Waving the bloody shirt

The bodies in the tragic South Carolina shooting have barely cooled, when POTUS took to the airwaves, and without a shred of reporting as to how the firearm in question was obtained…lambasted the allegedly “easy availability of guns” and went on to use the event as a lazy political jab at those who would see our Constitutional rights infringed beyond recognition.

The jackass couldn’t even follow his own script when he stated “Now is the time for mourning and for healing.”

Apparently not Mr. President……apparently its time to play politics.

Stay classy Obama……

Advertisements

29 thoughts on “Waving the bloody shirt

  1. To quote CI, “Bullshit. Unabashed, embarrassing bullshit”. There was no “lazy political jab at those who would see our Constitutional rights infringed beyond recognition”. These people your paranoia causes you to refer to as “those who would see our Constitutional rights infringed beyond recognition” are seeking to save lives and not infringe upon rights. Only an extreme gun nutter would say that, by pointing out that we should act to save lives, our president is “playing politics”. How revolting!

    Like

  2. Our President did not act to save lives. He lashed out at our basic rights. If he had his way in this area, the country would be a more dangerous place.

    Who knows what “extreme gun nutters” would say… None have posted or commented.

    Like

  3. And… welcome back Mr. Sanders. Is it too much to ask that you refrain from unsupported wild personal insults and accusations of the other discussion participants? This is a friendly request, and I hope it is not answered with a tirade.

    There's no “paranoia” from CI. Nor is he a “nutter”. He, in fact, has more knowledge of firearms issues than anyone around. Knowledge should be supported, not bashed as “nuttery”.

    Like

  4. Those who use guns to commit hate hate crimes by mass murdering African American church goers don't qualify as “innocent people”! Sure, there hasn't been a trial yet, but I think we got the guy who did it… And I think it is almost certain he will be convicted. Defending the rights of killers, as dmarks does in his comment above, is what will make the country a more dangerous place! The president is outraged at the loss of life, as am I. Yet dmarks reserves his outrage for the possible violation of the rights of murderers? It boggles the mind. “Gun nut” is a very appropriate term for such a person, IMO.

    Like

  5. I am not sure if this qualifies as a “tirade”. I am simply sharing my honest opinion. Although dmarks would prefer I lied and voiced support for something I do not support… His request for lies is “friendly”.

    Like

  6. “Defending the rights of killers, as dmarks does in his comment above,”

    I have done absolutely nothing of the sort. Mr Sanders, you are engaging in the sort of behavior that C.I. has just recently prohibited you from doing.

    ” “Gun nut” is a very appropriate term for such a person, IMO.”

    Insisting that baseless insults are proper does not help the situation at all.

    ” I am simply sharing my honest opinion”

    Yet, it is not honest. I have pointed out just one of the falsehoods in it.

    Like

  7. Those who use guns to commit hate hate crimes by mass murdering African American church goers don't qualify as “innocent people”!

    You're inventing an argument that nobody has made.

    Defending the rights of killers, as dmarks does in his comment above,

    If he had, you would have been able to cite such. You seem to forget that one who commits a violent crime immediately repudiates ones 2nd Amendment rights. You're inventing arguments.

    Like

  8. You seem to forget that one who commits a violent crime immediately repudiates ones 2nd Amendment rights.

    It is pretty convienent for your side that you defend the rights of killers right up to the millisecond before they kill. It isn't that I “forgot” this argument… I simply do not agree with it.

    BTW, shooting someone in self defense during a home invasion qualifies as a violent act. Being justified (if it is) does not make it not violent.

    Yet, it is not honest. I have pointed out just one of the falsehoods in it.

    Obviously you don't know what the term “honest opinion” means. I said what I honesty believe. You thinking you pointed out a “falsehood” does not make my opinion not my opinion.

    Like

  9. “You thinking you pointed out a “falsehood” does not make my opinion not my opinion.”

    If agreeing prevents this post from turning into one of your narcissistic digital sink-holes, so be it.

    Like

  10. Because my opinion not agreeing with the opinion of dmarks creates a “digital sinkhole”? And I don't know what narcissism has to do with me disagreeing with you. It only points to your reliance on ad hominem.

    Like

  11. I understand where Obama was coming from there. He's just frustrated. He never was able to do anything about the gun problem. Then came the Heller decision. This last year and a half is a wash. It's a mess and no one has any plan to do anything about it. And crazies and crooks and confused teenagers and cultists and terrorists and fanatics and children and you name 'em will get their hands on guns and shoot people. They're (guns) a ubiquitous part of Americana, and it's a shame.

