Obama- Yes, we have to change.Resume arming our military on base.
After the horrible school shooting at Sandy Hook, Vice President Biden publicly
encouraged Americans to get a shotgun for self defense, as a politically correct
firearm. The recent navy yard shooter used a shotgun which was deemed
"safe" enough by even Senator Dianne Feinstein that it wasn't
included in her list of firearms that she seeks to ban nationwide.Utah and Idaho have very "relaxed" gun laws compared to places like
California, Washington DC, and Massachussetts. Yet Utah and Idaho's gun
murder rates are only a small fraction, per capita, of the rates seen at those
states with draconian gun laws. So this irrational mentality of solving violence
by punishing inanimate objects obviously isn't the solution.
as always, vague ideas stated with no solution.....have to change? what does
that mean? unless it is govt. involvement. straight from the emanuel/obama
playbook, don't let a crisis go wasted. barry and company will not be happy
until govt. controls every aspect of our lives. this is the change that he
campaigned on and that a majority of voters fell for. chane will only come when
this guy is out of office and the uninformed voter becomes informed including
takers understanding that someone has to pay for the stuff they are getting.
His version of change was to force people to pay for something millions
didn't want to pay for and to squeeze us with heavier taxes to pay for it.
I don't believe Obama is qualified to tell us we "have" to do
anything.We need to be a better people, yes. But I don't care
what Obama thinks about that because he isn't leading us to be a better
people. And we'll probably be in worse shape if he tries to.
I find Obama, like most politicians to be quite disingenuous. If Government
really does represent the wishes of the people, we would not have Obamacare.
Politicians inevitably tend to promote legislation that is proffered and
supported by those (contributors) that got them elected or which presents an
opportunity to play on the emotions of the electorate. We should not expect
otherwise. Term limits and campaign reform would help solve that problem.As for the Naval Base tragedy, the cause was mental illness, not guns.
We have in place checks and balances that should have precluded this individual
from having a security clearance and from purchasing a firearm. The system
failed and needs to be corrected.Those with serious mental illness
will often be a threat to themselves and at times to society. Let’s
promote more research for dealing with this health problem that plagues millions
of Americans. I envision a day when those who suffer from mental illness will
be able to get permanent relief and enjoy a healthy life--free from the demons
that otherwise possess them. Had the President made that
observation and pitch, I think most of America would rally behind him.
Every mass shooter this year, and most if not all of the ones in the last 20
years, have been found to be mentally unstable in some way. There were
indications of this recorded by one official source or another for each one.
Why were they able to get their hands on guns?Because the mental
health profession's lobby has made it nearly impossible to use this
information in any way. This began with their efforts starting in the
1970's to ban public institutionalization. It used to be possible for
people to be put in a mental hospital by the court without their consent. This
change has led to mass homelessness, and has contributed to some degree to the
mass shootings the liberals are now using to argue that NO ONE should have
guns.As the 80 million or so people who own guns, BUT NEVER COMMIT
CRIMES WITH THEM prove, it isn't the gun, it's the few people using
guns wrong that is the problem. THAT's the problem we need to work on.
"As the 80 million or so people who own guns, BUT NEVER COMMIT CRIMES WITH
THEM prove, it isn't the gun, it's the few people using guns wrong
that is the problem. THAT's the problem we need to work on." If this
argument held any water there would be no opposition to street corner cigarette
vending machines. Instead, we restrict availability. Tax and obfuscate.
"Clamp down" on the problem. Gotta love that; there's always a call
to further "clamp down". Can't do that with guns, though, can we?
No, the best we're allowed is to accept every gun owner is a good, decent,
responsible, law abiding person until they prove otherwise. Then it ends up on
the news. But, we're told, that was an isolated incident, and we're
not going to be able to make any changes. So, we're going to keep getting
what we've gotten in the past.
Aloha;The idea of having a firearm while on guard and no ammo is
treasonous act. I would have gotten a DD if I had done this while doing guard
duty. Almost all the killing do have something in common and that is drugs.Paul in MD was spot on for what he had to say.We don't need a
pot head from Punahou High School in Honolulu to tell us how to live.Aloha / Shalom
"If we really want to honor these 12 men and women, if we really want to be
a country where we can go to work and go to school and walk our streets free
from senseless violence without so many lives being stolen by a bullet from a
gun, then we're going to have to change," This is the best thing
I've ever heard the President say. I think it is unfortunate that the
President and many others believe that the way to change things is by taking
away a God-given right. There is no doubt in my mind that Jesus would prefer
that there be no guns. Until, however, men are living the way Jesus lives, no
one can deny someone's right to defend him/her self,including the
President. Anyone who believes the way to make a safer society is by taking away
rights, is either living in la-la land, or believes that all men are noble. A
quick glance in either direction from where they stand should cause them to
throw that thought right where it belongs, in the garbage.
