Quantcast

Wednesday, July 30, 2014         

MASSACRE IN CONNECTICUT


 Print   Email   Comment | View 113 Comments   Most Popular   Save   Post   Retweet

Obama vows to take action in talk hinting at gun control

By Mark Landler and Peter Baker

New York Times

POSTED:


NEWTOWN, Conn. » President Barack Obama vowed Sunday to "use whatever power this office holds" to prevent massacres such as the slaughter at the school here that shocked the nation, hinting at a fresh effort to curb the spread of guns as he declared that there is no "excuse for inaction."

In a surprisingly assertive speech at a memorial service for the 27 victims, including 20 children, Obama said the country had failed to protect its young and that its leaders could no longer sit by idly because "the politics are too hard." While he did not elaborate on the action he will propose, he raised expectations that he will make a robust effort to stop gun violence.

The speech, a blend of grief and resolve, seemed to promise a significant change in direction for a president who has not made gun issues a top priority in four years in office. After each of three other mass killings during his tenure, Obama has renewed calls for legislation without exerting much political capital, but the definitive language Sunday may make it harder for him not to act this time.

"No single law, no set of laws can eliminate evil from the world," he said. "But that can't be an excuse for inaction. Surely we can do better than this." He added that "in the coming weeks I'll use whatever power this office holds" in an effort "aimed at preventing more tragedies like this."

"Because what choice do we have?" he added. "We can't accept events like this as routine. Are we really prepared to say we're powerless in the face of such carnage? That the politics are too hard? Are we prepared to say that such violence visited on our children year after year after year is somehow the price of our freedom?"

He added, "We can't tolerate this anymore. These tragedies must end. And to end them we must change."

The service came as new details emerged about the terrifying moments at Sandy Hook Elementary School on Friday. Authorities said Sunday that the gunman, Adam Lanza, 20, shot his mother multiple times in the head before his rampage at the school and that he still had hundreds of rounds of ammunition left when he killed himself.

The president's trip to Newtown came amid rising pressure to push for tighter regulation of guns in America, though aides tried to deflect that by saying it was a day for mourning. The president offered no specific proposals, and there were no urgent meetings at the White House over the weekend to draft legislation. But Obama said he would use the power of his office to confront the spate of shootings that have claimed so many lives, and that the administration does have a plan on the shelf, with measures drafted by the Justice Department. Among other things, Demo­crats said they would push to renew an assault rifle ban that expired in 2004 and try to ban high-capacity magazines like those used by the gunman in Newtown.

The streets outside the memorial service and the airwaves across the nation were filled with voices calling for legislative action. By contrast, the National Rifle Association and its most prominent supporters in Congress were largely absent from the public debate.

"These events are happening more frequently," Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman, I-Conn., said here before the service began, "and I worry that if we don't take a thoughtful look at them, we're going to lose the pain, the hurt and the anger that we have now."

Lieberman, who is retiring, called for a national commission on mass violence, the reinstatement of the ban on assault weapons and tighter background checks on gun purchasers.

Connecticut Gov. Dannel P. Malloy said on CBS' "Face the Nation" that when someone can burst into a building with "clips of up to 30 rounds on a weapon that can almost instantaneously fire those, you have to start to question whether assault weapons should be allowed to be distributed the way they are in the United States."

The grieving in this small New England town, aired nonstop on national television, added emotional energy to an escalating debate about the role of firearms in the U.S. The calls for more gun control that typically follow such events have evolved this time around into particular pressure on a newly re-elected Demo­cratic president.

Obama has long supported the restoration of the assault weapon ban, which first passed in 1994 only to set off a backlash among supporters of gun rights and help cost Demo­crats control of Congress.

The Sunday public affairs television shows were filled with politicians, mainly Demo­crats like Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California, demanding stronger gun control while supporters of gun rights were noticeably absent. David Greg­ory, the moderator of "Meet the Press," said his show invited 31 senators who support gun rights to appear Sunday.

"We had no takers," he said.

The NRA's headquarters was closed Sunday, and a spokes­man could not be reached.

Attention focused mainly on Obama, who has shied away from a major push on gun control even after events like the shooting of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords in Tucson, Ariz., last year and the mass killing at a movie theater in Aurora, Colo., this year. Some Demo­crats said the number of children involved in the Newtown massacre might change the dynamics but only if the president seizes the moment.

