Obama suggests Republicans unwilling to compromise in gun control debate


PDA






2ifbyC
January 27, 2013, 04:17 PM
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/01/27/obama-gun-control-advocates-should-listen-more/

President Obama is suggesting that House Republicans on the issue of gun control appear neither willing to work with him nor listen to the American public on the issue.

“The House Republican majority is made up mostly of members who are in sharply gerrymandered districts that are very safely Republican and may not feel compelled to pay attention to broad-based public opinion, because what they're really concerned about is the opinions of their specific Republican constituencies,” the president said in an interview with The New Republic.

Obama also said he can get 50 percent of public support for many of his upcoming initiatives, but “I can't get enough votes out of the House of Representatives to actually get something passed. … I think there is still shock on the part of some in the party that I won re-election.”

The president said he has a profound respect for the traditions of hunting that date back for generations.

He said that moving forward on the topic means understanding that the realities of guns in urban areas are very different from the realities of guns in rural areas.

He said it's understandable that people are protective of their family traditions when it comes to hunting so “gun-control advocates also need to do “a little more listening than they do sometimes” in the debate.

The interview appears in the Feb. 11 issue of The New Republic.

Obama also said one of the biggest factors in the gun-control debate will be how it is shaped by the media.

“If a Republican member of Congress is not punished on Fox News or by Rush Limbaugh for working with a Democrat on a bill of common interest, then you’ll see more of them doing it,” he said. “I think John Boehner genuinely wanted to get a deal done, but it was hard to do in part because his caucus is more conservative probably than most Republican leaders are, and partly because he is vulnerable to attack for compromising Republican principles and working with Obama.”

The president argued that “the more left-leaning media outlets recognize that compromise is not a dirty word” and that party leaders, including Senate Majority Harry Reid and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, are “willing to buck the more absolutist-wing elements in our party to try to get stuff done.”

Has Obama himself ever fired a gun? Yes, he says, he and others shoot skeet frequently at the president's Maryland retreat, Camp David.

The president also said much of the challenge in Washington is to make Americans feel that national politics is indeed connected to their day-to-day realities.

“And that’s not an unjustifiable view,” he said. So everything we do combines both a legislative strategy with a broad-based communications and outreach strategy to get people engaged and involved, so that it’s not Washington over here and the rest of America over there.”

Well, yeah…

Could it be that we have learned what “compromise” means when negotiating with Obama? Or is it because we have seen no initiatives other than gun control take on the full weight of the White House to ram their passing? Or maybe he does not understand the meaning of the term “infringement”. Or maybe he does not understand that gun rights extend beyond his narrow use of hunting or skeet shooting?

Or maybe, deep inside, he knows he has taken on a fight that he is destined to lose?:eek:

Please help Obama understand why we are not compromising.:banghead:

If you enjoyed reading about "Obama suggests Republicans unwilling to compromise in gun control debate" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
black_powder_Rob
January 27, 2013, 04:31 PM
“The House Republican majority is made up mostly of members who are in sharply gerrymandered districts that are very safely Republican and may not feel compelled to pay attention to broad-based public opinion, because what they're really concerned about is the opinions of their specific Republican constituencies,” the president said in an interview with The New Republic.


Wow, foolish me I thought that is what representatives were supposed to do, you know represent their constituencies. What maroon.

browneu
January 27, 2013, 04:31 PM
This is why we need to continue to write our representatives.

Obama believes he's speaking for the people when he's not.

Sent from my SGH-T999 using Tapatalk 2

Gaiudo
January 27, 2013, 04:32 PM
Good to see that the backpedaling and CYA is starting now that political reality is starting to set in. Let's keep pressing on our reps!

wv109323
January 27, 2013, 04:35 PM
Obama does not compromise on the Debt Ceiling or Spending. Neither can you find the truth out about his birth certificate, His youth or his college education or Benghazi or Fast and Furious or........

mokin
January 27, 2013, 04:39 PM
I hope that in this instance, the President is correct. I also hope that it is not only just the Republicans who refuse to compromise but also the Democrats who were elected in very pro 2A districts. I think, if everybody else out there who is writing thier representatives is also sending mail to the White House, the President may be starting to get a clue about how the people feel on this issue.

danez71
January 27, 2013, 04:41 PM
In all fairness, he also said this:

"So it's trying to bridge those gaps that I think is going to be part of the biggest task over the next several months. And that means that advocates of gun control have to do a little more listening than they do sometimes."



Quote from above....

Good to see that the backpedaling and CYA is starting now that political reality is starting to set in. Let's keep pressing on our reps!


Agreed.

Silent Bob
January 27, 2013, 04:55 PM
"Obama also said he can get 50 percent of public support..."

Our President fails to remember that we are a republic, not a democracy (thank God)

John3921
January 27, 2013, 04:58 PM
This quote is from an acquaintance of mine on a discussion of the term 'modern sporting rifle' - it doesn't sound like there is room in the lefts side for compromise:


"modern sporting rifle" is the more palatable sounding marketing euphemism for "paramilitary assault weapon." just based on casual observation at the local gun shows, all the white supremacists, neo-nazis, and right-wing teabagger militia types within hundreds of miles come crawling out from under their rocks and are drawn to the bushmasters like dung beetles to, well, you know.

