Obama: Mass shootings are 'something we should politicize'

This is where the rubber meets the road for Obama, here's a clue Obama, your home town leads America in shootings and you don't shoot off your mouth like you did yesterday, why doesn't he ever mention Chicago? The truth is, Obama and government don't enforce laws already on the books, and shame on him for his politicizing such tragic events. The fact that the states with the most restrictive gun laws are the one's that have the highest crimes with guns. Amazing liberals haven't figured out that the only people that follow and obey gun laws are responsible citizens, not the insane or the criminals

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/255723-obama-mass-shootings-should-be-politicized

Obama chided opponents of gun control legislation, including those who argue the country needs “more guns” to prevent mass shootings. And he urged proponents of stricter gun laws to vote for political candidates who share their views.

“Each time this happens I’m going to bring this up,” Obama said. “Each time this happens I am going to say we can actually do something about it.”

 

Obama's home town is currently Washington. His concern, as it should be, is for the tens of thousands killed and injured by guns every year. Second Amendment worshippers need to get their priorities in order and, instead of yelling FREEDOM! every time a tragedy like this occurs and calling for more wretched guns everywhere (because that's going to help, right?), should be doing something positive instead.

 

With all that said while these type of shootings get the attention if you look at the stats they are still a small part of the issue. Obama can not due to his political leanings focus truly on the issue.

 

There are tens of millions of guns in the hands of private citizens. Get the F over it and deal with it. They aren't going anywhere.

 

Or maybe look for the real cause behind the evil that makes someone commit those crimes? The gun doesn't cause the action...that's what so many overlook due to partisan ideology. I don't know how many more restrictive gun laws Maryland could have, but I think the FBI check, fingerprinting, licensing requirements, etc. well take care of it. We need to look elsewhere because, like guns, laws don't change evil intent.

 

Obama is right on this. I'm all about the right to bear arms, but we need to find a way to minimize accessibility to weapons like AR-15 in civilian hands - especially unstable ones. I don't believe our Founding Fathers realized the types of guns that would come about when they wrote the 2nd Amendment.

 

That isn't what home town means.

The founding fathers fought a war with cannons owned by civilians. You are just wrong on their philosophy.

 

Just when I think there may be hope for the libs out there, you post this and diminish all hope.

*sigh of disappointment*

 

The world of our FFs was different from today's. You still think a black man is worth 3/5th a white ? Cause our FFs did.

- - - Updated - - -

Not all guns. This 'no compromise' idea is not sustainable

 

like Washington is so much safer than Chicago... lol....

 

When strict gun control laws work on a large city scale then we can talk about an entire country. This is like a scientific test in a way. If people can't get strict gun control laws to work on a relatively small scale (City) how in the heck are they expecting it to work on a large scale (country). It makes no sense to apply flawed practices on a large scale until it can be done right one a much, much, much smaller scale.

 

FYI - It's easy to get guns around Chicago, even tho they have some stricf laws - just get outside the city limits and purchase your weapon of choice.

Well, there goes another right wing fantasy blown all to hell and back:

The harder states make it to get guns — like New York — the fewer people die because of them, a new analysis of firearm restrictions shows.

New York State, with its relatively strict laws — restrictions that are even tougher in the five boroughs — had 4.2 gun deaths per capita in 2013, the third-fewest number of gun-related deaths nationwide, according to the National Journal’s study released Monday.

It examined gun-related deaths of all types — from murders to suicides and accidental shootings — in the year 2013 and found “while it’s certainly true that a number of factors contribute to the high rates of gun violence in the U.S., a comparison of state laws versus rates of shooting deaths does show a correlation.”

Hawaii had the lowest number of gun-linked deaths — 2.5 per 100,000 people — in the country in 2013, said the National Journal, a public policy magazine and website.

The Aloha State also places serious restrictions on gun buyers and owners: Permits are required to purchase handguns, as are background checks and a 14-day waiting period. In Hawaii, it is also relatively difficult to get either a concealed- or open-carry permit, according to the study.

The reverse of all that is generally true of Alaska, which had the highest rate of gun deaths: 19.8 per 100,000 people in 2013. Alaska doesn’t require permits or background checks to buy or carry guns, and there is no waiting period to obtain a firearm.

Seems like the facts prove Obama right and gun nutters wrong. Amazing.

 

So the scale of a weapon hasn't really changed, so it must be the people. So instead of wanting to fix the people we take away the weapon. What sense does that make.

And yes and AR can hold many rounds, but a cannon can take out a small building.

 

Freedom. Period. I would rather have a dangerous freedom than a safe slavery.

- - - Updated - - -

And a rental truck and some fertilizer and fuel can take out a big building.

 

We are doing something positive, we are arming ourselves. Those with any brain know exactly what I meant by his hometown, but then, you were just trying to be clever, but you failed. BTW, DC is not much better than Chicago.

Enforce the laws on the books, that is how you get rid criminals

 

Your reply does not address the fact that the founding fathers wanted the civilian population to be able to protect itself from those who mean to rule them. They would absolutely be on board with us having AR-15s. Full-auto no doubt.

As to 3/5ths... I think that was generous to give to property... regardless their color. Unfortunately it led to the civil war, giving southern slaveholders undue representation.

 

That does not make a word of sense.
A safe slavery is not quite the opposite to a dangerous freedom.
Youre suggesting that to remove guns implies a safe slavery...
Gimmee a break.
This is an example of the brainless logic that the gun lobby spruiks.......
Tell me how you get from a dangerous freedom to a safe slavery....please....Im interested
in your logic behind that statement....

 

Unfortunately, the value of a black man has gone way down....at least in the time of our forefathers the great majority of them did contribute to society....now most are just parasites....living on the hard working white man's dime.

 

Well, Snake, it would be nice if we had the kind of society over here in which concern for one's life wasn't a constant concern, but the REALITY is that ours has become an increasingly lawless country full of hateful people who want to kill and destroy for no reason at all. Surely, even in peacefully idyllic "Merrie Olde England" (where Lee Rigby couldn't even walk down a peaceful London street without being beheaded by Islamo-Nazis), you've heard the phrase, "When weapons are outlawed, only outlaws will have weapons!"...? Was it OK, then, that poor Mr Rigby was murdered, but not with a gun...?

What would have ordinary, peaceful Americans do when we're confronted by marauding murderers and other criminals? Pee in our pants, call "911", leave a message, and then wait an hour for a policeman to come to the "scene"? About all the police can do at that point is radio back for a medical examiner's team to come and haul away the corpses for an autopsy....

But it's interesting how every communist/socialist figure I'm aware of always clamors for taking self-defense weapons away from the people You on the Left have in your company for this suicidal effort such stellar figures as Adolf Hitler and Barack Obama.

 

Food for thought (as if Republicans and gun nuts could think):

 

Commit a crime involving a gun and get a life sentence. Problem solved

 

Your belief is incorrect concerning the founding fathers. They included the Second Amendment at a time when the average citizen could legally be as well armed as the soldier. They did not have a limit of bore size or amount of powder, wadding, and ammo one could carry.

Living in a free society comes with risk and unfortunately, a price.

I will agree that better mental screening is something that can and should be done.

 

My apologies that it was over your head.
I am safe because I am armed. I will stay armed no matter the law or whims of others. I will not give up my weapons in favor of being a sitting duck.
An armed person is a citizen. An unarmed person is a subject.

- - - Updated - - -

These type of crimes of the brand we saw yesterday. No amount of sentencing will help. These people don't plan on living through the event usually.

 

"An unarmed person is a subject"...using your logic, I think youre trying to say "a slave"...

 

True, no law will stop a nut, only a bullet to the head