Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Actually the only job he has under the Constitution is the executive function. Giving speeches isn't a requirement. Running the government is.

 jreilly89 wrote:


Wow, zinger! Care to respond to the fact that most of these shootings were done BY legal gun owners? Or more Obama bashing? Don't worry, I'll wait.

how about the killings done with knives? should we ban knives? or the killings done with explosives? oh wait those are banned, oh wait you are going to say the explosives were handmade, guess you never heard of home made weapons, between hardware stores or 3D printing people can make their own guns and bullets, it comes down to the point man has been killing man in massive numbers long before guns were invented, blaming an inanimate object for the killings is a joke, but then again you are probably one of those calling for the banning of Assault Rifles and Automatic Rifles, oh wait those are already banned but you might say AR in AR-15 stands for Assault rifle or Automatic Rifle, it does not it stands for Armalite Rifle the company that made it, so go be sanctimonious and make your stand, but realize you are standing for a joke, the AR-15 is just a rifle that uses basic hunting rifle cartridges it only shoots as fast as the trigger can be pulled.

furthermore out of the few million legal registered gun owners a mere pittance have done any aggressive gun violence, yet all knife killings were done by legal owners.


on another situation, it appears the DNC has been hacked by Russia:

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2016/06/14/russia-hack-democratic-national-committee-trump/85867116/

Asterios wrote:

 jreilly89 wrote:


Wow, zinger! Care to respond to the fact that most of these shootings were done BY legal gun owners? Or more Obama bashing? Don't worry, I'll wait.

how about the killings done with knives? should we ban knives? or the killings done with explosives? oh wait those are banned, oh wait you are going to say the explosives were handmade, guess you never heard of home made weapons, between hardware stores or 3D printing people can make their own guns and bullets, it comes down to the point man has been killing man in massive numbers long before guns were invented, blaming an inanimate object for the killings is a joke, but then again you are probably one of those calling for the banning of Assault Rifles and Automatic Rifles, oh wait those are already banned but you might say AR in AR-15 stands for Assault rifle or Automatic Rifle, it does not it stands for Armalite Rifle the company that made it, so go be sanctimonious and make your stand, but realize you are standing for a joke, the AR-15 is just a rifle that uses basic hunting rifle cartridges it only shoots as fast as the trigger can be pulled.

furthermore out of the few million legal registered gun owners a mere pittance have done any aggressive gun violence, yet all knife killings were done by legal owners.


on another situation, it appears the DNC has been hacked by Russia:

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2016/06/14/russia-hack-democratic-national-committee-trump/85867116/

Yes I forgot the mass stabbing of 1502 where 50 people were killed and 50 more wounded by one man with a knife

Prestor Jon wrote:

 jreilly89 wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 Gordon Shumway wrote:
Wow, Obama just gave a brutalized takedown of Trump.

Maybe he should focus more on doing his own job, like finding out why the FBI let the Florida terrorist go.

He's too busy admonishing legal gun owners.

Wow, zinger! Care to respond to the fact that most of these shootings were done BY legal gun owners? Or more Obama bashing? Don't worry, I'll wait.

That fact does not in any way shape or form put any responsibility for the shootings on the other tens of millions of legal gun owners nor does it convey any moral or legal right to the government to punish the tens of millions of legal gun owners who have done nothing wrong. Guns don't give anyone the desire to murder others, they're inanimate objects they literally cannot do anything on their own or make anyone do anything. Guns didn't make the Tsarnaev brothers blow up people in Boston, didn't make the guy park a car bomb in TImes Square, didn't make the terrorists hijack planes on 9/11. What exactly do you think is going to be accomplished by downplaying the actual motivations behind these shootings and instead focusing on inanimate objects legally owned by tens of millions of law abiding citizens that are using them responsibly?

But which is easier to get? I could drive down the road, pay $100, and come away with enough supplies to start a a mass shooting. That's with zero knowledge of guns, bombs usually require some knowledge of how to make and use them and are much less readily available.

