Obama: Gun Control Is 'One Thing' I Still Want to Do

[Dos Equis]

Meanwhile, while you were sleeping . . . .

Obama: Gun Control Is 'One Thing' I Still Want to Do

Image: Obama: Gun Control Is 'One Thing' I Still Want to Do (Getty Images)
By Greg Richter 
Sunday, 08 Nov 2015

In an email sent out over the weekend by the Democratic Party, President Barack Obama urges followers to join him in the effort to enact stricter gun laws.

"We have not gone more than eight days without a mass shooting in this country this year," Obama begins in the email. "That means that each week, more families are grieving, more communities are being pieced back together. As a nation, we're holding everyone affected by these heartbreaking events in our prayers."

But, he adds, prayers aren't enough. The email links to a Democrats.org webpage where recipients can add their name to a petition to support the cause.

Obama says there have been more than 300 mass shootings in the United States so far in 2015, killing nearly 400 and injuring 1,000.

"We can't sweep this problem under the rug, or allow ourselves to become numb to it, or accept that there's nothing we can do because 'stuff happens,'" a reference to a statement by GOP presidential candidate Jeb Bush after the October Oregon community college shootings.

"Let me be clear about this: Unless we do something – change our politics and change our laws – these painful tragedies will continue," Obama says.

He does not lay out a specific strategy.

Obama says the issue is not about the Second Amendment, but about "commonsense reform measures" the American people want.

Despite his previous attempts at executive actions, Obama says, "I cannot change this by myself.

"I need members of Congress, state legislatures, and governors who will work with me," he says. "And I need people like you to stand up and say that enough is enough."

The president cites such Democratic gains as Obamacare, same-sex marriage and climate change.

"But this is one thing we haven't been able to do," he said. "We have not reformed our gun laws to help reduce the unnecessary deaths we see in this country every single day."
Latest: Assess Your Heart Attack Risk in Minutes Online. Start Here.

But it is not too late, he said, "by making sure we urge future leaders to act where we have been stalled."

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/obama-strict-gun-law/2015/11/08/id/701186/#ixzz3r19nZVWt

[Agnostic007]

Ok, I grew up hunting in Oklahoma, have lived in Texas 23 years, and carry a gun almost daily for work. I have zero problem with discussing ways we can make mass shootings less likely. I understand the frustration and the "we've got to do something" mentality. But it's also important to know what that "something" is going to be before I can get upset, or behind it. If it is tightening up AND enforcing existing laws, that's something I'm open to. What I don't understand is the mentality "I don't even want to discuss any issue that has "gun" in it." Or the spewing of hatred from the far right for those who do want to discuss the issue and look for solutions.     

[Dos Equis]

I don't think the president and his zombie followers are simply talking about ways to make mass shootings less likely.  I think they want to make it harder for law abiding citizens to own and carry guns. 

[OzmO]

I don't think the president and his zombie followers are simply talking about ways to make mass shootings less likely.  I think they want to make it harder for law abiding citizens to own and carry guns. 

I don't think that's the case.  Its mostly speaking to your voters who are against guns and or are for more regulation.  'Mass Shooting" is the new flash issue everyone is talking about.   

The conclusion that its deliberate actions to "make it harder for law abiding citizens to own and carry guns."  as if that's the real or sole purpose of it is more propaganda bullshit. 

Most people on both sides seem to be open to enforcing regulation better or having some new regulations. 

[Coach is Back!]

Meanwhile, while you were sleeping . . . .

Obama: Gun Control Is 'One Thing' I Still Want to Do

Image: Obama: Gun Control Is 'One Thing' I Still Want to Do (Getty Images)
By Greg Richter 
Sunday, 08 Nov 2015

In an email sent out over the weekend by the Democratic Party, President Barack Obama urges followers to join him in the effort to enact stricter gun laws.

