Posted on 07/15/2007 2:22:41 PM PDT by NRA2BFree
CHICAGO (AP) - Standing before a church congregation that has witnessed inner-city violence firsthand, Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama said Sunday that more must be done to end a social ill that is "sickening the soul of this nation." Obama told churchgoers at the Vernon Park Church of God on Chicago's South Side that too many young lives are being claimed by violence and more must be done to combat the problem.
"From South Central L.A. to Newark, New Jersey, there's an epidemic of violence that's sickening the soul of this nation," the Illinois senator told the crowd. "The violence is unacceptable and it's got to stop."
Nearly three dozen Chicago students have been killed this year, according to Chicago Public Schools. Obama said that figure is higher than the number of Illinois serviceman who've died in Iraq in 2007.
"We need to express our collective anger through collective action," Obama said.
He said the government needs to permanently reinstate an assault weapons ban and close regulatory loopholes that protect unscrupulous gun dealers.
He also said government should support and fund more after-school programs to keep kids off the streets. But some of the burden must also be shouldered by residents who need to do more to raise and protect at-risk children, he added.
"We have an entire generation of young men in our society who have become products of violence, and we are going to have to break the cycle," Obama said. "There are too many young men out there who have gone down the wrong path."
He later added, "There's a reason they go out and shoot each other, because they don't love themselves. And the reason they don't love themselves is because we are not loving them enough."
Being a fine member of the African American community whY don’t you address the black on black crime in the inner cities. TOO TOUGH FOR YOU AYE! WE THOUGHT SO!
So the obvious answer should be the same as the Democrat's answer in Iraq. It's time to pull the students out of the Chicago Public Schools.
ping!
How about a ban on BARBARIANS!
If someone cannot live up to the obligations required of free men, WHY MUST WE RESPECT THEM AS CITIZENS?
Why you big ole meanie! It's lack of LOVE. They kill each other because there's no LOVE. And a ban on "assault weapons" will stimulate the LOVE.
BTW, why no "Major Hurl" alert?
He's probably really, really jealous of Mitt Romney. After all, Mitt signed a permanent assault weapons ban as Governor of MA.
And shoot, Hillary! is jeolous of the MittCare socialized medicine scheme, complete with taxpayer-funded abortions.
And Edwards just can't match the gay agenda items Romney implemented...
Gosh, Romney sounds like the most talented, "accomplished" Democrat candidate in history...
South Central LA doesn’t exist anymore. They renamed it South Los Angeles in hopes the problems would go away. Guess Obama doesn’t get out much.
Thats because their fathers stopped being fathers after conception, another Hussein Obama jeremiad
Amen, its a civil war after all
How about we ban liberals? Crime will fall off to nothing.
Ding ding ding! We have a winner!
Why try to force barbarians to obey laws that civilized free men obey voluntarily.
Remove the lawless to a no return penal colony and give them nothing but their own brand of lawless freedom and let them make their own rules and carry their own weight in a place away from civilization. No return, no exceptions.
What did you do with your precious freedom? Abused it, eh, by violating the rights, property, earnings, and safety of your fellow citizens? Again and again? Despite our best efforts to reform you at great expense to ourselves? We set you free from tiresome rules into a world made by your own kind.
You are stripped of citizenship and condemned to the penal colony with only the clothes on your back, never to return to civilization.
May God have mercy on your soul.
No, it's becasue they are not in jail.
About the last thing I would be interested in is relinquishing my firearms to street-hardened Muslim who claims that he is from the government and he is here to help. Sorry doesn’t pass the smell test, next candidate!
Dumb axe wants an armed governtment and an unarmed populace-—I say no way!
Was it Franklin who said that the government being founded was only sufficient for a particular, specific sort of citizen?
We were warned, long ago, none of this should be a surprise.
There are but two sources of order in society, individual self discipline, or government tyranny. Above all, there must be order, “nature abhors a vacuum”.
Any weapons ban only serves to start the real violence.
Obama is old wine in a new bottle.
SOStuff.
Cookie cutter Liberal Dem.
Just in a younger, black face.
Of course if he were a conservative Dem, the DNC would cut him off at the knees.
Not a socialist/fascist, not a DNC insider.
Barack HUSSEIN Obama is a media creation. He is an empty suit that was created out of whole cloth by the MSM, specifically so that it (the MSM) could crow about how it is so powerful and influential it can create from nothing a viable presidential candidate. Obama was a second-rate local Illinois politician who was soundly defeated in the primaries the nfirst tik ehe tried for the US Senate, and he accomplished nothing between that time and when the MSM decided it wanted to anoint him as the Second Coming. He is a member of a hard-left, racist black church in Chicago, a church that unabashedly embraces Afro-centrist ideas. It’s web site was quite candid about that until it started to reflect on Obama’s candidacy, at which time the web site was changed. Obama is a hard-core marxist.
“I can’t believe that my fellow state citizens have elected him and Durbin to the Senate.”
Hey, I didn’t vote for either one.
I am not surprised or confused by the state of affairs. Consider that some elements of our "society" demanded and enacted "zero tolerance" in the "public schools" for the most innocuous of possessions and those same groups are often the most vociferous in favor of lenient criminal penalties for adult criminals.
A rational thinker might insist that if there be any zero tolerance in a free society (my answer to those who think government should force compliance by limiting choice in the free market place by say, raising taxes to achieve a desired result, tax oil so we can have cheaper electric solar systems on our houses or say, banning SUV's so we conserve oil, forcing us into smaller vehicles, is always the same for any of their pet causes....What about Liberty?), is to insist on zero tolerance for adult repeat criminals who have shown that reform has not helped them become responsible citizens.
If you are willing to use government force, not reason, to gain your objectives, are you willing to accept the same use of government force by other individuals or groups of individuals to further their cause at your expense?
The blank stares this question gets speak volumes. Not much thinking goes into their reasoning.
I have a friend who likes to tow a small sailboat to various lakes on weekends and sail for recreation. Years ago we sailed together and had lots of fun.
His thinking began to change. He thought there should be a large increase on state and federal fuel taxes and stricter mileage requirements on auto manufacturers to conserve oil and promote alternative energy development and to provide tax breaks and rebates for those who can’t afford electric solar systems. I pointed out to him that he was free to pay as much fuel tax, above and beyond the pump tax, directly to the government as he wanted.
“Think gas should cost $6.00 a gallon like in Europe?” (Why do liberals generally seem to admire Europe?)
“Keep track of what you buy and send the government the difference, I said. You are free to do so. Want smaller cars? Trade in the truck you tow your boat with and buy a more efficient car.”
“While we are at it, if oil conservation and alternate energy is so important to you, sell your boat and stay home and ride a bike for fun. Why do you want to use the force of government to impose your thinking at the expense of others when you are not imposing those same restrictions on yourself.”
“What about Liberty, there friend? Why do you want others to pay for your ideas? Be a leader and set an example.”
“Remember that any rule you seek to impose on others can and will be used against you in someway.”
Several years ago he said thought 2nd Amendment is outdated and should be abolished.
I said, “Hey no problem, I’ll trade you that for Amendments 5 and 6, due process and equal protection, as long as the repeal applies only to citizens and not to government, like your denial of the 2nd does, and I’ll go gut a few known convicted serious criminals for fun and recreation and do it while walking to conserve fuel.”
“Oh, and maybe the first new conservation law will be that no one can use fuel to recreate anymore, so sailing on various lakes may be out for you.”
We haven’t talked much lately.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.