Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Politico)   Why Obama might choose to lose on guns. *cough cough* fiscal cliff talks *cough cough* Man, I must be coming down with that flu   (politico.com ) divider line
    More: Interesting, obama, Vice President Joe Biden, moral imperative, senate democrats  
•       •       •

2006 clicks; posted to Politics » on 17 Jan 2013 at 7:40 AM (3 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



237 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-01-17 07:43:33 AM  
If your topic is a far fetched 'might', don't write it.
 
2013-01-17 07:43:51 AM  
Does he really "win" no matter what happens? Shiat is farked.

Happy Thursday.
 
2013-01-17 07:44:02 AM  
If drug testing people in Florida was effective at reducing welfare fraud, wouldn't drug testing people when making ammunition purchases keep bullets out of the hands of crack addicts who are fighting a drug war on the streets of Real America and killing our children?
 
2013-01-17 07:48:26 AM  
There is no Constitutional amendment prohibiting the government from plunging over the "fiscal cliff".

So whatever leverage the President thinks he can scavenge from the Newtown incident is pretty much useless.

Maybe it might be better to sit down and try to come to an agreement that would actually pass Congress and not try to ram a tax hike through. The problem is, and always has been, that the President has shown himself to be extremely petty in his negotiations and willing to walk away from good deals when he feels slighted.

I liked him when I voted for him in 2008, but I thought that he was still a little green. It's really obvious in how he repetitively fails to garner bi-partisan support, although he claimed that as one of his core goals. Politics is about give and take, but it seems like he simply hasn't had enough time and experience (before becoming President) at learning how to politick and govern. It's always about compromise, but if he isn't willing to compromise, he's forced to use tactics like trumping up peripheral issues (gun control) to force the Republicans' hands.

But this time around, he's fighting a losing battle. The Second Amendment prevents it, and protects our rights.
 
2013-01-17 07:51:00 AM  
fta: ...a symbolic victory that sets the stage, he hopes, for more meaningful ones.

Obama's plan is predicated on the GOP being FAIL incarnate in terms of actually addressing the issue.

/Safe bet is safe.
 
2013-01-17 07:59:22 AM  
Gee, I RTFA.  The "fiscal cliff" talks are not mentioned.  The Republican party has nothing but fail right now.  Live with it.  It was well earned.
 
2013-01-17 08:02:14 AM  

AverageAmericanGuy: Maybe it might be better to sit down and try to come to an agreement that would actually pass Congress and not try to ram a tax hike through. The problem is, and always has been, that the President has shown himself to be extremely petty in his negotiations and willing to walk away from good deals when he feels slighted.


Do we actually have enough data to reach that conclusion? How many "good deals" have republicans actually offered him in the last 4 years?
 
2013-01-17 08:06:07 AM  
My theory is that the ban that he proposed isn't going anywhere and he knows it, but it's also now in Congress' hands and the people, who are already pissed at them, want stricter gun control (maybe not ban levels, but certainly something).

So you put this in their laps, they will either ban the guns and piss off their own base, or they don't and get harsh backlash by the voters. That's where Obama comes back in. He has a tough fiscal fight ahead of him. He tells the GOP "look, we'll table this shiat. We won't push the ban if you just raise the debt limit and maybe we'll toss you a bone on the spending cuts too." They do, the ban is back on the "discuss but never do anything" section of possible bills and Obama comes out with an even better deal out of this.

/Book it, done
 
2013-01-17 08:06:56 AM  

Mayhem_2006: AverageAmericanGuy: Maybe it might be better to sit down and try to come to an agreement that would actually pass Congress and not try to ram a tax hike through. The problem is, and always has been, that the President has shown himself to be extremely petty in his negotiations and willing to walk away from good deals when he feels slighted.

Do we actually have enough data to reach that conclusion? How many "good deals" have republicans actually offered him in the last 4 years?


98% of everything they want is a good deal, why do Democrats hate America?
 
2013-01-17 08:08:57 AM  

AverageAmericanGuy: There is no Constitutional amendment prohibiting the government from plunging over the "fiscal cliff".


This was true in 1864.
 
2013-01-17 08:09:16 AM  
I'm on day 4 of the flu, and I am not getting a kick out of this...
 
