Inverted Priorities. More hilarity from my feed.... ll | Jil I man Cot. HEY GUYS! He has not, nor is he going .. attempt to disarm America. You guys are retarded if you consider a background check to buy a gun to be "taking awa obama arming terrorists
Upload
Login or register
Hide Comments
Leave a comment Refresh Comments (144)
[ 144 comments ]
> hey anon, wanna give your opinion?
asd
#12 - crzylion
Reply -5 123456789123345869
(09/25/2013) [-]
he armed the al queda? what the **** are you even talking about?

source or gtfo.
User avatar #15 to #12 - pinkyy
Reply -16 123456789123345869
(09/25/2013) [-]
He armed Al Queda to protect themselves from the Russian invading in Pakistan in the 90's, but they had no idea that they were going to use them on us. They just dont want anyone to police thier country, like we have been.
#16 to #15 - crzylion
Reply +25 123456789123345869
(09/25/2013) [-]
that would not be obama
User avatar #127 to #15 - herpaderderp
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/26/2013) [-]
Russia never invaded Pakistan. I assume you're referring to the Soviet Union's invasion of Afghanistan when the US did indeed provide arms to groups they later realized did not have America's best interests at heart (Including Al-Qaeda). That was in 1979. Obama was barely 18 at the time.
#17 to #12 - crzylion
Reply -5 123456789123345869
(09/25/2013) [-]
i honestly think this is a troll post and you guys are just willing to blame obama for anything, reality is a detail.
User avatar #67 to #17 - lean
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(09/26/2013) [-]
Do you even read the news? Why do you think Putin refuses to aid the Syrian rebels?
Why is he urging the U.S. to not strike against Assad's regime? The Syrian rebel forces are funded and managed by leaders in the Al Queda terrorist network. Obama made a contract to give them arms and munitions around the same time he declared (for the first time) the "red line" for the Syrian government and their chemical weapons.
Deliveries started almost two weeks ago.
TLDR: He is a moron
Source:
#13 to #12 - anon id: f98f3ac3
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/25/2013) [-]
he's arming syrian rebels in which al-qaeda has a heavy influence on
#14 to #13 - crzylion
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/25/2013) [-]
"source or gtfo." if you say **** like this online, back it up

if you dont do that youre just another meaningless voice on the internet
#22 to #18 - lordhaha
Reply +5 123456789123345869
(09/25/2013) [-]
Good man, smite the sheeple and Obama zombie with facts!
#33 to #22 - anon id: f28b55c8
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/26/2013) [-]
I have an intense hatred of the word sheeple and those that use it.

Seriously, it's nothing but a vapid attempt to assert superiority by making an ad hominem attack. If you have a valid point, make it. You shouldn't need to brand 'sheeple' - which in this case, as in most cases, simply means 'those that disagree with my worldview.'
#34 to #33 - anon id: 5066e210
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/26/2013) [-]
Eh? he was responding to a comment filled with links you should take a look at, all of which make a valid point
User avatar #39 to #33 - jrondeau **User deleted account**
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(09/26/2013) [-]
Anon did good.
#32 to #12 - anon id: f330317a
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/26/2013) [-]
technically the "rebels" of Syria are Al Qaeda members from all over the middle east
User avatar #54 to #32 - Crusader
Reply +4 123456789123345869
(09/26/2013) [-]
Some of the rebels*
User avatar #47 to #32 - ronyx
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/26/2013) [-]
You can't really tell apart who has a secret crush for al qaeda and who doesn't. It's not like Al Aaeda can't get guns from Iran anyway.
#24 - smittywrbmnjnsn
Reply +20 123456789123345869
(09/26/2013) [-]
HEY GUYS! He has not, nor is he going .. attempt to disarm America.





