Obama's Response to Gun Control

[rareboy]

Ok.

So the prez has now spoken.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2...-congress.html

Obviously no one will be happy.

Tell us why.

[mitchymo]

Ok.

So the prez has now spoken.

Obviously no one will be happy.

Tell us why.

Because i couldn't see it over here!!!

[rareboy]

President Barack Obama proposed a new assault weapons ban and mandatory background checks for all gun buyers on Wednesday in a bid to channel national outrage over the Newtown school massacre into the biggest U.S. gun-control push in generations.

Rolling out a wide-ranging plan for executive and legislative action to curb gun violence, Obama set up a fierce clash with the powerful U.S. gun lobby and its supporters in Congress, who are expected to resist what they see as an encroachment on constitutionally protected gun rights.

http://ca.reuters.com/article/topNew...90F0NU20130116

http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/01...nt-live-video/


Following up on the New York legislation....will this move the discussion forward or create a national power struggle gridlock and thus kill any country wide effective response?

[justdra]

So can we expect the Mayors and Governors from all the states who disagree with him to say they won't enforce his legislation?

[Jack Springer]

Shame on both the NRA and Obama for using young children as pawns for their own agenda.

[xbuzzerx]

Good, the mandatory background check is way overdue.

[GiancarloC]

We need mandatory background checks. Obama isn't using young children for her agenda. This wake up call is long overdue. It's time for some real action and tougher restrictions. Nobody is calling for the ban of guns, but there is no reason for anyone to own assault rifles.

[Jack Springer]

We need mandatory background checks. Obama isn't using young children for her agenda. This wake up call is long overdue. It's time for some real action and tougher restrictions. Nobody is calling for the ban of guns, but there is no reason for anyone to own assault rifles.

Photo from earlier today at the executive order signing.

[GiancarloC]

That's not using children for an agenda. He truly cares about the safety of children. Stick to reality.

[xbuzzerx]

That's not using children for an agenda. He truly cares about the safety of children. Stick to reality.

He has two girls hardly all that much older than that, I'm sure the issue is something he legitimately cares about too.

[Jack Springer]

That's not using children for an agenda. He truly cares about the safety of children. Stick to reality.

You don't think almost everyone in the USA cares about children too?

He used them.

What if a republican President brought out kids like that to make a point about all the babies that had been killed by abortion? You would have been angry.

[xbuzzerx]

You don't think almost everyone in the USA cares about children too?

He used them.

What if a republican President brought out kids like that to make a point about all the babies that had been killed by abortion? You would have been angry.

Welcome to politics Jack.

Save your outrage for something remotely outrageous.

[bike10]

Just heard the remarks of Rush Limbaugh saying Obama used the children as shield. Typical of Rush the far right and NRA. Ever since Obama was elected in 2008 the NRA claims Obama is out take your guns. To NRA please the names of individuals who gusnn have been TAKEN. Put up or shut up.

[Rolyo85]

You don't think almost everyone in the USA cares about children too?

He used them.

What if a republican President brought out kids like that to make a point about all the babies that had been killed by abortion? You would have been angry.

Well, except abortion is NOT universally recognized as murder. Killing living children with firearms is

[xbuzzerx]

Well, except abortion is NOT universally recognized as murder. Killing living children with firearms is

There's always that, too..

[HenryReardon]

. He truly cares about the safety of children. Stick to reality.

The reality is that Obama cares about Obama and little else.
He doesn't give a flying fuck about those kids, except as pawns in his little game.

[rareboy]

^ And of course....your naked and ridiculous Obama Hate adds something of substance to the actual topic???

Oh No.

Wait a minute.

Your response was exactly what I was expecting from the frothing 'I HATE Obama' crowd. How the Fuck are litle kids a pawn in some game to get more responsible gun control measures....how desperate are you people?

[palemale]

The reality is that Obama cares about Obama and little else.
He doesn't give a flying fuck about those kids, except as pawns in his little game.

How does this legislation help Obama personally and to which little game of Obama's are you referring?

[xbuzzerx]

How does this legislation help Obama personally and to which little game of Obama's are you referring?

Does everyone here remember that our beloved resident Republicans started a thread about how the woman photographed in the picture with Obama hasn't received any Sandy relief?

As I recall the thread was started as a criticism of Obama.

Oh how the song has changed now that Republicans are blocking the relief efforts.

[chrisrobin]

Just heard the remarks of Rush Limbaugh saying Obama used the children as shield. Typical of Rush the far right and NRA. Ever since Obama was elected in 2008 the NRA claims Obama is out take your guns. To NRA please the names of individuals who gusnn have been TAKEN. Put up or shut up.

Obama wasn't using children as shields.

This is using a child as a shield:



If you (collectively) can't tell the difference, God help you.

