Obama: America needs "soul searching" on gun violence

RustyS wrote:

<quoted text>
Then what would we do with all the progressive liberals?

Put them all to work picking up trash and graffiti removal.

RT Pipe wrote:

<quoted text>
Put them all to work as landscapers. I am willing to hire 25 libtards at 1.25 per hour and all the Sams club dog chow they can eat.

Sweet!
That was better than my idea.

President Starky wrote:

<quoted text>
Sweet!
That was better than my idea.

I like your idea much better because these liberals do not respect the landscape and are the most responsible for graffiti and trash. I will still provide dog chow and water as a display of my concern for the health of these Marxist A-holes.

jason f wrote:

<quoted text>Yes murders and criminals can get guns. The differenc s laws arentgoing to stop them from doing so, which you so conviently ignore. Look at Chicago and DC as perfect examples. Both have some of the strictest gun laws in the States andoh have insany high murder rates. Explain to me how those restrictive gun laws have stopped criminals from doing what they do? Im going to grab a Snickers bar while I wait for your answer because its going to be awhile

Simple. It's not about restrictiveness of the provisions. It's actual enforcement. And Chicago and DC have a poor history of actually enforcing their laws on guns, as do the rest of the states. If you look at Finland, you could call its laws "lax," but it has the provisions and teeth able to actually enforce their measures on firearms. No matter how you write a law, it will never be successful unless enforced successfully.

RT Pipe wrote:

<quoted text>I like your idea much better because these liberals do not respect the landscape and are the most responsible for graffiti and trash. I will still provide dog chow and water as a display of my concern for the health of these Marxist A-holes.

I say we let them construct their own housing and as soon as the job is done and they move in, we evict them and say "You didn't build that"

President Starky wrote:

<quoted text>
I say we let them construct their own housing and as soon as the job is done and they move in, we evict them and say "You didn't build that"

Yes then we can deport the scum to Kenyan where they can build a hut and falsify Birth certificates.

RustyS wrote:

<quoted text>
Then what would we do with all the progressive liberals?

Trolling for Sharks comes to mind..........

The Advocate wrote:

<quoted text>
Simple. It's not about restrictiveness of the provisions. It's actual enforcement. And Chicago and DC have a poor history of actually enforcing their laws on guns, as do the rest of the states. If you look at Finland, you could call its laws "lax," but it has the provisions and teeth able to actually enforce their measures on firearms. No matter how you write a law, it will never be successful unless enforced successfully.

No law will be effective unless accepted by law abiding citizens, not the teeth and punishment to fit the crime......I use treason and Obama as an example.

nor

The Advocate wrote:

<quoted text>
Simple. It's not about restrictiveness of the provisions. It's actual enforcement. And Chicago and DC have a poor history of actually enforcing their laws on guns, as do the rest of the states. If you look at Finland, you could call its laws "lax," but it has the provisions and teeth able to actually enforce their measures on firearms. No matter how you write a law, it will never be successful unless enforced successfully.

What part of the criminals dont abide by the gun laws do you not understand? How many crimes are committed by law abiding citizens with legally purchased weapons compared to criminals with illegally purchased weapons. The only people that gun laws effect are those that follow the law. This isnt about law abiding citizens going out and committing crimes and nothing happening to them.

Go ask the law abiding citizens of Chicago and DC about how well those gun laws are enforced. You probably wont like their answers because it doesnt suit your argument.

RT Pipe wrote:

<quoted text>Yes then we can deport the scum to Kenyan where they can build a hut and falsify Birth certificates.

Syria.
Kenya is much too nice.

Prep-for-Dep wrote:

<quoted text>
Are you completely oblivious to the number of foiled terrorist plots during this administration? You think they've stopped trying because Obama is in office?
Are you serious?

No, I'm not saying that but numbers are always contained when the rest of the world is playing a united front. The biggest wedge the terrorists had was when Bush was in office that administration pissed so many other countries off that terror organisations use that as motivation for recruitment. Why you say Obama "kisses ass" I say he plays it smart, if you are going to play the foriegn policy game its not for amateurs. Romney puts his foot in his mouth within hours of stepping off the plane on foriegn soil. That's the difference, look at Libya as an example the French did the first air strike. This is the "French" the guys who turned their back on Bush anytime he opened his mouth. The world greets Obama like a rock star for one reason only, because he is an American president that can understand their point of view. After all they have a lot longer history in civilisation than the US has. It still doesn't occur to you tea party types that the US needs the rest of the world to buy its stuff to survive, just as they need the US to buy their stuff. Foriegn policy is the most single important thing to kick an economy along and if you are in sync with the world then you have a head start.

jason f wrote:

<quoted text>What part of the criminals dont abide by the gun laws do you not understand? How many crimes are committed by law abiding citizens with legally purchased weapons compared to criminals with illegally purchased weapons. The only people that gun laws effect are those that follow the law. This isnt about law abiding citizens going out and committing crimes and nothing happening to them.
Go ask the law abiding citizens of Chicago and DC about how well those gun laws are enforced. You probably wont like their answers because it doesnt suit your argument.

