PDA

View Full Version : Obama, Reid slam brakes on gun control


Rossi357
12-25-2012, 1:00 AM
Interesting article.
The emphasis seems to be on protecting the children, rather than some new gun law. Maybe they listened to the NRA?

The last paragraph:
"In the days since the Newtown killings, many Democrats and their supporters in the press have expressed a desire to enact “meaningful” gun control as soon as possible. In two brief statements, President Obama and Harry Reid have poured some very cold water on those hopes."

http://washingtonexaminer.com/obama-reid-slam-brakes-on-gun-control/article/2516406?utm_campaign=obinsite

phamkl
12-25-2012, 1:30 AM
I don't know, seems awfully optimistic. A commission that doesn't just report after three months doesn't sound like "slamming the brakes" to me.

shakes88
12-25-2012, 1:31 AM
Definitely an interesting article. Thanks for sharing.

ErikTheRed
12-25-2012, 1:36 AM
Barack Obama, "listen to the NRA"??? BwuHAHAHAHAHA!!!! :rofl2:

JMP
12-25-2012, 1:36 AM
Interesting, but I'd trust Obama and Reid as far as I could throw them.

donw
12-25-2012, 4:57 AM
never..ever...believe what is said in the media about obama.

this guy is slicker than "Slick Willie" Klinton..you know...the guy in the Teflon suit...

thus far..he's evaded any meaningful explanation or assigning/accepting responsibility for fast and furious and Benghazi.

Reid? you can see his nose grow every time he steps up to the mic to speak...

Ford8N
12-25-2012, 5:09 AM
That report was posted on the 19th, before that monster ambushed those fire fighters in New York.

The Shadow
12-25-2012, 5:12 AM
Interesting, but I'd trust Obama and Reid as far as I could throw them.

Except that Reid has an "A" rating by the NRA. He may be in lock step with all of the other Democrat policies, but he's pro 2A according to the NRA.

IronWorksTactical
12-25-2012, 5:13 AM
That report was posted on the 19th, before that monster ambushed those fire fighters in New York.

Was it ever reported what that JA used? The news report I saw was very limited.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

OleCuss
12-25-2012, 5:20 AM
Commissions really are frequently used to slow or to kill an issue. The article really does have a point on that.

The flip side is that such commissions are often chaired by a retired politician whereas in this case you've got Biden "leading" it. Biden may not be willing to have his work-product set aside and ignored.

SilverTauron
12-25-2012, 5:23 AM
"With President Obama’s announcement of a commission to study and recommend ways to reduce gun violence, the two most important Democrats in government — Obama and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid — have both indicated a desire to slow the momentum toward gun control in the wake of the Newtown, Connecticut school shootings. The president’s decision to appoint a blue-ribbon panel — the classic Washington ploy to defuse and delay consideration of an issue — along with Reid’s inaction on the gun "

Based on the first paragraph above, the author is disheartened that Obama didn't immediately propose knee-jerk legislation and browbeat Congress into passing it. He's taken the formation of Biden's Commission as a sign that Obama's not taking the issue seriously.

mt4design
12-25-2012, 5:35 AM
Was it ever reported what that JA used? The news report I saw was very limited.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I don't trust Obama or Reid to do the right thing by the Constitution. I'm not going to get fixated on the one hand and lose sight of what the other hand is doing.

How did this convicted felon, who had murdered his own grandmother, get three weapons in a state with some of the strictest gun control laws?

http://www.whec.com/news/stories/S2877314.shtml?cat=566

Snippet of article follows...

"Police say they have had no contact with Spengler since his release. Why he may have deliberately targeted and ambushed four innocent firefighters on Christmas Eve morning is not yet clear.

Police are certainly looking at the significance of an obituary written for Arline Spengler, William Spengler's mother, who passed away in October. It asked for memorials be made to the West Webster Fireman's Association Ambulance Fund.

A source in law enforcement with knowledge of the case tells I-Team 10 investigators found three guns, including a semi-automatic rifle that shot 30 rounds in a clip. One of those magazines was spent. We're told three others had not been used before Spengler shot himself."

Apparently, the shooters sister is missing.

tiki
12-25-2012, 5:53 AM
What comes to mind is that "under the radar" comment he made a while back. I'll never forget that.

Obama and the dems may feel that it is too early, with the current SCOTUS makeup, to tackle the issue head on.

They are probably looking to the UN Small Arms Treaty first, and, the passing of the mid term elections. I think after this cycle, they have to feel pretty good about getting a majority in Congress. With a majority in both houses, and if he can replace one conservative on the court, they can pass any law that they want and then have the court uphold it. If they passed any sort of ban now, and it is challenged at SCOTUS and struck down, then they have effectively killed any future legislation. Think about it, if they wrote a ban on assault rifles and 30 round magazines and ammo restrictions and SCOTUS cited Miller and said that in common use applies, they couldn't ever write that law again.

I think they learned from D.C.s failed Heller tactics to make that mistake again.

Cannon-Arms
12-25-2012, 6:38 AM
In the '94 ban vote, remember that it barely passed with a Dem. controlled congress, and Repubs. that voted for it got their collectives asses handed to themselves in the following mid term elections.

Dems. don't control congress at this time. Gun owners are much more vocal, organized and communicative with each other and their reps. 'bama knows he'll thoroughly lose congress for the rest of his term if they try to ram something through.

Gun owners need to keep pressure on their reps. and continually remind them of what happened after they betrayed gun owners in '94. Sent them home packing.

I think 'bama would more than likely try to do something after the midterm elections....nothing to loose after that.

my 2¢

drdarrin@sbcglobal.net
12-25-2012, 6:59 AM
I wouldn't see this as a hopeful sign. Reid's comment "that we are not doing enough to protect our citizens" tells me more government "help" is on the way. They helped us into GFSZs and those have turned into nothing but killing zones. These guys need to stop helping and caring for us. It only steals our rights and makes us more vulnerable.

speedrrracer
12-25-2012, 7:13 AM
I'm hopeful after reading the article.

Regardless of how any of us feel, we're still all going to just have to wait and see.

