• What’s Obama’s Record on Gun Control?
    72 replies, posted
[img]http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/art/omar/600/4029v6615.jpg[/img] [quote=Frontline]Last night, in the fourth address he’s made to victims of mass shootings, President Barack Obama called, again, for action to end the tragedies. “No single law — no set of laws can eliminate evil from the world, or prevent every senseless act of violence in our society,” he said at the Dec. 16 memorial service for the 26 victims of the Newtown, Conn. shooting. ”But that can’t be an excuse for inaction.” Obama’s focus during his presidency so far has seemed to try to walk a line between gun control and gun rights. During the Democratic National Convention in 2008, for example, Obama spoke about finding common ground between supporters of both sides: “The reality of gun ownership may be different for hunters in rural Ohio than they are for those plagued by gang violence in Cleveland, but don’t tell me we can’t uphold the Second Amendment while keeping AK-47s out of the hands of criminals,” he said. So far, however, the only legislation the president has signed since he took office in 2008 has expanded gun laws, allowing loaded guns in national parks and unloaded weapons stored in luggage on Amtrak trains. Six months after the Jan. 8, 2011 shooting in Tuscon, Ariz. that left six dead and several others wounded, including Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, the White House said the attorney general had formed working groups in the Justice department to identify “common-sense measures” to prevent another mass shooting while respecting gun rights. The department came up with a list of proposals, including ways to strengthen background checks for prospective gun buyers. But according to a recent New York Times story, it shelved those ideas about a year ago as the administration focused on the upcoming election and the attorney general dealt with the fallout from Operation Fast and Furious, the botched gun-trafficking case. After the July 20 shooting in the Aurora, Col. movie theater that killed 12, Obama spoke to the Urban League in New Orleans about the problem of violence — not just mass shootings, but gang violence in cities — that plagues the U.S. “I’m going to continue to work with members of both parties, and with religious groups and with civic organizations, to arrive at a consensus around violence reduction — not just of gun violence, but violence at every level, on every step, looking at everything we can do to reduce violence and keep our children safe — from improving mental health services for troubled youth — to instituting more effective community policing strategies,” he said. But the president again proposed no new initatives. Shortly after those remarks and the Aug. 5 shooting at the Sikh temple in Oak Creek, Wisc. that left six dead, White House spokesman Jay Carney side-stepped the question of whether new legislation was needed, repeatedly saying, “We need to take common-sense measures that protect Second Amendment rights and make it harder for those who should not have weapons under existing law from obtaining weapons.” Carney said that Obama has long supported renewing a ban on assault weapons, which expired in 2004, but that the stalemate in Congress made passing any such legislation difficult. By 2012, when he appeared before the Democratic National Convention again, Obama made no mention of guns at all. In Obama’s address yesterday, the president promised to use “whatever power this office holds” to stop the violence. But it’s unclear what that will mean. Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) has promised to introduce new gun-control legislation in the next session, which she said would be similar to the now-expired assault-weapons ban. “It [the bill] will ban the sale, the transfer, the transportation and the possession,” the California senator said on NBC’s Meet the Press yesterday. “Not retroactively, but prospectively. And it will ban the same for big clips, drums or strips of more than 10 bullets.” The White House hasn’t yet said whether it would support the bill. The president’s slim record on guns has earned him harsh criticism from both sides. The Brady Project, which supports strong gun controls, branded his first term a “failure,” while the National Rifle Association said (pdf) that Obama “has a long history of trying to regulate, restrict and ban your Second Amendment rights out of existence.”[/quote] [url="http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/government-elections-politics/whats-obamas-record-on-gun-control/"]Source[/url]
Obama is terrified of the gun lobby
Guns and other rights are what holds many people together. Punishing everyone because a set of people aren't prepared or capable of owning firearms isn't a smart move for anyone. Registration and mental assessments probably won't go over well either. Thing is, if someone decides they want a gun to shoot up a theater, a couple of laws restricting them from buying a gun probably wont get in their way seeing as weapons and firearms are one of the main products of modern day black markets.
