Obama wants BackgroundChecks for lawabidingcitizens purchasing guns but not 4 terrori

[Sean Renaud]

If The Traitor is so concerned about public safety why did he release 60,000 illegal immigrants who were criminals?

Why didn't the Democrats change the gun laws when they had control of Congress?

Most importantly why do you people continue defending everything The Traitor does?

1. I don't know, sounds dumb but what were their crimes?

2. They didn't want to, but even if they had filibuster was on the table pretty much since day fucking one.

3. We don't. He's made lots of fuck ups. He put fucking boots on the ground again for fucks sake.

He drones people and kills innocent people, what were the stats again? 50%? higher?

We didn't get UHC.

He didn't end the Patriot Act

He didn't close Gitmo (even if Hogan makes a case that it's use is different than what most people think at this point its symbolic.

He didn't raise minimum wage or even make a strong fight over it.

 

[abelle]

It would be a background check on everyone buying a gun. It isn't like someone can walk up to a booth at a gun show and say "I'm a terrorist, I want that gun," and no background check would be done.

 

[renard_ruse]

Make no mistake this is motivated by cultural bigotry and even racism on the part of Obama.

Of course, the United Nations and the global elites are pushing for the disarming of Americans and Obama is one of their chosen (as Minister Farrakhan has put it "Obama was selected before he was elected"), however, this goes beyond that for Obama. He really does hate traditional middle America (in a cultural sense) and wants to wipe it out and everything that defines it and its way of life. Most likely at least part of that is racial animus toward white America which was the main component of traditional middle American society.

At the very least we know he hates middle American culture, as he clearly defined in his now infamous bitter clingers speech many years ago and that shows up in clear undercurrents in his books. Gun liberty is perceived as part of middle American culture, if not one of the defining aspects of it that distinguishes it from other developed countries.

The War on Gun Rights is about bigotry and cultural genocide of middle America as much as increasing government power and bringing Americans in line with world directives.

 

[miles]

I guess some of you Googled the subject and now have to STFU.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

It would be a background check on everyone buying a gun. It isn't like someone can walk up to a booth at a gun show and say "I'm a terrorist, I want that gun," and no background check would be done.

Doesn't do a damned thing about straw man purchases and just makes it so that you cannot sell your old shotgun at a garage sale.

If that's what makes us safe, then the mental illness factor is probably greater than we even know.

 

[putzpotus]

Not one of you have bothered to respond to th Oh Pee

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Not one of you have bothered to respond to th Oh Pee

Like most of busybody's musings, it is insane, so we dismissed it out of hand.

​

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

PS - His background checks are for the only form of terrorism he recognizes, white, rural men...

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

One of these things does not belong (Roger L. Simon, PJMedia):

...

“Fort Hood, Binghamton, Aurora, Oak Creek, Newtown, the Navy Yard, Santa Barbara, Charleston, San Bernardino. Too many,” Obama said, ticking through a list of mass shootings since the 2011 Tucson shooting that killed six and injured more than a dozen more, including former Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-Ariz.), who was in attendance in the East Room.​

No doubt you got it in one. Two of those mass shootings (Fort Hood and San Bernardino) were perpetrated by jihadis motivated by fundamentalist Islamic ideology -- while the others (not all very mass) were the work of common criminals and/or (to be blunt) nutcases.

Why is this important? It should be obvious that gun control legislation of any sort is absolutely irrelevant to jihadis. As has been demonstrated, they have had no trouble getting arms even in societies like Canada, Australia and France where the gun laws are far more stringent than ours. Indeed, they are able to obtain weapons of all sorts all across the globe. (Of course, criminals in general don't have much trouble getting guns, but jihadis have a world-wide network of the sympathetic at their disposal.)

And yet the president persists in lumping the jihadis together with the nut cases and criminals in the other shootings. His reason couldn't be more obvious. He cannot stand to acknowledge the Islamic basis of terrorism. This is another case where he will do anything in his power to equalize it with other criminal or insane acts, make it banal. It cannot be the work -- organized or not -- of a highly evolved and specific seventh century ideology. Even in the midst of proposing his morally narcissistic gun control regulations he cannot resist trying to transform jihadism into a simple common crime, sort of like a biker gang rumbling at a truck stop and subject, as John Kerry would have it, to local law enforcement.

This is not accidental. Equating Fort Hood (once risibly called "workplace violence" -- imagine the pressure put on the Pentagon for that) and San Bernardino with these other mass killings is a deliberate attempt to obscure an uncomfortable reality or, as Al Gore terms it, an inconvenient truth. In an election year, the president seeks to convince the public, and himself, I wouldn't be surprised, that nothing exceptional went on in Ft. Hood and San Bernardino. It was just gun violence perpetrated by angry "folks." Everything is under control, if only we had a few more background checks. But this is a man who denies the Islamic State is Islamic. At least he's consistent. As Big Bird would have it, "All of these things are just like each other."

 

[miles]

Don't confuse the issue with facts. They don't matter. What's important for liberals is the "we have to do something" bullshit. Never mind that it may be unconstitutional, ineffective, or senseless. What's most important to them is how it makes them feel, not whether or not it solves a problem.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

At least we tried! You just want dead children!

 

[miles]

When someone says they are "trying" they're usually whining when they say the word.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

trying = voting Democrat no matter how "Progressive" the party becomes.

 

[miles]

trying = voting Democrat no matter how "Progressive" the party becomes.

...regardless of how stupid or nonsensical their policies are.

Eight years of The Beast is the definition of insanity...doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Hey, give credit where credit is due...



He learned the Clinton cry. Some things can change!

 

[phrodeau]

Dude: use your finger to follow the words on the screen and speak each one of them out loud. I'll even enlarge the text to make it easier to read.

Congress exempted gun shows from conducting background checks. Today's EO tries to override that.

Was that so hard?

The EO tries to override the law? It doesn't actually do it, but only attempts to?

Either it does or it doesn't. "There is no try," said Yoda.

When someone says they are "trying" they're usually whining when they say the word.

OK.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Loonatick Liberals always reply with, "It depends on the meaning of 'is.'"

 

[miles]

Loonatick Liberals always reply with, "It depends on the meaning of 'is.'"

If a word exposes the truth, they try to change its definition.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

If a word exposes the truth, they try to change its definition.

Or they use words but have their own hidden meaning, so that they can always claim, "THAT'S NOT WHAT I SAID!"

 

[miles]

Yogi Berra must have been a liberal.

"I never said what I said."

 

[Ulaven_Demorte]

PS - His background checks are for the only form of terrorism he recognizes, white, rural men...

That's a lie and you know it. But par for the course for you.

 

[putzpotus]

That's a lie and you know it. But par for the course for you.

Thats a lie and you know it

 

[Ulaven_Demorte]

Did Botany Boy give you some weed?

How many innocent people have "Jewish terrorists" murdered compared with Muslim terrorists?

So your argument is that because Jews aren't as successful at killing Americans they shouldn't be subjected to scrutiny even though they tried more than Muslims?

Once a group has a high enough body count, regardless of how many times they have committed acts of terrorism, only then are they worth scrutinizing?

I mean if you want to be proactive about terrorism then you should really be looking at Latino people, who are responsible for 42% of terrorist attacks against Americans. Oh, but they're Christians.. Nevermind.

 

[Ulaven_Demorte]

Thats a lie and you know it

Feel free to back up Cap'n Hypocrite's bogus claim that only white rural men are subjected to background checks, if you can.

But you can't, and neither can he.

 

[putzpotus]

Its pointless to talk to you