Gun control executive actions

• QuakerOats

  Montage: In 33-Minute Speech on Guns, Obama Refers to Himself 76 Times
  ‘Every time I think about those kids ... it gets me mad’
  
  While announcing his new executive actions on guns, President Obama spoke today about the pain of having to give speeches after mass shootings. He also spoke about meeting Gabby Giffords shortly after she was shot, and noted that she opened her eyes for the first time just an hour after his visit.
  He spoke about his support for the Second Amendment, his background as a constitutional law professor, his critics, his frequent trouble locating his iPad, and perhaps most memorably, his anger when thinking about child victims of mass shootings.
  If it's starting to sound like Obama made frequent mention of himself, that’s because he did.
  In total, we counted 76 references to himself during his 33-minute address.
  Note that in arriving at this calculation, we included mentions of "we" when he was clearly including himself as part of the plural pronoun; the many uses of "we" in referring to America at large were not included. "Me," "myself," and "our" were also included.
• BoatShoes

  Con_Alma;1773655 wrote:I am one who is not opposed to background checks as it relates to firearms purchases but "could" and "might" isn't good enough to use as a reason to go against the wishes of the American people when we aren't fully enforcing the laws currently in place.
  
  In addition, to couple the recent mass shooting events with such a Presidential edict is just false advertising. An exception can certainly be found but the way it's presented is what's creating such a defensive wall to me.

  Well, 1. He isn't going against the will of the American people.
  
  
  
  
  2. This is an effort to reinterpret the law to enforce it more thoroughly. Really to me it's not that different than when, say, the IRS issues a Revenue Ruling detailing how they will treat certain transactions. Instead of the IRS doing it, the AG is going to say that repeat private sellers finding buyers through things like Armslist, etc. are in effect subject to current law.
  
  Much ado about nothing really IMHO. Obama is exaggerating the impact and his opponents are acting like the sky is falling.
• Con_Alma

  I disagree.
  
  Per a Pubic Religion Research Institute poll only 25% of Americans believe that stricter gun control laws and enforcement would be the key to preventing massacres. That was second to mental health screenings, at 30%, and just ahead of moral and religious teaching, at 20%.
  
  Even when we expand the issue out to allow for multiple answers, as like CBS did, only 21% think that stricter gun control would prevent gun violence by much. Almost half, 46%, think mental health screening would help a lot, while 36% think armed guards in public places would be most useful.
  
  
  The point is, however, that using the emotion of the mass shootings to make this Presidential move is not being truthful with regards to what needs to be done to try and prevent such things.
• like_that

  

  Oh great Obama's fanboy and Quaker have checked in this thread. Since the fanboy is here, maybe he can explain why Obama didn't go thru the proper channels when the dems held congress.
• FatHobbit

  

  I think it's interesting that Obama is trying to push gun control as an election issue when he's not running. Typically democrats don't do well in that situation.
• Dr Winston O'Boogie

  

  Every president has exercised executive action - at least every one in my lifetime. Enforcing and making the law coherent in this case seem to be a justifiable reason. There is no passing gun legislation with a Republican congress, but I don't believe this an edict. It clarifies and makes reasonable.
• BoatShoes

  FatHobbit;1773666 wrote:I think it's interesting that Obama is trying to push gun control as an election issue when he's not running. Typically democrats don't do well in that situation.

  I agree but dems have all but given up on the white working class vote.
  
  They believe if Obama won last time without gun rights voters and while losing so many white male votes then they can win any time without the south, gun rights advocates and rural voters.
• BoatShoes

  like_that;1773664 wrote:Oh great Obama's fanboy and Quaker have checked in this thread. Since the fanboy is here, maybe he can explain why Obama didn't go thru the proper channels when the dems held congress.

  It is funny that you call me a fanboy ahen in this very thread I have criticized Obama for exaggerating the impact of this move.
  
  But to answer your question Obama spent the whole time the dems had all the power on healthcare and the economy. They were desperate to try and hold onto risky seats like John Boccieri's and so they didn't go bold on anything like immigration, a true stimulus, guns, true health reform and they shat it all down their leg when they should have known they were always going to get trounced in 2010.
  
  But Obama's arrogance made him fail to see that he was going to lose seats like most every other president.
• BoatShoes

  IOW he was too busy courting Olympia Snow in an epic waste of time to pass Romneycare falsely believing it would get bipartisan support eventually.
• BoatShoes

  Oh yeah and there is also the fact that a bunch of little kids hadn't been slaughtered in an elementary school yet.
• queencitybuckeye

  BoatShoes;1773675 wrote:Oh yeah and there is also the fact that a bunch of little kids hadn't been slaughtered in an elementary school yet.

  Something that while tragic, it must be pointed out that NO proposed changes to firearms law would have prevented.
• like_that

  

  Dr Winston O'Boogie;1773667 wrote:. There is no passing gun legislation with a Republican congress, but I don't believe this an edict. .

  I told you to save me that excuse. I want to know why he couldn't get this done when the dems controllenthe house and senate.
• Iliketurtles

  

  BoatShoes;1773675 wrote:Oh yeah and there is also the fact that a bunch of little kids hadn't been slaughtered in an elementary school yet.

  This is the dumbest fucking excuse ever. If there was a problem with guns in this country then something should have been before hand. An elementary school with children inside it being shot up doesn't just make a gun problem suddenly appear.
• QuakerOats

  How many schools are there in the country ---- 200,000 ? Hire 200,000 school 'policemen', arm them, have them on duty during school hours. At $50k per year, it would cost $10 billion to protect our kids. When the school cop sees Johnny Whacko walking in with 2 rifles draped around his shoulder, take him out. Private businesses, consider doing something similar and paying for it, if not already doing it. For a relatively meager amount in the grand scheme of things, we can eliminate most easy targets.
  
  Instead, the libs will play political football with it and attempt to once again limit the rights of law-abiding citizens and businesses. Solving the problem is not their in their agenda or policy.
• CenterBHSFan

  

  BoatShoes;1773651 wrote:Indeed, nobody cries outside of In Vitro Fertilization Clinics like they do outside of crime scenes where mass murders take place. We intuitively feel there is a moral difference between Fertility Doctors who kill unborn human beings on a daily basis and Adam Lanza who killed 12 year olds.

  Pretty sure that, reading it in context, he was talking about Obama's crying last night.
• Dr Winston O'Boogie

  

  QuakerOats;1773660 wrote:Montage: In 33-Minute Speech on Guns, Obama Refers to Himself 76 Times
  ‘Every time I think about those kids ... it gets me mad’
  
  While announcing his new executive actions on guns, President Obama spoke today about the pain of having to give speeches after mass shootings. He also spoke about meeting Gabby Giffords shortly after she was shot, and noted that she opened her eyes for the first time just an hour after his visit.
  He spoke about his support for the Second Amendment, his background as a constitutional law professor, his critics, his frequent trouble locating his iPad, and perhaps most memorably, his anger when thinking about child victims of mass shootings.
  If it's starting to sound like Obama made frequent mention of himself, that’s because he did.
  In total, we counted 76 references to himself during his 33-minute address.
  Note that in arriving at this calculation, we included mentions of "we" when he was clearly including himself as part of the plural pronoun; the many uses of "we" in referring to America at large were not included. "Me," "myself," and "our" were also included.

  Not sure which of your go to sources you picked this up from, but it is typically useless. Any president that announces an executive order, as the executive, is going to use the first person frequently. I defy you to go back in history and find exceptions. Think for yourself man.
• HitsRus

  

  What's the difference, it should be common knowledge he is the narcissist-in-chief any way.
• queencitybuckeye

  Anyone who wants that job has a massive ego, it's just a matter of how well they might be able to hide it.
• majorspark

  

  Dr Winston O'Boogie;1773667 wrote:Every president has exercised executive action - at least everyone in my lifetime.

  This is always tossed out as a diversion. Its irrelevant. No one is arguing against executive action. Just that some of them have been unconstitutional.
  

  Dr Winston O'Boogie;1773667 wrote:Enforcing and making the law coherent in this case seem to be a justifiable reason. There is no passing gun legislation with a Republican congress, but I don't believe this an edict. It clarifies and makes reasonable.

  Stating that there is no passing gun legislation with a Republican congress is also irrelevant to your argument. That implies that congressional approval is necessary and the order is unjust. Federal bureaucracies can be quite unclear and unreasonable. As you stated how does this clarify passed law?
  
  When a President states publically that he is going to act on an issue because congress will not is quite telling. Executive orders are to be made within the context of congress already acting and the president is ordering federal authorities to execute their will. Maybe someone should ask Obama why during his terms as president he is just now finding the balls to enact the will of congress.
  
  Presidents can just as easily thwart the will of congress by not issuing executive orders. Those don't show up on the books. I like (as the founders intended) the three federal branches warring against each other. That does not mean I am in agreement with the power one is attempting to grasp. I do believe however that the legislative has ceded too much of its power to the other two federal branches. As well as the states and locals to the feds.
• BoatShoes

  Iliketurtles;1773682 wrote:This is the dumbest fucking excuse ever. If there was a problem with guns in this country then something should have been before hand. An elementary school with children inside it being shot up doesn't just make a gun problem suddenly appear.

  I am sure Obama would say there was always a problem with guns but that it wasn't a priority over the economy, healthcare etc. It became a priority when he had to comfort the parents of slaughtered children.
  
  This not that hard to understand.
• BoatShoes

  CenterBHSFan;1773699 wrote:Pretty sure that, reading it in context, he was talking about Obama's crying last night.

  Right I get it and the implications of his post were preposterous.
• BoatShoes

  QuakerOats;1773689 wrote:How many schools are there in the country ---- 200,000 ? Hire 200,000 school 'policemen', arm them, have them on duty during school hours. At $50k per year, it would cost $10 billion to protect our kids. When the school cop sees Johnny Whacko walking in with 2 rifles draped around his shoulder, take him out. Private businesses, consider doing something similar and paying for it, if not already doing it. For a relatively meager amount in the grand scheme of things, we can eliminate most easy targets.
  
  Instead, the libs will play political football with it and attempt to once again limit the rights of law-abiding citizens and businesses. Solving the problem is not their in their agenda or policy.

  Ok now we are talking....her is a conservative open to some government spending. Maybe we can compromise? How bout it is Financed with a generalized tax on firearms and bullet manfacturers and distributors with rates contingent upon the rates at which their products are used in violent crime?
• BoatShoes

  queencitybuckeye;1773938 wrote:Anyone who wants that job has a massive ego, it's just a matter of how well they might be able to hide it.

  I disagree. I think Obama and Ted Cruz have massive egos. Seems to me like Bernie Sanders and Jeb Bush are the opposite of egomaniacs.
• like_that

  

  BoatShoes;1773661 wrote:Well, 1. He isn't going against the will of the American people.
  
  
  
  
  
  I bet those numbers have been relatively the same for a good 10 years and I am sure plenty of posters here would be ok with some type of better background checks. What your are missing out on is the people don't trust this weasely administration and their disregard to the constitution. The way they go about their business; you give them more backgrounds and they will slowly weasel their way to banning all guns. If Obama were a real leader he would lead congress to find a compromise on better gun measures. I am sure there is a compromise between the dems/gop that even the NRA wouldn't mind. Instead Mr. Legacy wants to take the "my way or the high way approach." Congress doesn't work with you Obama? That is probably because you never did anything where they would respect you enough to work with you. Obama should have been building those relationships since 2008, but he was busy campaigning for 2012, the house/senates was controlled by the dems, and he would rather further push the red vs blue culture.

• BoatShoes

  like_that;1774035 wrote:

  BoatShoes;1773661 wrote:Well, 1. He isn't going against the will of the American people.
  
  
  
  
  
  I bet those numbers have been relatively the same for a good 10 years and I am sure plenty of posters here would be ok with some type of better background checks. What your are missing out on is the people don't trust this weasely administration and their disregard to the constitution. The way they go about their business; you give them more backgrounds and they will slowly weasel their way to banning all guns. If Obama were a real leader he would lead congress to find a compromise on better gun measures. I am sure there is a compromise between the dems/gop that even the NRA wouldn't mind. Instead Mr. Legacy wants to take the "my way or the high way approach." Congress doesn't work with you Obama? That is probably because you never did anything where they would respect you enough to work with you. Obama should have been building those relationships since 2008, but he was busy campaigning for 2012, the house/senates was controlled by the dems, and he would rather further push the red vs blue culture.

  Paul Ryan passed the recent omnibus bill that Obama signed and is being threatened with a primary challenge. People were begging Chris Christie to run last time but he hugged Obama during Hurricane Sandy and he has been forever banished to RINOland.
  
  As Rush says, conservatives want republicans to fight Obama, not work with him. That has been the way it is since day one. Any republican that is seen working with him or looking to compromise is branded a RINO. Rubio still cannot recover from e0Ben talking with Chuck Schumer.
  
  Ole Barry has accepted the hand he has been dealt. Hopefully he realizes how much he failed during his first two years.