PRM
January 27, 2013, 05:03 PM
Compromise!!! Why should elected representatives compromise and see the very Constitution the swore to protect and defend torn apart.

Hoppes Love Potion
January 27, 2013, 05:04 PM
Why doesn't Obama compromise by rolling back the 1968 Gun Control Act? Then we might see he is serious about "having a dialog" about guns.

No? Then he should stop talking about compromise.

bobmcd
January 27, 2013, 05:05 PM
"Obama also said he can get 50 percent of public support..."

This is EXACTLY the problem with a HUGE number of politicians these days.

Just because 50.00001% of the people want to oppress 49.99999% of the people, it doesn't mean they should be allowed to.

JohnnyK
January 27, 2013, 05:09 PM
so what is omaoma wanting to give up? compromise is not 1 sided....

Texan Scott
January 27, 2013, 05:10 PM
He's cottoned on, huh? My stars and garter bars, the man is uncommonly astute! Most of the other antis seem not to have figured it out yet.

If my eyes roll any harder, they might fall out.

MErl
January 27, 2013, 05:19 PM
yeah, he isn't offering any compromises. There has been no talk of any. The only offers have been one sided demands.

Start talking removal of sporting purposes needed for import and we have compromise. But considering the bans are all talking "that's not sporting" I doubt that's on the table is it.

Start talking registering new machine guns and we have compromise.

edit addition:
“The House Republican majority is made up mostly of members who are in sharply gerrymandered districts that are very safely Republican and may not feel compelled to pay attention to broad-based public opinion, because what they're really concerned about is the opinions of their specific Republican constituencies,” the president said in an interview with The New Republic.
the majority of democrat representatives are from safe districts as well. Half truths are another form of lying.

k_dawg
January 27, 2013, 05:19 PM
Obama wants conceeding, not compromising.

Hokkmike
January 27, 2013, 05:27 PM
Poor Mr. President. Somebody call the wah-mbulance!

BLB68
January 27, 2013, 05:34 PM
He said that moving forward on the topic means understanding that the realities of guns in urban areas are very different from the realities of guns in rural areas.

This is the Big Lie, right here. This idea is far more dangerous than any other they're putting forth.

BCCL
January 27, 2013, 05:36 PM
That's because to him, "compromise" means "give me everything I want and shut up".

vtail
January 27, 2013, 05:43 PM
This is the Big Lie, right here. This idea is far more dangerous than any other they're putting forth.
What do you think BLB? Think they will end up with special bans for the urban areas?

Ms_Dragon
January 27, 2013, 05:51 PM
With the Republicans so dirty about losing the election I'd be surprised if Obama was able to get a rise in jay-walking fines passed without an executive order let alone gun restrictions passed.

gbran
January 27, 2013, 05:51 PM
appear neither willing to work with him nor listen to the American public on the issue.


Would this be the same American public out buying firearms and ammo faster than they can be produced?

browneu
January 27, 2013, 05:54 PM
I believe the concern is that the statement separates sporters and hunters from urban shooters. Those in rural settings using hunting rifles urban settings using "assault weapons".

Essentially he could make the argument that a ban will only effect urban centers which, we all know isn't true.

Sent from my SGH-T999 using Tapatalk 2

Milamber
January 27, 2013, 05:59 PM
There is no compromise. What is so damn hard to understand in the sentence "shall not be infringed". Current gun control laws are unconstitutional at best. If I was in congress or senate I would be pushing for repealing the NFA and Lautenberg.

As a card carrying member of the Republican party I can tell you straight. I will actively
campaign and vote out any member of the Republican party who votes for any new gun control

Edit

As I see it we either have the right to arms or we dont, which is it. You cant compromise away a right they wont stop nibbling. No AWB No magazine limits. They should never have got the NFA

Fishslayer
January 27, 2013, 06:04 PM
President Obama is suggesting that House Republicans on the issue of gun control appear neither willing to work with him nor listen to the American public on the issue

They ARE listening and good for them.

hogshead
January 27, 2013, 06:08 PM
Wow a talking donkey.

berettaprofessor
January 27, 2013, 06:08 PM
I had a big laugh from my Sunday paper today. There was a letter to the editor from a woman who is evidently as blind and deaf as Obama on politics. She was ranting that all four Republican congressmen and both Republican senators from KANSAS were against gun control and were not representing the majority views of their constituents.:what:

If you've ever lived in Kansas long, you know that this woman is off her rocker. I haven't seen a Kansas specific poll, but I'm betting that, outside of Johnson County (which I blame on Missouri), it would be about 75% anti-gun control.

Blue .45
January 27, 2013, 06:23 PM
“The House Republican majority is made up mostly of members who are in sharply gerrymandered districts that are very safely Republican

Of course, in Illinois, we don't have gerrymandering, we have "redistricting".