"Nothing's going to happen here unless Obama decides to put it front and center," said Steve Elmendorf, who was a top Demo­cratic congressional aide in 1994 when lawmakers passed the last major gun-control measure. "He's not running for re-election. This is one of those moments where you have to decide, ‘I'm not going to sit here and examine the politics, and I'm going to do what's right.'"






 Print   Email   Comment | View 113 Comments   Most Popular   Save   Post   Retweet

COMMENTS
(113)
You must be subscribed to participate in discussions
By participating in online discussions you acknowledge that you have agreed to the TERMS OF SERVICE. An insightful discussion of ideas and viewpoints is encouraged, but comments must be civil and in good taste, with no personal attacks. Because only subscribers are allowed to comment, we have your personal information and are able to contact you. If your comments are inappropriate, you may receive a warning, and if you persist with such comments you may be banned from posting. To report comments that you believe do not follow our guidelines, email commentfeedback@staradvertiser.com.
Leave a comment

Please login to leave a comment.
MalamaKaAina wrote:
A sword never kills anybody; it is a tool in the killer's hand. – Lucius Annaeus Seneca, c. 4BC - 65AD.
on December 17,2012 | 12:47AM
tiki886 wrote:
I like maneki neko's analogy: The fork and spoon doesn't give anyone diabetes.
on December 17,2012 | 05:55AM
OldDiver wrote:
One person using swords, forks or spoons cannot kill 28 children and adults in a few minutes.
on December 17,2012 | 07:06AM
NanakuliBoss wrote:
True,OD,true.
on December 17,2012 | 08:15AM
MalamaKaAina wrote:
100 Children are murdered every day in Syria.......are Syrian Children worth less than American Children?
on December 17,2012 | 12:04PM
aomohoa wrote:
That is also tragic but it doesn't make this any less tragic. Don't minimize this tragedy!
on December 17,2012 | 06:23PM
HD36 wrote:
If more people had guns then they could have stopped him early.
on December 17,2012 | 03:05PM
NITRO08 wrote:
Wrong! every time some thing like this happens the idiots say the same thing!
on December 17,2012 | 07:52PM
al_kiqaeda wrote:
Take guns out of the equation and something else will take their place. A gun ban will not stop an angry insane person. Remember Timothy McVeigh? He didn't use a gun and it was worse. He bought common fertilizer and gas and killed 19 children, 149 adults and injured over 800 in a seconds. Outlaw fertilizer and something else will take its place. You can outlaw guns out of existance but it will not stop the killing. The real problem is the growing lack of spirituality (I am not saying religion necessarily) in this country.
on December 17,2012 | 08:25AM
stingray65 wrote:
How many people got killed in cars compared to guns related killing? Again, guns does kill, nor the vehicles!! it is the drivers or someone that uses guns. Why Mopeds still on the public roads? They law said to use head protection? Who enforced them.
on December 17,2012 | 09:17AM
hawaiikone wrote:
40,000 a year die by automobile...
on December 17,2012 | 12:49PM
HD36 wrote:
True, you ever heard of a mass shooting at a gun range?
on December 17,2012 | 03:20PM
tiki886 wrote:
Or a police station?
on December 17,2012 | 08:58PM
aomohoa wrote:
True OldDiver. It was a mentally disturbed young man with a mother who owned assault weapons that seem to have not been locked up and bullets that explode in side of people. Why does anyone need weapons that severe and not take more responsibility with them. This was her hobby???
on December 17,2012 | 08:32AM
serious wrote:
OD, you're an Obama supporter. Do you know the distance from DC to Newtown?? So he takes the 747, AF ONE to get there--hey it's only taxpayer money. The pilot probably never pulled the wheels up. That thing is going to be worn out by the time HE leaves office and we'll probably replace it with an Airbus the way he loves the US business community. And, he'll come here to HI in two planes fully escorted--Hey, "I am the President, I can get away with it" attitude.
