Anyone just hear the president?

[jaybet]

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.

[Ksail101]

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.

[philw]

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.

[Solus]

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

[fightingquaker13]

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.

[Sponsor]

[billt]

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.

[tombogan03884]

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.

[fightingquaker13]

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.