2013-01-17 08:09:47 AM  
This is one fight House Republicans are looking forward to: GOP aides told POLITICO that the president's push would most likely set up a confrontation with his own party just as he had successfully exploited fractures in the GOP.

Hardly.

What the GOP refuse to accept, is that a near super majority of the nation expect Congress to tighten up gun restrictions. If the GOP were smart, they'd move quick to compromise on low hanging fruit, like high capacity magazines.
 
2013-01-17 08:10:09 AM  
This is perfect, actually. Obama wins on all fronts:

1) He issued orders through the Executive branch to make some useful changes, that neither side of the debate really have a problem with.

2) He will hand off the difficult, sweeping changes (Assault weapons ban, ammunition control, etc) to the Legislative branch, where the Democrats can win some points with their base in supporting the legislation.

3) Obama can use the legislation as a bargaining chip with the GOP on the debt ceiling debate. He pushes hard for gun control, they push back, and in the end, the debt ceiling is passed while the gun control measures die.

Meanwhile, the GOP wins, too:

1) They oppose the President on the gun control legislation, which will appeal to their base, especially in 2014 elections.

2) While the far-Right Tea Party types in the House will oppose both the gun control measures and the debt ceiling hike, the leadership can marginalize the Tea Party folks by cutting a side deal, allowing the debt ceiling measure to pass while the gun control measures die. This solidifies control for Boehner.

In the end, nothing really changes much, but all sides get something they want. The GOP and Dems can both crow about their wins, attack their opponents on their losses, and the Teahadists in the House get shoved in a dark corner (where they belong). In a few months, only mild changes for gun control policy will be forthcoming, the debt ceiling will be raised, and both sides pretend to hate each other after actually engaging in true bipartisanship for the first time in a long while.
 
2013-01-17 08:12:25 AM  

somedude210: Mayhem_2006: AverageAmericanGuy: Maybe it might be better to sit down and try to come to an agreement that would actually pass Congress and not try to ram a tax hike through. The problem is, and always has been, that the President has shown himself to be extremely petty in his negotiations and willing to walk away from good deals when he feels slighted.

Do we actually have enough data to reach that conclusion? How many "good deals" have republicans actually offered him in the last 4 years?

98% of everything they want is a good deal, why do Democrats hate America?


They offered him the totally reasonable deal to admit that he was a gay Muslim commie Kenyan atheist. What more could he ask for?
 
2013-01-17 08:12:37 AM  

quatchi: fta: ...a symbolic victory that sets the stage, he hopes, for more meaningful ones.

Obama's plan is predicated on the GOP being FAIL incarnate in terms of actually addressing the issue.

/Safe bet is safe.


Who's not addressing the issue here? Many insist that we trample on the rights of 99.9961% of the people, and their plan provides no reason to believe that the targeted 00.003% won't just find another tool to carry out their murders. The current focus, is like trying to combat childhood obesity by banning crisco. Sure, crisco is very fattening, but it isn't responsible for the vast majority of caloric intake, and banning it isn't going to stop people who gorge themselves from finding something else, because it's not a calorie problem, it's a self control problem. In general people are oversimplifying the problem with gun violence, and an incomplete view of a problem will never give you a functional solution.
 
2013-01-17 08:13:37 AM  

Kibbler: somedude210: Mayhem_2006: AverageAmericanGuy: Maybe it might be better to sit down and try to come to an agreement that would actually pass Congress and not try to ram a tax hike through. The problem is, and always has been, that the President has shown himself to be extremely petty in his negotiations and willing to walk away from good deals when he feels slighted.

Do we actually have enough data to reach that conclusion? How many "good deals" have republicans actually offered him in the last 4 years?

98% of everything they want is a good deal, why do Democrats hate America?

They offered him the totally reasonable deal to admit that he was a gay Muslim commie Kenyan atheist. What more could he ask for?


Clearly you're completely dedicated to amicable and reasoned discussion. How could things become so bad with so many libs like yourself making up the Democrat party?
 
2013-01-17 08:15:53 AM  

Mayhem_2006: AverageAmericanGuy: Maybe it might be better to sit down and try to come to an agreement that would actually pass Congress and not try to ram a tax hike through. The problem is, and always has been, that the President has shown himself to be extremely petty in his negotiations and willing to walk away from good deals when he feels slighted.

Do we actually have enough data to reach that conclusion? How many "good deals" have republicans actually offered him in the last 4 years?