"We have not gone more than eight days without a mass shooting in this country this year," Obama begins in the email. "That means that each week, more families are grieving, more communities are being pieced back together. As a nation, we're holding everyone affected by these heartbreaking events in our prayers."

But, he adds, prayers aren't enough. The email links to a Democrats.org webpage where recipients can add their name to a petition to support the cause.

Obama says there have been more than 300 mass shootings in the United States so far in 2015, killing nearly 400 and injuring 1,000.

"We can't sweep this problem under the rug, or allow ourselves to become numb to it, or accept that there's nothing we can do because 'stuff happens,'" a reference to a statement by GOP presidential candidate Jeb Bush after the October Oregon community college shootings.

"Let me be clear about this: Unless we do something – change our politics and change our laws – these painful tragedies will continue," Obama says.

He does not lay out a specific strategy.

Obama says the issue is not about the Second Amendment, but about "commonsense reform measures" the American people want.

Despite his previous attempts at executive actions, Obama says, "I cannot change this by myself.

"I need members of Congress, state legislatures, and governors who will work with me," he says. "And I need people like you to stand up and say that enough is enough."

The president cites such Democratic gains as Obamacare, same-sex marriage and climate change.

"But this is one thing we haven't been able to do," he said. "We have not reformed our gun laws to help reduce the unnecessary deaths we see in this country every single day."
Latest: Assess Your Heart Attack Risk in Minutes Online. Start Here.

But it is not too late, he said, "by making sure we urge future leaders to act where we have been stalled."

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/obama-strict-gun-law/2015/11/08/id/701186/#ixzz3r19nZVWt

We can start by taking away the his secret service's fire arms while he visits the middle east.....or NY.

[Agnostic007]

I don't think the president and his zombie followers are simply talking about ways to make mass shootings less likely.  I think they want to make it harder for law abiding citizens to own and carry guns. 

I doubt it.

[Dos Equis]

I don't think that's the case.  Its mostly speaking to your voters who are against guns and or are for more regulation.  'Mass Shooting" is the new flash issue everyone is talking about.   

The conclusion that its deliberate actions to "make it harder for law abiding citizens to own and carry guns."  as if that's the real or sole purpose of it is more propaganda bullshit. 

Most people on both sides seem to be open to enforcing regulation better or having some new regulations. 

I didn't say it's the sole purpose.  But to say that's not part of it is, to borrow a phrase, propaganda BS.

What new regulations have the president and his disciples proposed that will stop mass shootings? 

[Agnostic007]

I didn't say it's the sole purpose.  But to say that's not part of it is, to borrow a phrase, propaganda BS.

What new regulations have the president and his disciples proposed that will stop mass shootings? 

I don't think they have. They certainly haven't announced any new regulation to take guns away. Not even sure why the headline contains the words "Gun Control"

[OzmO]

I didn't say it's the sole purpose.  But to say that's not part of it is, to borrow a phrase, propaganda BS.

You didn't say it directly, but you strongly implied it.  Your first sentence was a disagreement in what the "purposes were" follow by what you thought the purposes were. 

But to say that's not part of it is, to borrow a phrase, propaganda BS.

Adding any new regulation by the default will make it more difficult for a person to own a gun.  Just like requiring vehicle insurance.  Was it thought that part of mandatory vehicle insurance was to maker it harder for careful drivers to own a car?  Kind of a stupid.  That's why I called what you said propaganda BS

What new regulations have the president and his disciples proposed that will stop mass shootings? 

Don't know if any have been proposed.  But i am sure the chicken littles will hurry and hide their guns in the hills with even a mention of one.

[Las Vegas]

I don't think the president and his zombie followers are simply talking about ways to make mass shootings less likely.  I think they want to make it harder for law abiding citizens to own and carry guns. 

Big X2

[Agnostic007]

I don't think the president and his zombie followers are simply talking about ways to make mass shootings less likely.  I think they want to make it harder for law abiding citizens to own and carry guns. 

