Gun Control/Background Checks or Terrorism?

After the Senate rejected the Toomey/Manchin Senate bill, Obama was visibly angry, much less subdued than he was after learning of the Marathon bombing. Are only crisis events which can be used for political objectives important?

Originally posted by normbenign
After the Senate rejected the Toomey/Manchin Senate bill, Obama was visibly angry, much less subdued than he was after learning of the Marathon bombing. Are only crisis events which can be used for political objectives important?

Crisis, reaction, and solution.

One of my favorite quotes.

"Every collectivist revolution rides in a Trojan Horse of 'emergency'. It was the tactic of Lenin, Hitler, and Mussolini. In the collectivist sweep over a dozen minor countries of Europe, it was the cry of men striving to get on horseback. And 'emergency' became the justification of the subsequent steps. This technique of creating emergency is the greatest achievment that demagoguery attains."

-- Herbert Hoover

This is the silliest thread in a long time.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
This is the silliest thread in a long time.

Did you actually watch Obama's reaction to each event. On hearing of the bomb attack at the Marathon, he was cool, calm and collected, no jumping to conclusions. Even restrained himself from calling it "terrorism". Doesn't like that word at all.

On the other occasion after learning that his Democratic Senate had rejected his "common sense" gun control, he was obviously agitated and angered.

Originally posted by normbenign
Did you actually watch Obama's reaction to each event. On hearing of the bomb attack at the Marathon, he was cool, calm and collected, no jumping to conclusions. Even restrained himself from calling it "terrorism". Doesn't like that word at all.

On the other occasion after learning that his Democratic Senate had rejected his "common sense" gun control, he was obviously agitated and angered.

you are making a thread about the facial expressions of one individual. i was very upset when i heard of the boston bombings but you should have seen my face when i stubbed my toe on the bed leg yesterday, it was as if i would kill the entire world as retribution for my pain. so the logical conclusion is that, from the expression of my face, i, as a human being, care a million times more for my passing pain than for the pain of countless fellow human beings who suffered more permanent conditions.

and you wonder why people mock you.

Originally posted by normbenign
Did you actually watch Obama's reaction to each event. On hearing of the bomb attack at the Marathon, he was cool, calm and collected, no jumping to conclusions. Even restrained himself from calling it "terrorism". Doesn't like that word at all.

On the other occasion after learning that his Democratic Senate had rejected his "common sense" gun control, he was obviously agitated and angered.

How are the events even remotely comparable, one was a bad day at the Oval Office, the other was a commander in chief reacting to a possible enemy attack, would you prefer it if He messed his pants?

To me the most relevant with regard to background checks (or the lack thereof) is that the NRA leadership and other fellow radical gun advocates want to allow felons to buy guns at gun shows because there are no background checks.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
you are making a thread about the facial expressions of one individual. i was very upset when i heard of the boston bombings but you should have seen my face when i stubbed my toe on the bed leg yesterday, it was as if i would kill the entire world as retribution for my pain. so the logical conclusion is that, from the expression of my face, i, as a human b ...[text shortened]... ow human beings who suffered more permanent conditions.

and you wonder why people mock you.

"and you wonder why people mock you."

Don't wonder at all, rather expect it depending on the people.

Originally posted by kevcvs57
How are the events even remotely comparable, one was a bad day at the Oval Office, the other was a commander in chief reacting to a possible enemy attack, would you prefer it if He messed his pants?

"How are the events even remotely comparable, one was a bad day at the Oval Office, the other was a commander in chief reacting to a possible enemy attack, would you prefer it if He messed his pants?"

That is exactly the point. A bad day at the Oval Office generated more emotion, than a bombing with mass casualties. There isn't any sense of proportion, or of priority.

Originally posted by moon1969
To me the most relevant with regard to background checks (or the lack thereof) is that the NRA leadership and other fellow radical gun advocates want to allow felons to buy guns at gun shows because there are no background checks.

Please, there are background checks a gun shows. A gun show is just a group of gun dealers under one roof, and they have to fill out form 4473 just like they would in the store, and call in the data to the NICS system. There is no "gun show loophole". The presumed loophole is that of private sales, that is I go to a gun show and sell one of my privately owned guns to another private party. That "loophole" could be closed by 1. requiring all sales to be via a dealer (already required in many States) or by making the NICS system available to private sellers. By the way, I could sell the gun at home as well as at a gunshow, or on the street outside of a crack house.

Neither solution would require nearly 9,000 pages of legislation! What was hidden in the weeds of those thousands of pages?

The actual facts are that felons don't buy guns at gun shows. They don't obey the law, and would not obey the new law. Last year 15,000 times the NICS system turned down applications for gun purchases due to the applicant being a felon or mentally ill. Out of 15,000 only 45 cases were prosecuted. Why pile on new laws when no effort is being made to enforce the current laws?

Originally posted by moon1969
To me the most relevant with regard to background checks (or the lack thereof) is that the NRA leadership and other fellow radical gun advocates want to allow felons to buy guns at gun shows because there are no background checks.

This is a pure fabrication, as anyone who has bought guns at gun shows knows. There are background check, except for private sales, and those are done outside of the purview of the gun-show. It is just two people agreeing to transfer property and agreeing on a price.

Gun-shows are just collections of buyers and sellers at a single location, which tends to advantage both groups, especially the buyers.

" NRA leadership and other fellow radical gun advocates want to allow felons to buy guns at gun shows because there are no background checks"

This is a scandalous lie. Actually, the argument can be made that the administration (Obama) wants that, otherwise why Fast and Furious? And why when NICS refused over 15,000 gun purchases, were not more than 45 prosecutions pursued?

Originally posted by moon1969
To me the most relevant with regard to background checks (or the lack thereof) is that the NRA leadership and other fellow radical gun advocates want to allow felons to buy guns at gun shows because there are no background checks.

The NRA does not want felons to buy guns period!!! They just know that a lawbreaker will get them no matter what the law is. Does a liquor store robber care about gun laws? No. Does a mass murder care? No. on and on.... The big question is is do you want gun registration if it will do no good? No. Registration has always led to confiscation elsewhere historically. How about shutting the CIA Drone progam down if they want to stop the killing of the innocent? There is a lot bigger fish to fry. So what is really the purpose of all this gun control?