Obama to rape victim: A gun may not have helped; At least your rapist was unarmed!

[MikeK]

Anyone else see that disastrous 10 seconds of his CNN lecture? A brave woman came on national TV and said she was raped by an intruder in college and now she feels it is a mothers responsibility to own a firearm.

Obama told her it's "debatable" if a gun would've helped her.....and said it's nice to at least make sure her rapist is unarmed!!!

What a piece of shit.

What is most outstanding is he arrived at his conclusion without knowing the circumstances of that woman's experience. Is his conclusion based on the notion that no woman has ever used a gun to fight off a rapist?

 

[emilynghiem]

Anyone else see that disastrous 10 seconds of his CNN lecture? A brave woman came on national TV and said she was raped by an intruder in college and now she feels it is a mothers responsibility to own a firearm.

Obama told her it's "debatable" if a gun would've helped her.....and said it's nice to at least make sure her rapist is unarmed!!!

What a piece of shit.

What is most outstanding is he arrived at his conclusion without knowing the circumstances of that woman's experience. Is his conclusion based on the notion that no woman has ever used a gun to fight off a rapist?

Hi MikeK he didn't seem to even address her at all, except to dismiss her concern that federal regulations would make it harder on law abiding citizens.

He kept insisting that there are as many or more cases where having guns ended up harming the wrong people.

He did try to address that regulations would make it harder on such a rapist to get a gun after release from jail.
It still doesn't prevent the rape from happening in the first place.
He isn't talking about real prevention, at the source, but acting at the point of legislation and following his agenda,
regardless what anybody says, which he can always chalk up as "open for debate, either way" as he brushed off here.

No one directly addressed that having a gun and "not being afraid to use it" might have a deterrent effect in the first place,
where the rapist may not even go for that target at all to begin with.
If someone doesn't send out the victim vibe that sociopaths look for,
they are more attracted to easier targets.

In a book I read on studies on sociopaths, one subject could watch people
and know which ones were the chronic crime victims and were more vulnerable.

Regardless how much armed defense factors in, definitely being more aware,
more connected as a community in sharing responsibility and authority for defending law
is definitely a deterrent. Being divided over this or other issues, opens the doors to invite trouble and detracts attention and resources from more effective solutions. A united community is the best bet in screening for abusive or sick behavior, and that point was not even brought up.

 

[bucs90]

He may as well have said...."Uh young lady....while the rapist was pounding you...did you ever consider he may have been raised as an underprivileged child and just needed a hug...and you shooting him would not have solved anything...afterall...you may have missed also. And my goal...um..ummm...is to ensure rapists like that in the future are never armed when they are plowing you. Oh...and that they're never shot either."

 

[xband]

I would rather be a scab on the belly of a whore than a below deck sailor on a man-o-war.

 

[JimBowie1958]

if anyone abuses a gun, if any criminals or mentally ill people get possession of guns,
if anyone suffers from a crime, abuse, trauma or other damage from abuse of a gun,
YES, we as a society have a problem with guns getting abused.

No, you confuse the tool with the tool user. The user is the problem, not the tool. It's as if you want to prevent deforestation by banning pull saws, seemingly unaware that there are still other options to the users and people are going to use chain saws any damned way.

I offered the proposal to
a. Require that all citizens, especially those who want to be authorized to use arms
to enforce and defend laws, go through Constitutional education and training on all
the same standards and procedures expected of police and military.

You cannot place a requirement on a natural right. Imagine that you were telling feminazis that they have to get training before they can go get an abortion to murder their own babies, except that in the case of guns we are talking about a real natural right, not some SCOTUS myth.

People like me who prefer conflict resolution a....

And thus the root of the problem. You dont understand that one cannot reason with thugs and terrorists. It works with the nice guy who goes to work in a suit or uniform who still has a stake in the working class consumer system.

It does not work with those who couldnt give a flying **** about ever owning little pink houses.

 

[emilynghiem]

if anyone abuses a gun, if any criminals or mentally ill people get possession of guns,
if anyone suffers from a crime, abuse, trauma or other damage from abuse of a gun,
YES, we as a society have a problem with guns getting abused.

No, you confuse the tool with the tool user. The user is the problem, not the tool. It's as if you want to prevent deforestation by banning pull saws, seemingly unaware that there are still other options to the users and people are going to use chain saws any damned way.

