Quantcast

UNBLOCKED VERSION: Obama Says America Needs Soul Searching on Gun Violence: Will Obama Support Gun Control Before the Election?

melly~thwarting Satan since 1971 2012/08/08 12:37:42
There's a dud, I mean dude, around here who hates the Constitution and doesn't want anyone other than his sycophants at the pARTy--but this is an important topic--not just one for those who get stiffies just thinking about guns.

REUTERS.COM reports:
WASHINGTON
(Reuters) - President Barack Obama said on Monday that mass killings
like the weekend shooting rampage at a Sikh temple in Wisconsin were
happening with too much regularity and should prompt soul searching by
all Americans, but he stopped short of calling for new gun-control laws.

monday mass killings weekend shooting rampage sikh temple wisconsin regularity

Read More: http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/08/06/us-usa-w...

You!
Add Photos & Videos

Top Opinion

  • melly~thwarting Satan since... 2012/08/08 12:38:01 (edited)
    melly~thwarting Satan since 1971
    +15
    I love the whole, "we'll never be able to end violence, because people are violent, so efforts to curb gun violence are stupid and a waste of time" arguments. I mean they are so well thought out. For example, I never wash my clothes or bathe because things get dirty no matter what.

    Also, I find it interesting that the party that f*cking hates to think about gun registration, even though thousands of people die each year from gun violence, want to require people to have a voter registration card when they vote, even though voter fraud happens at a far lower rate and doesn't kill people, ever. What about my freedoms?

    Also, also, equating the War on Drugs with trying to pass gun laws is f*cking ridiculous. These two things are not comparable at all. Really, they are not.

Sort By
  • Most Raves
  • Least Raves
  • Oldest
  • Newest
Opinions

  • Dave 2012/08/14 04:47:48
    Dave
    +1
    Of course, he won't. That's what makes me laugh about the republicons because they all think Obama wants their guns. Obama has done more than any recent president to get more guns in their paranoid, delusional hands. Just get used to the shootings because the USA is an incredibly sick country.
  • Squatch 2012/08/09 14:11:49
    Squatch
    Nope. Since a lot of DEMS do not even support gun control this would be a major screw up right before the election, especially when he is putting off so many things until "after the election"
  • PrettieReptar 2012/08/09 03:46:08
    PrettieReptar
    No.

    "This is my last election. After my election, I have more flexibility". ~ BO
  • Ken 2012/08/09 00:37:06
    Ken
    +2
    I hope he tries before the election, because that will cost him many votes.
  • CHUCK 2012/08/09 00:22:59 (edited)
    CHUCK
    ERIC WOULD NOT APPROVE..



    THIS IS FROM THE GREAT STATE OF TEXAS..



    Photobucket
  • j2 2012/08/08 21:49:35
    j2
    +3
    No, Obama will not propose or sign legislation to restrict gun sales prior to the election, nor even to close gun show loopholes. Too many elected Democrats consider that political suicide in a year where they will have enough toss-up races anyway.

    This has always been a hot ticket single issue for many voters. Some of which will stay home or perhaps even vote for Obama unless he "comes after" their guns.

    He's mouthing just enough rhetoric to slightly placate gun control advocates, but there will be no substance following - not this year.
  • twocrows 2012/08/08 16:40:41
    twocrows
    +4
    I think Obama will continue to stop short. a foolish decision, imnsho. the people who agree with the NRA are not going to vote for him in any case - so why the hesitancy to alienate them?
    they've already decided they hate him - that he's coming after their guns [in spite of the fact that he has actively relaxed gun laws] - and believe the NRA when it says that he's relaxed the laws because of a nefarious plan to COME AFTER YOUR GUNS!
    go figure.

    so he should man-up and do the right thing [which could, btw, save lives] - not the politically expedient thing which, when you think about it, is not expedient at all. he won't though. he's far to timid to do that. so sad.
  • Golanv ... twocrows 2012/08/15 18:43:39
    Golanv (Raven)
    +2
    True. And if police looked for illegal assault rifles 1/10 as much as they search for a bit of weed we'd be so much better off. Have you noticed this happening every election time? Seems like it's always the Democrat who is 'going to take our guns'. There has never really been a threat to the 2nd amendment but I hear it every time. I guess it's about time for it again.
  • JackSchitt 2012/08/08 16:01:41
    JackSchitt
    +1
    I certainly hope so. It will be the 1994 mid-terms all over again. He'll be out of there faster than you can say "President Mitt".
  • jackolantyrn356 2012/08/08 15:57:24
    jackolantyrn356
    +1
    The only truth you'll evr get from Obama is the look he had on his face when he gave the "little talk" on the dead. and how sad we were. Could he have dripped hate and venom he would have.
  • RastaFan 2012/08/08 15:57:08 (edited)
    RastaFan
    +2
    Baraka Obamy will vote for whatever the hell he believes will:
    a) Keep his a$$ in the WH
    b) Help the 'Transformation' of this country into a Marxist state.

