Obama and the Left....Excell as Salesmen for Firearm Manufactures

[esmith]

It really amazes me that there is a discussion about whether shootings are more common in "gun free zones" or "firearms permitted areas". I even fell for the argument myself because I jumped to the conclusion: " oh no, another attack against firearms and the reason we have to have more regulations". Then I watched some television, went to a my ATV's club Christmas dinner, came home, read, then got 9 hours of sleep. To use one of my least favorite political person points(?) "What difference does it make". Anyone that wants to embark on a shooting spree could really care less if firearms are or are not allowed in their target of choice. Yes, some would think twice before starting a shooting spree at a gun range, but I'm sure there are enough crazies out there to attempt it. Most of these shooting sprees are committed by someone with a "grudge" against people they know or associated with in a location they are familiar with, so it really makes no difference whether guns are allowed or not....they are going to do it. Now the real gun free zones vs non gun free zones comes down to a terrorism event. It is a known fact that terrorist will hit a "soft target" first then when the authorities arrive (there are probably IED in place) they will hit a "hard target" which was their main objective in the first place. Take the San Bernardio terrorist attack. It now seems that many authorities suspect that the Christmas party was the "soft target" and there was either one or more "hard targets" or higher value targets (like schools) that they were going after. But they, the terrorist, were not as smart as they thought they were, they used the same vehicle to leave their place of concealment vice a different vehicle and got recognized. The idea that if you make a lot of "gun free zones" it will deter or even stop shooting. Gee, it's a gun free zone; no guns are allowed so no one is going to bring a gun in because that would be breaking the law. Does anyone see the total ridiculousness of those that think "gun free zones" are safe from shootings. Yeah there probably are, some people just don't think; when their brain has convinced them they are right and reality doesn't count.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

You mean all the left wing of the Democratic party are paralyzed with fear. Guess that's why Sunstone said only "Right Wingers" were out shopping....all the "Left Wingers" were at home cowering with fear.

Since when is the Democratic Party "left wing"?

 

[esmith]

Since when is the Democratic Party "left wing"?

Huh, you did notice the words "left wing" prior to Democratic Party didn't you? Guess not, either that or it was filtered out.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Huh, you did notice the words "left wing" prior to Democratic Party didn't you? Guess not, either that or it was filtered out.

The leftmost of the Democratic Party are centrist, not "Left Wingers" as you described them at the end of your post.

 

[esmith]

The leftmost of the Democratic Party are centrist, not "Left Wingers" as you described them at the end of your post.

Yeah right.

 

[Revoltingest]

The leftmost of the Democratic Party are centrist, not "Left Wingers" as you described them at the end of your post.

Here in Americastan, we judge primarily by the spectrum which covers most of us.
The leftest of the Dems are indeed left.
The rightest of the Pubs are indeed right.
In the opposing extremes, Dems & Pubs become quite similar.
People from farther left or farther right countries will have a very different perspective.
But what can one expect from ignant ferriners, eh?

 

[metis]

The leftmost of the Democratic Party are centrist, not "Left Wingers" as you described them at the end of your post.

If compared to liberals in Canada, the U.K., or Australia, definitely so.

 

[Underhill]

It really amazes me that there is a discussion about whether shootings are more common in "gun free zones" or "firearms permitted areas". I even fell for the argument myself because I jumped to the conclusion: " oh no, another attack against firearms and the reason we have to have more regulations". Then I watched some television, went to a my ATV's club Christmas dinner, came home, read, then got 9 hours of sleep. To use one of my least favorite political person points(?) "What difference does it make". Anyone that wants to embark on a shooting spree could really care less if firearms are or are not allowed in their target of choice. Yes, some would think twice before starting a shooting spree at a gun range, but I'm sure there are enough crazies out there to attempt it. Most of these shooting sprees are committed by someone with a "grudge" against people they know or associated with in a location they are familiar with, so it really makes no difference whether guns are allowed or not....they are going to do it. Now the real gun free zones vs non gun free zones comes down to a terrorism event. It is a known fact that terrorist will hit a "soft target" first then when the authorities arrive (there are probably IED in place) they will hit a "hard target" which was their main objective in the first place. Take the San Bernardio terrorist attack. It now seems that many authorities suspect that the Christmas party was the "soft target" and there was either one or more "hard targets" or higher value targets (like schools) that they were going after. But they, the terrorist, were not as smart as they thought they were, they used the same vehicle to leave their place of concealment vice a different vehicle and got recognized. The idea that if you make a lot of "gun free zones" it will deter or even stop shooting. Gee, it's a gun free zone; no guns are allowed so no one is going to bring a gun in because that would be breaking the law. Does anyone see the total ridiculousness of those that think "gun free zones" are safe from shootings. Yeah there probably are, some people just don't think; when their brain has convinced them they are right and reality doesn't count.

As I said, it is less about stopping criminals and more about making people who live and work there feel better. Of course it's hogwash, but that's the case with a good percentage of the crap passed by governments.

Ask any politician if they would vote for a law that cost virtually nothing but gives voters the impression of security, and 100% of them will sign on.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

That's a multiple homicide, but to call it a "mass" shooting.....that seems to merely spin one thing into a larger thing.

It's their defintion. But even with a more "common" definition, it's still unlikely that 99% of them, the claim of this point, is not likely. They still happen in very public places, and where people are allowed to carry, such as was the case with the Uber driver. And it's not like more guns are going to make things better anyways, because criminals adjust and plan accordingly. Whats to stop a school shooter from opening in a crowded hallway in an armed school? What are the armed teachers, or who ever, going to do in all the chaos, confusion, and people running every where? A camouflaged ambush with rifles has already been done, so it's not like the typical scene of walking into a classroom and firing is the only scenario that happens.

 

[FlyingTeaPot]

Well, the results are in. Firearms are vanishing from stores inventory thanks to the best salesmen the firearms industry has....Obama and those on the left.

I am confused... are you saying that Obama and those on the left are encouraging the American public to buy guns?

 

[esmith]

I am confused... are you saying that Obama and those on the left are encouraging the American public to buy guns?

No they are doing the exact opposite. However, their constant rhetoric against firearms and the threat, whether just perceived or actual, to take non-Congressional action is the reason. I point you to the following opinion article.
http://nation.foxnews.com/2015/12/2...ts-gun-control-have-got-go?cmpid=NL_foxnation
with link to story
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/dec/29/americans-are-adamant-obamas-efforts-gun-control-h/