[QUOTE=Raidyr;38872057]Obama is terrified of the gun lobby[/QUOTE] Not really, the gun lobby doesn't really exist to protect the right of gun owners. It's now just a right wing fringe lobby.
[QUOTE=Paul McCartney;38872159]Not really, the gun lobby doesn't really exist to protect the right of gun owners. It's now just a right wing fringe lobby.[/QUOTE] Besides, why would he be? They can't cost him an election anymore.
but obongo wants to take away mah guns!!
[QUOTE=JerryK;38872348]but obongo wants to take away mah guns!![/QUOTE] Well he actually might now, who knows. I have a feeling nothing will come from this though
[QUOTE=Vodkavia;38872170]This is the best way to prevent the mentally unstable from shooting up our schools.[/QUOTE] You cannot treat criminal psychopathy until after the person has done the crime, even then treatment has been shown to only make them more dangerous
[QUOTE=Captain Forever;38872557]You cannot treat criminal psychopathy until after the person has done the crime, even then treatment has been shown to only make them more dangerous[/QUOTE] proof?
[QUOTE=Paul McCartney;38872159]Not really, the gun lobby doesn't really exist to protect the right of gun owners. It's now just a right wing fringe lobby.[/QUOTE] The NRA might be in the pocket of the Republicans, but most of the other gun rights groups aren't loony
[QUOTE=OrionChronicles;38873095]proof?[/QUOTE] [QUOTE]In fact, several studies have shown that existing treatment makes criminal psychopaths worse. In one, psychopaths who underwent social-skills and anger-management training before release had an 82 percent reconviction rate. Psychopaths who didn't take the program had a 59 percent reconviction rate. Conventional psychotherapy starts with the assumption that a patient wants to change, but psychopaths are usually perfectly happy as they are. They enrol in such programs to improve their chances of parole. "These guys learn the words but not the music," Hare says. "They can repeat all the psychiatric jargon -- 'I feel remorse,' they talk about the offence cycle -- but these are words, hollow words." [/QUOTE] [url]http://www.hare.org/links/saturday.html[/url]
[QUOTE=Captain Forever;38873495][url]http://www.hare.org/links/saturday.html[/url][/QUOTE] How do other countries deal with it then?
For starters, other countries don't exactly advertise guns in a manner that links them with overt masculinity. [url=https://twitter.com/JessicaValenti/status/280711110485762048][img]http://i.imgur.com/IFQHU.jpg[/img][/url]
[QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;38873630]How do other countries deal with it then?[/QUOTE] No other country has a gun culture like the US. There are many other issues unique to the social climate of the US. ^case in point
[QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;38873630]How do other countries deal with it then?[/QUOTE] Well Psycopaths tend to be very skilled at running large businesses because they're good at dealing with people and can stay focused on a strategy that brings them personal success. Of course they're also likely to do some pretty shady things if it helps them get that personal success, but that's arguably better than murdering a bunch of people for no reason. That can't be said for other forms of antisocial personality disorder, though. I realize that doesn't answer your question at all but I'm not from another country so I don't know.
[QUOTE=3noneTwo;38873771]For starters, other countries don't exactly advertise guns in a manner that links them with overt masculinity. [url=https://twitter.com/JessicaValenti/status/280711110485762048][img]http://i.imgur.com/IFQHU.jpg[/img][/url][/QUOTE] that's really just bushmaster though, and they can advertise however they want
[QUOTE=_Kent_;38872183]Besides, why would he be? They can't cost him an election anymore.[/QUOTE] politics dude. you need political "capital" to get things going. if he unilaterally starts doing shit then congress will block him and render him ineffective. the gun lobby might not control obama directly, but their sway of congressional members make it so he can't simply push forward legislation. everyone in d.c. is at the mercy of big money in some form or another, whether directly or not. [editline]18th December 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=3noneTwo;38873771]For starters, other countries don't exactly advertise guns in a manner that links them with overt masculinity. [url=https://twitter.com/JessicaValenti/status/280711110485762048][img]http://i.imgur.com/IFQHU.jpg[/img][/url][/QUOTE] that's disgusting. i'm not pro gun-control necessarily but i think advertisement like that is simply irresponsible.