Do I want to punish legal gun owners? No, but I'd like them to admit that maybe, just MAYBE America has a gun problem, and hiding behind the first Amendment does crap all to help prevent these tragedies.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Asterios wrote:

 jreilly89 wrote:


Wow, zinger! Care to respond to the fact that most of these shootings were done BY legal gun owners? Or more Obama bashing? Don't worry, I'll wait.

how about the killings done with knives? should we ban knives? or the killings done with explosives? oh wait those are banned, oh wait you are going to say the explosives were handmade, guess you never heard of home made weapons, between hardware stores or 3D printing people can make their own guns and bullets, it comes down to the point man has been killing man in massive numbers long before guns were invented, blaming an inanimate object for the killings is a joke, but then again you are probably one of those calling for the banning of Assault Rifles and Automatic Rifles, oh wait those are already banned but you might say AR in AR-15 stands for Assault rifle or Automatic Rifle, it does not it stands for Armalite Rifle the company that made it, so go be sanctimonious and make your stand, but realize you are standing for a joke, the AR-15 is just a rifle that uses basic hunting rifle cartridges it only shoots as fast as the trigger can be pulled.

furthermore out of the few million legal registered gun owners a mere pittance have done any aggressive gun violence, yet all knife killings were done by legal owners.


on another situation, it appears the DNC has been hacked by Russia:

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2016/06/14/russia-hack-democratic-national-committee-trump/85867116/

It's a lot harder to kill 50 people and hold another 30 hostage with a knife. Also, for a joke, it sure did a gak ton of damage.

Yeah, a mere pittance have done any gun violence, other than the almost daily individual shootings reported and the several mass shootings we've had this year alone. Yeah, everything's fine.

Edit: Nevermind.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:

Asterios wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
It seems rather strange to turn against Clinton by selecting her as candidate for president.

But obviously for some reason you do not think so.

no it means the majority of her party picked her, but even now there are Democrats who will not vote for her and will even vote for Trump instead of her.

You said her own party turned against her. Now you're dialing it back to ...there are some Democrats, not the majority, who won't vote for her. No kidding, but a few sad sacks are not "the party".

The argument falls further apart when we look at closed vs open primaries.

 jreilly89 wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:

 jreilly89 wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 Gordon Shumway wrote:
Wow, Obama just gave a brutalized takedown of Trump.

Maybe he should focus more on doing his own job, like finding out why the FBI let the Florida terrorist go.

He's too busy admonishing legal gun owners.

Wow, zinger! Care to respond to the fact that most of these shootings were done BY legal gun owners? Or more Obama bashing? Don't worry, I'll wait.

That fact does not in any way shape or form put any responsibility for the shootings on the other tens of millions of legal gun owners nor does it convey any moral or legal right to the government to punish the tens of millions of legal gun owners who have done nothing wrong. Guns don't give anyone the desire to murder others, they're inanimate objects they literally cannot do anything on their own or make anyone do anything. Guns didn't make the Tsarnaev brothers blow up people in Boston, didn't make the guy park a car bomb in TImes Square, didn't make the terrorists hijack planes on 9/11. What exactly do you think is going to be accomplished by downplaying the actual motivations behind these shootings and instead focusing on inanimate objects legally owned by tens of millions of law abiding citizens that are using them responsibly?

But which is easier to get? I could drive down the road, pay $100, and come away with enough supplies to start a a mass shooting. That's with zero knowledge of guns, bombs usually require some knowledge of how to make and use them and are much less readily available.

Do I want to punish legal gun owners? No, but I'd like them to admit that maybe, just MAYBE America has a gun problem, and hiding behind the first Amendment does crap all to help prevent these tragedies.

so hiding behind freedom of speech doesn't prevent these? as to bomb making, guessing you never heard of the internet, lots of ways to make bombs on it and then some.

 jreilly89 wrote:

Asterios wrote:

 jreilly89 wrote:


Wow, zinger! Care to respond to the fact that most of these shootings were done BY legal gun owners? Or more Obama bashing? Don't worry, I'll wait.

how about the killings done with knives? should we ban knives? or the killings done with explosives? oh wait those are banned, oh wait you are going to say the explosives were handmade, guess you never heard of home made weapons, between hardware stores or 3D printing people can make their own guns and bullets, it comes down to the point man has been killing man in massive numbers long before guns were invented, blaming an inanimate object for the killings is a joke, but then again you are probably one of those calling for the banning of Assault Rifles and Automatic Rifles, oh wait those are already banned but you might say AR in AR-15 stands for Assault rifle or Automatic Rifle, it does not it stands for Armalite Rifle the company that made it, so go be sanctimonious and make your stand, but realize you are standing for a joke, the AR-15 is just a rifle that uses basic hunting rifle cartridges it only shoots as fast as the trigger can be pulled.

furthermore out of the few million legal registered gun owners a mere pittance have done any aggressive gun violence, yet all knife killings were done by legal owners.


on another situation, it appears the DNC has been hacked by Russia:

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2016/06/14/russia-hack-democratic-national-committee-trump/85867116/

It's a lot harder to kill 50 people and hold another 30 hostage with a knife. Also, for a joke, it sure did a gak ton of damage.