You guys are ******* retarded if you consider a background check to buy a gun to be "taking away guns".
#44 to #24 - hammertheham
Reply -3 123456789123345869
(09/26/2013) [-]
well he has not "made an attempt to disarm america" but he has accomplished the same goal by not stepping in when our second amendment rights get violated, and also he has pushed "for more background checks" but it is just an unnecessary obstacle thrown in the way to make it hard to get a gun even though a thorough federal background check takes less than 15 minutes the waiting period for a pistol is thirty days and in that thirty days you can't even sign the paperwork for a new handgun or it is an auto-felony charge. In new York they have basically banned guns and in Washington D.C. guns were illegal for a while but it has gotten better. The anti-gun strategy is to make the process for gun ownership a daunting task and some extremists have managed to pass laws to try to trick and trap Americans. Like in many states you can't carry a firearm open or concealed carry and in many states you don't have the right to use deadly force if someone enters your HOUSE posing a threat to your safety.

tldr? Obama has encouraged the violations against our second amendment rights
User avatar #50 to #44 - Crusader
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/26/2013) [-]
1 - Look at Canada
Background checks
Registry
Able to still get guns in a timely and efficient manner
The problem isn't the registry, it's the crappy-ass American bureaucracy system.

2 - Yes you do have the right to kill someone if they pose a legitimate threat, if they break down your door with a knife come at you and you kill them, no judge is going to "that's murder." I can't think of any place where killing someone that is threatening to kill or harm you is illegal.
User avatar #71 to #50 - doctorgolgo [OP]
Reply +3 123456789123345869
(09/26/2013) [-]
Then you obviously don't know much about 'murica, my friend...
User avatar #72 to #71 - doctorgolgo [OP]
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(09/26/2013) [-]
Because here's a story of a woman who fired warning shots at her abusive husband and got 20 years in jail.
www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-57433184/fla-mom-gets-20-years-for-firing-warning-shots/
User avatar #98 to #72 - smittywrbmnjnsn
Reply -3 123456789123345869
(09/26/2013) [-]
1. It's extremely dangerous to fire a gun near anyone else's house
2. She didn't have any proof of abuse (which makes it hard for the court to take that as reason for shooting
3. She bought the gun illegally to begin with

This isn't hard to see why she got what she got.
#145 to #50 - hammertheham
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(10/18/2013) [-]
wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_doctrine#Practice_in_the_USA

Im not trying to start **** and i know this is a crazy late reply, honestly i haven't been on fj in a while. but ya only 23 states have the "castle doctrine" and my dad personally know someone who killed a man who entered his house and then got charged for murder. there are extremists everywhere and they are all as bad as the next but there are actually anti-gun extremists who will pass irrational laws in an attempt to chip away at our right. also many gun laws in California (where i live) are counter-intuitive, they are laws that only restrict the law abiding citizen, that simply, the only people that follow the gun restrictions are people that pose no threat to anyway while the criminals are not impacted by the law. For example, assault rifle definition, AR-15 bullet button, and magazine size all restrict the good, and have no impact on the criminal.
#31 to #24 - anon id: 7d3881a2
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/26/2013) [-]
You're the sad ****** here. Making all semi-automatic assault rifles illegal and needing special licenses to carry one which could only have a 5 round magazine and pistols could only have 6. No, that's not disarming America at all.
User avatar #90 to #31 - smittywrbmnjnsn
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(09/26/2013) [-]
Oh, I'm sorry.
I would love to have people walking around with fully-automatic assault rifles on them.
That would be completely safe (and must be necessary for SOME reason).
Would you be comfortable if people walked around with primed grenades all the time?
User avatar #103 to #90 - tonyxx
Reply +5 123456789123345869
(09/26/2013) [-]
You misunderstand the constitution, the second amendment was made for two reasons: 1. we had no standing army 2. The founding fathers knew that good things never last, and if we needed to rebel against a totalitarian government again, we would be properly armed, to revolt. The idea that assault weapons/semiautomatic weapons comes from a government that fears its people.
User avatar #97 to #90 - thelastamerican
Reply +4 123456789123345869
(09/26/2013) [-]
Well, it would be interesting, they would have about 5 seconds before they blew themselves up. They wouldn't be walking around very long.
User avatar #29 to #24 - Paranoid Sniper
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(09/26/2013) [-]
please tell me your really not that blinded by his false honeyed words. . .
User avatar #93 to #29 - smittywrbmnjnsn
Reply -3 123456789123345869
(09/26/2013) [-]
Why don't you tell me why I'm wrong?
Why don't you be specific?
User avatar #79 to #24 - ivoryhammer
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(09/26/2013) [-]
Thank you for not being a paint huffer.
User avatar #94 to #26 - smittywrbmnjnsn
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(09/26/2013) [-]
Not only are all of those sites made by clearly biased people... but they all say the same thing.