In the meantime, write / call / email your reps, and encourage everyone you know to do the same!

LCpl Kutches
12-25-2012, 7:41 AM
All the gun makers have more time to create more weapons :D This gives people more time to spend money and stimulate the economy.

Mulay El Raisuli
12-25-2012, 7:53 AM
What comes to mind is that "under the radar" comment he made a while back. I'll never forget that.


And none of us ever should.


Obama and the dems may feel that it is too early, with the current SCOTUS makeup, to tackle the issue head on.

They are probably looking to the UN Small Arms Treaty first, and, the passing of the mid term elections. I think after this cycle, they have to feel pretty good about getting a majority in Congress. With a majority in both houses, and if he can replace one conservative on the court, they can pass any law that they want and then have the court uphold it. If they passed any sort of ban now, and it is challenged at SCOTUS and struck down, then they have effectively killed any future legislation. Think about it, if they wrote a ban on assault rifles and 30 round magazines and ammo restrictions and SCOTUS cited Miller and said that in common use applies, they couldn't ever write that law again.

I think they learned from D.C.s failed Heller tactics to make that mistake again.


The Chosen One won't wait for the mid-terms. Traditionally, we gain seats then. Which means he is as strong NOW as he's ever going to be.

Add to this he knows all about what happened in '94 & so won't want to have whatever he does fresh in the minds of the voters. The only way to minimize the damage is to put as much distance as possible between the act & the mid-terms.

Finally, the iron is REAL 'hot' right now.

Put it all together & my guess is that he won't delay acting for too long.


The Raisuli

tackdriver
12-25-2012, 7:58 AM
Does seem contrary to what has been said in the past. Afraid I cant see obama telling funkstein to go take a hike however....

thanks for posting though.

CessnaDriver
12-25-2012, 8:02 AM
Doesn't matter.
Keep fighting harder then ever.

Scarecrow Repair
12-25-2012, 8:06 AM
The incoming Congress moved a few seats in their direction, both houses. Not by much ,but it does better the odds. I suspect that alone is reason enough to hold off on the arm-twisting.

The Biden commission is supposed to report back in one month. That is warp speed for political commissions, too short to actually hold substantive hearings, and an indication to me that it is meant to actually produce some recommendations, however ginned-up and pre-made they may be.

dave3223
12-25-2012, 8:16 AM
Thanks for sharing this OP. Unfortunately, on a gun forum, information such as this won't go over well with the masses as many here like to say "I told you so" whenever they can about gun laws and this President. Only time will tell what the true outcome will be but the article does provide a glimpse at the fact that there may actually be nothing that comes out of this latest controversy over gun laws and 2A rights.

chris
12-25-2012, 9:09 AM
nevermind the fed side. the politicians here are not waisting any time taking full advantage of the shooting.

Meplat
12-25-2012, 9:25 AM
Commissions really are frequently used to slow or to kill an issue. The article really does have a point on that.

The flip side is that such commissions are often chaired by a retired politician whereas in this case you've got Biden "leading" it. Biden may not be willing to have his work-product set aside and ignored.

:rolleyes:Biden has his nose so far up Obummer’s @$$ that every time he lies Obummer’s Adams apple grows.

Ford8N
12-25-2012, 9:26 AM
nevermind the fed side. the politicians here are not waisting any time taking full advantage of the shooting.

Yup, and the democrats are in full control. 2013 will be the time....

RugerFan777
12-25-2012, 9:44 AM
I lived in Nevada for a bit. Ried is a anti-gunner. The problem he faces if a assault weapon ban comes through him, he would likley lose the next election bc he has fooled many Nevadans that he is a NRA A rated. GOA has him rated at a D rating, which is way more accurate.

ewarmour
12-25-2012, 10:12 AM
Barack Obama, "listen to the NRA"??? BwuHAHAHAHAHA!!!! :rofl2:

Actually Clinton suggested/partially implement this first so technically it's a dem plan. ;)

mjmagee67
12-25-2012, 10:15 AM
No if only the IDIOTS in Sacramento would wise up.

Meplat
12-25-2012, 10:20 AM
It is true that the antis have a very small cadre of supporters, including many in the MSM ginned up and highly motivated right now. But Obama and crew are shrewd, and they are taking the temperature of the country constantly. I think they know that the small, vocal, hysterical knot of antis is nothing compared to the overall position of the country on 2A. I don’t think they need or want to go that much against the real mood of the country at this point. They have bigger fish to fry.

SWalt
12-25-2012, 11:19 AM
Interesting article......the proof is in the pudding though.

One other thing Obummer needs to consider, is his "legacy". The Obama Tax (care) will be a source of discussion for years and years to come. He knows most people won't be hit with all these new taxes until near the end of his term and will then be asking "wtf?" Add "destroyed the 2nd Amendment" to that legacy, and it could be an argument against future democrats running for president.

drdarrin@sbcglobal.net
12-25-2012, 12:02 PM
No if only the IDIOTS in Sacramento would wise up.

They aren't idiots! Never under estimate our opponent.

They have gained the political power they have through patience and by giving the majority of the people what they want, often at the expense of the rest of us. In return, their constituents have given them power.

Now, they have reached a point of critical mass, where they enjoy a super majority. They can and will do any damn thing they want until they loose that power. Our recourse is lawsuits. These suits will be tried by judges who have been largely appointed by them, interpreting laws written by them as well. The number of like minded judges will only continue to grow as the more conservative ones retire or are forced out.

One of our options is to wait for the system to fail and see what rises out of the ashes. One of our hopes is that SCOTUS will continue to interpret the Constitution as they recently have. But if we loose the Court, you can probably kiss our 2A rights goodbye. Probably not immediately, SCOTUS has reversed itself before and I've no doubt, with the right mix of justices, they will do it again.

a1c
12-25-2012, 12:07 PM
Again, right now we have more to fear from Yee than we have from Obama.

The worst case scenario of what might come from D.C. will be measures that already are in place in California, like mandatory background checks for gun transactions and purchases.

Let's focus on what's happening in Sacramento and fight it.

artoaster
12-25-2012, 12:29 PM
We'll see when it blows over a bit and the economy takes center stage because it will.

