In the immediate aftermath of the school shooting in Oregon. President Obama called for more gun control. [Click here to read the full statement.] “As I said just a few months ago, and I said a few months before that, and I said each time we see one of these mass shootings, our thoughts and prayers are not enough. It’s not enough . . . and it does nothing to prevent this carnage from being inflicted someplace else in America. Next week or a couple of months from now . . . It cannot be this easy for someone who wants to inflict harm on other people to get his or her hands on a gun . . .

“Right now I can imagine the press releases being cranked out. ‘We need more guns,’ they’ll argue. “Fewer gun safety laws.’ Does anyone actually believe that? . . .

“Somebody somewhere will comment and say ‘Obama politicized this issue.’ Well this is something we should politicize. It is relevant to our common life together. To the body politic . . .

“This is a political choice that we make. To allow this to happen every few months join America. We are collectively answerable to those families who lose their loves ones because of our inaction . . .

“The notion that . . . our freedom and our Constitution prohibits any modest regulation of how we use a deadly weapon, when there are law-abiding gun owners all across the country who could hunt and protect their families and do everything they do under such regulations, doesn’t make sense.

“I would particularly ask America’s gun owners who are using those guns properly, safely, to hunt, for sport, for protecting their families, to think about whether your views are being properly represented by the organization that suggests it’s speaking for you.

“And each time this happens I’m going to bring this up.  Each time this happens I’m going to say we can actually do something about it but we’re going to have to change our laws.”

Recommended For You

152 Responses to President Obama on Oregon Shooting: This IS Political

    • Ross, Dennis, and Mark S.

      FLAME DELETED Obama bent over for Putin, huh? Somehow, Obama got Putin to crater his economy, and in a magic trick that you numbnuts couldn’t perceive, got Putin to commit ground troops to Syria to prop up a failed dictator and to begin attacking the wrong dudes, who will (yes, will ) end up killing Russian troops on the ground as revenge for his air assault upon them. And likely open up Russia to a new Chechnya campaign that will probably be last call for Putin.

      So, Obama has managed to bomb ISIS for a year, and you call him weak, and you guys fellate Putin as “strong” because he manages to fly 20 missions with dumb bombs? FLAME DELETED

      And as a responsible gun owner, it is saddening that we have another mass shooting. FLAME DELETED

      FLAME AGAIN AND YOU WILL BE PERMANENTLY BANNED

      • They may be pathetic, but you sir, are (1) not a responsible gun owner, (2) not a gun owner, (3) not responsible.

        FLAME DELETED

      • [Sigh] …The US CIA (and MS6, and the I.S.I.) co-created Al Qaeda way back in the late 1970s, and funded them, and ran them, all the way to present day. Recently a part of that broke off into a slightly more organic and slightly more crazy ISIL/ISIS etc, but the US still steers them, and arms them, and through Obama’s half-brother Malick .. funds them, using them as a mercenary force for destabilizing petro-nations, Syria being the Fifth (!) nation so far to which this has been done, and also making a nice boogeyman for us to be ‘afraid of’ back here so their creators can ‘protect us’. Russia, good for them, is sick of our sh*t .. and what/who Russia is bombing over there at the moment are US/CIA management/training assets that were coordinating our proxy war vs Syria’s legitimate government. Obama appearing on television last night, sputtering mad over Russia killing his ISIS commanders, and furious over his own ongoing impotence at fostering the US’s own “Port Arthur” moment for firearm confiscation, was the funniest thing I’ve witnessed in ages. He seriously looked like he was about to have a stroke. Which didn’t slow Hillary down for long, but .. fingers crossed.

      • You’re not a responsible gun owner. ou probably don’t even own a gun.

        “Obama has been bombing ISIS for a year”. Big f*king deal, it hasn’t done a damn thing and he just keeps giving money and weapons to so called rebels who in turn hand them over to ISIS. Obamas foreign policy is about as good as dog sh1t FLAME DELETED.

        • NOt a responsible gun owner? Don’t own guns? Well, I guess those 10 sitting in my home are figments of my imagination. (2 more on the way, BTW, nitwit) But who says gun ownership is an automatic qualifier? Only you guys….who apparently have the same attitude as meatheads who say “Unless you’ve played a down in the NFL you can’t talk about the NFL”.

          The solution is not MORE guns in the hands of Americans; the solution is less. As a story above this one points out….there was a guy carrying a gun and he didn’t do anything, because he was trained (as current DoD policy goes and I have to endure each year as a service-member) that the first thing you do is “shelter in place, and don’t try to attack the shooter”. That is the antithesis of what I was taught and trained as a young boot over 2 decades ago at San Diego, but that is what far more professional and knowledgeable law enforcement and AT/FP personnel believe and train is the best course of action, for your safety and that of others. Hell, back in my hometown, a CCW permit holder was shot and as he attempted to intervene in a horrific shooting of two cops (http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2014/06/foghorn/breaking-concealed-carry-holder-stopped-las-vegas-shooters-from-continuing-killing-spree/) and he didn’t even get a shot off.

          The solution is not more guns for more people who are not even trained to a reasonable level of proficiency to begin firing wildly and inaccurately and harming more people. Most civvies shouldn’t even have weapons, as they buy a gun, maybe shoot it 2x for an hour, and that’s it. Off to a (hopefully safe location) the gun goes, probably not thought of again. And you think I should feel safer with these people on the road with road rage, rage about their boss, their children’s teacher, the mailman, etc. running around with guns? No way. And to think how the police would deal with a situation with a lot of guns around in an active shooter situation. Yeah, let’s make it harder for them to determine who is the bad guy, with radio chatter going beserk about multiple shooters on an installation….

          Yeah, so the solution is to put more guns in the hands of even more untrained, unprepared people. That’s the ticket.

