Obama defends forthcoming gun restrictions as constitutional

[chuckd]

Obama is simply trying to build a legacy that he can point to in his later life and tell everybody what he accomplished.

What the Democrats, and the liberals on this forum, don't realize is that most Americans just simply don't think gun control is an issue.

But the squeeky wheel gets the grease.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

Gallup: Only 2% Say 'Guns/Gun Control' Among Nation's Most Important Problems

By Susan Jones

January 4, 2016 | 5:53 AM EST

(CNSNews.com) - As President Obama prepares to announce new executive actions on gun control Monday, a newly released Gallup Poll shows that "guns/gun control" ranked near the bottom of Americans' most pressing concerns in 2015.

In fact, guns/gun control ranked 19th out of 23 top problems facing the country last year.

According to Gallup, only one percent of respondents mentioned guns/gun control as a concern for most of the months in 2015, although mentions spiked to 7 percent in October and December following mass shootings in those months that dominated the news. (The overall average for the year was 2 percent.)

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/susan-jones/gallup-only-2-americans-name-gunsgun-control-among-nations-most-important

CNS News is pure wingnut media. Referencing this nonsense is unbelievable. Of course American's are concerned about gun violence and overwhelming in favor of strict gun laws.

Please try to do better than this. Pointing to this crap to justify doing nothing...is just sad.

If these laws save the life of one child, everyone should be all in.

The wingnuts are the Republican base

It's a Gallup poll, sunshine.

From the actual poll. See any difference?

http://www.gallup.com/poll/187979/government-named-top-problem-second-straight-year.aspx

Edited January 6, 2016 by chuckd

[thaibeachlovers]

Three quick points:

1) Fun (in the handgun context) is not a valid reason.

2) 33,000 gun deaths in a year is not a tiny, tiny fraction.

3) If there are no legal guns, it makes it much more difficult for criminals to acquire them.

Thank you for being polite though.

Your stat on gun deaths is erroneous. You imply those were all murders, when IN FACT most were suicide.

[Ace of Pop]

Just hope Obarmy dissarms all his bodyguards too. Then he can feel just the same as he wants his Fellow Americans to feel..... UNPROTECTED'

Absurd, ridiculous, assinine [sic].

POTUS needs protection as such.

Four US presidents have been assassinated. One was assassinated during my lifetime.

Twenty unsuccessful assassination attempts have been made on incumbent POTUS or former POTUS.

All by gunshot.

Unsuccessful assassination attempts include against FDR, Harry S. Truman, Gerald R. Ford, Ronald Reagan. Some crackpot crashed a light single engine plane into the foundation area of the White House while Bill Clinton was POTUS.

Some crackpots have jumped the fence to enter the White House while Barack Obama has been POTUS. They were eager to enter the home of a black family.

Barack Obama has received many more death threats as a candidate and especially as POTUS.

The far out crackpot nutcake radical right has to cease its completely unreasonable and distorted thinking and statements in this matter of the security of POTUS. And in a lot of other nonsense besides.

With the exception of Lyndon Johnson, every president's life since John F. Kennedy has been threatened with assassination.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_presidential_assassination_attempts_and_plots

Secret Service Exhausted by Massive Number of Death Threats Against President Obama

Being the President is a much harder job than I CAN B PRESIDENT Barbie and the movie First Kid make it seem. In fact, one of the occupational hazards of the job are near-constant death threats. And — SURPRISE — the same President who inspires billboards more racist than a cartoon version of Birth of a Nation starring the cast of Loony Tunes has also moved tens of thousands of people to make threats against the First Family's life. How many, you may ask? Try around 30 a day. Or about 40,000 since Barack Obama first began receiving death threats, back in 2007.

http://jezebel.com/5963372/massive-number-of-death-threats-against-president-obama-exhausts-the-secret-service

It is more than evident there is no shortage of crackpots.

A sound Lefty Opinion.

[crowbait]

1) My opinion yes, also a legally accepted argument (at least here in the UK)

2) That argument is entirely specious. All deaths can be carried out by other means. The context is about gun deaths.

3) Again I think you are missing the point. The more guns are removed from circulation, the fewer gun deaths will occur.

[arjunadawn]

"The more guns are removed from circulation, the fewer gun deaths will occur."