Then we can start buying ammo again.

The press will try and keep the focus on gun control but our economic troubles which the press will try and ignore for awhile will come back with a vengence.

CBruce
12-25-2012, 12:34 PM
Interesting article.
The emphasis seems to be on protecting the children, rather than some new gun law. Maybe they listened to the NRA?

The last paragraph:
"In the days since the Newtown killings, many Democrats and their supporters in the press have expressed a desire to enact “meaningful” gun control as soon as possible. In two brief statements, President Obama and Harry Reid have poured some very cold water on those hopes."

http://washingtonexaminer.com/obama-reid-slam-brakes-on-gun-control/article/2516406?utm_campaign=obinsite

Hope this turns out to be true. It's a Christmas miracle.

CBruce
12-25-2012, 12:37 PM
That report was posted on the 19th, before that monster ambushed those fire fighters in New York.

I heard a rumor that guy used the same kind of fire that Hitler used to light his ovens!

Carnivore
12-25-2012, 2:33 PM
Seriously??? Come on are there that many sheep here? Obama has already said that the reinstatement of the assault weapons bill is part of the "common sense" approach to dealing with the epidemic of shootings. How gullible can anyone be...At the extreme most they are trying to slow down the sales of even more "assault weapons" before they can get a ban in place. Really this isn't hope, this is smoke and mirrors.

elSquid
12-25-2012, 3:57 PM
Seriously??? Come on are there that many sheep here? Obama has already said that the reinstatement of the assault weapons bill is part of the "common sense" approach to dealing with the epidemic of shootings. How gullible can anyone be...At the extreme most they are trying to slow down the sales of even more "assault weapons" before they can get a ban in place. Really this isn't hope, this is smoke and mirrors.

Depends. I think folks on both sides are doing a survey to see where the congressional votes are, and what the possible blowback would be.

Reid: after the Aurora shooting this year, he said that there was no time to debate gun control - he killed it outright (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/07/26/obama-talks-limiting-some-gun-use-in-wake-colorado-massacre/). So there is that.

Heck even Feinstein at the time said that it was a bad time to introduce more gun control (http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/fox-news-sunday-chris-wallace/2012/07/22/feinstein-johnson-debate-stricter-gun-control-netanyahu-dangerous-times-middle-east#p//v/1747607229001) as there was little public support.

So the open questions are: will Reid derail guns again? Will Feinstein have enough support? Not all Dems in the Senate are anti gun (http://nraila.org/legislation/federal-legislation/2012/national-right-to-carry-reciprocity-act-of-2012-introduced-in-us-senate.aspx)...

Hard to say where it all will go. Interesting times.

-- Michael

a1c
12-25-2012, 4:29 PM
Seriously??? Come on are there that many sheep here? Obama has already said that the reinstatement of the assault weapons bill is part of the "common sense" approach to dealing with the epidemic of shootings. How gullible can anyone be...At the extreme most they are trying to slow down the sales of even more "assault weapons" before they can get a ban in place. Really this isn't hope, this is smoke and mirrors.

I don't know if you noticed, but there generally is a pretty wide gap between what politicians say and what they actually get done. Especially when getting those things done is not within their sole power.

RMP91
12-25-2012, 4:36 PM
I don't know if you noticed, but there generally is a pretty wide gap between what politicians say and what they actually get done. Especially when getting those things done is not within their sole power.

Case in point: Diane Feinstein trying to push another AWB Every. Single. Year. since it expired in 2004... So far, she never got far with it, but this time she has a little more help... Hence our concern...

sreiter
12-25-2012, 4:43 PM
He wanted to re-institute the AWB as part of his presidency plan. He said as much as president elect on his web site "CHANGE.GOV". He already has exact plans IMO-

http://web.archive.org/web/20081116144703/http://change.gov/agenda/urbanpolicy_agenda/


Address Gun Violence in Cities: Obama and Biden would repeal the Tiahrt Amendment, which restricts the ability of local law enforcement to access important gun trace information, and give police officers across the nation the tools they need to solve gun crimes and fight the illegal arms trade. Obama and Biden also favor commonsense measures that respect the Second Amendment rights of gun owners, while keeping guns away from children and from criminals. They support closing the gun show loophole and making guns in this country childproof. They also support making the expired federal Assault Weapons Ban permanent.

OrovilleTim
12-25-2012, 4:48 PM
I could see them being all for having police officers at every school. It is both a chance for a further federalization of law enforcement, and also serves to condition youths to even more armed overlords.

I was personally sickened when I heard the NRA supported such a thing (although earlier reports said "armed guards" and the MSM said "police" so I don't know what was really said. Efforts would be better served lobbying for less restrictions on concealed carry by staff, rather than an advancement of the police state.

But, it's all just putting the pieces in play for totally tyrannical rule, regardless of who is in "charge".

OrovilleTim
12-25-2012, 4:48 PM
I could see them being all for having police officers at every school. It is both a chance for a further federalization of law enforcement, and also serves to condition youths to even more armed overlords.

I was personally sickened when I heard the NRA supported such a thing (although earlier reports said "armed guards" and the MSM said "police" so I don't know what was really said. Efforts would be better served lobbying for less restrictions on concealed carry by staff, rather than an advancement of the police state.

But, it's all just putting the pieces in play for totally tyrannical rule, regardless of who is in "charge".

press1280
12-25-2012, 4:57 PM
I could see them being all for having police officers at every school. It is both a chance for a further federalization of law enforcement, and also serves to condition youths to even more armed overlords.

I was personally sickened when I heard the NRA supported such a thing (although earlier reports said "armed guards" and the MSM said "police" so I don't know what was really said. Efforts would be better served lobbying for less restrictions on concealed carry by staff, rather than an advancement of the police state.

But, it's all just putting the pieces in play for totally tyrannical rule, regardless of who is in "charge".

I believe you're totally correct and the NRA should not be pushing this on a Federal level, but rather on a state or local level.