        • Those who prefer safety to liberty, deserve neither. Glad you fully explained yourself Mr.
          Safety.

        • “Most civvies shouldn’t even have weapons”

          You can take your ‘civvies’ comment and fuck yourself with it. You don’t get to make that decision, comrade.

          Paul G, you are right on target.

        • You’ve completely missed the point! Of course it’s ok for Obongo to give guns to Muslims or Mexican Narco-gangs. It’s the tax-paying, bitter clinging American citizens that are his enemies.

  1. Hey Barry – where is the outrage over the 50 people shot in chicago for the second week in a row? That is racism and hypocris at its finest

    • Damn straight.

      Obama better be careful what he asks for. For many years I was a politically apathetic gun owner wrt guns. I am a member of NRA, SAF, GOA, NHFC, and maybe another local org. Perhaps $150 per year total. If I could find a lobby or organization that would aggressively and actively take on BATFE, national reciprocity, and NFA 34/68 I would join for hundreds tomorrow. I am at the point where I want to aggressively eradicate the gun laws we already have.

    • That can’t be. In his speech last night Obozo specifically said that states with the most gun control have less firearm related firearm deaths. I HAVE to assume that applies to cities as well. And Illinois has a long track record of being friendly to 2A given their long standing openess to RTC…right? (note sarcasm)

  2. Yup, as predicted a few weeks ago the rhetoric has been changed from “Gun Control” to “Gun Safety”.

    • I thought they had moved past gun safety and are calling it “gun responsibility” now. Maybe I’m wrong, I dunno.

    • Oh, they are so, losing. Drip, drip, drip… that’s the sound of reality slowly eroding the imagined edifice in which “gun control” makes any sense. Seriously, if these people want to write fiction, they should, I don’t know, come up with better titles, or something. (Also /spoiler, Darth is …. )

      So, what about “Gun Safety”, as in, greater safety in a world in which there are guns (<- see, they lost right there), as in…

      — Maybe having more guns in the hands of more good guys is in fact "safer." Kinda like the armed police who stopped the armed killer, while the unarmed vet, for all his courage, could not. Going from "control" to "safety" creates a massive opening for the "prohibition can't work" argument.

      — Maybe having understanding what guns are, and are not; can do and can not do, is in fact "safer." Kinda like maybe if things are getting worse, we ought to re-institute high school shooting teams.

      — Maybe a through understanding of the 4 rules of safe gun handling in the whole population is in fact "safer." Kind like stopping treating this dangerous tools like toys, or even thinking of waving they around like toys.

      Yeah, they are changing the wording, but under pressure of facts can only change the wording to something where there is *more* traction for their opponents. This is how it always happens when you are deluded and wrong. Reality will grind you down.

      If the game is "gun safety" not "gun control" whether more "control" means more "safety" becomes a point to prove, not assume.

    • Sweetie-pie, if your boyfriend is also unable to use lambskin condoms because of your latex allergy you may just have to stick to anal. Keep using that Summers Eve and make sure you keep it clean down there. I understand how hard this must be for you.

  3. “The right to be left alone is the most cherished of rights, most prized among civilized men.” – Justice Brandeis

    Discover who attempts to intrude upon your life, safety, and freedom without any just cause, and you will find a tyrannical oppressor. They can’t even fathom individual rights, people living happily without the iron fist of government shoving them along. All of us are just state property to them.

    • That would be Republicans, who want to regulate everything you do and can have, such as health care, who you marry, what women do with their bodies, who you sleep with, what religion you can practice, whether or not you can smoke weed, etc…etc. Because if the conservatives have their way, your “freedom” to be “left alone” will only extend to what THEY think is okay according to their views

      So, yeah, be careful what you write and try to espouse……because your greatest enemy is likely the person you see in the mirror.

      • Wrong, democrats are the party of regulation. The Republicans don’t want the government to fund or regulate any of the stupid shit you mentioned. You’re ok with your left leaning pals taking your constitutional rights away though. So go ahead and turn the guns in that you claim to own. FLAME DELETED

    • I wouldn’t want to arm any leftist. Their insane, violent, emotional and intellectual irrationalities are why I carry in the first place. Of course, I also don’t consider them citizens, so there you go.

      • The moral thing to say is that their 2nd amendment rights are as important as ours, BUT I am so frustrated with their lust for tyranny, I am reaching that point where I would happily support the seizure of firearms owned and carried by Progressives and any police or security minion who protect them.

        The 2nd amendment protects the Progressives just as much as it protects us. History proves that the last people to be armed in any country will govern. (Guess what, I am not giving up my guns.) So, for the Progressive that reads this, if you want to abolish the 2nd amendment, if you want people to turn in their guns, perhaps you should turn yours in first.

  4. It cannot be this easy for someone who wants to inflict harm on other people to get his or her hands on a gun.

    Well, it should not be this easy for someone who wants to inflict harm on the whole country to get his or her hands on the Presidency, but there it is.

    • He’s hoping people will forget that violence predates gunpowder, and that governments like this have killed more of their own people than private citizens with guns ever could in a thousand lifetimes. A guy with a length of chain and a gallon of gasoline could kill more people than if he had a gun.

      • Being In a wheelchair getting out of a lightly populated movie theater or other building when an event ends under the best cercumstances is slow and difficult. If you add in more people and some panic and the stampede alone cold be lethal to anybody, especially smaller or weaker people. I hope to never be near one of these attacks but somebody blocking the exits and starting a fire worries me more than a gun. You don’t even need to be burnt for the fire to kill, smoke seems to be a pretty common COD in house fires. While a gun can jam or run out of ammo and is no threat if the shooter is neutralized, a fire will keep going as long as it has fuel or is put out. Point being, given the difficulty I would have getting safely out of a building in an emergency, the chances of surviving a shooter seem better to me than a fire. If it somehow became to difficult for killers to get a gun, a fantasy in itself, I don’t want them deciding to use other means that in reality could be much easier to get and capable of doing more damage.