Northern Illinois University political science professor Matt Streb said the big win for Democrats was partly because redistricting by Madigan and other party bosses shifted Republican voting blocs around to improve Democrats’ chances of winning more seats in the legislature.

http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2012/11/07/expert-redistricting-a-big-factor-in-democrats-wins-in-illinois/

Obama also said he can get 50 percent of public support for many of his upcoming initiatives, but “I can't get enough votes out of the House of Representatives to actually get something passed. … I think there is still shock on the part of some in the party that I won re-election.”

To paraphrase Mark Levin, The winner of the election doesn't get to rewrite the constitution.

I really don't want to read Saul Alinsky's Rules for Radicals, but if I'm to understand this president's tactics, I had better buy a copy.

BLB68
January 27, 2013, 06:47 PM
What do you think BLB? Think they will end up with special bans for the urban areas?

No. Our most densely-populated urban areas already have strict gun control. They've already sold the Big Lie to a lot of huge voting blocks. If a few large cities can control the direction of an entire state, even though the balance of the population is more evenly split on the issue, then they gain an advantage.

ToraBoraBlues
January 27, 2013, 08:31 PM
Just to throw this out there, how would you guys feel if there was an honest compromise and dialogue? I.e., reducing class 2 or class 3 restrictions, relaxing import restrictions, or doing something to ensure the carry and ownership rights of people traveling through restrictive areas in exchange for requiring a background check for all non-family exchanges?

wally
January 27, 2013, 08:33 PM
Where was his compromise on spending or voter ID?

I'd hope any background check bills get voter ID put in along with it by our "friends".

wally
January 27, 2013, 08:38 PM
Just to throw this out there, how would you guys feel if there was an honest compromise and dialogue? I.e., reducing class 2 or class 3 restrictions, relaxing import restrictions, or doing something to ensure the carry and ownership rights of people traveling through restrictive areas in exchange for requiring a background check for all non-family exchanges?

I'd be interested in debate, no bans of any kind, make the C&R license with no change in requirements equivalent to an FFL-01 for individual buying and selling, re-open the machine gun registry and I' could live with that!

browneu
January 27, 2013, 08:39 PM
Where was his compromise on spending or voter ID?

I'd hope any background check bills get voter ID put in along with it by our "friends".

I agree.

Sent from my SGH-T999 using Tapatalk 2

M-Cameron
January 27, 2013, 08:41 PM
Just to throw this out there, how would you guys feel if there was an honest compromise and dialogue? I.e., reducing class 2 or class 3 restrictions, relaxing import restrictions, or doing something to ensure the carry and ownership rights of people traveling through restrictive areas in exchange for requiring a background check for all non-family exchanges?


you have $1000.......over the years i steal $500 from you....today i try to steal another $200 from you, and you catch me.....i tell you "let compromise here, ill give you back some of the money i stole from you if you let me continue to steal from you".........sound like a good idea? hell no, why does the same apply to your 2A rights?

razorback2003
January 27, 2013, 08:50 PM
Compromise for Obama means he gets mostly what he wants and you don't get hardly any of what you want.

jerkface11
January 27, 2013, 09:01 PM
Here's a compromise. We ban all semi auto AR and AK rifles but we repeal the 1934 GCA.

Byrd666
January 27, 2013, 09:23 PM
Simply put, to "compromise" with Obama, means we lose all our freedoms. Remember the first rule when dealing with a Terrorist, NO COMPROMISE!

RockyMtnTactical
January 27, 2013, 09:42 PM
That pesky constitution is getting in the way again... so sad for Obama.

John3921
January 27, 2013, 09:48 PM
I wonder if they would read a report by Harvard Law?

www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf

No, probably not.

JERRY
January 27, 2013, 09:49 PM
suggesting? i hope they tell him to stick it.

Big_John1961
January 27, 2013, 10:19 PM
There is no compromise. What is so damn hard to understand in the sentence "shall not be infringed". Current gun control laws are unconstitutional at best. If I was in congress or senate I would be pushing for repealing the NFA and Lautenberg.

As a card carrying member of the Republican party I can tell you straight. I will actively campaign and vote out any member of the Republican party who votes for any new gun control.

Edit

As I see it we either have the right to arms or we dont, which is it. You cant compromise away a right they wont stop nibbling. No AWB No magazine limits. They should never have got the NFA

My sentiments exactly.

Tommygunn
January 27, 2013, 10:22 PM
Obama wants to compromise?:eek:
There are 20,000 gun control laws in America. Given what he wants I suggest that if he wants a compromise he ought to select a fairly good size chunk of those laws and offer them up as a "compromise" on his part.
Every time a "compromise" is made with govt. on the second amendment our rights diminish and become more constrained.
I hardly define THAT as "compromise.":fire:

HKGuns
January 27, 2013, 10:23 PM
No we are not, there will be ZERO compromise.

Zardaia
January 27, 2013, 10:31 PM
No such thing as compromise on this issue. Seeing's how nobody at the federal level has any intention of expanding gun rights, any new gun control is all loss with no gain. Compromise=give and take, gun control=just take.

