CNN is so full of sh*t.... can it get any worse?

[Thinker101]

A coworker here was watching the President's address via CNN.
Immediately following CNN - "really, the President giving his condolences, it doesn't sound like he has a plan to prevent these things from happening".

REALLY??????....it's been what, 21 hours and he is supposed to come up with a magical plan to prevent this from happening again????
These people are so freaking biased and dumb.

21 hours?

I'm not surprised that you think this is the only mass shooting that's occurred since Trump was appointed president.

Definitely not the first since Obama was appointed.

 

[forkup]

really? that is your point?
What plan did Obama have?
What plan did Bush have?
What plan could any President have?
Please state a plan that a President could put in place that would guarantee this never happen again.

As usual the media goes straight to the political hot buttons instead of any depth of discussion as to what is different in the past 10-15 years that this repeatedly happens. What conditions have changed that opens the door to psychopaths to carry out their fantasies?

The only PLAN decent people can have against EVIL people is to do battle with them. We're never going to prevent evil-sick people from doing violence in a free society (and totalitarian societies do the violence themselves, so let's not go there). What we should not do is to use the actions of freaks as a justification to control law-abiding decent folks.

A society has a right to use laws to protect it's people. Are you against a law that forces you to wear a seatbelt. Are you against laws forbidding drinking and driving. Numerous laws are designed to put restrictions on what people can do. Simply because it saves lives.This is perfectly valid.

Reading comprehension challenged much?

I said "use the actions of freaks" to control law-abiding people.

Your strawmen are burning.

I'll also note that the very best incentive to wear a seatbelt is a better car insurance rate for pledging to do so. When I bought my first car, the insurance company had such a program. It was cancelled when not wearing seat belts was made into a random tax for state and local governments.

There are people who can drink and stop in time to be able to drive responsible. There are people who never get into an accident.So no it's not a strawman.It's the illustration that laws are often used to protect it's citizens. In so doing it restricts the actions of it's citizenry. There are probably people who would be able to own an Abrams tank and not do anything untoward with it, I suspect you wouldn't applaud making doing so legal. If so you are also for restrictions.

Tanks are legal to own

Point taken.I should have specified fully armed.

 

[TNHarley]

The only PLAN decent people can have against EVIL people is to do battle with them. We're never going to prevent evil-sick people from doing violence in a free society (and totalitarian societies do the violence themselves, so let's not go there). What we should not do is to use the actions of freaks as a justification to control law-abiding decent folks.

A society has a right to use laws to protect it's people. Are you against a law that forces you to wear a seatbelt. Are you against laws forbidding drinking and driving. Numerous laws are designed to put restrictions on what people can do. Simply because it saves lives.This is perfectly valid.

Reading comprehension challenged much?

I said "use the actions of freaks" to control law-abiding people.

Your strawmen are burning.

I'll also note that the very best incentive to wear a seatbelt is a better car insurance rate for pledging to do so. When I bought my first car, the insurance company had such a program. It was cancelled when not wearing seat belts was made into a random tax for state and local governments.

There are people who can drink and stop in time to be able to drive responsible. There are people who never get into an accident.So no it's not a strawman.It's the illustration that laws are often used to protect it's citizens. In so doing it restricts the actions of it's citizenry. There are probably people who would be able to own an Abrams tank and not do anything untoward with it, I suspect you wouldn't applaud making doing so legal. If so you are also for restrictions.

Tanks are legal to own

Point taken.I should have specified fully armed.

I figured that what you meant. I dont like to argue semantics but some people really dont know just how much we can legally own.

 

[nat4900]

REALLY??????....it's been what, 21 hours and he is supposed to come up with a magical plan to prevent this from happening again????

Did Trump state that he WILL have a plan to stop the carnage in the next month, year, decade???

Did Trump state that the problem is BEYOND our capabilities to address?

 

[forkup]

A society has a right to use laws to protect it's people. Are you against a law that forces you to wear a seatbelt. Are you against laws forbidding drinking and driving. Numerous laws are designed to put restrictions on what people can do. Simply because it saves lives.This is perfectly valid.

Reading comprehension challenged much?

I said "use the actions of freaks" to control law-abiding people.

Your strawmen are burning.

I'll also note that the very best incentive to wear a seatbelt is a better car insurance rate for pledging to do so. When I bought my first car, the insurance company had such a program. It was cancelled when not wearing seat belts was made into a random tax for state and local governments.

There are people who can drink and stop in time to be able to drive responsible. There are people who never get into an accident.So no it's not a strawman.It's the illustration that laws are often used to protect it's citizens. In so doing it restricts the actions of it's citizenry. There are probably people who would be able to own an Abrams tank and not do anything untoward with it, I suspect you wouldn't applaud making doing so legal. If so you are also for restrictions.

Tanks are legal to own

Point taken.I should have specified fully armed.

I figured that what you meant. I dont like to argue semantics but some people really dont know just how much we can legally own.

It's fine. I personally think semantics matter. It's very hard to have a decent conversation without proper wording. Spelling I find less important but semantics are.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

Did Trump state that he WILL have a plan to stop the carnage in the next month, year, decade???