The Geologist
12-25-2012, 5:08 PM
How did this convicted felon, who had murdered his own grandmother, get three weapons in a state with some of the strictest gun control laws?

http://www.whec.com/news/stories/S2877314.shtml?cat=566

Snippet of article follows...



Apparently, the shooters sister is missing.[/QUOTE]

Exactly! A criminal can get what ever firearm they want. The gun law(s) only affect the law abiding.

dunndeal
12-25-2012, 6:45 PM
Remember all the budgetary action Obabma took after the Simpson/Bowles Budget Commission???? Neither do I because there wasn't any.

wazdat
12-25-2012, 6:58 PM
Interesting, but I'd trust Obama and Reid as far as I could throw them.

+1,000,000

Or to put it another way...

The Scorpion and the Frog

A scorpion and a frog meet on the bank of a stream and the
scorpion asks the frog to carry him across on its back. The
frog asks, "How do I know you won't sting me?" The scorpion
says, "Because if I do, I will die too."

The frog is satisfied, and they set out, but in midstream,
the scorpion stings the frog. The frog feels the onset of
paralysis and starts to sink, knowing they both will drown,
but has just enough time to gasp "Why?"

Replies the scorpion: "It's my nature..."

njineermike
12-25-2012, 7:06 PM
How exactly is an opinion piece complaining Obama and Reid didn't enact immediate stringent gun laws, combined with a blatantly misleading headline, in any way positive? It's like quoting MADD complaining they didn't make breathalyzer interlocks mandatory on all cars as endorsing drunken driving. If anything, it shows the media is even more rabid about gun bans than ever before.

Apocalypsenerd
12-25-2012, 7:24 PM
Obama is extremely calculating politically.

It would make much more political sense to:

1) Float the commission's recommendation to fly an assault weapons ban in a couple of months after the commission has suggested it but also after the fervor has died down somewhat in the public's eye.

2) Allow the ban to die due to the fervor that is currently running through the pro-2A circles.

3) Blame the new AWB death on the Republicans during the election cycle in 2 years and pick up more Democratic seats.

Also, our President has to know that gun control will have little affect on the public good, as he sees it. With few exceptions, most so called "gun control" measures show little to no proven benefit. He probably doesn't want to waste the tenuous grip he has on public opinion on something that will take huge political capital and have little benefit to his agenda.

Obama is Very good at calculating. The commission will give him options to either allow the AWB to die while costing the republicans seats, or it will allow him to play to his base after floating some trial balloons.

Breadfan
12-25-2012, 7:25 PM
tag

SilverTauron
12-25-2012, 8:10 PM
Obama is extremely calculating politically.

It would make much more political sense to:

1) Float the commission's recommendation to fly an assault weapons ban in a couple of months after the commission has suggested it but also after the fervor has died down somewhat in the public's eye.

2) Allow the ban to die due to the fervor that is currently running through the pro-2A circles.

3) Blame the new AWB death on the Republicans during the election cycle in 2 years and pick up more Democratic seats.

Also, our President has to know that gun control will have little affect on the public good, as he sees it. With few exceptions, most so called "gun control" measures show little to no proven benefit. He probably doesn't want to waste the tenuous grip he has on public opinion on something that will take huge political capital and have little benefit to his agenda.

Obama is Very good at calculating. The commission will give him options to either allow the AWB to die while costing the republicans seats, or it will allow him to play to his base after floating some trial balloons.

I think you're reading too much into his long term strategy.

The House will belong to the Democrats in 2014 regardless of gun control. Why?

The "Fiscal Cliff".

Unless a deal is reached at the 11th hour, some very unpleasant tax cuts and military spending changes are coming down the pipe. Joe Public is going to want a reason why his payroll tax went up and GI Joe or Jane's squadron got its budget halved-and the Democrats will give them one courtesy of the GOP. Thanks to the stick-in-the-mud conservatives, I just couldn't get the job done Obama will say.Those tax hikes will be in the voters' headspace come 2014 no matter what happens with gun control.

Speaking of that topic , at this point public opinion is in favor of a more stringent AWB more or less across the spectrum. As things stand now we're looking at a cultural backlash against semi-autos high cap rifles which has a life of its own. If a stat company published a paper showing how an AWB would fail miserably at stopping crime i'd imagine that no one would care, as the prevailing public mood is WHY NOT BAN THEM?

If Obama wanted to ignore the issue or defer it , he'd have done the exact same thing he did after Tucson-nothing. Why make a commission when all you need do is claim that increasing enforcement of current laws is all we need and leave things at that?

He's forming a commission this time for a different reason then political maneuvering-he wants to get a comprehensive gun control bill which is more-or-less loophole proof. While many here are approaching this struggle as if Obama will offer an AWB-On-Steroids proposal, I'm of the mind he's going beyond anything we've seen before, including the 1968 GCA. Obama's goal is nothing less then a comprehensive national gun regulation blueprint which will govern everything from 6 shot rimfire revolvers all the way up AR15s and AKMs. The fact that the Department of Health And Human Services is on the panel means Biden's committee is creating a gun control volume which will impact different government agencies. If the AWB is a web article, this monster will be an online database. Come January I hope to be proven wrong.

Rob7.62
12-25-2012, 8:23 PM
I agree if going over the "fiscal cliff" is tied to republicans were screwed in two years. Dems will have both senate and house and we won't have guns unless your into .22 short.

Scarecrow Repair
12-25-2012, 8:39 PM
Obama is a clever crafty sneaky underhanded politician, but he is no arm twister. All he is good at is micromanaging drone targeting and reading the teleprompter.

The only legislation he can crow about is Obamacare, and he had little to do with defining it. He left it to Congress, and in fact it as farked as it is because he and the Dems miscalculated and had to go with what was supposed to be a negotiating point because they didn't have the votes for a further cycle of meetings and compromise.

Obama can yap at town halls and in all the TV speeches the networks will give him, but he does not get things done the old fashioned way, by twisting arms and reading the riot act to congress critters. They are not frightened of him. His personal aura is personal, not Democratic. Look at how many Dems this year avoided riding his coattails because he had lost his magic.

