Posted on 06/20/2015 1:39:41 PM PDT by rktman
“We don’t have all the facts, but we do know that, once again, innocent people were killed in part because someone who wanted to inflict harm had no trouble getting their hands on a gun,” Obama said.
“And at some point it’s going to be important for the American people to come to grips with it, and for us to be able to shift how we think about the issue of gun violence collectively,” he said.
In the midst of that statement, Obama appeared to acknowledge the political realities in Washington are not in his favor on this issue.
“I say that recognizing the politics in this town foreclose a lot of those avenues right now,” he said.
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...
Look at history... Hitler used the Reichstag fire as a pretext for ending civil liberties in Germany. Obama’s mentor Saul Alinski also advocated using crises either real or imagined as a means of seizing power. Sadly I fear that Obama could declare himself dictator with acolades from Democrats and the media and the GOP would do little more than whimper.
There were sufficient laws on the books that, if followed, would have prevented Roof from having a gun. Those laws were not followed. What good will new laws do if they aren’t followed either?
Anything BUt Benghazi..
Whupping up a nice batch of sentiment for martial law at this point and in Obammy’s disjointed regime, anything goes.. who cares who gets screwed worst?
Sandy Hook, Charleston..
Obammy played thru..
Lets hope he keeps doing it for awhile..
Well, Mr. Barry Boy, they aren’t yours to take, and I ain’t about to give them to you, so f*** you.
Lying on the gun purchase ATF form is illegal. This administration does not prosecute anyone for it. “We don’t have time to do it” was Biden’s response when asked, IIRC.
So the long and short of it is that there are more than enough laws currently on the books to help prevent these kinds of killings, or at least make it far more difficult to get the weaponry. But the problem is that they aren’t complied with and those who break them are not prosecuted. So what do you think the chances are that South Carolina will prosecute Roof’s father for illegally giving him a weapon? Somebody? Anybody?
this time it was a gun. It could have been a kitchen knife, a tire iron, a home made bomb,a can of hair spray and a match, or any of a nearly infinite variety of potential weapons. hand guns are extremely rare in mass shootings.
If we are going to get serious about stopping deadly violence we need to be protected whenever and wherever people gather in numbers.
The most secure form of protection is a pocket size hand gun. It will stop a violent attack and provide protection for your family.
Come and get em.
Bring all your unarmed, half wit, worshipers too....
Yes, more than enough laws already on the books.
You will receive more prison time for selling fake Nike shoes than holding up a gas station at gunpoint, and shooting the clerk.
And just when ammo prices were starting to come down.....
Here is the link to when Biden made this statement:
“The Justice Department plans to move forward this year with more than a dozen new gun-related regulations, according to list of rules the agency has proposed to enact before the end of the Obama administration.
The regulations range from new restrictions on high-powered pistols to gun storage requirements. Chief among them is a renewed effort to keep guns out of the hands of people who are mentally unstable or have been convicted of domestic abuse.”
If you took antidepressants or some other drug relating to mental health for some reason, you likely won't be able to buy a self defense weapon. They will decide which drugs to put on their list to deny a weapon to anyone who takes “x”.
If you spanked your kid, that will likely become “domestic abuse” and you won't be able to buy a self defense weapon.
I have fibromyalgia and take one little pill of very low dose Amitriptyline every night. Amitriptyline, when it was developed, was used in large doses for depression. Later, it was found a very low dose stopped neurological excess movements of muscles. A low dose is common use for neurological problems now.
When a neurologist told me Amitriptyline would solve my over active neurological muscle spasms, I questioned him because, as a professional counselor, I knew it was used for depression. He explained this new use of a minimal amount to control excess neurological signals going to muscles.
Now, the feds can find out I have taken that med for years. Do you think they are going to let me buy a weapon since I take Amitriptyline, even though a tiny amount? No, they will stop anyone from buying a gun who takes any amount of a drug they decide is forbidden to take.
Consider medicines you take or have taken. Is there any possibility you have taken something, even years ago, that would cause you to be on their “don't let him/her have a gun”.
Once Obama is out of office, President Cruz will wipe out that federal gun group and get people in there that will uphold second amendment rights.
Obama the worlds greatest gun salesman: Watch for a big jump in arms and ammunition sales, again.
Now, this is going to hurt. It is going to hurt because it will require you to actually think independently. It will hurt because it will require you to reason and use common sense. It will hurt because it will challenge your long-held beliefs that have been spoon-fed to you by your "leaders."
But I challenge you to do it anyway. Here it is, we're going to perform a little thought experiment based on two questions.
First, ask yourself this. If someone is insane, evil, or mentally/emotionally damaged enough to commit pre-meditated murder, breaking a dozen or more existing laws, do you really think adding a couple more "gun control" laws to the books for him/her to break will make any difference?
The answer is of course not. If you cannot answer that way then you are either mentally defective yourself or intellectually dishonest - even with yourself. There is no way any sane, rational, honest person can say any existing or proposed "gun control" laws will deter someone bent on committing mass murder. You know it, we (freedom and liberty loving people) know it. When you advocate for such things it calls into question your motives, since safety and/or stopping such incidents clearly is not one of them.
The second question comes because I know, trust me I know, exactly what you're thinking right now. That is, if you're a lib-lurker and you've read this far. Many of you are so close-minded they've stopped reading in a huff a few sentences back. If you're still with me, bravo, but it doesn't get any easier on you. If you're a liberal, you like easy, sound-bite, feel-good, idealistic solutions. I actually like that about you libs. My problem with you is that you don't recognize they are just that. You actually try to impose them on us. But that's a rant for a different day.
So what you lib-lurker types are thinking right about now is some variation of "What we really need to do is just get rid of all the guns, then no-one could shoot up a room full of people." Admit it, if you're a liberal you think that would be a good idea and solution. You are a fool. Let's continue our thought experiment here with my second question for you. Do you really think it is feasible, practical, to get rid of all firearms? Bzzzt. Not going to happen and you're a fool if you even consider it as a viable solution for more than 30 seconds. Ban guns, really? Think civil-war II, armed rebellion. Consider, we can't even effectively close the border against thousands of invader and literally tons of drugs each year. Think you could keep guns out? Ha! I literally laugh at your idiotic suggestion.
So given the only reasonable answers to those questions means there will always be guns here and always be people willing to use them to harm others... The "answer" to make us safer simply cannot be disarm more people and create more defenseless victims. Gun control is one of the most un-abashedly stupid ideas anyone has ever come up with.
Unless you're a wanna-be dictator and fascist, and want a disarmed, controllable populace.
One thing that 99 percent of the lefties will never change on is the gun debate. I’m convinced that we are so dimetrically opposed that if there is a SHTF moment we might have to go toe to toe with them. We have to have the will to fight and win and to make hard decisions. I fear we are so far apart, there is no common ground. That is sad but true. I pray to God He gives us the wisdom and fortitude if and when this day ever comes.
I definitely agree.
The way to protect good people from bad people is not to make them fish in a barrel by disarming them.
Thw ay to protect good people from bad people is to arm them, but that is not Barry’s actual goal.
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.