on December 17,2012 | 09:42AM
aomohoa wrote:
I keep waiting for the punch line serious. About staying on subject about this tragedy.Your point?
on December 17,2012 | 10:04AM
ballen0607 wrote:
i can't take serious seriously.... O_o
on December 17,2012 | 10:26AM
serious wrote:
The President comes in on his AF-ONE--he could easily have gone over on one of the smaller aircraft or a helicopter. My point, if you wish, is that HE is trying to be the center of publicity. HE and Michelle, like Regan and Nancy did, come in and without pomp and circumstance, hug and give sympathy to the parents. No big police escort through town--etc. But that's my point of view.
on December 17,2012 | 01:05PM
aomohoa wrote:
You are entitled.
on December 17,2012 | 02:22PM
HD36 wrote:
Yea but a person behind the wheel could plow into a bus stop of kids.
on December 17,2012 | 02:55PM
NanakuliBoss wrote:
Besides gun control, every public school should have those parents do volunteer work on campus. Each parent contribute to the cause. 400 children in school, that should be 400- 800 volunteers. Each one knows the school security policies by heart. If grandpa wants to get involved, fine more people. When the rules are made, every parent knows them. Children would appreciate their family being there. 180 school days a year, 2 parents per day, 6 hrs volunteer, twice a year. More then enough. Don't say it's the government job, it's the parents duty.
on December 17,2012 | 03:23PM
1local wrote:
if teachers were armed they would have had a fighting chance. gun control takes weapons out of the hands of victims...
on December 17,2012 | 05:03PM
808comp wrote:
Its time to get tough on guns, and those politicians that don't want to, because their afraid that they won't get any backing from the NRA during election years better forget it, cause its not about them anymore.After what happened in Conn. this past week, i can't see people just stand by and not do anything.
on December 17,2012 | 02:08AM
MalamaKaAina wrote:
808comp let me get this straight....are you saying that fat people can blame food and addicts can blame drugs?
on December 17,2012 | 02:18AM
Grimbold wrote:
This comment has been deleted.
on December 17,2012 | 04:35AM
serious wrote:
Notice, the politicians that are not up for reelection are all for gun control??? I think people should be armed, just like the Old West. But assault weapons??? How many deer can you kill in a herd??? They are made for mass killings!!!
on December 17,2012 | 05:24AM
tiki886 wrote:
Every weapon is an "assault" weapon.
on December 17,2012 | 05:46AM
NanakuliBoss wrote:
Why was guns made? For shooting targets? Not!
on December 17,2012 | 08:16AM
HD36 wrote:
More people run out and buy guns after incidents like this because people realize how defenseless they are and that restrictions may follow.
on December 17,2012 | 03:08PM
serious wrote:
tiki886, I have been in combat--I think you know what I mean---there are assault weapons for mass killings--I don't think we need them in our home---a pistol--or better a .12 gage shotgun will get anyone's attention.
on December 17,2012 | 09:28AM
jcjr wrote:
Anytime law enforcement is involved in shootings most of the shots are not accurate due to the high dynamics of what is happening. These are trained people. If you think someone who is not trained can make the shot you are wrong and may be dead wrong if the person you are trying to shot has an assault rifle. Bottom line is, if not hunting, guns should be only carried in public by the people who train with them. Handguns should be allowed in homes and your place of business for your protection only if you qualify to own one. Keep all guns off the streets. If you want to carry an assault type rifle, join the military.
on December 17,2012 | 06:15AM
nitrobreath wrote:
Right. Guns are for military actions only. They do not have a place in sports activities. Even tighter gun control laws will not keep guns out of the hands of criminals who know how to buy or steal them