[Jack Springer]

Well, except abortion is NOT universally recognized as murder. Killing living children with firearms is

Abortion is murder. Dogs or cats are not growing inside a pregnant woman --- it's a real human being.

[Jack Springer]

Does everyone here remember that our beloved resident Republicans started a thread about how the woman photographed in the picture with Obama hasn't received any Sandy relief?

As I recall the thread was started as a criticism of Obama.

Oh how the song has changed now that Republicans are blocking the relief efforts.

That woman is still waiting for help. FEMA has enough money to help right now without the extra money from Congress.

[Jack Springer]

Another hollywood film glorifying guns and killing.

Obama wasn't using children as shields.

This is using a child as a shield:


If you (collectively) can't tell the difference, God help you.

[xbuzzerx]

Abortion is murder. Dogs or cats are not growing inside a pregnant woman --- it's a real human being.

Opinion. The law doesn't recognize this definition of murder, nor do a majority of Americans.

That woman is still waiting for help. FEMA has enough money to help right now without the extra money from Congress.

FEMA sits on a normal operating budget huge enough to hand out individual percap support to people struck by sudden tragedies? That's news to me.

[HenryReardon]

How does this legislation help Obama personally and to which little game of Obama's are you referring?

A as it stands it amounts to executive orders and not legislation;
B it helps feed his ego. He is totally narcissistic and a publicity hound. Truly, he has become the Kardashian president.
C everything the man does amounts to a political game of some sort;

[HenryReardon]

^ . How the Fuck are litle kids a pawn in some game to get more responsible gun control measures....how desperate are you people?

There is no such thing as "responsible gun control measures".

"we people" don't seem to be nearly as desperate as the gun control fools.

[Rolyo85]

Abortion is murder. Dogs or cats are not growing inside a pregnant woman --- it's a real human being.

That's your opinion. The Supreme Court doesn't agree with you, and neither does half of the American people, MOST of the First world, and, oh yes - SCIENCE.

So, bold all you want, your personal opinion is still in the minority.

[Rolyo85]

There is no such thing as "responsible gun control measures".

"we people" don't seem to be nearly as desperate as the gun control fools.

Boring

Yet so unfathomably dumb

But not surprising

Not really

Dark, dark were the tunnels...

[chrisrobin]

Another hollywood film glorifying guns and killing.

Obviously, you haven't seen the movie.

[Stardreamer]

Looking at the executive orders briefly earlier today they seem reasonable for the most part, some parts will need to watched and challenged in the courts for limits but I don't have any real objection to them. The one about background checks before a seized gun is returned is one that will likely need review. The one about doctors being able to ask about guns in the home, fine they can ask the answer should be none of your business.

I think the assault weapon ban effort was pretty much inevitable at this point regardless of what we may think of its effectiveness and the magazine restriction part of it is what is really needed anyway.

I did find interesting that very little attention is being paid by the press to the reports that Obama, Barbara Boxer and Joe Biden are in agreement on trying to get federal funding to pay for armed guards in schools.

[Rolyo85]

The one about doctors being able to ask about guns in the home, fine they can ask the answer should be none of your business.

I'm not sure I get why you think that should be the answer?

[Stardreamer]

I'm not sure I get why you think that should be the answer?

Because it is none of their business.

[ruivinho]

A as it stands it amounts to executive orders and not legislation;
B it helps feed his ego. He is totally narcissistic and a publicity hound. Truly, he has become the Kardashian president.
C everything the man does amounts to a political game of some sort;

great arguments you have made there! except they are not really arguments at all are they?

[Rolyo85]

Um, it is if it's medically relevant, which the doctor usually knows better than the patient.

[T-Rexx]

The one about doctors being able to ask about guns in the home, fine they can ask the answer should be none of your business.

Not true.

Doctors are pledged to do everything within reason to reduce the chances of unnatural death for patients under their care. They are trained to ask demographically-relevant questions about the most likely causes of death for their patients. That means diet, exercise, seat-belt use, storage of prescription drugs in the home, and availability of firearms.

Since easy access to firearms remains one of the leading causes of death for children in the USA, the question could hardly be more relevant for physicians to discuss with their patients.

The Republican insistence on imposing the federal government between the relationship between doctor and patient is heinous.

[mightbe]

It is entirely their business...a doctor's primary task is to help extend the longevity of a patient's life, and prevent or slow down death in favor of senescence. There's a strong correlation between one being in your home and you being shot with it. In that manner, they have a nasty habit of undoing all that doctor's work.

Completely relevant. Especially in cases involving increased aggression, depression (chronic and short-term), loss of mental faculty, those suffering from delusions or hallucinations, those on high doses of painkillers, those who have acute mental illnesses, those without proper body control (like Huntington's, or even epilepsy) etc.

The doctor should definitely know, to tell someone else to keep them safely locked up or removed from their home to a friend or family member's home.

