• This question has been deleted.

Social Question

Crashsequence2012's avatar

Is Obama's wailing for a handful of American children while reducing foreign ones to ashes the closest were ever going to come to a pro-USA statement from him?

Asked by Crashsequence2012 (2030 points ) December 19th, 2012

Get the feeling Obama loves the country he’s supposed to be serving?

Didn’t think so.

Why not?

Observing members: 0 Composing members: 0

35 Answers

janbb's avatar

WTF? Rant much?

glacial's avatar

He’s the president of the United States. Why does he need to make a “pro-USA statement” to anyone?

cookieman's avatar

It is disgusting that you are trying to politicize what happened in Conneticut. What’s worse is that you don’t even have the balls to make a direct statement about Obama and to back it up with some facts. Instead you treat us to a snide and insensitive opening question and a ham-handed attempt at a rhetorical question in the details.

If you have a legitimate critique of the president, make it and back it up. Otherwise, grow the fuck up.

Blackberry's avatar

I’m really confused, since watching any speech from a politician is a barrage pro american platitudes.

Response moderated (Flame-Bait)
KNOWITALL's avatar

The loss of any children anywhere for any reason is a sad event.

So you’re saying, since Obama ‘authorizes’ the actions that result in the death of peoples including children overseas, he cannot grieve for the American children we lost?

Because he doesn’t love our country? Strange question.

suzooz's avatar

Liberals are using Connecticut to push for stronger gun control, so why is it wrong when Crashsequence2012 does it to his advantage? Obama’s accelerated drone campaign – 176 children killed

Obama doesn’t seem to cry when it’s foreign children getting killed by his drone attacks.

KNOWITALL's avatar

@suzooz I’m not an Obama fan in any way, actually I’m a Republican, BUT mocking our President over the deaths of children is in really poor taste.

The only thing the Liberals are pushing is the ban of semi-auto’s as far as I know, and even though I revere my rights, my gun-owning family doesn’t feel that semi-auto’s should be in the hands of regular Americans. Anything other than that, I do not support.

It still seems like a pretty low-life question to post here. Why not just post “I hate Obama, who’s with me?” and leave these poor children out of it.

marinelife's avatar

What foreign children is Obama reducing to ashes? I think you are exaggerating.

I think he loves this country very much.

He is willing to serve as President for a second term, a very thankless job.

suzooz's avatar

@KNOWITALL,

It’s not in bad taste when the other side is doing the same thing. You said so yourself, Liberals are pushing is the ban of semi-auto and much tighter gun control regulations which is based on the recent Connecticut incident.

Your family might feel that way, but mine does not, and neither does my community and the millions of semi-automatic gun-owners around the country.

ucme's avatar

Classic case of some folks can’t do right for doing wrong, cockeyed logic that smacks of petty bitterness.

KNOWITALL's avatar

@suzooz Oh yes it stil is, for both.

Okay, then I will tell you that I honestly feel people and families like yours are part of the problem. If you could save one child’s life by giving up ONE semi-auto, would you do it? Because that is what this comes down to.

Two wrongs never made a right, Suz.

BTW- What are you using those semi-auto’s for may I ask? If the need is legitimate, or something that cannot be done with a .308 or other weapon, then you may have a point.

glacial's avatar

“If you could save one child’s life by giving up ONE semi-auto, would you do it? Because that is what this comes down to.”

Well said, @KNOWITALL.

suzooz's avatar

It doesn’t come down to that at all. Just the opposite. The more bans, the more gun control laws, the more innocent people are killed by criminals. I’ve shown several studies in the other gun threads.

Harvard Study

History & Modern Lessons

More guns less crime

We buy semi-automatics for the same reason you want them banned. It’s a much more proficient weapon for killing than handguns just like handguns are more proficient than knives, so when someone breaks into your home, you don’t want him to stand a chance in a nice handgun fight with you, you want to eliminate your threat quickly. It’s excellent for defense against individual criminals and multiple targets as our long history of riots shows examples where you see individual gun-owners successfully defending their private property from a pack of mobs.

Crashsequence2012's avatar

Thanks to all that have contributed so far, especially those of you that have made for a legitimate dialogue.

Honestly, it’s more than I expected already.

suzooz's avatar

I’ve answered concisely, this goes into all sorts of detailed reasons. 101 reasons why you need an assault weapon

Blackberry's avatar

Why am I seeing some people care about the price of war all of a sudden now that a democrat is in office? Is this a coincidence that some of these people now care about the price and scars of war when a democrat is in office? Or do they legitimately care?

bookish1's avatar

Why not call him Barack Hussein Obama and let your true colors show?

