Oregon paper to obama: Stay away after gun talk!

http://www.wnd.com/2015/10/oregon-paper-to-obama-stay-away-after-gun-talk/

It is strange how these liberal progressives think they can do whatever they want and others are supposed to just accept it. Obama's politicization, as well as Hillary's, is despicable. Why do they not see that?

The facts of this case had not came out before they rushed to the microphone to push for new gun laws. It is so obvious these liberals do not want to let a good crisis go to waste. Sad.

In my opinion the US should look at how society glorifies violence before passing any gun laws. You do not see it that much in other countries.

 

Cutting down the size of our military could be a major step in accomplishing that goal.

 

Does our military do drive-bys on our city streets or make movies like Natural Born Killers?

 

Does it glorify violence?

 

Not against its own citizens in its own country. Do you see armed military people walking around?

 

Oregon paper to obama: Stay away after gun talk!

GOOD for them. Bravo

 

Like glorifying carrying a gun everywhere and being almost anxious to kill people (purely in the "brave" defense of others, mind, but also whether those others are further endangered by that very defense or not)?

How can you say you're not glorifying violence when you're saying the only way to prevent violence is by more violence, and doing about the most violent thing you can legally do ( that is, carrying a gun, concealed or not) yourself?

I'm not saying that more people carrying a gun might not be a PART of a solution eventually, but I don't think it's the ONLY thing that can or should be done, and we should NOT glorify it, as I think many gun advocates do.

 

Who cares who it's directed at? It glorifies violence, period.

Is it coincidence that the nation with the biggest military has the highest gun murder rate? I don't know. I'm not a sociological expert. I can only see the correlation.

Have you seen the graphic gore films coming out of Japan these days? They'd make Stone blush. What's their gun murder rate like?

- - - Updated - - -

See, even your own memes agree with me.

 

The Roseburg Beacon does not represent the whole populace of Roseburg. The President is visiting there on Friday to meet privately with the victims' families. I'm sure The Roseburg Beacon does not speak for those families.

 

The President of the United States of America does not ask the permission of the publisher of the local town rag, what his travel plans should or should not be. The publisher of the Beacon holds no public office, has no authority and has no right to tell anyone, who is or is not welcome in the town or what is or is not appropriate. It takes brass balls to misconstrue what the President said, twist it, and then editorialize about the pretzel he made out of the statement.

 

A paper that isn't even in print. It's a RW blog that hails out of Oregon who if you read thru the previous "stories" (*)(*)(*)(*)s a brick if Obama so much as has the audacity to remain living while President.

 

The people do not want that scumbag there. He should respect that but then again scumbags do not respect anything.

 

Yes, Obama is using the tragedy for political purposes just like he did other events. I realized when Obama orchestrated the "Beer Summit" that he was just another Chicago black leftist race hustler and political opportunist. How sad for his legacy.

 

How many of the police that were killed did Obama visit?

 

Possibly not, but neither does Obama. In fact, I read one of the families statements that pretty much slammed the "gun free zone" thingy liberals seem to think is the cat's meow.
Personally, I believe Obama has one purpose & one purpose only for meeting with these families & it isn't to act as a counselor, it's to set the stage for his "we must act now" gun control EO, period. It's coming, count on it.

 

the right would whine if Obama didnt go so best to just leave them in their bunkers

 

AHHHH....poor thing....hard to swallow that Obama isn't beloved by all, isn't it? So sad.

 

I'm guessing none. How did I do?

 

`
WND. That's it folks.

 

Well said. Thank you for stating the obvious. Although, liberals have a problem whenever their rockstar president is dissed, so I don't expect them to respect the obvious & will continue to demean the communities wishes. It's their way of show how tolerant & compassionate they are.

 

not sure why some on the left even try to make this a issue, any restrictions would be struck down by the supreme court, so it's a waste of time

push free mental health care or something instead....

.

 

All his speech was, was a defensive speech because he knew exactly how America would react once he spoke his same old speech on gun violence and pushed his same old boring, stale, outplayed agenda. The same (*)(*)(*)(*) he says every single time something like this happens. Then to top it off, he says everybody has become numb to mass shootings. Obama has been exposed for a while. That's why he claimed everything was routine. Well, it is routine, because his speech never changes. Everybody is sick of it. The only people still hanging around, supporting obama, are the guys in the front row that have been carrying his water and haven't looked behind them to see that the stadium has cleared.

 

Hereagain, as in the thread about the man from the Oregon town who said something similar about Obama after his speech, why do the publications that came out in favor of stricter gun control not being lifted up with the same reverence as this newspaper?

I'm not a gun grabber. I don't want your guns, and I'd like to keep the 2nd amendment. But to be honest, I can't stand the extremists on either side of this issue. I don't like the people who think we can ban away gun violence and I don't like the people who think we can solve gun violence with more guns and more violence. As if every staff member at a school is secretly mad they can't bring all their guns to work, as if that's the only reason teachers and other school staff aren't armed to the teeth at all times.

Most folks, even some of the gun nuts, are not mentally or technically prepared to properly use a firearm to stop a gunman in these hectic situations, ones where there are hundreds of innocent people running around. Instead of handing out guns to American teachers, why don't we put trained and armed security guards in these schools. Hell, even train a few of the teachers willing to get and maintain the skills we would expect of trained law enforcement or military for high intensity situations.

It doesn't have to be guns everywhere, surgically attached at birth, and it doesn't have to be ban guns and pretend that makes them go away. There is an enormous amount of room in between those two extremes that we can work with as a society.

But, not until these conversations stop being about the personal and ideological disagreements between the people having them. Not until these conversations actually start being about working to find solutions within a framework that recognizes both sides have legitimate things to say. People do have a right to defend themselves, and they should be allowed to own guns for those purposes as well as hunting and sport shooting. But we must also recognize that guns are tools that allow one person enormous power over the lives of others when used for that purpose. Yes, it is the individual who is making the choices to do that, not the gun. That's an extremely valid distinction. But we can't stop people from thinking and wanting and choosing. What if we can work together to find ways to deny access to the tools that make those acts of violence much easier for the deranged among us who want to use them to do that? Saying this does not mean I'm saying there are no other ways a person could hurt a lot of people.

Jesus, just keep your eyes on the ball. Keep your feet on the ground. Take some breaths. Do whatever it takes find ways to keep innocent lives from being ended while remembering that we're talking about more important things than just a land of my ways and highways.