Obama's Response to Gun Control

[Stardreamer]

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.

The question is being pushed in the medical community PRIMARILY for political purposes. No other form of accidental or violent death is made part of the standard medical questionnaires. My doctor's questionnaire doesn't even address the toxic chemicals that Roly's seems to. In fact there is not a single question on what items that might be dangerous in my house as part of the routine questionnaire. A few years back there was a studies done on accidental deaths by guns in a medical context. While some questioned the motivation, studying accidental death by any particular method is a worthwhile effort and providing that information in general education on accidental deaths and how to prevent them is worthwhile. If a doctor wants to have that material available for whoever wants it is fine. BUT when the medical community is being pushed to single out this particular form of accidental death when it is a politically charged subject and probe people's lives on it when they do not do that on any of the others routinely then the most likely reason is political motivation.

[bankside]

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

Your personal opinion doesn't mean anything.

You are aware that when the "majority of Americans agree" on something, it is a direct result of what you would call their worthless personal opinions….

[chance1]

I support Pres. Obama on this - policy wise

I think having the kids there was gross - pathetic - unfortunate - cynical - fill in the blanks

he continues to show serious character defects

as for the unnamed poster - the one who's role it appears is to drop turds in as many threads as possible - he continues to prove that what a respected mod recently penned about him is 100% on the money - shame

[mightbe]

That sounds like smoking in the 50s.

Doc says, "Ya smoke much? Not that I really should ask, it's irrelevant you know. Government told me to."

[Jack Springer]

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.

I agree. I don't think physicians want to be the secret police for the government.

[Jack Springer]

I don't think I've seen any comments about Obama wanting to hire armed security guards for the schools as part of his executive order.

[JayHawk]

The government is not taking away a damn thing from people with a right to have weapons. For those that have forfeited that right through criminal activity or insanity the desire is to hinder their acquisition of weapons.

It is notable that both on a national level and on a local level here the rabid have nothing to offer but weak conspiracy theories and faux outrage at posing with children. The weakness of their outrage describes their contribution to America in its entirety.

[chance1]

The government is not taking away a damn thing from people with a right to have weapons. For those that have forfeited that right through criminal activity or insanity the desire is to hinder their acquisition of weapons.

It is notable that both on a national level and on a local level here the rabid have nothing to offer but weak conspiracy theories and faux outrage at posing with children. The weakness of their outrage describes their contribution to America in its entirety.

what's notable is how pathetic the president's "stunt" was

how political that maneuver was

how cynical

basically what i wrote above ...... and then some

why would one do this? for what purpose ?

i don't know anything about a conspiracy and i'm beyond outrage given that this president clearly has no personal standards

there was no reason to have kids up there

[xbuzzerx]

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

Your personal opinion doesn't mean anything.

Restrictions or regulations on what weapons may be privately owned is also legal and agreed with by a majority of Americans.

So what's your point?

- - - Updated - - -

what's notable is how pathetic the president's "stunt" was

how political that maneuver was

how cynical

basically what i wrote above ...... and then some

why would one do this? for what purpose ?

i don't know anything about a conspiracy and i'm beyond outrage given that this president clearly has no personal standards

there was no reason to have kids up there

Does anyone know what this post means? Seriously?

[tigerfan482]

I think having the kids there was gross - pathetic - unfortunate - cynical - fill in the blanks

he continues to show serious character defects

I disagree. I think it's like any signing of a bill or announcement of policy change. They always have affected parties in attendance. It gives a sense of action to those who were affected and it serves as a reminder to everyone else of why the legislation is being worked on and policy is being changed. I don't hear people complaining when cancer survivors are in attendance during the announcement of committing resources to fighting cancer. I don't understand where people are getting the idea of this being a political "stunt". What does the President gain from it?

[Stardreamer]

That sounds like smoking in the 50s.

Doc says, "Ya smoke much? Not that I really should ask, it's irrelevant you know. Government told me to."

