• Obama has Newtown Victims do Weekly Address
    60 replies, posted
[QUOTE=SigmaLambda;40267777]Do you think the woman doing the address has a gun to her head off camera? She's doing it willingly because she believes what she is saying.[/QUOTE] And while the families of the victims have gone through a horrible tragedy, that does not make them experts on the topic. They have an extreme bias, as they have had a direct negative affect.
[QUOTE=Ridge;40267950]And while the families of the victims have gone through a horrible tragedy, that does not make them experts on the topic. They have an extreme bias, as they have had a direct negative affect.[/QUOTE] Meanwhile, we posters here on Forum-for-Video-Game-Which-Involves-Shooting-People-With-Guns who all have spent likely most of our lives playing video games in which we shoot people with guns and count such games amongst our greatest hobbies are paragons of unbiased attitudes w/r/t the subject of guns. Man Obama should have you do an address instead of some woman who has developed a really offensive anti-gun bias. She obviously isn't able to think straight.
Maybe he should. I know people who went to Columbine. I lost friends in the theater in Aurora. I nearly gave up the hobby entirely after Newtown.
I'm getting kind of tired of people spouting the phrase "fix the mental health problem" like they have any idea what that even entails. Lanza was already on anti-psychotics. Was he supposed to be in a mental hospital and under constant surveillance? Locked up because he had a mental disorder? Even if you're going to a doctor/counselor/psychiatrist for constant checkups you can just lie to them about your current state of mind. I mean sure you could bar everyone with some form of psychosis from acquiring firearms but it's not like you couldn't just steal one anyways. So what can definitely be done about it?
In regards to the whole "fix mental health problems" thing... I don't think anyone understand what "fixing mental health" entails. You could throw money into a pit trying to improve mental healthcare, but it would only be fixing small cracks in a much larger issue. You can find hundreds, if not thousands of reasons to why people want to do harm to their fellow man. Economic inequality could be one of them, poor access to healthcare could be one of them... Maybe having centers for people to do social projects with other people, and be able to find some self-worth could overall decrease people wanting to deal harm to themselves or other. My personal opinion is a mixture of those three, but I don't feel like I could simply point my finger at those alone, and say, "That's it"
Newton School Shooting; the Democrat's Benghazi. (the political exploitation, not the event)
It's pretty funny that people think this is an attempt to emotionally push through sweeping gun legislation when Democrats and Republicans in the Senate have already reached an agreement on a pretty weak compromise that Obama has already backed. I'd much rather we criticize Obama for just giving unnecessary Social Security cuts to the Republicans rather than pretty normal post-tragedy concessions but then I remembered that FP is completely ignorant to the machinations of American politics other than "muh guns". [editline]13th April 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;40269463]Newton School Shooting; the Democrat's Benghazi.[/QUOTE] Probably the stupidest thing I've seen said on the whole affair. [editline]13th April 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=JoeSkylynx;40269371]In regards to the whole "fix mental health problems" thing[/QUOTE] It's a red herring thrown out by people who don't want to do the research into mass shootings or general crime, or people who have done the research and find it inconvenient. It's also used as a false dilemma to imply that we can either legislate gun control or emphasize and support mental healthcare but not both. Finally, no one has ever said that mental healthcare isn't important, except for maybe some Republicans who are against all government spending unless it goes to people they like.
[QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;40269463]Newton School Shooting; the Democrat's Benghazi.[/QUOTE] yeah not even remotely close lol
[QUOTE=Raidyr;40269495]Probably the stupidest thing I've seen said on the whole affair.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Kopimi;40269652]yeah not even remotely close lol[/QUOTE] I meant in terms of the political exploitation after the fact, not the actual event.
[QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;40270234]I meant in terms of the political exploitation after the fact, not the actual event.[/QUOTE] still not a solid comparison. the media outburst (by media i mean fox and breitbart.com) that came from benghazi was fabricated controversy and eventually evolved into conspiracy theories (did obama give clinton a concussion so she couldnt testify??) because obama hadn't legitimately fucked up recently so they had to run something, and blaming obama for a terrorist attack was the best story they could come up with while i think its in really poor taste to have grieving families deliver a weekly address (and i'm pro gun control), they are at least relevant to a national issue that needs to be discussed and addressed to solve actual problems
The families could probably begin to stop grieving and begin to recover if they weren't being propped up every other day to talk about how their child was horribly murdered.