    • The moment I heard that, I asked to myself, “Does this ass-hat even yet know how this killer acquired them?” That was followed, by, “And, why the fuck would it make a difference?”

      • Exactly this. Just how easy was it for him to get a gun–and how legal, and how preventable? And what do you know about it that we don’t, Mr Prez?

    • Facts. Those are those things leftists have to ignore, bend, or twist if they want to appear rational, right?

    • I’d like one more gun law, in two parts 1) All restrictions on the right to aquire, keep and bear arms are hereby overturned and/or repealsed. 2) Any attempt to pass or enforce such a law is a felony with a dentence of ten years or a hundred thousand dollar fine or both.

      • I thought 59% was the majority in 42 of the 69 countries, or 12%, of the United States of Mexico.
        I could be wrong, though, as common core math only taught me how to count past north. Next year they’ll teach us how to count to purple, but I’ve already read ahead and can count to potato

  5. it does nothing to prevent this carnage from being inflicted someplace else in America.

    And neither will any of your proposals.

  6. It cannot be this easy for someone who wants to inflict harm on other people to get his or her hands on a gun.

    …and since I can’t think of an effective way of preventing that, I’m just going to make proposals that have the appearance of helping, while actually making the problem worse.

  7. “It cannot be this easy for someone who wants to inflict harm on other people to get his or her hands on a gun.”

    First, he doesn’t know if the shooter acquired his gun legally like Eliot Rodger and Vester Lee Flanagan, do no surprise he’s jumping the political angle for his own personal agenda.

    Second, he’s giving weapons to Syrian and Iraqi fighters only to see them left of ISIS. He also is giving weapons to Mexican drug cartels. Not just Fast & Furious, but to the Mexican military which is mostly in the cartels’ pockets. Now that’s easy.

    Third, maybe we should claim cultural differences since raping children is acceptable to President Zero in certain circumstances.

    Fourth, if you’re willing to give away the most destructive weapons ever invented, all the mass shooting mean nothing next to a nuclear bombing in terms of body counts.

    Fifth, Oregon has UBCs already and the college was a gun free zone. Really effective aren’t they?

    • Exactly, these people are promoting new gun laws without even beginning to think about how they might actually stop something like this.

      Oh wait… I said the word “think.” Sorry, never mind…

  8. Keep talking, scumbag. There’s never been a worse spokesman for any cause. Anyone who isn’t literally laughing at every word that comes out of this evil little troll’s mouth is either too young to be smart or too stupid to be relevant.

  9. Have we ever had a POTUS whose tenure in the White House, was one unending lecture?
    Obama must hold us all in contempt. Why else is he perpetually frustrated over the notion that he has to lecture we children about behaving ourselves whenever someone commits a criminal act with a firearm? What sort of diseased intellect would even think of saying such things?

  10. “I would particularly ask America’s gun owners who are using those guns properly, safely to hunt, for sport, for protecting their families, to think about whether your views are being properly represented by the organization that suggests its speaking for you.”

    Actually, I would prefer if the organizations defending my natural rights were much, much more aggressive.

  11. Barry quick to jump onto any distraction from the political asswhupping he’s getting from Putin and Hillary’s e-mail woes.

  12. College that is a gun free zone. To protect the “children” there…..Check
    State that passed a universal background check law that you’re touting as the bestest thing evar……. Check

    What’s left in their “Safety” laws they want to pass that hasn’t already been passed in Oregon?

    • Total disarmament, of course, the end goal of every anti and every tyrant. And you better believe they’ll kill anyone in their way and enslave the nation to soothe the insane utopian fiction that rests upon this goal.

      • Of course. But, because of Oregon law, they cannot argue for background checks since Oregon passed that law for the state.
        We can shove that right in their faces if they start clamoring about it and watch their reaction. “We need more background checks!” “Oregon HAS those background check laws on the books already. Are you gonna suggest we run a background check on the background check form now?”

  13. “It shouldn’t be this easy for someone who has no past criminal record to commit a crime. Therefore president Obama has taken it upon himself to reverse the judicial stance of innocent until proven guilty and establish martial law for the safety of the populace. House to house searches for newly declared contraband will begin Monday and internet controls will be activated to monitor and limit access to dangers online. Group gatherings are also forbidden”.

    Nothing short of that fiction will make the difference Obama speaks of in his speeches. People need to realize there is violence in this world and if you’re not prepared you will succumb to it. It’s a shocking reality that people don’t want to accept, the very same people that won’t accept that animals die to have meat at dinner.

  14. Of course the Narcissist in Chief would go running for a microphone while the bodies are still warm. He had just heard that the shooter was asking his victims what their religion was before he shot them. Obama was afraid he wouldn’t be able to wave the bloody shirt at all once that story was out, especially if the bad guy turns out to be a Muslim like the Chattanooga shooter was.

    By the way we know Obama is not a Muslim. He doesn’t face Mecca to pray, he faces a mirror!

  15. As of 18:45 CDT there has been no word as to who the shooter actually was. This seems very odd and very political. What are they hiding?

    • Yup.
      From what I’ve heard, the killer was white, so they should be plastering his face all over the news while claiming him to be a racist islamaphobe hell bent on killing people. Instead, we’ve not even heard the name of the killer yet, let alone all the other stuff they’d normally dig up several hours after the killing took place.

        • Sometimes they just can’t create the right narrative out of what they got. Notice how that live, on-the-air shooting has pretty well dropped off the national radar since the shooter turned out to be a walking composite of the left-wing grievance industry’s current pet causes?

  16. Yet another reason for campus carry.

    Prayers for strength and peace for the surviving victims, families and all affected.

