Listen, how many times must I make this clear?

Whenever our side does it it is perfectly acceptable.

When the other side does it it is completely outrageous.

Can I make it any more simpler for you?

That was a helluva speech.

"Obama slams GOP for gun controll stunts... as he flies victims to a photo op on Air Force one"

7/10 - the misspelling was a nice touch!

Obama slams GOP for gun controll stunts... as he flies victims to a photo op on Air Force one Politician acts like a politician.

He's defnitely all in on the "exploit tragedy" plan. Not sure he's got the stuff to turn it into a war, but he's definitely down with the "restrict freedom" part.

Obama is obviously referring to Republican obstructionism in Congress if you actually read the article. And he is taking a few ordinary citizens to lobby Congress. But 0bama bad!! because the only people lobbying Congress should be lobbyists, amirite?

EatenTheSun: Not sure he's got the stuff to turn it into a war

yeah, he's no george w. bush.

Sock Ruh Tease: Obama is obviously referring to Republican obstructionism in Congress if you actually read the article. And he is taking a few ordinary citizens to lobby Congress. But 0bama bad!! because the only people lobbying Congress should be lobbyists, amirite?

Can you farking believe he asked for Congress to VOTE??

OH, THE ARROGANCE OF THAT MAN!!1!

EatenTheSun: He's defnitely all in on the "exploit tragedy" plan.

Or just maybe he's like a lot of us and is honestly horrified at the thought of a classroom full of dead six year olds. Just maybe he never wanted to take your guns precious in the first place. Perhaps he would like to reform gun laws so we don't have these tragedies over and over while respecting 2nd amendment rights at the same time.

Sock Ruh Tease: And he is taking a few ordinary citizens to lobby Congress.

1/20 for being too obviously obtuse.

sammyk: Or just maybe he's like a lot of us and is honestly horrified at the thought of a classroom full of dead six year olds. Just maybe he never wanted to take your guns precious in the first place. Perhaps he would like to reform gun laws so we don't have these tragedies over and over while respecting 2nd amendment rights at the same time.

The president is a politician first and foremost, and no different than the others of his ilk, in his party or the Republican party. The two parties put a palatable figurehead at the top, but beneath the veneer they don't care how many corpses they need to pose on to acquire power.

sammyk: EatenTheSun: He's defnitely all in on the "exploit tragedy" plan.

Or just maybe he's like a lot of us and is honestly horrified at the thought of a classroom full of dead six year olds. Just maybe he never wanted to take your guns precious in the first place. Perhaps he would like to reform gun laws so we don't have these tragedies over and over while respecting 2nd amendment rights at the same time.

WONT SOMEBODY PLEASE THINK OF THE CHILDREN?!?

EatenTheSun: He's defnitely all in on the "exploit tragedy" plan. Not sure he's got the stuff to turn it into a war, but he's definitely down with the "restrict freedom" part.

How do background checks "restrict freedom?"

This is not about politics

Translation: this is about politics.

He's doubling down on the stupid, even though he has to know he's likely to lose.

He's already lost the Assault Weapons Ban and magazine restrictions.  Even the ACLU is say "Whoa, hold on there" about the ban on private gun transfers.  Anything he can manage to get through Congress is likely to be so watered down as to be meaningless from a practical standpoint:  Stuff that's already illegal will be made illegal-er.

dittybopper: He's doubling down on the stupid, even though he has to know he's likely to lose.

He's already lost the Assault Weapons Ban and magazine restrictions.  Even the ACLU is say "Whoa, hold on there" about the ban on private gun transfers.  Anything he can manage to get through Congress is likely to be so watered down as to be meaningless from a practical standpoint:  Stuff that's already illegal will be made illegal-er.

Well then, should be able to easily defeat it in a vote.  Why threaten filibuster?

And if you don't mind, I think I will continue to turn to the judiciary to decide what's illegal.

dittybopper: He's doubling down on the stupid, even though he has to know he's likely to lose.

He's already lost the Assault Weapons Ban and magazine restrictions.  Even the ACLU is say "Whoa, hold on there" about the ban on private gun transfers.  Anything he can manage to get through Congress is likely to be so watered down as to be meaningless from a practical standpoint:  Stuff that's already illegal will be made illegal-er.

http://www.scpr.org/blogs/politics/2013/04/09/13212/is-dianne-feins tein-s-decades-long-battle-over-ass/

Snert.

Lionel Mandrake: EatenTheSun: He's defnitely all in on the "exploit tragedy" plan. Not sure he's got the stuff to turn it into a war, but he's definitely down with the "restrict freedom" part.

How do background checks "restrict freedom?"

You mean a ban on private gun transfers?

I've got a grand total of 4 FFL's in a 20 mile radius.  Two of them won't do private transfers because they are big box stores (Wal*Mart and Dick's Sporting Goods), and the other two generally won't do them for less than $50.

So why should I pay a 50% premium on an old .22 bolt action, or an old Mosin Nagant?

The only reason for a ban on private sales is to make it as difficult as possible to give someone who isn't your immediate family a gun (because it's not just about sales, it's about *TRANSFERS*, which are defined rather strictly in the proposed legislation).

Not that this really effects me either way:  NYS already outlawed private sales in the NY SAFE Act, but that act is being challenged in court.

Dear Newtown parent, hope you're enjoying your new career as a prop.  Best wishes, GoldSpider.

TofuTheAlmighty: Obama's out stumping for legislation supported by >90% of Americans

Which one would that be?

TofuTheAlmighty: Obama's out stumping for legislation supported by >90% of Americans but likely will not pass in the colossal failure called the US Congress? What an asshole.

Well, the people have crappy lobyists so it's their fault.

EyeballKid: "But it's different when WE do it!"

/IOKIYAR

It's ugly when either side does it.  So vote Antonymous Collective.

cameroncrazy1984: That would be "universal background checks," there Chet.

If only someone had run a background check on Mr. Lanza when he purchased his AR, this tragedy could have been avoided.

Lionel Mandrake: dittybopper: He's doubling down on the stupid, even though he has to know he's likely to lose.

He's already lost the Assault Weapons Ban and magazine restrictions.  Even the ACLU is say "Whoa, hold on there" about the ban on private gun transfers.  Anything he can manage to get through Congress is likely to be so watered down as to be meaningless from a practical standpoint:  Stuff that's already illegal will be made illegal-er.

Well then, should be able to easily defeat it in a vote.  Why threaten filibuster?

And if you don't mind, I think I will continue to turn to the judiciary to decide what's illegal.

What I meant was that really all that is a sure thing to pass is increased penalties for things that are already crimes, hence "Stuff that's already illegal will be made illegal-er".

I thought it was pretty plain what I meant, but perhaps using colorful language is a waste.

As for letting it come up for a vote, that's not how the Senate works.  It is structurally an obstructionist body,  made to be relatively insensitive to the vagaries of public opinion.  Why?  Look at this for an example:   Public support for gun control has waned in the 4 short months between Sandy Hook and today.

cameroncrazy1984: Yes, political activism by members of a community is so very ugly.

I suppose you believe the Tea Party is a grassroots organization too.