Obama on gun rights.

Status
Not open for further replies.
I think "under the radar" translates to: 'dear sarah, thanks, but this is a politically inconvenient issue for Democrats, so I'm giving you a bit of lip service, but in reality will do nothing'

That's my interpretation anyway.

Democrats are wise to remember 1994
 
I would expect to see precisely 0 additional gun control measures of any kind on the national level before the next presidential election.

And even after that it's still improbable. We'd need a half dozen more Gabriel Giffords tragedies in as much time to turn national sentiment that way, and I doubt we get them. Good to hear she's doing better.
 
Sure, i do agree that the Pres stepping into the gun control issues is a bad thing, and yes it is second hand.
But, why move for laws when the admin can rule via policy and having agencies change rules.
 
The President wants to keep his job for four more years. He would like to have more members of his party in both houses of Congress. These desires are not compatible with introducing more gun control legislation.

I have no doubt President Obama would like to see something like an assault weapon ban. I also have no doubt he won't try to make it happen. He may go so far as to instruct the heads of federal agencies to enforce every rule and law presently enacted as firmly as possible.
 
Sure, i do agree that the Pres stepping into the gun control issues is a bad thing, and yes it is second hand.
But, why move for laws when the admin can rule via policy and having agencies change rules.
Click to expand...

The ATF and related agencies have their powers enumerated by congressionally-passed law, right? They have wide latitude within those confines but there are confines, correct? Otherwise, where is the check on executive power?
 
The President wants to keep his job for four more years. He would like to have more members of his party in both houses of Congress. These desires are not compatible with introducing more gun control legislation.
Click to expand...

Good point. And the facts are that, if you cannot vote in a pro-gun legislator, you can still sometimes get what you want if the voters make the political realities such that a candidate dare not assault their issue.
 
In addition to trying to get the President reelected in 2012, the Democrats have a lot of Senate seats up for reelection, including many in states where gun control is a losing issue.

The Democrats are aware that the reason they held the Senate in 2010 was that they had few incumbents up for reelection. They won't have that luxury next year--the ones up include those that they gained in 2006, and very well could go back Republican.

Remember, the Senate is the body that approves nominations for heads of executive agencies, and appointing anti-gun people to those positions can be held against the senators.
 
Let's not make this a partisan politics thread since it doesn't make sense to do so. Plenty of elected officials from both parties who are either big A antis or small a antis.

The best thing that anyone can do is look at the existing voting records and act accordingly instead of blindly following a party designation that doesn't reflect the voting record of the individual.

Forget Rebulicrat or Demican and look at the individual voting records of your elected officials in the House and Senate and write letters, send emails, make calls and visit with them in Washington and when they're back home in the district to tell them your vote depends upon their behavior on 2A issues.
 
Yeah, I wasn't trying to make this about Team Red vs. Team Blue. I was trying to point out that Obama trying to push gun control right now would likely have major repercussions for his party in 2012.

Obama pushing for gun control would be more likely to hurt congressional Democrats than his reelection campaign, regardless of where those Dems stood on gun control (and the ones that lose out the most would likely be the most pro-gun as a consequence of demographics).
 
Every few years, a decade or so, politicians like to fuel the gun control thing.

Funny that every few years those same politicans learn from their mistake.
 
Obama pushing for gun control would be more likely to hurt congressional Democrats than his reelection campaign, regardless of where those Dems stood on gun control (and the ones that lose out the most would likely be the most pro-gun as a consequence of demographics).
Click to expand...

That's the conclusion of most of us.
 
I understand the blog's desire to avoid partisanship. But facts are stubborn things. When Donkeys ride, we lose. Not much of a way to pretend that ain't the case.
 
whalerman said:
I understand the blog's desire to avoid partisanship. But facts are stubborn things. When Donkeys ride, we lose. Not much of a way to pretend that ain't the case.
Click to expand...
hso said:
The best thing that anyone can do is look at the existing voting records and act accordingly instead of blindly following a party designation that doesn't reflect the voting record of the individual.
Click to expand...
What about this statement is so hard to understand?
 
I don't know if we have anything to worry about. Yet.

Obama doesn't care much for guns, but he seems to understand that it isn't worth the backlash to do anything about it, and especially with the response he got from his proposal for "common sense" gun control measures.

The other part is that considering how far he has gone out of his way to be bipartisan, even when he didn't have to be, it would be a little strange for him to try to sneak something by.

If he does anything at all, it won't be this term.

The shotgun importability thing is rather frightening, but I don't know whether it's Obama's doing.
 
There is a number of antis that would love to pass gun control if given a chance and they felt they could get the vote.

