• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Mother of Sandy Hook Victim Delivers White House Weekly Address.....[W322]

Disgusting. More disgusting than a lot of political theater I've seen. Just....wow. This one takes the cake. I'm at a bit of a loss, but this is one of the most brazen sick attempts to rape a tragedy for an individuals political agenda I've ever seen.


I didn't read the whole thread but did anyone support the President for doing this? If they did I have one word for you. Disgusting, and I'll add another word. Un-American!


Tim-
 
I just watched the actual video for the first time.

I had to stop after 10 seconds I wanted to vomit.

Such shameful exploitative garbage.
 
I suspect most of the people who find this "exploitative" "disgusting" etc. probably do so not because of what happened, but rather because of what the issue is. My guess is if this woman was making the address to encourage awareness (and/or additional funding) about breast cancer because her sister died from cancer, most of you would not care. I cannot prove this in anyway, but it's my suspicion.
 
I suspect most of the people who find this "exploitative" "disgusting" etc. probably do so not because of what happened, but rather because of what the issue is. My guess is if this woman was making the address to encourage awareness (and/or additional funding) about breast cancer because her sister died from cancer, most of you would not care. I cannot prove this in anyway, but it's my suspicion.

Do you there is a difference as to what is being forced upon all others as opposed to asking help from others?
 
I suspect most of the people who find this "exploitative" "disgusting" etc. probably do so not because of what happened, but rather because of what the issue is. My guess is if this woman was making the address to encourage awareness (and/or additional funding) about breast cancer because her sister died from cancer, most of you would not care. I cannot prove this in anyway, but it's my suspicion.

I'm not a gun owner and I have no problem with universal background checks, even an assault weapons ban.

But I know political exploitation when I see it, and I wouldn't lack the integrity to overlook it on a stance I happen to agree with.

It's your turn--care to call it like it is?
 
So your great argument is that we were supposed to give guns to the black slaves despite it being clear they were only meant to go to the militias to hunt them down? Lie I said blind faith has no foundation in reality at all, and thank you for showing us how disconnected it can make you.

You really need to read up on history.

A Look Into the Constitutional Understanding of Slavery | Ashbrook

I honestly don't know how or where you got your information, but it is devoid of reality.
 
And I highly doubt any firearm you can obtain legally is going to save you from a criminal gang with automatic firearms.

Your statement really holds no relevance to what I said. A situation such as you described is not something which will be stopped by a private citizen purchasing a legal firearm, but rather a coordinated effort amongst city, state and federal law enforcement.

Let's try and keep the discussion to the topic and not rely on extremes.

Actually not true. I have a gang problem in my city and county. Which is why its relevant. I have already had deal with these thugs several times now, hence why I INSIST on being VERY well armed. Some of the weapons I have California has banned. I had them before the ban. I have high capacity magazines also banned. But I have them anyway. I have special ammunition to deal with MS-13 and others like them because they like to wear bullet resistant vests. Its the prime reason I prefer large caliber heavy hitting higher velocity rounds. The sheriffs out here cant be everywhere and can take up 15 20 minutes to get here, by which time my problem will have resolved one way or another. There's still no patrol and no fed help out here. I am on my own. I am going to be damn if I will allow ANYONE to disarm me, especially in light of current ongoing threats. Your gun ban hasn't done **** to deter any of these gang bang thug punks from obtaining FULLY automatic weapons let alone pistols and semi auto rifles and carbines that LAW abiding citizens are RESTRICTED to. I aint try to solve a problem I am trying to keep my clan safe because quite frankly the local law enforcement seems to have other fish to fry.

California has had universal checks except for direct family linage for some time now.
 
Last edited:
They favor the types of checks which will not allow dangerous people to have guns. I somehow doubt they care nearly as much how that is accomplished as they do that it is accomplished.

there are no such things as a check or even a capital sentence law that will accomplish that. you labor under the delusion that if legal avenues for buying guns are blocked, criminals won't get guns

ever spend say 5 seconds studying the war on drugs or prohibition
 
And I highly doubt any firearm you can obtain legally is going to save you from a criminal gang with automatic firearms.

Your statement really holds no relevance to what I said. A situation such as you described is not something which will be stopped by a private citizen purchasing a legal firearm, but rather a coordinated effort amongst city, state and federal law enforcement.