on December 17,2012 | 07:36AM
stingray65 wrote:
Nitro, The only gun control is, never missed what you aimed for!! That is my definition of gun control. However, if someone had guns in that school, That lunatic did not killed all those innocent victims. Someone must have terminated him!!
on December 17,2012 | 09:26AM
HawaiiCheeseBall wrote:
I don't know where the fat people analogy fits, but what I do know is that a bunch of folks eating themselves silly and into an eary grave is not the same as a nutcase shooting 20 kids with a Bushmaster.
on December 17,2012 | 08:05AM
MalamaKaAina wrote:
100 Children are murdered every day in Syria.......are Syrian Children worth less than American Children?
on December 17,2012 | 12:07PM
HawaiiCheeseBall wrote:
No but the context is different.
on December 17,2012 | 01:44PM
Anonymous wrote:
Why didn't our forefathers "get tough on guns" almost 400 years ago? That's how long guns have been on the continent. As recently as 60 year ago, boys would drive to high school in pick up trucks with guns in gun racks and there were no mass school shootings. So what has changed? Society has changed. It is disintegrating. Why? Because we have become so permissive that we have conferred " rights" on the mentally unstable who should be -- and once WERE -- committed to medical facilities precisely so that they would not pose a danger to themselves and others. But thanks to activist courts that outfits like ACLU used like a club, these dangerous people are allowed to roam freely among a population of would be victims because these dangerous people do not WANT to be committed and it is now their RIGHT to remain at large. No amount of so called gun control will mitigate this danger to any degree. Any move to legally force law abiding citizens to disarm will result in a population of well armed criminals and crazies who will rejoice at the easy pickings we so foolishly dangle in front of them.
on December 17,2012 | 04:09AM
nitrobreath wrote:
You are mostly correct except for the crazies portion of your comment. Yes, our society is upside down and most of us can make the adjustment to reverse our thinking and allow the government lies to sustain themselves without harming ourselves. Unfortunately it is the ones who see the upside down down nature of the society we live in and cannot make the mental adjustments necessary to be labelled normal, that are called crazies and in need of either medication or institutionalization. I submit, these unadjusted individuals are actually the saner of us all because they see the wrong nature of our society and call it for what it is. Unfortunately their observations fall on deaf ears and then they act out in the most sensational way to get our attention. So, they have succeeded in getting our attention. Now WE have take a hard look at how we live, what part we play in this upside down society, how we have succumbed to mainstream ideologies, and then make the difficult adjustments that allow us to reject it outright.
on December 17,2012 | 07:48AM
HD36 wrote:
How many lives are saved because someone had a gun ?
on December 17,2012 | 03:07PM
yhls wrote:
Gun laws are only obeyed by law abiding citizens. Lanza's immediate family should have known that he was mentally unstable. It was their responsibility and they failed the community.
on December 17,2012 | 05:19AM
NanakuliBoss wrote:
Lanza's mom knew he had mental problems. But how many kids take the guns of their Second Amendment parents and use them on others? Many....Lanza goes while mom is sleeping, takes a .22 cal, shoots mom in the head, take moms keys, and open up moms treasure chest of Assault Weapons! Mom had a right to bear, in a high crime area like Newtown.
on December 17,2012 | 08:26AM
false wrote:
We are paying a dear price for NRA freedoms and the inability to care for the disconnected. Hope? Is there a way to find Hope for a future without this kind of violence?
on December 17,2012 | 05:21AM
tiki886 wrote:
There is no such thing as "NRA freedoms". It's called the 2nd Amendment.

