Aides: Obama will use Arizona shootings to push for more gun restrictions

Little-Acorn

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2009
Messages
2,444
Location
San Diego, CA
As designated-Mayor Rahm Emanuel said, the Democrats aren't letting a "good crisis" (the shooting of Congressman Gabrielle Giffords) go to waste.

My favorite part of this article is highlighted below. Obama doesn't want to be seen as using the Giffords shooting to push his unconstitutional laws... so he will wait a few more weeks, and then use the Giffords shooting to push his unconstitutional laws, apparently hoping people won't notice the connection by then.

IOW, he doesn't mind using tragedy for political purposes, however illegal. He just minds getting caught at it.

This could become one of the first tests of the new Republican majority in the House, to see if they will resist the demagoguery of the leftist fanatics and obey the Constitution instead.

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

http://www.newsweek.com/2011/01/27/white-house-to-push-gun-control.html

White House to Push Gun Control

by Daniel Stone
January 27, 2011

Obama intentionally did not mention gun control in his State of the Union, but aides say that in the next two weeks the administration will unveil a campaign to get Congress to toughen existing laws.

At the beginning of his State of the Union address, President Obama tipped his hat to Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, who’s now recuperating in a Houston medical facility. But throughout the hourlong speech, he never addressed the issue at the core of the Giffords tragedy—gun control—and what lawmakers would, or should, do to reform American firearm-access laws.

That was intentional, according to the White House. An administration official says Obama didn’t mention guns in his speech because of the omnipresent controversy surrounding the Second Amendment and gun control. Tuesday’s speech was designed to be more about the economy and how, as Obama repeated nine times, the U.S. could “win the future.”

But in the next two weeks, the White House will unveil a new gun-control effort in which it will urge Congress to strengthen current laws, which now allow some mentally unstable people, such as alleged Arizona shooter Jared Loughner, to obtain certain assault weapons, in some cases without even a background check.

Tuesday night after the speech, Obama adviser David Plouffe said to NBC News that the president would not let the moment after the Arizona shootings pass without pushing for some change in the law, to prevent another similar incident. “It’s a very important issue, and one I know there’s going to be debate about on the Hill.”

The White House said that to avoid being accused of capitalizing on the Arizona shootings for political gain, Obama will address the gun issue in a separate speech, likely early next month. He’s also expected to use Arizona as a starting point, but make the case that America’s gun laws have been too loose for much longer than just the past few weeks.

As the White House prepares its strategy, several gun-policy groups are saying they were burned by the lack of any mention of guns in the president’s highest-profile speech of the year. “President Obama tonight failed to challenge old assumptions on the need for, and political possibilities of, reducing the gun violence—which he suggested should be done two weeks ago in Tucson,” said Paul Helmke, president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, the nation’s largest gun-safety group. No group said it had been consulted by the White House regarding legislative suggestions.
 
Werbung:
guess what banning some times of arms...has been done for more then a 100 years...no court has ruled it against the constitution

large clips have been banned before, assault weapons...Fully auto are and have been since like the 30's...and you may have the right to bear arms, but does not mean everyone does...just like felons can't vote in some places...or do you place the right to have a gun above right to vote?

one day you will learn that something is not unconstitutional just because you keep repeating it.

also maybe I missed it, but where did someone call it " a good Crisis" ? if you put it in quotes...its nice to see you actuly are quoting someone not just making it sound like they said it.

But I agree Dems should wait till there has been no major shooting for a few months before they ask for more sane gun control...of course that will never happen as its a near daily event these days.
 
Looks like my groupie POS is at it again, trying to cram as many non seqitors, irrelevant fluff, and wrong conclusions into one post as he can. Some things never change, I guess.

Back to the subject:
Every time the leftists try to restrict law-abiding citizens' guns, they get their heads handed to them in subsequent elections. The clear language of the Constitution aside, apparently disarming the people is a VERY high priority with them - they keep trying it despite the repeated smackdowns they get. What will it take to get them to try something that actually reduces crime (with and without guns) instead?
 