Without question, the more guns that are removed from circulation gun deaths increase. This is overwhelmingly evident from the locations in the US with the most strict gun control. Why? Because gun control effects only the law abiding, effectively disarming the lawful population.

...the arrogance is sickening. ... that people cling to guns because they cannot properly vet and assign their frustrations. It presumes those who disagree with Obama possess an emotional problem or mental defect. Likewise, they make God a bedfellow for their misplaced frustration.

Edited January 6, 2016 by arjunadawn

[crowbait]

It may be but it was published by the BBC (and gained by them from official US stats).

I made no implication that these were all murders, in fact I believe many were accidental. To state most were suicide would attribute alarmingly lemming-like qualities to the American population. The whole point is fewer guns equals fewer gun deaths.

[thaibeachlovers]

1) My opinion yes, also a legally accepted argument (at least here in the UK)

2) That argument is entirely specious. All deaths can be carried out by other means. The context is about gun deaths.

3) Again I think you are missing the point. The more guns are removed from circulation, the fewer gun deaths will occur.

LOL.

Do you know how many million guns are floating around the US?

How do you think they can remove enough guns to make a difference?

If you are writing in regard to the US most of the guns are legally owned and can't be removed from circulation.

[thaibeachlovers]

"The more guns are removed from circulation, the fewer gun deaths will occur."

Without question, the more guns that are removed from circulation gun deaths increase. This is overwhelmingly evident from the locations in the US with the most strict gun control. Why? Because gun control effects only the law abiding, effectively disarming the lawful population.

Chicago has very strict gun control legislation and probably the highest murder rate in the US due to guns.

Edited January 6, 2016 by thaibeachlovers

[thaibeachlovers]

It may be but it was published by the BBC (and gained by them from official US stats).

I made no implication that these were all murders, in fact I believe many were accidental. To state most were suicide would attribute alarmingly lemming-like qualities to the American population. The whole point is fewer guns equals fewer gun deaths.

From Wikipedia for 2013

and 11,208 deaths by homicide (3.5 per 100,000),^[3] 21,175 by suicide with a firearm,^[4] 505 deaths due to accidental discharge of a firearm,^[4] and 281 deaths due to firearms-use with "undetermined intent"^[5] for a total of 33,169 deaths related to firearms (excluding firearm deaths due to legal intervention). 1.3% of all deaths in the country were related to firearms.^[

Not so many due to accident as you think then.

Lemming anyone?

I don't believe much from the BBC anymore. Too much propaganda these days.

[Pinot]

This thread shows just how insane the wingnuts are.

They can't stand to see minor changes to the America's absolutely ridiculously easy gun laws.

The big comeback by the insane clown posse is something along the lines of (sorry, I can't understand most of these posts) "If we make any gun laws, only the criminals will have guns." Did I get that right?

These people are so far out there in Wingnuttia. They can't accept that AMERICANS WANT GUN CONTROL LAWS

My suggestion that if one child is saved by these minor changes that we should be all in is met with "We should put fences around pools if you want to save children."

You can't talk to these people. Their fear overwhelms them at every logical point.

Election coming this year and the Republicans are going down hard. Som nom na

[arjunadawn]

I do not recall anyone on this thread asserting, quote "If we make any gun laws, only the criminals will have guns." I may have missed this; if I wrote that it was a mistake. Not only do most people support intelligent gun laws but there are numerous already on the books. Arms span the full spectrum from sidearms to missiles to chain guns. Few assert citizens should be fully militarized. Possessing these other arms and organization are what make a military... a military. So, to apply a straw-man argument onto opponents is disingenuous at best, deceitful at worst. Few support no gun laws.

Many of these past gun laws were emotional legislative outbursts that did not remotely address the premise for why they were enacted (ex: CA terrorist attack). Instead, the vast majority of these laws have clamped down on everything except those who commit the acts, criminals. To this end it is widely regarded that existing laws are hardly enforced. It is foolish to thing shoveling bad after bad results in good. Or, if the intention is the predictable end of disarming a population in furtherance of political ends, than it is a brilliant strategy.

The vast majority of Americans know Obama's end is America's end. He is the product of a self loathing marxist under-culture that sees all things traditional, Natural, and fundamentally American as the target. America must be "transform[ed]." Gun Control, however, is required in order for America to move "Forward." http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/inside-politics/2012/apr/30/new-obama-slogan-has-long-ties-marxism-socialism/

[beechguy]

It's good that he cried. I think that way we can all tell that he is sincere on his feelings on the matter.