If you don't like the gun laws anyone is free to change or repeal the 2nd Amendment through the legislative process just as prohibition became the 18th Amendment and repeal was done through the 21st Amendment.


on December 17,2012 | 05:52AM
NanakuliBoss wrote:
Tiki, when the second amendment was written, there was no semi automatic weapons or assault rifles. So regulate one gun per person, with yearly psychological testing, paid by the owner.
on December 17,2012 | 08:30AM
johncdechon wrote:
No, YOU pay for it, you're the "Boss" so you being rich should pay for all those poor folk's testing. But start testing yourself, first, as you don't qualify to own a gun anyway.
on December 17,2012 | 09:18AM
NanakuliBoss wrote:
johndejohn, I'll pay for a"$$$ for Guns" turn in! So you pay for those poor folks testing. That's the luxury of having a gun.
on December 17,2012 | 11:31AM
aomohoa wrote:
I think I'm starting to like you NanakuliBoss even if you are pro rail.:) You are so right on this one. Common sense not like some of the extreme opinions here here.
on December 17,2012 | 10:07AM
NanakuliBoss wrote:
Hey aomohoa, I always liked you. We can disagree on Rail, that's everyones right, but guns are bad. Bad.bad.I like you blog name, it make me tingly.
on December 17,2012 | 11:34AM
aomohoa wrote:
It's not as special as you might think. Just a combo of initials family names.
on December 17,2012 | 02:25PM
ballen0607 wrote:
The second amendment was also created in context of a war with Britain, and arms being a muzzle loaded musket of horrible inaccuracy. Plus, is it worth the murders and mass shootings your seeing now? Is your second Amendment right worth all this needless violence?
on December 17,2012 | 10:53AM
al_kiqaeda wrote:
I know you are deep hurt by this tragedy, but all the gun control in the world will not stop the killing. There are just too many ways to kill, maim and destroy. The crux of the problem is the lack of spirituality (love). Unfortunately the ACLU has succeeded in outlawing that in schools.
on December 17,2012 | 08:42AM
loquaciousone wrote:
I am in favor of more strict dumb controls.
on December 17,2012 | 05:41AM
ready2go wrote:
Time for capital punishment?
on December 17,2012 | 06:11AM
loquaciousone wrote:
I agree. We should punish all those lolo at the Capitol for taking us over the fiscal cliff.
on December 17,2012 | 06:57AM
ready2go wrote:
Automobiles kill. Ban automobiles!
on December 17,2012 | 06:13AM
Ken_Conklin wrote:
Have you seen those T-shirts and car stickers with the slogan "Defend Hawaii" showing an assault rifle? They're sold in lots of malls and surf shops. The company selling them even had a special Christmas sale going on at Windward Mall at the same time on Sunday when President Obama was giving a nationally televised speech in the town where the massacre happened. All the "Defend Hawaii" T-shirts show the same AR-15 assault rifle used in the school massacre. One of their T-shirts shows the Kamehameha statue with the King holding an assault rifle in his outstretched hand. There were huge protests a few years ago when a tourist brochure showed the statue with the King holding a martini in his hand. But nobody seems to protest the "Defend Hawaii" junk. I think the people behind the "Defend Hawaii" company should be "outed" and ostracized, and so should the people who wear those T-shirts or display the assault rifle and slogan on their cars and pickup trucks, and the stores that sell that stuff. For details, read my short webpage at http://tinyurl.com/c2puv6p
on December 17,2012 | 07:07AM
NanakuliBoss wrote:
Shaddup, Ken.
on December 17,2012 | 08:31AM
peanutgallery wrote:
The old double standard is always at work here in Hawaii. Take NB commenting below. He can't figure-out how to respond in an intelligent, cohesive manor, so he does what he does best: engages his mouth with his brain on "eh"
on December 17,2012 | 10:12AM
NanakuliBoss wrote:
Peanutbrains, Ken is talking about selling t shirts, the article is about gun control. Get it.
on December 17,2012 | 11:40AM
ballen0607 wrote:
I get you Ken, but now you're talking about sacrificing 1st amendment rights at that point. I am a teacher that brings that shirt up in my social studies classes. That seems something that we can educate people on versus restrict. I think it's the "real-life" AR-15s we have to worry about.
on December 17,2012 | 10:50AM
Ken_Conklin wrote:
Our Constitution gives merchants the right to sell this stuff, and it gives people the right to display it. Our Constitution also gives decent people the right to tell these merchants and T-shirt wearers exactly what we think about their lousy judgment.
on December 17,2012 | 12:56PM
NanakuliBoss wrote:
I seen the shape Ken is in, and I seen some of those XXXL t-shirts. So I'm sure Ken exercises his right to silence when he wants to give his opine to the wearers of the XXXL t/shirt for their lousy judgement. It would be Lousy judgement on Kens part.
on December 17,2012 | 03:06PM
Maneki_Neko wrote:
Everywhere I go in town these days I run into crazies. At the park, get the mumblers and hoarders. The bus stop is full of the crazy lady and her carts. There is the screamer and the young man who rides his bike around yelling obscenities. I am not talking the regular kine homeless who are basically quiet an in the shadows. I'm talking the crazies and I always think these folks are like 2 minutes away from serious assaults or violence.

So, Mr. Obama, don't be telling me about laws to restrict gun ownership by the sane folks. Tell me about what we will do to help the crazies or at least get them out of the mainstream.


