17 Apr

Victory!

                                       

2nd-amendment

For now, we must stay ever vigilant.

Meanwhile after the loss Obama showed the emotion we expected of a leader after Newton, Boston, Benghazi…but never got. I wonder why?

Given his record, there’s every reason to believe that what’s really bothering him is the fact that red-state Dems denied him an easy chance today to demagogue Republicans as the party of child murder or whatever, which he was hoping to use next year as a way to retake the House. Then, once he had a Democratic Congress again, he could pass some new horrible permutation of ObamaCare or immigration or the minimum wage or some other liberal wishlist item that has nothing to do with gun control. Just like in his first term! That’s what he’s mad about, that a political bludgeon was essentially taken out of his hands before he had a chance to use it to achieve unrelated goals.

Poor widdle President Stompy Foot.

This angry little man is the man we don’t see behind the scenes. He cannot tolerate dissent, cannot tolerant anyone who doesn’t agree with him…in short the definition of a bad leader.

About Curt

Curt served in the Marine Corps for four years and has been a law enforcement officer in Los Angeles for the last 20 years.
This entry was posted in 2nd Amendment, Barack Obama, Politics, POWER GRAB!. Bookmark the permalink. Wednesday, April 17th, 2013 at 5:31 pm
| 1,613 views

122 Responses to Victory!

  1. This one says: 101

    Aw…someone still needs his Benghazi binky! How cute!

    ReplyReply
  2. Nan G says: 102

    @Dc: At least the president didn’t send out someone to go on all the morning talk shows and insist this was some kind of protest gone wrong or something other than it was…and pretend we dont’ know what it was until it just goes away. (ie, Hassan, Benghazi).

    However, Dc, in Obama insisting that the federal gov’t (read Holder et al) be in charge of both the prosecution AND the defense on the Boston bomber’s case, he can control exactly what comes out to the public.
    This will be worse than the Nidal Hasan case (if it even ever happens).
    And Benghazi?
    Obama has managed to stonewall on that for over 7 months now.
    He will do the same on this for at least 3&3/4 years.

    ReplyReply
  3. Redteam says: 103

    @Greg: #54

    They’ve got their adherents believing that everyone else is the victim of excessive Kool-Aid consumption

    and of course, by ‘everyone else’ you mean the Libtards and Dimocrats.

    ReplyReply
  4. Redteam says: 104

    @Tom:#90

    It’s pointless for me to debate with a person who can’t acknowledge the statistically obvious fact that guns are a real factor in violence in America. Do you really think gun violence has no correlation to the number of guns in circulation, who has them, or how easily they are procured?

    This is one of those arguments that can use statistics to prove what you want to prove. Do you think auto accidents are correlated to the number of autos in circulation? Do you think that the more autos there are in circulation makes it easier to acquire one?
    I would prefer a statistic that correlates with how many criminals obey gun laws. How does the sentence of a criminal that uses a gun in the commission of a crime compare to the sentence of a person that chokes a person to death? If it is the same, then there is no reason to not use the gun because it would be much quicker and easier. Do you believe that if you had to write an essay that proved that a person can write an essay to prove anything that they wanted to prove that you could write an essay to prove it? That is what you are doing with your selective hypothesis on why gun violence is higher in some places than in others.

    ReplyReply
  5. Tom says: 105

    @bburris:

    Now, if you happen to live in Chicago (a gun-ban city), you would be wise to fear the gun. This is because only the criminals have them; the authorities have denied them to the law abiding that might wish to protect themselves.

    Thank you for bringing Chicago up. I know Conservatives bring that situation up as an example of how ‘gun regulation’ doesn’t work, and on this rare point, I agree. Chicago is a perfect illustration of the failure of local gun laws, because guns are so easily transferred across municipal boundaries. While you trumpet Chicago as an example of the failure of local regulation, in reality it’s the prime example of why regulation needs to comprehensive and federal to work. You want to blame criminals and crime as the reasons for gun violence in a place like Chicago, but unfortunately you don’t have facts on your side.
    http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/guns/procon/guns.html

    ATF agent Jay Wachtel says that most guns used in crimes are not stolen out of private gun owners’ homes and cars. “Stolen guns account for only about 10% to 15% of guns used in crimes,” Wachtel said. Because when they want guns they want them immediately the wait is usually too long for a weapon to be stolen and find its way to a criminal.

