Obama: Mass shootings are 'something we should politicize'

I hope the President will do something major about the problem of gun violence in America.

 

Like perhaps cease contributing to it with all the cops-bashing, race-based political agitating he does all the damn time? Yeah, that would be nice.

 

I have no problem with registering guns, I just want the government to actually do their job if that would be the law. Again, I revert to my previous comment of enforcing the laws we have. Can you post that criminals are actually using registered guns as opposed to stolen or black market?

 

Your governments have shown a total disregard for your Constitution whenever it has suited them. You don't have any 'freedom' that your government doesn't allow you to have-and don't be under any illusion that your touchingly naive faith in your touchstone, the US Constitution, is anything but blind faith.

 

He won't, he'll just take it up the arse from the gun lobby just like every useless limp dick president has done in the past.

 

An armed populace is free despite the government in power. That's why Britishers, for instance, are NOT free; they are instead a population of serfs.

 

What utter rubbish! If you honestly believe toting a gun is symbolic of freedom then you're deluding yourself. Here's something you won't understand; we're free because we have no need of guns and are not afraid of walking down the street and getting one pointed at us. And why is that, you might ask? Because we have strict firearms regulation and the number of illegal guns in circulation is statistically insignificant, therefore the likelihood of any of us even seeing a gun during our lifetimes is equally improbable.
We like it like this. You can keep slaughtering each other because you're so free.

 

It's always fun to listen to serfs talk about how free they are.

 

Well if the laws we have are a start what would you suggest as the end. Or are you as devoid of actual ideas as you appear to be?

I know ranting about Obama is good catharsis but it really doesn't solve much. And by the way a lot of Dems are in the NRA pocket just like Republicans.

 

That is just silly. So people who don't own guns are serfs and people who have guns are free? I would suggest that money and intelligence are much better measures of freedom in this country. But of course those who have neither can always comfort themselves by hugging their guns.

 

Since you are not a citizen here, have no voice or vote here and are not affected by laws here your comments carry little weight and no that is not common sense and in direct violation of our Constitution.

 

The Constitution was written by men, amended by men and can be changed with the will of men. It isn't a directive from God...

 

It sure stopped car jackings in New Orleans back in the 1980's.

 

Reread your earlier post, you start by saying you don't want to "see Americans disarmed" and then suggest you want to disarm an American because he does not agree with you. People who propose such additional gun control so quickly go from claiming respect for gun rights to wanting to take away someone's rights for the most trivial of reasons. You shot yourself down and made the case against any additional regulation.

That's why no additional gun control will be tolerated, gun banners are never satisfied and they simply lie - the claim of a lower number of gun deaths has been refuted solidly, see the following in response to a similar claim that more gun control means fewer gun deaths

 

Lots of people disagree with me and I've never suggested taking their guns away (if they even had any). There are some people, obviously, who should not be allowed to own guns, and if they have any not, then, yes, they should be taken away. If you cannot agree with that, then we can never have a rational discussion. I have done some hunting (deer; doves) and have yet to see a reason why someone would need a battlefield style autoloading rifle with a large capacity magazine.

That's why no additional gun control will be tolerated, gun banners are never satisfied and they simply lie - the claim of a lower number of gun deaths has been refuted solidly, see the following in response to a similar claim that more gun control means fewer gun deaths[/QUOTE]

The refutation of which you speak has been found to be just another right wing fantasy. The states with stricter gun laws have lower numbers of deaths per 100K of population than those with limited, or virtually no controls. There may be MORE deaths in some of those strict control states, but that is only because they have much higher numbers of people living there.

 

As my link shows, the claimed death rates due to firearms are totally unrealistic. I compared the claimed death rates to the FBI UCR. For example, the chart claiming less regulation means more firearm deaths shows Alabama as having 17.6 gun related deaths per 100,000 people, while the FBI UCR shows Alabama had 7.6 (100,000 people) murders and nonnegligent manslaughter. Accidental firearm deaths are small (600 or so per year in the entire nation) and there is no way those will make up the difference. How can there be 2.3 times as many firearm deaths as all criminal deaths from all causes? Its ridiculous.

I looked up other states as well, they are equally unbelievable.

Its not a right wing fantasy at all - its straight from the data. The claim that more regulation = less deaths is BS.

 

What would that accomplish?

 

I don't register my car every year. I purchase the license to drive it on a public road every year. When I was restoring a TR6 I didn't buy the new tag every year until it was road ready.

 

England would no longer exist if not for the US. So there.

 

As opposed to the limp dick citizens of your country who let the government disarm them and put their own protection at the mercy of the government? It's one reason we kicked you out of ours which you still have not gotten over.

 

And they still seem upset about it still trying to tell is how we should run our country after we handed them their arse's and then saved it twice.

 

We were never "disarmed" because we were never armed in the first place, never needed a gun for protection because, guess what, there were barely any guns to protect ourselves against and only a very few people legally owned a handgun. The majority of shotgun owners were and are either sporting shooters and/or farmers. Learn some history before spewing nonsense. We don't want, need or like guns and that's why we have one of the lowest rates of gun-related crime in the world. America, on the other hand-well, you know the rest.
Our two worst massacres were committed by lunatics with legally-owned firearms. It was their actions which prompted our government to enact even stricter legislation. Of course you wouldn't understand what real 'freedom' means. For us it is the freedom to walk down a street without fearing being held up by a gun nut or routinely killed by an out of control cop.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_the_United_Kingdom

 

How would that help? Serious question.

What would "registering" involve?

There is no amount of paperwork or testing that will stop a crazy person from deciding to kill someone.

 

".. no one wants what we have".

 

Yep, we repeatedly saved them time after time and demonstrated how a free people can be all that they can be as individuals and they threw it aside with both hands in preference to living a collectivist-socialistic serf-type lifestyle.

But to return to the O.P.'s topic, yes, those Dem Party collectivist havens wherein they harbor the most freedom-repressive gun control lifestyle do have the most amazing murder-by-gun statistics. If Dems were capable of thinking outside the ideological box then that would give them something to think about. But they can't, and so it won't . . . and so it goes.