Observer Posted June 13, 2016 Share Posted June 13, 2016 Yep. At least you're consistent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FireChan Posted June 13, 2016 Share Posted June 13, 2016 At least you're consistent. It's the only thing that matters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted June 13, 2016 Share Posted June 13, 2016 At least you're consistent. FireChan is a purist. I asked the question to see at what point would he draw the line, knowing he would take it beyond the edge of of extreme absurdity. Clearly private citizens shouldn't have the ability to possess nuclear weapons. Right? Right????? Are we seriously going to debate this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keepthefaith Posted June 13, 2016 Share Posted June 13, 2016 Obama wants to solve the problem of mass shootings just like you do. It's just the means of solving the problem where you disagree. I believe that Obama wants the problem to end but I don't believe for a minute that he is willing to do what it takes or knows what it might take. I also believe that he is more than prepared to leave this problem and a few other really big problems facing the country for the next president. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4merper4mer Posted June 13, 2016 Share Posted June 13, 2016 Obama wants to solve the problem of mass shootings just like you do. It's just the means of solving the problem where you disagree. Really? If he did, he would use reality in his assessment of the problem. The "problem" he wants to solve is individuals having rights he feels they should not have. This was a terrorist attack. The mechanism was a mass shooting. It is interesting that you think he wants to solve mass shootings. Are you implying that if this guy bombed the club he wouldn't care? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unbillievable Posted June 13, 2016 Share Posted June 13, 2016 There has to be a way to let criminals roam free without them committing any crimes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted June 13, 2016 Share Posted June 13, 2016 Does this line of questioning typically end in a denial that a slippery slope for gun laws exists? Handguns kill far more people in the United States than Assault Weapons. Like 98-99% handgun to 1-2% Assault Weapons. People are upset about gun violence and are seeking to solve the problem through assault weapon bans but promise not to take away handguns which are the weapon used to commit the violence..... In all fairness, most of those murders are by black inner-city gang members killing their black neighbors. They'd probably use an AR more often except it's hard to take a good selfie when your weapon is a rifle. The handgun affords them the ability to get a closer selfie AND show their firepower with a mouthful of a cash. Which one of these guys looks cooler? This guy? Or this guy? Exactly. If the second guy was using a handgun, we'd only see his face. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ozymandius Posted June 13, 2016 Share Posted June 13, 2016 It was only a matter of time before a witness says there was a second shooter and here he is. Claims he heard two guns going off simultaneously and said there was a person at the door telling people to remain indoors. Interesting. Thoughts? https://m.youtube.com/watch?feature=youtu.be&v=HZ35V0etHiM There need not be multiple shooters to achieve the high dead bodycount. We're taking about 300+ people packed in like a sardine can. You can miss and still hit a target. Some people will die instantly. Others will bleed out during the 3 hour wait. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nanker Posted June 13, 2016 Share Posted June 13, 2016 Considering what 'set him off' was supposedly seeing two guys kissing. Well what probably helped wind him up was his father, who's a wack-job too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Observer Posted June 13, 2016 Share Posted June 13, 2016 Really? If he did, he would use reality in his assessment of the problem. The "problem" he wants to solve is individuals having rights he feels they should not have. This was a terrorist attack. The mechanism was a mass shooting. It is interesting that you think he wants to solve mass shootings. Are you implying that if this guy bombed the club he wouldn't care? Grow up. Obama has an unreasonable gun control agenda but he wants to do what he can to stop mass shootings. I don't question his desire to make America a safer place. Sadly each shooter is in copycat mode now, whether they are just psychos or self-radicalized nuts, so this won't be the last time this happens. The root cause of this is not solved neatly with gun control or bombing ISIS. It's not an easy problem to stop Americans from self-radicalizing and acting crazy. Nor is it an easy problem to stop people in war torn countries from blaming their crap lot in life on someone else and wanting revenge. These are complex problems without simple solutions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FireChan Posted June 13, 2016 Share Posted June 13, 2016 (edited) FireChan is a purist. I asked the question to see at what point would he draw the line, knowing he would take it beyond the edge of of extreme absurdity. Clearly private citizens shouldn't have the ability to possess nuclear weapons. Right? Right????? Are we seriously going to debate this? Why not? If the government can, the citizens should. How do you pay for it? How many psychotic trillionaires are there out there who can stockpile nuclear weapons at market value? Not many. Your attempt to draw me to the point of absurdity has backfired. The 2nd amendment exists so the people are not tyrannized by a government that can overpower them. I support that. Edited June 13, 2016 by FireChan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted June 13, 2016 Share Posted June 13, 2016 Grow up. Obama has an unreasonable gun control agenda but he wants to do what he can to stop mass shootings. I don't question his desire to make America a safer place. Sadly each