Let's try and keep the discussion to the topic and not rely on extremes.

you'd be wrong. Carlos Hathcock with a bolt action rifle killed a score of NVA armed with fully automatic assault rifles. speed is nice but accuracy is fatal
 
I suspect most of the people who find this "exploitative" "disgusting" etc. probably do so not because of what happened, but rather because of what the issue is. My guess is if this woman was making the address to encourage awareness (and/or additional funding) about breast cancer because her sister died from cancer, most of you would not care. I cannot prove this in anyway, but it's my suspicion.

people who want to stamp out breast cancer truly want to do that

people who want to restrict guns are generally lying about their true motivations

its about punishing politically enemies not making us safer
 
I'm not a gun owner and I have no problem with universal background checks, even an assault weapons ban.

But I know political exploitation when I see it, and I wouldn't lack the integrity to overlook it on a stance I happen to agree with.

It's your turn--care to call it like it is?

why should police defensive weapons be banned?

have you a clue what an assault weapon is
 
Do you there is a difference as to what is being forced upon all others as opposed to asking help from others?
How exactly this any different? In this case, the mother is being given exposure to ask people to advance the cause she believes in. In my example, the mother is being given exposure to ask people to advance the cause she believes in. It's the same thing, except you want cancer ended and you don't want gun ownership ended. Which brings me back to how I think it has nothing to do with the fact she's given the chance to speak, but rather the fact people don't like her message.

I'm not a gun owner and I have no problem with universal background checks, even an assault weapons ban.

But I know political exploitation when I see it, and I wouldn't lack the integrity to overlook it on a stance I happen to agree with.

It's your turn--care to call it like it is?
I'll call it exactly like it is, this is a case where the President gave the opportunity for a private citizen to advance a cause she feels very strongly about, in an effort to put a human face on legislation the President feels very strongly about, in an effort to convince people to believe as he does. People in this thread act as if this is some new development, as if politicians haven't been doing this for years and years. This is something which has gone on for the longest time.

Actually not true. I have a gang problem in my city and county. Which is why its relevant. I have already had deal with these thugs several times now, hence why I INSIST on being VERY well armed. Some of the weapons I have California has banned. I had them before the ban. I have high capacity magazines also banned. But I have them anyway. I have special ammunition to deal with MS-13 and others like them because they like to wear bullet resistant vests. Its the prime reason I prefer large caliber heavy hitting higher velocity rounds. The sheriffs out here cant be everywhere and can take up 15 20 minutes to get here, by which time my problem will have resolved one way or another. There's still no patrol and no fed help out here. I am on my own. I am going to be damn if I will allow ANYONE to disarm me, especially in light of current ongoing threats. Your gun ban hasn't done **** to deter any of these gang bang thug punks from obtaining FULLY automatic weapons let alone pistols and semi auto rifles and carbines that LAW abiding citizens are RESTRICTED to. I aint try to solve a problem I am trying to keep my clan safe because quite frankly the local law enforcement seems to have other fish to fry.

California has had universal checks except for direct family linage for some time now.
I'm sorry, I did not realize this. How many gang members have you shot and killed inside your home?
there are no such things as a check or even a capital sentence law that will accomplish that. you labor under the delusion that if legal avenues for buying guns are blocked, criminals won't get guns

ever spend say 5 seconds studying the war on drugs or prohibition
I have. Tell me, which drug is more common, alcohol or cocaine? Alcohol or heroin? Which is more common? Which one is illegal?

I always love when people talk about the war on drugs when discussing gun bans. Mostly because their argument is always flawed by the fact cocaine consumption is a mere fraction of alcohol consumption.

you'd be wrong. Carlos Hathcock with a bolt action rifle killed a score of NVA armed with fully automatic assault rifles. speed is nice but accuracy is fatal
Whoa whoa whoa...are you telling me one DOESN'T need a handgun or a semi-automatic "assault rifle" to defend oneself?

people who want to stamp out breast cancer truly want to do that

people who want to restrict guns are generally lying about their true motivations

its about punishing politically enemies not making us safer
:lamo

What's it like to live in such paranoia?
 