Aaaaaand now you forget about the relative ease of buying weaponry in the US, legally or not. The Aurora shooter bought his legally and was a "law abiding citizen" until he went on a murderous rampage. And the ex - Marine who killed innocent students at Austin University. Or the San Ysidro Massacre, Capitol Hill, Tucson...all of the perpetrators bought their guns and ammo legally to do horrific things, and yet you still argue that you should not prevent that from happening again. But I guess maybe you're right about the people, because it's the people like you who fail to recognise the danger of making lethal weaponry accessible to madmen. It's the sick and imbecilic gun culture that permeates your society, not a real desire to "stay true to the Constitution." Canada has stricter gun laws and yet doesn't count any overwhelming crime (especially related to guns) as well as Germany, Switzerland, and Finland.

It's not about whether people should have guns or not, you dolt, it's about letting responsible people be able to access them as opposed to irresponsible people, and to enforce, not create, laws that prevent lethal weapons from falling into the wrong hands.

The Advocate wrote:

<quoted text>
Aaaaaand now you forget about the relative ease of buying weaponry in the US, legally or not. The Aurora shooter bought his legally and was a "law abiding citizen" until he went on a murderous rampage. And the ex - Marine who killed innocent students at Austin University. Or the San Ysidro Massacre, Capitol Hill, Tucson...all of the perpetrators bought their guns and ammo legally to do horrific things, and yet you still argue that you should not prevent that from happening again. But I guess maybe you're right about the people, because it's the people like you who fail to recognise the danger of making lethal weaponry accessible to madmen. It's the sick and imbecilic gun culture that permeates your society, not a real desire to "stay true to the Constitution." Canada has stricter gun laws and yet doesn't count any overwhelming crime (especially related to guns) as well as Germany, Switzerland, and Finland.
It's not about whether people should have guns or not, you dolt, it's about letting responsible people be able to access them as opposed to irresponsible people, and to enforce, not create, laws that prevent lethal weapons from falling into the wrong hands.

The relative ease of buying a fire arm? You mean the safety class or test you have to pass? The back ground check you have to pass? All the other hoops you have to jump through?

How can you prevent people from doing something they are bent on doing? If they have their hearts set on it, they will do it regardless.

I dont fail to recognize the dangers of psychopaths having weapons. Just like I dont fail to recognize what happens when laws are so restrictive they handicap a citizens right to protect themselves.

You crack me up. First you go on an unducated rant about the weapons used Aurora as military grade without even having a clue as to the weapons used and their history. Youve conviently ignored that over and over. Then you try to use a small fragment of incidents where legally purchased weapos were used by people that shouldnt have had them because none of them were reported to the right agencies as having mental issues. Had they been in the system they wouldnt have been able to buy them. Thats part of the enforcement you want. Enforcement that isnt going to stop someone who is intent on using a firearm to commit a crime which is the part you ignore.

The Advocate wrote:

<quoted text>
I didn't hear people like you complain when Bush was in power. What could that be attributed to..?

You weren't listening. We warned you about the "Patriot" Act! You foolish libby.
We warned you about the undeclared war but you were for it before you were against it.
We also complained when you complaining about his of spending "like a drunken sailor" and even louder when O'Bama spends like a drunken pirate.
The Tea Party was birthed and you will hear us even louder for the atrocities of the current administration and you damned socialists!

Time for a little R&R. Romney/Ryan 2012

The Advocate wrote:

<quoted text>
Aaaaaand now you forget about the relative ease of buying weaponry in the US, legally or not. The Aurora shooter bought his legally and was a "law abiding citizen" until he went on a murderous rampage. And the ex - Marine who killed innocent students at Austin University. Or the San Ysidro Massacre, Capitol Hill, Tucson...all of the perpetrators bought their guns and ammo legally to do horrific things, and yet you still argue that you should not prevent that from happening again. But I guess maybe you're right about the people, because it's the people like you who fail to recognise the danger of making lethal weaponry accessible to madmen. It's the sick and imbecilic gun culture that permeates your society, not a real desire to "stay true to the Constitution." Canada has stricter gun laws and yet doesn't count any overwhelming crime (especially related to guns) as well as Germany, Switzerland, and Finland.
It's not about whether people should have guns or not, you dolt, it's about letting responsible people be able to access them as opposed to irresponsible people, and to enforce, not create, laws that prevent lethal weapons from falling into the wrong hands.

On a side note, in three of the shootings you've brought up, all three assailants committed a federal crime when they bought their weapons by willfully lying on the background check form. All three knew the law and chose to break it to buy their weapons.

President Starky wrote:

<quoted text>
Put them all to work picking up trash and graffiti removal.

For instance, after one of their OWS rallies!

Romney exposed his weakness by picking Ryan, this is striking in it's similarity to Mcain picking Palin. Both were picked on the basis of appealing to the "tea party" type voters who might be wavering on voting for Romney. This fundemental mistake with the Republican party going down this road again is it scares the hell out of any other voter who might have chosen Romney as a moderate from the right. So this means Obama has this election in the bag.

President Starky wrote:

<quoted text>
Syria.
Kenya is much too nice.

OK, that works.

OzRitz wrote:

Romney exposed his weakness by picking Ryan, this is striking in it's similarity to Mcain picking Palin. Both were picked on the basis of appealing to the "tea party" type voters who might be wavering on voting for Romney. This fundemental mistake with the Republican party going down this road again is it scares the hell out of any other voter who might have chosen Romney as a moderate from the right. So this means Obama has this election in the bag.

You couldn't be more wrong. After seeing how far left Obama actually is, most moderates are gonna swing to Romney. The people who voted for him because he was gonna cut deficits and reign in spending are also gonna jump ship for the Romney/Ryan ticket. Obama is a once and done president.