[QUOTE=Ridge;40271020]The families could probably begin to stop grieving and begin to recover if they weren't being propped up every other day to talk about how their child was horribly murdered.[/QUOTE] What if it's something they want to do?
[QUOTE=Raidyr;40271040]What if it's something they want to do?[/QUOTE] Then they'd have more creedence if they did it themselves, versus having the President pushing for it. The government should be neutral, they shouldn't be attempting to push public opinion. Their job is to listen to us, not do their own thing and try to get us to go along with it.
Does the mother of someone who was killed in a school shooting not count as "us"? [editline]13th April 2013[/editline] As for pushing public opinion I'd hardly say gun control needs to be pushed by the Obama administration considering they fall short of what the vast majority of Americans, gun owners, NRA members, and Republicans would like to see.
[QUOTE=Ridge;40271020]The families could probably begin to stop grieving and begin to recover if they weren't being propped up every other day to talk about how their child was horribly murdered.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Ridge;40271177]Then they'd have more creedence if they did it themselves, versus having the President pushing for it. The government should be neutral, they shouldn't be attempting to push public opinion. Their job is to listen to us, not do their own thing and try to get us to go along with it.[/QUOTE] Ok now you're just making conditions up. Face it, you find this distasteful merely because you disagree with the legislation it's trying to push and are coming up with excuses to dislike it on a level more complex than that. If this were a thread of a speech from the family member of a victim who was opposed to gun control, even if it was sponsored by a pro-gun politician, everybody would be gushing over it.
[QUOTE=Ridge;40271020]The families could probably begin to stop grieving and begin to recover if they weren't being propped up every other day to talk about how their child was horribly murdered.[/QUOTE] yes im sure obama came to their door and threatened them at gunpoint if they didnt agree to come do the address its p obvious to anyone with half a mind that they chose to make this appearance and speak in respect to a cause that they support [editline]13th April 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=SigmaLambda;40271726]If this were a thread of a speech from the family member of a victim who was opposed to gun control, even if it was sponsored by a pro-gun politician, everybody would be gushing over it.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Ridge;40267950]And while the families of the victims have gone through a horrible tragedy, that does not make them experts on the topic. They have an extreme bias, as they have had a direct negative affect.[/QUOTE] so you mean you wanting to put the aurora guy to death meant you had an extreme bias holy shit
I'll just go ahead and drop an email to Obama and see if he'll let me host the next radio broadcast and give my opinion on the events, then. I'm surely he'll gladly let a dissenting opinion on the air.
[QUOTE=No_Excuses;40269168]I'm getting kind of tired of people spouting the phrase "fix the mental health problem" like they have any idea what that even entails. Lanza was already on anti-psychotics. Was he supposed to be in a mental hospital and under constant surveillance? Locked up because he had a mental disorder? Even if you're going to a doctor/counselor/psychiatrist for constant checkups you can just lie to them about your current state of mind. I mean sure you could bar everyone with some form of psychosis from acquiring firearms but it's not like you couldn't just steal one anyways. So what can definitely be done about it?[/QUOTE] You act like anything less then a 100% guaranteed solution is not worth doing. Fixing the mental health system- just off the top of my head Earmark money for treatment and institutions (we released most ppl in the 70's due to lack of funds) Pass laws to make detention an option (yes I do believe if the voices are telling you to kill you should be institutionalized)
has any of these victims explained how a background check would have stopped his mother from buying him a gun?
[QUOTE=Ridge;40272603]I'll just go ahead and drop an email to Obama and see if he'll let me host the next radio broadcast and give my opinion on the events, then. I'm surely he'll gladly let a dissenting opinion on the air.[/QUOTE] Good luck, I think he has enough people yelling in his ear about dissenting opinions about guns though. Like, two entire political parties.
I'm sick of them using victims to lobby their agendas. Gun control is one thing, shoving it down everyone's throats is another.