on December 17,2012 | 07:09AM
loquaciousone wrote:
you forgot the shi shi lady
on December 17,2012 | 07:31AM
al_kiqaeda wrote:
Most of those people are not the dangerous ones. It's the quiet ones that internalize all their hurts until they explode. The bullied kid, the teased kid that smiles a lot and says, "it's okay."
on December 17,2012 | 08:46AM
nitrobreath wrote:
No, government has created this problem. And the person or organization who created the problem are not qualified in providing a proper solution. A smarter, dis invested individual would be capable of a good solution.
on December 17,2012 | 07:54AM
NanakuliBoss wrote:
The government hasn't created these problems. You have created the problem. Where are the family of these crazies?
on December 17,2012 | 08:36AM
tsboy wrote:
here we go again. as terrible as this was, you will not be able to prevent things like this from happening in the future unless you post armed guards at schools or other establishments. you cannot legislate against crazy, evil people, unless you are a totally repressive govermnent. Obama gave a moving speech, if you belong to the numbers who want the total banning of guns from public hands. i wasn't moved. gun control was going to be part of his agenda in the second term anyway, and this just gives him more of an excuse to try something more radical that even he would have thought. Obama does not like guns and doesn't believe the public should have guns, period. i grieve for those children. but the best way to protect them now, is to have a trained, armed citizen around to protect them. a total confiscation of privately owned guns is something the UN is pushing for, and probably something Obama would support.
on December 17,2012 | 07:11AM
nitrobreath wrote:
Obama doesn't want us to have guns because he is bankrupting our country and if the Federal funds interest rates move up then we will have massive price inflation, severe unemployment, looting in the streets, people taking up arms to defend their property, etc. etc. They just announced low fixed interest rates for four more years. That means if the money bubble can hold off bursting during Obamas term, the next President voted into office will have to force our nation into bankruptcy in order to balance the fiscal budget. Then we all will feel our pain...at the gas pump, at the grocery store, at the pharmacy.
on December 17,2012 | 08:01AM
NanakuliBoss wrote:
tsboy, Newtown was an "excuse" to enforce gun control? You republicans just don't get it.
on December 17,2012 | 08:38AM
johncdechon wrote:
...we're still waiting for you to tell all of us here what YOU would have done if YOU were at that school? We're waiting for your wisdom...
on December 17,2012 | 09:21AM
NanakuliBoss wrote:
I told you johndejohn, ban guns, tens years ago. It's not to late. Sign the on line petition NOW.
on December 17,2012 | 11:47AM
tiki886 wrote:
From my cold dead hands!
on December 17,2012 | 09:02PM
tiki886 wrote:
If anyone wants to further Amend or repeal the 2nd Amendment, I'm willing to abide by the result of the vote. All you have to do is: The Constitution (Article V) provides that amendments can be proposed either by Congress, with a two-thirds vote of both houses, or by a national convention requested by two-thirds of the state legislatures. Amendments are ratified by three-fourths of the state legislatures or by conventions in three-fourths of the states.

But we all know that the Imperial Commie Dictator President in the White House will try to circumvent the Constitution by declaring some Executive Order to tear up the Bills of Rights.


on December 17,2012 | 07:16AM
LanaUlulani wrote:

Obama is a HYPOCRIT. He does not hold vigils for the innocent children he murdered with his drones in places like Pakistan.

What about the INNOCENT children that OBAMA murdered with his drones! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WnmJ9JmqTtE

Instead of trying to disarm innocents he should be REGULATING HIS MURDEROUS SELF FIRST! AUWE! RIP little sweeties.


on December 17,2012 | 07:18AM
Maneki_Neko wrote:
Lana scares me with her all bold comments. I think she may be unbalanced. Please don't hurt me, Lana. Please stop with the bold print and random capitalization. It's scaring the keiki.
on December 17,2012 | 08:00AM
johncdechon wrote:
Maneki_Neko, I don't see any emoticons in your post so I take you seriously...so it sound like you scare easily. You might want to see a psychiatrist about that at your earliest convenience. Take nanakuliBoss, 808Incompetent, falsie and amoeba with you...they need help, too. Before their cluelessness needlessly hurts others. Maybe the shrink will give you all Group Rates. Add the kama'aina discount to it and you'd save even more money.
on December 17,2012 | 09:27AM
Maneki_Neko wrote:
I need one more for the group rate. You seem to have anger issues. Would you like to join us? ;D
on December 17,2012 | 10:24AM
NanakuliBoss wrote:
Lol, John can be our spokesman. Only in Hawaii, Aloha spirit, funny dakine like dat.
on December 17,2012 | 11:49AM
aomohoa wrote:
You sounds like a 12 year old boy with your name calling johniboy:) LOL!!!!
on December 17,2012 | 02:30PM
LanaUlulani wrote:


OBAMA scares me with his MURDEROUS ANNIHILATING ways.

So far Obama use drones to annihilate some innocent children like in Pakistan. Obama also used drones to kill at least three Americans we know of WITHOUT due process of law.