I offered the proposal to
a. Require that all citizens, especially those who want to be authorized to use arms
to enforce and defend laws, go through Constitutional education and training on all
the same standards and procedures expected of police and military.

You cannot place a requirement on a natural right. Imagine that you were telling feminazis that they have to get training before they can go get an abortion to murder their own babies, except that in the case of guns we are talking about a real natural right, not some SCOTUS myth.

People like me who prefer conflict resolution a....

And thus the root of the problem. You dont understand that one cannot reason with thugs and terrorists. It works with the nice guy who goes to work in a suit or uniform who still has a stake in the working class consumer system.

It does not work with those who couldnt give a flying **** about ever owning little pink houses.

Dear JimBowie1958
Right to defense is a natural right.
But how it is carried out, either by armed defense or legal defense,
affects other people. You cannot just carry out defense of your rights to the extreme that
you violate someone else's equal rights security and protections. It still has to be
done within the agreed natural laws that all ppl are governed under.

Things like voting rights involve govt processes; the rights exist, but carrying them out
is dependent on context.

Right to bear arms involves responsibility for knowledge of laws and commitment to follow them to invoke this right. IE it is EQUALLY natural law that if you abuse your gun rights to violate
the law, the natural consequence is losing those rights.

I think you are assuming the context of enforcing Constitutional laws as a given, because it is engrained in your natural values and beliefs to respect laws and NOT to violate them.
So to you, this goes without saying.

For people who do not have this same context you and I both invoke as a given,
then they need to be assured these same laws ARE established when guns are involved.

You and I come from the background that we already agree to live by Natural Laws.
I am trying to look at the bigger picture and include people who don't have that background belief we do.

So for them, it may need to be spelled out. Not everyone has the belief and understanding we do.
Can we set up an agreed context, so it works for others, but doesn't infringe on our belief this is inherent as part of natural laws you and I already agree to follow.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Anyone else see that disastrous 10 seconds of his CNN lecture? A brave woman came on national TV and said she was raped by an intruder in college and now she feels it is a mothers responsibility to own a firearm.

Obama told her it's "debatable" if a gun would've helped her.....and said it's nice to at least make sure her rapist is unarmed!!!

What a piece of shit.

I watched the footage over again.
He was diverting AWAY from her case, and talking about OTHER CASES that he felt justified his position that as many guns lead to tragic accidents and shootings that hurt the people they were supposed to protect.

He didn't even really show much respect in addressing her at all,
but kept the focus on his own agenda based on what he argues are more common cases.

So I guess that is arrogance to keep pushing or REPEATING his own agenda
and DISMISS or DOWNPLAY any concern the regulations would make it harder on lawabiding citizens. That attitude of "dismissing" her concerns, about not want more regulations to make it harder on the wrong people, comes across as one sided and arrogant, thinking the other views are unfounded.

Thanks for posting that. Obama reveals what an ignorant ideological nit wit he is. He may really think that having a gun to defend oneself is more of a threat to the gun owner than the criminal, but ev eryone else in the real world knows that is gun grabber horse shit.

 

[emilynghiem]

And thus the root of the problem. You dont understand that one cannot reason with thugs and terrorists. It works with the nice guy who goes to work in a suit or uniform who still has a stake in the working class consumer system.

It does not work with those who couldnt give a flying **** about ever owning little pink houses.

Note on these points of yours also JimBowie1958

This is really two different contexts and cases
1. For people who don't respect laws and consent, only greater physical or armed force
YES I agree that guns are needed to deter such people who only listen and obey that

2. there is also the process of
a. healing and working with criminally ill people so the cause of the abusive sick behavior can be treated, resolved and/or permanently cured depending
b. working within the person's system to get them what they want WITHOUT committing crimes or using violence/coercion to get it
Even if such people remain sick, so criminally ill or abusive they must be detained away from society, they can still be worked with, within that structure, on a basis of reward for reaching goals and complying or not getting what they want if they keep messing up and reverting back to self-destructive behavior. You may think of it as working with such adults as if they are children, but that is what it's like, treating and training people like 6th graders if that's where they are.

Even wild animals respond to pain/pleasure, getting what they want or not getting what they want.
Even psychopaths have a sense of what they want, and don't want, that directs their choices.