    In fact, there are a number of sources that allow guns to fall into the wrong hands, with gun thefts at the bottom of the list. Wachtel says one of the most common ways criminals get guns is through straw purchase sales. A straw purchase occurs when someone who may not legally acquire a firearm, or who wants to do so anonymously, has a companion buy it on their behalf.
    ….
    The next biggest source of illegal gun transactions where criminals get guns are sales made by legally licensed but corrupt at-home and commercial gun dealers. Several recent reports back up Wachtel’s own studies about this, and make the case that illegal activity by those licensed to sell guns, known as Federal Firearms Licensees (FFLs), is a huge source of crime guns and greatly surpasses the sale of guns stolen from John Q. Citizen.
    ….
    The report states that “of the 120,370 crime guns that were traced to purchases from the FFLs then in business, 27.7 % of these firearms were seized by law enforcement in connection with a crime within two years of the original sale. This rapid `time to crime’ of a gun purchased from an FFL is a strong indicator that the initial seller or purchaser may have been engaged in unlawful activity.”

    ReplyReply
  6. Tom says: 106

    @Dc:

    I also believe that when this happened in Boston, that some of the people from CNN and MSNBC were on the edge of their seat just hoping this turned out to be some white, Christian, redneck Tea Party rightwinger.

    That’s very true. Of course, people on the Right, people on this very website, were clearly hoping the perpetrator was Muslim. I find either approach awful for the same reason: when a terrible crime is committed, we should hope we catch who actually did it, not who we hope did it. It’s horribly selfish and disrespectful to the victims to hope the perpetrator of a violent crime will fit your political agenda so that you can feel better ranting about it subsequently.

    ReplyReply
  7. Tom says: 107

    @Tom:

    Furthermore, isn’t it interesting that now that the alleged culprit is identified as Muslim, this site, and others on the Right, will engage the crime as real and use it as a launching pad for anti-Muslim rhetoric (that’s already begun), whereas if it had been a white supremacists or anti-government domestic white person, the same people would have jumped on the false flag conspiracy bandwagon? Think about it: the same law enforcement personnel are either honest heroes or dishonest conspirators, and it’s all down to who was in that boat.

    ReplyReply
  8. Dc says: 108

    Tom, I’m not even sure I’m getting your point. Are you saying that nobody here acknowledged this as a crime until we found out it was a muslim who committed it? Or that if the perps had been white supremacist that we would have somehow decided it was conspiracy by police instead or defended it? I’m not sure where you are seeing that.

    ReplyReply
  9. Randy says: 109

    @This one: What a bogus study and studies referenced. They base the violence on lax gun laws and the number of guns in the state. No one knows how many guns are in any state! Then look at what they consider gun violence. Not one of these studies would get a passing grade in my 9th grade class. Not one has been peer reviewed.

    ReplyReply
  10. another vet says: 110

    @Tom: Why do you suppose the people in Chicago have such a high rate of gun violence or a high rate of violence in general? Do you think they commit violence against someone else because of a gun or because they just don’t have any respect for others? And that just doesn’t apply to Chicago. Here are the 2011 homicide statistics for the U.S. What is your analysis of those stats?

    http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-3

    ReplyReply
  11. Tom says: 111

    @another vet:

    Why do you suppose the people in Chicago have such a high rate of gun violence or a high rate of violence in general? Do you think they commit violence against someone else because of a gun or because they just don’t have any respect for others?

    Excellent questions. We can’t police human nature. We can’t stop people from wanting to do harm, but we can very much influence their ability to do so. Of course that might entail minor inconveniences for law abiding citizens. which is unacceptable when you’ve just been invited on a hunt that starts in two hours and you’ve never shot a gun before.

    ReplyReply
  12. Redteam says: 112

    @Tom: I don’t think it’s true. Since I found out it was a Muslim, I’ve not had a word to say except that I’m glad they caught the bombers. I’m not surprised at who it was.