I think they want to force Betamax formats on us against our will... I think we both have the same amount of evidence for our suspicions.

[Dos Equis]

You didn't say it directly, but you strongly implied it.  Your first sentence was a disagreement in what the "purposes were" follow by what you thought the purposes were.  


Adding any new regulation by the default will make it more difficult for a person to own a gun.  Just like requiring vehicle insurance.  Was it thought that part of mandatory vehicle insurance was to maker it harder for careful drivers to own a car?  Kind of a stupid.  That's why I called what you said propaganda BS


Don't know if any have been proposed.  But i am sure the chicken littles will hurry and hide their guns in the hills with even a mention of one.

I wasn't strongly implying anything other than what I explicitly said.  I'm sure part of their motivation is to stop mass shootings.  I have a good friend who is an anti-gun zealot.  She is motivated in part by her desire to end violence.  She also doesn't have a problem with regulation that adversely affects law abiding citizens.  

Take a look at the president's comments immediately after a mass killing, before the facts come in.  He immediately talks about gun control.  And when it turns out the shooter obtained the gun or guns legally, then what?  I certainly don't trust his motives.    

[Dos Equis]

I think they want to force Betamax formats on us against our will... I think we both have the same amount of evidence for our suspicions.

Or not.

[Dos Equis]

We can start by taking away the his secret service's fire arms while he visits the middle east.....or NY.

Or Chicago.  Detroit. 

[Las Vegas]

I think they want to force Betamax formats on us against our will... I think we both have the same amount of evidence for our suspicions.

Talk about saying stuff without evidence, how about the CiC saying something so hopelessly stupid as to pretend to promise we can legislate an end to people being violent with guns:

"Let me be clear about this: Unless we do something – change our politics and change our laws – these painful tragedies will continue," Obama says.

And when he says "I can't change this myself" we need to count our blessings, because he would be a dictator in a NY minute if he could.  He would change it with the stroke of a pen, right this minute.

He's a horrible excuse for an American.

[OzmO]

I wasn't strongly implying anything other than what I explicitly said. 

Your post structure was:  They are not doing "A" they are doing "B"    You may have not meant that, but that's what you did say.

I'm sure part of their motivation is to stop mass shootings.  I have a good friend who is an anti-gun zealot.  She is motivated in part by her desire to end violence.  She also doesn't have a problem with regulation that adversely affects law abiding citizens. 

So that  one friend of yours exactly exemplifies everyone's else's intentions?  is that why you implied that's the intention?  There is a percantage of people who would like to see the no guns at all.  But they are not representative of the majority of people.

Take a look at the president's comments immediately after a mass killing, before the facts come in.  He immediately talks talking about gun control. And when it turns out the shooter obtained the gun or guns legally, then what?  I certainly don't trust his motives. 

Welcome to politics.  Specifically getting out in front of the public immediately after a tragedy.  The gall of some politicians!

[Dos Equis]

Your post structure was:  They are not doing "A" they are doing "B"    You may have not meant that, but that's what you did say.

So that  one friend of yours exactly exemplifies everyone's else's intentions?  is that why you implied that's the intention?  There is a percantage of people who would like to see the no guns at all.  But they are not representative of the majority of people.
 
Welcome to politics.  Specifically getting out in front of the public immediately after a tragedy.  The gall of some politicians!

You can argue about what I said and intended.  I already clarified it. 

My one friend is representative of many other friends and acquaintances and politicians.  I also didn't say she, the president, or his disciples want to see no guns at all.  Didn't imply it either.   

Getting out in front of an issue is one thing.  Using it to score cheap political points, promoting something that would not have prevented the tragedy is another.  But you are missing the point:  the fact he immediately starts talking gun control without knowing the facts is evidence that he isn't purely trying to stop gun violence, without adversely affecting law abiding gun owners. 

[Las Vegas]

You can argue about what I said and intended.  I already clarified it. 

