BAN THIS, BAN THAT SO ONLY THE BAD GUYS ARE ARMED

So let's use the logic of the left: If a madman kills several people with a rifle, we should ban the sales of those rifles.

Do you know 250,000 people die in hospitals every year because of mistreatment or neglect? And did you know that 40,000 people die in car accidents each and every year? And recently, a woman bled todeath after having abortion in a Chicago Planned Parenthood facility?

So, using the logic of the left, let's ban hospitals; or should we ban doctors, or should we ban the pharmaceutical companies that promote and supply the drugs and medicines used in these hospitals? And how about those automobile manufacturers; should we ban the production of the automobile, or should we ban the highways they drive, since no one would get killed if there were no highways, or is it the police we should ban because they didn't prevent the accident? And, I have to ask, should we ban Chicago because a woman bled to death after having an abortion in there? Or should the Mayor be forced to step down because he did nothing to prevent her death, or the "collateral damage" to civilians when gangs do their thing?

Heck, the Mayor of that fine city has pleaded with the street gangs to apply their "moral bad guy code" and leave the children alone; better yet, take your killing into the alleys so there is no collateral damage.

These lefties just make you cringe. They espouse moral judgement on all of society because of the act of one deranged individual, and want to take away the liberties, freedoms and individual rights given to us by the Constitution, while promoting the killing of innocent babies through abortions; ignoring the accumulative deaths of hospital patients, encourage gang killings in a less public place, and bailout auto industries with tax payers money, while tens of thousands of people get killed with these machines. It makes you wonder where their morality really is, or do they have any?

I'm inclined to believe Progressive are "knee-jerk" reactors who glom on to an incident just to further their demented agenda; they want to turn America into another 3rd. world country.

100 years ago, you could go to the local drug store and purchase any number of drugs including heroine. 50 years ago, it was almost impossible to see a deer in the woods in Mississippi; today they are over-running the land and the government in its wisdom first limits a hunters kill, then has an open season to help reduce the population. And today, ticks are a health problem, yes deer ticks can cause you terrific health problems and even kill you, all because those lefties want to manage every aspect of your life.

If a person intentionally kills someone, execute him or her; that's all there is to it. These people are not fit to live in a civil society. By their actions, they have made it clear they do not belong with the living, anymore.
There is no need to try to figure it out. They have violated societies norms, and must be removed, permanently. It is not useful to cause the rest of us to pay to keep this person alive, like Manson, until they die naturally in prison. Perhaps if someone had a carry permit when any of these deranged people did their deed, that person might be able to put an end to the senseless killing, by shooting the perpetrator. DONE. No court, no trial, just a person defending himself and others.

That makes more sense than to try to stop civilians from defending themselves against these goof balls, by making law that restricts every American from defending himself. I do not want to be left unarmed if ever something likes this would happen in my presence. Currently, I do have a permit and I do carry. I used to be in the Marine Corp and know how to use the weapon; and will!

"YOU DIDN'T SUCEED BY YOURSELF..."

On the surface, this sort of statement would anger a lot of people; in fact it did, from radio talk show hosts to commentators to businessmen who were "offended" by these remarks. First, I don't think I can accurately tell you what it means when a person says they were offended. Why? Politically Correct speaking lets you "feel" offended, but in reality, to be offended, one would have to receive an offense, right? The word offend includes definitions like, to commit a sin or crime, to create resentment, to hurt the feelings of. So for someone to say they were offended by what the President said seems to me you give him the right to hurt your feelings about something he has no control over. Anyway, damn your feelings, we are dealing with truth and facts and the President has it right; YOU HAD HELP.

What you just said offends me, you say. Ha! Why? Is what the Prez said, truthful? If it is, then you have a right to be offended, because he just hurt your feelings about the reason why you are successful, and you don't want to admit it, and you don't want others to know.

I don't claim this applies to every business man, but I do have to admit, politicians, lobbyists and cash can do a lot to make and change laws to favor one person or one business over another and this sort of thing happens all the time. It is the way of Washington. It is how things get done in Washington.

Jeff Imelt got the current administration to outlaw incandescent light bulbs in favor of those crazy useless curly Q things which in time will cost us a fortune to get rid of because they have mercury in them and there are already laws on the books about the proper ways to handle bulbs containing mercury. So it is true, he could not have done this without help from the government. And what about you farmers that demand subsidies so you can always have a profit. It is the government, with taxpayers money, that gives you those subsidies. And what about when you want to move to one city or another state, don't you get "concessions" that are actually funds provided by taxing citizens? Isn't that a case of not being successful by yourself?

Sure, the rail system and the telegraph poles were endeavors by private business to enable commerce and transportation to more easily flow from one state to another. But infrastructure always precedes economic expansion, and infrastructure as a purpose of government, has its preferences, depending on if it will benefit a re-election.

I'm not saying I agree with the premise of the President as he has stated his position, but facts are facts: our 2 party system has been broken for a long time, and this election is no different. Republicans have the "establishment" candidate which means if he wins, legislation and lobbying will go in favor of the repubs. If Obama wins again, things will stay the same as they have for the last 4 years and our tax dollars will instead go to "clean energy" people who have contributed to HIS election; government helps those who helps elections.

Sure, we common people get jobs, get a better way of life, get vacations and 2 cars etc. BUT, that is not the issue here. The issue is clear; businesses succeed only with the help of government. Actually it could be said another way; few businesses can succeed without the help of government; and some businesses are closed down because of government intervening for a competing business (does Fender Guitar come to mind)? Or because the "Green" people are concerned about the snail darter.

Obama is going to reiterate this position, and his opponent can do little to rebut it, because Romney will "promote" those things his supporters want, if he gets elected, and Obama will continue to support those ideas of his supporters if he gets re-elected; government WILL pick winners and losers, and many businesses will succeed or fail, no matter who becomes the President. It has been happening for decades and will continue to happen until the American people realize they are being played by both parties.

Laws and taxes are used to "help" those who helped politicians in their respective elections, and this is true into each and every state election. In Tennessee the last Governor gave $1 billion dollars to help an automotive plant relocate from a failed business in Pennsylvania, while the state has one of the highest sales taxes in the nation. And a lot of the jobs being made by the automotive industry will go to a competing state, at no cost to them....picking the winners.

For starters, the XVII Amendment has to be repealed so the state can once again, be the ones who send representatives to Washington, not a popular vote. And the XII Amendment has to be repealed so Americans can get a proper representation in Washington, not let the Federal Government be run by 60 Senators and the President and VP in one party.  It is better for this nation if the President and the Vice President actually were from opposing parties.

As a foot note; "reaching across the aisle" is absurd. When citizens elect a politician to represent them, there had better be opposition, otherwise the election process is a waste of time and our votes truly do not count.