Become a part of one of the fastest growing adult communities online. We have something for you, whether you’re a male member seeking out new friends or a new lady on the scene looking to take advantage of our many opportunities to network, make new friends, or connect with people. Join today & take part in lively discussions, take advantage of all the great features that attract hundreds of new daily members!
do you agree that i'm 100% correct, that Obama is using these incidents for stronger gun control?
Yes, I believe you to be 100% correct on THAT statement. Just not the NRA connection.
14 people killed and 22 seriously injured in the San Bernardino attacks. Should the President just sit back and say "Oh well. Sorry about that but there's nothing we can do about it, now or in the future."? Whether you agree with what Obama said or not, it was a point in time when something needed to be said to the families and friends of those killed and injured.
Yes, I believe you to be 100% correct on THAT statement. Just not the NRA connection.
14 people killed and 22 seriously injured in the San Bernardino attacks. Should the President just sit back and say "Oh well. Sorry about that but there's nothing we can do about it, now or in the future."? Whether you agree with what Obama said or not, it was a point in time when something needed to be said to the families and friends of those killed and injured.
SpeedoWearerXXX, you just don't get it and never will... you should resist the "kafir" mold...
Yes, I believe you to be 100% correct on THAT statement. Just not the NRA connection.
14 people killed and 22 seriously injured in the San Bernardino attacks. Should the President just sit back and say "Oh well. Sorry about that but there's nothing we can do about it, now or in the future."? Whether you agree with what Obama said or not, it was a point in time when something needed to be said to the families and friends of those killed and injured.
how can i agree with something he's never said? it's what he does say that i don't agree with. he claims guns are evil. no, people are evil. in China, where it's nearly impossible for a citizen to own a gun, even for hunting, they still have mass murders.
Firearms can be used by law enforcement, the military and paramilitary, or security personnel protecting property of state importance (including the arms industry, financial institutions, storage of resources, and scientific research institutions).
Civilian ownership of firearms is largely restricted to non-individual entities such as sporting organisations, hunting reserves, and wildlife protection, management and research organizations. The chief exception to the general ban for individual gun ownership is for the purpose of hunting.[15]
Individuals who hold hunting permits can apply to purchase and hold firearms for the purpose of hunting.[16] Illegal possession or sale of firearms may result in a minimum punishment of 3 years in prison, with the maximum being the death penalty.[17]
The possession of traditional smoothbore blackpowder muskets is allowed to some Miao hill people, the so-called Miao gun tribes, as an essential element of traditional dress and culture,[18] however possession of gunpowder is regulated.
how many mass murders of mostly children occur in China? plenty of them. they use knives and hatchets and even sewing needles, yes sewing needles.
so Obama's narrative that strict gun laws will greatly reduce mass violence is false. people will just use other things as weapons, in the meantime, people who would possibly be able to stop such violence won't be able to. I'm well aware this often leads to someone trying to help getting shot. it happened just last week in Dallas, but should someone who has a conceal carry permit just stand there while someone gets killed?
while it's obviously dangerous for people to try to intervene, when people don't care enough about others, their neighbors, strangers, anyone, to even try, then society has completely broken down.
"Where did POTUS blame the San Bernardino massacre on the NRA, ya fucking nitwit?"
I read each of the 5 links I believe rather thoroughly and could not find one mention in any of the links about the NRA.
He did not say Obama did not call for more gun control. He made a singular statement in which he stated that Obama did not blame the San Bernardino massacre on the NRA. Based on the 5 links supplied, he is 100% correct.
Two of the five links you say you read "rather thoroughly" do mention the NRA, speedy.
Obama reacted to the San Bernardino massacre with an insipid Oval Office speech four days later telling Americans to be nice to Muslims and calling for more gun control. So yes, Obama stupidly linked the gun control issue to this specific terrorist attack, which is to say he blamed the San Bernardino killings on the lack of gun control, which is another way of saying he blamed the attack on the opponents of gun control, of which the most vociferous is the NRA.
Get it now, speedy?
Bonus question: Which is more absurd – blaming terrorism on the NRA or blaming it on a youtube video?