Or, he attended the Bill and Hilary Clinton School of Acting.

[beechguy]

1) My opinion yes, also a legally accepted argument (at least here in the UK)

2) That argument is entirely specious. All deaths can be carried out by other means. The context is about gun deaths.

3) Again I think you are missing the point. The more guns are removed from circulation, the fewer gun deaths will occur.

1) That would be your first probem, your from the UK

2) See number one.

3) See number one.

[Publicus]

 

Just hope Obarmy dissarms all his bodyguards too. Then he can feel just the same as he wants his Fellow Americans to feel..... UNPROTECTED'

Absurd, ridiculous, assinine [sic].

POTUS needs protection as such.

Four US presidents have been assassinated. One was assassinated during my lifetime.

Twenty unsuccessful assassination attempts have been made on incumbent POTUS or former POTUS.

All by gunshot.

Unsuccessful assassination attempts include against FDR, Harry S. Truman, Gerald R. Ford, Ronald Reagan. Some crackpot crashed a light single engine plane into the foundation area of the White House while Bill Clinton was POTUS.

Some crackpots have jumped the fence to enter the White House while Barack Obama has been POTUS. They were eager to enter the home of a black family.

Barack Obama has received many more death threats as a candidate and especially as POTUS.

The far out crackpot nutcake radical right has to cease its completely unreasonable and distorted thinking and statements in this matter of the security of POTUS. And in a lot of other nonsense besides.

With the exception of Lyndon Johnson, every president's life since John F. Kennedy has been threatened with assassination.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_presidential_assassination_attempts_and_plots

Secret Service Exhausted by Massive Number of Death Threats Against President Obama

Being the President is a much harder job than I CAN B PRESIDENT Barbie and the movie First Kid make it seem. In fact, one of the occupational hazards of the job are near-constant death threats. And — SURPRISE — the same President who inspires billboards more racist than a cartoon version of Birth of a Nation starring the cast of Loony Tunes has also moved tens of thousands of people to make threats against the First Family's life. How many, you may ask? Try around 30 a day. Or about 40,000 since Barack Obama first began receiving death threats, back in 2007.

http://jezebel.com/5963372/massive-number-of-death-threats-against-president-obama-exhausts-the-secret-service

It is more than evident there is no shortage of crackpots.

A sound Lefty Opinion.

Denial is not a healthy emotion or approach.

POTUS needs Secret Service protection. This is an obvious fact and reality, as my post points out.

"The Boston Globe reports that a new internal Congressional Research Service report and government sources say there are an unprecedented number of death threats against President Obama and that the Secret Service is insufficiently funded and staffed to deal with them.

"According to The Globe, a report issued by the Congressional Research Service shows that the Secret Service is investigating more threats against government officials than ever before, and questions whether the 144-year old agency should continue probing financial crimes, as was its original mandate."

http://blogs.ink19.com/truthtopower/archives/7549

Trying to ridicule or dismiss the need of every POTUS to be protected in a loony gun culture is pathetic. President Kennedy was assassinated by a former Marine who bought his rifle by mail order. Today one can shop on line because of lax or absent gun limitation laws imposed on the society by the powerful and rich gun lobby.

[beechguy]

I just wish that some intelligent American would explain why they should have a handgun.

I must be very simple but isn't it a truism that if you have no guns, people can't get shot?

The truism would be, you may not get shot by a law abiding citizen, but by a criminal.

Police need to set the example of wise and prudent use of firearms, however, too many do not.

There is also the anarchy of legal gun owners currently conducting a conscious and willful occupation of federal government public environmental preservation lands in Oregon.

The legal gun owners in cowboy hats are presently moving in heavy fortifications to defend their illegal armed occupation. They do of course have their guns and ammunition.

US Government law enforcement officials rather than the general public are the ones on duty and in the line of fire of this group of legal gun owning crackpots. Some of these crackpots are related to other legal gun owning crackpots.

Legal gun owning Second Amendment lunatic crackpots.

No surprise, crowbait and I are writing over you head, and you have missed the point.

He suggested that there shouldn't be any guns, therefore, the people who have them would be criminals, and the ones shooting.