Did Trump state that the problem is BEYOND our capabilities to address?

Your a troll

 

[nat4900]

Your a troll

Did you mean "you're"?????............Illiterate moron...............LOL

 

[The Original Tree]

Did Trump state that he WILL have a plan to stop the carnage in the next month, year, decade???

Did Trump state that the problem is BEYOND our capabilities to address?

Your a troll

That's You're

 

[Hutch Starskey]

A coworker here was watching the President's address via CNN.
Immediately following CNN - "really, the President giving his condolences, it doesn't sound like he has a plan to prevent these things from happening".

REALLY??????....it's been what, 21 hours and he is supposed to come up with a magical plan to prevent this from happening again????
These people are so freaking biased and dumb.

It's not a new problem but it is a growing problem. How many in the last 45 days alone? Trump has no plan. Not because it's too soon, because he doesn't intend to do anything at all. It might irritate his beloved base.

 

[RDD_1210]

A coworker here was watching the President's address via CNN.
Immediately following CNN - "really, the President giving his condolences, it doesn't sound like he has a plan to prevent these things from happening".

REALLY??????....it's been what, 21 hours and he is supposed to come up with a magical plan to prevent this from happening again????
These people are so freaking biased and dumb.

So how long do you think it will be before Trump has a plan to address this issue?

How long did it take Obama?

Too long. As in it didn't. Ok, so now do you answer my question?

 

[Norman]

Obama had 8 years to prevent this from happening, did CNN mention that?

And he did shit about it.

Just like Trump will.

Just like Bush II did.

Nobody is going to do shit about it because nobody really cares anymore.

This story will be out of the news cycle by the weekend.

We as a society have just accepted that this is part of the price for freedom.

It's not a price for freedom, but the price for everyone at the public school being a moron and not helping a kid out.

These guys need a pay cut until they can actually educate people and not teach as if the blindfolds were on.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Money talks....

The NRA was Trump's largest backer that he had in his campaign....

BUT if anyone can stand up to the gun manufacturer lobby, and not be afraid of them running a primary candidate against him and not be afraid of losing his followers..... it is President Trump....

I think he is more equipped than any other President, to be able to get something done on this.

Standing against a citizen organization that defends a constitutional right is a vainglorious political game, doomed to failure. The last few decades confirms this.

So that said, what do you believe could prevent such occurrences? You're dealing with matters of human nature.

making assault weapons, not as easily gotten... it won't stop all killings, but it could reduce the deaths?

First - and I have been asking this for more than twenty years - clearly define an "assault weapon" and how it differs from a "non-assault weapon".

 

[boedicca]

So the problem with mass shootings started 21 hours ago? It's not a new problem. Neither is this shooting the deadliest since he took office. So please, can you explain to me, why is it biased to mention POTUS doesn't have a plan?

really? that is your point?
What plan did Obama have?
What plan did Bush have?
What plan could any President have?
Please state a plan that a President could put in place that would guarantee this never happen again.

As usual the media goes straight to the political hot buttons instead of any depth of discussion as to what is different in the past 10-15 years that this repeatedly happens. What conditions have changed that opens the door to psychopaths to carry out their fantasies?

The only PLAN decent people can have against EVIL people is to do battle with them. We're never going to prevent evil-sick people from doing violence in a free society (and totalitarian societies do the violence themselves, so let's not go there). What we should not do is to use the actions of freaks as a justification to control law-abiding decent folks.

A society has a right to use laws to protect it's people. Are you against a law that forces you to wear a seatbelt. Are you against laws forbidding drinking and driving. Numerous laws are designed to put restrictions on what people can do. Simply because it saves lives.This is perfectly valid.

Reading comprehension challenged much?

I said "use the actions of freaks" to control law-abiding people.

Your strawmen are burning.

I'll also note that the very best incentive to wear a seatbelt is a better car insurance rate for pledging to do so. When I bought my first car, the insurance company had such a program. It was cancelled when not wearing seat belts was made into a random tax for state and local governments.

There are people who can drink and stop in time to be able to drive responsible. There are people who never get into an accident.So no it's not a strawman.It's the illustration that laws are often used to protect it's citizens. In so doing it restricts the actions of it's citizenry. There are probably people who would be able to own an fully armed Abrams tank and not do anything untoward with it, I suspect you wouldn't applaud making doing so legal. If so you are also for restrictions.

All those burning strawxyrs are not helping to combat the Glowball Worming you likely fear.

 

[BluesLegend]

Money talks....

The NRA was Trump's largest backer that he had in his campaign....

BUT if anyone can stand up to the gun manufacturer lobby, and not be afraid of them running a primary candidate against him and not be afraid of losing his followers..... it is President Trump....

I think he is more equipped than any other President, to be able to get something done on this.

Standing against a citizen organization that defends a constitutional right is a vainglorious political game, doomed to failure. The last few decades confirms this.

So that said, what do you believe could prevent such occurrences? You're dealing with matters of human nature.

making assault weapons, not as easily gotten... it won't stop all killings, but it could reduce the deaths?