Yeah, a mere pittance have done any gun violence, other than the almost daily individual shootings reported and the several mass shootings we've had this year alone. Yeah, everything's fine.

oh so 9/11 never happened? the planes that were taken over by Terrorists with knives? which killed how many people? and if you read what I said Legal gun owners, most of the killings by guns in this country were done by those who did not have the right to own a gun or otherwise.

but on the other hand lets talk about the terrorist on the train in France, he was stopped by unarmed people while he was loaded for bare, how is this possible when he had guns and he was unable to stop unarmed people?

Asterios wrote:

on another situation, it appears the DNC has been hacked by Russia:

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2016/06/14/russia-hack-democratic-national-committee-trump/85867116/

I've got 3 things to say:

1) whut?

2) See #1; why steal Trump's opposition research? RU could've simply used Google!

3) This further undermines HRC. If Russia is willing to hack the DNC servers... logic suggests they would've certainly hacked HRC's basement server.

 whembly wrote:

Asterios wrote:

on another situation, it appears the DNC has been hacked by Russia:

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2016/06/14/russia-hack-democratic-national-committee-trump/85867116/

I've got 3 things to say:

1) whut?

2) See #1; why steal Trump's opposition research? RU could've simply used Google!

3) This further undermines HRC. If Russia is willing to hack the DNC servers... logic suggests they would've certainly hacked HRC's basement server.

maybe they think Trump will be next president, maybe because they have seen Hillary's e-mails and do not think she will be the next president? just rambling.

Asterios wrote:

 jreilly89 wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:

 jreilly89 wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 Gordon Shumway wrote:
Wow, Obama just gave a brutalized takedown of Trump.

Maybe he should focus more on doing his own job, like finding out why the FBI let the Florida terrorist go.

He's too busy admonishing legal gun owners.

Wow, zinger! Care to respond to the fact that most of these shootings were done BY legal gun owners? Or more Obama bashing? Don't worry, I'll wait.

That fact does not in any way shape or form put any responsibility for the shootings on the other tens of millions of legal gun owners nor does it convey any moral or legal right to the government to punish the tens of millions of legal gun owners who have done nothing wrong. Guns don't give anyone the desire to murder others, they're inanimate objects they literally cannot do anything on their own or make anyone do anything. Guns didn't make the Tsarnaev brothers blow up people in Boston, didn't make the guy park a car bomb in TImes Square, didn't make the terrorists hijack planes on 9/11. What exactly do you think is going to be accomplished by downplaying the actual motivations behind these shootings and instead focusing on inanimate objects legally owned by tens of millions of law abiding citizens that are using them responsibly?

But which is easier to get? I could drive down the road, pay $100, and come away with enough supplies to start a a mass shooting. That's with zero knowledge of guns, bombs usually require some knowledge of how to make and use them and are much less readily available.

Do I want to punish legal gun owners? No, but I'd like them to admit that maybe, just MAYBE America has a gun problem, and hiding behind the first Amendment does crap all to help prevent these tragedies.

so hiding behind freedom of speech doesn't prevent these? as to bomb making, guessing you never heard of the internet, lots of ways to make bombs on it and then some.