Browning
January 27, 2013, 10:33 PM
The president said he has a profound respect for the traditions of hunting that date back for generations.
The. Second. Amendment. Isn't. About. Hunting.

avs11054
January 27, 2013, 10:37 PM
Here was my facebook post regarding this article earlier today


Wow. Where do I start with this interview with Obama? He says he supports the traditions of hunting. Good for him. Does he know that the Second Amendment was not written for hunters?

He says that House Republicans are unwilling to work with him on this issue because they are only concerned about their constituencies. Does he know that there are also Democrats in both chambers who will not support a new assault weapons ban because they fear that they will not get re-elected if they do? Does he know that his right hand man, Harry Reid (a pro-gun democrat), virtually killed any chance of an assault weapons bill passing the Senate by not eliminating the filibuster?

He says that the realities of guns are different in urban areas than in rural areas. Does he know that there are urban areas that have strict gun control laws and high rates of violent crime and rural areas that have lax gun control laws and low rates of violent crime?

He knocks Fox News and Rush Limbaugh for their coverage of the gun control debate. Why doesn’t he condemn NBC News anchor David Gregory who committed a felony in order to further the anti-gun agenda…and got away with it?

He argues that Republicans need to be willing to compromise on the gun control issue. I view a compromise as both sides giving up something and getting something in return. What do pro-gun supporters get in this debate? After seeing the proposed bills, pro-gun supporters are the only ones giving ground. That is not a compromise. That is a concession.

avs11054
January 27, 2013, 10:40 PM
Not to hijack the thread, but did anybody see Di-Fi on Face the Nation today? She said her bill was "moderate" :banghead::fire::cuss::barf:

gossamer
January 27, 2013, 10:41 PM
The. Second. Amendment. Isn't. About. Hunting.
I love it when people think the laws aren't there to protect what other people legally want to do.

Diamondback6
January 27, 2013, 10:49 PM
I have a better idea for compromise...

Bad Check Barry can go suck a dog turd. THEN we'll talk about repealing GCA, repealing the Hughes ban, reducing NFA transfer taxes to a flat $50... universal issuance of a select-fire M16 and marksmanship training to all high-school seniors not otherwise prohibited by criminal record or mental illness upon graduation...

WCraven
January 27, 2013, 10:55 PM
Where starting to win the war i think as all this gun buying is freaking him out..

2ifbyC
January 27, 2013, 10:58 PM
On a hypocritical note, Obama has converted his political campaign to a non-profit organization. By doing so, he will be bypassing Congress and using his massive data base of supporters to foster his political agenda.

“Campaign finance experts said the creation of a nonprofit group with close ties to the president could raise questions on how donations from corporations might influence federal policy. Craig Holman, who lobbies on ethics and campaign finance for the watchdog group Public Citizen, said if the group receives corporate and special interest money, it could "pose some very serious problems."

He is showing his true character as a despot, and not the "compromising” leader he would have us believe.

cfullgraf
January 27, 2013, 11:02 PM
Republicans not compromising?

What about the president threatening to veto legislation that does not fit with his plan. (My way or the highway!)

There was no compromise with the fiscal cliff crisis, just fears of the economy going in the tank again and messing up the administration's second term plans.

Clean97GTI
January 27, 2013, 11:11 PM
Republicans not compromising?

What about the president threatening to veto legislation that does not fit with his plan. (My way or the highway!)

There was no compromise with the fiscal cliff crisis, just fears of the economy going in the tank again and messing up the administration's second term plans.

I am glad to see a president veto legislation. It forces both branches to be smarter about what they try to pass. Certainly preferable to the Bush years where he signed damn near everything that hit his desk. Sign sign sign SPEND SPEND SPEND!!

Clean97GTI
January 27, 2013, 11:13 PM
if i might suggest something though. Perhaps compromising on the background check issue would give republicans a bargaining chip for another issue they want to work on.

Kim
January 27, 2013, 11:13 PM
Can you think of one "social" issue the left has ever compromised on???? Did not think so.

Clean97GTI
January 27, 2013, 11:15 PM
Can you think of one "social" issue the left has ever compromised on???? Did not think so.
universal health care.

helotaxi
January 28, 2013, 12:35 AM
universal health care.
How do you figure? "Buy it and STFU!" is compromise?

The man doesn't know the meaning of the word in any sense. Every issue that has come up has proven this over and again.

r1derbike
January 28, 2013, 01:08 AM
Ending on a sour note; no compromise. His method of forming a non-profit organization to amass funds for his misguided agendas, reeks of despotism, I agree.

It would be helpful to have an ally who is well-versed in political law, who could find a law Obama would break from using these ill-gotten gains to further erode the Constitution.

Imagine what we are in for the next 4 years. This is only the tip of the iceberg, and a very small tip, at that.

A crown on his head will be the next order of business of his agendas, I believe.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v402/r1derbike/Visual%20Oddities/KingObama_zps6b54ba7c.jpg

goon
January 28, 2013, 01:22 AM
I am not a Republican and I still think he is off his rocker on this.

Actually, the Republicans in New York would probably fall right in step with Obama's desires.

JERRY
January 28, 2013, 01:40 AM
I am not a Republican and I still think he is off his rocker on this.