    • Rick K,
      I just heard about 15 minutes ago on FOX that carrying was allowed on this campus. I haven’t verified that and I was very surprised when I heard it.

      • The Complications of Oregon’s Guns-On-Campus Laws

        Under state law, people in Oregon are technically allowed to carry concealed weapons on college campuses. But it’s not quite that simple

        By James King on Oct 01, 2015 at 3:59 PM

        Under state law, people in Oregon could carry concealed firearms on college campuses like the one where a gunman killed several people and wounded several others on Thursday. However, Umpqua Community College has been established as a gun-free zone thanks to a loophole in state law that has made every third-level institution in the state almost entirely gun-free. Here’s how that works.
        […]
        http://www.vocativ.com/news/236421/the-complications-of-oregons-guns-on-campus-laws/

  17. Its so ok to order soldiers to die…drop bombs…and so many other examples of pulling the trigger on bad guys and civillians but he’s butt hurt over yet another school shooting. One that apparently has unarmed veterans trying to run to the shooter but locked in the room like first graders at nappy time.
    And instead of attending funerals of dead recruiters he’ll choose this to comment on…..this president doesn’t represent my America.

  18. I love how many times he referred to the “collective.” Really showing your roots there, comrade. I have no “common life” with the traitorous filth that infest half this nation. They’re as foreign to the tenets of a free nation as the most hateful foreigner. And no organization represents what I think or say, least of all this farce of a government. I know it’s hard for a soulless collectivist to understand, but I think for myself.

    Oh, and any time you want to propose a “modest” regulation, let me know. Or are you referring to the ones your proposed a couple years ago that banned common use guns and would have forced citizens to ask your highness’s permission to exercise a natural right?

    I know it sucks for you. Evil tyrants hate documents that rob them of absolute power over helpless subjects, and they certainly hate subjects that refuse to be helpless. It must infuriate you that the days of people kissing the ring of whatever bumbling, callous moron born to the throne are over. Perhaps if you spent more time growing up in America, you’d understand the difference between a free man and everywhere else in the world.

  19. Must be a bitch, NRA and others hold your job and ALL of Congress hostage to the Constitution.

    The pure evil, not of the shooter, but school administration establishing rules preventing students ability to lawfully protect themselves. Sleep well you bastards, knowing your action culled your student body today.

  20. He is right.

    “The notion that . . . our freedom and our Constitution prohibits any modest regulation of how we use a deadly weapon, when there are law-abiding gun owners all across the country who could hunt and protect their families and do everything they do under such regulations, doesn’t make sense”

    The constitution does allow regulation of how we use deadly weapons. We cannot use them to kill other through negligence or malice, but only in the pursuit of defense of human life. Under such a regulation we can hunt and protect our families. Therefore, we must pass a law making it a crime to kill another human being through negligence or malice.

    There. Problem solved. Bipartisanship achieved. What’s next?

    • That’s “problem solved” for real America, but Obama’s problem is that he doesn’t hold absolute power over helpless, dependent subjects as a despot.

    • Where have we heard such liberal socialist gun-controller rhetoric before???

      Oh; that’s right:

      “We can’t be so fixated on our desire to preserve the rights of ordinary Americans to legitimately own handguns and rifles…that we are unable to think about reality.”
      –POTUS William Jefferson Blythe “Billy Blowjob” Clinton

  21. Brought out the ol’ nebulous “common sense” gun laws again. Does he know specifically how this could have been prevented? Does he even know any details of the shooting?

  22. “I would particularly ask America’s gun owners who are using those guns properly, safely, to hunt, for sport, for protecting their families, to think about whether your views are being properly represented by the organization that suggests it’s speaking for you.

    Actually, I am usually much more stringent and adamant in my interpretation of the 2A than most gun groups that suggest they are speaking for me.

  23. This muthfkr has a lot of nerve taking about what the Constitution says. He has abused it more than any other president in the history of the USA.

    • He knows the Constitution intimately, the way a thief knows locks intimately. Nothing to him but an obstacle to his evil goals.

  24. “I would particularly ask America’s gun owners who are using those guns properly, safely, to hunt, for sport, for protecting their families, to think about whether your views are being properly represented by the organization that suggests it’s speaking for you…”

    You mean, like the executive branch?

  25. I found this quote most interesting from our Communist, er … Commander-in-Chief:

    I would particularly ask America’s gun owners who are using those guns properly, safely, to hunt, for sport, for protecting their families …

    Did you notice how he stated, “for protecting their families”? Every single Progressive reference to firearms in the past revolved around “sport” or “hunting”. This is the first time that I have heard Progressives reference “protecting families”.

    We are winning!

    • I did notice that, quite interesting. Of course, that’s still only part of the actual reason behind the 2A, but good luck getting leftist politician to openly recognize the other half.

  26. I keep pointing out how reliable the gun control issue is when Obama wants the press to react to the word “Squirrel!”

    The press is utterly stupid. They fall for it… Ever. Single. Time.

    The press will go off into a nine to ten day orgy of incrimination and pontification, and Obama will be able to slip any elephant he wants by them.

    • It’s irritatingly predictable. When the Dems double down on gun control, the NRA, SAF, Calguns and your local FFL tend to enjoy renewed vigor. If I knew who you actually are, other than a righteous Wyoming gunsmith, I’d send business your way. Regardless, I’m hoping that the Dems ride this gun control change all the way out of office.

    • You’re quite right….. I’ve noticed that the media’s primetime attention span lasts about 7 days (depending on polled/perceived “outrage”), complete with eye-catching graphics and dramatic musical intro/outros; after which & exempting a new mass-murder or violation of a minority demographic’s civil-rights by the police, their pet event/narrative is then pushed back into the realm of late-night panels for another week or two. Political “comedy” hacks like Colbert and Stewart might milk it for another month, but only if it serves to belittle & insult the opposition.