First - and I have been asking this for more than twenty years - clearly define an "assault weapon" and how it differs from a "non-assault weapon".

I don't own any assault weapons, I do own several self defense weapons. I'm not sure why some call my rifle an assault weapon, because its black and looks similar to Hollywood movie prop rifles?

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Money talks....

The NRA was Trump's largest backer that he had in his campaign....

BUT if anyone can stand up to the gun manufacturer lobby, and not be afraid of them running a primary candidate against him and not be afraid of losing his followers..... it is President Trump....

I think he is more equipped than any other President, to be able to get something done on this.

Standing against a citizen organization that defends a constitutional right is a vainglorious political game, doomed to failure. The last few decades confirms this.

So that said, what do you believe could prevent such occurrences? You're dealing with matters of human nature.

making assault weapons, not as easily gotten... it won't stop all killings, but it could reduce the deaths?

First - and I have been asking this for more than twenty years - clearly define an "assault weapon" and how it differs from a "non-assault weapon".

I don't own any assault weapons, I do own several self defense weapons. I'm not sure why some call my rifle an assault weapon, because its black and looks similar to Hollywood movie prop rifles?

We have assault shaker in the kitchen.

 

[Geaux4it]

Money talks....

The NRA was Trump's largest backer that he had in his campaign....

BUT if anyone can stand up to the gun manufacturer lobby, and not be afraid of them running a primary candidate against him and not be afraid of losing his followers..... it is President Trump....

I think he is more equipped than any other President, to be able to get something done on this.

Keyword

'something'



-Geaux

 

[Harpy Eagle]

I don't own any assault weapons, I do own several self defense weapons. I'm not sure why some call my rifle an assault weapon, because its black and looks similar to Hollywood movie prop rifles?

Funny thing about assault weapons is that I never heard that term used in my 20 years in the Corps. I was a certified instructor for all the automatic weapons in the Marine Corps arsenal and we never used that term. Of course at that time there were only 4 automatic weapons, the SAW, the M60, the .50 cal and the MK-19.

 

[forkup]

really? that is your point?
What plan did Obama have?
What plan did Bush have?
What plan could any President have?
Please state a plan that a President could put in place that would guarantee this never happen again.

As usual the media goes straight to the political hot buttons instead of any depth of discussion as to what is different in the past 10-15 years that this repeatedly happens. What conditions have changed that opens the door to psychopaths to carry out their fantasies?

The only PLAN decent people can have against EVIL people is to do battle with them. We're never going to prevent evil-sick people from doing violence in a free society (and totalitarian societies do the violence themselves, so let's not go there). What we should not do is to use the actions of freaks as a justification to control law-abiding decent folks.

A society has a right to use laws to protect it's people. Are you against a law that forces you to wear a seatbelt. Are you against laws forbidding drinking and driving. Numerous laws are designed to put restrictions on what people can do. Simply because it saves lives.This is perfectly valid.

Reading comprehension challenged much?

I said "use the actions of freaks" to control law-abiding people.

Your strawmen are burning.

I'll also note that the very best incentive to wear a seatbelt is a better car insurance rate for pledging to do so. When I bought my first car, the insurance company had such a program. It was cancelled when not wearing seat belts was made into a random tax for state and local governments.

There are people who can drink and stop in time to be able to drive responsible. There are people who never get into an accident.So no it's not a strawman.It's the illustration that laws are often used to protect it's citizens. In so doing it restricts the actions of it's citizenry. There are probably people who would be able to own an fully armed Abrams tank and not do anything untoward with it, I suspect you wouldn't applaud making doing so legal. If so you are also for restrictions.

All those burning strawxyrs are not helping to combat the Glowball Worming you likely fear.

Tell me how any of my analogies is a strawman? I don't mind the accusation if you are capable of backing it up. Are you? You don't like the idea of what you consider your liberties being restricted because of the actions of others although not everybody who uses those liberties do harm to others. My analogies are instances were liberties are restricted because of the harm those liberties do to society as a whole although not everybody who uses those liberties do harm to others . A concept I then reinforced by pointing out that most sane people already accept certain restrictions on the owning of weaponry, my tank example.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

What can the president do about this, exactly?

Well, he could cry crockodile tears like that wussy Obama

-Geaux

Chucky IX: Chopped Onions on the Mike

I'm sure that the Grim Weeper, Upchuck Schumer, will pontificate his own touch-feely comprehensive solution..

 

[iamwhatiseem]

Unfortunately, all that is going to be discussed is political hot points and minute by minute carnage of the event. That is primarily what the media is doing, and has done every time.
No one is talking about what is different. What is different in the world of children, where mentally ill kids carry out such fantasies. Actually carry it out.
Psychopaths are not new. Psychopaths mass murdering school children IS.
Is it because modern education no longer teaches unity and national pride? No longer teaches that your fellow countrymen are "your team"? Instead teaching division and hate based on political and ideological differences?
Is it lives spent with their faces looking at screens rather than each other?
Is there a fundamental lack of empathy and the value of human life, because kids are growing up in far-far more isolated lives than ever before?

These are the issues. And no one is talking about them.