    Gun bans increase violence and death. To many, that simply reflects common sense and is perfectly rational. Luckily, we don't have to rely on anything as subjective as the common sense of people. Overwhelming statistical evidence supports it.

    Why do Liberals love the thought of banning guns sooo much? It has never reduced violent crime or made a neighborhood safer anywhere it has been instituted.

    1) Liberals associate guns with masculinity and Liberals are emasculaters.
    2) Liberals swallow what Marxist leaders spoonfeed them, and Marxist leaders don't like armed populations.
    3) Liberals feel strange when individuals are calling the shots(pun not intended) more than government.
  • warkitten 2012/08/08 15:37:47
    warkitten
    +2
    Soul searching?...but I thought obama believes its unconstitutional to mention that people have souls...and anyway..why would I have to search my conscience? I didn't hurt anyone..crazy people did..they're the ones who need to search their soul...
  • Dan (Politicaly Incorrect) 2012/08/08 15:17:12
    Dan (Politicaly Incorrect)
    +3
    20,000 gun laws on the books now. There is no law that will stop a criminal from killing anyone. Even if guns were totally banned then there are explosives. Which are worse. We need open carry for everyone!
  • socokid 2012/08/08 14:45:38 (edited)
    socokid
    +6
    I'll shoot you if you make me soul search...

    but he stopped short of calling for new gun-control laws.
    OH no he di'in't! From my cold, dead....oh... he "stopped short"? Pfft, that's just code for "I'm going to invade your home and stealz your guns! Then I'm going to declare martial law and crown myself King!"

    So...
  • Blunder... socokid 2012/08/08 14:56:19
  • dominic garcia 2012/08/08 14:39:31 (edited)
    dominic garcia
    +4
    Obama does not know what he is talking about.... like always. You can not control mentally ill people. The government has ignored, the special needs that they require. The drug epidemic has helped to produce thousands and thousands of sick adults. Guns are not the problem, crazy people are the problem. If our guns would be successfully taken away, which I doubt, our crime rates would go up tremendously. That has already been proven, over and over again. Mexico is a very good example, you can't even carry a knife. The cartels are in control in almost all their border cities. People are scared to death and stay off the streets at night. They are having a problem filling the law enforcement jobs and that is only because those are the favorite to be killed. Most of the local newspapers are being controlled by the cartels, they cannot print anything pertaining to the cartels. The newspaper employees are in fear for their lives on a daily basis being the cartels have made it a habit of killing lots of journalists. It is crazy...... do we want to be like Mexico, or do we ARM ourselves and learn to protect our families and country? We are in our right to do that, so anyone who trys to take our God given and constitutional right away, will be opening a nasty can of worms.
  • Old Salt 2012/08/08 14:26:54
  • Will Advocate of PHAET 2012/08/08 14:05:17
    Will Advocate of  PHAET
    +3
    There is nothing wrong with soul searching. The problem is that the nut cases that go around killing people do not have souls. I don't see how an effective law would be enforced to ban assult weapons, or where the line would be drawn as to what is considered an assult weapon. I certainly don't want to see the enforcement move to house searches by the government. I think enough of our personal freedoms have been given up over the last 11 years. I am not saying there is not an issue, and I appreciate your post. I will check back to see if any viable discussion comes up, besides the normal name calling from left and right.
  • ETpro 2012/08/08 13:57:33
    ETpro
    +5
    Against the power of the arms industry and the NRA? Not a chance. You can't do much good by committing political suicide.
  • Always Right 2012/08/08 13:56:49
    Always Right
    +6
    0bama cannot win re-election and if he does any gun control executive order, he will lose in a landslide!
  • Waldorf 2012/08/08 13:50:39
    Waldorf
    +6
    His Majesty will "have more flexibility after the election". That's if enough voters and pseudo voters blindly reelect this poor excuse for a President.
  • melly~t... Waldorf 2012/08/08 21:39:42
    melly~thwarting Satan since 1971
    +3
    You call the President "his majesty"? How odd.
  • Waldorf melly~t... 2012/08/08 22:01:02 (edited)
    Waldorf
    +2
    I usually refer to him as the Emperor. Perhaps His Wrongness would be a good name.
  • ally 2012/08/08 13:46:48
    ally
    +7
    First, you have to have a soul in order to search it. That automatically knocks out the ones Obama was actually speaking to.

