The Down Range Forum
Member Section => Down Range Cafe => Topic started by: Ksail101 on April 17, 2013, 05:07:35 PM
-
Are you kidding me? I fought for my country and never once have I felt disrespected by my president till now. He sat up there and lied many times saying 90% of Americas wanted this failed gun bill. And then proceeded to tongue lash us concervatives and basically said we had sandy hooks blood on our hands now.
I am so upset. I would really like to hear if anyone else heard this. There are no transcripts yet as soon as I find one Ill post it.
He played that division game and just had the worst speech I've ever seen a president give. It literally sounded like a dictator reprimanding his people. Saying we need to vote out these republicans. I'm sick I this. Ill be voting out anyone that voted for the gun bill. Not the other way.
Link to transcript. http://swampland.time.com/2013/04/17/president-obamas-speech-on-gun-control-bill-defeat-transcript/
-
When ever Barrry's mug appears on my TV screen i immediately change the channel. He could be about to declare war and i won't hear the news from him.
The important thing today is that Barry and his fellow-travelers lost their cynical, politically motivated attempt at "gun control legislation". Not only that, Barry had to swallow his manifest arrogance and actually use the term "terrorism" to describe an act of terrorism. Hasn't been a particularly great start to Barry's Second Term. And his approval ratings show it.
-
It was a repulsive speech, but these are repulsive times and B-Ho is truly a man for the times.
The fact is he threw the full weight of the Presidency into this, and it failed spectacularly. And as Sebastian of SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED noted very early in this battle, a big loss for the gun grabbers here and now is an unprecedented disaster for them. It's easy to talk about how this will be a defining issue for the Democrats in 2014 and beyond, but look at today's Gallup poll...only 4% of Americans thank "gun control" is an important problem. Think that number is likely to rise as we move toward 2014, with the evolving ObamaCare disaster, the emergence of new terrorist threats and the slow-motion economic train wreck?
I go back to a radio interview I once had, where after I had said that I voted guns, the host made a special point in telling me that she was antigun and she voted! I told her yes ma'am, I'm sure she did. But the difference between her and me was that in a week, 2 weeks, a month, a year, she'd be voting for better schools, new parks, whatever, but I would still be voting guns...EVERY SINGLE TIME. And that's why we will win...
Michael B
-
Not only is it repulsive, it doesn't even hold water assuming his are true.
Is he really trying to get us to believe that the 10% who didn't want the bill to pass were able to convince his Dem Congress not to support it?
-
Ok, i forced myself and watched Barry's speech. A vile, as hateful a speech as i have ever heard, full of demagoguery worthy of a tin horn dictator of the lowest order. A cynical speech given by the man who gave the ok to sell arms to the Mexican Cartels, gave the Muslim Brotherhood F-16's and Abrams tanks(for free no less)and covered-up/lied about/ignored the Benghazi terrorist murders.
Who is it that really needs the "criminal background" check, Mr. President?
Barry said it was "only the first round" in the "battle" for gun control. Ok Barry, as someone once said: "Bring it on."
-
It came on after some Boston Bomb coverage, the 3rd time he said 90% wanted this bill I couldn't stand it any more and went out for a smoke.
Does this idiot lying demagogue, actually expect us to believe that 10% have the entire firearms and ammunition industry 6 months behind on orders ?
Even by his estimates his "recovery" hasn't been that good.
-
We need not to sit back and wait for the anti-gunners to launch another attack. It is high time we switched to assault mode and pushed our pro-2A legislation up their noses. They are now reeling from being stung. Let's hit them where it hurts and while they are off-balance. Let's show them we are a force to be reckoned with, and not just feared.
-
We need not to sit back and wait for the anti-gunners to launch another attack. It is high time we switched to assault mode and pushed our pro-2A legislation up their noses. They are now reeling from being stung. Let's hit them where it hurts and while they are off-balance. Let's show them we are a force to be reckoned with, and not just feared.
Our approach should be that they have tried their way and failed 20,000 times .
Unless they are insane the only reasonable answer is go the other way and start undoing the damage.
-
I think in coming years we are going to see our enemies change their tactics from guns to ammo. The easiest way for them to affect ammo is to use the EPA and other regulatory agencies to increase the cost of ammo with costly regulations. For example, they can mandate that self defense ammo can only be sold in a specific caliber, have a specific velocity, and/or must contain certain materials.