My one friend is representative of many other friends and acquaintances and politicians.  I also didn't say she, the president, or his disciples want to see no guns at all.  Didn't imply it either.   

Getting out in front of an issue is one thing.  Using it to score cheap political points, promoting something that would not have prevented the tragedy is another.  But you are missing the point:  the fact he immediately starts talking gun control without knowing the facts is evidence that he isn't purely trying to stop gun violence, without adversely affecting law abiding gun owners. 

Hooks all the many ppl who couldn't give a rat's ass less about facts, themselves.

[Dos Equis]

Hooks all the many ppl who couldn't give a rat's ass less about facts, themselves.

Happens way too often, unfortunately.   

[OzmO]

You can argue about what I said and intended.  I already clarified it. 

No you didn't.

My one friend is representative of many other friends and acquaintances and politicians.  I also didn't say she, the president, or his disciples want to see no guns at all.  Didn't imply it either.   

But not of the majority of people.

Getting out in front of an issue is one thing.  Using it to score cheap political points, promoting something that would not have prevented the tragedy is another.

 

What was he promoting?

Event then, in the after math of a tragic event hot air ensues.  Some eat it up, some complain.

But you are missing the point:  the fact he immediately starts talking gun control without knowing the facts is evidence that he isn't purely trying to stop gun violence, without adversely affecting law abiding gun owners. 

And how exactly is he affecting lawful gun owners?

[Las Vegas]

Happens way too often, unfortunately.   

Works like a dream, I'm sure.  Disgraceful for Obama to engage in that sort of behavior, and it's nothing less than an outrage that he gets away with it.

[OzmO]

I have to wonder.  What's the GOP and conservatives stance/solution on mass shootings?  Do they have a stance?  do they think there is a problem?

Or is this all conservatives do?   Whine about Obama says?  Whine about what so anti-gun clown says?  Play chicken little?  Play idiot CT-er?

[headhuntersix]

I'll stake my position and its intractable....not an inch..not one fucking inch on guns ever for any reason. Enforce the laws that are there. No machine guns have been used in any mass shootings so we can stop with the military style bullshit and semi auto shit. I don't have a class three and at this point don't want one. I'd like a suppressor but a grand for a round chunk of metal I'll use maybe twice a year..sorry. Your are blind if you think they want common sense reform...which is what by the way? What laws need to be put on the books that aren't there now. Gun shows...hmmmm I seem to remember getting a check done at one, along with the ATF Nazi's checking ID's. I'm going to a huge one this weekend, I'll let you know. Anyway mental health is a separate issue from this. I've purchased two guns this month...you planning on limiting that Barry....I know he'd love to start there. Or ID for ammo or a database...nope sorry not one fucking inch on this.

[headhuntersix]

I have to wonder.  What's the GOP and conservatives stance/solution on mass shootings?  Do they have a stance?  do they think there is a problem?

Or is this all conservatives do?   Whine about Obama says?  Whine about what so anti-gun clown says?  Play chicken little?  Play idiot CT-er?

Nope no problem....I'm fully sure the effete left want my guns....they can come and try. I think pajama boy would look good with a 5.56 round through his fucking head. Sorry O...not an inch.

[Dos Equis]

No you didn't.

But not of the majority of people.

What was he promoting?

Event then, in the after math of a tragic event hot air ensues.  Some eat it up, some complain.

And how exactly is he affecting lawful gun owners?

If he is talking about gun control before the facts come in, and the facts routinely do not support the notion that "stricter gun control laws" would have prevented the killing, then he must be talking about a policy change that will hurt law abiding gun owners. 

For example, the last shooting where he admitted making the issue "political" and made vague comments about doing something does nothing but create questions in my mind about his motives.  And I'm not some card-carrying NRA member.  I don't trust him. 

What, specifically, are we going to do to stop mass shooters who are mentally competent law abiding citizens, without adversely affecting all gun owners?