TexasCHLforum.com

Obama-lama ding dong didn't waste any time using the tragedy in Colorado to push his agenda on gun control. Shouldn't be long before he parades victims families out to use them as props.

President Obama reacted to the shooting in a statement Saturday that demanded more gun controls.

“If we truly care about this -- if we're going to offer up our thoughts and prayers again, for God knows how many times, with a truly clean conscience -- then we have to do something about the easy accessibility of weapons of war on our streets to people who have no business wielding them,” Obama said.

Colorado Springs is a very conservative part of the state. Obama may get the same reception he got an Oregon.

"Weapons of war" is clearly the new catch-phrase of this Administration. Oddly enough, they don't mean the sort of weapons favored by this Administration, such as drones and other stand-off weapons.

So if he's going to take the "weapons of war" off our streets I guess he's going to call back all the "gifts" from the Pentagon and take away all those "assault weapons" from the police? The police don't need "weapons of war" unless they're at war against the American people. Oh, that's right, they're "personal defense weapons" when the Feds use them. The man-child Obama is the most disgusting and sickening pathological liar, clown, and fraud that's ever occupied the oval office.

Middle Age Russ wrote:"Weapons of war" is clearly the new catch-phrase of this Administration. Oddly enough, they don't mean the sort of weapons favored by this Administration, such as drones and other stand-off weapons.

What "weapon of war" was used in this shooting? All I have heard is it was a rifle.

gljjt wrote:

Middle Age Russ wrote:"Weapons of war" is clearly the new catch-phrase of this Administration. Oddly enough, they don't mean the sort of weapons favored by this Administration, such as drones and other stand-off weapons.

What "weapon of war" was used in this shooting? All I have heard is it was a rifle.

All rifles are weapons of war to the gun grabbers. There is no type of rifle that hasn't been used in war....from flintlock to bolt action to semi-auto. Same with handguns. It's terminology to fool the ignorant, allowing them to believe he's not referring to ALL guns. When Obama says he wants "weapons of war" off the streets it means he wants to take every gun owned by mere citizens but realizes it isn't politically feasible.

obama wants to deny American citizens the right of self defense; yet he advocated for Syrians this right - and irresponsibly sent weapons to unvetted civilian rebels, that ISIS forces are now using against us.

97% of crime committed with a firearm is committed with handguns. 3% is committed with all long guns. The FBI doesn't separate "long guns" into categories but those dangerous "weapons of war - assault rifles" account for less than 3% of crime with a firearm.

Why does the government always go after rifles and never handguns? Because you have to get close and personal to kill with a handgun and they have great security to prevent getting close and personal. It's those 500yd shots that they fear. Politicians want to get rid of rifles to protect themselves - screw the rest of us.

maintenanceguy wrote:97% of crime committed with a firearm is committed with handguns. 3% is committed with all long guns. The FBI doesn't separate "long guns" into categories but those dangerous "weapons of war - assault rifles" account for less than 3% of crime with a firearm.

Why does the government always go after rifles and never handguns? Because you have to get close and personal to kill with a handgun and they have great security to prevent getting close and personal. It's those 500yd shots that they fear. Politicians want to get rid of rifles to protect themselves - screw the rest of us.

That may be part of it....there are several countries in the world that prohibit centerfire rifles and probably mostly for that reason. Here though I think the main reason is that "assault rifles" are low hanging fruit, and because these wanna be tyrants aren't just looking at the next step, but looking several steps in advance. It would be harder to ban handguns first, and if they did manage that, there would be little support for banning rifles, because they account for less than 3% of crime. However, if they can ban rifles first, they can turn around and say, that helped, but most crime is committed with handguns so those are what we really need to ban.

apparently (according to Obama's wordage) this guy was going to "war" with rpg's, anti tank/surface to air missiles etc.... Never seen a rifle as a weapon of war

Why don't he call cigarettes death dealers, texting and drive the new grim reaper....???

Jim Beaux wrote:obama wants to deny American citizens the right of self defense; yet he advocated for Syrians this right - and irresponsibly sent weapons to unvetted civilian rebels, that ISIS forces are now using against us.

As soon as I read your comment it reminded me of the picture below...



Link to the Ammoland article from which the above picture comes from.