"Obama wants to take guns away from people that were put into insane asylums, and or prison"

Now, does that really sound so stupid?

Do you really want a ******* loon to have a bunch of guns?

Maybe you ARE one of those loons, and this concerns you because you won't be able to get your hands on a gun anymore. And to you, I say... you should know that your rights have already been stripped when you were labeled insane. You're lucky we didn't execute you yet, like we did in the middle ages.
User avatar #106 to #94 - doctorgolgo [OP]
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(09/26/2013) [-]
Did you read the whole articles? Did you see the parts where the govt is "reclassifying" people that are/have been on simple meds like anti-depressants and such as mentally unfit? Do you know what percentage of the American population fits in this category? And that they can also be denied their right to own a gun for protection simply because a doctor prescribed pills? And that includes kids. When they grow up and want to own a gun, it'll be "Sorry, you took these meds as a teen so you are denied." That's also known as disarming Americans. Takes longer, same result. Yes, the groups holding the reins are patient.
User avatar #53 to #26 - Crusader
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(09/26/2013) [-]
I highly doubt any website called "the Daily Sheeple" purely because that throws up a red flag of being one of those sites that misconstrues things.
And it is proven right.
1 - Bringing up Obama's middle name is just a way to get their foot in the door going "Oh yeah, this guy has an Arabic middle name like that dude that blew up the WTC"
2 - They say that Obama has called for legislation banning certain privileges concerning guns. But forget that he is the face of a party and therefore, it isn't just him, there is a whole team of people behind the scenes telling him he needs to do this or that.
3 - It claims that Obama is being sneaky by bringing up treaties he backed off of leading up to election.
Of course he did, he knew these things were going to be poorly received, so he didn't want them to get him voted out, but now that he's back in, he wants to do them. Because in his, and his advisers opinions, these are things that will make the USA better, it's a parent changing the rules of the house, of course the kids will often complain, but it doesn't mean it's bad.
User avatar #30 to #24 - theamazinganalidk
Reply +5 123456789123345869
(09/26/2013) [-]
You're ******* retarded if you think all he's tried is background checks.
User avatar #92 to #30 - smittywrbmnjnsn
Reply -2 123456789123345869
(09/26/2013) [-]
Oh, I'm sorry... what else did he pass that took away your guns?
I sure hope you didn't have an assault rifle that you were saving up for Red Dawn, because that's the only ******* case in which you would need a rifle designed to kill a group of humans.
User avatar #107 to #92 - doctorgolgo [OP]
Reply +3 123456789123345869
(09/26/2013) [-]
I think you didn't read the original post. It says:

"Wants to disarm Americans"

It does NOT say "Disarmed Americans". The govt knows it can't just start collecting people's guns (not yet, anyway). So they go at it slow and steady with a lot of little steps that will finally result in Americans being disarmed and helpless.
User avatar #129 to #107 - smittywrbmnjnsn
Reply -4 123456789123345869
(09/26/2013) [-]
Except that's not true.
He doesn't WANT to disarm America.
He simply wants to keep little ***** from shooting up public places.
User avatar #134 to #129 - doctorgolgo [OP]
Reply +3 123456789123345869
(09/26/2013) [-]
Welp, then there's this:

www.thedailysheeple.com/disarming-american-citizens-obama-style_032013
Obama vs. the Second Amendment
Barack Hussein Obama has a long and well documented history on gun control, going back as far as his law school days. There, he was mentored by Laurence Tribe, a staunch opponent to gun rights of American citizens. In 1994, Obama was a member of the Joyce Foundation, a Chicago based charitable organization that in part, is a proponent of various anti-gun groups and related agendas.
In 2003, Obama voted in support of legislation that would have banned privately owned hunting shotguns, target rifles and black powder rifles in Illinois. While running for political office in 2004, Obama called for national legislation to prevent anyone but law enforcers from carrying concealed firearms. As reported in the February 20, 2004 edition of The Chicago Tribune, Obama was quoted as “back[ing] federal legislation that would ban citizens from carrying weapons, except for law enforcement.”
In the April 2, 2008 edition of The Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, Obama was quoted stating “I am not in favor of concealed weapons. … I think that creates a potential atmosphere where more innocent people could (get shot during) altercations.” As an Illinois State Senator, Obama voted twice against SB 2165, more commonly known as the “Castle Doctrine,” which would permit household occupants from defending themselves through the use of firearms.
Perhaps most nefarious and telling of all is what Obama whispered to Sarah Brady during a meeting on 30 March 2011 concerning gun control: “I just want you to know that we are working on it. We have to go through a few processes, but under the radar.”