[QUOTE=Vodkavia;40273312]I for one, find it distasteful because he's using his weekly address, something generally reserved for the president to distract people from the actual debate. I honestly don't believe she wasn't there to provide anything new that has any sort of substance, if she was she failed. Obama might as well have been cutting a barrel of onions and while there's not much anyone can do about it, I do hope people see though his bullshit.[/QUOTE] There is no debate. On the policy, Obama and the Democratic party is completely afraid of all but the most wet-towel gun control measures. You can find it distasteful, personally I find it rather sappy and cliche but not offensive. But when it comes to policy this isn't Obama wheeling out a grieving mother so he can take your guns. This is him putting up a front to progressives who should know better. It's amazing that even well into his second term people are still being played by this. It means [I]nothing[/I]. [QUOTE=Computrix;40273924]I'm sick of them using victims to lobby their agendas. Gun control is one thing, shoving it down everyone's throats is another.[/QUOTE] It's weird how some people interpret their address as an emotional plea without any substance and then others see it as lobbying. Also gun control isn't something you "shove down people's throats", it's something that legislators decide on and write into law.
[QUOTE=Ridge;40267735]There is a difference between talking about the events, and dragging the relatives of the dead around and using them to push your opinion.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Ridge;40271177]Then they'd have more creedence if they did it themselves, versus having the President pushing for it. The government should be neutral, they shouldn't be attempting to push public opinion. Their job is to listen to us, not do their own thing and try to get us to go along with it.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Computrix;40273924]I'm sick of them using victims to lobby their agendas. Gun control is one thing, shoving it down everyone's throats is another.[/QUOTE] Yeah, because the government totally hasn't used national tragedies and victims before to justify two wars and restrictions on civil liberties. Only Obama and his raging hate for guns and the second amendment.
Honestly, pulling this sort of shit is just extremely insulting to anyone who's suffered through a shooting or lost a loved one to a shooting. What the fuck happens with these people when the next shooting inevitably happens? Are they gonna be thrown to side like a used condom while everyone holds up the new victims and shout, "LOOK AT THESE POOR MOTHERS WHO HAVE LOST THEIR SONS AND DAUGHTERS, WATCH AS THEIR FATHERS WEEP BITTER, SALTY TEARS OVER THEIR CHILDRENS BODIES, WE NEED GUN CONTROL GUYS!" It's fucking revolting that people are using them to further their agenda, and it's all for nothing because the legislation addresses a symptom of the problem, not the root cause so it's not going to stop a single thing.
[QUOTE=Pierrewithahat;40275111]Honestly, pulling this sort of shit is just extremely insulting to anyone who's suffered through a shooting or lost a loved one to a shooting.[/QUOTE] The people who gave the address suffered and lost a loved one in the shooting.
[QUOTE=MercZ;40275078]Yeah, because the government totally hasn't used national tragedies and victims before to justify two wars and restrictions on civil liberties. Only Obama and his raging hate for guns and the second amendment.[/QUOTE] Jesus Christ, here it goes again. It was bad when Bush did it. And that doesn't excuse Obama from doing the same.
[QUOTE=Ridge;40283866]Jesus Christ, here it goes again. It was bad when Bush did it. And that doesn't excuse Obama from doing the same.[/QUOTE] I don't really see what Obama is doing here comparable to what Bush did, justifying two wars at least. Bush's use of 9/11 victims was much more cynical and conceited considering the long term impacts- hundreds of thousands dead, tons of economy down the crapper, what ever. I don't see this as equivalent to a legislation concerning weapons. For the record, I don't really support this piece of legislation anyways. What I don't like is this knee-jerk victim blaming on those who are upset about violence and the response of some narrowminded groups to this. These people wanted to say something, Obama took advantage of that- did he force them to say anything? This is politics, get used to it. I'm sure if the NRA could find someone in the newtown victims family that supported their plan for armed police in schools they would've jumped right on it. Instead of being manchildren and complaining about victims' families speaking out, maybe people who are opposed to the gun law should find a better way to emphasize with victims rather than coming off as entitled and cold. There would be more progress that way in blocking future attempts at gun control rather than this process starting over every time there's a mass shooting.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.