I agree with the President: this fight is not over. But today he lost the "Battle of Stalingrad".
-
I just heard a short extract of it on the radio here. And had a massive wtf moment hearing him. Like that bill would of stopped criminals or mentally ill people getting guns
Is he that deranged.
Never Mind I just answered my own question
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
-
Even the people pushing it said it would not have prevented Sandy Hook.
-
Even the people pushing it said it would not have prevented Sandy Hook.
They won't prevent anything
With all the crap we go thought here to be a lafo the crims still have them still shoot at each other and drive buys armed robberies. Has not really changed
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
-
The gloves will be off for the remainder of this Pres. term. ANYTHING he can force will be attempted. But he knows he cannot rely on his minions in Congress. I don't know if his ego and agenda can handle it.
We should hammer them back at every op. Keep proposing pro gun legislation, and make the traitors vote again and again and again against it.
BHO's mad and whining like a little boy kicked out of the sandbox?
Priceless.
-
BHO's mad and whining like a little boy kicked out of the sandbox?
Priceless.
THAT'S what I saw. What a spoiled little brat throwing a world-class tantrum. I think he should take his ball and go home.
CR
-
Here is a link to the speech
http://swampland.time.com/2013/04/17/president-obamas-speech-on-gun-control-bill-defeat-transcript/
-
Tw- I felt that at first he was just crying. But what sore loser. For him to even have a press conference and the families of the sandyhook people there I don't know. It was very dictatorish.
Also I don't know who the big black guy was behind Obama but if he was secret service he needs to pack his bags. For him to be standing there nodding his head just proves he has to much political opinion to be alert and watching for threats. He was focused on the speech and not on what was happening. Even with having a sub machine gun in his jacket and nodding his head to anti gun rhetoric was funny in itself but still.
I feel really bad for Gabby Giffords (sp?) and the sandyhook families I can't imagine their pain. But can the ones that want to be in the lime light have a little respect for the ones that have a different view. All we hear about are two families. Maybe the rest don't want their sons or daughters death a catalyst for political crap. And one that is ineffective and would not have stopped the horrors that happened there in the first place. It's like the dems have just latched on these people. I feel horrible for the families that have to watch this and maybe feel differently. And the truth about people like them they want a total ban. Universal background checks would have done nothing to stop Adam Lanza. Unless the closest he stole the guns from has a NICS check to open it. I want to slam them cause they have stood in front of me and helped lie with obama and involved themselves in things that they can't think rationally think about rightnow but I know that it is the wrong thing to do. If they were smart they would be on the NRAs side and actually make a difference through education and intervention tactics instead of this. The American public is going to get tired of it real soon if they are paraded in front of us supporting lies. Not everyone today knew Obama was lying about the 90% at the time but quick fact checking by those that chose to will discover how far he was off and associate that with sandyhook families pushing agendas. Let us grieve for you and your children and not make us angry at poor dicisions being made by a political party around you.
I'm glad senators voted this bill down. It proved we are not the minority that Obama likes to say we are. Even my senators voted no on the back ground bill and they are dems. Something must of been real bad with it or my letter to them was that good. :-).
-
THAT'S what I saw. What a spoiled little brat throwing a world-class tantrum. I think he should take his ball and go home.
CR
That's my "boy". So proud I voted for him once. You guys think you dislike the guy? Try imagining you believed the hype, saw the reality and realized what you'd helped do. Then, talk talk to me about disliking him. I cannot wait for 2016, though I swear to God the GOP better give me someone better than McCain who voted FOR gun control.
-
That's my boy. So proud I voted for him once. You guys think you dislike the guy? Try imagining you that believed the hype, then saw the reality and realized what you'd helped do. Then, talk to me about disliking him. I cannot wait for 2016, though I swear to God the GOP better give me someone better than McCain who voted FOR gun control.
-
This from the guy that 2 days to work up the guts to call the Boston bombing terrorism.
talk about shameful.
-
Lying spoiled precocious brat having a temper tantrum.
Nothing has changed.
-
A couple of things. #1 they are not serious about "protecting the children" or the effort would have looked much different. Their attempt was to pass ANYTHING that would hurt, tax, or inconvenience conservatives and progressives that go against thier program and buy guns.