When the elections begin again in a year or so, Obamacare's expensive parts and bureaucracy will just be coming into play -- the extra deductions and costs, the employer expenses, the lack of state exchanges where people get their "low cost" insurance, the paperwork nightmares which will be rushed and sloppy because the regulators are way behind schedule meeting legal deadlines. The thing's a corpulent mess and will become even less popular as the bits and pieces come into effect.

He can blame the fiscal cliff on anybody he wants, but the Republicans have plenty to shout back with, and he's the President -- the buck stops with him whether he or the Dems like it or not. he's the point man, the guy who promised everyone could keep their current health plan and everything else that hasn't come true.

The Dems will not win the house in 2014 unless the Republicans give it to them.

RRangel
12-25-2012, 9:33 PM
Again, right now we have more to fear from Yee than we have from Obama.

The worst case scenario of what might come from D.C. will be measures that already are in place in California, like mandatory background checks for gun transactions and purchases.

Let's focus on what's happening in Sacramento and fight it.

You're making that comment to Americans that are concerned for their nation. Not only that, but whatever anti-gun negativity may come federally, if any, means it's still going to effect California. It doesn't mean that anyone is ignoring Sacramento.

kcbrown
12-25-2012, 9:47 PM
The Dems will not win the house in 2014 unless the Republicans give it to them.

You mean like they gave the Dems the 2012 Presidential election?

The Republican party is self-destructing before our very eyes. The neocons and the ultra-religious right have an unholy alliance and a stranglehold on the party. That stranglehold will continue until the party is dead, because nobody gives up power and control willingly.

You also forget another important factor: the media has taken the gloves off, and now fully supports Obama with everything it has. This is why Fast and Furious got no significant coverage whatsoever, and when it did, it was spun to ensure that Obama and his cronies remained unscathed.

It is also why the narrative is what it currently is.


No, the Dems will almost certainly get the House in 2014, because anything that goes wrong will be blamed on the Republicans by the media, and the media influences how people vote to such a large degree that it's hard to call it anything other than "control".

RMP91
12-25-2012, 10:41 PM
You mean like they gave the Dems the 2012 Presidential election?

The Republican party is self-destructing before our very eyes. The neocons and the ultra-religious right have an unholy alliance and a stranglehold on the party. That stranglehold will continue until the party is dead, because nobody gives up power and control willingly.

You also forget another important factor: the media has taken the gloves off, and now fully supports Obama with everything it has. This is why Fast and Furious got no significant coverage whatsoever, and when it did, it was spun to ensure that Obama and his cronies remained unscathed.

It is also why the narrative is what it currently is.


No, the Dems will almost certainly get the House in 2014, because anything that goes wrong will be blamed on the Republicans by the media, and the media influences how people vote to such a large degree that it's hard to call it anything other than "control".

I wouldn't be so quick as to throw in the towel...

The party opposite of the president's has traditionally gained seats in Congress in every mid-term election. This has almost always been a given, with almost no deviation.

The deck might be stacked against us, but we still have an ace or two up our sleeves...

socalbud
12-26-2012, 12:26 AM
I can't wait till Hillary wins next election and democrats control congress. That will make everything better.

Cylarz
12-26-2012, 3:35 AM
I think 'bama would more than likely try to do something after the midterm elections....nothing to loose after that.

What nonsense. I keep hearing this and it doesn't add up - how people think the president is going to have a free hand to do such-and-such after so-and-so election is over.

Try to remember that even if Obama doesn't have to run for re-election in '16, a lot of his friends do...and therefore there is nothing to stop the voters from tossing them all out of the Capitol at that time even if they don't do it at the '14 midterms. There's nothing to stop voters from venting their frustration with Obama on the rest of the Democratic party, either. It happens all the time - presidents are ALWAYS regarded as the symbol who represents their party.

People seem to think that when a presidential election comes along, the presidency is all we're voting on. Not so - every two years the entire House and 1/3 of the Senate must run for re-election. The composition of the chambers can change at any of those times, and you can BET it will be 1994 all over again if they pass DiFi's stupid AWB.

Cylarz
12-26-2012, 3:53 AM
You mean like they gave the Dems the 2012 Presidential election?

We have voters in states like IA and NH in part to thank for that. They nominate these squishy moderate types again and again...whom the rest of the country must rubber-stamp. You know as well as I do that the primaries are OVER by the time it gets to us out here. Every year we have several decent candidates (Forbes, Thompson, Cain, Bachmann, Perry), whom are promptly picked off by the middle-of-the-road voters. Stupid. Why are we allowing states with a combined 2% of the population, to pick our candidate for us? This needs to stop. At least let one of the four biggest states vote right after Christmas, the way these fools insist on doing.

Don't also forget that the Libertarian types threw sand in the gears this time around too. In Florida alone, Gary Johnson received more votes than the margin of difference between Obama and Romney. Now THAT is a party that I truly wish would dry up and blow away.

The Republican party is self-destructing before our very eyes. The neocons and the ultra-religious right have an unholy alliance and a stranglehold on the party.

Blah, blah, blah. Why doesn't anyone ever blame the mealy-mouthed, linguini spined John McCain types who are simply "Me too, just a little bit less"...who do nothing to distinguish themselves from the left? Why is it always "the religious right" who have to be blamed? Them, or the Tea Party "fanatics?" Good night Irene...I'm sick of this.

As for "neocons," I don't think you have the first clue what that word even means.


You also forget another important factor: the media has taken the gloves off, and now fully supports Obama with everything it has.

They did that in 2008, too. Don't you remember Chris "tingle up my leg" Mathews? What's the difference this time?


This is why Fast and Furious got no significant coverage whatsoever, and when it did, it was spun to ensure that Obama and his cronies remained unscathed.


It got plenty of coverage; try watching FOX once in awhile. Maybe you haven't been paying attention (as I strongly suspect), but Rep Issa and Sen Grassley have been hammering away at this for months in Congress. Holder has been held in contempt of Congress for failure to produce documents. What do you want them to do, impeach Obama?


It is also why the narrative is what it currently is.


Do we blame the enemy for that, or ourselves? Maybe if you middle of the road types weren't out there continually trying to water down our brand...


