Should the White House condemn shootings?
I've got my own feelings on this, but the question hit me, and I'm wondering how many SWeeps might disagree.
This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »
Graylight · 51-55, F
I would hope to God it's implicit that everyone condemns the shootings.
Do we need to officially condemn them? No. Do we need to use them as a soapbox because midterms are coming? No. Do we need to find blame, pick apart the shootings, wonder aloud on nightly news what drove the shooter? No.
Three shootings in three days. Until someone's ready to stand up and removes what we all know is the problem, then no one should open their mouths to talk about another shooting.
When you get tired of hearing your friend complain of cold, you finally tell him to get a jacket. If we want people to stop dying from bullets fired by firearms, then we know what to do.
Do we need to officially condemn them? No. Do we need to use them as a soapbox because midterms are coming? No. Do we need to find blame, pick apart the shootings, wonder aloud on nightly news what drove the shooter? No.
Three shootings in three days. Until someone's ready to stand up and removes what we all know is the problem, then no one should open their mouths to talk about another shooting.
When you get tired of hearing your friend complain of cold, you finally tell him to get a jacket. If we want people to stop dying from bullets fired by firearms, then we know what to do.
Graylight · 51-55, F
@Diotrephes The 2nd Amendment is the law of that land (relatively recently), and this I respect. Nor do I dislike firearms. But when the house is flooding you turn off the water main and eliminate the damage while you work the problem. You don't wait a week for a guy to call back to set up a window of time while your property's floating away.
If we do it through earned bulled credits or police station ammo or taking the guns for a hot moment, it matters little to me. But anything other than "how to we eliminate the problem long enough to solve it" is - excuse my language - bullsh*t lip service. Poll 100 5-year-olds and then let's do whatever they suggest, because even they understand a problem this simple.
If we do it through earned bulled credits or police station ammo or taking the guns for a hot moment, it matters little to me. But anything other than "how to we eliminate the problem long enough to solve it" is - excuse my language - bullsh*t lip service. Poll 100 5-year-olds and then let's do whatever they suggest, because even they understand a problem this simple.
Diotrephes · 70-79, M
@Graylight Looking at the big picture, the movement to ban guns is led by members of a certain ethnic group, who have introduced most of the federal gun control laws. That is a fact.
Another fact is that some State constitutions included clauses when the country was founded that say that the people have the right to change the government by whatever means they (the people) deem necessary when the government gets off track. That includes armed revolution, which will be considered treason if it fails.
Another fact is that the government exists to serve the needs of the people. The people don't exist to serve the whims of the bureaucrats.
The ultimate objective is to seize all of the people's guns so that they won't be able to put up any effective resistance when the cabal takes control. That would be a major undertaking because the military would have to be involved and it is doubtful if the troops would do it. Some cops would try it for sure but others wouldn't help at all. And since guns can be easily hidden, it would take hours to do a search of a house. It would also be in violation of the Fourth Amendment. Plus all of the State constitutions would have to delete the right to bear arms from their constitutions.
Another fact is that some State constitutions included clauses when the country was founded that say that the people have the right to change the government by whatever means they (the people) deem necessary when the government gets off track. That includes armed revolution, which will be considered treason if it fails.
Another fact is that the government exists to serve the needs of the people. The people don't exist to serve the whims of the bureaucrats.
The ultimate objective is to seize all of the people's guns so that they won't be able to put up any effective resistance when the cabal takes control. That would be a major undertaking because the military would have to be involved and it is doubtful if the troops would do it. Some cops would try it for sure but others wouldn't help at all. And since guns can be easily hidden, it would take hours to do a search of a house. It would also be in violation of the Fourth Amendment. Plus all of the State constitutions would have to delete the right to bear arms from their constitutions.