    It pretty much sums up what will actually happen. The NRA made that perfectly clear when they sent out e-mails asking for donations 3 days after the Sikh shooting. Claiming that, definitely now, Obama will seize all thier guns and take away the 2nd Amendment.

    Funny, Obama's has been there for 3 years and nothing like that has occured.
  • ALofRI ally 2012/08/08 14:43:03
    ALofRI
    +2
    In fact, he has passed TWO laws lessening gun restrictions.
  • ally ALofRI 2012/08/08 14:58:25
    ally
    +3
    You'll never hear that one on Faux Noise!
  • Golanv (Raven) 2012/08/08 13:19:04
    Golanv (Raven)
    +4
    I believe the answer DOES have to do with some soul searching. By everyone. Violence seems to have invaded our society at every level and it is just not acceptable behavior.
  • Bastion 2012/08/08 13:11:24
    Bastion
    +6
    Thanks for unblocking this.


    I don't see Obama supporting anything with gun laws. It would be nice to bring back the assault rifle ban, but I think that's 50/50 unless he's pushed.

    The whole gun ban thing is more political BS - it's amazing how these RWNJs are always so terrified about what Obama is planning to do IN THEIR MINDS.

    He's the most powerful supervillian in history, and a weak apologizing America-hater, IN THEIR MINDS.
  • ALofRI Bastion 2012/08/08 14:44:36
    ALofRI
    +2
    You mean, the assault rifle ban that Romney voted FOR when he was Governor?? That ban??
  • Philo-Publius 2012/08/08 12:53:43
    Philo-Publius
    +8
    As my answer I'd like to reprint my thoughts from January 11, 2011, if I may, which were typed just three days after the Tuscon shooting on a question posed on this very site, in response to a poll entitled 'Should We Ban All Guns?', because I feel it best bridges the gap between what is on the one hand my intrepid pro-2nd Amendment stance, and on the other my heartfelt desire to have everyone beat these Satanic, handheld death machines into plowshares, and to not learn violence anymore:

    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

    Ultimately, someday - as soon as possible, although it will likely be a long while - I think we'd all like to live in a society that was free of guns and violence. That's the goal then that we should all work toward. It seems pretty simple to me: If that would be ideal, then that needs to be our mutual goal as a nation.

    The answer, in my mind, the means to this end, is not banning guns incrementally, but rather incrementally creating the societal conditions in which guns become unnecessary. Eliminating root causes (of anything negative) is infinitely superior to trying to fix problems after the fact. If we, as I said somewhere on here last night, began repealing...





    As my answer I'd like to reprint my thoughts from January 11, 2011, if I may, which were typed just three days after the Tuscon shooting on a question posed on this very site, in response to a poll entitled 'Should We Ban All Guns?', because I feel it best bridges the gap between what is on the one hand my intrepid pro-2nd Amendment stance, and on the other my heartfelt desire to have everyone beat these Satanic, handheld death machines into plowshares, and to not learn violence anymore:

    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

    Ultimately, someday - as soon as possible, although it will likely be a long while - I think we'd all like to live in a society that was free of guns and violence. That's the goal then that we should all work toward. It seems pretty simple to me: If that would be ideal, then that needs to be our mutual goal as a nation.

    The answer, in my mind, the means to this end, is not banning guns incrementally, but rather incrementally creating the societal conditions in which guns become unnecessary. Eliminating root causes (of anything negative) is infinitely superior to trying to fix problems after the fact. If we, as I said somewhere on here last night, began repealing our drug laws for instance, we'd remove the artificially-high profit motive and thus eliminate practically all the gang and cartel violence, and much of the gun trafficking along with it (we'd also remove drug dealers from around our kids' schools and playgrounds, and empty approximately 1/3 of the prisons - inmates who were not-violent drug offenders, who only become hardened by incarceration and commit more crimes, including violent/gun-related crimes). The money spent on the war on drugs and housing these inmates (which is astronomical) could then be spent on drug prevention, and rehabilitation programs, and we'd create a commensurate number of working, tax-paying citizens in the process who will not commit gun or other violence in the long-term.