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX
14 people killed and 22 seriously injured in the San Bernardino attacks. Should the President just sit back and say "Oh well. Sorry about that but there's nothing we can do about it, now or in the future."? Whether you agree with what Obama said or not, it was a point in time when something needed to be said to the families and friends of those killed and injured.
Obama's insipid Oval Office speech last December 6 did in fact convey the message that “there's nothing we can do about it” to the grieving relatives of the San Bernardino victims, speedy. Other than crassly exploiting their tragedy to ask for more gun control, what exactly did the Consoler-in-Chief promise he would do to stop future terrorist atrocities on US soil?
Here's how two San Bernardino survivors reacted to Odumbo's "comforting" speech, speedy:
how can i agree with something he's never said? it's what he does say that i don't agree with. he claims guns are evil. no, people are evil. in China, where it's nearly impossible for a citizen to own a gun, even for hunting, they still have mass murders.
Firearms can be used by law enforcement, the military and paramilitary, or security personnel protecting property of state importance (including the arms industry, financial institutions, storage of resources, and scientific research institutions).
Civilian ownership of firearms is largely restricted to non-individual entities such as sporting organisations, hunting reserves, and wildlife protection, management and research organizations. The chief exception to the general ban for individual gun ownership is for the purpose of hunting.[15]
Individuals who hold hunting permits can apply to purchase and hold firearms for the purpose of hunting.[16] Illegal possession or sale of firearms may result in a minimum punishment of 3 years in prison, with the maximum being the death penalty.[17]
The possession of traditional smoothbore blackpowder muskets is allowed to some Miao hill people, the so-called Miao gun tribes, as an essential element of traditional dress and culture,[18] however possession of gunpowder is regulated.
how many mass murders of mostly children occur in China? plenty of them. they use knives and hatchets and even sewing needles, yes sewing needles.
so Obama's narrative that strict gun laws will greatly reduce mass violence is false. people will just use other things as weapons, in the meantime, people who would possibly be able to stop such violence won't be able to. I'm well aware this often leads to someone trying to help getting shot. it happened just last week in Dallas, but should someone who has a conceal carry permit just stand there while someone gets killed?
while it's obviously dangerous for people to try to intervene, when people don't care enough about others, their neighbors, strangers, anyone, to even try, then society has completely broken down.
If you can find any post in any thread where I have stated that I support Obama's call for increased gun control I would appreciate you pointing it out.
Obama used the opportunity to push his agenda of increased gun control. It has been part of his platform all along and the only time people really listen to gun control proposals is after such a tragedy. Are you really surprised he did so?
Two of the five links you say you read "rather thoroughly" do mention the NRA, speedy.
Obama reacted to the San Bernardino massacre with an insipid Oval Office speech four days later telling Americans to be nice to Muslims and calling for more gun control. So yes, Obama stupidly linked the gun control issue to this specific terrorist attack, which is to say he blamed the San Bernardino killings on the lack of gun control, which is another way of saying he blamed the attack on the opponents of gun control, of which the most vociferous is the NRA.
Get it now, speedy?
Bonus question: Which is more absurd – blaming terrorism on the NRA or blaming it on a youtube video?
Obama's insipid Oval Office speech last December 6 did in fact convey the message that “there's nothing we can do about it” to the grieving relatives of the San Bernardino victims, speedy. Other than crassly exploiting their tragedy to ask for more gun control, what exactly did the Consoler-in-Chief promise he would do to stop future terrorist atrocities on US soil?
Here's how two San Bernardino survivors reacted to Odumbo's "comforting" speech, speedy:
I went back to the link and found one mention of the NRA in which the White House blames the NRA for blocking gun-control legislation in Congress and the NRA says the President was exploiting the tragedy. Both probably true statements to some degree. But to say that Obama blamed the tragedy on the NRA is pushing it.
Whether or not Obama's words were empty and/or did not make someone feel safe is irrelevant. It was a time when the President of the U.S. had to get in front of the American people. Some will praise him and some will demean him for doing so and for what he said.
Obama used the opportunity to push his agenda of increased gun control. It has been part of his platform all along and the only time people really listen to gun control proposals is after such a tragedy. Are you really surprised he did so?