I guess his record speaks for itself, eh?
User avatar #139 to #134 - smittywrbmnjnsn
Reply -3 123456789123345869
(09/27/2013) [-]
Really?

Are you ******* kidding me?

"The Daily Sheeple"
"Perhaps most NEFARIOUS"
"Obama whispered to Sarah Brady..."

How would anyone know what he whispered to someone that was agreed with anti-gun laws?

Are you really going to use this as support for your point?
User avatar #140 to #139 - doctorgolgo [OP]
Reply +3 123456789123345869
(09/27/2013) [-]
Heh heh. Looks like you chose to ignore all the facts in the middle of the blurb above (collected from other news outlets) to laugh at the reporting site's choice of name and writing style and then not bother to investigate the quote to Sarah Brady. So, here's a story from the equally-laughable Washington Post where the quote first appeared courtesy of Sarah Brady herself (it's a the bottom of page 3 in case you have trouble finding it):



Hope that helps clear things up a bit for ya.
User avatar #144 to #140 - smittywrbmnjnsn
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(09/27/2013) [-]
It's not easy to see things as facts when they're surrounded by ********.
User avatar #95 to #24 - thelastamerican
Reply +6 123456789123345869
(09/26/2013) [-]
And the tax on ammunition means nothing, as well as the tax on guns, as well as the tax on companies that make both, as well as the limit to how much ammunition can be made by a single factory in the US. These taxes are all way out of proportion to how much it costs to produce. If you can't ban something pseudo ban it. Am I right?
User avatar #96 to #95 - smittywrbmnjnsn
Reply -5 123456789123345869
(09/26/2013) [-]
Or maybe... they realized that dumb asses began stockpiling as soon as they heard "background check" and decided to take advantage of the huge influx of gun flow in order to take in a lot more money.
User avatar #99 to #96 - thelastamerican
Reply +3 123456789123345869
(09/26/2013) [-]
Well, all I know is that I'm glad that I bought all the ammunition I'll need for a couple years when I saw this coming. I can go to the range when I want, shoot a couple magazines of what I've had lying around for a couple years and not feel it in my pocket. It is a little much to be expecting people to buy ammunition for a dollar a round. I bought mine when it was about 20 cents a round, and I'm glad that I did. Eventually the price will drop, because the tax on ammunition is way way to the right of the laffer curve.
Another interesting tactic that the gov. is using is to artificially drain the market by buying most of the ammunition that is produced domestically, and placing a limit on how much can be imported. The leftovers are a tiny percentage of what is actually produced.
In other words, yeah, the retards started stocking up after the crisis, the normal people saw it coming. I'm not going to say geniuses, because, let's be honest here. I don't quite qualify as a genius. But, I would have thought that more people would have seen this coming.
User avatar #100 to #99 - smittywrbmnjnsn
Reply -6 123456789123345869
(09/26/2013) [-]
I agree, ammo is expensive.
It does hurt a little when I have to spend $20 just to go plink some cans.

But again, it's pretty damn smart of the government to take advantage of.
User avatar #101 to #100 - thelastamerican
Reply +3 123456789123345869
(09/26/2013) [-]
It seems a little too much like price gouging to me. It's illegal to sell gas at outrageous prices after a hurricane, but it's completely legal to artificially raise the price on anything the gov. decides is too dangerous to be allowed.