    I'm off-topic, but not really. This is just one example of how we can incrementally remove the *need* and *desire* for guns, in a way that leaves the 2nd Amendment completely untouched. I'd also look very hard at some of the progressive solutions that have been decried for so long, by so many. Does anybody realize that - another quick example - under the Conyers/Kucinich health plan that was sidelined last year in favor of this monstrosity we have now, which few people like - their H.R. 676, universal Medicare for all - Jared Loughner would have had not just the full health, eye care and dental, but also complete *mental* health coverage? Would it have averted the Tuscon tragedy specifically? Would he have taken advantage of it and gotten help, in his own particular instance? I don't know the answer. But I do know that a large, large number of people all across the country who have similar mental issues *would*, before we have to read about their mental health issues in local newspaper front pages, detailing their arrest and the number of people murdered or wounded by them. Such guaranteed, basic care, as a right, would give people who have these types of problems the understanding that society values them, that they have basic dignity and are worthwhile citizens. I have to believe that things like this are the reason the crime rate is so low in other industrialized countries, whether or not - or to whatever extent - they've outlawed guns.

    Now Mr. King from New York wants to ban guns within 1,000 feet of federal buildings. Will this really help? Could this *possibly* prevent an already disturbed assailant (who was left, by society, to become disturbed) from committing a gun crime - a shooting - once he is mentally set on it? No. To prevent any possibility of future shootings we'd have to turn the entire 1,000-ft. radius around every federal building into a military zone, and that would cost more than the preventive solutions I'm endeavoring here to describe.

    In summary, it's a long-term goal, but eliminating poverty and lack, and with it the perceived need, the perceived desperation, out of which individuals act in violent ways, *that* is the type of gun control we should be working toward, and such doesn't seem at first sight to have anything to do with guns. It does. It's idealistic, it's not going to come together tomorrow or next week, but with every root cause we're able to weaken or eliminate, we prevent violence, in measure, and save lives.
    (more)
  • Marlow ~ Let There Be Light 2012/08/08 12:42:51
    Marlow ~ Let There Be Light
    +9
    He will after the election if he wins. He must be thrown out.

    throw bama out
  • Golanv ... Marlow ... 2012/08/08 13:23:26
    Golanv (Raven)
    +3
    I just wonder if anyone ever thinks before posting another anti-Obama pic with his logo on it. Imitation is the most sincere form of flattery. One of the biggest problems I have with anti-Obama sentiment; no originality. President Obama will win this election.
  • LindaM Golanv ... 2012/08/08 13:28:30
    LindaM
    +2
    Yes, Obama will win and hopefully ALL guns will be gone. I don't expect any major gun laws, but there is always hope..
  • Marlow ... LindaM 2012/08/08 13:33:49
    Marlow ~ Let There Be Light
    +10
    Obama can't pass 47% and for an incumbant to be below 50% means he's going to lose
  • LindaM Marlow ... 2012/08/08 13:35:00 (edited)
    LindaM
    +3
    We shall see. I don't know what your looking at but most polls say Obama is ahead. 47% or not, he's ahead..
  • Golanv ... LindaM 2012/08/08 13:43:14
    Golanv (Raven)
    +3
    When I dreamed President Obama's election in '08 Hillary was way ahead for the nom. If he does not win this it will be the first time since 2000 that I've not gotten the correct information from a dream. I've seen thousands cheering him.
  • LindaM Golanv ... 2012/08/08 14:08:58
    LindaM
    +2
    Wonderful, keep it going, Raven..
  • Golanv ... LindaM 2012/08/08 14:26:27
    Golanv (Raven)
    +1
    Doing it, my Friend! Though after 12 years of dreaming elections I'd kind of like to go back to dreaming the weather again. That was really cool.
  • LindaM Golanv ... 2012/08/08 15:41:34
    LindaM
    +2
    I'd love to be able to do that. Keep us posted..
  • Golanv ... LindaM 2012/08/12 23:32:18
    Golanv (Raven)
    +2
    Oh, I will my Friend! I posted my '08 dream on another site and a bunch of us talked to each other online as the results came in and we watched it happen. It was awesome fun! One lady said she was so excited she was about to pee her pants. lol. I hope and pray it happens again this time and I believe it will.

See Votes by State

The map above displays the winning answer by region.

News & Politics

2014/09/21 14:11:31

Hot Questions on SodaHead
More Hot Questions

More Community More Originals