDAMED GUNS. screw your fantasies about storming the white house, we have a vote to do that less bloodily lets cherish and protect that, what a bunch o paranoid manics running with excuses for every mass killings, illegal guns flood the streets, legal means is already rendered useless with loopholes you could drive a tank through, in the parts of the old west you had to turn in your guns upon entering town and that's when we were considered less civilized.

You going to take them?

Who will you send? Men with guns?

Well I certainly would not want to start shoot outs, but any combination of means may show a decrease for example, buy back incentives, stop selling guns and bullets to the public at large, repeal ridiculous open carry laws, stop the importation of guns by criminal gangs, which is linked to the war on drugs, by making drugs legal as we did with prohibition, go after known domestic terrorist groups of what ever stripe and disarm them.
Ban the NRA from lobbying..yeah controversial I know, until they go back to the idea of responsible gun use..like I said before they and their bought politicians stopped a bill that would ban the sale of fire arms to terrorist even though they are on a terrorist watch and no fly list.

No.

You can TRY to change the Constitution, but you won't succeed.

a reply to: Spider879

stop the importation of guns by criminal gangs, which is linked to the war on drugs, by making drugs legal as we did with prohibition,

So you're telling me prohibition doesn't work?

And you want gun control to the point of confiscatory policies?

Hmm..

a reply to: ispyed

By not having effective gun regulation in the US I think you make terrorist attacks much easier to execute.

Tell that to France.

originally posted by: BlueJacket
a reply to: chr0naut

That is insane itself and unconstitutional. All you obvious city people, who don't raise livestock and fruits and veggies, but rather buy your sustenance from others have this same ignorant rant based on a total disconnect from the natural world.

I need a gun or two just to run my farm, should I humanely Inject the next rabid coyote?

I am not a city person. I do raise livestock. I do not own or need a gun to do so.

Gun ownership is allowed here, in the country where I live and also in the country where I am a citizen. Neither of these two countries have the same level of gun related violence as happens in America.

Neither do these other countries claim the capability to harm oneself or others as a right.

a reply to: chr0naut

Neither do these other countries claim the capability to harm oneself or others as a right.

The right is of self defense.

originally posted by: TerryMcGuire
a reply to: Toseekthetruth
Hold it right there To... That arguement? We hear it all the time. Just like all the other arguements on BOTH sides of the issue. But how about this as you say, what if all those people had guns. As your point basically says "who knows how many" here is another 'who knows"
If those twenty eight people had guns too, who knows how many innocent people would have been shot in the melay. Who knows how many of THOSE people would have just started shooting back at anyone else who had a gun out and was shooting. Who knows how many of them would have just been so freeked out that they would have been firing at anyone who moved. You are absolutely right. Who knows.

We need every ameican to be armed and able to defend themselves!

Give me a freeking break, we need every american to be armed, are you out of your ever loving mind??????

Nuclear weapons. Yup, we'd all be safer if everyone had nuclear weapons.

Flash, swoosh, bang and all those terrorists, criminals (and noisy neighbors) with their guns and bombs would be properly dealt with.

originally posted by: projectvxn
a reply to: chr0naut

Neither do these other countries claim the capability to harm oneself or others as a right.

The right is of self defense.

The 'right' is actually specifically to carry a weapon, which can be (and very often is) used for non-defensive purposes.

As others have pointed out, farmers might need to relieve the suffering of an injured animal or deal with a predator. I get that, it would seem a legitimate reason to carry.

However, some people are not motivated by the best of intentions and use guns in an unconsidered "knee-jerk" reactionary way. Other people will have criminal intentions. Still others will merely fumble with the guns causing accidental injury or death.

In a modern and fair society, we are supposed to have the recourse to the law for defense of our person and property. In a gun centered society, that recourse is 'short circuited' and the law is nobbled as a protective mechanism.

a reply to: chr0naut

The 'right' is to carry a weapon.

Guns can be (and very often are) used for non-defensive purposes, too.

Yes they are.

I own a lot of guns. None of them have been used in offensive operations.

a reply to: chr0naut

Nuclear weapons. Yup, we'd all be safer if everyone had nuclear weapons.

Flash, swoosh, bang and all those terrorists, criminals (and noisy neighbors) with their guns and bombs would be properly dealt with.

It's childishness like this that facts about what the 2nd Amendment is and is not about can never actually be discussed.

originally posted by: projectvxn
a reply to: Spider879

stop the importation of guns by criminal gangs, which is linked to the war on drugs, by making drugs legal as we did with prohibition,

So you're telling me prohibition doesn't work?

And you want gun control to the point of confiscatory policies?

Hmm..

I am saying that the proliferation of guns in low income communities are connected to gangs and gang business is mostly connected to the sale of illicit drugs which is what the guns are there for, to protect their business, take away that black market incentive make it legal, tax it like you would any other business and the violence associated with it goes away.
I am not for kicking in doors like you would in Anbar province, that would make people who are already unhinged more unhingier.
These are just ideas off the top of my head, there are smarter folks out there than can find even more common sense way to go about it.