Remember this serene moment as we are about to witness a mountain of shit squirt forth.
President Obama: We must seek agreement on gun reforms.
Upon reading this headline alone, tens of thousands are already screaming and foaming at the mouth. It gets worse.
I know some aren't interested in participating. Some will say that anything short of the most sweeping anti-gun legislation is a capitulation to the gun lobby. Others will predictably cast any discussion as the opening salvo in a wild-eyed scheme to take away everybody's guns. And such hyperbole will become the fodder for overheated fundraising letters.
But I have more faith in the American people than that. Most gun-control advocates know that most gun owners are responsible citizens.
Sorry, Mr. President, but you have just unleashed a giant shit storm. Everything you recommended in this article makes complete sense and should be carried out immediately.
It will never fucking happen.
You have too much faith in the American people and the "others" of which you speak will grant you absolutely no fucking quarter whatsoever. Their brains aren't wired that way. In their eyes, you are a liberal/socialist/fascist/commie/fag who has been "waiting to pounce." To make matters worse, you're black which plays even more into their fears, hatred and anger. You are the enemy, sir, and even though you have done the exact opposite in your time in office, you are a gun grabber. You are an enemy of the state. You always will be.
You lost them after the word "guns." All they heard after that was "They's a comin!"
17 comments:
Why should I believe Obama or trust his sincerity when his Administration has contradicted his promises about not politicizing science and respecting state law on medical marijuana? How about the promise to close Gitmo - still operating over two years after his Administration took office? What happened to the Senator who promised to filibuster the civil rights abusing legislation of the Bush era?
Oh, and not one of his three courses of action would have solved the problem he outlined to start with: A man our Army rejected as unfit for service; a man one of our colleges deemed too unstable for studies; a man apparently bent on violence, was able to walk into a store and buy a gun.
So what exactly is the purpose of this discussion? If you start with one premise and then shift to another - well, that may be SOP for M - but I call it bait-and-switch. That is not the hallmark of a trustworthy partner working toward a common solution.
Most gun-control advocates know that most gun owners are responsible citizens.
Really? I guess these folks aren't part of the gun control movement?
Ratings must be down again... time for a gun-control post.
TROLL!!
Hmmm, I don't see anything new in what Obama said or even threatening, just a lot of his usual pandering and blathering.
Juris is correct:
Oh, and not one of his three courses of action would have solved the problem he outlined to start with: A man our Army rejected as unfit for service; a man one of our colleges deemed too unstable for studies; a man apparently bent on violence, was able to walk into a store and buy a gun.
Point out where any of this is a crime and would show up on ANY report. Either show that these listed items would be a crime or your entire 'commonsense' idiocy falls on its face. If there is no crime to log, you can't stop these types of shootings. It is impossible.
It will never fucking happen.
What this moron recommended is all up to his administration and the justice dept. As long as there is no more idiotic legislation, have at it.
Enforcing the laws instead of creating new ineffective ones? Check, and doesn't cost anything.
Reward states that provide the best data? Yeah, give them a ribbon. No cost and as effective as other lefty 'feel-good' measures.
Make system faster and nimbler? I can get a background check within 10 minutes when purchasing a firearm. If you can get it under 10 minutes, great - just don't spend billions trying to do so.
In their eyes, you are a liberal/socialist/fascist/commie/fag who has been "waiting to pounce." To make matters worse, you're black which plays even more into their fears, hatred and anger.
Still pushing the same ignorant caricature of the right eh? I guess if your ideology is such a failure, you need to lie to yourself to feel better.
How can someone be a troll on his own blog? I guess that means that every owner of a right wing blog is also a troll including Kevin Baker. I'd be interested in the stats for your site, Markadelphia. Do they go up or down depending on the nature of your posts?
Mark already admitted he posts gun control stuff to be a troll. The only criteria missing is that it is 'his' blog. I say that it makes no difference. As a troll, he spews nonsense and hyperbole in order to get a response. He doesn't care about the validity of his argument or the validity of the responses.
Ergo - troll.
So, does that mean that Kevin Baker is a troll?
Couple of new posts, but no comment here M?
I'm curious, what exactly do you think Obama is aiming for?
I think he is trying to solve a problem but he never will as long as irrational people in the gun rights community exist. He's not saying anything different than the NRA has said but it doesn't matter because it's coming from him. Ironic, considering the genetic fallacy.
Contrary to the ridiculous distortion that is painted of him, he is a very pragmatic guy. He wants to solve problems not fear monger like the right does or engage in analysis paralysis like the left does. He doesn't have patience for bitter clingers or for gun grabbers. He knows what can be done and what will be most effective given how much violence has gone down in this country in the last few years.
Like I said, it will never happen because the gun lobby needs their enemy...like they always do.
I think he is trying to solve a problem
What problem M? The three things he discussed would not have stopped Loughner from getting a gun - legally at that (let alone illegally like the Columbine killers). Is Loughner the problem, or is it something else? Because he used Loughner to set up the discussion he wants, and that you and I are having. If it isn't about Loughner, what is the relevance of bringing him up. If it is about Loughner, why didn't he propose anything that would actually accomplish something?
The problem of mentally ill people obtaining guns and a checking system that is faulty (Lougner and the VT guy).
But you are right, it's not Loughner that's the problem. It's our culture. Again, not the guns...it's the people.
The problem of mentally ill people obtaining guns
So you would deny at least that civil right to the "mentally ill" (as though every last person with some mental illness is a threat to be a mass murderer). I guess we can count on you supporting forced sterilization as well (as the great Progressive Justice Holmes did)?
Currently, you have to be found by a court to be a danger to yourself or others before you are prohibited from owning a gun. In short, there must be due process of law. You would throw out that aspect of the 5th Amdt to infringe on the 2nd. I have no idea what border condition you would place on mental illness such that it would disqualify a person from owning a gun - the assessment of a single therapist? [Not to mention the ethical problems that would create for that therapist.]
Aside from the further stigmatization of mental illness (which affects millions of people), you have repeatedly characterized conservative politics as reflecting mental illness (and to be fair the contra case about liberals was just made at TSM - you can see my critical comments there); you would politicize a health issue to be used against political opponents. Oh, sure, you don't intend for that - but it is as predictable as the sun rising in the east.
And lastly, Obama didn't propose a damn thing that would have kept Loughner from getting a gun legally. The VT shooter might have been stopped, although I'm not sure that he was actually committed by a court - so he technically may still have passed too.
So what is the discussion about? I will tell you - it was a trial balloon and a sop to the pant-wetting crowd in the Dem party. Just the kind of bone Reagan used to throw to the social-cons to keep them in line. Amazing how easy it is to please some people.
#10 The "Brave Sir Robin" response. When the monsters get too close, he disappears for a few days, only to reappear and treat everyone as if they didn't see the monsters.
Either that or he actually has life to live. Geez.
The problem with you, juris, is one of perception. You are so cynical that you can't see that President Obama might actually want to solve a problem. If he was throwing a bone to the pant wetting crowd, as you say, then he would've talked about an assault weapons ban. Instead, he basically repeated something that gun rights advocates have called for and was rebuked-proving what unconscionable babies they are regarding this president. You are welcome to have the opinion that Obama sucks and everything he does is bad but remember that's your emotional response, not a reasoned one.
Thanks, Santa. I was typing my comment and didn't see yours right away. Yeah, I do have a life and it has been quite busy lately so that's why I haven't posted.
You are so cynical that you can't see that President Obama might actually want to solve a problem.
I would entertain that possibility if he had actually suggested some kind of solution (assuming Loughner actually is the problem).
He didn't. He only started a discussion, didn't he? A discussion that you can't even carry forward. Heck, I give him credit for tossing a small enough chunk of tofu to the pant-wetting left to satisfy their need to feel addressed. Didn't really cost him anything - it isn't like anyone criticizing him about guns was suddenly going to give him a big hug.
And for the record, I don't think Obama sucks all that much more than any other politician. Which isn't saying much for politicians in general I know, but it is what it is.
Post a Comment