Smoking has a direct medical impact on the body simply by practicing it. Guns are not associated with a direct medical conditions but with accidental death. If the doctor wants to give me a pamphlet on accidental death that happens to include a guns in the list of things, that fine. If I ask for more information on the subject fine. But I don't want my time wasted by probing for information that is none of his business simply because its the latest politically correct kick in the medical community. If you want tell gun owners what they already know (guns are dangerous, duh!) then buy some Public Service Announcements or put a warning flying in the box with a gun when its sold like every other product in the world. But don't waste my already expensive medical time and cost to do it.

[Stardreamer]

I don't think I've seen any comments about Obama wanting to hire armed security guards for the schools as part of his executive order.

There are a few news stories out that mention the conversation between Boxer and Biden on the subject but as you can tell they aren't playing it up much with the other items.

[tigerfan482]

I don't think I've seen any comments about Obama wanting to hire armed security guards for the schools as part of his executive order.

http://www.cnn.com/interactive/2013/...lan/index.html
Go ahead and take a quick read through that so you are aware of the proposals. Pay special attention to section 3.

[Stardreamer]

The government is not taking away a damn thing from people with a right to have weapons. For those that have forfeited that right through criminal activity or insanity the desire is to hinder their acquisition of weapons.

It is notable that both on a national level and on a local level here the rabid have nothing to offer but weak conspiracy theories and faux outrage at posing with children. The weakness of their outrage describes their contribution to America in its entirety.

Both sides are using the children for political theater, its normal Washington politics.

[Stardreamer]

http://www.cnn.com/interactive/2013/...lan/index.html
Go ahead and take a quick read through that so you are aware of the proposals. Pay special attention to section 3.

I haven't seen it spelled out in the executive actions, though it doesn't exactly say what a 'resource' is. Boxer and Biden were talking about it as part of the legislation package in congress and reportedly Obama agreed. Though there seems to be some indication they may only really be including it to buy Republican support.

[chance1]

I disagree. I think it's like any signing of a bill or announcement of policy change. They always have affected parties in attendance. It gives a sense of action to those who were affected and it serves as a reminder to everyone else of why the legislation is being worked on and policy is being changed. I don't hear people complaining when cancer survivors are in attendance during the announcement of committing resources to fighting cancer. I don't understand where people are getting the idea of this being a political "stunt". What does the President gain from it?

the intent was to demonize opposition

which has become his go to way of doing his business

he's a very small man

[tigerfan482]

the intent was to demonize opposition

which has become his go to way of doing his business

he's a very small man

Lots of opinion and no fact. I'm going to stick with the view that it's because there is ALWAYS a group of people affected by the policy around when it is announced and not go ahead and throw something out there with absolutely no basis at all.

[Ninja108]

Bush Jr used children in His No Child Left Behind Speech and banning of funding for stem cell research. Was he using children too? Or does that only apply to Obama?

[tigerfan482]

I haven't seen it spelled out in the executive actions, though it doesn't exactly say what a 'resource' is. Boxer and Biden were talking about it as part of the legislation package in congress and reportedly Obama agreed. Though there seems to be some indication they may only really be including it to buy Republican support.

As you can see in section three, there is a specific amount of money ($150 million) that is wanted to do this. That, unfortunately, cannot be done by Executive Order since Congress must authorize additional spending. That document is the actual plan that the President has. He will do what he can with Executive Orders, but a lot of it has to pass through Congress.

[xbuzzerx]

Bush Jr used children in His No Child Left Behind Speech and banning of funding for stem cell research. Was he using children too? Or does that only apply to Obama?

It only applies to Obama.

Much like the shrieking about fiscal responsibility, much like the "failure to compromise or be bipartisan", much like everything else the right criticizes about him.

