Obama Lets No Tragedy Go to Waste: Appeals for Gun Control to Remember Trayvon Martin

[Varsity130]

I thought the comments sounded racist. You told me they weren't. Case closed. I can't prove it and it doesn't matter if I could. It's not illegal to be racist. If your experience/upbringing causes you to be racist, be ****ing racist. I disagree but I'll defend anyone's right to be sexist, homophobic, or racist and voice their opinion until I die.

When someone says TM "deserved to die", here's what comes to mind. Cops show up right before the shot was fired. TM, unscathed, is arrested and tried, found guilty. "Deserved to die" means he should get the death penalty for assault. I don't believe that. Never did I ever say he didn't deserve to be SHOT. I just wish he had lived and was tried and had the ability to rehabilitate himself. Like I said earlier, my cousin stabbed someone 6 times when he was 15, in what I believe to be an attempted murder. Prosecution couldn't prove it, and he went to jail for some other charges for a while. Now he's 19, doing incredibly well and really seems to have rehabilitated himself. That's all I'm saying. Kids make dumb decisions. Sometimes they make really really bad huge terrible decisions like my cousin and Trayvon. I hope they have the ability to learn from their mistakes. If they don't and they get shot and killed, tough shit, we don't get to choose the consequences for our actions. Justice was served and everyone except TM moves on with their lives. But that's not the ideal scenario. This particular point is just a misunderstanding. He deserved to get shot if that's what it took for Zimmerman to save himself.

I see a huge constitution conflict with what liberals want to do with guns. It's incredibly obvious to me and I don't know why other liberals don't see it. Even if I didn't want a gun or thought they were terrible, I'd still defend 2A. I love the hell out of seatbelts and helmets, I think everyone should wear them. Guess what, I completely disagree with laws requiring them for anyone except those under 18 because I don't agree with legislating personal safety for adults. Laws are not about what people want, they're about what's the right thing to do. I don't see these same constitutional conflicts with my other more liberal views. Maybe you do. Cool. There is literally no candidate in the world that shares all of my views, so I vote for the person who shares most of them which happens to be a democrat. I look at individual issues and, check this out, sometimes my views don't jive with the party line but I have to vote for them anyway. I can still advocate and write letters and try to spread the word.

We're in control. If you want to make progress for gun rights you need more people like me on your side because liberals are sure as hell not going to listen to you. With us (not necessarily people that are pro-2A but liberals that share SOME conservative beliefs) your views might be represented a little more fairly. I didn't come here to start a party war. I came here to show you I agree with you about something, even if it's not every conservative issue. If you haven't noticed, I'm not your stereotypical liberal.

 

[Doug S]

We're in control. If you want to make progress for gun rights you need more people like me on your side because liberals are sure as hell not going to listen to you. With us (not necessarily people that are pro-2A but liberals that share SOME conservative beliefs) your views might be represented a little more fairly. I didn't come here to start a party war. I came here to show you I agree with you about something, even if it's not every conservative issue. If you haven't noticed, I'm not your stereotypical liberal.

So, let me start by saying that I don't often comment on the political/personal opinion stuff. I hope that lends what I'm saying MORE credence, not less.

The thing you have to remember is that you're part of the problem. Every time you vote another liberal dem into office, you increase the voting bloc of them that is taking our 2A rights.
Every time one of them starts a measure in local or nat'l legislative processes that's trying to chip away at our rights, you're partially responsible.
Every time (G0d forbid) a new SCOTUS Justice or other judge makes the bench with more liberal views, we risk losing more 2A rights. Yup, again your fault, BECAUSE you voted a lib dem into office, be it the legislative or exec branch.

You can say that you're on our side, and we need you. The REAL (IMO) problem isn't that you have different views than I. I wore a uniform, fought and bled for this country so you could do that. I don't have a problem with you having different views. My problem is that you may actually THINK you're helping, but you're not.

If you REALLY want to be a lib dem that is helping, try this: Continue to try to explain to your fellow lib dem friends how important 2A rights are. Please only vote for Dems that OPENLY support 2A rights and against those that don't.
I realize that is almost impossible, so I'll offer you an alternative: either don't vote, or vote for a republican that does.

It really boils down to one thing: If you're going to say that you're a lib dem that supports 2A rights, DON'T EVER vote for someone that doesn't, b/c something else they're offering "is more important" to you.

Failing that, please stop saying you're on our side.

 

[Varsity130]

So, let me start by saying that I don't often comment on the political/personal opinion stuff. I hope that lends what I'm saying MORE credence, not less.