Point was that gun culture is more ingrained in America than bomb culture, hence all the shootings.

 jreilly89 wrote:

Asterios wrote:

 jreilly89 wrote:


Wow, zinger! Care to respond to the fact that most of these shootings were done BY legal gun owners? Or more Obama bashing? Don't worry, I'll wait.

how about the killings done with knives? should we ban knives? or the killings done with explosives? oh wait those are banned, oh wait you are going to say the explosives were handmade, guess you never heard of home made weapons, between hardware stores or 3D printing people can make their own guns and bullets, it comes down to the point man has been killing man in massive numbers long before guns were invented, blaming an inanimate object for the killings is a joke, but then again you are probably one of those calling for the banning of Assault Rifles and Automatic Rifles, oh wait those are already banned but you might say AR in AR-15 stands for Assault rifle or Automatic Rifle, it does not it stands for Armalite Rifle the company that made it, so go be sanctimonious and make your stand, but realize you are standing for a joke, the AR-15 is just a rifle that uses basic hunting rifle cartridges it only shoots as fast as the trigger can be pulled.

furthermore out of the few million legal registered gun owners a mere pittance have done any aggressive gun violence, yet all knife killings were done by legal owners.


on another situation, it appears the DNC has been hacked by Russia:

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2016/06/14/russia-hack-democratic-national-committee-trump/85867116/

It's a lot harder to kill 50 people and hold another 30 hostage with a knife. Also, for a joke, it sure did a gak ton of damage.

Yeah, a mere pittance have done any gun violence, other than the almost daily individual shootings reported and the several mass shootings we've had this year alone. Yeah, everything's fine.

oh so 9/11 never happened? the planes that were taken over by Terrorists with knives? which killed how many people? and if you read what I said Legal gun owners, most of the killings by guns in this country were done by those who did not have the right to own a gun or otherwise.

but on the other hand lets talk about the terrorist on the train in France, he was stopped by unarmed people while he was loaded for bare, how is this possible when he had guns and he was unable to stop unarmed people?

One isolated event out of how many shootings in 16 years? Also, as to your legal gun owners comment: http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/san-bernardino-shooting/more-80-percent-guns-used-mass-shootings-obtained-legally-n474441 it's NBC, so YMMV, but that's a good place to start reference wise.

As to your train comment, again, one isolated event, shocking. How many weren't able to stopped an armed man? Aurora and Orlando come to mind immediately.

But yeah, Obama wants your guns, not to stop these kinds of tragedies.

 jreilly89 wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:

 jreilly89 wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 Gordon Shumway wrote:
Wow, Obama just gave a brutalized takedown of Trump.

Maybe he should focus more on doing his own job, like finding out why the FBI let the Florida terrorist go.

He's too busy admonishing legal gun owners.

Wow, zinger! Care to respond to the fact that most of these shootings were done BY legal gun owners? Or more Obama bashing? Don't worry, I'll wait.

That fact does not in any way shape or form put any responsibility for the shootings on the other tens of millions of legal gun owners nor does it convey any moral or legal right to the government to punish the tens of millions of legal gun owners who have done nothing wrong. Guns don't give anyone the desire to murder others, they're inanimate objects they literally cannot do anything on their own or make anyone do anything. Guns didn't make the Tsarnaev brothers blow up people in Boston, didn't make the guy park a car bomb in TImes Square, didn't make the terrorists hijack planes on 9/11. What exactly do you think is going to be accomplished by downplaying the actual motivations behind these shootings and instead focusing on inanimate objects legally owned by tens of millions of law abiding citizens that are using them responsibly?

But which is easier to get? I could drive down the road, pay $100, and come away with enough supplies to start a a mass shooting. That's with zero knowledge of guns, bombs usually require some knowledge of how to make and use them and are much less readily available.

Do I want to punish legal gun owners? No, but I'd like them to admit that maybe, just MAYBE America has a gun problem, and hiding behind the first Amendment does crap all to help prevent these tragedies.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Asterios wrote:

 jreilly89 wrote:


Wow, zinger! Care to respond to the fact that most of these shootings were done BY legal gun owners? Or more Obama bashing? Don't worry, I'll wait.

how about the killings done with knives? should we ban knives? or the killings done with explosives? oh wait those are banned, oh wait you are going to say the explosives were handmade, guess you never heard of home made weapons, between hardware stores or 3D printing people can make their own guns and bullets, it comes down to the point man has been killing man in massive numbers long before guns were invented, blaming an inanimate object for the killings is a joke, but then again you are probably one of those calling for the banning of Assault Rifles and Automatic Rifles, oh wait those are already banned but you might say AR in AR-15 stands for Assault rifle or Automatic Rifle, it does not it stands for Armalite Rifle the company that made it, so go be sanctimonious and make your stand, but realize you are standing for a joke, the AR-15 is just a rifle that uses basic hunting rifle cartridges it only shoots as fast as the trigger can be pulled.

furthermore out of the few million legal registered gun owners a mere pittance have done any aggressive gun violence, yet all knife killings were done by legal owners.


on another situation, it appears the DNC has been hacked by Russia:

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2016/06/14/russia-hack-democratic-national-committee-trump/85867116/

It's a lot harder to kill 50 people and hold another 30 hostage with a knife. Also, for a joke, it sure did a gak ton of damage.