[chance1]

Lots of opinion and no fact. I'm going to stick with the view that it's because there is ALWAYS a group of people affected by the policy around when it is announced and not go ahead and throw something out there with absolutely no basis at all.

having kids up there with him is not about facts now is it

and your POV on this is a joke - comparing it to cancer patients

this situation is an "us vs. them" debate - that's how he framed it

and his having kids there is a cynical political play

that's my opinion

and i imagine the opinion of many

[xbuzzerx]

having kids up there with him is not about facts now is it

and your POV on this is a joke - comparing it to cancer patients

this situation is an "us vs. them" debate - that's how he framed it

and his having kids there is a cynical political play

that's my opinion

and i imagine the opinion of many

Chance, be glad that Obama having kids with him at the signing of a bill prompted mostly by SCHOOL AGED shootings which have killed KIDS is the absolute worst thing you have to be outraged about.

I can't imagine how your blood pressure would handle something like a suspension of Habeus Corpus or the Geneva Conventions. Or Obama signing a memo about approved methods of torturing POW's.

[tigerfan482]

having kids up there with him is not about facts now is it

and your POV on this is a joke - comparing it to cancer patients

this situation is an "us vs. them" debate - that's how he framed it

and his having kids there is a cynical political play

that's my opinion

and i imagine the opinion of many

Having ANY affected group of people with the President at ANY policy announcement is fact. Go back through the past few presidents and see how often it occurs. I'm guessing you'll find it happens EVERY time, including with cancer patients, minorities, veterans, active duty military, victims of crimes, etc.

You talk as if these kids were forced to stand up there against their will. These were families of people affected by the Connecticut shooting. They were invited to come and they made the decision that they wanted to be in attendance, with their kids, to show their support for these measures. The situation was not an "us vs. them" debate because that would require having the "them" there without children. This was a "this is what I'm proposing and these people are here supporting it because of the direct effect it had on their lives" thing. I would imagine that is the opinion of those who aren't anti-everything Obama does simply because he is Obama.

[GiancarloC]

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.

Nope. He didn't use them. Keep up with the faulty claims with not one shred of proof. And yes xbuzzer is right. Save the fake outrage for something that is outrageous. There was nothing outrageous here. And no, republicans apparently don't care about children. They want to sacrifice the future of this country.

[chance1]

Having ANY affected group of people with the President at ANY policy announcement is fact. Go back through the past few presidents and see how often it occurs. I'm guessing you'll find it happens EVERY time, including with cancer patients, minorities, veterans, active duty military, victims of crimes, etc.

You talk as if these kids were forced to stand up there against their will. These were families of people affected by the Connecticut shooting. They were invited to come and they made the decision that they wanted to be in attendance, with their kids, to show their support for these measures. The situation was not an "us vs. them" debate because that would require having the "them" there without children. This was a "this is what I'm proposing and these people are here supporting it because of the direct effect it had on their lives" thing. I would imagine that is the opinion of those who aren't anti-everything Obama does simply because he is Obama.

this is not a "we're in this together" moment - this is not a "coming together" moment

it's a political football

i happen to agree with his stance on the policy - and am on the record before and now about it

and if you're going to lean on "anti everything obama" it's hard to take u seriously as that's a crutch for those who think that the pres. walks on water and if u disagree with him you're racist or something else

bottom line is this is political - and he's ramping it up in a cynical way

[tigerfan482]

this is not a "we're in this together" moment - this is not a "coming together" moment

it's a political football

i happen to agree with his stance on the policy - and am on the record before and now about it

and if you're going to lean on "anti everything obama" it's hard to take u seriously as that's a crutch for those who think that the pres. walks on water and if u disagree with him you're racist or something else

bottom line is this is political - and he's ramping it up in a cynical way

You really do try to read a lot into things don't you? The only reason this is an issue is because people like you try to make it an issue. This was a moment where the President unveiled his plan to help curb gun violence and he had people there affected by gun violence showing their support. Anything else you get from that is your own bias.

And are you seriously going to bring up the racist thing? You seem to take an anti-Obama stance in most threads on here, usually devolving into some ad hominem attack on the guy who I am sure you've never even met, which is why I made my comment. No one said he walks on water, but I do see him doing more to try to help solve problems in this country than the Republican party or people like you who do nothing but try to demonize every step he takes. If he screws up or does something stupid, then I will be there with you with a legitimate grievance. However, trying to lambast him for everything he does is a bit over-the-top and accomplishes absolutely nothing.