The thing you have to remember is that you're part of the problem. Every time you vote another liberal dem into office, you increase the voting bloc of them that is taking our 2A rights.
Every time one of them starts a measure in local or nat'l legislative processes that's trying to chip away at our rights, you're partially responsible.
Every time (G0d forbid) a new SCOTUS Justice or other judge makes the bench with more liberal views, we risk losing more 2A rights. Yup, again your fault, BECAUSE you voted a lib dem into office, be it the legislative or exec branch.

You can say that you're on our side, and we need you. The REAL (IMO) problem isn't that you have different views than I. I wore a uniform, fought and bled for this country so you could do that. I don't have a problem with you having different views. My problem is that you may actually THINK you're helping, but you're not.

If you REALLY want to be a lib dem that is helping, try this: Continue to try to explain to your fellow lib dem friends how important 2A rights are. Please only vote for Dems that OPENLY support 2A rights and against those that don't.
I realize that is almost impossible, so I'll offer you an alternative: either don't vote, or vote for a republican that does.

It really boils down to one thing: If you're going to say that you're a lib dem that supports 2A rights, DON'T EVER vote for someone that doesn't, b/c something else they're offering "is more important" to you.

Failing that, please stop saying you're on our side.

Very, very well said. And thanks for your years of service.

Fair enough, I "agree" with gun rights and wish my other political beliefs allowed me to "support" them. I'll continue to try to educate people I know, write letters, sign petitions, etc.

Relevant to the original topic, here's my original thoughts rephrased, hopefully less inflammatory this time:

Obama is really not looking at this correctly at all. This was the best possible outcome as it pertains to the system. A responsible man legally carrying his legally obtained gun used it for self-defense, aka it's purpose, and was found by a jury to be not guilty of any wrongdoing. He didn't use it excessively; he fired one shot. Since that was enough to remove himself from the situation, he did not shoot any more after that. There are examples out there that he could use to attempt to demonstrate the need for stricter gun laws. But of all the cases to choose, this should have very clearly been at the bottom of the list. The system as it exists worked absolutely perfectly.

 

[Doug S]

Very, very well said.

Thanks, my work here is done.

 

[RavensChick]

Fair enough, I "agree" with gun rights and wish my other political beliefs allowed me to "support" them. I'll continue to try to educate people I know, write letters, sign petitions, etc.

Relevant to the original topic, here's my original thoughts rephrased, hopefully less inflammatory this time:

Obama is really not looking at this correctly at all. This was the best possible outcome as it pertains to the system. A responsible man legally carrying his legally obtained gun used it for self-defense, aka it's purpose, and was found by a jury to be not guilty of any wrongdoing. He didn't use it excessively; he fired one shot. Since that was enough to remove himself from the situation, he did not shoot any more after that. There are examples out there that he could use to attempt to demonstrate the need for stricter gun laws. But of all the cases to choose, this should have very clearly been at the bottom of the list. The system as it exists worked absolutely perfectly.

My question for you is this...if someone, like Obama and O'Malley, is ready and willing to take away your 2nd Amendment rights, what is stopping them from taking away ALL of your civil rights?

 

[Second Amendment]

My question for you is this...if someone, like Obama and O'Malley, is ready and willing to take away your 2nd Amendment rights, what is stopping them from taking away ALL of your civil rights?

That's well under way.

 

[RavensChick]

That's well under way.

Yup, I am fully aware of that, especially with the 1st (speech and religion) and 4th (search and seizure) amendments.

 

[iH8DemLibz]

So, let me start by saying that I don't often comment on the political/personal opinion stuff. I hope that lends what I'm saying MORE credence, not less.

The thing you have to remember is that you're part of the problem. Every time you vote another liberal dem into office, you increase the voting bloc of them that is taking our 2A rights.
Every time one of them starts a measure in local or nat'l legislative processes that's trying to chip away at our rights, you're partially responsible.
Every time (G0d forbid) a new SCOTUS Justice or other judge makes the bench with more liberal views, we risk losing more 2A rights. Yup, again your fault, BECAUSE you voted a lib dem into office, be it the legislative or exec branch.

You can say that you're on our side, and we need you. The REAL (IMO) problem isn't that you have different views than I. I wore a uniform, fought and bled for this country so you could do that. I don't have a problem with you having different views. My problem is that you may actually THINK you're helping, but you're not.

If you REALLY want to be a lib dem that is helping, try this: Continue to try to explain to your fellow lib dem friends how important 2A rights are. Please only vote for Dems that OPENLY support 2A rights and against those that don't.
I realize that is almost impossible, so I'll offer you an alternative: either don't vote, or vote for a republican that does.