No, the Dems will almost certainly get the House in 2014, because anything that goes wrong will be blamed on the Republicans by the media, and the media influences how people vote to such a large degree that it's hard to call it anything other than "control".

You give them WAAAAAY too much credit - the media that is. They don't control the 'narrative.' If they did, we'd never have gotten any Republicans elected before 1996 or so, when alternative media started getting big. Blaming the media is a waste of time. Just accept that they're in the tank for the other side and do not overestimate their influence.

As the other guy pointed out, the president's party usually loses seats in any given midterm, and they WILL get their clocks cleaned if they are stupid enough to try anything on gun control before '14. Gun ownership is nearly evenly split between Democrats and Republicans now and they don't like their arms being taken away any more than we do.

Did anyone ever tell you you're a bit of a cynic?

Merkava_4
12-26-2012, 4:02 AM
In the days since the Newtown killings, many Democrats and their supporters in the press have expressed a desire to enact “meaningful” gun control as soon as possible. In two brief statements, President Obama and Harry Reid have poured some very cold water on those hopes.

That's just the opinion of Byron York, the author of that piece. He's just trying to get the anti's riled up. Don't fall for it.

Kid Stanislaus
12-26-2012, 9:26 AM
Now, if only the IDIOTS in Sacramento would wise up.

That's a self canceling phrase.;)

FoxTrot87
12-26-2012, 9:36 AM
Don't forget in 2011 Obama stopped federal grants for School Resource Officers (SRO). I believe Sandy Hook had one from 2001-2003. He funneled that $800mil to his alternative energy "loans" which ended up being grants when they all went defunct. They were also some of his best contributors in 2008.

He cried on TV because he knew exactly who's fault it was.

Dantedamean
12-26-2012, 9:48 AM
I have a feeling Obama wants to take this slow and he has a game plan.

Think about it, it looks like we are going "off the fiscal cliff" once that happens Obama will be able to demonise the Republicans even more, maybe enough to loose the house. If he is able to push Republicans out of the house then he can have his spiffy new committee say what ever Obama wants them to say in order to pass laws.

Then he can drag out the lawsuits till he can appoint a new SCOTUS. Once that happens he fires up some lawsuits to challenge all the ground we've gained, he will be able to effectively and efficiently remove the 2nd amendment small chunks at a time.

By the time he is out of office, Australians will have better gun rights than us.

navycorpsman
12-26-2012, 10:13 AM
I have a feeling Obama wants to take this slow and he has a game plan.

Think about it, it looks like we are going "off the fiscal cliff" once that happens Obama will be able to demonise the Republicans even more, maybe enough to loose the house. If he is able to push Republicans out of the house then he can have his spiffy new committee say what ever Obama wants them to say in order to pass laws.

Then he can drag out the lawsuits till he can appoint a new SCOTUS. Once that happens he fires up some lawsuits to challenge all the ground we've gained, he will be able to effectively and efficiently remove the 2nd amendment small chunks at a time.

By the time he is out of office, Australians will have better gun rights than us.
You all give this moron to much credit. As much as they have on republicans, believe that the republicans will be ready to dish it back. This man has had failure after failure. He has lost the trust of our military majority,almost ALL gun owners and many more as time goes on and he is exposed as the joke he is. Hold the Line Everyone

Scarecrow Repair
12-26-2012, 12:07 PM
You also forget another important factor: the media has taken the gloves off, and now fully supports Obama with everything it has. This is why Fast and Furious got no significant coverage whatsoever, and when it did, it was spun to ensure that Obama and his cronies remained unscathed.

It is also why the narrative is what it currently is.


No, the Dems will almost certainly get the House in 2014, because anything that goes wrong will be blamed on the Republicans by the media, and the media influences how people vote to such a large degree that it's hard to call it anything other than "control".

That kind of monopoly control of the blame game has always backfired before, and it will again. The Dems kept blaming Bush II after 2006 even though they controlled both the House and Senate, and ditto in 2008, and they lost in 2010. The Republicans can't self-destruct until the next presidential election in 2016; midterms are much more atuned to local politics.

Uxi
12-26-2012, 12:50 PM
The Chosen One won't wait for the mid-terms. Traditionally, we gain seats then. Which means he is as strong NOW as he's ever going to be.

Add to this he knows all about what happened in '94 & so won't want to have whatever he does fresh in the minds of the voters. The only way to minimize the damage is to put as much distance as possible between the act & the mid-terms.

Finally, the iron is REAL 'hot' right now.

Put it all together & my guess is that he won't delay acting for too long.


All of that. Plus second terms usually aren't kind to legacies.

NytWolf
12-26-2012, 1:37 PM
I don't agree with that article one bit. Those aren't the same things that I understood when I listened to Obama's speech.

In fact, I took Obama's speech to mean that he is NOT going to have a lengthy debate on the issue of gun control, but rather come up with (or have Joe Biden come up with) a bulletproof (parden the pun) new laws that cannot be shot (pun again) down by the pro-gun crowd.

dfletcher
12-26-2012, 2:16 PM
I would hope the wisdom of NRA dealing politely with Senate Majority Leader Reid in 2010 is evident. Where might we be with federal gun control and a SML Feinstein or Schumer? Obviously Reid could still turn bad on us, one never knows what these folks mean when they speak. But Reid's silence on gun control immediately after the event and his moderation now is helpful.

I suspect he wants to run again in 2016.

dfletcher
12-26-2012, 2:18 PM
I don't agree with that article one bit. Those aren't the same things that I understood when I listened to Obama's speech.

In fact, I took Obama's speech to mean that he is NOT going to have a lengthy debate on the issue of gun control, but rather come up with (or have Joe Biden come up with) a bulletproof (parden the pun) new laws that cannot be shot (pun again) down by the pro-gun crowd.

