Much Ado About Not Much

[chucky2]

Lets be honest though:

If the Dems had fillibuster proof majorities in Congress, Obama would have been able to take a far different track. He wouldn't have come out with some type of moderate proposal like this, he'd have went whole hog for "assult weapons" being banned, ala NY style.

Lets not pretend Obama would follow a moderate path if he wasn't forced by Reps to follow a moderate path...

 

[jackstar7]

Lets be honest though:

If the Dems had fillibuster proof majorities in Congress, Obama would have been able to take a far different track. He wouldn't have come out with some type of moderate proposal like this, he'd have went whole hog for "assult weapons" being banned, ala NY style.

Lets not pretend Obama would follow a moderate path if he wasn't forced by Reps to follow a moderate path...

Sure... honest.

 

[corwin]

Lets be honest though:

If the Dems had fillibuster proof majorities in Congress, Obama would have been able to take a far different track. He wouldn't have come out with some type of moderate proposal like this, he'd have went whole hog for "assult weapons" being banned, ala NY style.

Lets not pretend Obama would follow a moderate path if he wasn't forced by Reps to follow a moderate path...

Let's be honest, he's still going to be pushing for exactly that, Biden's threat of EO's was before Obama talked to the AG and found he couldn't do it on his own so he got neutered, but he's still gonna push for an AWB and magazine bans, just doesn't have much of a chance of getting them through

 

[jackstar7]

Let's be honest, all posts from here on out would be at least 60% more awesome if they begin with the words: "Let's be honest".

 

[corwin]

Let's be honest, all posts from here on out would be at least 60% more awesome if they begin with the words: "Let's be honest".

Let's be honest...that's something we can agree on :awe:

 

[sigurros81]

Lets be honest though:

If the Dems had fillibuster proof majorities in Congress, Obama would have been able to take a far different track. He wouldn't have come out with some type of moderate proposal like this, he'd have went whole hog for "assult weapons" being banned, ala NY style.

Lets not pretend Obama would follow a moderate path if he wasn't forced by Reps to follow a moderate path...

Let's be honest, when a person does something nice or logical, they were probably forced to by the republicans.

 

[ivwshane]

LOL...proper source for who? Might as well throw in a link to the bull shit spewed by the Brady camp...those "facts" are slanted, biased opinion...one of many ways of looking at things.

It should be easy to disprove any of the claims then right? I await your rebuttal with sources.



But let's be honest, nor you or your conspiracy happy friend monovillage will provide shit.

 

[jackstar7]

Let's be honest, if Obama had a filibuster-proof majority, he'd have ended our nuclear weapons program, and used all the resources to build the NCC-1701 Enterprise and funded it with 80% tax rates on corporations and the richest 5%.

 

[lotus503]

Lets be honest though:

If the Dems had fillibuster proof majorities in Congress, Obama would have been able to take a far different track. He wouldn't have come out with some type of moderate proposal like this, he'd have went whole hog for "assult weapons" being banned, ala NY style.

Lets not pretend Obama would follow a moderate path if he wasn't forced by Reps to follow a moderate path...

He has done everything as a moderate, no reason to think anything esle frankly.

 

[corwin]

It should be easy to disprove any of the claims then right? I await your rebuttal with sources.



But let's be honest, nor you or your conspiracy happy friend monovillage will provide shit.

Let's be honest...you screwed up by not starting your post with "let's be honest", including it later doesn't count

As for the "conspiracy theory" MJ article full of baseless opinions on how the NRA held puppet strings on the government to neuter the ATF...LOL

 

[ivwshane]

Let's be honest...you screwed up by not starting your post with "let's be honest", including it later doesn't count

As for the "conspiracy theory" MJ article full of baseless opinions on how the NRA held puppet strings on the government to neuter the ATF...LOL

First response and you've got nothing. Want to try again?

Oh and I especially like how you took the claim that the ATF is neutered and changed it to the NRA holding the puppet strings. That was very honest of you.

 

[corwin]

First response and you've got nothing. Want to try again?

Their "claims" are nothing but opinions and conspiracy theories, there is no countering those for the sheep that believe it

Now say BAHHHHHHHH

 

[ivwshane]

Their "claims" are nothing but opinions and conspiracy theories, there is no countering those for the sheep that believe it

Now say BAHHHHHHHH

Apparently you are incapable of ignoring opinion and picking out facts, not surprising.