#2 - "Gun violence" as they like to call it, would not be affected AT ALL by what was proposed.
#3 - The only way to significantly reduce deaths where guns are involved is to WADE INTO the bubbling, drug-infested areas where there is no respect for human life, take the guns, take the drugs, and make them live like normal people. "Gun violence" would be reduced by half with only gross measures. With an effort, it could go much lower- 60-75%. But there are a lot of reasons they do not want to do that, nor even ADMIT there's a problem (can you say, "Chicago"?).
#4 - Obama will not quit. Prepare for any and all executive orders that can restrict anything to do with guns, ammo, mental health, etc. and NONE of it will curtail crazy criminals from their acts, but they WILL affect law abiding conservatives who dare not to bow to his majesty.
-
While he is up there slamming all Americans for not supporting his draconian laws. And old one eyed Joe is fake crying this is happening. Maybe the guy should have a little respect and try to bring the country together instead of trying to divide it some more. Especially after a terror attack. Image if after 9/11 Bush was up there calling us all cowards and talkers and not people of action.
-
this was what I heard on the radio on my drive home from work tonight ::)
audio version at links or the transcripts are here..
http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2013/s3740210.htm
TIM PALMER: Staying in the United States, president Barack Obama has called it a shameful day for Washington. Barely four months after 26 people were killed by a lone gunman in Sandy Hook, US senators have voted down a bill that would have tightened background checks on potential gun owners.
The bipartisan plan narrowly failed to gain the 60 per cent of votes required.
Flanked by relatives of victims of the Newtown Connecticut massacre, president Obama accused the gun lobby of lying outright to secure the bill's defeat.
Kumi Taguchi reports.
KUMI TAGUCHI: America has been searching for a solution to gun control after the violence last December in Connecticut that left 20 children and six adults dead.
Today, in rapid succession, three proposals were voted down. A ban on assault weapons, a ban on high-capacity gun magazines, and extended background checks on people buying guns.
An emotional US president called it a shameful day for Washington.
BARACK OBAMA: A few minutes ago a minority in the United States Senate decided it wasn't worth it. They blocked commonsense gun reforms, even while these families looked on from the galleries.
KUMI TAGUCHI: One by one, in front of the families of those who died, the proposals were sunk.
One of those hoping for change was Mark Barden, whose seven year old son Daniel was killed at Sandy Hook Elementary.
Mark Barden met with dozens of Republican and Democrat senators before the vote.
MARK BARDEN: Expanded background checks wouldn't have save our loved ones but still we came to support a bipartisan proposal from two senators, both with A ratings from the NRA (National Rifle Association).
A common sense proposal, supported by 90 per cent of Americans. It's a proposal that will save lives without interfering with the rights of responsible, law abiding gun owners.
KUMI TAGUCHI: Extended background checks would have made it harder for people with a mental illness or criminals to buy guns. That proposal needed just six more votes to pass, and Barack Obama laid all the blame on the senators.
BARACK OBAMA: I've heard some say that blocking this step would be a victory. My question is: a victory for who? A victory for what?
KUMI TAGUCHI: It was a striking defeat for the US president, who's made gun control a top priority.
Those who voted "no" said their decision was based on logic, not emotion.
But emotion is what president Obama is counting on.
BARACK OBAMA: I'm assuming that the emotions that we've all felt since Newtown, the emotions that we've all felt since Tucson and Aurora and Chicago, the pain we share with these families and families all across the country who've lost a loved one to gun violence, I'm assuming that's not a temporary thing. I'm assuming our expressions of grief and our commitment to do something different to prevent these things from happening are not empty words.
KUMI TAGUCHI: It was widely believed that the murder of children would spur change, but with these defeats many are now asking whether that hope has been extinguished.
TIM PALMER: Kumi Taguchi reporting.
http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2013/s3740212.htm
TIM PALMER: A mother whose son was killed nearly 20 years ago by a 15-year-old shooter says many thought changes to the US federal gun laws were a no brainer after the Sandy Hook massacre.
Mary Leigh Blek has been lobbying for tighter gun control legislation ever since her 21-year-old son was murdered in New York City in 1994.
She spoke to Jo Jarvis from her home in Orange County, California.
MARY LEIGH BLEK: People outside the United States just look at us like we're crazy people. I cannot believe that this happened today but it's not totally shocking to me either. I've been dealing with this type of nonsense for - since 1994.