Looks like my groupie POS is at it again, trying to cram as many non seqitors, irrelevant fluff, and wrong conclusions into one post as he can. Some things never change, I guess.

Back to the subject:
Every time the leftists try to restrict law-abiding citizens' guns, they get their heads handed to them in subsequent elections. The clear language of the Constitution aside, apparently disarming the people is a VERY high priority with them - they keep trying it despite the repeated smackdowns they get. What will it take to get them to try something that actually reduces crime (with and without guns) instead?

in other words you cant refute what I said, and the quote I asked about you made up...thanks
 
There is never any limit to leftwing attempts to reduce constitutional rights to historical curiosities - they are like rats or cockroaches that are always trying to find a way into your house - and if you squash one, another is sure to appear. Rational, patriotic people have to fight a never-ending war against the insatiable leftwing greed for statism.
 
guess what banning some times of arms...has been done for more then a 100 years...no court has ruled it against the constitution

the Supreme Court did. They woud seem to count as a court.

large clips have been banned before, assault weapons...Fully auto are and have been since like the 30's...and you may have the right to bear arms, but does not mean everyone does...just like felons can't vote in some places...or do you place the right to have a gun above right to vote?

Full auto is not banned it just requires other licensing.
And the rest are no longer banned.
State issue (suffrage) Constitutional issue (keep & bear). MOre seperate than above.

one day you will learn that something is not unconstitutional just because you keep repeating it.

what part of "shall not be infringed" is unclear to yu ?

Sure didnt take long for the 0 to resume his hideous agenda.
 
umm the SC did not rule against it, the law ran out..not quite the same little one.

And Full auto is banned...without a special permit...thus meaning...you can require a special permit for a gun...for more then 100 years and no SC has ruled against it.

And Still waiting for where the "good crisis" quote is from...or as I am guessing..it is not really a quote...thus a lie.
 
umm the SC did not rule against it, the law ran out..not quite the same little one.

And Full auto is banned...without a special permit...thus meaning...you can require a special permit for a gun...for more then 100 years and no SC has ruled against it.

And Still waiting for where the "good crisis" quote is from...or as I am guessing..it is not really a quote...thus a lie.


Crisis not my thng but here is the qyuote in context.

"You never want a serious crisis to go to waste," Rahm Emanuel, Mr. Obama's new chief of staff, told a Wall Street Journal conference of top corporate chief executives this week. He elaborated: "Things that we had postponed for too long, that were long-term, are now immediate and must be dealt with. This crisis provides the opportunity for us to do things that you could not do before."
regarding DC, struck down by a court

Washington, D.C., has enacted a number of strict gun-restriction laws. The Firearms Control Regulations Act of 1975 prohibited residents from owning handguns, excluding those registered prior to February 5, 1977; however, this law was subsequently overturned in March 2007 by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in Parker v. District of Columbia.[36] The ruling was upheld in June 2008 by the Supreme Court of the United States in District of Columbia v. Heller. Both courts held that the city's handgun ban violated individuals' Second Amendment right to gun ownership
the so-called assault weapon ban did expire as indicated.

just because you want things to be true does not mean they are.
 
Crisis not my thng but here is the qyuote in context.

regarding DC, struck down by a court

the so-called assault weapon ban did expire as indicated.

just because you want things to be true does not mean they are.

First the "good crises" quote...sounds like it was talking about wall street...in the context it was posted here makes it sound like it was about the shooting...something that sounds alot more cold and immoral...and is misleading if I am correct and misleading for a reason...to make one belive the worse is true.

I never said the assault weapons ban did not expire.. but its expiring had nothing to do with those other cases..And none of the cases you bring up where shot down do to any reason I have talked about...None had anything to do with requiring better background checks...not letting the mentally unstable go stock up on guns , or about limits to the amount of ammo a clip should be able to hold for civilian use. I don't even think they need to be banned...if there is a real need by someone for some reason...they do a bit more to get licensed to have a larger clip or something maybe.

