Hey, Obama got lucky with 2 inept would-be bombers. He'd rather be lucky than good! Not like he had a choice on the latter anyway.

bush, in the first 1 year 3 month of his presidancy had to moan about like 4500 dead americans due to terror. how many died in the same time under obama?

its funny that u say "since 9/11"

Obama had like 0 terror acts since last week... same bullshit...

[]

[]

[]

[]

[]

Oh wow, they brought crying about gun control in here. We'll ignore the fact that all the facts are against them, ignore them, and ignore the thread subject at the same time.

I agree Einstein. It's a wonder to me that a lunatic Muslim extremist could open fire on so many military personnel and not be gunned down within seconds. That's the effect of gun control right there. (If the location was specifically an exception, they _obviously_ should have had more guards posted if people snapping and killing people was such a threat as to ban guns there.)

Ok, lets examine this Flint. First off, you're just picking fights for the sake of fighting.

Secondly, Bush was an idiot.

Obama at least TRIES to seem like a decent person.

Sure Obama has had 2 terroristic attempts, 1 the guy with the burning underwear and the recent bomb in NY, and 1 success with the bomb in Afghanistan (I think) for the CIA, but you do realize that this is war. We basically went into someone else's homeland and started killing them after they attacked us, so they are doing the number 1 thing in war...demoralizing the home front. Eliminating the people's desire for war. This happened with Vietnam. It's happening again. If you're even REMOTELY clueless, you could have figured that one out. Not to mention that most of the people that screwed up were our intelligence agencies, and hell, it's bound to happen. We can't get everything perfect.

Bringing this to the last piece on the military guy going on a rampage. He was angry about his brother (I think) being sent for another tour of duty. The fact that he is middle eastern just screams terrorist attack, yes? WRONG. It was just an american angry about something. If you're going to rant and rave about things like this flint, why not examine other presidents, what atrocities were done in their time. WW2, Japanese Internment Camps from FDR. Slaves from Washington to Lincoln. Vietnam from Johnson, I think. You're just picking on Obama because you're a racist conservative. (Although most conservatives are racist to some degree) If you're gonna complain flint, at least have the decency to examine more facts than just the past decade. You seem to forget it's BECAUSE of the conservatives that our country is messed up now. The democrats are at least trying to make things better. I haven't seen a single republican do anything for the economy since Bush screwed us all over.

Oh and another thing, if you're so closed minded about such matters, perhaps you should stop discussing politics. It makes it very difficult for people who are at least somewhat open opinioned about things, able to discuss things.

[]

> V.Kemp wrote:

> Oh wow, they brought crying about gun control in here. We'll ignore the fact that all the facts are against them, ignore them, and ignore the thread subject at the same time. <

Facts? In this thread? Where?

> I agree Einstein. It's a wonder to me that a lunatic Muslim extremist could open fire on so many military personnel and not be gunned down within seconds. <

Brace yourself for a surprise: Soldier take their kit off every now and then; especially in the barracks/camps which try to be as non-military as possible for the soldiers on down-time.

> That's the effect of gun control right there. <

Either that or lack of training, preparation, off-duty soldiers in the right state/place to fight (assuming all soldiers carry guns all of the time regardless of duty).
Personally I think it is due to training: Soldiers are trained to arrest if possible (which it clearly was).

> (If the location was specifically an exception, they _obviously_ should have had more guards posted if people snapping and killing people was such a threat as to ban guns there.)<

Why would the USA military think "They don't have guns, we need more firepower"?