A Sea Of Red

Reports currently are 7-10 dead

Also appears that the shooter is dead.

Of course the shooter is dead...

I was just telling a co-worker that it is sad that we now just kind of expect these things to happen now. I barely can muster up real emotion about it. Does that make me a terrible person?

You were already a terrible person.

This forum is full of love.

I listened to about 5 minutes of the Presidents statement. No sympathy for the family. Only a lecture. A lecture filled with class equivocations, half truths and flat out lies

Some int he mainstream media are following up on the social media stories of the gunman targeting Christians. I'm not sure if it is true but wouldn't be shocking if it were.

Sly Fox wrote:Some int he mainstream media are following up on the social media stories of the gunman targeting Christians. I'm not sure if it is true but wouldn't be shocking if it were.

It appears that this story is gaining traction:

http://nypost.com/2015/10/01/oregon-gun ... g-rampage/

Of course Obama decides to use this as a chance to "lecture" the country and grandstand for more gun control...smh

BJWilliams wrote:Of course Obama decides to use this as a chance to "lecture" the country and grandstand for more gun control...smh

There's clearly a problem. I don't have the answers, but to slam Obama for this seems a bit shortsighted.

I see where Obama is coming from and I do believe background checks need to be a bit more comprehensive but I think until we take mental health issues seriously in this country and really try to help people who are struggling then we will continue to see these events. Blaming it all on guns is also very shortsighted.

thepostman wrote:I see where Obama is coming from and I do believe background checks need to be a bit more comprehensive but I think until we take mental health issues seriously in this country and really try to help people who are struggling then we will continue to see these events. Blaming it all on guns is also very shortsighted.

This...look there is a problem I will agree, but the country doesn't need a lecture. Where is the talk of mental health reform and getting to the root of the problem, which isn't guns because the only way a gun has killed a person is in the hands of someone using it that way.

That said, I would prefer a president that grieves with you when youre grieving, and then spurs well thought but decisive action to address the problem at its root cause. the way he has gone about it is swinging and missing that root cause.

Did you watch him?? He was clearly grieving about it and it turned to anger. I am not the biggest supporter of the president but he is human with real emotions give the guy a break we all grieve differently.

BJWilliams wrote:
That said, I would prefer a president that grieves with you when youre grieving, .

Bill Clinton was the master at that. His wife isn't

He's a man tired of seeing innocent people killed. I may not agree with him politically, but I appreciate the emotion and him pushing for a conversation. The gun lobby is so loud that they don't even allow the conversation to happen. Congress is scared of the NRA so they won't push any ideas through or even work on the possibility of minor changes.

SuperJon wrote:He's a man tired of seeing innocent people killed. I may not agree with him politically, but I appreciate the emotion and him pushing for a conversation. The gun lobby is so loud that they don't even allow the conversation to happen. Congress is scared of the NRA so they won't push any ideas through or even work on the possibility of minor changes.

You mean like increasing gun education and safety classes? No, it's the selective outrage that irritates me

SuperJon wrote:He's a man tired of seeing innocent people killed. I may not agree with him politically, but I appreciate the emotion and him pushing for a conversation. The gun lobby is so loud that they don't even allow the conversation to happen. Congress is scared of the NRA so they won't push any ideas through or even work on the possibility of minor changes.

I don't know what to say to this... do you REALLY think that's all Obama wants? A conversation? He has been one of the biggest demagogue's in US history. The only places these mass shootings happen are in gun-free zones. They often are committed by people with major heart issues that have a deep-seeded hatred for those whom they are targeting. My problem with all of this is that I, unlike you apparently, don't trust the government's intent here. Especially when you consider the Fast & Furious scandal and what we know to be true about the stated goals of that program.

Obama definitely wants more than a conversation. With that said, he'd be okay with minor progress. Neither one of those happens without people first coming to the table to talk.

I really think the majority of America is much more towards the middle of the road on guns but the gun lobby is so freaking loud it's impossible to hear the normal person. There's no one fighting for that guy. There's the NRA on the right and liberal media on the left. There's no one speaking for just left or just right of center.

SuperJon wrote:Obama definitely wants more than a conversation. With that said, he'd be okay with minor progress. Neither one of those happens without people first coming to the table to talk.

I really think the majority of America is much more towards the middle of the road on guns but the gun lobby is so freaking loud it's impossible to hear the normal person. There's no one fighting for that guy. There's the NRA on the right and liberal media on the left. There's no one speaking for just left or just right of center.

Your last statement is true in all of politics these days. The tea party faction of the Republican party will do everything in their power to unseat anyone who doesn't "stand on principle," on everything rather than compromise on anything just to get something done.

SuperJon wrote:Obama definitely wants more than a conversation. With that said, he'd be okay with minor progress. Neither one of those happens without people first coming to the table to talk.

I really think the majority of America is much more towards the middle of the road on guns but the gun lobby is so freaking loud it's impossible to hear the normal person. There's no one fighting for that guy. There's the NRA on the right and liberal media on the left. There's no one speaking for just left or just right of center.

Okay, but that assumes that the NRA is wrong, right? And with the majority of America being so grievously uninformed, I'd be careful before following that crowd.

It assumes the NRA has an agenda, just as the far left has an agenda.

SuperJon wrote:Obama definitely wants more than a conversation. With that said, he'd be okay with minor progress. Neither one of those happens without people first coming to the table to talk.

If he cares so much, then why didn't he do anything about gun reform/control when he had majorities in Congress for 2 years?

He probably knew what most of us know: it's a non-starter. Congress is scared of the gun lobby.

SuperJon wrote:He probably knew what most of us know: it's a non-starter. Congress is scared of the gun lobby.

There's no such thing as a non-starter when you control both sides of Congress and you have a newly elected president and the media fawning over you. He could have taken on gun control, immigration and healthcare. He chose the latter and the manner in which it got done cost him a lot of political capital.

Humble_Opinion wrote:There's no such thing as a non-starter when you control both sides of Congress and you have a newly elected president and the media fawning over you. He could have taken on gun control, immigration and healthcare. He chose the latter and the manner in which it got done cost him a lot of political capital.

Agreed. The "political capital" argument is used as an excuse all the time and it is nonsense.

bluejacket wrote:

Humble_Opinion wrote:There's no such thing as a non-starter when you control both sides of Congress and you have a newly elected president and the media fawning over you. He could have taken on gun control, immigration and healthcare. He chose the latter and the manner in which it got done cost him a lot of political capital.

Agreed. The "political capital" argument is used as an excuse all the time and it is nonsense.

The political capital discussion only comes out when the Republicans go about the process of pursuing their agenda and it is nonsense to a degree.

Regardless - Obama could have done whatever he wanted. He chose Healthcare and it revitalized the base of the Republican party for a major swing in 2010 and 2012.