How exactly this any different? In this case, the mother is being given exposure to ask people to advance the cause she believes in. In my example, the mother is being given exposure to ask people to advance the cause she believes in. It's the same thing, except you want cancer ended and you don't want gun ownership ended. Which brings me back to how I think it has nothing to do with the fact she's given the chance to speak, but rather the fact people don't like her message.

I'll call it exactly like it is, this is a case where the President gave the opportunity for a private citizen to advance a cause she feels very strongly about, in an effort to put a human face on legislation the President feels very strongly about, in an effort to convince people to believe as he does. People in this thread act as if this is some new development, as if politicians haven't been doing this for years and years. This is something which has gone on for the longest time.

I'm sorry, I did not realize this. How many gang members have you shot and killed inside your home?
I have. Tell me, which drug is more common, alcohol or cocaine? Alcohol or heroin? Which is more common? Which one is illegal?

I always love when people talk about the war on drugs when discussing gun bans. Mostly because their argument is always flawed by the fact cocaine consumption is a mere fraction of alcohol consumption.

Whoa whoa whoa...are you telling me one DOESN'T need a handgun or a semi-automatic "assault rifle" to defend oneself?

:lamo

What's it like to live in such paranoia?

the paranoia I see is that from those who are terrified of law abiding people owning guns
 
the paranoia I see is that from those who are terrified of law abiding people owning guns
Why would anyone be terrified of law abiding gun owners? That doesn't make sense. It's when people use guns for illegal actions which is what causes concern. Which is why people like me want to make it difficult for people like them to have a gun.

You, on the other hand, live in paranoia that everyone who is working for a safer America is only doing so to enslave you. As opposed to the more rational thought, which is to make America safer.
 
the paranoia I see is that from those who are terrified of law abiding people owning guns

Sites like this one have long been rife with self induced paranoia from posters - and that would include yourself who has said so many times- who strongly object to almost any gun laws because they believe that the real motivation is a total ban down the road. That is indeed paranoia.
 
you'd be wrong. Carlos Hathcock with a bolt action rifle killed a score of NVA armed with fully automatic assault rifles. speed is nice but accuracy is fatal

precisely. Anyone dumb enough to pit an uzi against an M4 will die 3-400 meters out.
 
Why would anyone be terrified of law abiding gun owners? That doesn't make sense. It's when people use guns for illegal actions which is what causes concern. Which is why people like me want to make it difficult for people like them to have a gun.

You, on the other hand, live in paranoia that everyone who is working for a safer America is only doing so to enslave you. As opposed to the more rational thought, which is to make America safer.
We are fine with making America safer. That is why we want more law abiding gun owners. Because the notion that prohibition or registration or background checks will somehow stop the crazies is implausible, and we would prefer a solution that works.
 
We are fine with making America safer. That is why we want more law abiding gun owners.
We have no problem with that. We want to eliminate the illegal gun owners. Those who truly want a gun for responsible purposes should have no problem with background checks. They should have no problem with required training to obtain a gun. They should have no problem with their guns being registered.

I don't have any problems with law abiding gun owners, as I've said multiple times in multiple threads, I grew up in a home with a law abiding gun enthusiast.

Because the notion that prohibition or registration or background checks will somehow stop the crazies is implausible, and we would prefer a solution that works.
The more obstacles you can place in front of people who are whimsical in their desire to own a gun, the fewer people you will have running around pointing guns in other people's faces. The more checks you put in front of straw buyers, the fewer guns will be in the hands of irresponsible people.

Responsible and law abiding gun owners SHOULD support these type of measures. "Crazies", as you have called them, make the rest of you look bad. I would think you'd work for a way to try and stamp down the crazies from reflecting poorly on you, rather than doing everything you can to make sure they can keep getting guns and keep harming people.
 
How exactly this any different? In this case, the mother is being given exposure to ask people to advance the cause she believes in. In my example, the mother is being given exposure to ask people to advance the cause she believes in. It's the same thing, except you want cancer ended and you don't want gun ownership ended. Which brings me back to how I think it has nothing to do with the fact she's given the chance to speak, but rather the fact people don't like her message.

I'll call it exactly like it is, this is a case where the President gave the opportunity for a private citizen to advance a cause she feels very strongly about, in an effort to put a human face on legislation the President feels very strongly about, in an effort to convince people to believe as he does. People in this thread act as if this is some new development, as if politicians haven't been doing this for years and years. This is something which has gone on for the longest time.