Yeah, a mere pittance have done any gun violence, other than the almost daily individual shootings reported and the several mass shootings we've had this year alone. Yeah, everything's fine.

Where are you going down your road to get enough guns and ammo to do amass shooting for only $100? Seriously I want to know because that is an incredible deal and I want in on it. You can't get a lightly used Glock for less than 3x or 4x that amount and that's with no ammo so you'd have to pistol whip your targets to death with it. It's cheaper and easier to obtain the materials for IEDs and chemical agents from Walmart and other stores.

We don't have a gun problem because guns literally can't cause any problems they're inanimate objects. Get any guns you want in any amount you want and place them anywhere you want and they won't hurt anyone until a person decides to get involved. The number of people that commit crimes with guns is a tiny fraction of the total gun owning population. There is no logical reason to blame inanimate objects for the conscious decisions and actions of people.

I don't see anyone hiding behind the first amendment in regards to any shooting or guns in general.

Nothing can stop people from deciding to hurt others that's a personal individual decision. People hurt others for all kinds of reasons. There's no reason to prevent law abiding people from owning guns simply because a tiny number of people might decide to hurt people with them. That's not how our system works it's reactive not proactive, you're innocent until proven guilty. Nobody gets punished until it can be proven that the person did something wrong until that point everyone gets the benefit of the doubt and gets to enjoy their freedoms.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
None of the measures for further gun ownership restrictions put forth by Obama would have prevented the mass shootings so it would appear that whatever his motive is preventing similar occurrences from happening isn't one of them.

 jreilly89 wrote:

Asterios wrote:

 jreilly89 wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:

 jreilly89 wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 Gordon Shumway wrote:
Wow, Obama just gave a brutalized takedown of Trump.

Maybe he should focus more on doing his own job, like finding out why the FBI let the Florida terrorist go.

He's too busy admonishing legal gun owners.

Wow, zinger! Care to respond to the fact that most of these shootings were done BY legal gun owners? Or more Obama bashing? Don't worry, I'll wait.

That fact does not in any way shape or form put any responsibility for the shootings on the other tens of millions of legal gun owners nor does it convey any moral or legal right to the government to punish the tens of millions of legal gun owners who have done nothing wrong. Guns don't give anyone the desire to murder others, they're inanimate objects they literally cannot do anything on their own or make anyone do anything. Guns didn't make the Tsarnaev brothers blow up people in Boston, didn't make the guy park a car bomb in TImes Square, didn't make the terrorists hijack planes on 9/11. What exactly do you think is going to be accomplished by downplaying the actual motivations behind these shootings and instead focusing on inanimate objects legally owned by tens of millions of law abiding citizens that are using them responsibly?

But which is easier to get? I could drive down the road, pay $100, and come away with enough supplies to start a a mass shooting. That's with zero knowledge of guns, bombs usually require some knowledge of how to make and use them and are much less readily available.

Do I want to punish legal gun owners? No, but I'd like them to admit that maybe, just MAYBE America has a gun problem, and hiding behind the first Amendment does crap all to help prevent these tragedies.

so hiding behind freedom of speech doesn't prevent these? as to bomb making, guessing you never heard of the internet, lots of ways to make bombs on it and then some.

Point was that gun culture is more ingrained in America than bomb culture, hence all the shootings.

you do realize the 1st. amendment is about freedom of speech?

 jreilly89 wrote:

 jreilly89 wrote:

Asterios wrote:

 jreilly89 wrote:


Wow, zinger! Care to respond to the fact that most of these shootings were done BY legal gun owners? Or more Obama bashing? Don't worry, I'll wait.

