Obama: Fighting lone-wolf terror attacks is like trying to stop mass shootings

originally posted by: introvert
So Obama makes a simple comparison of the difficulties both tasks entail, and that means he's pushing his anti-gun agenda?

Ok.


We all know how this thread will go.

EXECUTIVE AUTHORITY.
Obama is going to bypass Congress once again and will expand background checks and close the so-called “gun show loophole” that commie gun grabbers (liberals) claim allows people to buy weapons at gun shows and online without a background check.www.theblaze.com... t-says/
Revoking the rights of terrorists here in America is a no brainer. They wouldn’t even be here if it weren’t for our Muslim-In-Chief.

Secondly, these bastards will NEVER ban semi-auto rifles. They are dreaming. We REFUSE TO COMPLY- PERIOD!

Here's the thing ... Terrorists plot and plan for a long time. The SB killers had planned for over a year and had people acting suspiciously around their residence all during that time as has been noted. The 9-11 hijackers had been in the country planning for a long time. Look at the mass cell phone purchases, propane tank thefts, etc., those indicate signs of more planning. In short, there IS a trail there.

Lone wolf shooters just snap. You can't anticipate them. They are unpredictable.

It is a false equivalence.

a reply to: neo96

The difference is gun owners have to submit to a background check and get permission to buy a firearm.

And this makes it easier to tell who is going to go crazy? yeah because it has worked so well in the past..


More than 80% of guns used in mass shootings obtained legally


You say he is suffering from A logical fallacy (an error of reasoning).

I know you think those agencies have some sort of magic power that detect everyone and anyone's thoughts but the truth is, if someone keeps these plans to themselves..there is no way of knowing anything.

So unless you know of a way that allows people to read others thoughts, then it is you who is having an error in reasoning.

Also you claim it is a false equivalence(a situation where there is a logical and apparent equivalence, but when in fact there is none) and you would be wrong.

And to make sure that people thought it was..you left this out...""You don't always see it, they're not always communicating publicly, and if you're not catching what they say publicly then it becomes a challenge," the president added. and would be just as hard if looking for the next lone wolf attack.

I notice your threads or comments are incomplete most times and usually leave out information or you make it up.

a reply to: neo96

So in other words, for Mr. Obama is acceptable to have terrorist killing people in mass shooting because they are not worst than having random mass shootings.

I think I got it.

a reply to: theonenonlyone

And this makes it easier to tell who is going to go crazy? y

So what do you want ?

FORCE every American to take a psychological evaluations test to practice their RIGHTS ?

That's pretty Hitleresque.

a reply to: neo96

Are you worried that you would have to take such a test? Is that why you are so angry?

originally posted by: Jonjonj
a reply to: neo96

Are you worried that you would have to take such a test? Is that why you are so angry?

www.youtube.com...?rel=0Ill take a back ground check if he takes a lie detector test

a reply to: madenusa

I got up to the part that said they would examine her male genitalia and clicked the x! Wow...

I seriously think that anybody who would propagate such deranged information should have a health check too, what do you think?

a reply to: neo96

FORCE every American to take a psychological evaluations test to practice their RIGHTS ?

What's wrong with that? I don't see how it's unreasonable for a new gun owner to be forced to take a mental health assessment test before using a firearm...Is it because it's both a state sanctioned test and imposed on the individual?

originally posted by: Jonjonj
a reply to: neo96

Are you worried that you would have to take such a test? Is that why you are so angry?

What worries me is people that think conflating two separate issues. Like Terrorism and mass shooting.

IS acceptable.

a reply to: NateTheAnimator

What's wrong with that? I

The entire Bill of RIGHTS and the 14th amendment is what.

a reply to: neo96

So every tom,dick and harry can use a firearm regardless of their mental sanity.

Gotcha...

originally posted by: neo96

originally posted by: Jonjonj
a reply to: neo96

Are you worried that you would have to take such a test? Is that why you are so angry?

What worries me is people that think conflating two separate issues. Like Terrorism and mass shooting.

IS acceptable.

I guess people could understand that if the issues were so far apart, but they aren't really, are they?

a reply to: neo96

The difference is gun owners have to submit to a background check and get permission to buy a firearm.

No, they don't.

I have bought many, many guns without doing any of that. I don't waste money on brand new weapons at a gun store there are plenty of second hand guns for sale.

For my ccw permit I had to get a background check.

a reply to: crazyewok

Obama differentiates by inviting terrorists to the White House.

BLM and Muslim terrorists for example.

a reply to: Deny Arrogance

What terrorist has he invited?

Now, I can't stand the guy and I'm not going to sit and watch the video, but just reading his statement in the linked article, in the context in which he appears to link the two things, I think the comparison is largely valid. He's only speaking to the similarities in how they operate and the difficulties in detecting and preventing it.

Now, if he tried to turn that into an argument to restrict the rights of everyone, yeah, I'd have a problem with that. And perhaps he did. He's certainly done that in the recent past, and I've been very critical of him for that, but again, I haven't watched the press conference to know for certain if he did it in this speech or not. Just based on the quotes in the article, though, its not out of line, IMO.

originally posted by: neo96


How much more FASCIST does our overlord want to be ?

the former NAZI Fascism was all about State-ism... the Party or Core of Supermen,,,(if not in deed then Supermen in thought) were building the foundations for a Master Race in Achievements, a 'GATTACA' type of society/world

www.imdb.com...
...In "the not-too-distant" future, where genetic engineering of humans is common and DNA plays the primary role in determining social class, Vincent (Ethan Hawke) is conceived and born without the aid of this technology... as well as being given a life expectancy of 30.2 years, Vincent faces extreme genetic discrimination and prejudice

Obama is still in-search-of-his-brand-of-Statism... which is (in his case) fundamentally Islam as the Supreme governing force instead of a Central Planning Committee of Elites the CFR & other Globalist Orgs seek....
ATS members do see through his attempt (Obama's) to distance the Jihad movement from having a high presence in both 'mass shootings' and with 'lone-wolf' events.....Fort hood was only work-place violence and the Beltway snipers were not a secret cell of jihadists like the San Bernardino murders either...


(see: San Bernardino gunman's terrifying plot to bomb, shoot freeway motorists revealed in court records
Los Angeles Times16 hours ago)

a reply to: madenusa

There's not much he can do through executive order that will stand up to a legal challenge. The law clearly states that the definition of 'dealer' shall not include people who make occasional purchases, sales and exchanges for their own private collections. And, of course, the law requires only dealers to initiate a background check. The only thing he might be able to do is interpret the word 'occasional' to set a threshold after which a person is automatically considered a dealer. Depending on where they set that threshold, I might not have a problem with that, either.

As for a ban on semi-automatics, yeah, that wouldn't go well, especially by executive order. Thankfully, I don't expect them to try, no matter how much they want it.

a reply to: neo96

He is using terrorism to push gun control.

Did the Republicans use terrorism to push gun control through after Reagan was shot? The government doesn't need terrorism to push gun control but you go ahead and keep believing the crap the NRA and the gun manufacturers keep putting out.