• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Obama Wades Into Gun Control Debate, Two Months After Tucson, Arizona Shooting

Aknazer

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2011
Messages
1,760
Location
California
While I think he would LOVE to impose more gun control, I don't think he will. First off he knows he doesn't have the votes in Congress to push it through (even when Democrats controlled Congress he didn't have the votes). Secondly he knows that outside of a select few places gun control is basically political suicide. Instead he seems to pander to the gun control crowd while not not actually doing anything. If you notice all he suggested was to better enforce our current laws, better report on things like mental illness, and some unnamed "common sense" laws to be made. He doesn't actually suggest anything new.
 

mikestilly

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 6, 2009
Messages
1,870
Location
Macomb County, Michigan, USA
You mean the House. The Democrats control the Congress still. Like he cares about political suicide. Look at how he handle Obama Care and Cap & Tax. He only cares about his radical progressive liberal agenda and nothing more.

While I think he would LOVE to impose more gun control, I don't think he will. First off he knows he doesn't have the votes in Congress to push it through (even when Democrats controlled Congress he didn't have the votes). Secondly he knows that outside of a select few places gun control is basically political suicide. Instead he seems to pander to the gun control crowd while not not actually doing anything. If you notice all he suggested was to better enforce our current laws, better report on things like mental illness, and some unnamed "common sense" laws to be made. He doesn't actually suggest anything new.
 

PrayingForWar

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Sep 9, 2007
Messages
1,705
Location
The Real World.
You mean the House. The Democrats control the Congress still. Like he cares about political suicide. Look at how he handle Obama Care and Cap & Tax. He only cares about his radical progressive liberal agenda and nothing more.


I agree with you, even though I call "progressivism" regressive, since all that nonsense has been tried. It either fails or ends in mass murder. I'm actually suprised it took the moonbat messiah a whole 2 months before someone put this BS on a teleprompter for him. He usually comes in late anyway, but you'd think he and the bed wetters who control him would have moved on this before the blood dried.
 

ixtow

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 25, 2006
Messages
5,038
Location
Suwannee County, FL
Because it's working so well now....

Why is it that Liberals always say: "Well, I know we already went off the deep end into absolute insanity and it didn't work. Of course, this is because we need to go even FURTHER off the deep end; it'll work then! Ignore history and how this pattern has always resulted in the complete opposite of it's claims! Continue ignoring the man behind the curtain!"

It's the same thing over and over again... Is America really filled with people who are so stupid that they can't catch on?
 

Aknazer

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2011
Messages
1,760
Location
California
You mean the House. The Democrats control the Congress still. Like he cares about political suicide. Look at how he handle Obama Care and Cap & Tax. He only cares about his radical progressive liberal agenda and nothing more.

Neither group controls Congress because for the most part you can't pass anything w/o both houses agreeing to it (I know there's certain exceptions and the Senate is the more "powerful" house). Also if he didn't care then he would have tried to ram through more things that he campaigned for. The biggest danger is during his lame duck session where he's lost the election but is still in office. Or if he does get re-elected again (god help the country) then that second term. But until that happens he still has to try and play politics if he wants even the faintest of shots at a second term.
 

since9

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 14, 2010
Messages
6,964
Location
Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
Has he learned a damned thing by reading our forums?


Apparently not.

I found the following quote from Jim Kessler interesting:

“Actually, I like this,” emailed Jim Kessler, a former director of policy and research at Americans for Gun Safety. “There will be a knee-jerk reaction among some who will say, “Why no clip ban?” But I think on both substance and political grounds, a high-capacity clip ban is the wrong way to go. There were roughly 12,000 gun homicides last year, and I’ll wager that less than 10 were caused by bullets 11 through 30 in someone’s magazine. The problem is bullets 1, 2, and 3 –- not 11, 12, and 13."

I like it for the face he's right with respect to which bullets do the killing. I'm wondering how he got his former job as director if he's still unable to differentiate the difference between a magazine and a clip.

Ignore history and how this pattern has always resulted in the complete opposite of it's claims! Continue ignoring the man behind the curtain!"

It's the same thing over and over again... Is America really filled with people who are so stupid that they can't catch on?

Yep! Makes you proud to be an American, doesn't it? :banghead:

And this from a President who earned his degree in political science, from Harvard, no less. Too bad it wasn't a degree in history, particularly the rise and fall of kingdoms and military history. If he had, he might realize a society's level of civil unrest and discord stems far more from other factors than from its level of armament. Yet historically, disarmament is the first reaction by governments, usually to disasterous effect.
 
Last edited:
Top