Obama plans curbs on guns

  • Thread starter Thread starter gilliam
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Brendan said:
Which is probably why his girls are constantly surrounded by armed men. He recognizes that carrying guns offers protection for the ones he loves.
Click to expand...
His daughters have to have Secret Service protection whether he, or they, want it or not. It’s the law. Once he leaves office, that Secret Service protection will end.
 
More children in the US die of liver cancer than mass shootings (hint, not many),
The President was acting, crocodile tears.
 
Lily_Bernans said:
His daughters have to have Secret Service protection whether he, or they, want it or not. It’s the law. Once he leaves office, that Secret Service protection will end.
Click to expand...
The law mandates that the guards be provided. But the President is within his power to have them stand down, as they are still DHS employees. He has decided not to issue such an order.

He, like many fathers, sees value in having his family protected by firearms.
 
Brendan said:
The law mandates that the guards be provided. But the President is within his power to have them stand down, as they are still DHS employees. He has decided not to issue such an order.

He, like many fathers, sees value in having his family protected by firearms.
Click to expand...
His daughters will only have Secret Service protection until they are 16, and I believe one, if not both, is older than that:

cbsnews.com/news/obama-restores-lifetime-secret-service-for-former-presidents/

Edit: Once he leaves office. And Obama made it clear he doesn’t want to take guns away from law abiding citizens, simply close some loopholes and make it more difficult for criminals to obtain guns.
 
Lily_Bernans said:
Obama does call them terrorists:

huffingtonpost.com/2015/02/18/obama-islamic-state-terrorists_n_6708610.html

I agree with his reasoning. To call them Islamic terrorists confers a religiosity on them they do not deserve. The problem is not with Islam; it’s with terrorism.
Click to expand...
I think it is naive to believe that the problem does not, at least to some degree, involve Islam. The damage done to Native Americans by European explorers was to some degree connected to Christians. Yes?
They call themselves Islamic State in Iraq and Syria. They invoke the name Allah. They are Islamic, radicals to be sure, but Islamic. And terrorists. Islamic terrorists.

Jon
 
JonNC said:
I think it is naive to believe that the problem does not, at least to some degree, involve Islam. The damage done to Native Americans by European explorers was to some degree connected to Christians. Yes?
They call themselves Islamic State in Iraq and Syria. They invoke the name Allah. They are Islamic, radicals to be sure, but Islamic. And terrorists. Islamic terrorists.

Jon
Click to expand...
It is true that they call themselves Islamic terrorists and invoke the name of Allah, but they really have nothing to do with mainstream Islam. I wouldn’t grant them the dignity of calling them “Islamic,” either. They are just plain, ordinary terrorists.

If a group of terrorists began invoking the name of Christ, we would not say they were “Christian terrorists.” We would say they had nothing to do with Christianity, and we would be right.
 
Lily_Bernans said:
It is true that they call themselves Islamic terrorists and invoke the name of Allah, but they really have nothing to do with mainstream Islam. I wouldn’t grant them the dignity of calling them “Islamic,” either. They are just plain, ordinary terrorists.

If a group of terrorists began invoking the name of Christ, we would not say they were “Christian terrorists.” We would say they had nothing to do with Christianity, and we would be right.
Click to expand...
Why do so many recruits for ISIS come from the neighborhood Mosque? They are not coming just from some minuscule branch or sect of Islam.

To contrast with Christianity, what do you think we would do to the Westboro Baptist Church if even one member committed an act of mass killing in the name of their religion? I am confident all other Christian sects would rapidly denounce them and authorities would crack the whip. They are given their religious freedom because they are just rude PITA protesters, not killers.
 
Theo520 said:
Why do so many recruits for ISIS come from the neighborhood Mosque? They are not coming just from some minuscule branch or sect of Islam.

To contrast with Christianity, what do you think we would do to the Westboro Baptist Church if even one member committed an act of mass killing in the name of their religion? I am confident all other Christian sects would rapidly denounce them and authorities would crack the whip. They are given their religious freedom because they are just rude PITA protesters, not killers.
Click to expand...
I do think mainstream Islamic leaders should condemn the actions of terrorists who say they are killing in the name of Allah more than they do. Some do condemn, but I think stronger condemnation is needed, and they need to make it plain: This is not Islam. If they don’t, the public is going to go on saying “radical Islamic terrorists” even if the terrorists have never been in a mosque.
 
Imo, Jefferson Davis was right…

When people fear a government, there is tyranny, when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

Seems to me, the gun control issue proves the Govt is at least a little bit fearful of the people right now.
 
mikekle said:
Imo, Jefferson Davis was right…

When people fear a government, there is tyranny, when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

Seems to me, the gun control issue proves the Govt is at least a little bit fearful of the people right now.
Click to expand...
I have to respectfully disagree. The government has all the power, all the “big” guns, and most of the money. We have an outgoing president who doesn’t need to curry favor. Americans, in general (not speaking of anyone here) are too apathetic to revolt. What has the government got to fear?