      But by then there is usually another crisis, tradgedy, or failing that, a “human interest” story they can run which then becomes the primary focus for the next news cycle.
      And as the media’s attention span goes, so goes that of the American sheeple, at which point politicans and subversives are free to further erode the foundations of our nation…. because hey, if it’s old news, it’s no news.

    • ‘Dyspeptic Gunsmith’ wrote on October 1, 2015 at 19:57 hours:

      “I keep pointing out how reliable the gun control issue is when Obama wants the press to react to the word ‘Squirrel!’”

      Like with Pavlov’s Dogs (and the dogs from “Up”), Obozo tries his best misdirect the lamestream media with his ‘Squirrel!’ tactics.

      • Well, with this administration, yes, they do. Obama has the benefit of the least interested press covering a political administration in my lifetime.

        Right now, Obama is being humiliated in Syria by Russia (and soon, China). It is quite something when a Russian attache’ marches into the embassy in Iraq and tells us to stay out of their area of operations, starting in a couple of hours. That’s being told that we are no longer players in the region – and this is an official Big Deal in world terms.

        The press should be responding to that – because it is a Big Deal, and will set in motion some very large events in the middle east and elsewhere.

  27. What specific new “gun control” law(s) does Obama propose? He says he doesn’t want to take away our guns for Hunting, Sport, protecting our Families, but he doe NOT say what specifically he thinks will “fix” the problem he is describing. Apart from telling a couple of outright lies, he has no proposal, just empty rhetoric.

    • That bit about hunting, protecting your families, etc. is a smokescreen. Don’t fall for it, “IT”S A TRAP!”
      He only says these things so some of us won’t oppose the nonsensical laws he wants to pass that will make those now legal gun activities harder and harder or impossible.

      • Yes, that phrase you reference falls under “empty rhetoric”. It is intended to misdirect gun owners into thinking Obama doesn’t want to disarm us. It is indeed a “trap”, which is also why he proposes nothing specific because he knows there is no law that will “fix” the problem he is mouthing words about and that we RKBA advocates would vigorously oppose any specific proposal he makes because we know the same.

  28. I am always curious how the disarmament crowd finds these people to go out and kill for the cause of more gun control. They must have a brainwashing school like Jim Jones had. They tried this in gun free zones and it did not work so now they go into a school that has campus carry so that they can decry that guns on campus did not help so we need more gun laws. Am I the only one to think like this?

  29. I do my best to respect the president, but I’m done. To answer his question, yes, I believe we do need to reduce gun laws, our firearms are a RIGHT. As a Constitutional lawyer I should not have to explain.

    You Barrack have completely politicized the 2A. Our Country has no gun problem. You are dividing us.

    Barrack Obama needs to step down or be impeached. He suggests I might be a criminal, that I am not intelligent.

    Rid us of gun free zones.

  30. Every time this individual opens his mouth, I ask myself, “Who is he? What country, continent, planet, etc., did he come from? He does not represent any viewpoint congruent with our country or our values. This is not the “Manchurian Candidate,” this is the extra-terrestrial candidate. Who or what will deliver us from this self-inflicted curse?!

    • Obama got off his prayer mat and said “I’ll strip all citizens of their guns and leave them helpless and naked to aggression … Allah willing”.

    • Obama is a man of the Third World, with all the resentments and inferiority complexes of a third worlder when confronted by the accomplishments of a first world superpower.

      What we see as “the way this nation was intended to be,” Obama sees as a problem, as white hegemony, as the arrogance and superiority of people he considers to have won a “lottery.” Because he’s happened upon the scene rather late in the game, he has no idea what sacrifice and sweat it took to achieve this level of civilization, and he thinks that we just stole it from everyone else.

      Hence the resentment and inferiority complex of a third worlder.

  31. I agree with president obama 100%, this has got to stop. so mr president, stop doing this to your own people so you can try to implement gun control.

  32. Once again Obama talks about the senseless acts and the helpless victims. But he’s not talking about the millions of aborted babies by Planned Parenthood (whom he thanked for their service), he’s merely standing on the bodies of dead Americans to push his political agenda … nothing more/less.

    FBHO

  33. “And each time this happens I’m going to bring this up. Each time this happens I’m going to say we can actually do something about it but we’re going to have to change our laws.”

    Yes, we should change our laws: to allow folks to carry on campus, to and from their places of employment, while visiting hospitals, and pretty much almost all public property. Maybe not in court, but one should be provided a place to stow one’s sidearm while in the building.

    • Might have switch to occasionally open carrying something BO would approve whole-heartedly. I am thinking a thick green vest, with a disassembled clock on the front, with wires going into the vest. Of course the clock would be counting down backwards, unless I pushed the hand-held button attached to the vest by wires. Then it would show the time of day.
      Maybe wear it to go to the post office, government buildings, airports…places with lots of people so I can show my handiwork.

  34. He is such a damn liar.
    “and our Constitution prohibits any modest regulation of how we use a deadly weapon,”
    Did he even think about what he said? We have the right to keep and bear arms, not the right to go around killing innocent people. Not once have I ever heard a pro gun person say we had the right to kill whoever we want.

    Also, am I the only one who saw the clip where he said states with the tightest gun laws have the lowest gun violence rate? Full of B.S.

  35. I own guns but I don’t hunt. I am not a collector. I carry every day. The only “sport shooting” I do is designed to improve speed and accuracy. I shoot for one reason. You can find that reason in the 2nd Amendment.

  36. I have to confess, I didn’t watch Obama. I have not seen him on the news nor watched his comments here on TTAG. I don’t care what he says as it’s inconsequential, predictable and meaningless to me.