Our legislators are beholden to the gun lobby which is beholden to the gun industry, and they were willing to go against the wishes of 90 per cent of the American public because they felt that their jobs perhaps were in jeopardy because of the special interest of supporting their re-election and I think they're going to have a rude awakening.
I don't think that this time the American public is going to forget those six year old faces.
JO JARVIS: Twenty years after your son died...
MARY LEIGH BLEK: Yes.
JO JARVIS: ...and after you started lobbying for changes to gun laws, after Sandy Hook did you think that things were going to change?
MARY LEIGH BLEK: Yes I did. My expectation is that we would get universal background checks. That we would agree that large capacity magazines have no place in civil society. That we didn't want that type of firepower in our communities because we had just demonstrate, had just seen a demonstration of the power with bullets riddling young bodies, that they would say okay, no more.
JO JARVIS: Why is it so difficult to get through a law which is arguing for a background check for someone wanting to buy a gun?
MARY LEIGH BLEK: (laughs) Well, you know, the president of the United States asked that same question today. To me and 90 per cent of Americans, that is a no brainer. It's not just a political issue, it's a moral issue.
You know part of our problem is that people who are on our side of the issue are involved in other education, other causes. They're interesting in the environment, they're interested in education, they're interested in many good causes.
Our opposition seems to be very single focussed and it's all around the issue of guns.
TIM PALMER: Gun control lobbyist Mary Leigh Blek speaking to Jo Jarvis.
http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2013/s3740214.htm
TIM PALMER: President Barack Obama made gun control the centrepiece of his State of the Union Address earlier this year, hinting he wouldn't tolerate an obstructionist Congress.
But what can he do given the Senate's decision?
Dr Adam Lockyer is a lecturer in US politics and foreign policy at the US Studies Centre, and spoke to me a short time ago.
(to Adam Lockyer) Here was a bipartisan bill. It was at the milder end of gun control proposals in the wake of Sandy Hook. It was to not ban assault weapons - this bipartisan level - not to restrict the magazine sizes, but simply to tighten up the background checks on what sort of people were buying guns.
If they can't get this through, what hope is there for any further gun law restrictions in the United States?
ADAM LOCKYER: I think that Obama is going to try to pursue this further. He's made this one of the pillars of his second term. However from here it's going to be very difficult politically to getting any momentum behind these schemes.
Within the broader community this is a no brainer. We see opinion polling coming back of at least 80 per cent of Americans thinking that there ought to be universal background checks before you buy a gun.
And this is not something new. This is about tidying up loopholes. So if you ever buy a weapon from a gun shop, you need a background check. Yet if you go to a gun fair, you don't need one. So this is about making it more consistency, rather than actually bringing anything new.
TIM PALMER: Well let's look at who voted for this, and who ended up voting it down. Were there any surprises in terms of who voted it down and what motivated them? Is this the work of the gun lobby, or were people motivated by direct political fear of what their constituents might say?
ADAM LOCKYER: A bit of both. So for the ones who, particularly the Democrats, there were four Democrats, five Democrats if you include Harry Reid, who voted against these reforms, and they came from very conservative states and they're up for re-election.
And they come from states such as, you know, Alaska, from North Dakota and from Montana. So they come from very conservative states and they're afraid that if , when they go up for re-election shortly, that the NRA, the very vocal, very well organised, very well financed lobby group and they may be to swing the election against them.
TIM PALMER: So even given, as you say, some of the polls suggest 80 or 90 per cent in favour of the background checks, you would think that even in those conservative states that that would have to be reflected in some sort of majority there - electors being in favour of background checks. What's going on?
ADAM LOCKYER: Yes, sure. There doesn't seem to be very much benefit to supporting the tighter gun laws in these very conservative states.
TIM PALMER: So people there will vote against someone who tightens gun control but people who support gun control won't vote for it. Is that what you're saying?
ADAM LOCKYER: That's the thinking, yes.
TIM PALMER: The president, you have mentioned, did presage that he might want to go further. He talked about possible executive action. He raised this in the State of the Union speech. But what can he do at this stage? What are the limits on his executive ability to ride rough shod over what Congress has said?
ADAM LOCKYER: Obviously he has very limited power when it comes to taking further steps than he's already taken. So it's up to the Senate to pass laws, to amend laws, and to allocate funds.