how about the killings done with knives? should we ban knives? or the killings done with explosives? oh wait those are banned, oh wait you are going to say the explosives were handmade, guess you never heard of home made weapons, between hardware stores or 3D printing people can make their own guns and bullets, it comes down to the point man has been killing man in massive numbers long before guns were invented, blaming an inanimate object for the killings is a joke, but then again you are probably one of those calling for the banning of Assault Rifles and Automatic Rifles, oh wait those are already banned but you might say AR in AR-15 stands for Assault rifle or Automatic Rifle, it does not it stands for Armalite Rifle the company that made it, so go be sanctimonious and make your stand, but realize you are standing for a joke, the AR-15 is just a rifle that uses basic hunting rifle cartridges it only shoots as fast as the trigger can be pulled.

furthermore out of the few million legal registered gun owners a mere pittance have done any aggressive gun violence, yet all knife killings were done by legal owners.


on another situation, it appears the DNC has been hacked by Russia:

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2016/06/14/russia-hack-democratic-national-committee-trump/85867116/

It's a lot harder to kill 50 people and hold another 30 hostage with a knife. Also, for a joke, it sure did a gak ton of damage.

Yeah, a mere pittance have done any gun violence, other than the almost daily individual shootings reported and the several mass shootings we've had this year alone. Yeah, everything's fine.

oh so 9/11 never happened? the planes that were taken over by Terrorists with knives? which killed how many people? and if you read what I said Legal gun owners, most of the killings by guns in this country were done by those who did not have the right to own a gun or otherwise.

but on the other hand lets talk about the terrorist on the train in France, he was stopped by unarmed people while he was loaded for bare, how is this possible when he had guns and he was unable to stop unarmed people?

One isolated event out of how many shootings in 16 years? Also, as to your legal gun owners comment: http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/san-bernardino-shooting/more-80-percent-guns-used-mass-shootings-obtained-legally-n474441 it's NBC, so YMMV, but that's a good place to start reference wise.

As to your train comment, again, one isolated event, shocking. How many weren't able to stopped an armed man? Aurora and Orlando come to mind immediately.

But yeah, Obama wants your guns, not to stop these kinds of tragedies.

 Frazzled wrote:
Actually the only job he has under the Constitution is the executive function. Giving speeches isn't a requirement. Running the government is.

He should pull his thumb out of his bum and nominate a new Supreme Court judge. You're one short ATM.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Actually the only job he has under the Constitution is the executive function. Giving speeches isn't a requirement. Running the government is.

He should pull his thumb out of his bum and nominate a new Supreme Court judge. You're one short ATM.

that is one thing I never understood people and republicans say they will block any nominee he presents, but he hasn't even tried to present any he has stated he will let the next president choose.

That post made my head hurt.

 Frazzled wrote:

 Gordon Shumway wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 Gordon Shumway wrote:
Wow, Obama just gave a brutalized takedown of Trump.

Maybe he should focus more on doing his own job, like finding out why the FBI let the Florida terrorist go.

Did you watch it? It was after meeting with his advisors and the head of the FBI. It was a summary of their assessments. At the end he started focusing on Trump. Maybe you should actually inform yourself before sniping.

He's giving a speech. Run the damn country. Fire some people.

Do you voice this complaint every time he gives the State of the Union, too? Or does this criticism only apply when it's a speech you don't like the content of?

Asterios wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Actually the only job he has under the Constitution is the executive function. Giving speeches isn't a requirement. Running the government is.

He should pull his thumb out of his bum and nominate a new Supreme Court judge. You're one short ATM.

that is one thing I never understood people and republicans say they will block any nominee he presents, but he hasn't even tried to present any he has stated he will let the next president choose.

What are you smoking dude? He has nominated Merrick Garland like two months ago. GOP lawmakers have refused to hold hearings, and most are refusing to even meet with him.

Asterios wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Actually the only job he has under the Constitution is the executive function. Giving speeches isn't a requirement. Running the government is.

He should pull his thumb out of his bum and nominate a new Supreme Court judge. You're one short ATM.

that is one thing I never understood people and republicans say they will block any nominee he presents, but he hasn't even tried to present any he has stated he will let the next president choose.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/scotus

 Gordon Shumway wrote:

Asterios wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Actually the only job he has under the Constitution is the executive function. Giving speeches isn't a requirement. Running the government is.

He should pull his thumb out of his bum and nominate a new Supreme Court judge. You're one short ATM.

that is one thing I never understood people and republicans say they will block any nominee he presents, but he hasn't even tried to present any he has stated he will let the next president choose.