[QUOTE=3noneTwo;38873771]For starters, other countries don't exactly advertise guns in a manner that links them with overt masculinity. [noparse][url=https://twitter.com/JessicaValenti/status/280711110485762048][img]http://i.imgur.com/IFQHU.jpg[/img][/url][/noparse][/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Captain Forever;38873791]No other country has a gun culture like the US. There are many other issues unique to the social climate of the US. ^case in point[/QUOTE] I meant the mental health issue, I already know most other countries dealt with firearms issues by mass banning them.
[QUOTE=A_Pigeon;38872124]Guns and other rights are what holds many people together. Punishing everyone because a set of people aren't prepared or capable of owning firearms isn't a smart move for anyone. Registration and mental assessments probably won't go over well either. Thing is, if someone decides they want a gun to shoot up a theater, a couple of laws restricting them from buying a gun probably wont get in their way seeing as weapons and firearms are one of the main products of modern day black markets.[/QUOTE] My god, stop using this "no point in making it illegal if they are just gonna get their hands on firearms anyway" It's the most flawed argument in the whole firearms debate, it's like saying "Why should murder and child rape be illegal? People are just going to kill eachother and rape children anyway." Laws exist for a reason and we cant decide on them on the principle that people are "just going to break them anyway" so stop using this argument, it's terrible.
My dad was talking to a Vietnam vet the other day, they have to get mental assessments before renewing their gun license (every time it expires). The vet said he felt like going home and throwing his medals at the police when they told him. Laws or no laws, you'll never stop gun crime. Best way to help prevent the problems is to fix the source. It's the same with weed (if you consider weed a problem).
i like obama he seems to understand that banning assault weapons is bad voodoo also he reportedly spends a lot of time at the white house range, probably firing military-grade (full auto, lucky bastard) guns. again, just hear-say. take it with a grain of salt.
[QUOTE=3noneTwo;38873771]For starters, other countries don't exactly advertise guns in a manner that links them with overt masculinity.[/QUOTE] in america guns have been linked to self-empowerment and self-determinism (both considered masculine traits) ever since the american revolution
[QUOTE=3noneTwo;38873771]For starters, other countries don't exactly advertise guns in a manner that links them with overt masculinity. [url=https://twitter.com/JessicaValenti/status/280711110485762048][img]http://i.imgur.com/IFQHU.jpg[/img][/url][/QUOTE] Do you like, never watch television? Or surf the internet? It is an advertisement for a product targeted towards a male demographic. You either use sex to sell it, or hyper masculinity. Hyper masculinity tends to be used for products like tools, motor vehicles, or alcohol. Sex tends to be used for things like personal hygiene products and other odds and ends. Often a combo of both is employed. Hell, Miller lite used exactly the same tactic: [url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4S6qVg0eGgU[/url] The product is irrelevant as far as an advertising agency is concerned. The demographic is the important component.
[QUOTE=GunFox;38874407]Do you like, never watch television? Or surf the internet? It is an advertisement for a product targeted towards a male demographic. You either use sex to sell it, or hyper masculinity. Hyper masculinity tends to be used for products like tools, motor vehicles, or alcohol. Sex tends to be used for things like personal hygiene products and other odds and ends. Often a combo of both is employed. Hell, Miller lite used exactly the same tactic: [url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4S6qVg0eGgU[/url] The product is irrelevant as far as an advertising agency is concerned. The demographic is the important component.[/QUOTE] I don't understand your argument. You're basically saying that since other people use certain tactics for products that aren't even closely the same thing, it's okay? His point is that it's irresponsible to create a gun culture that attempts to sell firearms by appealing to a sense of "manliness" and lack of thought beforehand. It is a problem.