I'm sorry, I did not realize this. How many gang members have you shot and killed inside your home?
I have. Tell me, which drug is more common, alcohol or cocaine? Alcohol or heroin? Which is more common? Which one is illegal?

I always love when people talk about the war on drugs when discussing gun bans. Mostly because their argument is always flawed by the fact cocaine consumption is a mere fraction of alcohol consumption.

Whoa whoa whoa...are you telling me one DOESN'T need a handgun or a semi-automatic "assault rifle" to defend oneself?

:lamo

What's it like to live in such paranoia?

I have to deal with the thugs and I will leave the matter as method and numbers and times opaque. Not that the numbers matter just once is enough. I live in the meth capitol of the world apparently. I've been trying to encourage the thugs it would be better if they didn't come into my neck of the woods at all. That's not paranoia that's reality were I live.
 
We have no problem with that. We want to eliminate the illegal gun owners. Those who truly want a gun for responsible purposes should have no problem with background checks. They should have no problem with required training to obtain a gun. They should have no problem with their guns being registered.

Those who are doing the right thing have nothing to hide, right? :) Who cares if government reads your emails, listens into your calls, makes sure that you are using your first amendment rights 'responsibly', if you are responsible in the first place, you have nothing to worry about.

No thanks. Illegal Gun Owners by definition aren't going to give a rats' butt about background checks, but legal women who are being stalked will. The idea that you harm the criminal by hampering the non-criminals' ability to defend themselves continues to carry little water with me.

The more obstacles you can place in front of people who are whimsical in their desire to own a gun, the fewer people you will have running around pointing guns in other people's faces. The more checks you put in front of straw buyers, the fewer guns will be in the hands of irresponsible people.

Responsible and law abiding gun owners SHOULD support these type of measures. "Crazies", as you have called them, make the rest of you look bad. I would think you'd work for a way to try and stamp down the crazies from reflecting poorly on you, rather than doing everything you can to make sure they can keep getting guns and keep harming people.

You can put obstacles in front of the law-abiding all you like; it will stop those who do not care about the law already not a whit. Stop for a minute and ponder the ridiculousness of the position that the kind of person who would ignore the laws about murder would be seriously worried over whether or not he should violate the laws on receiving proper weapons handling training and a background check.
 
Those who are doing the right thing have nothing to hide, right?
First of all, that's not at all what I said. What I said is these measures protect your reputation as a responsible gun owner, as well as make the logical sense of reducing gun related crime.

Who cares if government reads your emails, listens into your calls, makes sure that you are using your first amendment rights 'responsibly', if you are responsible in the first place, you have nothing to worry about.
Great red herring. Could you please come back to THIS discussion and what I said please?

No thanks. Illegal Gun Owners by definition aren't going to give a rats' butt about background checks
You're missing the point. Illegal gun owners are less likely to get the gun. That's the point.

but legal women who are being stalked will.
So? They can care and they can get them. My dad's wife carries concealed, it didn't seem to bother her to go through the "hassles" of getting her permit.

The idea that you harm the criminal by hampering the non-criminals' ability to defend themselves continues to carry little water with me.
The fact you think that is what I'm saying shows you're obviously not "listening" to me.

You can put obstacles in front of the law-abiding all you like; it will stop those who do not care about the law already not a whit.
Let me ask you, where do you think the criminals get their guns? Do they just snap their fingers and guns appear? Are there drive-thru gun shops, where a criminal can obtain a gun the same way I obtain a 32 oz soda? Do you think every potential criminal has a cartel connection in Colombia?

Stop for a minute and ponder the ridiculousness of the position that the kind of person who would ignore the laws about murder would be seriously worried over whether or not he should violate the laws on receiving proper weapons handling training and a background check.
No, you stop and consider for a moment exactly where your line of logic has to make a jump over the hole in it. For a hint, look above.

If you strengthen the laws in obtaining guns, many of those so-called straw buyers tend to lose interest much faster. Register the gun and it's used in a crime, then suddenly the straw buyer becomes legally responsible. If the straw buyer makes a habit of having guns "stolen", then the straw buyer is denied his next firearm. And if a legal gun owner really does have a gun stolen multiple times, then they are not a responsible gun owner.