Rest in peace little sweeties of the world including those innocent children who Obama slaughtered with his drones.


on December 17,2012 | 10:00AM
ballen0607 wrote:
You are far more scarier than Obama. :-/
on December 17,2012 | 10:44AM
Ken_Conklin wrote:
Here's a photo of Lana which she proudly posted on one of her own blogs before she got even scarier. http://www.angelfire.com/bigfiles90/LanaScary.jpg
on December 17,2012 | 01:04PM
Anonymous wrote:


Actually OBAMA is scarier. He MURDERED innocent children with his drones and MURDERED at least THREE Americans we know of without due process of law.

On the other hand, I NEVER murdered anyone. Not like DICTATOR OBAMA has. He is a murderer who feigns crying for the innocent sweeties in Connecticut. Does he cry for the innocent children of PAKISTAN that he murdered with his drones. NO. Scary stuff.


on December 17,2012 | 06:31PM
NITRO08 wrote:
CRAZY REPUB'S!
on December 17,2012 | 08:13PM
lee1957 wrote:
I'm not very impressed with my President on most issues, but he deserves an A on the drones.
on December 17,2012 | 10:53AM
nitrobreath wrote:
Oh boy. So many reasons but not enough effort to look at the real problem...denial. Are we not in denial? Have we taken religion out of schools, forced teachers to teach gay rights, watered down our beliefs, all for the teachers unions and the National Education foundation to promulgate a reverse psychology? Because we have grown so accustomed to being lied to, we are in denial over what the true reason for a what a broken society member is. One who chose the most dramatic way to express their outrage over this upside down system. People! Wake up! It's the government telling us right is wrong and white is black. It's the school system forcing teachers to pressure the students to learn that deviant behavior is normal. Gun control is not the answer. If you really want to make a difference then make a stand for fundamental decency in our homes, schools, and society. Because if you don't stand for something, you will fall for anything.
on December 17,2012 | 07:32AM
Denominator wrote:
Wow - I've been reading lots of these comments and finally found one that is sane and intelligent. Thank you!
on December 17,2012 | 10:41AM
ballen0607 wrote:
No...us teachers taught gay rights and took religion out of schools because we care about equality.
on December 17,2012 | 10:46AM
NITRO08 wrote:
RIGHT ON!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
on December 17,2012 | 08:16PM
NITRO08 wrote:
SO WHICH RELIGION DO YOU WHAT TO TEACH IN PUBLIC SCHOOLS!
on December 17,2012 | 08:15PM
Upperkula wrote:
Where ever this guy got the gun...family.. freind... stolen where ever, that person should go down also. Tha weapon was suppose to be locked in a gun safe away from nut jobs like this boy. Had that weapon been locked away properly those young lives would be enjoying Christmas with everyone else this year. If the owner of this weapon was one of those dooms day preppers I guess they created another type of dooms day. It is not the weapon that kills it is the HUMAN element that kills, guns have no mental feelings its the nut job behind the trigger. I am a owner of assult guns my guns are registered and locked in a fireproof 600 pound safe when I went to classes to be able to buy firearms I was taught what ever bullet leaves the muzzle of the firearm that you own you as the owner are responsible for it until it stops saftely. I am in favor of gun control!! I use both hands. With that said my blessings go out to the families of the fallen.."GOD BLESS YOU ALL"
on December 17,2012 | 07:42AM
NITRO08 wrote:
HE GOT IT FROM HIS MOM SHE WANTED TO DEFEND HER SELF! BUT HE USED IT TO KILL HER AND THE KIDS.
on December 17,2012 | 08:18PM
iwanaknow wrote:
As time goes by, more will be said than done. We await the next tragedy with heavy hearts.
on December 17,2012 | 08:01AM
HawaiiCheeseBall wrote:
Complicated issue. I am not sure that the President is advocating a course of action that only includes gun control. I suspect he would also take a look at our mental health system. If any good can come from this, we need to have a national discussion on what "reasonable" gun control is, AND we need to have a broader discussion on our mental health system. I don't know what "reasonable" gun cotrol looks like - perhaps banning the high capacity magazines (the shooter in Aurora CO had a 100 round magazine), mandatory background checks, stuff like that but no total ban. On the mental health side, we need to have wider recognition that most mental illnesses are organic and nothing to be ashamed of, and comprehensive treatment can make life easier for the patient and the family alike, and perhaps help avoid some of these situations. I'm a gun owner. I think its time we move past the "guns don't kill people, people do" argument. Its just that guns in the wrong hands do kill people, and some guns in the wrong hands can kill scores of people. We are a creative people, I would think we can figure out a way that gun owners can continue to own and enjoy their guns for hunting and other sporting uses and for self protection, while reducing the chances that guns would fall into the hands on people with mayhem on their mind.