Crashsequence2012's avatar

Might as well call him Jones or Smith…

FireMadeFlesh's avatar

@suzooz That site gives 101 reasons why an assault weapon is necessary, but after reading all 101, I must say none of them is even remotely convincing. The paranoid US fear of one day needing to violently take down the government ridiculous. In countries where gun control is adequate, the governments haven’t yet subdued the people. In fact none of those countries, to my knowledge, exercise anywhere near the level of citizen surveillance that the US does.

The only reason to own an assault weapon is to kill people more efficiently. If you don’t intend on killing people, you have no reason to own one.

suzooz's avatar

I’m not trying to convince anyone. You guys asked for reasons and you have them. You don’t like the reasons, too bad.

The world has a nice history of tyrannical governments. Gun-owners are not taking any chances.

The only reason to own an assault weapon is to kill people more efficiently.

That is exactly why we buy them. When we’re faced with a criminal, we want to stop them with the most proficient weapon. When criminals use guns for crime, they use handguns which puts us semi-automatic owners at a tactical advantage. That was part of the 101 list – the technological advantages of semi-automatics.

FireMadeFlesh's avatar

@suzooz Yes, the world has a nice history of tyrannical government. However if you resist with violence, you get something like the current situation in Syria. If you resist peacefully, you get something like the manner in which Egypt deposed Mubarak. Violence begets violence.

Criminals also rarely attack when you have your semi-automatic weapon to hand. I’m assuming you don’t take an M4 shopping, or keep it next to you in bed? Most home invasions are a blitz attack, where you don’t have time to grab a weapon before the criminal is upon you. Even if you keep your assault weapon under your bed, and not in a gun safe, by the time you clear your head and ready your weapon, it is probably too late.

That is why I learn Krav Maga – it is effective against many weapons, including guns, it is always with me, and no one knows I’ve got it.

suzooz's avatar

You do have successful cases of nonviolent resistance but it depends entirely on the situation.

Criminals do not know if I have semi-automatics. I don’t announce that information & I don’t carry semi-automatics on me in public. In the car, yeah. I open & conceal carry handguns in public. If criminals attack physically from the front, side, or behind, they’re dead. If they use weapons that aren’t firearms, they’re dead. If they use handguns, they’re still untrained and will be killed before or after I hand over my belongings. The only disadvantage I would have is from a murderer and even then, it depends where he shoots. I have a very lightweight bulletproof vest with titanium plate reinforcement making the vest stab resistant too. If he shoots me anywhere but the head, I’ll still be able to gun him down.

At home, I keep a handgun at the night-stand, an assault weapon under the bed & a shotgun in the closet. The other weapons are spread through-out the house in hidden locations where thieves won’t be able to find them. I have backups which are kept at fire-water-hazmatproof gun-safes.

I don’t know where your bedrooms are located, but my bedrooms are not located next to the entrances of the house. My bedroom doors are locked and you cannot kick them in. Did you see what you wrote? A blitz attack which means there will be noise. I’ll hear it. Even if its a silent break-in, the silent alarm goes off. It only takes a couple of seconds for me to have the gun in my hand with the safety switch off after waking. They will be either dead or running.

I have some bad news for you. A couple of years ago on the local news a husband-father was murdered in front of his wife on a public street at night. It was a robbery and instead of handing over the money, the husband, being a trained martial artists, attempted to disarm the robbers. You do have a better chance of using Krav Maga against a gunman in a short distance, but you’re dead if it’s at a longer distance. I don’t think Krav Maga teaches you how to fly. You also cannot chase a gunmen for your valuables.

glacial's avatar

@suzooz Seriously, you are that afraid of the world that you need so many weapons? I cannot even imagine what it must be like to live with that much fear.

suzooz's avatar

Why do you see it as fear and not practical precautions? It’s not like this is on my mind everyday. It’s a preparation you setup once in a lifetime. Just like you would for an end of the world event. You buy it and forget it. A vest is just a thin article of clothing and the gun is looked at the same way. What is the big deal? I don’t spend more than 2 minutes of my life for this stuff.