[chance1]

You really do try to read a lot into things don't you? The only reason this is an issue is because people like you try to make it an issue. This was a moment where the President unveiled his plan to help curb gun violence and he had people there affected by gun violence showing their support. Anything else you get from that is your own bias.

And are you seriously going to bring up the racist thing? You seem to take an anti-Obama stance in most threads on here, usually devolving into some ad hominem attack on the guy who I am sure you've never even met, which is why I made my comment. No one said he walks on water, but I do see him doing more to try to help solve problems in this country than the Republican party or people like you who do nothing but try to demonize every step he takes. If he screws up or does something stupid, then I will be there with you with a legitimate grievance. However, trying to lambast him for everything he does is a bit over-the-top and accomplishes absolutely nothing.

you brought up the anti everything obama thing - that not being supportive of a position or action is somehow based on an "anti everything obama" thing

that was YOU

and after 52 posts u want to categorize me ........ well that's your problem not mine

my OPINION about kids on stage is clear - sorry u don't care for it - that's not my bias - it's my opinion

back and forth here i imagine is not useful

[GiancarloC]

this is not a "we're in this together" moment - this is not a "coming together" moment

it's a political football

i happen to agree with his stance on the policy - and am on the record before and now about it

and if you're going to lean on "anti everything obama" it's hard to take u seriously as that's a crutch for those who think that the pres. walks on water and if u disagree with him you're racist or something else

bottom line is this is political - and he's ramping it up in a cynical way

The only way this is political is through the eyes of the republicans... who refuse to work with Obama on a real pressing problem. There are too many guns in this country. And something has to change. Obama isn't making this political. He's stressing this as an issue this country is facing that must be addressed.

- - - Updated - - -

and after 52 posts u want to categorize me ........ well that's your problem not mine

His 52 posts say more than 20,000.

[tigerfan482]

and after 52 posts u want to categorize me ........ well that's your problem not mine

It means I read a lot more posts than I post in. Sometimes, that's how you learn about various topics and people. And yes, your posts do seem to indicate you have a lot of personal bias against President Obama. But, you are right, bias is a form of opinion and you're definitely entitled to that.

[xbuzzerx]

You really do try to read a lot into things don't you? The only reason this is an issue is because people like you try to make it an issue. This was a moment where the President unveiled his plan to help curb gun violence and he had people there affected by gun violence showing their support. Anything else you get from that is your own bias.

And are you seriously going to bring up the racist thing? You seem to take an anti-Obama stance in most threads on here, usually devolving into some ad hominem attack on the guy who I am sure you've never even met, which is why I made my comment. No one said he walks on water, but I do see him doing more to try to help solve problems in this country than the Republican party or people like you who do nothing but try to demonize every step he takes. If he screws up or does something stupid, then I will be there with you with a legitimate grievance. However, trying to lambast him for everything he does is a bit over-the-top and accomplishes absolutely nothing.

Their outrage over things like this -- or the color of Michelle Obama's dress, or whether Obama said "terrorist bombing" or "terrorist attack" about a particular incident -- merely gives away their lack of anything substantive to be outraged about. Yet the outrage remains.

[Rolyo85]

as for the unnamed poster - the one who's role it appears is to drop turds in as many threads as possible - he continues to prove that what a respected mod recently penned about him is 100% on the money - shame

I love the "respected mod" line. Desperately needing somebody else's weight for lack of your own, eh, Chancey-poo?

[Rolyo85]

the intent was to demonize opposition

which has become his go to way of doing his business

he's a very small man

Ah, the WORLD-SHATTERING irony...

[T-Rexx]

I support Pres. Obama on this - policy wise

I think having the kids there was gross - pathetic - unfortunate - cynical - fill in the blanks

he continues to show serious character defects

I wonder why we only hear this outrage from you when these things come from president Obama?