[QUOTE=Zally13;38874466]I don't understand your argument. You're basically saying that since other people use certain tactics for products that aren't even closely the same thing, it's okay? His point is that it's irresponsible to create a gun culture that attempts to sell firearms by appealing to a sense of "manliness" and lack of thought beforehand. It is a problem.[/QUOTE] they can advertise however they want.
[QUOTE=Zally13;38874466]I don't understand your argument. You're basically saying that since other people use certain tactics for products that aren't even closely the same thing, it's okay? His point is that it's irresponsible to create a gun culture that attempts to sell firearms by appealing to a sense of "manliness" and lack of thought beforehand. It is a problem.[/QUOTE] Something tells me these ads aren't going to do more for creating a gun culture than being a country born from armed revolution did.
[QUOTE=A_Pigeon;38872124]Guns and other rights are what holds many people together. Punishing everyone because a set of people aren't prepared or capable of owning firearms isn't a smart move for anyone. Registration and mental assessments probably won't go over well either. Thing is, if someone decides they want a gun to shoot up a theater, a couple of laws restricting them from buying a gun probably wont get in their way seeing as weapons and firearms are one of the main products of modern day black markets.[/QUOTE] no you need mental assements. These are people dieing who didnt have a chance. Stop with your nonsense about rights. We need a way to make sure that 20 fucking kids dont get gunned down in a classroom. Changing laws does help. Maybe only by a percentage... but god damnit ill take that percentage anyday of the week. We are in a time where it has gone to far. I say quartly mental health check ups for anyone that owns a gun... you dont like it? Too bad... im not having my kid killed because you are too proud of a citizen. You either take a stand now or watch more people die. Make it harder for someone who wants to commit a crime and evantually the weak will give up.. and the weak are the ones who kill all these innocent people. Use logic and youll see that pissing off some gun owners is worth it in the long run. Guns are idiological things unless used for sport or hunting. We dont need them in civilian life and to make a better county and a better world they need to be limited. We should be proud that maybe one day we can say we dont need to buy a gun to protect us. That should be a goal. Sorry for the rant. Im drunk..My Gf/ fiance is a teacher and im jus chaken up by all of this recently. and im dunk... did i say that>?
[QUOTE=King of Limbs;38874523]and im dunk... did i say that>?[/QUOTE] this explains why all of your posts in the past half hour have been so abysmal
[QUOTE=ButtsexV3;38874540]this explains why all of your posts in the past half hour have been so abysmal[/QUOTE] Don't worry, his spelling is better when drunk.
[QUOTE=Vodkavia;38874731]So what? Do you believe these sort of shootings happen every single day and have major effect on the collective school body of the US? They don't. 20 students out of 85 million students lost their lives to mad gunman. If anything you should be happy that this happens to so few people have to go through this sort of shit. You want to lower the percentage? is 20 out of 85 million not enough? That's not even one percent, not even one one hundredth of a percent! Pissing off gun owners with bullshit laws made by people who don't know half a shit about what their talking about fueled by flavour of the week sensationalism is not worth it if the outcome of doing so makes something that will practically NEVER EVER HAPPEN TO ANYONE YOU KNOW slightly less likely to happen.[/QUOTE] So we should allow these 20 out of 85 million just die like that to keep people the comfort of having the luxury of firing off a load at the firing range? Is it really worth the lives of those students? Are we really putting our own luxuries in front of others lives? And not happens to anyone I know? What about the ones who actually did lose a son/daughter, grandson/granddaughterm brother/sister and friend. Should this be allowed to happen just because YOU want your "rights" to fire hot lumps of metal at some targets for fun? The american government needs to put a lot of money into changing the current situation of firearms regulations and increase their capability of treating the mentally sick.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.