Actually, the Republicans in New York would probably fall right in step with Obama's desires.

they already have. the new york state senate is republican controlled and they could have stopped the new restrictions on the 2nd amendment rights of new yorkers, but they didnt.

goon
January 28, 2013, 04:35 AM
On the topic of compromise...

Once upon a time this president promised a national dialogue on guns.
He set his Vice President to work forming a group to make recommendations about the issue. This group included a bunch of inner city politicians who favor harsh gun control and Walmart. But it didn't include any representatives with an opposing point of view. It didn't even include any pro-gun members of the House or the Senate. The panel made its recommendations, but all they had really done was to get a bunch of "yes men" to tell them what they wanted to hear.
Opposition was fierce.

Moral of the story - you don't get to bully the other side, then act all surprised when they don't just bow to your will.
I will be sending two more letters to senators, with accompanying emails, tomorrow.

HorseSoldier
January 28, 2013, 04:45 AM
His method of forming a non-profit organization to amass funds for his misguided agendas, reeks of despotism, I agree.

I wonder if this, politically speaking, isn't the emergence of a Wehrmacht/Waffen-SS sort of division between the party loyal and the storm troopers . . .

Blackstone
January 28, 2013, 04:52 AM
This is a so called constitutional law professor talking about 2A for hunting?

Kiln
January 28, 2013, 05:29 AM
Those damn Republicans keep slowing down progress by talking about rights and the constitution.

Democrat's idea of the second amendment:

"A well regulated militia, being necessary for hunting and target shooting, the right of the people to bear well regulated arms shall not be infringed."

meanmrmustard
January 28, 2013, 07:09 AM
The U.S. Constitution: Frustrating Liberals since 1789.:D

NeuseRvrRat
January 28, 2013, 08:33 AM
He said that moving forward on the topic means understanding that the realities of guns in urban areas are very different from the realities of guns in rural areas.


he's exactly right. i'm much more likely to need a gun for personal defense in urban areas.

DocCasualty
January 28, 2013, 08:38 AM
I wonder if they would read a report by Harvard Law?

www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf

No, probably not.
I've read this article before and it's excellent. The best rebuttal I've ever received from an anti-gunner to it is "yeah, but . . ." I guess if you don't have facts on your side all you can do is appeal to emotion.

wooly bugger
January 28, 2013, 08:55 AM
Just to throw this out there, how would you guys feel if there was an honest compromise and dialogue? I.e., reducing class 2 or class 3 restrictions, relaxing import restrictions, or doing something to ensure the carry and ownership rights of people traveling through restrictive areas in exchange for requiring a background check for all non-family exchanges?
I'd accept it. The only part of this fiasco I don't disagree with is background checks. I have one caveat. Any requirement for background checks has to be accompanied by free public access to NICS, with an understanding that if the check doesn't go through in a certain amount of time, it's a documented approval.

hso
January 28, 2013, 09:01 AM
Gee, maybe because some people remember what happened after the '94 AWB was passed. The costs to the supporters of any new law restricting magazines, firearms, or ammunition will be higher than the '96, '98, and 2000 elections.

Clinton and Feinstein gave too much credit to the NRA at the time of the backlash to AWB '94 for the losses in Congress and that the same mistakes are being made now.

The number of voters who own these firearms and magazines that use this ammunition out number NRA members and far far outnumber hunters and are a growing group in the country even as the debate rages and the media vilifies and tried to demonize us and these new owners of the firearms on the ban list.

Some politicians recognize that we're better connected and organized through internet forums and social media now more than when we overturned Congress.

Some of them recognize that the facts and actual data on crime showing that murder rates have fallen ever since AWB '94 expired are readily available and easily shared demonstrating the fact that AWB '13 supporters are lying to the American voters.

Some of them recognize we know that replacing politician supporting an AWB is possible and we'll spend our time and money to see that takes place. AND that even if one is passed the backlash will see it reversed

They know there are far more of us, we have access to better information and can distribute it quicker, we're far better organized on our own, and we'll be far more active in removing any politician from office that wants to restrict firearms, magazines or ammunition we might want to own.

Wonder why a politician might not want to risk throwing future away on Senator Feinstein's and President Obama's and VP Biden's out of date and out of touch ideology on firearms owners.:rolleyes:

Walkalong
January 28, 2013, 09:20 AM
Obama's blaming the other side (while he compromises on nothing) on this topic is no different than his blaming them on everything else. It's his style.

We can only hope if something gets passed voters will make them pay dearly, but it would be hard to get enough new pro gun politicians elected to undo the loss, so we really need to focus on defeating this in its entirety.

bhesler
January 28, 2013, 09:30 AM
While reading an article on Newark, NJ Mayor Cory Booker's softening stance on gun control, I came across a great quote from Sen Frank Lautenberg.

"The only way to effectively take on the gun lobby is to stand firm, not waver, and make no apologies," said Sen. Frank Lautenberg.

http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2013/01/cory_bookers_position_on_guns.html

Seems the other side is also unwilling to compromise.

TNBilly
January 28, 2013, 11:31 AM
While reading an article on Newark, NJ Mayor Cory Booker's softening stance on gun control, I came across a great quote from Sen Frank Lautenberg.

"The only way to effectively take on the gun lobby is to stand firm, not waver, and make no apologies," said Sen. Frank Lautenberg.

http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2013/01/cory_bookers_position_on_guns.html

Seems the other side is also unwilling to compromise.
And he left out his most effective tactic.... make sure it's stuck on the back of an truely important bill and pass it in the dark of night!

Manco
January 28, 2013, 12:11 PM
Is this joker just trying to fool people or is he really as delusional as he appears? As others have pointed out already, we live in a republic--NOT a democracy, which is effectively a euphemism for mob rule (the kind he likes when it favors his agenda). Sadly, most Americans seem to believe that we live in a democracy, too--I don't know where and when that propaganda ever started, but the belief is pervasive today. Not that this matters much, however, as few people even know the difference anyway. :rolleyes:

Listen to Obama whine and cry about not immediately getting his way--nothing short of dictatorial powers would satisfy him. It's a good thing that we do live in a still semi-functioning republic, or else we wouldn't be able to defend the Constitution and this nation against their enemies, such as the current president.

ApacheCoTodd
January 28, 2013, 07:11 PM
Merriam-Webster says:

Definition of COMPROMISE

1
a : settlement of differences by arbitration or by consent reached by mutual concessions.

Democrats say:

Definition of COMPROMISE

1
a : settlement of differences by coercion, humiliation, bribery or threat resulting in mutual agreement with the Democratic point of view.


Of course we won't compromise... on their terms. How'd that be a compromise? That's called conceding.

Texan Scott
January 28, 2013, 08:22 PM
This business has permanently blurred my perception of party lines. Yes, it seems MOST Ds are antis (or apathetic enough to go along), but not all of them. Harry Reid has become one of my favorite Dems ... how weird is that? And being Republican is CERTAINLY no guarantee of 2a conservatism any longer.

Nobody compromises anymore. If they do, how can you trust them? If they don't, nothing gets done. We're so polarized. I'm NOT a Texas secessionist, but I can see this presidential administration pushing us to- or past -that point, and it worries me.

I worry that there seems to be a strong push to make America "European"- not just gun laws, but anti-capitalist, highly regulated, and with "rights" that serve the will of the state or not at all.
I worry that these people will not compromise, but will accept concession and submission.

HorseSoldier
January 28, 2013, 08:45 PM
Party identity may suggest how someone stands, but it definitely doesn't mean they are a card carrying pro or anti 2A club member.

Let's not forget Bloomberg was elected as a Republican, and that the recent Republican nominee for president enacted an AWB while governor of Massachussets. I'll take redneck pro-gun Democrats from down South and such over those kind of New England Republicans all day long . . .

jerkface11
January 28, 2013, 08:47 PM
I'll take redneck pro-gun Democrats from down South

Like Bill Clinton?

Texan Scott
January 28, 2013, 09:02 PM
He said pro-GUN. Cigars are off-topic at THR. :neener:

slimjimriggins
January 28, 2013, 10:04 PM
Manco, I recall hearing many times in high school that we were a democracy. From teachers and students. Like some have suggested, schools are brainwashing young minds to obey our government without question.

InkEd
January 28, 2013, 10:13 PM
I really cannot stand Obama. He's is such a hypocrit and liar. I would like to be given the chance to meet him. So, that I may politely decline the invitation.

Even better would be to meet him at something silly at like yard sale (I couldn't imagine why he would go to one... but maybe for photo-op with "blue collar Americans" or something), and then while attempting to be funny he could try and haggle the price of something with me. To which I would reply... "That prices is firm! I have to sell it because my taxes keep going up and I do not negotiate with terrorists."

I am glad the people in the house are at least figuratively getting to tell him that we won't negotiate with terrorists.

Clean97GTI
January 28, 2013, 10:25 PM
How do you figure? "Buy it and STFU!" is compromise?

The man doesn't know the meaning of the word in any sense. Every issue that has come up has proven this over and again.

Obama didn't propose universal healthcare. Bill and Hillary Clinton proposed it in the 90s. Other presidents have proposed it in the past only to relent later.
We can thank the right wing for conjuring up the individual mandate.

Deaf Smith
January 28, 2013, 10:52 PM
Obama suggests Republicans unwilling to compromise in gun control debate

There can be No Compromise on the 2nd Amendment.

For to compromise on your basic freedom is to lose it.

End of discussion.

Deaf

2ifbyC
January 28, 2013, 11:04 PM
Obama is a thin-skinned, narcissistic, xenophobic, bully; the poster child of the left. Other than that, I might compromise and say I like him.

It is those characteristics of the man that make me believe that he is not lightening up his stance on gun control one iota.

From the “I shoot guns” ploy, use of his political campaign turned personal agenda team, interviews with friendly media, defiance of the Constitution, to his continued use of the bully pulpit to silence his critics (attacking the 1A) and manipulate public opinion, there are no depths he will avoid to win his position.

Unfortunately, his Chicago machine has finely honed their craft with many years of dirty fighting. We have passion and a Republic on our side. I am confident that we will win and the Obama “legacy” will be devoid of any more gun control, be it by compromise or infringement.

goon
January 29, 2013, 01:57 AM
At the risk of going political, I agree. He is a bully who is trying to use his office to erode a Constitutional right. I never understood those who gulped the kool-aid with him.

Congress can't decide on much these days but 77 just got together long enough to tell him to stop trying to subvert their authority and follow the law.

rdhood
January 29, 2013, 01:50 PM
No, Republicans are not "compromising" on gun control. They are not going to give up their 2nd amendment rights.

What exactly are opponents of gun control "giving up" in this proposed "compromise"

cfullgraf
January 29, 2013, 02:47 PM
There can be No Compromise on the 2nd Amendment.

For to compromise on your basic freedom is to lose it.

End of discussion.

Deaf

Well, there is a way to "compromise" on the Second Amendment and that is called an Amendment to the Constitution. It is a difficult and long process, for good reason.

Basic laws cannot violate the Constitution although the Constitution has numerous interpretations. I feel the interpretation should be the letter of the prose, not reading in something is not there. Unless, of course, a proper amendment is passed. (Prohibition and the Repeal of Prohibition is a prime example).

Moderators, delete if the following is improper...

Last summer, Bill O'Reilly said that Mr Obama was against capitalism. See the following...

http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/oreilly/2012/07/20/bill-oreilly-real-barack-obama-has-finally-stood

In addition, and my opinion only with nothing to back it up, I feel Mr Obama's sugar daddies are pulling his strings.

And watch out. Obama's sugar daddies have paid off Hillary Clinton's campaign debt from 2008.

Manco
January 29, 2013, 03:25 PM
(Prohibition and the Repeal of Prohibition is a prime example).

It's an interesting example, too, because the more extreme antis (those who favor complete disarmament) often cite it, perhaps without realizing that they are advocating for a form of prohibition themselves, and all that implies. This makes their ad hoc argument easier to counter, using the utter failure of Prohibition and the so-called War on Drugs as counterexamples.

What many antis, I believe, also fail to realize is that merely repealing the Second Amendment would NOT, by itself, take away our right to keep and bear arms. This, of course, is because the Second Amendment does not grant us any rights to begin with--it only helps prevent the government from infringing on a particular natural right that we already have. If we test individual antis with this and find that their understanding is lacking, then we can call into question how well their argument was really thought through (a relevant attack on their current knowledge of the subject matter, not an ad hominem attack on their personal character).

natman
January 29, 2013, 03:27 PM
President Obama is suggesting that House Republicans on the issue of gun control appear neither willing to work with him nor listen to the American public on the issue.

Obama realizes that he doesn't have the votes in the House and that if he did get enough votes the Supreme Court would invalidate an AWB anyway.

So he's decided to indulge in a bit of Republican bashing since he can't accomplish anything else.

Manco
January 29, 2013, 03:44 PM
Obama realizes that he doesn't have the votes in the House and that if he did get enough votes the Supreme Court would invalidate an AWB anyway.

The latter would probably hold true now, since the right to own militia-type weapons is understood to be protected, but if Obama or somebody of his ilk gets a chance to appoint even a single Supreme Court justice in the near future, then we'd be hosed (by an adverse 5-4 vote). :uhoh:

radiotom
January 29, 2013, 03:58 PM
All Obummer ever says is that he wants to compromise and the Republicans won't let him. But the truth is that he never wants to compromise and the Republicans always do. This is nothing new.

By the way, I hate it when Washington compromises, because the Democrats always get what they want.

natman
January 29, 2013, 04:00 PM
The latter would probably hold true now, since the right to own militia-type weapons is understood to be protected, but if Obama or somebody of his ilk gets a chance to appoint even a single Supreme Court justice in the near future, then we'd be hosed (by an adverse 5-4 vote). :uhoh:
Good point, but it would depend on which judge was being replaced.

RetiredUSNChief
January 29, 2013, 04:20 PM
What's there to compromise? It's all clearly laid out in the Second Amendment. No need to compromise.

As for stupid comments like "gerrymandered districts"...whoop-dee-doo. Saying something like that is like watching two monkeys in a fecal throwing contest. When it comes right down to it, both parties are doing exactly the same thing.

Ryanxia
January 29, 2013, 05:07 PM
Poor Mr. President. Somebody call the wah-mbulance!
I like it. :)

No compromise! This is our freedom.

razorback2003
January 29, 2013, 05:14 PM
Obama has gotten most everything he has wanted to turn this country into a high unemployment no guns Europe.

jamesbeat
January 29, 2013, 05:40 PM
No, Republicans are not "compromising" on gun control. They are not going to give up their 2nd amendment rights.

What exactly are opponents of gun control "giving up" in this proposed "compromise"
They want no guns, we want all the guns.
Their idea of a 'compromise' is us moving closer to what they want, and what they expect to be the inevitable outcome (a country in which only criminals have guns).