And sorry I won't say your battle cry, you are indeed a sheep.

 

[corwin]

Apparently you are incapable of ignoring opinion and picking out facts, not surprising.

And sorry I won't say your battle cry, you are indeed a sheep.

Exactly what "facts" are you needing disproved? That the machine gun ban was a "token"? That they were forbidden from creating a database of all firearm purchases (national gun registry)? Reduced inspections of FFL's to once a year? That several people saw abuses in things the ATF has done (Waco, Ruby Ridge, etc)? Restricting weapons traces from being released to the general public? Removing funding for propaganda "research" done by the CDC? That congress hasn't approved a new head of the ATF (entirely the NRA's fault of course)?

Don't have a problem with any of that, seems like "common sense" measures to me

 

[chucky2]

Let's be honest, he's still going to be pushing for exactly that, Biden's threat of EO's was before Obama talked to the AG and found he couldn't do it on his own so he got neutered, but he's still gonna push for an AWB and magazine bans, just doesn't have much of a chance of getting them through

Who knows, but, it really would not surprise me. Anything they can get is better than getting nothing at all, and it will please their base to no end at the Congressional level (meaning, they don't have to worry about backlash a bit, except for those in pro-gun states), and Obama doesn't need to worry regardless because obviously he doesn't need to worry about re-election. There is no loss in shooting for 'NY' and settling for...whatever.

Let's be honest, when a person does something nice or logical, they were probably forced to by the republicans.

I realize you're being sarcastic, but, Obama is a Dem. Obama has Holder, and the rest of the Dem base to please. Obama is...Obama. Do you really think as I said if Obama had fillibusterproof majorities in Congress that whatever is proposed wouldn't be far harsher than what will end up being passed? Do you really think Obama would tell his Dem party, 'No no, I'm a moderate like sigurros81 says, I won't sign this, it's far too extreme. Veto...send me back something moderate to sign...'?. No. He'd have a sh1t eating grin on his face along with all the pyscho Dems who had their cronies draft the bill they had waiting in the wings behind him, roll out Brady and say something like, 'Long time coming, haha', and they'd all backslap each other while their SS detail around them has 20 round mags of armor piercing.

The only reason this is not happening is a.) Republicans, and, b.) pro-gun state Dems, are not allowing that majority to occur, thereby F'ing up the works.

He has done everything as a moderate, no reason to think anything esle frankly.

See above.

 

[chucky2]

Sure... honest.

Lets be honest...you just posted a graphic that had nothing to do with my post...

Hint: I'm not blaming Obama for anything, since he really hasn't done anything...yet... (nor will he be able to really, as I've explained above). Where oh where was that graphic for all the BDS'rs when Bush was around...

 

[waggy]

Lets be honest...you just posted a graphic that had nothing to do with my post...

Hint: I'm not blaming Obama for anything, since he really hasn't done anything...yet... (nor will he be able to really, as I've explained above). Where oh where was that graphic for all the BDS'rs when Bush was around...

lets be honest. its a funny graphic.

 

[chucky2]

lets be honest. its a funny graphic.

Lets be honest...it is...

(but it has nothing to do with my post)

 

[werepossum]

He has done everything as a moderate, no reason to think anything esle frankly.

Well . . . maybe. He was very anti-Second Amendment in Illinois. So the question is:
Was he anti-Second Amendment in Illinois because of Illinois politics, or has he been fairly neutral as President because of national politics? Hard to say, really. His recent initiatives point to the latter, but it's entirely possible his moves are a combination of things he really believes will help and things he must propose to keep the left on his side.

 

[jackstar7]

Lets be honest...it is...

(but it has nothing to do with my post)

Let's be honest, you are ready to blame Obama for things he hasn't shown any evidence of intent to do.

And so the gif is there to illustrate the same kind of misguided blaming, and because I love those gifs. There's a tumblr site with them here: http://thanks-obama.tumblr.com/.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

Lets be honest though:

If the Dems had fillibuster proof majorities in Congress, Obama would have been able to take a far different track. He wouldn't have come out with some type of moderate proposal like this, he'd have went whole hog for "assult weapons" being banned, ala NY style.

Lets not pretend Obama would follow a moderate path if he wasn't forced by Reps to follow a moderate path...

What Obama put forth were related to powers of the executive branch. And it was abuse of the executive branch that the more shrill people on the right were screaming about.

You can't say the GOP "forced Obama onto a moderate path" when they have no power at the executive level.

The right kept insisting he would act unconstitutionally by doing things beyond his power limits. And as far as I can tell, he didn't. That's the entire point.

 

[chucky2]

Let's be honest, you are ready to blame Obama for things he hasn't shown any evidence of intent to do.

And so the gif is there to illustrate the same kind of misguided blaming, and because I love those gifs. There's a tumblr site with them here: http://thanks-obama.tumblr.com/.

Please find me blaming Obama for trying to enact EO regarding guns. I'll be waiting...

 

[corwin]

The right kept insisting he would act unconstitutionally by doing things beyond his power limits. And as far as I can tell, he didn't. That's the entire point.

So you're giving him points for not doing something he couldn't legally do but would have if it were possible? While some may have gotten angry over it, without knowing he couldn't do what was threatened, what was the harm in speaking up against it?

As has been said before, if Cheney had said Bush was looking at restricting abortion via EO with no details the libs would have been pissing themselves with rage over it saying the same shit. Both sides have people who get up in arms by threats made from the other side that turn out to be hyperbole and likely done in order to get a rise out of them...

 

[chucky2]

What Obama put forth were related to powers of the executive branch. And it was abuse of the executive branch that the more shrill people on the right were screaming about.

You can't say the GOP "forced Obama onto a moderate path" when they have no power at the executive level.

The right kept insisting he would act unconstitutionally by doing things beyond his power limits. And as far as I can tell, he didn't. That's the entire point.

Right, he didn't. But would he have done so if he had 68 votes in the Senate, and a House that was stacked in his favor? Would what he put forth this time be what he would have put forth in that type of political climate? No...no way. No one would expect him to. I think that's really where the distrust comes from on those on the Right. There is definite reason to believe a Dem POTUS from a state like IL with a Dem leaning Senate is not pro-gun. Given that, and given he's in his second term and doesn't need to worry about re-election, why would anyone that is pro-gun feel good about that type of POTUS supporting/rejecting forthcoming legislation as will be pushed by the gun grabbers? The kneejerk 'Zomg he's gunna grab mi guns and take my dogs' folks are always going to be like that, there is no stopping them (we saw like examples from even one of our own Mods when Bush was in office). Since Congress is the one that sends legislation to the POTUS to sign, that's the far bigger concern.

So yeah, you're fine for your OP...and I doubt too many Righties who weren't kneejerking would disagree. But Obama's EO was never the problem (as we've seen already in NY)...

Chuck

 

[Fern]

(From my blog.)
-snip-

I mostly agree. I find the items vague and I don't see much controversy. In fact, I don't see why/how this was made into some 'big' announcement by the White House (other than politics). Most of this strikes me routine things the govt should have been (quietly) doing all along. (We really need to tell fed agencies to share info? Really? And we need an exec order to tell them that?)

But I have comments on a couple:

4. Direct the Attorney General to review categories of individuals prohibited from having a gun to make sure dangerous people are not slipping through the cracks.

Is this the AG's role? How can this even work? What if the AG decides that there is a category of "dangerous" persons not currently prohibited from having a gun? WTH is the AG going to do about it? The AG cannot pass a law or make one by fiat.

6. Publish a letter from ATF to federally licensed gun dealers providing guidance on how to run background checks for private sellers.

Why would we send a letter to FFLs telling them how non-FFLs (private sellers) can run background checks? Are we missing something that requires non-FFLs to contact FFLs before privately selling a weapon? If I, as a private person, am going to sell my gun to another private person WTH would I involve an FFL?

10. Release a DOJ report analyzing information on lost and stolen guns and make it widely available to law enforcement.

Notice it doesn't say DO a report and then release it, it just says release it. So, does this report already exist?

I.e., I find this stuff vague, in some cases stupid and in other cases I just don't understand WTH they're talking about. Oh, forgot to say ineffective too.

Fern