[Rolyo85]

The only way this is political is through the eyes of the republicans... who refuse to work with Obama on a real pressing problem. There are too many guns in this country. And something has to change. Obama isn't making this political. He's stressing this as an issue this country is facing that must be addressed.

His 52 posts say more than 20,000.

Yeah, our Chance is an elitist when it comes to post count. He has been here long. yusee, and so is more important than new users. As if his whole attitude doesn't take ten posts to be summed up. Lots of sound and no fury...

[GiancarloC]

Yeah, our Chance is an elitist when it comes to post count. He has been here long. yusee, and so is more important than new users. As if his whole attitude doesn't take ten posts to be summed up. Lots of sound and no fury...

Quality versus Quantity is my opinion. It's all about what one says, not how much they repeat the same old redundancies. And now he left me a post comment saying I'm on back on his block list... fine with me lol.

[rareboy]

the intent was to demonize opposition

which has become his go to way of doing his business

he's a very small man

Oh the irony.

[chrisrobin]

I wonder why we only hear this outrage from you when these things come from president Obama?

Easy: President Obama is a n____r.* The president lives in the WHITE house... that's the WHITE house!

And all you birthers - only three days left.


*If you're going to accuse me of playing the race card, knock yourself out. Don't forget to keep in mind:

1. Barack the Magic Negro (Rush Fatboy)
2. Comparisons to Curious George (Rush Fatboy)
3. He's not Black enough. (Laura Ingram, or was it Man Coulter)
4. The President with a bone through his nose (Teabagger rally)
5. "Birther" movement
6. Doesn't understand "American Exceptionalism" (Gingrich)

[andysayshi]

Since Obama is such a nasty man, acting like no President has ever done by politicising those poor children, let's pause for a minute and reminisce about our previous President, who would never use children at a press conference or signing of a Bill.

You've already seen him at te signing of the No Child Left Behind Act above.

Here he is at the signing of the reauthorized Individuals with Disabilities in Education Act:



Here's the President at the Bill Signing of the Dot Kids Implementation and Efficiency Act of 2002


Here he is at the signing of the PEPFAR Reauthorization, one of the most generous and compassionate acts of any recent President


And here he is at the signing of the Conquer Childhood Cancer Act.


Thank goodness no other Presidents ever stooped so low as Obama!

[Jack Springer]

There are a few news stories out that mention the conversation between Boxer and Biden on the subject but as you can tell they aren't playing it up much with the other items.

I've seen no articles where it says that Obama has implemented the NRA's idea of having armed security guards at schools.

Does the gun banning group agree with this idea? I know I don't. I think it's crazy.

[Jack Springer]

Nope. He didn't use them. Keep up with the faulty claims with not one shred of proof. And yes xbuzzer is right. Save the fake outrage for something that is outrageous. There was nothing outrageous here. And no, republicans apparently don't care about children. They want to sacrifice the future of this country.

If you honestly believe that, I feel very sorry for you.

[Rolyo85]

Since Obama is such a nasty man, acting like no President has ever done by politicising those poor children, let's pause for a minute and reminisce about our previous President, who would never use children at a press conference or signing of a Bill.

You've already seen him at te signing of the No Child Left Behind Act above.

Here he is at the signing of the reauthorized Individuals with Disabilities in Education Act:



Here's the President at the Bill Signing of the Dot Kids Implementation and Efficiency Act of 2002


Here he is at the signing of the PEPFAR Reauthorization, one of the most generous and compassionate acts of any recent President


And here he is at the signing of the Conquer Childhood Cancer Act.


Thank goodness no other Presidents ever stooped so low as Obama!

But... but... but... no!

[Ambrocious]

Obama is such an honest man guys! He promised not to take guns away!



This goes hand in hand with this:

[mitchymo]

Obama is such an honest man guys! He promised not to take guns away!

Since then, there have been at least 15 spree shootings in the US, 8 of them in 2012 alone. The magnitude of the last one is enough to make any reasonable man change his mind on gun policy. Thank you Pres. Obama.