[Stardreamer]

Um, it is if it's medically relevant, which the doctor usually knows better than the patient.

A gun is not a disease, there is literally hundreds of items you could own that could statistically effect your chances of accidental death, a car being the most prominent of them. Singling out firearms to ask about of them all has VERY little to do with medical relevancy and everything to do with politics. I already get irritated by my doctor's questions and lectures about caffeine and that at least has an actual direct medical impact. When they start pestering me on indirect issues for strictly political reasons is where I will draw the line.

[Stardreamer]

Not true.

Doctors are pledged to do everything within reason to reduce the chances of unnatural death for patients under their care. They are trained to ask demographically-relevant questions about the most likely causes of death for their patients. That means diet, exercise, seat-belt use, storage of prescription drugs in the home, and availability of firearms.

Since easy access to firearms remains one of the leading causes of death for children in the USA, the question could hardly be more relevant for physicians to discuss with their patients.

The Republican insistence on imposing the federal government between the relationship between doctor and patient is heinous.

Fine when the they proceed that question with
Do you own a car?
Do you own a ladder?
Do you have stairs in your house?
Do you have a chemicals in your house?
Do you have food in your house?
Do you have a boat?
Do you have a bathtub?
Do you have a gas appliance in your house?
Do you have any sort of automated machinery?

All of these things fall in the top ten categories along with guns in accidental deaths most of them ahead of guns. If you aren't asking about them also then its politics.

[Rolyo85]

Yes, except most aren't medically relevant. MEDICALLY, mind you. And they ALWAYS ask about chemicals in the house, so, yeah...


What is it with this idiotic attitude toward guns as if they are some sacred thing not to be touched or examined in any way to avoid being smitten by its divine wrath?

[mightbe]

When your doctor asks about guns it's political? Are you shitting me?

[Stardreamer]

Yes, except most aren't medically relevant. MEDICALLY, mind you. And they ALWAYS ask about chemicals in the house, so, yeah...


What is it with this idiotic attitude toward guns as if they are some sacred thing not to be touched or examined in any way to avoid being smitten by its divine wrath?

Examining gun safety is a perfectly relevant discussion in its place. What I want from my doctor though is to NOT waste my time with issues that have no immediate medical relevance to me by asking questions that are really only there for political reasons. If he wants to talk to me about accidental death in general terms that is one thing but I am already irritated enough at the questions that are being routinely added to the examine questionnaire just to push the latest new drug on the market.

[Jack Springer]

That's your opinion. The Supreme Court doesn't agree with you, and neither does half of the American people, MOST of the First world, and, oh yes - SCIENCE.

So, bold all you want, your personal opinion is still in the minority.

The Supreme Court says people have a right to have guns and a majority of Americans agree.

Your personal opinion doesn't mean anything.

[Jack Springer]

Yes, except most aren't medically relevant. MEDICALLY, mind you. And they ALWAYS ask about chemicals in the house, so, yeah...


What is it with this idiotic attitude toward guns as if they are some sacred thing not to be touched or examined in any way to avoid being smitten by its divine wrath?

I've NEVER heard of a doctor asking about chemicals in the house.

Meth houses have chemicals.

[Rolyo85]

Examining gun safety is a perfectly relevant discussion in its place. What I want from my doctor though is to NOT waste my time with issues that have no immediate medical relevance to me by asking questions that are really only there for political reasons. If he wants to talk to me about accidental death in general terms that is one thing but I am already irritated enough at the questions that are being routinely added to the examine questionnaire just to push the latest new drug on the market.

You aren't the one who decides what's relevant. It's your doctor - yunno, the professional.

- - - Updated - - -

The Supreme Court says people have a right to have guns and a majority of Americans agree.

Your personal opinion doesn't mean anything.

Tragically for you, your idiotic comparison fails miserably yet again Gun restriction doesn't stop people from having guns. Just gives them rules about it.

[Jack Springer]

^^^

Strange.

[Stardreamer]

You aren't the one who decides what's relevant. It's your doctor - yunno, the professional.

And I am his patient with a right to demand relevant medical care and advice and decline what is not. If the question appears on the questionnaire I will answer it NOYB.

[Rolyo85]

It is your right to bow to your holy guns and jeopardize your health I guess...

[Stardreamer]

It is your right to bow to your holy guns and jeopardize your health I guess...

I don't own a gun or worship them, I just object to my doctor wasting my time for political reasons. AS I said I'm already irritated by his adding questions to push drugs but at least those questions have a marginally direct medical interest.

[tigerfan482]

The Supreme Court says people have a right to have guns and a majority of Americans agree.

Your personal opinion doesn't mean anything.

The Supreme Court also says the government has a responsibility and role to regulate guns.

[mightbe]

How is it political? You've never answered. If anything, it sounds like a very good thing for a doctor to ask. It has medical relevancy.