    • It should be; ignoring the threat won’t make him any less so…. or are you planning on waiting until we hear Fred’s prediction become reality? As he openly threatened, Obama has a pen and is not afraid to use it…. along with an alphabet-agency apparatus largely willing to enforce whatever comes from that pen.

      “It shouldn’t be this easy for someone who has no past criminal record to commit a crime. Therefore president Obama has taken it upon himself to reverse the judicial stance of innocent until proven guilty and establish martial law for the safety of the populace. House to house searches for newly declared contraband will begin Monday and internet controls will be activated to monitor and limit access to dangers online. Group gatherings are also forbidden”.

      • And so would begin a civil war. Hot air from a lame duck president. I don’t care if he falls off the edge of the planet nor do I care about anything he says.

  37. I never liked or respected BHO. What amazes me is how, with each new speech, proclamation, or dictatorial edict, he proves that my previous level of disgust was inadequate.

  38. Dear Mr President,

    Please, you are not Nostradamus;
    realise that your words of judgement and doom actually incite the acts rather than reflect unavoidable predestination.

    Think positive, and preach positive – there is more to life and the universe than only the revelation of St. John.

    • It’s the revelation of JESUS CHRIST English dude. And I would go with Daniel,Ezekiel,Isaiah and most of the New Testament if you are looking for guidance. I find no mention of Barry Soetoro in any bible. Plenty of other predicted events happening NOW.(like Russia invading) Look for this would-be dictator to TRY all kinds of mischief very soon…keep your powder dry.

  39. “You never let a serious crisis go to waste. And what I mean by that it’s an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before.”
    –Rahm Emanuel, Obama’s Chief of Staff, Feb 08, 2009
    https://youtu.be/1yeA_kHHLow

  40. There are already cases of “gun safety” laws that are getting law-abiding citizens killed because they were prevented from getting a firearm when they NEEDED one for self-defense.

    I guess those lives don’t matter as much.

  41. He likes to use these incidents for political purposes. Deflects the attention away from being too soft on criminals and letting the dangerously mentally ill wander around among us. Blame the evil guns for all of our problems instead of Liberal Progressive Politics.

  42. To a politician everything is political. Which is part of why I can’t stand them.

    I am at least doing my duty and trying to engage in civil (as in civility, ie nicely) dicussions about this. It’s rewarding, but stressful. I am very much impassioned about this.

    I hate these things as much as the next guy, but the gun is not the problem and we need to get over that as a society.

  43. About as far away from Texas with its lawful campus carry. Why didn’t this dirtbag go to Texas to show how tough he really is? THIS is why people should not be harassed.
    No double standards put DC politicians on Obamacare and SS.Thanks for your support and vote. Pass the word. mrpresident2016.com

  44. He called for more gun control after the Charlie Hebdo attack in Paris too.

    How come he says nothing about 70 people shot in his hometown Chiraq last week?

  45. How is it anyone, let alone the POTUS, convinced making firearms more difficult for law-abiding citizens to acquire will decrease criminal acts?
    Far too many people listen to Obama. He reacts with the same reckless zeal we’ve come to expect from the uneducated uninformed. Though we know little the WH responds with conviction.
    The USA must do away with the attraction of the gun-free zone and allow firearms to be carried anywhere, especially in the previously marked gun-free areas.

    And we need a leader who supports the 2A without question.

  46. What an absolute loser this president is, Americans have grown tired of his nonsense and will not take any more of his socialist crap! I will say a prayer for the families who lost a loved one to this monster, then I will make another contribution to the NRA and the NAGR to help in the fight against the monster occupying the White House.

  47. Heres some interesting bits that I found particularly noteworthy…
    7:20 on the video “We have a congress that stops us from collecting data on gun violence…”
    Then where the F**** is the Justice Department and the Census Bureau getting the money for those statics about gun violence that I can find on their websites this very instance?

    The leftists have now abandoned any pretense of impartiality and have flat out issued marching orders to the press to support their agenda, ok most of them already did but they tried to hold up a facade that they were impartial.

  48. In a 15-hour period beginning Monday night, 14 people were shot, six fatally. Most of those victims were hit during two mass shootings just two miles apart on the South Side. Among those victims, an 11-month old boy, Princeton Chew, was shot in the hip as his mother held him outside their home in the Back of the Yards neighborhood. The baby’s pregnant mother, Patricia Chew, and grandmother, Lolita Wells, were shot and killed. Two other relatives were also shot.

  49. BHO better start worrying about our enemies overseas instead of people who have firearms here. We are about to get subjugated by the Russians again.

  50. The POTG need to give a close listen to the whole thing. Everyone is talking about the “politicization” part of his comment. The important part is what he says just before that.

    We know that other countries, in response to one mass shooting, have been able to craft laws that almost eliminate mass shootings. Friends of ours, allies of ours — Great Britain, Australia, countries like ours. So we know there are ways to prevent it.

    So he’s coming out on what is really meant by “common sense gun laws.” It’s not the kind of restrictions that they typically call for and that happen to already be in place in Oregon. Based on the two examples of “common sense” he gives, it means confiscation of nearly all guns.

    • For years the progressives would not admit that out of fear of backlash.
      For years conservatives wouldn’t openly support zero restrictions on weapons.
      The cat’s out of the bag now. Are the Fudds going to cave again?
      Are you a Fudd or a DUFF?
      Don’t Undermine Firearm Freedom!

  51. You know, the problem with the politicizing isn’t necessarily that Obama is wrong that this is political. It’s a combination of factors, starting with pushing a political agenda before the facts are even clear, and worse, this moronic call for action without even the slightest proof that the proposed actions will have an effect, and perpetuating the hatred and divisiveness. Let’s be clear. The gun lobby isn’t the problem. The gun lobby isn’t necessarily calling for fewer gun safety laws. The gun lobby isn’t saying that we should fight mass shootings purely with prayer. It’s fighting the knee-jerk uneducated corruption that passes for gun safety laws among liberals. If the gun laws actually WERE common sense, it would be a very different story.