Yes more and most of the serious antis in power are in the Democrat box. Even the pro-gun variety are often for increased licensing, classes, checks, and other increased government oversights that lead to easier implementation and acceptance of future gun control.
But there is some bad republicans too, including many that only pay lip service to appeal to more of the party but would readily support a ban if the tide turned that way.
Mitt Romney is the Republican top runner at this point favored for the presidential ticket, and he is a lip service guy that is rather anti-gun and from anti-gun MA where he certainly hasn't reduced the anti-gun laws in place there and has actually passed more into being:
http://www.ontheissues.org/governor/Mitt_Romney_Gun_Control.htm
He supports a new Assault Weapon ban, supported the Brady Bill, and would sign any anti-gun bill if he felt the tide was going that way. He would be the kind of guy to back bi-partisan "common sense" controls.


It would be great if supporters of both parties could pressure them to support the Constitutional right, removing it as a partisan issue.
The basic rights in the Bill of Rights should not even be an issue we need to vote on, all candidates swear an oath to them on taking office after all.
We need to make it happen.


As for Obama, we can all see his voting record prior to becoming president where he voted for virtually all gun control ever considered.
He has not enacted gun control as president, but he is also aware the largest surge of firearms purchases in US history happened as a result of him taking office.
They know how many NICs checks they ran, and he is well aware it is not as safe to be anti gun at the national level as it was as a Chicago representative. There was some water testing though after Giffords was shot, but the country was still so solidly pro-gun that it was obvious it was not the time.
Then the foreign and domestic pressure to reduce our rights for the alleged benefit of Mexico (even though many of the weapons used trickled down from government) has been resisted by him as well. He even told the anti-gun Attorney General he appointed to stop publicly calling for an Assault Weapon ban.
 
Last edited:
Obama has known gun control was a loser since the early days of his administration when his Attorney General, Eric Holder, let Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi know he wanted to see the assault weapons ban come up. Confronted by a bloc of pro-gun Democrats, Pelosi and Reid informed Holder that the AWB had exactly no chance of going anywhere and that he should look to enforcing laws on the books.

In addition, I think the antics of the former mayor of Obama's hometown have hurt the gun control movement and any ideas the President might have had. Daley was a buffoon and, fortunately for us, keeps on compounding the comedy by asking for armed bodyguards after he left office. The episode with the the reporter was also priceless. He should be a poster child for the NRA.

Beyond that, Obama really does have more important irons in the fire and has had since he was elected. He has got to devote whatever political pull he has to the budget, disengagement in Iraq and Afghanistan, continuing economic problems and high unemployment, just to name a few. A losing proposition like gun control probably isn't very high on his to-do list.

Besides, no matter what you might think of him, President Obama is a very smart man and a fairly shrewd politician. All he has to do is look at the pro-gun legislation being passed in state after state to figure out the public mood.
 
Just because multiple sources say the same thing doesn't make it true. Especially if the sources have the same ideological axe to grind. Where are the opposing sources thumping their chests in triumph? You would think if the reports are correct, the other side would be dancing in the streets.
 
Will you all quit panicing because of rumors please? This chicken little the sky is falling syndrome is comical.
 
the only reason for gun control is that the gov. knows it's failing and that the only way they will contain the population is by power over the population. the gov. employs think tanks ie rand corp. as futurists. what if scenarios are constantly played out and countermeasures are planned to circumvent.

open your eyes--at anyone time there is a 2 week supply of food, money is tight, energy is costly, jobs are scarce and there is an underclass who wants more and more. there is a breaking point.

the stealth power grab by the government is designed for one thing only--to placate the masses before the time bomb goes off.:mad:
 
Never say never

Just remember! The pro gun people of England, Australia and Canada said it would never happen. Some times it's needed to sound an alarm to get people to shake the cobwebs out of their brain housing group and become pro active. Complacency killed the pro gun movement in the above countries.
Take hso's advice and write your letters, do your research first, and saturate your reps with educated request. Once in a while we will type a letter and drop off copies at local gun shops to put out on the counter for people to mail off to the reps.
 
Last edited:
In a few simple words: Disarm all average Americans, lie to get re-elected. Check his record and personal people associated with plus voting record. I think personally he is no friend of the American shooter.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

W
  • Locked
Making phone calls
Replies
0
Views
850
wacki
W
M
  • Locked
Obama considering gun control?
Replies
2
Views
475
rbernie
rbernie
D
  • Locked
Moderators, ALERT! I don't want to violate any rights.
Replies
7
Views
721
Art Eatman
A
S
  • Locked
Change.gov = Obama AWB 2
2
Replies
34
Views
4K
hso
hso
P
  • Locked
Obama on Gun Control
Replies
4
Views
573
Larry Ashcraft
Larry Ashcraft
Back
Top