Espiritus_Corvus's avatar

@suzooz Right. Your AR-15 is going to do you a helluva lot of good against choppers bristling with M-60s, RPGs, rockets, or a wing of fully armed F16s. Good luck on keeping the government from taking over the government with your big bad assault rifle and twenty round clip.

Do you by any chance like the smell of Napalm in the morning? Are twenty Jewish international bankers and their Illuminati cohorts controlling the world? When you’re in a stadium watching a football game and they go into a huddle, are they talking about you?

ETpro's avatar

@Crashsequence2012 What, exactly, do you want of the President? Are you more anxious that he be completely indifferent to the tragedy of 20 elementary school kids getting gunned down in Newtown, CT? Or does it bother you more that he takes out the terrorist who ache to kill people like you even if they try to surround themselves with civilians for protection. What’s the right-wing dream on these issues? More killing of innocent American kids, more freedom for terrorists to attack us with impunity, or both?

suzooz's avatar

@Espiritus_Corvus

Protection from government is only one of the reasons and you’re saying some pretty silly things about it. What makes you think the entire military will agree with the orders to attack on its own friends and family? If anything, the military will be divided which means weapons will be divided. Even if it’s not, there are so many guns circulating in the united states that people will just go into hiding to engage in guerrilla tactics. Overtime, you capture new weapons, vehicles, to take down the stronger weapons and sooner or later the fight balances out.

Hell, you and I both don’t even know what people have in their homes right now, especially with 3d-printing technology.

glacial's avatar

@suzooz To buy that many guns and leave them around your house and car… and then “forget it” is one reason why many people would consider you dangerous. If you expect them to be an effective solution for you, presumably you must constantly be running scenarios in your mind. You seem excited enough to tell us all about them. Probably a little too excited. I suspect this is a phony story (to put it politely).

And for these to be “practical precautions”, the level of personal threat you’d have to live under would place you… well, nowhere in the USA, certainly. Unless you are the president, or a gangster, or something. And then, I expect you’d have people for that.

Um, you know that 3D printers can’t make functional guns yet, right?

Espiritus_Corvus's avatar

@suzooz Well, Sooz, have fun with that. Sounds like you’ve spent a lot of time and energy thinking about this. I guess all I’ve got to say is Bravo Yankee, Bravo Yankee over and out.

suzooz's avatar

@glacial

It’s interesting that you ask for information and then call it phony when I provide it. Then you go on to falsely assume my degree level of emotional attachment to this. What your doing is called trolling.

“Forget it” does not mean I don’t know where it is. It means I don’t have to keep it in my mind constantly. It’s for emergency only. Like remembering your emergency exits.

Of course you run scenarios, but only one time to set it up in your house. You don’t need to run a scenario to put on a vest or gun.

I briefly read about 3D printing, but it won’t surprise me if they can make functional weapons soon.

Response moderated (Personal Attack)
Response moderated
Response moderated
FireMadeFlesh's avatar

@suzooz Thankfully I live in a country with far less gun crime than yours, so I don’t really need to worry about the possibility of an attacker having a gun. We do get a fair few shootings, but the vast majority are related to drug syndicates or outlaw motorcycle gangs. Very few innocent people are ever the victims of gun crime here, ever since stringent gun ownership laws were introduced in 1996. However in a country such as yours which is awash with guns, I can understand why people feel they need guns for self-defence.

Even in the US though, I fail to see the need for a semi-automatic weapon with a large clip. It is even harder to see why a flash suppressor would be necessary. A handgun can be drawn quicker than an M4 (for example), and can be fired with accuracy with one hand. Therefore a handgun is superior for self-defence, as it can be drawn and fired even with one arm pinned. A larger weapon comes into its own in longer range scenarios, which is why many tactical assault units use smaller weapons like the MP5 or P90. At the distances where an M4 or AR15 is the weapon of choice, I don’t think you could convincingly call that self-defence.

I take your point regarding martial arts. Of course when threatened with or without a weapon, the first option is to calm the situation and comply with reasonable demands (“give me your watch” being reasonable, compared with “get in the van”). Too many martial artists are killed in the manner you describe, because they feel they can take the threat. Fighting is always a last resort, when yourself or a person you care about is in danger of physical harm. It is nearly impossible to participate in a fight without suffering some injuries, even if you win. In the situations where I do need to fight, I know that my weapon cannot be turned against me. Your guns can be.

This discussion is closed.

Have a question? Ask Fluther!

What do you know more about?
or
Knowledge Networking @ Fluther