    Let’s look at the facts.
    1. Nearly all of the mass shootings that have taken place over the last 30 years have occurred in so-called gun-free zones, according to studies done by John Lott and William Landes. Yes, I’m aware that Mother Jones has attempted to debunk the study, but in truth, their arguments either don’t disprove the statements, or else indicate that, as we’ll see in a moment, most gun violence isn’t of the mass shooting variety, which will have it’s own implications.
    2. Banning high capacity magazines did nothing to reduce casualties at Columbine. When the shooter has enough time to fire 93 rounds from a weapon legal under the ’94 federal Assault Weapons Ban, it’s pretty evident that magazine capacity is irrelevant. There are numerous other incidents that have demonstrated conclusively that the primary determinant for the length of the shooting and the number of casualties is NOT magazine capacity; it’s the time that it takes for armed opposition to arrive.
    3. When so-called assault rifles have resulted in less than 1% of all gun deaths, and the politicians are focused on how scary a gun looks, rather than how often it gets used in crimes, we’re missing the point.
    4. When gun ownership has more than doubled over the past 10 years, but gun-related deaths have actually decreased, despite what appears to be an increase in mass shootings, it becomes evident that we’re missing something.
    5. When sheriffs would rather sue the state over background check legislation than try to enforce it, we know we’re barking up the wrong tree.
    6. When more than 70% of all gun deaths occur at the hands of repeat offenders, who serve on average less than 50% of their prison sentences, and yet our President is urging the prison system to release them even earlier, we’re looking in the wrong direction.
    7. When gang violence accounts for the bulk of all gun violence, and we haven’t seen the name of a major gang in the papers in any gun-related article in years, something is wrong.
    8. And, when we’d rather use a tragedy to spout death threats against people on the other side of an issue than express our condolences and respects, something is deeply wrong. This goes for gun rights advocates also, however. Seriously, think about the message you’re sending your children, if your response to such a tragedy is to spout hatred and vitriol, and issue death threats to the other side.

    All of you flaming each other, engaging in ad hominem attacks against the President, and otherwise fanning the flames in this partisan divide are part of the problem. We don’t stop mass shootings with hatred and divisiveness. We don’t stop it with gun bans and gun free zones. We stop it by teaching our children to value the lives and opinions of others. We stop it by educating them about gun safety, and dispelling this culture of fear that leads to little children being arrested for having squirt guns, or suspended for pointing a finger at each other and saying “bang.” We stop it by voting out the politicians who think that they’re serving the interests of the American people by squabbling so much that the government has to shut down. We stop it by ditching the notion that it’s better to vote for “the lesser of two evils” than it is to vote for a candidate who actually supports everything you want. We stop it by being the change that we want to see.

    The measures that President Obama wants to pass are obviously misguided. But that doesn’t mean that we are absolved of responsibility here, and that our battle ends at stopping the flawed legislation that the liberals are pushing. I suspect we can all agree that the liberal side doesn’t understand enough about the nature of the issue to even begin to create effective checks against gun violence. But then, if WE do nothing, how will we stop further attacks from happening? If we want to accuse the liberal media of bias, shouldn’t it behoove us to keep our own media honest? You’ve doubtless seen plenty of conservative sites claiming that the Oregon shooting happened in a gun-free zone, for instance. They cite the college website, but conveniently cut off the portion that says “except as expressly authorized by law.” Yup, that means concealed carry permits, which expressly authorize the carry of a firearm, are good to go on Oregon public campuses, as per the court decision in 2011 striking down campus carry bans. Not a gun-free zone, in other words. No open carry, or carry by people without concealed carry permits, but still legal to carry if you are permitted, and Oregon, moreover, is a Shall Issue state.

  52. So now he’s changing his tactics, instead of waving the bloody shirt towards the antis he’s trying to pull a pity party and talk “sense” into gun owners. He sounds like chicken little to America by now “The guns are killing, the guns are killing!! The NRA is killing, the NRA is killing!!” It’s the same crap he’s been spouting for years now, and no one is still listening but a small group. This was a hate crime, but it’s not being called that for some reason? Why?!

  53. Excuse me, Mr. Obama.

    A good leader, leads by example.
    So unless you are prepared to dismiss the security detail assigned to protect yourself AND the security details assigned to protect your family then you are not leading by example.
    I might understand how a country might want to protect its president to maintain its government, BUT your family is not part of the government.
    So the government has no specific need to protect them.
    Oh, your family and the safety of your family is important to you?

    Well your family and the safety of your family is not any more important that any other American man and his family.

    So unless you are prepared to dismiss the security detail assigned to protect either you or your family, then SHUT YOUR YAP.

    P.S. I am hesitant to addres

  54. How he can say with a straight face that places with tougher gun laws have fewer shootings is beyond me. And he came from Chicago, fer chrissakes!

  55. @Notalima,

    YOu can continue to enjoy the freedom that I provide for you while you talk tough from the frontlines of the 101st Keyboard Brigade. I’ve put more than enough skin in the game (3 conflicts, TYVM) that I’ve more than plenty earned my derision from Civvie wanna-be Rambo types playing tough.

    Fact is, and there ain’t no refuting it: most civilians don’t have the time, resources, training, or ability to respond to active shooter threats, never mind to safely and accurately employ their weapons in such scenarios. Cops have a hard enough time, and look what happens there. Argue all you want, but that is a fact. To argue otherwise is the height of lunacy. And don’t play “well, there are those who go to the range and blah blah”. They are the exception, not the rule. Even MPs on military installations don’t want trained military folks running around the bases acting as the active shooter deterrent; too many variables to go wrong, never mind countless people shooting themselves.