What are you smoking dude? He has nominated Merrick Garland like two months ago. GOP lawmakers have refused to hold hearings, and most are refusing to even meet with him.

I stand corrected.

Asterios wrote:
the largest terrorist attack on this country that killed the most people was done with razor blades

It was actually done through ramming airplanes into two large buildings packed with people. *shrug*



Of course the critical component of a mass shooting is firearms. That's why it's a mass shooting instead of a mass stabbing or a mass hammering or whatever else. Firearms make it vastly easier to harm a lot of people very badly on a whim so of course they should be strictly controlled. Having them just sorta float around out there in society is a recipe for disaster.

Rosebuddy wrote:

Asterios wrote:
the largest terrorist attack on this country that killed the most people was done with razor blades

It was actually done through ramming airplanes into two large buildings packed with people. *shrug*



Of course the critical component of a mass shooting is firearms. That's why it's a mass shooting instead of a mass stabbing or a mass hammering or whatever else. Firearms make it vastly easier to harm a lot of people very badly on a whim so of course they should be strictly controlled. Having them just sorta float around out there in society is a recipe for disaster.

so planes should be banned? the plane decided to go ram a building of its own accord? the pilot said hey i'm bored lets go ram a building? no it was the guys with the razor blades who decided to ram the buildings with the planes. it was the guys with the razor blades who held a whole plane hostage, and yet jreilly said that is not done since you need a gun to do so.

also do all guns go out doing mass killings? no do all mass killers go do mass killings? why yes, that is why they are called mass killers the critical componant in those mass killings was not the weapons but the people holding the weapons.

Asterios wrote:
one incident? you do realize more then one plane was hijacked, also I erred it wasn't knives but razor blades, so in several planes hijackers held hostage and managed to kill hundreds of people with but a razor blade?.

You sure that's the parallel you want to go with? "We can't increase gun control to try and stop mass shootings because 9/11 was done with boxcutters"?

Because after all, after 9/11, we changed a lot of stuff to keep it from happening again. We prevented people from taking blades onto planes, we fortified cockpit doors, we greatly expanded the Air Marshal program, and so on. So, a better parallel if we follow that line of thought would be if 9/11 happened because of hijackers armed with boxcutters, and we said "OH WELL, PEOPLE ARE ALWAYS GOING TO FIND WAYS TO GET RAZOR BLADES ON PLANES, LOL".

 BlaxicanX wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 Gordon Shumway wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 Gordon Shumway wrote:
Wow, Obama just gave a brutalized takedown of Trump.

Maybe he should focus more on doing his own job, like finding out why the FBI let the Florida terrorist go.

Did you watch it? It was after meeting with his advisors and the head of the FBI. It was a summary of their assessments. At the end he started focusing on Trump. Maybe you should actually inform yourself before sniping.

He's giving a speech. Run the damn country. Fire some people.

Do you voice this complaint every time he gives the State of the Union, too? Or does this criticism only apply when it's a speech you don't like the content of?

I voice it every time his face is in front of a microphone actually.

Planes do not exist to be slammed into things. That is actually one of the things that plane designers, pilots and related staff specifically believe that planes should not do. it is the opposite of what planes are made for.

The sole reason for firearms is to make it much easier to kill.


Various vehicles and what have you do have their tolls and there's a lot you could say about that (like for example that society shouldn't be designed around cars) but it isn't intellectually honest to liken items with broad utility to items that can only be used to kill.

 Ouze wrote:

Asterios wrote:
one incident? you do realize more then one plane was hijacked, also I erred it wasn't knives but razor blades, so in several planes hijackers held hostage and managed to kill hundreds of people with but a razor blade?.

You sure that's the parallel you want to go with? "We can't increase gun control to try and stop mass shootings because 9/11 was done with boxcutters"?

Because after all, after 9/11, we changed a lot of stuff to keep it from happening again. We prevented people from taking blades onto planes, we fortified cockpit doors, we greatly expanded the Air Marshal program, and so on. So, a better parallel if we follow that line of thought would be if 9/11 happened because of hijackers armed with boxcutters, and we said "OH WELL, PEOPLE ARE ALWAYS GOING TO FIND WAYS TO GET RAZOR BLADES ON PLANES, LOL".

but did people call for an outright ban on box cutters? no, did people call for a ban on box cutters? no, the shooting in Orlando was in a gun free zone and wait for it, the perp brought a gun there, the point is guns are only as good as the people obeying them, the ones not obeying the laws could care less what laws you make, it won't stop them.