I thought the same thing, It's not Obama that is refusing to compromise. If anything he has compromised too much while others have not budged at all.

Which party was it that had so many members that signed a pledge that there would be No tax increases ever?
 
2013-01-17 08:17:30 AM  

thornhill: low hanging fruit, like high capacity magazines.


That you think that is low hanging fruit makes me chuckle.
 
2013-01-17 08:20:48 AM  

BraveNewCheneyWorld: In general people are oversimplifying the problem with gun violence, and an incomplete view of a problem will never give you a functional solution.


You don't have a clue what "oversimplification" is. It's when mooks repeat ad nauseum that their guns "keep them free" or "protect us from tyranny." THAT'S how you know you're dealing with the village simpleton.
 
2013-01-17 08:22:04 AM  

BraveNewCheneyWorld: In general people are oversimplifying the problem with gun violence, and an incomplete view of a problem will never give you a functional solution.


Mental health is an issue in some instances of gun violence.
Movies are an issue in some instances of gun violence.
Video games are an issue in some instances of gun violence.
Social environment is an issue in some instances of gun violence.
Guns are an issue in ALL instances of gun violence.

So, let's just leave guns out of the discussion, since the 2nd amendment trumps death.
 
2013-01-17 08:23:09 AM  
I'm truly disappointed that Obama didn't do a run around on Congress. I was sooo looking forward to seeing that asswipe excuse of a president finally being forcibly removed from office.
 
2013-01-17 08:25:09 AM  
BraveNewCheneyWorld: ...The current focus, is like trying to combat childhood obesity by banning crisco. Sure, crisco is very fattening, but it isn't responsible for the vast majority of caloric intake, and banning it isn't going to stop people who gorge themselves from finding something else...

I just don't understand why someone would need high-fat crisco in the first place.
 
2013-01-17 08:28:17 AM  

david_gaithersburg: I'm truly disappointed that Obama didn't do a run around on Congress. I was sooo looking forward to seeing that asswipe excuse of a president finally being forcibly removed from office.


I'm sorry your Far-Right wet dream didn't come to fruition, and that we actually have an adult in the Oval Office who will make common sense moves to solve a problem. But I'm sure you'll find more reasons to scream "FARTBONGO GUNNA TAKE OUR GUNS!!!" and run around in circles in the next four years...
 
2013-01-17 08:29:15 AM  

david_gaithersburg: I'm truly disappointed that Obama didn't do a run around on Congress. I was sooo looking forward to seeing that asswipe excuse of a president finally being forcibly removed from office.


see, now I don't understand the hatred you have of him. What exactly makes him bad? He didn't circumvent congress, so how does this make him evil/dictatorish?
 
2013-01-17 08:31:27 AM  
As a compassionate libertarian who owns at least 1 firearm that would fall under the so-called assault weapons ban in the near future, I'm OK with this.

First, the fiscal situation IS a clusterfark and a large part of it is stonewalling on the republican side. I'm OK with just about anything that gets movement on this front at this point.

Second, this latest round of debate is good because it's clear to most rational people that bans won't do anything to solve violence (or even gun violence) problems in our society.

Third, a few of his other, non-legislative actions are rational. For example, making sure background checks cover the dangerously mentally ill (though who decides what's dangerous?) and

Lastly, Obama and his party are the best salespeople for the firearms industry we've ever seen. They've succeeded in encouraging the introduction of a HUGE amount of new firearms into our society in the last 6 years. After a few years, when the statistics on gun violence show no attributable increase as a result of the influx of firearms, maybe some folks who insist the tool is the problem will have to rethink their position. At worst, it will be clear that they don't want to debate; they just want to ban firearms no matter what. And then I can ignore them.
 
2013-01-17 08:33:09 AM  

david_gaithersburg: I'm truly disappointed that Obama didn't do a run around on Congress. I was sooo looking forward to seeing that asswipe excuse of a president finally being forcibly removed from office.


Trolling is not your strong suit cupcake.

.03/10
 
2013-01-17 08:34:48 AM  
How would expending political capital on the gun issue help him with the fiscal talks?
 
2013-01-17 08:36:08 AM  
If Congress can't pass even the most pathetic of "gun control" laws, thats on them.
 
2013-01-17 08:36:26 AM  

manimal2878: thornhill: low hanging fruit, like high capacity magazines.

That you think that is low hanging fruit makes me chuckle.


It's low hanging fruit because it's not a ban on any type of gun, new background check requirement, etc. If you and the GOP cannot realize that, then you really have your head in the sand.
 
2013-01-17 08:41:03 AM  
IMO, the saddest part of this will be the sudden making into criminals of millions of citizens who previously were law-abiding and responsible.

All for an emotional knee-jerk reaction to them possessing something that the day before was perfectly okay.

I don't buy for one instant the "majority" of gun advocates are okay with any intrusion into what they can or cannot own. Of course, when you selectively poll, you tend to get the results you're looking for.
 
2013-01-17 08:42:51 AM  

Spad31: IMO, the saddest part of this will be the sudden making into criminals of millions of citizens who previously were law-abiding and responsible.


WHO? WHAT? WHY? HOW?

Like, what the shiat are you on about, you coward?
 
2013-01-17 08:43:58 AM  

Spad31: IMO, the saddest part of this will be the sudden making into criminals of millions of citizens who previously were law-abiding and responsible


What are you talking about? Seriosuly, did I miss something?
 
2013-01-17 08:44:21 AM  

Spad31: IMO, the saddest part of this will be the sudden making into criminals of millions of citizens who previously were law-abiding and responsible.

All for an emotional knee-jerk reaction to them possessing something that the day before was perfectly okay.

I don't buy for one instant the "majority" of gun advocates are okay with any intrusion into what they can or cannot own. Of course, when you selectively poll, you tend to get the results you're looking for.


Huh? Dude, two things: the ban isn't gonna happen. and two, you're scared of nothing
 
2013-01-17 08:44:24 AM  

Spad31: IMO, the saddest part of this will be the sudden making into criminals of millions of citizens who previously were law-abiding and responsible.

All for an emotional knee-jerk reaction to them possessing something that the day before was perfectly okay.


Welcome to Earth.. things are different here than wherever you're from.
 
2013-01-17 08:44:33 AM  
If Obama manages to win on the immensely flawed ACA or useless and counterproductive Dodd-Frank bills, as well as the can kicking fiscal cliff resolution, but loses on gun bans/control, well then shiat. Fark this country.

Get some balls, Harry.
 
2013-01-17 08:47:17 AM  

LasersHurt: Like, what the shiat are you on about, you coward?


vernonFL: What are you talking about? Seriosuly, did I miss something?


No, you see, talking about gun control means that all the strawman unrealistic laws that the gun grabbers believe liberals want have already gone into effect.
 
2013-01-17 08:47:28 AM  
Think about it. Banning particular types of weapons and magazines, already owned by responsible people, making them illegal, makes the owners criminals by law if they keep them.
 
2013-01-17 08:48:28 AM  

vudutek: BraveNewCheneyWorld: In general people are oversimplifying the problem with gun violence, and an incomplete view of a problem will never give you a functional solution.

Mental health is an issue in some instances of gun violence.
Movies are an issue in some instances of gun violence.
Video games are an issue in some instances of gun violence.
Social environment is an issue in some instances of gun violence.
Guns are an issue in ALL instances of gun violence.

So, let's just leave guns out of the discussion, since the 2nd amendment trumps death.


Is gun violence the only violence? Your little shtick would be awesome in a commercial though.. if it was targeting stupid people.
 
2013-01-17 08:49:04 AM  
Here we go with the Obama "choosing"-to-lose-because-he's-such-a-Jedi-master thing again.
 
2013-01-17 08:49:07 AM  
I didn't claim to be scared, nor do I think anyone is coming to grab them. Relax with the knee-jerk name calling. Just conversation.
 
2013-01-17 08:50:46 AM  

Spad31: Think about it. Banning particular types of weapons and magazines, already owned by responsible people, making them illegal, makes the owners criminals by law if they keep them.


There's almost no way possible for anything like a grandfather clause, a buyback program, registration program, or simply a period of 6-12 months to turn in those guns or magazines can be part of a (highly unlikely to ever actually be passed) gun control law.

As soon as the votes go through, millions will be arrested.
 
2013-01-17 08:54:05 AM  

hillbillypharmacist: Spad31: Think about it. Banning particular types of weapons and magazines, already owned by responsible people, making them illegal, makes the owners criminals by law if they keep them.