It really boils down to one thing: If you're going to say that you're a lib dem that supports 2A rights, DON'T EVER vote for someone that doesn't, b/c something else they're offering "is more important" to you.

Failing that, please stop saying you're on our side.

All of this because I hate them Liberals.

They act this way because it's currently fashionable to do so, but in time they won't like the end result.

I hope I'm around to say "I told you so".

 

[Varsity130]

All of this because I hate them Liberals.

They act this way because it's currently fashionable to do so, but in time they won't like the end result.

I hope I'm around to say "I told you so".

I agree with you. There are lots of them that make declarations without any real understanding of the law.

For example, I am pro-gay marriage. The Declaration of Independence says "...all men are created equal." Being gay is something you're born with, not a choice you make later. People are born with gender, race, and sexual orientation, and any law that discriminates based on those is illegal because it goes against the morals the country was founded on. Churches, they can marry or not marry whomever they want. Many/most/all of you might not agree with it, but I think there's legal justification for it.

Other liberals, yeah, they're exactly what you said. Lots of us are smart, but there are plenty that give us a bad name and are easy targets. They give no thought to legal justification and no, "It doesn't hurt anybody so mind your business" is not legal justification. I'm sure they piss you off a lot more, but it's not lost on me.

I'm not afraid to admit I'm wrong. If Obamacare goes to Hell I'll say I was wrong. Period. That goes for any policy. I don't think it'll happen but if the parties change and I end up more Republican-minded, or if another party comes along that fits my beliefs better, I'll change my party. It's politics, not a tattoo.

(I'm really not looking to argue about my views on anything other than guns or incite a riot. Just demonstrating that unlike the stereotypical liberals I actually think about this stuff and try to justify my views.)

 

[tinydata]

I agree with you. There are lots of them that make declarations without any real understanding of the law.

For example, I am pro-gay marriage. The Declaration of Independence says "...all men are created equal." Being gay is something you're born with, not a choice you make later. People are born with gender, race, and sexual orientation, and any law that discriminates based on those is illegal because it goes against the morals the country was founded on. Churches, they can marry or not marry whomever they want. Many/most/all of you might not agree with it, but I think there's legal justification for it.

Other liberals, yeah, they're exactly what you said. Lots of us are smart, but there are plenty that give us a bad name and are easy targets. They give no thought to legal justification and no, "It doesn't hurt anybody so mind your business" is not legal justification. I'm sure they piss you off a lot more, but it's not lost on me.

I'm not afraid to admit I'm wrong. If Obamacare goes to Hell I'll say I was wrong. Period. That goes for any policy. I don't think it'll happen but if the parties change and I end up more Republican-minded, or if another party comes along that fits my beliefs better, I'll change my party. It's politics, not a tattoo.

The whole gay-rights issue is completely overblown. Why does it take precedence over issues like national defense or debt? Mismanaged priorities.

Why not just meet halfway and grant equal rights but call it civil union? The left is picking a fight by demanding that it be called marriage. Just leave the tradition alone and stop arguing about something that isn't the most pressing issue.

And Obamacare is already going to hell. Just look at all of the rate increases. 80% in Ohio next year...

 

[Mr H]

The whole gay-rights issue is completely overblown. Why does it take precedence over issues like national defense or debt? Mismanaged priorities.

On the mark

And why is that???

To put people's attention on emotional hot-button issues, to distract from real problems.

Why distract from the "real problems"??? To enable an agenda to come to fruition.

 

[Les Gawlik]

The whole gay-rights issue is completely overblown. Why does it take precedence over issues like national defense or debt?

Here are my top three reasons:

1. IRS
2. Benghazi
3. Fast & Furious

Feel free to add some more.

 

[fabsroman]

I agree with you. There are lots of them that make declarations without any real understanding of the law.

For example, I am pro-gay marriage. The Declaration of Independence says "...all men are created equal." Being gay is something you're born with, not a choice you make later. People are born with gender, race, and sexual orientation, and any law that discriminates based on those is illegal because it goes against the morals the country was founded on. Churches, they can marry or not marry whomever they want. Many/most/all of you might not agree with it, but I think there's legal justification for it.

Other liberals, yeah, they're exactly what you said. Lots of us are smart, but there are plenty that give us a bad name and are easy targets. They give no thought to legal justification and no, "It doesn't hurt anybody so mind your business" is not legal justification. I'm sure they piss you off a lot more, but it's not lost on me.