That was my take on his statement also. Perhaps I'm missing something, but I took his tone to mean "this isn't going to fade away" in 6 months.

kcbrown
12-26-2012, 2:24 PM
We have voters in states like IA and NH in part to thank for that. They nominate these squishy moderate types again and again...whom the rest of the country must rubber-stamp. You know as well as I do that the primaries are OVER by the time it gets to us out here. Every year we have several decent candidates (Forbes, Thompson, Cain, Bachmann, Perry), whom are promptly picked off by the middle-of-the-road voters. Stupid. Why are we allowing states with a combined 2% of the population, to pick our candidate for us? This needs to stop. At least let one of the four biggest states vote right after Christmas, the way these fools insist on doing.


I wasn't aware that it was the middle-of-the-road voters that were picking off the decent candidates, but that is a possibility I hadn't considered.



Don't also forget that the Libertarian types threw sand in the gears this time around too. In Florida alone, Gary Johnson received more votes than the margin of difference between Obama and Romney. Now THAT is a party that I truly wish would dry up and blow away.


What in the world makes you think that a Libertarian type is going to be more inclined to vote for Romney than Obama, given that they tend to view both candidates as the same (i.e., worthless) on the issue that matters to them the most (liberty)?



Blah, blah, blah. Why doesn't anyone ever blame the mealy-mouthed, linguini spined John McCain types who are simply "Me too, just a little bit less"...who do nothing to distinguish themselves from the left? Why is it always "the religious right" who have to be blamed?


Because they're the ones who drive away the female voters. It's an idiotic thing to drive away 50% or more of your potential voter base, but that's what the "religious right" manages to accomplish.



As for "neocons," I don't think you have the first clue what that word even means.


"New Conservatives". As applied, they tend to favor highly aggressive foreign policy, to the point of being willing to start wars in order to satisfy American "interests" such as securing natural resources. They believe strongly in American imperialism and expansion of power, in the belief that doing so will make the country safer. They want to take "manifest destiny" to its logical conclusion and are willing to sacrifice the liberty of the citizenry to do it (hence, the Patriot Act, "extraordinary rendition", etc.). How am I doing so far?



They did that in 2008, too. Don't you remember Chris "tingle up my leg" Mathews? What's the difference this time?


The difference is that the media isn't even pretending to be "fair and balanced" any more. The gloves have come off entirely. It is now pure propaganda. There is no more truth left.



It got plenty of coverage; try watching FOX once in awhile. Maybe you haven't been paying attention (as I strongly suspect), but Rep Issa and Sen Grassley have been hammering away at this for months in Congress. Holder has been held in contempt of Congress for failure to produce documents. What do you want them to do, impeach Obama?


I'm not talking about the actions of others in government, I'm talking strictly about the media. Yes, Issa and Grassley attempted to get to the bottom of it, and uncovered quite a bit of wrongdoing in the process. What did we hear from the media as a result? Crickets.

And as a result, the American people hardly even know about it, and when they have, they believe that it was a "botched" operation that was done for the "right reasons". Where's the FOX coverage repeatedly showing that the ATF intentionally stopped tracking the weapons? Where's the coverage showing that the FBI intentionally allowed the criminal buyers to pass the NICS checks? Where's the coverage showing the ATF intentionally telling FFLs to let the criminals purchase the weapons after the FFLs got suspicious due to the number of weapons being purchased, only for the FFLs to later be blamed by the ATF for allowing the weapons to be purchased?

No, if FOX had covered this properly, there would be massive calls amongst the FOX-watching population for Obama's head, and this whole thing would have blown up sky high. Instead, we got crickets from FOX, at least if the F&F thread on this site is anything to go by. The only significant truthful mention of F&F by the media occurred early on by CBS, not FOX, and that coverage quickly disappeared.



Do we blame the enemy for that, or ourselves? Maybe if you middle of the road types weren't out there continually trying to water down our brand...


Us middle of the road types? I want liberty! What's "middle of the road" about that? For the record, I voted for Romney, because I understood the gravity of this particular election and that it was far more important to displace Obama in order to ensure that he doesn't taint the Supreme Court than to vote my conscience. I'm willing to do what it takes when the chips are down, as they were in this past election. But I'm also fully aware that if you choose the "lesser" of two evils every time, the end result is ever-increasing evil, as it has been.

At this point, from the standpoint of liberty, there is scant difference between the two major parties, with the sole exception being those they would nominate to the Supreme Court. Both parties want increased government control over the citizenry. If you don't believe me, then name me one law which restricts the citizenry that the Republicans repealed while they were in control. Yeah, that's what I thought.



You give them WAAAAAY too much credit - the media that is. They don't control the 'narrative.' If they did, we'd never have gotten any Republicans elected before 1996 or so, when alternative media started getting big. Blaming the media is a waste of time. Just accept that they're in the tank for the other side and do not overestimate their influence.


Oh yeah? Then explain how it is that by using the media's influence as a starting point, I was able to predict Romney's nomination, Obama's election, and the outcome of the Fast and Furious scandal?

When an hypothesis is consistent with all the evidence to date and yields testable predictions which consistently come true, the hypothesis is given credibility.

Show me an hypothesis that yields more consistently accurate predictions about so many different things and I'll switch to it. I'm a realist. I'm after the truth, whatever it may be.



As the other guy pointed out, the president's party usually loses seats in any given midterm, and they WILL get their clocks cleaned if they are stupid enough to try anything on gun control before '14. Gun ownership is nearly evenly split between Democrats and Republicans now and they don't like their arms being taken away any more than we do.


We'll see. I predict, at a minimum, that the Republicans will lose more seats. It's another testable prediction. The best kind. :D



Did anyone ever tell you you're a bit of a cynic?

Nope. Never been accused of it before. In fact, everyone around here thinks I'm an optimist.

:whistling:

:D

kcbrown
12-26-2012, 2:32 PM
That kind of monopoly control of the blame game has always backfired before, and it will again.


Things are always the same ... until they change.

Real estate always goes up in value ... until it doesn't.


Past performance is no guarantee of future returns.


I prefer to derive conclusions from first principles when possible. You could be right here. But it looks to me like the principles underlying the situation will yield results that differ from the historical norm.

If that proves not to be the case, if you prove right, then I'll have to revisit my hypothesis and see why it failed to correctly predict the results.