The Courts have stopped gun laws that have basicly taken all guns and said you cant legaly own any even in your own home...that I think goes to far...but there always will be and always has been limits on what you can own and who. or at least for the last 100 years or so with more modern arms.
 
First the "good crises" quote...sounds like it was talking about wall street...in the context it was posted here makes it sound like it was about the shooting...something that sounds alot more cold and immoral...and is misleading if I am correct and misleading for a reason...to make one belive the worse is true.

I could understand your objection to the insertion of "good" in the misq2uote before. But the principle applies in many instances, new gun control among them now.


I never said the assault weapons ban did not expire.. but its expiring had nothing to do with those other cases..And none of the cases you bring up where shot down do to any reason I have talked about...None had anything to do with requiring better background checks...not letting the mentally unstable go stock up on guns , or about limits to the amount of ammo a clip should be able to hold for civilian use. I don't even think they need to be banned...if there is a real need by someone for some reason...they do a bit more to get licensed to have a larger clip or something maybe.

The Courts have stopped gun laws that have basicly taken all guns and said you cant legaly own any even in your own home...that I think goes to far...but there always will be and always has been limits on what you can own and who. or at least for the last 100 years or so with more modern arms.


Things change BECAUSE a) the public didn't support the infringement and b) the SCOTUS has finally clarified it.

But you need to get past some sense of "need" regarding guns. Thats the "shall not be infringed" aspect of the 2nd. Require additional licensing for full auto ? Makes sense. Not because nobody needs it but rather because the police don't need the competition. Magazine size (not clip as popularized on TV) is of little issue as they are very easily changed.
 
Thats the "shall not be infringed" aspect of the 2nd. Require additional licensing for full auto ? Makes sense.

Being required to get written permission (license) to exercise a right means that you are exercising a privilege - not a right. Rights do not require permission before they can be exercised.

Now I've quoted the part of your reply that I have because its so blatantly contradictory - Shall not be infringed.... Except for certain infringments you agree with.

By agreeing to licensing for full auto's, you are leaving yourself with no moral or logical argument against further infringements of gun rights, in this case magazine caps and/or licensing requirements for high capacity magazines.
 
I don't even think they need to be banned...if there is a real need by someone for some reason...they do a bit more to get licensed to have a larger clip or something maybe.

Tell me, which of your other rights would you accept having to aquire a license before being legally allowed to exercise that right? Speech? Worship? Assembly? Privacy?

And I'd also like to know, where do you draw the line on curtailing the right to bear arms? At what point will you say, "OK, we've restricted that right enough, I cannot support further limits on an individuals right to bear arms"?
 
Being required to get written permission (license) to exercise a right means that you are exercising a privilege - not a right. Rights do not require permission before they can be exercised.

Now I've quoted the part of your reply that I have because its so blatantly contradictory - Shall not be infringed.... Except for certain infringments you agree with.

By agreeing to licensing for full auto's, you are leaving yourself with no moral or logical argument against further infringements of gun rights, in this case magazine caps and/or licensing requirements for high capacity magazines.


They are not proposing licensing for magazines, they seek to ban them outright. That is infringing on the right. I would prefer that it all go away but that's unlikely to happen.
 
They are not proposing licensing for magazines, they seek to ban them outright. That is infringing on the right. I would prefer that it all go away but that's unlikely to happen.

Pocket had made the suggestion of licensing for high capacity magazines and you quoted his statement in your reply.

So, would you be for or against licensing for high capacity magazines and what argument would you make for your position?
 
Werbung:
Pocket had made the suggestion of licensing for high capacity magazines and you quoted his statement in your reply.

So, would you be for or against licensing for high capacity magazines and what argument would you make for your position?


No licensing or ban for any magazine would be my preference. If pocket wished to invent notions that no politician is proposing then fine but that's of no interest to me.
 
Back
Top