As to criminal police officers, no reason not to prosecute, the same as any other criminal.

As to the armed occupation, what do you suggest, that there should have been a preemptive strike to arrest them, before they committed a crime? Were they guilty, just because they were related to other legal gun owning crackpots.

[Publicus]

I just wish that some intelligent American would explain why they should have a handgun.

I must be very simple but isn't it a truism that if you have no guns, people can't get shot?

The truism would be, you may not get shot by a law abiding citizen, but by a criminal.

Police need to set the example of wise and prudent use of firearms, however, too many do not.

There is also the anarchy of legal gun owners currently conducting a conscious and willful occupation of federal government public environmental preservation lands in Oregon.

The legal gun owners in cowboy hats are presently moving in heavy fortifications to defend their illegal armed occupation. They do of course have their guns and ammunition.

US Government law enforcement officials rather than the general public are the ones on duty and in the line of fire of this group of legal gun owning crackpots. Some of these crackpots are related to other legal gun owning crackpots.

Legal gun owning Second Amendment lunatic crackpots.

No surprise, crowbait and I are writing over you head, and you have missed the point.

He suggested that there shouldn't be any guns, therefore, the people who have them would be criminals, and the ones shooting.

As to criminal police officers, no reason not to prosecute, the same as any other criminal.

As to the armed occupation, what do you suggest, that there should have been a preemptive strike to arrest them, before they committed a crime? Were they guilty, just because they were related to other legal gun owning crackpots.

He suggested that there shouldn't be any guns, therefore, the people who have them would be criminals, and the ones shooting.

I read his post and I had no comment on the statement which is why I chose to make none. The logic and reasoning of the statement are dubious but I don't care to get involved in that aspect of this discourse. No one should make their own condescending and erroneous presumptions based on what I do not say.

I have many times stated my belief in and support of the Second Amendment, and that I own a handgun in the USA. I've also stated in many posts and often the Second Amendment does not provide an exemption from the rule of the laws.

Accordingly, you should visit here: http://www.readingrockets.org/article/reading-aloud-build-comprehension

Rightwing Republican cops who shoot unarmed black men in the back or in the head are gun nuts too, not to mention racial in their attitudes and police work. They are irresponsible in their work and in their use of firearms. They thus violate the public trust as armed officers of the law who are in fact not qualified to be such, and who soil law enforcement. Few if any are ever prosecuted.

The South Carolina cop charged with murder is being prosecuted so we'll see what comes of this trigger happy goon who shot in the back an unarmed runaway slave guy stopped for a simple traffic question. Same with the silly boy cop in Ohio. The runaway slave guy, Walter Scott, was in fact shot several times in the back. This is not police work. It is rightwing Republican gun nut goonery behind a badge with a gun. So what is normal to another rightwinger gun nut would not be seen as a crime. It would be justified and probably commendable.

As to the armed occupation, I more than suggest. I state the occupiers are anarchist Second Amendment gun nut rightwingers. One is the son of another gun nut anarchist rightwinger, that is fact.

Almost anyone who understands the rightwhingenutosphere knows and recognises the statements in my post and my references. Those who are of the the same gun nut crackpot mindset would of course not notice the reality of my statements. They would have the same mindset that the occupiers and the shooter cops are normal and taking action that is right and justified, no problem.

Rightwing Republican slave patrol cops and anarchist gun nut occupiers need to be corrected under the rule of law and by the principles of equal justice under law. Now that it's been spelled out perhaps we can move on in the discussion.

Edited January 6, 2016 by Publicus

[Publicus]

Three quick points:

1) Fun (in the handgun context) is not a valid reason.

2) 33,000 gun deaths in a year is not a tiny, tiny fraction.

3) If there are no legal guns, it makes it much more difficult for criminals to acquire them.

Thank you for being polite though.

Your stat on gun deaths is erroneous. You imply those were all murders, when IN FACT most were suicide.

Let's try this one again too.

You refer to suicides. The poster you quote is referring to all gun deaths.

Here is the more complete picture which you have missed completely.

All suicides

• Number of deaths: 41,149
• Deaths per 100,000 population: 13.0
• Cause of death rank: 10

Firearm suicides

• Number of deaths: 21,175
• Deaths per 100,000 population: 6.7

http://www.cdc.gov/n...ats/suicide.htm

Gun Deaths:

More than 30,000 people are killed by firearms each year in this country.