Rosebuddy wrote:
Planes do not exist to be slammed into things. That is actually one of the things that plane designers, pilots and related staff specifically believe that planes should not do. it is the opposite of what planes are made for.

The sole reason for firearms is to make it much easier to kill.


Various vehicles and what have you do have their tolls and there's a lot you could say about that (like for example that society shouldn't be designed around cars) but it isn't intellectually honest to liken items with broad utility to items that can only be used to kill.

same could be said of bows and Arrows and knives and swords, should we ban those too?

 Frazzled wrote:
Actually the only job he has under the Constitution is the executive function. Giving speeches isn't a requirement. Running the government is.

His track record on doing his job is still far better than Congress

same could be said of bows and Arrows and knives and swords, should we ban those too?

Those weapons require actual effort to use and a close proximity. A fully auto or semi auto AR 15 has range and ease of use to spray and pray or pull the trigger as quickly as possible

These arguments always come up and they're always deflections "Why not ban X too?, Y kills more people a year"

We dont hear about mass stabbings or mass archery shootings, nor do we hear about mass rundowns or plane kamikazies because its A. Harder to do due to physical skill or personal risk to the scumbag. B. It actually takes more effort to acquire something like a Car (which is the go to strawman for these arguments, not only does a credit check and loan application take longer to purchase a car, you also need a prerequisite drivers license to operate it)

America has a gun problem because of the NRA having the government in its pocket. Why does someone need their own personal arsenal, because they're so called "Patriots" that gotta keep the guv'ment in check? Really?

Guns are made for one thing, and one thing only, to kill.

Swords and knives etc are restricted in lots of the countries that have significant gun controls, the countries that don't have constant gun massacres, accidents and a high murder rate, and so on.

Asterios wrote:


same could be said of bows and Arrows and knives and swords, should we ban those too?

Guns made those things obsolete. The idea of "sword control" is laughable because swords are relics. Knives are of course still around because they are multipurpose tools but their days of ehe cutting edge technology are long gone. It's also a hell of a lot more difficult to kill dozens and dozens of people with any of those.

Not that swords are widely available, anyway.



And never mind that most gun deaths are either due to suicide or people getting real angry with each other, both which are times when having a death button nearby is a terrible idea. If someone really wants another person dead there isn't that much that can be done to stop them from having a good go at it but impulse deaths are greatly decreased by making it difficult to follow through. Then there's the accidents.

Basically the benefits of having lots of firearms everywhere are outweighed by the negatives. Someone thinking that their revolver is pretty neat simply isn't worth it.

Rosebuddy wrote:

Asterios wrote:


same could be said of bows and Arrows and knives and swords, should we ban those too?

Guns made those things obsolete. The idea of "sword control" is laughable because swords are relics. Knives are of course still around because they are multipurpose tools but their days of ehe cutting edge technology are long gone. It's also a hell of a lot more difficult to kill dozens and dozens of people with any of those.

Not that swords are widely available, anyway.

swords are still pretty available where ever even local flea markets, as to them being obsolete guns are going that way with explosives replacing them.

Rosebuddy wrote:

Asterios wrote:


same could be said of bows and Arrows and knives and swords, should we ban those too?

Guns made those things obsolete. The idea of "sword control" is laughable because swords are relics. Knives are of course still around because they are multipurpose tools but their days of ehe cutting edge technology are long gone. It's also a hell of a lot more difficult to kill dozens and dozens of people with any of those.

Not that swords are widely available, anyway.



And never mind that most gun deaths are either due to suicide or people getting real angry with each other, both which are times when having a death button nearby is a terrible idea. If someone really wants another person dead there isn't that much that can be done to stop them from having a good go at it but impulse deaths are greatly decreased by making it difficult to follow through. Then there's the accidents.

Basically the benefits of having lots of firearms everywhere are outweighed by the negatives. Someone thinking that their revolver is pretty neat simply isn't worth it.

The US constitution, state constitutions, and SCOTUS disagree with you on that. So do tens of millions of gun owning US citizens. Of course, everyone is entitled to their own opinions and nobody is required to buy or own firearms.