    JMJ

    Like

  12. It's not convenient…it's reality. Unless you're proffering some sort of thought policing.

    ….shooting someone in self defense during a home invasion qualifies as a violent act.

    Largely irrelevant, as the issue here [as I cited] is crime.

    Like

  13. “He never was able to do anything about the gun problem.”

    That's because he went after the rights of innocent law abiding gun owners. And his administration actually contributed to the problem when it had a crazy scheme to arm Mexican drug lords so they could kill Americans.

    “They're (guns) a ubiquitous part of Americana, and it's a shame.”

    This isn't a problem, Jersey. Like the rest of the Bill of Rights, it's what makes this country. great. What's a shame is that some very wrongheaded politicians act with apparently glee when incidents like this happen and try to use them to push their agenda of confiscation, and harassment of people who never did anything wrong.

    Like

  14. I welcome Mr. Sanders' new found opposition to “ad hominem”. I will assume he is serious about this, and we will never hear careless playground insults, all ad hominem, like “gun nut”,, “utterly moronic”, “Unbelievable stupidity” which he used recently.

    The change will be refreshing

    Like

  15. The ATF's plan to track the guns to Mexican drug cartel leaders and arrest them began under the bush administration. What you refer to – a presidential administration arming Mexican drug lords so they could kill Americans – is an out-there crazy conspiracy theory. What you describe never happened. People believing this conspiracy theory are considered mentally ill by a lot of people, I'd wager. Not ad hominem, just a statement of fact.

    The agenda you refer to as one of “confiscation and harassment of people who never did anything wrong” is actually an agenda to save lives… Which makes your reference to “politicians act with apparent glee when incidents like this happen” particularly disgusting. You suggest there is glee due to a gun murder spree prompting action, but the gun massacring continues and NEVER prompts action that the pro-gun-murder side is not able to kill. Failure over and over brings sadness, not glee.

    Like

  16. It is indeed disgusting when politicians use incidents like this to push for their extreme agenda. One which makes the country more dangerous: as it disarms and harasses people who have never done anything wrong, while letting criminals run about well-armed.

    Like

  17. CI said: “I won't accuse anyone as “acting with glee”

    That's a much better way to say it.

    As for the terrible gun-running scheme to Mexican drug lords, it was all Obama's decision, started 9 months into his administration. People died as a result. Which is quite obvious: when you supply guns to killer criminals, that might happen.

    Like

  18. “Largely irrelevant, as the issue here [as I cited] is crime.”

    CI, I hope people don't want shooting and killing any monster that breaks into a house to harm people to be called a “crime”.

    Like

  19. a) Operation Wide Receiver (the Bush initiative) wasn't even a quarter the size of Fast and Furious. b) Operation Wide Receiver wasn't even a gun-walking policy (a policy that had NEVER once been utilized prior to Obama). It was a controlled delivery policy (a plan in which the ATF attempted to keep track of each and every weapon) in which a lot of the guns had radio tracking devices and in which few of them ever made it all the way to Mexico. c) Operation Wide Receiver was conducted with the full knowledge and cooperation of the Mexican government. Operation Fast and Furious, not so much. d) Operation Wide Receiver was shut down the very first instant that any of the guns fell off the grid. Operation Fast and Furious was only shut down when two of the guns showed up at the murder scene of Brian Terry. And e) the body count. Far more Mexican citizens have been annihilated by Fast and Furious (between 200 and 300 it is estimated).

    Like

  20. Yes, Will. We know this. The Obama program had nothing to do with the Bush program, really.

    “Fast and Furious” kind of makes ObamaCo total hypocrites on gun control. They go out of their way to arm dangerous criminals.

    Before they ever go after a law-abiding citizen, why don't they imprison first anyone involved with Fast and Furious, no matter how far up the line the investigation goes?

    Like

  21. A “good rundown” is a summary in which most of the facts are wrong?

    From A primer on the “Fast and Furious” scandal (CBS News article) “Wide Receiver” is the name ATF assigned to a group of gun trafficking cases investigated out of the Tucson, Arizona office beginning in 2006. Like Fast and Furious, it was supervised by ATF Special Agent in Charge Bill Newell. Sources indicate it involved about 275 “walked” guns. According to sources who worked directly on the case, the vast majority of guns were not tracked and Mexico's government was not fully informed of the case.

    Like

  22. Do you really “know”?

    Know: verb (used with object), knew, known, knowing.
    1. to perceive or understand as fact or truth; to apprehend clearly and with certainty.

    dmarks does (incorrectly) perceive as fact or truth (even though it is not)… And he is certain (concerning the load of BS he just spun)… But does he apprehend clearly? Obviously he does not.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s