I'm working on a coil gun right now, because I don't want to expend ammunition on shooting cans. I like to go to the range for long distance shooting, because when I was younger shooting sports was my hobby and I like to see if I've still got it. A coil gun would be great for plinking away though, because, unless I'm building this thing completely wrong the ammunition should be re-useable.
User avatar #102 to #101 - smittywrbmnjnsn
Reply -5 123456789123345869
(09/26/2013) [-]
It's illegal to raise prices too high on things that are deemed necessary for survival in the modern world.
Gas is required to get to work, to the grocery store, to just about everything you need.
It's hard to argue that you NEED a rifle to survive.
Even if you hunted for food, there will always be the question "Why don't you just go to the store?".
User avatar #104 to #102 - thelastamerican
Reply +3 123456789123345869
(09/26/2013) [-]
So you don't mind being charged extra for ammunition just because someone employed by the state decided they needed a higher profit margin? I mean, that would really chafe my ass. And now they're talking about replacing the primer compound in .22 bullets with a decomposing explosive so that ammunition older than 1 or 2 years is useless.
User avatar #130 to #104 - smittywrbmnjnsn
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(09/26/2013) [-]
I don't like it.
I'm saying... everything's not a goddamn conspiracy to take your precious guns away.
User avatar #143 to #130 - thelastamerican
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/27/2013) [-]
Artificially over pricing a product is one of the best ways to ban something. I'm not saying that there's some kind of under cover conspiracy to take guns away, I'm just saying that there is a huge conspiracy to make it so that only the wealthy and desperate can own a legal gun, and I don't like that. I wouldn't like it with any luxury item. As far as I'm concerned the entire idea of sin taxes is a sick joke perpetrated by people who say they have our best interest in mind, but clearly just want to make themselves more money.
User avatar #108 to #102 - doctorgolgo [OP]
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(09/26/2013) [-]
"Monsanto"
#28 to #24 - moshimoshjesusdesu
Reply +7 123456789123345869
(09/26/2013) [-]
He's done more than background checks(I completely agree with background checks btw) He has illegalized assault rifles with a definition that essentially spreads to rifles that look dangerous
User avatar #35 to #28 - loganhusted
Reply +9 123456789123345869
(09/26/2013) [-]
as a gun owner I think i would be ok with all gun purchases or transfers going through a licensed FFL dealer. But there is no way for the us government to enforce either of these without a registry. Which isn't going to happen. Because registration leads to confiscation.
User avatar #56 to #28 - Crusader
Reply -6 123456789123345869
(09/26/2013) [-]
You mean the exact same thing Clinton did that kept people who wanted to get rid of scary looking guns, and people who wanted to keep their guns happy at the same time?

That bastard, keeping the masses happy, what an evil prick.
#23 - lordhaha
Reply +11 123456789123345869
(09/25/2013) [-]
This is whys hes in charge.
User avatar #25 to #23 - smittywrbmnjnsn
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(09/26/2013) [-]
Or, maybe because Romney was a ******* idiot in presentation and probably in reality.
User avatar #27 to #25 - doctorgolgo [OP]
Reply +4 123456789123345869
(09/26/2013) [-]
*chuckle*
Romney? The elephants threw away the last election. Romney's actions in the last months of campaigning were laughably inept. He was scripted to become a bigger and bigger buffoon until there was no way he could win against the incumbent. You missed that?
User avatar #124 to #25 - douthit
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/26/2013) [-]
Yeah, because Obama and Romney were the only people running. I can't believe so many people are still caught up in the left-right paradigm.
User avatar #131 to #124 - smittywrbmnjnsn
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/26/2013) [-]
Caught up?

"You voted for Obama, you must be an idiot"

"It's even dumber to vote for Romney"

"Well, that's just because you only had two choices".

Who the **** should I have voted for?
User avatar #2 - turtletroll
Reply +9 123456789123345869
(09/25/2013) [-]
George Bush senior did the exact same thing and then ran his whole presidential campaign on how we still live in a world of terror.

Arming militants is a bad idea whether you are going to defend the right to bare arms or not.
User avatar #10 to #2 - gobnick
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/25/2013) [-]
i love how bill hicks did this
a whole rant on how he was called "the wimp president"....then desert storm happened
User avatar #3 to #2 - dsrtpnk
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(09/25/2013) [-]
Why is it when someone criticizes Obama, their first reaction is to bash Bush? I don't think that gives Obama a free pass.
User avatar #4 to #3 - turtletroll
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(09/25/2013) [-]
George Bush Senior not Junior.
User avatar #5 to #4 - dsrtpnk
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/25/2013) [-]
Ah, I see it now. But most people dislike the whole family.
User avatar #6 to #5 - turtletroll
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(09/25/2013) [-]
Well they were both retards and if anything I was bashing Obama in that first comment.

Just making a point that this has been done many times before but hardly anyone mentions it and when Obama did it they all go ******* mental.
User avatar #7 to #6 - dsrtpnk
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(09/25/2013) [-]
Yeah, honestly I think the Obama bashing is fueled by 8+ years of constant Bush bashing. I was sick of it by 2004, but it kept right on coming.