All hail the great oblamo! After all, he comes from Chicago home of
some of the most restrictive gun laws in the nation. And the results speak for
themselves. It is the murder capitol of our country.There are less
gun murders for our troops at war than for the citizens of Chicago. Wow.For years it has been the same. There are no republicans in Chicago to
blame and there hasn't been for generations. The violence continues with
small children being shot almost every week there. The Liberals control
everything there and yet it is the worst. Hmmm.When will the people
who vote democrat realize they are simply being manipulated? Used as pawns for
corrupt liberals to get power. You get promised safety and what do you have in
the liberal democrat stronghold of Chicago? Death. You are promised good
schools? You get some of the worst in the country in Chicago and DC that are
absolute locked down democrat areas.You people ought to wake up and
face reality and admit that the liberal promises you have been fed for
generations are miserable failures when democrats have total control to
I agree. It is definitely time for a change. Arm military troops and require
them to be armed ON base AND while OFF base. Let's start making the streets
safer for all of us.
There is nothing on record that says anyone was killed by a gun. Guns do not do
anything by themselves. You can put a new born baby in a room filled to the
rafters with AK47's, missile launchers and hand grenades and the little
tyke will be just fine. The problem comes when you give a firearm to someone who
has no business having one such as someone who is mentally ill or sociopathic.
The problem any logical, a-political thinker will conclude is mentally unstable
people should have no access to these things. The solution is the require all
prospective firearm purchasers to undergo a mental health screening before being
allowed to own one. The same goes for people who currently own a gun. People
with a penchant for violence and act out on violently already are prohibited
from owning a gun upon conviction for a violent offense. In all states any felon
is likewise prohibited. It is now time that we take the next step in preventing
The only thing we need to change is the President and his cronies. It is not the
guns but people that need to change. We need people in office that understand
the Constitution. Take Reed with you out out out.
hutterite,tell me, please, where in the second amendment cigarette vending
machines are covered."the best we're allowed is to accept
every gun owner is a good, decent, responsible, law abiding person until they
prove otherwise." sounds like you don't like that concept.so you want to do away with "innocent until proven guilty"? how
totalitarian of you.
I carried a firearm for 25 years as part of my job and I can tell you I was
danged glad when I could stop. Carrying a pistol is uncomfortable and it gets in
the way too many times. Some folks need one for legitimate reasons but this
whole Constitutional-right-to-carry crapola is just that - crap. People who want
to carry a gun when they don't have to have something else going on in
their heads. This whole nonsense argument about protecting public and personal
safety is a ruse. They actually have a "Dirty Harry" complex or may be
compensating for some personal or psychological failing.
Mentally ill persons only commit a crime when they pull the trigger. Accessible
triggers cause peoples death, not guns.
What's the new normal?The President says we have to change, do
a better job of securing military bases, improve mental health services, and
address gun laws. Wayne Pierre sticks with his simpler strategy of calling for
more good guys with guns.That’s the normal but I don't
see anything new about it.
Here is Barack once again calling for change. Anytime you hear that word come
out of the mans mouth it is best to just run the other way. Change in this case
means gun banning. Never let a good crisis go to waste Barack has said and that
is exactly what this latest tired old speech was mostly aimed at. Ban gun ban
guns ban guns ..... The man's mind only thinks one way. America needs a
leader to solve these vexing problems of violence not a demagogue.
To "AChapin" there is something else that they all had in common that is
not addressed.They were all in "Gun Free Zones".Those are probably the worst idea that government has come up with. They
might as well just put up a sign that says "if you want to go on a killing
spree with any weapon, this is the place". Those signs announce that any
crime will not be met with force.
JLFuller,beside the second, what other amendments or provisions of the
constitution do you consider to be "crapola"?
Some of the commentators suggest that there should be better mental health
screening. If every gun holder must submit to continuing, comprehensive mental
health exams in order to be certified for a weapon, that sounds like a very
expensive proposition. I wonder if these mental health professionals would milk
this economic bonanza further by insisting on annual or semi-annual testing for
as long as the person is registered for a gun.By the way, a few
weeks ago there was a fatal knifing at our local High School. By eye-witness
accounts, the actual stabbing was unintended; the teen was swinging the knife in
the air to keep the opponent away. I guess we now need to register knives and
broken glass shards. Of course, more teens die from cars than from weapons, yet
teens are routinely granted licenses to drive. We just don't learn.
Will the pro-gun 2nd amendment nuts PLEASE let us require universal background
The shooter at the Navy Yards was in violation of federal law, I believe, since
he was carrying a sawed off shotgun. Would additional laws have stopped him?The change that needs to happen starts in each state by removing from
office every politician that has been there for more than two terms. We can
beginning in Utah with Mike Lee, Jason Chaffetz and the rest. It is
up to us to remove them.
He ordered the special swat team to stand down. Why?
People who cry at funerals are horrible hypocrites, unless they pass
Obama's gun legislation.
The shooter, incidentally, *passed* the background checks "LDS Liberal"
wants to make universal.
@LDS Liberal: Background checks are already required. PLEASE explain how your
so called "universal" background checks would have prevented Aurora,
Sandy Hook, Navy Yards, etc.We don't need more laws. Obama is
trying to duck the executive branch's failure to enforce the laws as they
are currently written.