As a responsible gun owner, you should be pushing for measures which only allows legitimate gun owners to purchase guns. Will these laws prevent all gun related crimes? Of course not. But there is no doubt in my mind it will lower the gun related crime, while at the same time, not prohibit those who wish to legally and responsibly own a gun from doing so. Will you be more inconvenienced? Absolutely. But I think that's a small price to pay.
 
First of all, that's not at all what I said. What I said is these measures protect your reputation as a responsible gun owner, as well as make the logical sense of reducing gun related crime.

Great red herring. Could you please come back to THIS discussion and what I said please?

You're missing the point. Illegal gun owners are less likely to get the gun. That's the point.

So? They can care and they can get them. My dad's wife carries concealed, it didn't seem to bother her to go through the "hassles" of getting her permit.

The fact you think that is what I'm saying shows you're obviously not "listening" to me.

Let me ask you, where do you think the criminals get their guns? Do they just snap their fingers and guns appear? Are there drive-thru gun shops, where a criminal can obtain a gun the same way I obtain a 32 oz soda? Do you think every potential criminal has a cartel connection in Colombia?

No, you stop and consider for a moment exactly where your line of logic has to make a jump over the hole in it. For a hint, look above.

If you strengthen the laws in obtaining guns, many of those so-called straw buyers tend to lose interest much faster. Register the gun and it's used in a crime, then suddenly the straw buyer becomes legally responsible. If the straw buyer makes a habit of having guns "stolen", then the straw buyer is denied his next firearm. And if a legal gun owner really does have a gun stolen multiple times, then they are not a responsible gun owner.

As a responsible gun owner, you should be pushing for measures which only allows legitimate gun owners to purchase guns. Will these laws prevent all gun related crimes? Of course not. But there is no doubt in my mind it will lower the gun related crime, while at the same time, not prohibit those who wish to legally and responsibly own a gun from doing so. Will you be more inconvenienced? Absolutely. But I think that's a small price to pay.

Currently, In Texas, it costs about $240 to get a permit to legally carry (concealed only) a handgun, that was already legally purchased and required passing an NICS BG check. That is clearly well beyond being merely inconvenient since a driver's licence, in Texas, costs $24 including the written/practical testing required. Inconvenient is like requiring getting a state issued, photo ID which is considered, by many, to be a discriminatory burden when required in order to vote.
 
First of all, that's not at all what I said. What I said is these measures protect your reputation as a responsible gun owner, as well as make the logical sense of reducing gun related crime.

Great red herring. Could you please come back to THIS discussion and what I said please?

You're missing the point. Illegal gun owners are less likely to get the gun. That's the point.

So? They can care and they can get them. My dad's wife carries concealed, it didn't seem to bother her to go through the "hassles" of getting her permit.

The fact you think that is what I'm saying shows you're obviously not "listening" to me.

Let me ask you, where do you think the criminals get their guns? Do they just snap their fingers and guns appear? Are there drive-thru gun shops, where a criminal can obtain a gun the same way I obtain a 32 oz soda? Do you think every potential criminal has a cartel connection in Colombia?

No, you stop and consider for a moment exactly where your line of logic has to make a jump over the hole in it. For a hint, look above.

If you strengthen the laws in obtaining guns, many of those so-called straw buyers tend to lose interest much faster. Register the gun and it's used in a crime, then suddenly the straw buyer becomes legally responsible. If the straw buyer makes a habit of having guns "stolen", then the straw buyer is denied his next firearm. And if a legal gun owner really does have a gun stolen multiple times, then they are not a responsible gun owner.

As a responsible gun owner, you should be pushing for measures which only allows legitimate gun owners to purchase guns. Will these laws prevent all gun related crimes? Of course not. But there is no doubt in my mind it will lower the gun related crime, while at the same time, not prohibit those who wish to legally and responsibly own a gun from doing so. Will you be more inconvenienced? Absolutely. But I think that's a small price to pay.

A small price to pay for what, exactly?
 
A small price to pay for what, exactly?

For a basic, individual Constitutional right of the people to keep and bear arms, of course. No price is too big to own/carry a gun and any price is too big for guaranteed medical care, food, clothing and shelter (if one simply has a dependent). The thinking on the left is that the Constitution really means that those who work must help support those that do not, yet must also spend much more to make the "wrong" choice to buy/carry a gun.
 
Back
Top Bottom