Then I guess Obama must have reacted to the Boston Marathon bombing with deep disappointment... not at the loss of life and limb, but at the fact that the Tsarnaev brothers used pressure cookers instead of guns!
"Oh shit! Why didn't those Dagestan boys use AK-47s? Who the fuck uses pressure cookers? That means we can't make it all about gun control, dammit!"
Then I guess Obama must have reacted to the Boston Marathon bombing with deep disappointment... not at the loss of life and limb, but at the fact that the Tsarnaev brothers used pressure cookers instead of guns!
"Oh shit! Why didn't those Dagestan boys use AK-47s? Who the fuck uses pressure cookers? That means we can't make it all about gun control, dammit!"
Well, at least he can still blame racism and poverty.
Whether or not Obama's words were empty and/or did not make someone feel safe is irrelevant. It was a time when the President of the U.S. had to get in front of the American people. Some will praise him and some will demean him for doing so and for what he said.
WOW! You're telling me it is IRRELEVANT whether or not the President says the right thing and strikes the right tone in comforting us after a tragedy???
I don't demean the guy a bit for getting up in front of the American people and saying something. That's part of the fucking job description of the POTUS. What I demean him for is SAYING WRONG AND INAPPROPRIATE THINGS that show a lack of compassion, sincerity or common sense and an outrageous willingness to exploit tragedy for political ends.
Was it "irrelevant" when Odumbo and Hildebeest told the grieving parents of the Benghazi victims as their bodies flew in to Dover AFB on September 14, 2012 that they were doing everything possible to go after those responsible... BY ARRESTING A YOUTUBE VIDEO FILMMAKER?
WOW! You're telling me it is IRRELEVANT whether or not the President says the right thing and strikes the right tone in comforting us after a tragedy???
I don't demean the guy a bit for getting up in front of the American people and saying something. That's part of the fucking job description of the POTUS. What I demean him for is SAYING WRONG AND INAPPROPRIATE THINGS that show a lack of compassion, sincerity or common sense and an outrageous willingness to exploit tragedy for political ends.
Was it "irrelevant" when Odumbo and Hildebeest told the grieving parents of the Benghazi victims as their bodies flew in to Dover AFB on September 14, 2012 that they were doing everything possible to go after those responsible... BY ARRESTING A YOUTUBE VIDEO FILMMAKER?
I agree that the President's words after such a tragedy should be heartfelt. Two people thought they were not and it was so long ago I can't remember without re-listening to it. If you think he said wrong and inappropriate things that showed a lack of compassion or common sense , I am not going to argue with you.
how can i agree with something he's never said? it's what he does say that i don't agree with. he claims guns are evil. no, people are evil. in China, where it's nearly impossible for a citizen to own a gun, even for hunting, they still have mass murders.
Firearms can be used by law enforcement, the military and paramilitary, or security personnel protecting property of state importance (including the arms industry, financial institutions, storage of resources, and scientific research institutions).
Civilian ownership of firearms is largely restricted to non-individual entities such as sporting organisations, hunting reserves, and wildlife protection, management and research organizations. The chief exception to the general ban for individual gun ownership is for the purpose of hunting.[15]
Individuals who hold hunting permits can apply to purchase and hold firearms for the purpose of hunting.[16] Illegal possession or sale of firearms may result in a minimum punishment of 3 years in prison, with the maximum being the death penalty.[17]
The possession of traditional smoothbore blackpowder muskets is allowed to some Miao hill people, the so-called Miao gun tribes, as an essential element of traditional dress and culture,[18] however possession of gunpowder is regulated.
how many mass murders of mostly children occur in China? plenty of them. they use knives and hatchets and even sewing needles, yes sewing needles.
so Obama's narrative that strict gun laws will greatly reduce mass violence is false. people will just use other things as weapons, in the meantime, people who would possibly be able to stop such violence won't be able to. I'm well aware this often leads to someone trying to help getting shot. it happened just last week in Dallas, but should someone who has a conceal carry permit just stand there while someone gets killed?
while it's obviously dangerous for people to try to intervene, when people don't care enough about others, their neighbors, strangers, anyone, to even try, then society has completely broken down.
Typical...
Excellent Example... I'm proud of TJ, more of us need to Stand Up!