    BAN away if opposing opinions are too controversial here. Seems I can get flamed at will with no BAN warning but, anyway…..

  56. I agree with the President. I would like this president to stop so aggressively getting people killed. That he has not is absolutely, entirely political.

    It is an unequivocal consequence of the orchestration of “gun rights” issues by this administration, their supporters, and others with similar a priori positions on the issue, that “common sense” can’t get into the discussion.

    I would like this president to make specific, concrete, fact-based proposals backed by demonstration of their efficacy. That would be policy making. This other stuff is purely political.

    I’ll wait.

    / Breaking it down…

    An armed shooter moved past a classroom where he met resistance, to kill cooperating kids sheltering in place, to eventually be stopped by being shot by good guys with guns (police), while an armed Vet in the neighborhood was prevented from intervening, possibly sooner. People acting in defense of themselves and others, some with guns, stopped this. Policy and pronouncement from this President is almost as if he’s less bothered by people getting killed than with people protecting themselves and others.

    It’s a shame that every single policy and principle on gun ownership they advocate contributed to this massacre, while every single policy and principle on gun ownership they oppose would have reduced the scope of violence – number killed, duration, even likelihood. (The exceptions is the shooter might well have ended up dead sooner, which counts, I suppose, as some kind of “more violence.” I’m OK with that.)

    — Why was Army Vet Chris Mintz left with only his courage and resolve to confront an armed attacker? Political.

    — Why wasn’t he mentioned? Political. (Still waiting for the French Train Kids to get a White House photo op. Maybe they should have built a bomb-replica to take to school.)

    — Why aren’t we dissecting the standard advice for example to “shelter in place” and “cooperate” with the fact that the victims were killed after sheltering and cooperating. Political.

    — How about we talk about how “resistance” played out. While Army Vet Chris Mintz was horribly wounded, and didn’t harm the shooter, the shooter none the less moved on. Why not talk about that? Political.

    — Why aren’t we noting the armed vet in the neighborhood prevented from intervening in line with guidance and policy from this administration? Political.

    — Let us note that the killing stopped when the killer was stopped by a good guy with a gun. Why not talk about that? Or maybe, more “good guys with guns” vs. “bad guys with guns.” Purely political.

    I look forward to hearing this president — in line with his expressed exasperation over the inability to do something effective — propose legislation and similar that 1) will reduce spree shootings like this one and 2) increase the protection of individuals against random violence, while 3) allowing people who haven’t done anything wrong to do what they like. Since he is serious about this issue — says so, so I must believe that — I look forward to his developing proposals in cooperation with others who have opposed his prior initiatives. If they’ve been blocking what you’ve been doing, the way forward is to co-opt them. Also, stop with the name calling.

    In particular, I would like to see an argument made that the eventual, ultimate chimera — elimination of citizen gun ownership via prohibition in like with “controlled substances” and the like — 1) can be achieved, 2) will do any good, and 3) won’t cause more problems than it “solves.”

    Because prohibition works so well. Start with “having a law against it doesn’t eliminate it from the wrold” (or we wouldn’t have any murders, ever, to start). So *prohibition* of guns in “the wrong hands” won’t get rid of all the guns in the wrong hands.

    Let’s talk abut that. Declining to do so is entirely, completely, unabashedly political.

    //Meta

    Call them out on it. They will brazenly accuse you of the worst thing they are doing, stealing the issue and debate point. The only move that works, is judo. Call them out on it. Hard.

    This a standard rhetorical technique, also among those listed by Uncle Saul. So, President Obama says it’s political – “Yes it is, because you are making it so. Blatantly.”

    “… and their industry lobbyists.”

    “Oh, you mean the hobbyist association of some 10 million of the something like 30+ million gun owners, who don’t go shooting up schools … who are kinda bugged by having you ding them for something a whackjob did, which BTW your policies and positions made worse? Those guys?”

    ‘I’m sorry, I thought you meant the NRA with that vague swipe. I’m not aware of the firearms manufacturing association weighing in on this one, though the NRA has. BTW, every industry supports its own advocacy groups, for example, the teachers’ unions, and various educator’s associations. They’ve had positions on guns in schools and similar. You talking about them?”

    “Oh, I don’t know. Maybe it’s a lot to expect sensible, useful laws from people who aren’t sure about ‘… the folding thing that goes up.'” You might want to listen to people who know something about guns — unless the way the policy has to come out is pre-determined, I suppose for political gain or something.”

    In an honest debate the fact carries its own conclusions. So, “semi-auto rifles are barely used in crimes or spree shootings compared to other weapons” would imply “maybe we should look at something else, or look at this differently.” This isn’t an honest debate. So, drive the point home. Double-plus good if you can weave in an implicit accusation. So, “Semi-auto… Or are we looking at those particular arms for some reason other than the impact on public safety?”

    I haven’t heard this one before, but chew on this: Is the objection to “military style” arms in citizen hands *precisely because of* the symbolism? Citizens as competent? Military as a special arm of, the citizenry. The natural right to personal defense? Really, the past objections to minute-man imagery in pro-citizen arms presentations were way, way out of proportion to the wearing of funny hats. Could it be the symbolism of naturally armed, self-protecting citizens, of which the government is an arm, vs. proles administered by their myrmidon betters?

    Just sayin…

    And yea, that last bit was cheap. AND THAT’S THE POINT. There’s a time to go full rhetorical fusillade.

    This issue is political. Yes, it is, Mr. President. Would you please stop doing that.

  57. 5:40 Sounds like Obama has some NFA envy

    8:30 But don’t we already have “modest” regulations on how to use deadly weapons? And aren’t there already millions of law abiding citizens across America who do hunt, and protect their families, and do everything that they do under said regulations?

    10:52 Not necessarily but why split the vote you know? Its just politics.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *