Obama suggests Republicans unwilling to compromise in gun control debate

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 . . .

I'll take redneck pro-gun Democrats from down South

Click to expand...

Like Bill Clinton?

He said pro-GUN. Cigars are off-topic at THR.

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.

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.

helotaxi said:

How do you figure? "Buy it and ****!" 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.

Click to expand...

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.

Obama suggests Republicans unwilling to compromise in gun control debate

Click to expand...

There can be No Compromise on the 2nd Amendment.

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

End of discussion.

Deaf

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.

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"

Deaf Smith said:

There can be No Compromise on the 2nd Amendment.

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

End of discussion.

Deaf

Click to expand...

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.

cfullgraf said:

(Prohibition and the Repeal of Prohibition is a prime example).

Click to expand...

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).

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.

Click to expand...

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.

natman said:

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.

Click to expand...

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).

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.

Manco said:

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).

Click to expand...

Good point, but it would depend on which judge was being replaced.

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.

Hokkmike said:

Poor Mr. President. Somebody call the wah-mbulance!

Click to expand...

I like it.

No compromise! This is our freedom.

Obama has gotten most everything he has wanted to turn this country into a high unemployment no guns Europe.

rdhood said:

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"

Click to expand...

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.

Who do I write too? And what words should I say? I'm totally clueless with this stuff

natman said:

Good point, but it would depend on which judge was being replaced.

Click to expand...

Correct, I had neglected to mention that --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).

RetiredUSNChief said:

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.

Click to expand...

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....

Poor Mr. President. Somebody call the wah-mbulance!

Click to expand...

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.

Robbins290 said:

Who do I write too? And what words should I say? I'm totally clueless with this stuff

Click to expand...

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.

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.