The annual per capita death rate by guns per 100,000 population is 10.3 percent. This is a significant statistic and it is serious, horrible, largely unchecked. The poster you quote is correct. You are in error.

Per Capita Annual Gun Death Rate (per 100,000 population):

National: (10.32)

Source: Centers for Disease Control

http://heedinggodsca...t/pfctoolkit-10

You are mixing apples and oranges. Your statement to the poster is off base, mixing and mashing erroneously; presumptuous posturing.

The post you quote is referring to all deaths by firearms. You think erroneously he is referring to only gun deaths by suicide. He is not as my post calling another erroneous poster to account had made clear.

Once again, you need to visit here: http://www.readwritethink.org/classroom-resources/lesson-plans/building-reading-comprehension-through-139.html

Edited January 6, 2016 by Publicus

[Ace of Pop]

No matter what bit of paper says ,nutters n perps will have Guns no matter what..Can disarming others really solve much..,it's not helped in any other country I can think of..Yes I am a gun owner and shoot vermin ,game ,and intruders of my property and Family as Is my right.

[GinBoy2]

Without wanting to be a killjoy for the foaming at the mouth posters, but you do understand what is actually being said?

POTUS cannot rewrite laws, and if an Executive Order was being pushed that would be clearly unconstitutional. But it's not an EO, it's an Executive Recomendation which gives US attorneys the opportunity to interpret the law differently, if they choose to, which they may not choose to do.

A very similar event happened, with little or no fanfare, when GW Bush recommended that US attorneys could push to close down medical marijuana dispensaries...they declined to oblige!

[Publicus]

[sirineou]

Best post ever, straight to the point , unambiguous.

I like to see the gun nuts argue with that

Edited January 8, 2016 by sirineou

[chuckd]

Best post ever, straight to the point , unambiguous.

I like to see the gun nuts argue with that

I didn't even need my thesaurus to get through it.

[LarryBird]

It's not a good post if it ignores race.

[casualbiker]

There is no Gun Show Loophole. Dealers have to get background checks, private citizens can sell their guns without the permission of the US Government. Semantics being used to deprive Americans of their rights. Private citizens should not be unduly burdened by Government Regulations.

So don't you ACTUALLY think that is a loophole.. A guy can't pass a background check so he goes on Facebook and finds someone advertising their guns.. Click, click, type, send PayPal payment. Two days later in possession of a nice shiny AR15 and 5,000 rounds.. And you REALLY can't see a problem?

[LarryBird]

There is no Gun Show Loophole. Dealers have to get background checks, private citizens can sell their guns without the permission of the US Government. Semantics being used to deprive Americans of their rights. Private citizens should not be unduly burdened by Government Regulations.

So don't you ACTUALLY think that is a loophole.. A guy can't pass a background check so he goes on Facebook and finds someone advertising their guns.. Click, click, type, send PayPal payment. Two days later in possession of a nice shiny AR15 and 5,000 rounds.. And you REALLY can't see a problem?

Would he legally own the gun?

[casualbiker]

There is no Gun Show Loophole. Dealers have to get background checks, private citizens can sell their guns without the permission of the US Government. Semantics being used to deprive Americans of their rights. Private citizens should not be unduly burdened by Government Regulations.

So don't you ACTUALLY think that is a loophole.. A guy can't pass a background check so he goes on Facebook and finds someone advertising their guns.. Click, click, type, send PayPal payment. Two days later in possession of a nice shiny AR15 and 5,000 rounds.. And you REALLY can't see a problem?

Would he legally own the gun?

dunno.. Ask an NRA card carrying Merican! I would presume so as that is one of the loopholes they want to plug!

[shunter]

Surely the first question must be is , Why do Americans feel they have to wander around wearing guns in the first place?

Any place where you feel that have to wear a gun can't be a good place to live can it.

[casualbiker]

Surely the first question must be is , Why do Americans feel they have to wander around wearing guns in the first place?

Any place where you feel that have to wear a gun can't be a good place to live can it.

. Because it's written on a piece of paper. Obviously MOST of the exact same people say that Muslims are wrong for believing things written on paper. A dilemma!

[natway09]

Good on him