There's almost no way possible for anything like a grandfather clause, a buyback program, registration program, or simply a period of 6-12 months to turn in those guns or magazines can be part of a (highly unlikely to ever actually be passed) gun control law.

As soon as the votes go through, millions will be arrested.


Yeah, I don't see it realistically happening...too many folks would simply choose to ignore whatever law got passed. Just thinking out loud on potential consequences.
 
2013-01-17 08:54:11 AM  
You've tried compromise, it didn't work. So now use the full power of your bully pulipt, get good legislation passed in the Senate (keep it simple and free of pork) and let the House block it - hurting themselves in the process.
 
2013-01-17 08:57:22 AM  

Wyalt Derp: You've tried compromise, it didn't work. So now use the full power of your bully pulipt, get good legislation passed in the Senate (keep it simple and free of pork) and let the House block it - hurting themselves in the process.


And I mean on everything, not just guns.
 
2013-01-17 08:57:23 AM  
I will be really curious as to what the threshold will be regarding the mental health status of individuals and their access to weapons.

Considering stories such as this:

Half of Americans suffer from mental health woes

Couple this with the number of Americans that are on psychiatric drugs of some form, and the ongoing problem we are dealing with regarding our returning troops.

Who is going to determine these guidelines?

Also, say you had some "issues" in your past, but are now "okay" - will this have any bearing?

Throw on the privacy issues that may pop up, I think we are in for some surprising returns on any of this action.
 
2013-01-17 08:57:24 AM  

Spad31: hillbillypharmacist: Spad31: Think about it. Banning particular types of weapons and magazines, already owned by responsible people, making them illegal, makes the owners criminals by law if they keep them.

There's almost no way possible for anything like a grandfather clause, a buyback program, registration program, or simply a period of 6-12 months to turn in those guns or magazines can be part of a (highly unlikely to ever actually be passed) gun control law.

As soon as the votes go through, millions will be arrested.

Yeah, I don't see it realistically happening...too many folks would simply choose to ignore whatever law got passed. Just thinking out loud on potential consequences.


Sko you are saying that you don't think that law abiding gun owners will abide by the laws?
 
2013-01-17 08:58:59 AM  

Spad31: Yeah, I don't see it realistically happening...too many folks would simply choose to ignore whatever law got passed. Just thinking out loud on potential consequences.


If a person willfully and with deliberation choose to break the law, then they are criminals.  It wouldn't be some accidental thing.
 
2013-01-17 08:59:47 AM  

spif: Who is going to determine these guidelines?

Also, say you had some "issues" in your past, but are now "okay" - will this have any bearing?


I suspect it's going to be made with the medical side of things in mind - do the conditions correlate strongly with anger or violence issues? Suicide?

Is the medication likely to make them unable to use the firearms?

Lots of people are under treatment, or show symptoms of SOMETHING, sure - but most of that stuff is irrelevant to gun safety.
 
2013-01-17 09:02:07 AM  

Philip Francis Queeg: Spad31: hillbillypharmacist: Spad31: Think about it. Banning particular types of weapons and magazines, already owned by responsible people, making them illegal, makes the owners criminals by law if they keep them.

There's almost no way possible for anything like a grandfather clause, a buyback program, registration program, or simply a period of 6-12 months to turn in those guns or magazines can be part of a (highly unlikely to ever actually be passed) gun control law.

As soon as the votes go through, millions will be arrested.

Yeah, I don't see it realistically happening...too many folks would simply choose to ignore whatever law got passed. Just thinking out loud on potential consequences.

Sko you are saying that you don't think that law abiding gun owners will abide by the laws?


No idea. I don't imagine many folks would rush to give away their firearms. Some would, of course, but I'm betting most would choose to ignore whatever law got passed. No way to know. Folks with guns tend to like them.
 
2013-01-17 09:06:07 AM  

hillbillypharmacist: Spad31: Yeah, I don't see it realistically happening...too many folks would simply choose to ignore whatever law got passed. Just thinking out loud on potential consequences.

If a person willfully and with deliberation choose to break the law, then they are criminals.  It wouldn't be some accidental thing.


Agreed. Like I said, this is all just speculation and conversation. No telling what people would do. Prohibition made criminals out of people who weren't before. Eh. We live in interesting times.
 
Displayed 50 of 237 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report