Their idea of a compromise is letting us still have some guns, even though they want us to have none.
In return, they want us to compromise by giving up some of the guns we already have, or to agree to limits such as low magazine capacities and registration.



Unfortunately for us, we are already far more compromised than we should be, which is why I don't own a machine gun.

Robbins290
January 29, 2013, 05:55 PM
Who do I write too? And what words should I say? I'm totally clueless with this stuff

Manco
January 29, 2013, 06:09 PM
Good point, but it would depend on which judge was being replaced.

Correct, I had neglected to mention that :o--thanks for catching it. The Supreme Court justices usually choose to retire when a president of similar political bias is in office, so that means "our" justices will need to hold out for at least four more years (provided their health holds up).

As for stupid comments like "gerrymandered districts"...whoop-dee-doo. Saying something like that is like watching two monkeys in a fecal throwing contest. When it comes right down to it, both parties are doing exactly the same thing.

I just got redistricted into an even more "conservative" area, where the incumbent Republican congressman got like 80% of the vote (with no campaigning) while my former congressman, a long-time Republican incumbent, was just barely beaten in the last election after a hotly-contested campaign. Basically, all of the "conservatives" were piled into one district, and the Democrats gained a seat in Congress (by the slimmest of margins) as a result. Sure, only Republicans practice gerrymandering...right.... :rolleyes:

Zombiphobia
January 29, 2013, 06:12 PM
Poor Mr. President. Somebody call the wah-mbulance!


Yeah. I know I was shocked both times.

He's starting the blame game and whining about lack of cooperation. Well, no duh wonder boy!!! YOU'RE BREAKING THE LAW, BUTT-HEAD!!!

He's destroying our nation, step by step. He's corrupting the minds of our youth.

And he's subtly playing the race card now through insinuation.

He won't stop until he's either totally destoyed our nation, or until we boot him out.

John3921
January 29, 2013, 06:29 PM
Who do I write too? And what words should I say? I'm totally clueless with this stuff
Write your Senators, write your congressmen. Join the NRA - even if you don't care 100% for their policies.

There are many websites that make corresponding with your representatives to the congressional branch easy. Ruger has an automated emailer set up where you can write to everyone from Barry on down - you don't even need to actually compose anything - they have that done for you. popvox.com will take you through each individual bill in the senate and the house and let you vote y/n and email the appropriate legislator.

Resist Evil
January 29, 2013, 06:30 PM
It isn't just "he" who is destroying our nation. It is also all those who support him in Congress, in business, in law, in medicine, in education, in media, and in the voting booth.

goon
January 29, 2013, 06:50 PM
Robbins290 - there are a couple tools to help you contact your representatives and Senators. One is facilitated by Ruger, the other by the NRA.

http://www.ruger.com/micros/advocacy/

http://www.nraila.org/get-involved-locally/grassroots/write-your-reps.aspx

As to what you should say, be sincere. Say what you mean. If you have to write with both hands holding a purple crayon, I don't care. You're still an American with a voice and the power to use that voice to protect your rights.
Bottom line - we need you. You need to get in this fight with us. Write, call, email - just get in here and help us.

Clean97GTI
January 29, 2013, 11:49 PM
All Obummer ever says is that he wants to compromise and the Republicans won't let him. But the truth is that he never wants to compromise and the Republicans always do. This is nothing new.

By the way, I hate it when Washington compromises, because the Democrats always get what they want.
so the record numbers of republican filibusters are the republicans attempts at compromise?

Kiln
January 30, 2013, 01:25 AM
so the record numbers of republican filibusters are the republicans attempts at compromise?
Maybe it is because we've seen a record number of socialist bills introduced and for some reason only Democrats want them?

TRX
January 30, 2013, 06:30 AM
What other Amendment would they want us to "compromise" on next? First? Thirteenth? Fourteenth?

Manco
January 30, 2013, 10:28 AM
What other Amendment would they want us to "compromise" on next? First? Thirteenth? Fourteenth?

I'm thinking the Fourth.... :scrutiny:

Blakenzy
January 30, 2013, 10:49 AM
We already compromised on the Fourth... to keep children safe from evil Drugs. That was largely a "conservative" initiative.

And then we compromised the Fourth some more... to keep everyone safe from evil "terrorists". That was a bipartisan, red-blue, nation of cowards initiative.

Manco
January 30, 2013, 11:21 AM
We already compromised on the Fourth... to keep children safe from evil Drugs. That was largely a "conservative" initiative.

And then we compromised the Fourth some more... to keep everyone safe from evil "terrorists".

All valid points. And next up is protecting our children from evil guns--the kind that "assault" people all by themselves because, well, that's what they're called. :rolleyes:

That was a bipartisan, red-blue, nation of cowards initiative.

I love how the last line of our national anthem is a question. Americans should ask ourselves this question, in earnest, on a regular basis.

Blakenzy
January 30, 2013, 01:36 PM
I love how the last line of our national anthem is a question. Americans should ask ourselves this question, in earnest, on a regular basis.

Good observation.

If you enjoyed reading about "Obama suggests Republicans unwilling to compromise in gun control debate" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!