I'm not afraid to admit I'm wrong. If Obamacare goes to Hell I'll say I was wrong. Period. That goes for any policy. I don't think it'll happen but if the parties change and I end up more Republican-minded, or if another party comes along that fits my beliefs better, I'll change my party. It's politics, not a tattoo.

(I'm really not looking to argue about my views on anything other than guns or incite a riot. Just demonstrating that unlike the stereotypical liberals I actually think about this stuff and try to justify my views.)

Some people choose to be gay. Just like some people choose to be bi. That much I do know. Now, I have not seen any studies that say people are born gay, but I am sure they are out there. It all comes down to how far people want to go down the road of sexual experimentation.

I also agree with the others. Leave the institution of marriage alone and allow civil unions with all the benefits that come with marriage, like the marriage tax penalty, alimony, child support, etc.

 

[EL1227]

On the mark

And why is that???

To put people's attention on emotional hot-button issues, to distract from real problems.

Why distract from the "real problems"??? To enable an agenda to come to fruition.

Alinsky tactics ... Pick one, pick a few, pick them all. Closely coupled to Cloward & Piven.

Here are my top three reasons:

1. IRS
2. Benghazi
3. Fast & Furious

Feel free to add some more.

4. NSA Spying
5. UN SAT
6. $16T Debt (and counting)
7. Keystone pipeline
8. Solyndra

And of course the never ending ...

9. Birther Investigations

 

[BlackBart]

For example, I am pro-gay marriage. The Declaration of Independence says "...all men are created equal." Being gay is something you're born with, not a choice you make later. People are born with gender, race, and sexual orientation, and any law that discriminates based on those is illegal because it goes against the morals the country was founded on.


I'm not afraid to admit I'm wrong. If Obamacare goes to Hell I'll say I was wrong. Period. That goes for any policy. I don't think it'll happen but if the parties change and I end up more Republican-minded, or if another party comes along that fits my beliefs better, I'll change my party. It's politics, not a tattoo.

Homosexuality isn't a new phenomenon been around forever, yes born that way no doubt about it. If the founding fathers were concerned about homosexual marriage (gay is a wrong word for the condition) it would have been permissive back then, it wasn't. I suspect they weren't just in a closet but a cave.

Obama care 1/7th of the economy riding on that incompetent fools legacy, no thanks. 2,800 pages.... what could possibly go wrong? Even his union turds that supported him are having second thoughts now that they have found out that they too are screwed!

Damn, he even has Carter crying to the Krauts!

http://www.salon.com/2013/07/18/jimmy_carter_us_has_no_functioning_democracy_partner/

Just curious, should the IRS scandal be as dirty as it appears should those at fault be publicly lynched?

"What does it matter" Bet a lot of it were HIS or Hitlerys kids.

Brian Terry

Just to name a few..........

 

[gamer_jim]

How did a thread about TM turn gay?

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk 2

 

[Jim12]

Alinsky tactics ... Pick one, pick a few, pick them all. Closely coupled to Cloward & Piven.



4. NSA Spying
5. UN SAT
6. $16T Debt (and counting)
7. Keystone pipeline
8. Solyndra

And of course the never ending ...

9. Birther Investigations

Hillary is an Alinsky disciple.

When she first delivered her, "vast right wing conspiracy" diatribe, the first thing that shot through my mind was that the exact opposite must be true.

And the facts have borne that out.

The right wing is too small to be vast, and too disorganized to conspire.

 

[hvymax]

Hillary is an Alinsky disciple.

When she first delivered her, "vast right wing conspiracy" diatribe, the first thing that shot through my mind was that the exact opposite must be true.

And the facts have borne that out.

The right wing is too small to be vast, and too disorganized to conspire.

The truth is a right wing conspiracy!

 

[Les Gawlik]

Hillary is an Alinsky disciple.

When she first delivered her, "vast right wing conspiracy" diatribe, the first thing that shot through my mind was that the exact opposite must be true.

And the facts have borne that out.

The right wing is too small to be vast, and too disorganized to conspire.

But that wasn't the best part. The exact opposite *was* true. There was a vast Left Wing Conspiracy- Journ-o-list. The lefties in the Monica Media would get together every day to coordinate and package the "news". Rush used to play sound montages of the "reporters" using the same phraseology to describe the same "story".

 

[Jim12]

But that wasn't the best part. The exact opposite *was* true. There was a vast Left Wing Conspiracy- Journ-o-list. The lefties in the Monica Media would get together every day to coordinate and package the "news". Rush used to play sound montages of the "reporters" using the same phraseology to describe the same "story".

x100.