User avatar #9 to #7 - breaky
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(09/25/2013) [-]
the thing is it doesn´t matter if its obama or bush. they will do the them thing with the next president
User avatar #11 to #9 - turtletroll
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/25/2013) [-]
That`s the point I was trying to get across.
#19 to #2 - doctorgolgo [OP]
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(09/25/2013) [-]
I fully support the right to bare arms.
User avatar #20 to #19 - turtletroll
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(09/25/2013) [-]
I knew somebody would point that out.
#1 - angelooo
Reply +6 123456789123345869
(09/25/2013) [-]
Does this guy know how vicious the Mexican drug cartels are?
User avatar #55 to #1 - Crusader
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(09/26/2013) [-]
Yes, and I'm guessing he also knew that they could be helpful.
Keep the cartels happy, keep casualties to a minimum instead of pissing them off and starting a real war on drugs.

How many countries did well when they fought a war on two different fronts?
User avatar #21 to #1 - doctorgolgo [OP]
Reply +7 123456789123345869
(09/25/2013) [-]
Sadly, the Mex drug cartel thing has been going on for years with the incredibly inept "Operation Wide Receiver" and now the equally stupid "Fast and Furious". It just looks like some people really want the cartels to overthrow the legit government for some reason...
#68 - mkchillin
Reply +6 123456789123345869
(09/26/2013) [-]
This man from the most murderous city in the USA is hell-bent on infringing upon gun rights supposedly for preventing violence, and is begging these people to bomb a middle-eastern country we have nothing to do with.   
   
And he received the Nobel Peace Prize. Sometimes I wonder if Obama is a curse to our country or if we simply are getting what we deserve for electing him.
This man from the most murderous city in the USA is hell-bent on infringing upon gun rights supposedly for preventing violence, and is begging these people to bomb a middle-eastern country we have nothing to do with.

And he received the Nobel Peace Prize. Sometimes I wonder if Obama is a curse to our country or if we simply are getting what we deserve for electing him.
User avatar #111 to #68 - robertolee
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/26/2013) [-]
Doesn't matter who the American people elect, you're still going to need lube.
#38 - jrondeau **User deleted account**
Reply +5 123456789123345869
(09/26/2013) [-]
Goddammit OP, you know exactly where this is headed.
User avatar #82 - Onemanretardpack
Reply +4 123456789123345869
(09/26/2013) [-]
All these people standing up for Obama saying "Well Bush/Regan/Clinton started it!"....

He is well within his own power to stop whatever they put in place, but he doesn't. If someone drowning someone else walks away, you're equally at fault for putting your boot on the guys head and finishing the job
#115 to #82 - poontanglife
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/26/2013) [-]
Do you have any idea how difficult it would be to change such things?
Look at how long it took him just get his healthcare through.

Plus politics is all about popularity, no leader in any democracy has EVER said their honest opinions because of the fear or losing votes, they are all a bunch of fakes, some better than others mind you.
Democracy doesnt work, its just the best option we have at the moment.
User avatar #132 to #115 - Onemanretardpack
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/26/2013) [-]
>Democracy doesn't work
Well that's great, because the US isn't a democracy
#133 to #132 - poontanglife
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/26/2013) [-]
I agree! Go read my other comments, thats what im saying in those, the US isnt a real democracy ;)
User avatar #135 to #133 - Onemanretardpack
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/26/2013) [-]
No, the US isn't some bastard form of democracy. We're a republic. We vote representatives that lobby for the interests of those who elected them
#136 to #135 - poontanglife
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/26/2013) [-]
Yeah, why do americans keep calling themself the greatest democracy in the world?
User avatar #137 to #136 - Onemanretardpack
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/26/2013) [-]
Because the public school system failed them. We're a democratic republic. If we were a true democracy, nothing would ever get done. This country is so divided on such petty **** that every vote would end in a stalemate
#138 to #137 - poontanglife
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/26/2013) [-]
The day the world will be at peace, is the day that we unite my brother.
User avatar #78 - ivoryhammer
Reply -5 123456789123345869
(09/26/2013) [-]
You're a ******* idiot if you think Obama is doing any of these things.
User avatar #83 to #78 - doctorgolgo [OP]
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(09/26/2013) [-]
Lemme just repeat myself here for those coming in late (from comment #18):