Maybe I am missing something.
 
mikekle said:
Imo, Jefferson Davis was right…

When people fear a government, there is tyranny, when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

Seems to me, the gun control issue proves the Govt is at least a little bit fearful of the people right now.
Click to expand...
I feels more like strategy than fear. They just use fear to sell it.
 
Peebo.

You said (to grotto):
I don’t have to prove anything…you are the one accusing Obama of shedding crocodile tears over slaughtered children…show proof that he was not genuine… or you are bearing false witness by your comment
Click to expand...
I don’t think grotto has anything to “prove”. I am not suggesting President Obama WAS shedding “false tears” here.

But remember. It was President Obama himself who said gun deaths SHOULD be POLITICIZED!

So when someone draws the conclusion that the President is “politicizing” gun deaths, don’t be so quick to judge grotto’s ideas.

I would not be so quick to impugn grotto’s motives (or have a heart that deviseth wicked imaginations) while you are defending someone who openly uses his power to protect those who shed innocent blood.

You must evaluate not just someone’s “words” but their “actions” too.

Grotto seems to think President Obama’s “actions” speak to the issue (not just his words).

I’m not saying here I agree with grotto (or that I disagree). I am not commenting on President Obama’s level of sincerity or insincerity over gun violence.

But your conclusions seem to lack foundation.

Do you think it suggests “complete sincerity” when the Government facilitates guns into criminals hands (with operation Fast and Furious)?

And then when the “program” is exposed by other people within the Government, nobody goes to jail or is held accountable (all the while the rhetoric keeps being directed against legal fire arms dealers—who TRIED to STOP illegal gun running (but the Government ordered them to GIVE the guns to the criminal buying sources)?

What is YOUR conclusion here Peebo?

Rape Victim Bravely Shares Her Story Publicly

Several nights ago, President Obama heard a rape victim basically tell him that she depended upon Government and on the “system” to protect her in the past.

video.foxnews.com/v/4692740472001/gun-rights-advocates-speak-out-after-confronting-obama/?#sp=show-clips

The Government failed. She was raped partly because of Government’s inability and failure to protect her.

Certainly not a malicious or purposeful failure . . . but a failure never-the-less.

(President Obama shed no tears for her incidentally.)

**President Obama’s Solution To HER Problem . . . **

President Obama rather condescendingly told her what she needs is MORE GOVERNMENT, MORE RULES, MORE REGULATIONS almost scolding her and certainly not addressing the issues she brought up.

President Obama rather derisively suggested to her that she can’t be counted upon to handle this responsibility (using “accidents” as a pretext—yet “accidents” happen with Government guards too. But he would not suggest disarming his own entourage because of “accidents”).

President Obama suggested the law-abiding citizens couldn’t be trusted with firearms.

It was like he wasn’t even listening to her (or as she said, “a non-answer”).

Do you realize the trauma this woman went through being raped?

She MAY have needed some sort of psychological help afterwards.

Doesn’t it BOTHER you even a little bit, that because of President Obama’s undefined “mental health initiatives”, this very woman COULD be told by the Government she now has “mental health difficulties” so now that she has been through this, NO GUN RIGHTS for her?

IF that occurred, She WOULD BE victimized AGAIN.

Once victimized by the rapist . . . .

. . . . . and the second time victimized by Government over-reach (taking away her citizen rights).

Possibly taking away her citizen rights with Government over-reach that IGNORES defined Congressional legal definitions.

This woman said the first time . . . . she was victimized.

She said if this happens again, this time she will be prepared to at least TRY to defend herself. Is THAT unreasonable?

When “seconds” matter, the Government is only “minutes” away from helping her.

And if gun-control is necessary for what-ever reason, WHY have you not said anything about Government politicians who are heavily armed (via their guards).

And as has been said on this thread, the protection remains for them. Even after they leave office!

Obama restores lifetime Secret Service for former presidents
By Mark Knoller CBS News January 12, 2013, 10:31 AM

Under a new law signed today by President Obama, all former U.S. presidents and first ladies will receive lifetime Secret Service protection. . . .

cbsnews.com/news/obama-restores-lifetime-secret-service-for-former-presidents/#article

The politicians certainly deserve this level of protection, but WHY would you deny this to our law-abiding citizens too?

**Just as a reminder Proverbs 6:16-19 warns of that God distains . . . **
  • A proud look
  • a lying tongue
  • hands that shed innocent blood
  • An heart that deviseth wicked imaginations
  • feet that be swift in running to mischief
  • A false witness that speaketh lies
  • he that soweth discord among brethren
 
mary_bobo said:
Each of us is able to offer opinions. That is far short of false witness.
Click to expand...
The president called the gun lobby liars the other night . I’m an NRA member, which makes me part of the pro-second amendment lobby. (Note: lobbyists are a good thing. They are the way groups of people can redress their grievances before the government).
That is a false witness.