shooter is in copycat mode now, whether they are just psychos or self-radicalized nuts, so this won't be the last time this happens. The root cause of this is not solved neatly with gun control or bombing ISIS. It's not an easy problem to stop Americans from self-radicalizing and acting crazy. Nor is it an easy problem to stop people in war torn countries from blaming their crap lot in life on someone else and wanting revenge. These are complex problems without simple solutions. His divisive polices and rhetoric have probably done more to promote mass shootings than prevent them. Why not? If the government can, the citizens should. How do you pay for it? How many psychotic trillionaires are there out there who can stockpile nuclear weapons at market value? Not many. Your attempt to draw me to the point of absurdity has backfired. The 2nd amendment exists so the people are not tyrannized by a government that can overpower them. I support that. You're grossly overestimating the cost of acquiring a nuclear weapon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Observer Posted June 13, 2016 Share Posted June 13, 2016 His divisive polices and rhetoric have probably done more to promote mass shootings than prevent them. You're grossly overestimating the cost of acquiring a nuclear weapon. Please. Obama's an ass but I doubt Omar McSelfie shot up a gay club because Obama can't talk to John Boenher and Mitch McConnell. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted June 13, 2016 Share Posted June 13, 2016 Please. Obama's an ass but I doubt Omar McSelfie shot up a gay club because Obama can't talk to John Boenher and Mitch McConnell. You're an idiot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TH3 Posted June 13, 2016 Share Posted June 13, 2016 His divisive polices and rhetoric have probably done more to promote mass shootings than prevent them. Give it up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nanker Posted June 13, 2016 Share Posted June 13, 2016 You can't handle the truth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted June 13, 2016 Share Posted June 13, 2016 Obama has an unreasonable gun control agenda but he wants to do what he can to stop mass shootings. I don't question his desire to make America a safer place. I disagree. I don't think Obama gives a rat's asshair about the shootings except to see them as an opportunity to push his agenda. This murder had virtually nothing to do with the way guns are sold in America and precisely everything to do with a terror attack, but what did Obama talk about? Gun control. Every 'mass' shooting is another chance for him to push his cause. He may feel badly for a brief moment, but you can bet your ass the minute he hears the death toll going up, he's getting his typical gun control speech tee'd up for an address...usually right before he takes off for a fundraiser. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Observer Posted June 13, 2016 Share Posted June 13, 2016 I disagree. I don't think Obama gives a rat's asshair about the shootings except to see them as an opportunity to push his agenda. This murder had virtually nothing to do with the way guns are sold in America and precisely everything to do with a terror attack, but what did Obama talk about? Gun control. Every 'mass' shooting is another chance for him to push his cause. He may feel badly for a brief moment, but you can bet your ass the minute he hears the death toll going up, he's getting his typical gun control speech tee'd up for an address...usually right before he takes off for a fundraiser. I'm all for pausing a moment before selling a serious gun to a guy whose name ends up in a potentially radicalized terror investigation. If there was aa cross check of gun buyers against names in terror-related investigations, does this shooting happen? Probably, but it at least gives the good guys a fighting chance. Obama couldn't have done one thing different to stop this attack in the same way Bush couldn't have stopped 9-11. But their gut reaction to the situation was keep America safe. You're an idiot. Mass shootings are becoming copycat fun for psychos who have been shown the way. I voted for Romney and Romney couldn't have stopped this shooting even if he spent an hour in bed with Barbara Boxer and Elizabeth Warren. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ozymandius Posted June 13, 2016 Share Posted June 13, 2016 As a teenage high school student in Florida, gay nightclub mass murderer Omar Mateen cheered as terrorists flew jumbo jets into the Twin Towers on 9/11, his former classmates recalled. Self-proclaimed Islamic State devotee Mateen was a sophomore when the al Qaeda terrorists attacked New York on Sept. 11, 2001 — and classmates vividly recalled his offensive reaction to America’s darkest day, according to the Washington Post. One former classmate said he was in the same room with Mateen during the 9/11 attacks. While everyone in the classroom was shocked or angered, Mateen was celebrating. “But Omar was saying some really rude stuff. Stuff like, ‘That’s what America deserves.’ That kind of thing. It wasn’t right,” the former classmate said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
reddogblitz Posted June 13, 2016 Share Posted June 13, 2016 (edited) And the right is blaming: Islam Obama Clinton (Bill or Hillary) Social media ACLU etc That's what people do in cases like this. Look for a root cause and try to fix it. If only it were that simple. Interestingly, Presidential candidate Gary Johnson has the most sane thing to say in the aftermath IMHO From an article in the Seattle Times today: New Mexico. Governor Gary Johnson, who is headlining the Libertarian Party ticket called for letting the investigation play out. "We must allow the authorities to do thier jobs, understand how this attack came about, and then respond accordingly," he said in a statement. "It is not the time to either politicize or jump to conclusions." Chalk one up for Gary. Edited June 13, 2016 by reddogblitz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts