Obama's quashing of god-given gun rights

[Cliche Guevara]

...or, maybe not.

Fearing an Obama Agenda, States Push to Loosen Gun Laws - NYTimes.com

When President Obama took office, gun rights advocates sounded the alarm, warning that he intended to strip them of their arms and ammunition.

And yet the opposite is happening. Mr. Obama has been largely silent on the issue while states are engaged in a new and largely successful push for expanded gun rights, even passing measures that have been rejected in the past.

Ok, I can see the good sense is allowing people to carry concealed weapons in bars and restaurants that serve alcohol. What could possibly go wrong?!

And peops that don't buy at least one handgun a month are just pussies. It's unAmerican, dammit.

And permits, schmermits - don't even get me started on that scam tax scheme! Ponzi, anyone?



Oh, and you know who what else is pussyfication personified? President Obama, that's what. Has he managed to do anything besides look good and speak well, yet? I am a bit out of touch of late, and I really wanted him to do well, but so far he appears to be a bit of a lame duck (which really saddens me 'cos I was hoping he'd lead us all into a brave new world. I know, how could I have been so gullible. )

[Watser?]

He's only a lame duck because he wants to be.

[Dingfod]

Huh?

[Watser?]

Like with the healthcare thing. He could have taken some action instead of pretending he really wants to make changes but he can't because the Republicans have the decisive minority.

Anyway he is too busy denying the Iranians their god-given right to nukes.

[Anastasia Beaverhausen]

In 2008 (or 09), Tennessee passed the same measure about carrying in a bar or where alcohol is served. The governor vetoed it, and the Senate overrode.

[Cliche Guevara]

It's like he's a sheep in sheep's clothing, or something.

[Dingfod]

The problem isn't Obama it's the Senate, with their stupid filibuster rule. They have stymied over 200 House bills by not voting on them. The Republicans cannot make law right now, but they can stop it. However, so far as I know, it only takes a simple majority to make Senate rules, so they could end the filibuster power of the Republicans and get some shit done if they wanted to, they're just afraid of pissing off their corporate masters.

[Cliche Guevara]

Then Obama should fucking lead them. It's his job, ain'it?

Ain'it?

[The Man]

Originally Posted by Dingfod

The problem isn't Obama it's the Senate, with their stupid filibuster rule. They have stymied over 200 House bills by not voting on them. The Republicans cannot make law right now, but they can stop it. However, so far as I know, it only takes a simple majority to make Senate rules, so they could end the filibuster power of the Republicans and get some shit done if they wanted to, they're just afraid of pissing off their corporate masters.

The filibuster isn't the problem with major legislation. If the republicans actually had to filibuster a decent health care bill it would only take a couple of days before they started looking really fucking stupid. The problem is that the democrats don't have any balls, or more likely, they're already bought and paid for and only pretend to fight for principled causes in order to win the support of more progressive voters.

[JoeP]

I don't know, I'm too far away to see. Can someone really close to a democrat check to see if they have any balls?

[Garnet]

I don't intend to get that close to any politician, thankyouverymuch.

[Shelli]

That

[Crumb]

Originally Posted by The Man

The filibuster isn't the problem with major legislation. If the republicans actually had to filibuster a decent health care bill it would only take a couple of days before they started looking really fucking stupid. The problem is that the democrats don't have any balls, or more likely, they're already bought and paid for and only pretend to fight for principled causes in order to win the support of more progressive voters.

It is not that the Democrats lack the balls to stand up for their principles, it's that those things that they pretend are their principles are not really. They don't really want to pass a public health insurance option, they don't really want to pass a medicare extension. What they want is to convince the voters that they want those things and if they just vote in a few more Democrats they eventually will have the power to do it. Then if they do get a little more power, they find another excuse not to do it.

[The Man]

That's pretty much what I was implying in the last part of my post, yeah. There may be a handful of Democrats who genuinely do support these things, but the party leadership most assuredly does not, since otherwise we'd have seen much more movement towards making them a reality.

[godfry n. glad]

Follow the money.

Insurance companies, particularly health insurance companies, along with their natural allies, the pharmaceutical and hospital interests, have been liberally providing campaign donations for a long, long time to many candidates of both, or even all parties (Mr. Lieberman, remember). They have already bought and paid for their Congressvermin, we all have to start from ground zero and don't have any source of regular premium payments to do it with.

I still like the requirement that all political candidates must wear the logos of their campaign sponsors...like NASCAR drivers. Short of that, I think it behooves concerned voters to start explicitly asking the candidates who owns them.

And...Does Obama even have a cogent opinion on gun-ownership? If he does, it has escaped my attention.

[Jug Pilot]

Originally Posted by godfry n. glad

And...Does Obama even have a cogent opinion on gun-ownership? If he does, it has escaped my attention.

Sure Obama has an opinion, he's a Socialist Commie Fascist Nazi who wants to take away our guns and give them to non-white people. It's on all the right wing sites.

[godfry n. glad]

Originally Posted by Jug Pilot

Sure Obama has an opinion, he's a Socialist Commie Fascist Nazi who wants to take away our guns and give them to non-white people. It's on all the right wing sites.

Post proof or recant. Also...'cogent', not 'communist'.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by Dingfod

The problem isn't Obama it's the Senate, with their stupid filibuster rule. They have stymied over 200 House bills by not voting on them. The Republicans cannot make law right now, but they can stop it. However, so far as I know, it only takes a simple majority to make Senate rules, so they could end the filibuster power of the Republicans and get some shit done if they wanted to, they're just afraid of pissing off their corporate masters.

I am not too well versed in the arcana of Senate rules, but, if I recall my Robert's Rules correctly, while it only takes a simple majority to adopt rules for an assembly it usually requires a 2/3 majority to amend those rules after they have been adopted. The time for changing the rules regarding filibuster would be at the beginning of a session when those rules are adopted.

[California Tanker]

Originally Posted by Cliche Guevara

When President Obama took office, gun rights advocates sounded the alarm, warning that he intended to strip them of their arms and ammunition.

And yet the opposite is happening. Mr. Obama has been largely silent on the issue while states are engaged in a new and largely successful push for expanded gun rights, even passing measures that have been rejected in the past.

Some of that is pre-emptive. There's quite a States/Federal fight brewing over the laws over State-specific firearms laws, with the ATF on one side, and the States on the other. Some of the rest is irrelevant. For example, right-to-carry laws off Federal property are a State criminal law issue, the Federal government has little sway in it regardless. However, the Administration's position on what they would like to do is clear enough, they just acknowledge that they don't currently have the votes to do it. For example, the reinstatement of the "Assault Weapon Ban". That's where the pre-emptive thing comes in: By having the showdown on State/Federal authority now, if the States win, then the federal ability to limit firearms becomes dramatically reduced and becomes something of a non-issue. A new federal AWB is redundant under current law in Montana and Tennessee, for example, which would continue to allow precisely that which the Feds would ban.

Ok, I can see the good sense is allowing people to carry concealed weapons in bars and restaurants that serve alcohol. What could possibly go wrong?!

Nothing that couldn't go wrong in a bar or restaurant that doesn't serve alcohol, as far as I know. Luby's comes to mind.

And peops that don't buy at least one handgun a month are just pussies. It's unAmerican, dammit.

No, preventing people who wish to do so from buying more than one handgun a month is unAmerican. I have yet to see a rational reason for that law. I mean, how many firearms can you shoot at once? If I own five firearms, I can still only shoot one of them accurately at a time.

NTM

[Dingfod]

I can wildly shoot several firearms at a time, at least two, maybe more if I wired their triggers together. Whether I hit anyone or not isn't the point, the terror I cause when I do that is.

[Hoss]

Originally Posted by Cliche Guevara

Oh, and you know who what else is pussyfication personified?

People with a ninnyish fear of firearms!
Guns don't kill anyone - certain people do.
And certain races of people are VASTLY overrepresented among murderers.

Originally Posted by Cliche Guevara

President Obama, that's what.

Well the demographic most loyal to Obama also happens to be the demographic most likely to commit gun crimes.
Getting really tough on gun violence would hit them the hardest.
And believe me, they're already incarcerated WAY out of proportion to their percentage of the population.
Sure, the media will zoom on in the rare white defective who goes wilding with a gun at a mall, or some alleged Klansman who knows someone who allegedly shot someone in 1961...
But blacks gun people down EVERY DAY.
Tougher on guns = more and more blacks behind bars in the big house.
Why would Obama want to put his most loyal voters under lock and key?
Remember we're talking about reality here, where it's not easy to find black physicists and brain surgeons like you see on TV, but it's extremely easy to find gun-toting black thugs, career criminals with more ammo than IQ points.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by California Tanker

No, preventing people who wish to do so from buying more than one handgun a month is unAmerican. I have yet to see a rational reason for that law. I mean, how many firearms can you shoot at once? If I own five firearms, I can still only shoot one of them accurately at a time.

I may be wrong, but I thought the idea was more to prevent someone from easily arming a gang or militia or whatever than a fear that, with a few minor adjustments, people would turn a regular gun into five guns.

[Watser?]

Originally Posted by Hoss

People with a ninnyish fear of firearms!

It never ceases to amuse me that people who are so afraid of their neighbours that they need guns as security blankies think they are tougher than others.

Originally Posted by Hoss

Guns don't kill anyone - certain people do.
And certain races of people are VASTLY overrepresented among murderers.

Yep, mass murderers (and even more so genocidal maniacs) are usually white.

[JoeP]

Guns don't kill people. Bullets kill people.

[California Tanker]

may be wrong, but I thought the idea was more to prevent someone from easily arming a gang or militia or whatever than a fear that, with a few minor adjustments, people would turn a regular gun into five guns.

Buying a gun for someone else is a 'Straw Purchase' and is already illegal.

I'm reminded of the ten-day-waiting period. I own five firearms. What on earth is a ten-day waiting period going to do before I buy number six!? (Except piss me off.. I'm angry now, I'm going to be even angrier tomorrow!)

NTM