"...Obama called on Americans not to give up on trying to change gun laws
that he argued are to blame for an epidemic of violence..." Show me a
single law that leapt off the paper or the computer screen and killed someone.
It cannot be done. It is not the law. It never has been the law. It is the
JLFuller,I wear a seatbelt every time I get in my car. I keep two
fire extinguishers in my home. I pay for insurance for my family's health
and dental needs, and insurance on my home. The chances of my being in a car
accident aren't very high on any given day, and the probability of my home
catching fire is even lower, yet I doubt anyone would accuse me of,
"compensating for some personal or psychological failing," for taking
those just-in-case precautions. It is wise to avoid projecting
one's own issues on others.I don't desire to ever need to
use a firearm against another person just has I have no desire to ever need to
use a fire extinguisher in my own home. However, it is better to have some
things and never need them, than to need them and not have them.
LDS Liberal,There is only one way to enforce universal background
checks: a universal registry. I can't think of any country implementing
such a registry that hasn't later abused it to deprive its citizens of
their rights and arms. From Nazi Germany to Great Britain, every time a gun
registry is created it has later led to some level of confiscation.Of course, a disarmed public is much easier to subject and control....
The problem is particularly acute when the authenticity of our religion is
diminished in the face of what is by normal standards a widespread political
fanaticism of unfounded irrational thought and fringe behavior. At its core lies
a blinkered mistrust of the unfamiliar and disrespect of others, when in reality
it is our extremism that is more properly the enemy, not others.Andrew
McDonaldMapletonDN letter September 21, 2013lsd
liberal“pro-gun 2nd amendment nuts”Yep,
Andrew’s reprimands only apply to conservatives, because liberals are
NEVER fanatical, irrational, or hateful in ANY of their comments.
@hutterite,Not sure how guns and cigarette vending machines equate,
but I'll respond anyway. Roughly 80 million people have guns which they
have acquired legally. 5 of them committed mass shootings this year, about 20
in the last 20 years. Because of those few, you would have everyone give up the
right to have a gun?How many people are killed each year with a
hammer (intentionally)? How about knives? Baseball bats? Cars?Each of these tools is used to kill more people each year than guns, yet no
one calls for universal background checks on Louisville Sluggers or Honda
Civics. You don't even have to show a license to buy a hammer or a set of
steak knives. Why not? Because they don't look scary, and most people are
used to seeing them used safely, and are used to using them safely
themselves.If I'm not mistaken, this year's mass shooters
passed background checks, which means they aren't being done right.And no, I DON'T propose continually testing gun owners. Doing it
once, right, would have stopped this year's shootings.
I want to say sorry for your loss to the family and friends of the military
people that died. I didn't see any thing that anyone remembered the living.
Manners,is what you do, polite is how you show it.
I bet Barach packed heat when he was walking around Chicago, that place is like
Nam in the 60's and they have strict gun control, of course criminals do
not usually buy guns down at the old walmart, now do they
@banderson"Anyone who believes the way to make a safer society is by
taking away rights, is either living in la-la land, or believes that all men are
noble."I'd agree, except of course we disagree as to what
our rights entail. I wouldn't consider a magazine capacity limit to be an
infringement on rights, for instance.@patriot"Change in
this case means gun banning. "Except that's not what... ah
forget it, you're just proof of that study that says that when someone is
presented with factual evidence to the contrary they become more entranched in
@AzPete"Background checks are already required. "Not
on all gun purchases. Private sales are exempt, for instance. And I really
don't care if they'd have prevented one of these mass murders,
there's 30,000 a year who die from guns in this nation, 10,000 of them by
murder (the rest are mostly suicides, some are accidents). Most people who are
murdered in this nation aren't in those mass shootings, and I'm sure
some of those 30,000 would've been prevented with a background check
requirement on ALL gun purchases, not just purchases from gun dealers.
@Shane333"There is only one way to enforce universal background
checks: a universal registry. I can't think of any country implementing
such a registry that hasn't later abused it to deprive its citizens of
their rights and arms. "Switzerland. By the way, the NRA
actually has a gun registry. Funny how that works...
We have to change?Why is Obama sending weapons of mass destruction
to other countries? That's going to kill thousands.Why were
guns sent to Mexican cartels?
Forts people claim that guns are not any part of the problem but rather it is
only the criminals that use them. Then they claim that if law abiding citizens
are not allowed to own guns the gun crime rates will go up. So if it is true
that guns are not a factor in the crime then why would law abiding citizens need
guns as a response, why would a knife or a bat not do just as well to defend
ourselves if the gun is not an important factor?
This guy had all the warning signs happening around and they gave him a clean
slate and security clearance. The Joker in Colorado had all those signs
flashing out front of him and they ignored them. All these happen in those Gun
Free zones. Sorry folks, it adds up after a while.Gun control: "The
definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting
different results." (Benjamin Franklin)
Sorry that was suppose to. Be first not forts.
Just change Presidents.
To "atl134" but it is already illegal to sell a gun to a person that
cannot legally own a gun. The problem isn't that we don't have the
laws meant to stop the sale of guns to people that shouldn't have them.
The problem is that we don't enforce the laws that we have.