Srsly, do you even know about Google? Here's a few links to get you going:

editi/2013/07/23/politics/us-syrian-rebels/index.html

You need to login to view this link
www.examiner.com/article/benghazi-missiles-turn-up-gaza
www.nationalreview.com/campaign-spot/355666/benghazi-whistleblowers-lawyer-warns-stolen-missiles-jim-geraghty

www.businessweek.com/articles/2013-05-21/fast-and-furious-scandal-returns-to-haunt-obama

And etc. etc...
User avatar #86 to #83 - ivoryhammer
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/26/2013) [-]
So Obama personally did all this huh? Not the other people that are on his staff? And Bush didn't do any of this at all, neither did any other president, just Obama. That's what you're telling me right?
User avatar #88 to #86 - doctorgolgo [OP]
Reply +4 123456789123345869
(09/26/2013) [-]
Obama stands on his own actions. No, Bush did NOT arm the current Syrian rebels. He did NOT lose 400 SAMs that are now in the hands of Hezbollah and who knows who else. Bush did NOT orchestrate "Fast and Furious". Obama did all these things. He's the ******* President. You know, the guy who calls the shots and orders his staff around?

Only a complete moron would excuse someone doing a bad thing because somebody else did a similar thing in the past. You did bad = you're a ******* criminal. Even if 1000 people did the same bad thing before you.
#89 to #88 - ivoryhammer
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/26/2013) [-]
#45 - tazpy
Reply -2 123456789123345869
(09/26/2013) [-]
User avatar #49 to #45 - Crusader
Reply -2 123456789123345869
(09/26/2013) [-]
But, if other people didn't have guns, the security wouldn't need to have guns, would they?
User avatar #57 to #49 - haker
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(09/26/2013) [-]
but what if some dude comes at him with a sword?
User avatar #58 to #57 - Crusader
Reply +3 123456789123345869
(09/26/2013) [-]
I would expect the security to
A - Be well trained enough to deal with a sword
B - Have swords themselves
C - Go full medieval and have Armour on
User avatar #59 to #49 - doctorgolgo [OP]
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/26/2013) [-]
Are you saying that security staff in England (which bans guns) don't carry guns when escorting the PM?
User avatar #60 to #59 - Crusader
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(09/26/2013) [-]
No, of course they do.
Because they know guns are still out there.
User avatar #62 to #60 - doctorgolgo [OP]
Reply +4 123456789123345869
(09/26/2013) [-]
How can guns be out there? They're banned. Oh... wait...
Are you saying that taking guns away from law-abiding regular citizens will NOT remove all guns from society? And that only evil criminals and government forces (sorry for being redundant there) will have them? And then the general populace will be defenseless against them? Sounds like a good plan.
User avatar #65 to #62 - Crusader
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(09/26/2013) [-]
Also, I was saying if there were no guns, not just no legally owned guns.
User avatar #64 to #62 - Crusader
Reply -2 123456789123345869
(09/26/2013) [-]
Buzzkill (Buh-zz kih-ll)
1 - Someone who doesn't understand that Obama is just placing restrictions and checks, not completely disarming the populace.
2 - Someone who doesn't recognize a smartass and a joke
User avatar #76 to #62 - Katzie
Reply -3 123456789123345869
(09/26/2013) [-]
Nobody thinks that outlawing guns will remove every single gun from the country immediately, and if you think that they do, your opinion literally has no value as you have no clue what you're trying to talk about.
User avatar #51 to #45 - Jabberwocky
Reply +3 123456789123345869
(09/26/2013) [-]
Yeah it's not like he's the president and multiple assassination plots against him have been discovered or anything...
User avatar #81 to #51 - Onemanretardpack
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/26/2013) [-]
Armed security wouldn't stop a serious assassination attempt. Hell, Regan got shot UP CLOSE.
User avatar #112 to #81 - Jabberwocky
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/26/2013) [-]
He also has a small army of snipers, and any public place he goes to is subjected to a gazillion security sweeps. I'm sure what happened to Reagan changed a lot of procedures and protocols regarding presidential security. What's more, many attempts are stopped before they even happen. There was a neo-Nazi group who were going to try and assassinate Obama back in '08 and they posted about it on facebook, leading to their arrest.