on December 17,2012 | 08:03AM
saveparadise wrote:
Obama is a hypocrite unless he takes action on ALL weapons, druggies, and crazies. He has the power of life and death at his fingertips and he decides to send our people to war. Druggies, criminals, and crazies are free to roam the streets. More people are killed in alchohol related car accidents then all the wars put together. So what??! Insanity will continue......
on December 17,2012 | 09:22AM
scooters wrote:
Here he goes again. Trying to take away our 2nd Amendment rights. Democrats at their finest.
on December 17,2012 | 10:24AM
ballen0607 wrote:
Here he goes again?! The only law he passed in reference to guns so far was to allow concealed in national parks. I'm guessing you're referencing to the "secret" plan Obama has to take over the world?
on December 17,2012 | 10:42AM
ballen0607 wrote:
Japan: hand gun and assault weapons ban, 14 gun deaths last year Britain: hand gun and assault weapons ban, 35 gun deaths last year Australia: 18 mass shootings in decade before gun ban...0 mass shootings in 14 years after. i understand the argument of gun control being insignificantly effective. however, to say it will make things worse is absurd.
on December 17,2012 | 10:35AM
Denominator wrote:
Obama is a true political leader. He checks which way the wind is blowing and then works to get ahead of it.
on December 17,2012 | 10:44AM
NanakuliBoss wrote:
Especially that foul smelling wind coming from the republican side of the aisles.
on December 17,2012 | 11:53AM
loquaciousone wrote:
You don't have to be political to stay out of the way of my farts.
on December 17,2012 | 11:58AM
Bdpapa wrote:
In Hawaii, unless you hunt, I can't understand why anyone needs a gun. Fortunately a large segment of the population do not own guns.
on December 17,2012 | 01:34PM
hawaiikone wrote:
If the time ever comes in your life, which I truly hope it doesn't, that you need to defend yourself or possibly die, you'll understand why..
on December 17,2012 | 02:27PM
Bdpapa wrote:
If that time comes, I will do what it takes. Been there!
on December 17,2012 | 07:40PM
NITRO08 wrote:
WAKE UP AND STOP PLAYING COWBOYS AND INDIANS! HALF THE TIME THE GUNS ARE USUALLY STOLEN OR USED ON INNOCENT PEOPLE!
on December 17,2012 | 08:07PM
HD36 wrote:
We should give up our right to self defense and hope the police will come before the criminal shoots us. Thre criminals will alwasys have guns.
on December 17,2012 | 03:02PM
HD36 wrote:
Ever heard of a mass shooting at a gun store or shooting range?
on December 17,2012 | 03:19PM
NITRO08 wrote:
SO WHAT'S YOUR POINT!
on December 17,2012 | 08:03PM
tiki886 wrote:
The point is cowards only prey on the weak and those who will not or cannot shoot back. Sort of like Mitch Kahle who has no problem insulting and bashing Christianity but he wouldn't dare insult Islam. Mitch is godless, homosexual coward.
on December 17,2012 | 09:09PM
Loki wrote:
I think this has been a horrible tragedy. But making laws that restrict firearms to only criminals and the government is really scary to me. Let us keep our guns. Let us also get tougher on crime.
on December 17,2012 | 06:02PM
MODENAQUEEN wrote:
Guns do not kill people....PEOPLE KILL PEOPLE! There were warning signs much earlier when he was in school. Unfortunately when he was in school evidently he was not looked at more seriously so as to get him identified and given counseling/therapy. He needed to be given help even after he left school, which unfortunately his morther did not continue or notes were not recorded on his school records as to the importance of follow-through treatment. How sad for everyone.......... the innocent victims and their families and the perpetrator's family!
on December 17,2012 | 06:47PM
NITRO08 wrote:
The kid used the mothers guns to kill her and the kids! THE PROBLEM IS TO MANY CRAZY PEOPLE ARE BUYING GUNS OR THEY ARE NOT LOCKING UP THE GUNS!
on December 17,2012 | 08:10PM
tiki886 wrote:
Correct. We don't need gun controls, we need lunatic controls.
on December 17,2012 | 09:11PM
IN OTHER NEWS
Latest News/Updates
Deedy back on the stand  - 08:51 a.m.