    ReplyReply
  13. Redteam says: 113

    @Tom: Tom, another of your fallacious arguments:

    ATF agent Jay Wachtel says that most guns used in crimes are not stolen out of private gun owners’ homes and cars.

    They don’t have to steal them because they are available on every street corner. If they closed the borders and limited the illegal entry of hundreds of thousands of weapons, then you would see the theft rate go up. Why steal one when you can buy one much easier. Registering guns is not the answer, not a single one of the guns brought across the border illegally will ever be ‘registered’. Australia made guns illegal, but they didn’t stop the hundreds of thousands entering their country illegally either. Consequently 90+% of the people there still own guns.

    ReplyReply
  14. Tom says: 114

    @Redteam:

    another of your fallacious arguments:

    Another? Oh, I forgot about that other time.

    ReplyReply
  15. another vet says: 115

    @Tom:

    Excellent questions. We can’t police human nature.

    Which is the point. You will never eliminate crime, violent or not. In our PC society, people are reluctant to put the blame on human nature or something more complex and would rather point the blame somewhere else. Here is an eye opening study of homicides in the black community. Notice how the conclusion is not to get to the nuts and bolts as to why the homicide rate is so much higher in the black community by applying the various criminological theories as to why people commit crime in the first place regardless of race such as the sociological theories, the General Theory, the Routine Activities Theory, the Social Control Theory, the Classical Theory, or the Differential Association Theory, but rather to reduce access to guns. It’s the easy, lazy person’s way out. Kind of like our deficit problem.

    http://www.vpc.org/studies/blackhomicide10.pdf

    ReplyReply
  16. MY MY WHAT a good GROUP YOU ARE AT FLOPPING ACES,
    YOU ARE INCREDIBLY full of KNOWLEDGE AND SUPER INTELLIGENT,
    I have to mention it, BECAUSE I REALIZE IT EVERY TIME I”M HERE,
    thank you for enlighting me,

    ReplyReply
  17. Redteam says: 117

    @ilovebeeswarzone: AAANDDD you add a lot to it, Beeeeees

    ReplyReply
  18. Redteam
    thank you

    ReplyReply
  19. bburris says: 119

    @Tom:
    Here is the vital ingredient you and other left wing apologists always ignore/overlook… those “wrong hands”. Those are people, criminals, committing crimes. Again, to emphasize the weakness of your argument for MORE gun control, Chicago shows how it fails if the criminals are excused, forgiven and let go. As long as they can see that their courthouse protectors will make every excuse imaginable to keep from holding those “wrong hands” accountable, what do they have to fear? It is their culture, and this is a left-wing culture, that makes it acceptable to use violence in public places merely to make a point, innocent lives be damned. I would appreciate it if you would spell out a law that will affect that attitude. Regulation has no effect on those who ignore regulation.

    Now, take Aurora, Illinois, just outside of Chicago. While Chicago had over 500 gun murders in 2012 (thanks to the effective gun ban), Aurora had ZERO. So, what is the difference? Aurora has no gun ban and no murders, Chicago has a gun ban and hundreds of murders. Is it guns or people?

    http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2013/01/02/no-murders-in-aurora-in-2012/

    ReplyReply
  20. Hankster58 says: 120

    bburris… you nailed it.

    But I’ll add one thing… in these HIGH CRIME areas… the HIGHER the CRIME RATE… the HIGHER the % of Liberal voters….. the PARTY of elected reps of these districts PROVES this to be true….. why doesn’t the LEFT, ever talk about THAT FACTOID??

    ReplyReply
  21. Redteam says: 121

    @Hankster58: It is very unusual to find a city with a high crime rate that is run by conservatives (Repubs), almost without exception, it is Libs (Dims)

    ReplyReply
  22. Smorgasbord says: 122

    @Redteam: 121

    It is very unusual to find a city with a high crime rate that is run by conservatives (Repubs), almost without exception, it is Libs (Dims)

    Example of your statement:

    http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2085615/posts

    ReplyReply

Leave a Reply

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

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

 

Switch to our mobile site