Outside of that the US president can tinker with the amount of funds going to different programs like mental health programs, like better gun education, but he can't do things like force the states to administer universal background checks. That's up to Congress.
TIM PALMER: So that's dead. Those issues are dead and presumably with them, any changes in what type of weapons, what type of magazines are available, they're dead too?
ADAM LOCKYER: Maybe, maybe not. I mean, Harry Reid, he's a Democrat, he's leader of the Senate. The reason why he chose to change his vote - he was originally going to vote in favour of the amendments. He chose against it because this allows him to reintroduce the bill later on.
So he's giving himself the option of reintroducing the bill and this isn't going to go away from Obama's radar. There will be continued political pressure to try to get something done in Congress. But for the time being it looks like there's going to be very little movement.
TIM PALMER: Dr Adam Lockyer of the US Studies Centre.
-
Man, the Star Spangled Banner still mists my eyes and gives me chills.
Knowing the circumstances under which it was written, the impact of the lines
"the rockets red glare, the bombs bursting in air, gave proof through the night that our Flag was still there"
giving the realization that America was still in the fight to stay free.
It is glorious when sung by a single strong voice, but when sung by a crowd it becomes more powerful somehow.
There are those who gave their lives to keep that Flag from falling to the ground and continue the fight for freedom.
Let us have the strength and will to do our part.
P.S. I despise "flag burners", even though I will grant it is free speech, not for defiling the flag itself, or the protest it represents against America, which might need it sometime, but because it is disrespectful of the symbol the Flag represents, not our country, but the our way of life and the unequaled freedom it was founded to promise it's citizens....the same symbol that folks gave their lives to uphold. Disrespect for that symbol devalues their sacrifice, the debt we can never repay, of those heroes and patriots.
P.P.S. BHO sucks
-
And today he gets that the US Senate thinks so to. It reminds me of W after his re election trying to go after Social Security (not a bad thing). He stood up and said "I've got some political capital and I'm going to use it". And he got his ass handed to him in a GOP controlled Congress. It was downhill from there. HOPEFULLY, just like BO got his ass handed to him by a Dem controlled senate. There are two third rails in American politics, and BO has hopefully just learned that. But he seems like the vindictive type, so I doubt he'll take defeat gracefully.
-
Hussein wants every other Democrat to put his head on the political chopping block for him. Why, in his 23 Executive Orders, didn't he ban the further importation of AK-47's, and all military surplus ammunition? Bush 41 did with the Chinese Norinco guns. Because he doesn't want to be the one to cost the Democrats everything. The same way Clinton did in 94 when all of his goombas voted along party lines, and got fed into the political meat grinder in the 94 elections.
Yet he expects his fellow Democrats to end their political careers over it. This guy is something else. He could of had this if all DEMOCRATS voted for it. But even his own party sees this for more trouble than it's worth. Hussein is a total POS, and this just proves it more. As was said, he's just like a whining little child who didn't get his way. People are tired of it.
-
Bill, I'm pretty sure it was Clinton, not Bush, who banned import of ANY Norinco product, not just AK's.
(They had decent 1911 and M 14 clones as well)
First because there was an uproar about "North China Industries being owned by the PLA and using slave laborers .
Secondly because Norinco got caught smuggling full auto AK's through a Ca. port, (I think it was San Diego )
And thirdly, because Norinco got caught smuggling Scud parts and "dual use" techn9ology to North Korea.
-
Bill, I'm pretty sure it was Clinton, not Bush, who banned import of ANY Norinco product, not just AK's.
(They had decent 1911 and M 14 clones as well)
First because there was an uproar about "North China Industries being owned by the PLA and using slave laborers .
Secondly because Norinco got caught smuggling full auto AK's through a Ca. port, (I think it was San Diego )
And thirdly, because Norinco got caught smuggling Scud parts and "dual use" techn9ology to North Korea.
Yeah. I hate to support any gun control measure, particularly one that costs me cheap guns and ammo, but Clinton did the right thing in this case. This was a national security issue. China was thumbing their nose at us by sending FAs to gangs (there is a lot more to that story) and helping the NKs (Remember NORINCO is owned by the PLA, its not a private company). Any President would have had to ding them. We are the losers, as usual, but I can't really bitch about either.