Jon
 
Lily_Bernans said:
Edit: Once he leaves office. And Obama made it clear he doesn’t want to take guns away from law abiding citizens, simply close some loopholes and make it more difficult for criminals to obtain guns.
Click to expand...
When you express admiration for Australia-style gun control, in which broad classes of firearms were banned and confiscated, it’s hard to take seriously any claims that you don’t want to take guns away for law abiding citizens. Obama has no credibility with gun rights advocates, so what he says is largely irrelevant. The reality, of course, is nothing Obama is proposing will make it more difficult for criminals to get guns, it just puts extra burdens on the law abiding.
 
I don’t even know why the argument is admitted as I think its a logical fallacy as basically stated in comparison. Further why should anyone believe the Democrat party speaking about foreign policy? Do you not get it they are a failure today and lied, and did the same before historically. So regardless there are millions who outright reject their point. Tell you what if you want to talk to them you better start there. As much as I despise their pockets of extreme views I despise yours even more because its ignorance and even more deadly. I have to argue about their ignorant view why we can’t just kill civilian radical muslims and your ignorance about national security and foreign policy fairytales. And while us and Putin put weapons of destruction on display “for sale” and fighting some undefined enemy with fairytale no-boots and no war chants of the undefined enemy. And astonishing as is we shouldn’t beef up national security because theres nothing to worry about, don’t change a thing in your life. Confiscate guns like so-so because they are like us how?
 
Today America is the richest nation in the history of the world. Our power and influence extend around the globe. Yet the challenges and dangers which confront us are even more awesome and difficult than those that faced Roosevelt. And we too will need to summon all the energies of our people and the capacities of our leaders if America is to remain a great and free nation – if we are to master the opportunities of the New Frontier.
Click to expand...
The dimensions of our problems overwhelm the imagination. At home millions are unemployed and the growth of our economy has come to a virtual halt. Abroad, we are faced with powerful and unrelenting pressure which threaten freedom in every corner of the globe, and with military power so formidable that it menaces the physical survival of our own nation.
Click to expand...
To meet these problems will require the efforts not only of our leaders or of the Democratic Party–but the combined efforts of all of our people. No one has a right to feel that, having entrusted the tasks of government to new leaders in Washington, he can continue to pursue his private comforts unconcerned with America’s challenges and dangers. For, if freedom is to survive and prosper, it will require the sacrifice, the effort and the thoughtful attention of every citizen.
Click to expand...
In my own native state of Massachusetts, the battle for American freedom was begun by the thousands of farmers and tradesmen who made up the Minute Men – citizens who were ready to defend their liberty at a moment’s notice. Today we need a nation of minute men; citizens who are not only prepared to take up arms, but citizens who regard the preservation of freedom as a basic purpose of their daily life and who are willing to consciously work and sacrifice for that freedom. The cause of liberty, the cause of America, cannot succeed with any lesser effort.
Click to expand...
jfklibrary.org/Research/Research-Aids/Ready-Reference/JFK-Quotations/Roosevelt-Day-Commemoration-Message.aspx

Do the Democrats need something different today or like then do we need to pay attention just the same but also more critically of foreign policy and war. 🤷
 
Theo520 said:
More children in the US die of liver cancer than mass shootings (hint, not many),
The President was acting, crocodile tears.
Click to expand...
I can assure you as I wept along with our President, it was not an act and they were not crocodile tears, any more than the tears Jesus wept alongside the family of Lazarus were crocodile tears.
 
Sy_Noe said:
I can assure you as I wept along with our President, it was not an act and they were not crocodile tears, any more than the tears Jesus wept alongside the family of Lazarus were crocodile tears.
Click to expand...
And I weep for the sad and unnecessary loss of human life, not only due to the illegal, intentional misuse (and sometimes accidental misuse) of firearms, but also by the illegal misuse of automobiles and alcohol, and the intentional misuse of medical technology that kills hundreds of thousands of innocent soon to be born human beings every year.

I refuse to question the president’s sincerity on the question of his sadness about the deaths from illegal, intentional misuse of firearms. I do question his honesty when he denies his desire to confiscate weapons, and I question why he seems to lack the same deep sadness for the soon to be born human beings who are killed.

Jon
 
🙂 The weeping President again? Why is that non point repeated every page? We get it you absolutely believe the authenticity of his tears. Is it OK some don’t find that a compelling point relevant to anything? He might have had many things on his mind and that day, rightfully so but I won’t repeat my point about Afghanistan. So you would assert his authenticity when we don’t know. How do you know for sure? Convince me.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top