I do recognize that Congressional races are more local in nature, so there's a greater chance of the Republicans winning than there otherwise might be, but I expect that to only slow the descent, not reverse it.

norcal_patriot
12-26-2012, 6:34 PM
Sorry if a repost, didn't see it in here. What do you guys think?

http://washingtonexaminer.com/obama-reid-slam-brakes-on-gun-control/article/2516406

clb
12-26-2012, 6:39 PM
Act casual say nothing.

watch yer back

five.five-six
12-26-2012, 6:45 PM
rope-a-dope

tcrpe
12-26-2012, 7:07 PM
IBTL

Laythor
12-26-2012, 7:08 PM
called it

taperxz
12-26-2012, 7:11 PM
Sorry if a repost, didn't see it in here. What do you guys think?

http://washingtonexaminer.com/obama-reid-slam-brakes-on-gun-control/article/2516406

What i think is your don't look more than 5 posts down to see that the topic has been here for 5 days.

G-Man WC
12-26-2012, 7:24 PM
Barry's handlers told him to STFU. The country is spending $ on guns and gun related hobbies. -g

jpigeon
12-26-2012, 7:27 PM
Smoke and mirrors

Doheny
12-26-2012, 7:29 PM
Smoke and mirrors

Yup. The store coming from the Washington Examiner should have been the first clue.

Rossi357
12-26-2012, 7:55 PM
Sorry if a repost, didn't see it in here. What do you guys think?

http://washingtonexaminer.com/obama-reid-slam-brakes-on-gun-control/article/2516406



Dupe

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=663181

dave_cg
12-26-2012, 8:53 PM
We have voters in states like IA and NH in part to thank for that. They nominate these squishy moderate types again and again...whom the rest of the country must rubber-stamp. You know as well as I do that the primaries are OVER by the time it gets to us out here. Every year we have several decent candidates (Forbes, Thompson, Cain, Bachmann, Perry), whom are promptly picked off by the middle-of-the-road voters. Stupid. Why are we allowing states with a combined 2% of the population, to pick our candidate for us? This needs to stop.

There are some practical realities you need to deal with. Suppose you have a candidate with good ideas a not a lot of money. Actually, at the beginning of the campaign, *none* of them have a lot of money because the big contributors are still waiting to place their bets. So, you need a place where you can campaign on the cheap and get your message out, but also have a representative sample that is good for test marketing your message.

Iowa and New Hampshire are small media markets. You can buy exposure to a large percentage of the voters with a relatively small amount of money. Also, those places lend themselves to "retail politics". You can rent a bus and drive from one pancake house to the next and talk to groups of 20 or 60 people at time and actually make some progress. The thing that put the Iowa caucuses on the map was Jimmy Carter *walked* across Iowa and then did well in the caucuses. Here's a big clue for you: California is an outrageously expensive media market and way too big to cover on a bus tour. So that is part #1 of the equation: you can effectively campaign in these places even on a shoestring budget.

Now let's do part #2: representative sample. Before I dive in, I need to tell you that years ago my wife was in market research at General Mills, in Betty Crocker division, and Big G breakfast cereals division. She is an expert in test marketing pretty good cake mix, really crappy breakfast food, and the TV commercials to push them. You always test new products and messages in cheap media places where the results are representative of the nation as a whole. You've no-doubt heard the ancient show-biz cliche "If it plays well in Peoria, it will play well everywhere." Guess what? That is no joke. They used to test TV commercials in Peoria, because the statistics scaled up to the nation as a whole. As it turns out, Iowa used to be pretty good that way, too, but is it getting bluer, politically. But that is why Iowa is where the campaign trail starts, it is cheap, and the market research results scale up.

Why not California? It fails both tests. It is horrendously expensive to campaign in California, and the results are not at all representative of how the candidate will poll nationally.

Here is the challenge for you: if you don't like Iowa and New Hampshire as test markets for politicians, find a place that beats those locations on both of the above tests. The politicians will go there if it is better, I guarantee it.

holasrmateo
12-26-2012, 9:00 PM
Obama and Reid are just playing good cop to Diane Feinstein and the gun control faction in the Democrat Party. Two steps to the left and one step to the right to make "reasonable" concessions like banning "high capacity magazines" (a solution that doesn't solve the problem), "assault weapons" (semantics and over shadowed by handguns) and "cop killer bullets" (also meaningless and illegal since Reagan) seem more palatable.

CDFingers
12-27-2012, 5:08 AM
I doubt any Dem listened to the NRA.

I say the Dems don't have the votes to pass gun laws in this, or in the next, congress. Therefore, their strategies are hampered. The Dems will do what will get them elected again in 2014. The Republicans in DC are very close to getting diselected also, so they, too, must do what will get them back in office.

I enjoy the dilemma of both "main" parties.

CDFingers

Mulay El Raisuli
12-27-2012, 5:38 AM
All of that. Plus second terms usually aren't kind to legacies.


Yes. Nixon being the ultimate example of that.


Oh yeah? Then explain how it is that by using the media's influence as a starting point, I was able to predict Romney's nomination, Obama's election, and the outcome of the Fast and Furious scandal?


You're a bit ahead of yourself. There hasn't been an "outcome" on F&F yet.


The Raisuli

Just Dave
12-27-2012, 6:08 AM
Reading this thread one would get the impression that Obama was going to push for some type of legislation. I think this is just a dog and pony show and that passing laws will have nothing to do with it.
Obama will go around the congress and grab guns through a series of edicts via the EPA, DHHS, etc...
Remember when Obama said "I will use all the powers of my office.."?

It wouldn't surprise me in the least if he already had a plan sitting on the shelf for such a time as this.

I hope I'm wrong.

stator
12-27-2012, 6:59 AM
We want the Democrats to push gun control up to the edge and then get defeated. Otherwise, the mid-term elections in 2014 will hasten gun control to a all new level.

Many of you guys are going to have to either accept gun bans, or vote to throw California Democrats out of office. Every time they pass more gun control in this state, you guys bi**ch, but then vote more Democrats into office. What message are you sending them?

They will continue their ban march until they take notice of themselves or their co-horts are being thrown out of office.