I agree with you otherwise, that in civilized society, until all such criminally sick or abusive people are detected and get help or put in detention
if they are a danger to themselves or others,
then YES of course some ppl only respond to force and that's why
armed police, military, and citizens armed with guns and authority of law are effective in deterring or arresting crime.

 

[Interpol]

Another stupid, bullshit thread.

Women would be safer from rapists with mace and self-defense training, not guns. Since men are generally stronger than women, they'd wrestle the gun away, rape them, and then shoot them dead.

Do you wanna be raped and then shot dead or just raped? Take your pick, dummies.

Obama is right. It is totally debatable since guns hardly ever come into play in acts of heroism, contrary to the movieland fantasy that RWNJ trolls live in.

 

[emilynghiem]

Another stupid, bullshit thread.

Women would be safer from rapists with mace and self-defense training, not guns. Since men are generally stronger than women, they'd wrestle the gun away, rape them, and then shoot them dead.

Do you wanna be raped and then shot dead or just raped? Take your pick, dummies.

Obama is right. It is totally debatable since guns hardly ever come into play in acts of heroism, contrary to the movieland fantasy that RWNJ trolls live in.

Dear Interpol
None of that addresses the root cause of criminal illness and abuse in the rapist.
You keep focusing on the targeted, potential or actual victims.
What about the sickness in the criminal where it all starts?

This reminds me of the abortion issue where the legislative debates end up focusing on women.
Who is policing the men when it comes to decisions to have sex to begin with?

 

[Interpol]

Another stupid, bullshit thread.

Women would be safer from rapists with mace and self-defense training, not guns. Since men are generally stronger than women, they'd wrestle the gun away, rape them, and then shoot them dead.

Do you wanna be raped and then shot dead or just raped? Take your pick, dummies.

Obama is right. It is totally debatable since guns hardly ever come into play in acts of heroism, contrary to the movieland fantasy that RWNJ trolls live in.

Dear Interpol
None of that addresses the root cause of criminal illness and abuse in the rapist.
You keep focusing on the targeted, potential or actual victims.
What about the sickness in the criminal where it all starts?

This reminds me of the abortion issue where the legislative debates end up focusing on women.
Who is policing the men when it comes to decisions to have sex to begin with?

Of course, the larger issue is why our society brings up predatory men, but to the direct matter of women defending themselves, having a gun is pointless if you are suddenly accosted by a strong man and don't have the training instilled in your body to be able to react accordingly.

A woman is safer walking with her keys between her fingers in a dark parking lot than she'll ever be from trying to get at her gun. And with good self-defense training, those keys would be all you need.

A gun could keep you safe, but it also dramatically increases the chances that you end up dead because of it.

 

[emilynghiem]

Another stupid, bullshit thread.

Women would be safer from rapists with mace and self-defense training, not guns. Since men are generally stronger than women, they'd wrestle the gun away, rape them, and then shoot them dead.

Do you wanna be raped and then shot dead or just raped? Take your pick, dummies.

Obama is right. It is totally debatable since guns hardly ever come into play in acts of heroism, contrary to the movieland fantasy that RWNJ trolls live in.

Dear Interpol
None of that addresses the root cause of criminal illness and abuse in the rapist.
You keep focusing on the targeted, potential or actual victims.
What about the sickness in the criminal where it all starts?

This reminds me of the abortion issue where the legislative debates end up focusing on women.
Who is policing the men when it comes to decisions to have sex to begin with?

Of course, the larger issue is why our society brings up predatory men, but to the direct matter of women defending themselves, having a gun is pointless if you are suddenly accosted by a strong man and don't have the training instilled in your body to be able to react accordingly.

A woman is safer walking with her keys between her fingers in a dark parking lot than she'll ever be from trying to get at her gun. And with good self-defense training, those keys would be all you need.

A gun could keep you safe, but it also dramatically increases the chances that you end up dead because of it.

Why either / or Interpol? Why not have all the defense training, and the mace, the keys, the gun if the person is trained to use it.

What if someone else is being accosted, and such a person with a gun fires a warning shot and stops the crime.
It can be used for other incidents, and yes I do agree that the full training should come with ownership.
Again part of the deterrence is establishing the presence of a person who is aware and does not send off any vibes of being an easy target inviting trouble.
So of course self-defense training is part of that.

 

[bucs90]

Ah....

So the libs now say karate chopping is more effective than shooting. A set of keys is more effective than a pistol. Well hell....let's disarm female cops and give them keys and karate lessons.