[Rolyo85]

You missed the word "lawful" in the first video, didn't you? Sadness...

And could you explain the relation with the second video? It's not really obvious. I happen to agree with it btw. The disgusting religious glorification of guns is the biggest gun problem in America.

[EastMed]

In my view, whatever law is passed will make little difference.
What is required is a near total ban on guns except for strictly regulated sporting/hunting purposes.

Ana Marie Cox:

So, what if the epidemic of gun violence in the United States isn't about "assault weapons", or criminals, or the mentally ill, but about us? You. Me. Everyone. Put a gun in our immediate vicinity, someone is going to get hurt. By accident, by intent, whatever. If we think of guns this way, then regulation becomes very simple: even "responsible", "law-abiding" citizens probably shouldn't have them.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...ol-miss-target

[vulgar_newcomer]

Smoking has a direct medical impact on the body simply by practicing it. Guns are not associated with a direct medical conditions but with accidental death. If the doctor wants to give me a pamphlet on accidental death that happens to include a guns in the list of things, that fine. If I ask for more information on the subject fine. But I don't want my time wasted by probing for information that is none of his business simply because its the latest politically correct kick in the medical community. If you want tell gun owners what they already know (guns are dangerous, duh!) then buy some Public Service Announcements or put a warning flying in the box with a gun when its sold like every other product in the world. But don't waste my already expensive medical time and cost to do it.

The ER & hospitals around the country, rural and urban are littered with gun wounds and deaths daily. In this reference it makes no difference rather its legal or criminal, accident or on purpose
The cost of trauma and long term disability is very high, often after much expensive life saving efforts are given death results anyway.
A great deal of the people shot and live have no health insurance or its inadequate. If criminal activity was involved the insurance company may deny coverage the same for suicide.
Why the cost of medical gun damage in regards to healthcare is not brought up is beyond me.
It has to be on par with fatties, druggies, smokers and boozers and is paid by all those with health insurance. This cost factor of the uninsured in regards to gun shot damage should be brought into the picture. As well as the long term disability.

Watch one of those reality shows such a "Real life ER" and catch the amount of gunshots that move through a big city ER on a quiet night.

Tax the ammo like booze & tobacco, and like cigarettes state the tax is to help cover some of the uninsured medical cost when they hit the ER. Base the tax on the type of gun. The more prone the weapon is to be used in crime or to kill a human the higher the tax on the ammo.

[xbuzzerx]

I've seen no articles where it says that Obama has implemented the NRA's idea of having armed security guards at schools.

Does the gun banning group agree with this idea? I know I don't. I think it's crazy.

Taft had an armed guard. Didn't help much.

Since then, there have been at least 15 spree shootings in the US, 8 of them in 2012 alone. The magnitude of the last one is enough to make any reasonable man change his mind on gun policy. Thank you Pres. Obama.

Seconded. A President who never changes his mind based on the needs and information of the time is a bad leader. I think we can all think of one.

[Jack Springer]

^^^

So, do you approve of Obama's plan to arm schools?

[HenryReardon]

Since Obama is such a nasty man, acting like no President has ever done by politicising those poor children, let's pause for a minute and reminisce about our previous President, who would never use children at a press conference or signing of a Bill.

!

At least, Bush, for all his faults, was a genuinely good man. There is nothing genuine about Obama - the arrogant and disdainful expression on his face as he posed with those children says it all. The man is a phony.

[xbuzzerx]

^^^

So, do you approve of Obama's plan to arm schools?

I think if that actually goes into nationwide implementation it will be more or less like TSA at the airport. More to make people feel better and not a real actual solution to the threat.

The real attacking of the problem itself will have to be with regulation on purchasing and access and availability.

- - - Updated - - -

At least, Bush, for all his faults, was a genuinely good man. There is nothing genuine about Obama - the arrogant and disdainful expression on his face as he posed with those children says it all. The man is a phony.

A genuinely stupid man, I could agree with. "Good" is not what anyone but an American neocon would say.