 

[bucs90]

And they say if the rapist took your gun they kill you too . Here's how flawed that is.

A) If he's strong enough to hold you down and rape....he can just as easily choke you to death.
B) Since he didn't choke you....he probably wouldn't shoot you either. It's not like the rapist would say "Well...I had no intention of KILLING her just wanted some rape....buuuuuut....here's here gun so I guess I have to kill her now.

Stupid idiots.

 

[emilynghiem]

I would rather be a scab on the belly of a whore than a below deck sailor on a man-o-war.

Dear xband
So you'd rather be a Sanders Democrat than a Republican for Trump?

 

[OnePercenter]

The Woman was concerned that new regulations would make it harder for her to buy a gun. The answer is NO.

 

[emilynghiem]

The Woman was concerned that new regulations would make it harder for her to buy a gun. The answer is NO.

OnePercenter
Is this from the same line of thinking that if you like your doctor you can keep your doctor,
and if you like your insurance you can keep it?

Interesting that Obama said the conceal/carry laws were left to the States.

Why the heck wasn't that policy followed with health care?
That's what the opponents were arguing, to leave these decisions to people and States!
If the President gets this for gun rights, why not with health care?

And only have govt manage the criminal cases, where the only people deprived of liberty go through "due process" to prove they commit violations
and are convicted of crimes BEFORE restricting freedom with regulations.

Then, for those with proven debts or costs,
it is justified to "lose liberty" and be held to given regulations as punishment by enrolling to regulate how much they pay back.

There is nothing wrong with govt regulating that people who incur costs to the public and govt pay it back.
But just not depriving ALL citizens collectively of liberty without "due process" first proving WHICH ones committed abuses or had such intent.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

Anyone else see that disastrous 10 seconds of his CNN lecture? A brave woman came on national TV and said she was raped by an intruder in college and now she feels it is a mothers responsibility to own a firearm.

Obama told her it's "debatable" if a gun would've helped her.....and said it's nice to at least make sure her rapist is unarmed!!!

What a piece of shit.

Only Ears, nobody can be this phucking stupid.

 

[Stephanie]

oh how the LEFT gives a crap about WOMEN. you had first hand experience of it with that liberal democrat Billy hound dog Clinton and now this from a man who thanks god for an abortion provider, PP

 

[Bruce_T_Laney]

Anyone else see that disastrous 10 seconds of his CNN lecture? A brave woman came on national TV and said she was raped by an intruder in college and now she feels it is a mothers responsibility to own a firearm.

Obama told her it's "debatable" if a gun would've helped her.....and said it's nice to at least make sure her rapist is unarmed!!!

What a piece of shit.

This is terrible.

The only thing I can think of, had I been his press advisor, is to focus on curing and screening mental illness, and to develop agreed programs for earlier intervention, prevention
and correction, such as how to resolve complaints of sex abuse and relationship abuse
at the first sign of an oppressive, coercive attitude showing disregard for the consent of others.

The issue is preventing rape, not waiting for an attack to happen then hope you can use
enough force to stop it.

But guess what?
That's exactly the tactic Obama uses politically:
To force your way onto others until a greater force stops you. Ignore the dissent or consent of the people affected, but push until they either stop you, give up fighting, or are too weak or divided to defend themselves against greater political forces.

Obama and the politicized liberals use this attitude to bully down others.

So he is not in any position to say it is unhealthy and abusive, if he uses COERCION himself to dominate by force, against the will of others screaming NO,
instead of respecting consent of others, including objections, and resolving conflicts.

How can you teach people that no means no,
when half the country has been objecting to things like
the federal mandates that Obama keeps pushing anyway?

If I were in charge of his campaigns and public strategies, that's one area I would insist he address
so that his arguments don't contradict themselves. You can't say you are for consensus building,
but then use coercion to force your way, your agenda on others despite their express dissent.

CNN claims he didn't know who would ask the questions or what they would ask. And ya know...I believe them. How else could Obama had said that?

Telling a rape victim a gun probably wouldn't have helped (unless she shot the rapist) that it takes a lot of training to shoot someone (Thugs seem to do it, and she may have sought training) and HEY...let's be sure your raper isn't armed!!! Then you get to live in shame at least!!

My opinion is he would have been more upset had she shot her rapist if she had a gun... I am done with President Obama...