Community | January 27, 2011 | 43 comments

White House signals upcoming Obama gun control speech

source: http://www.newsweek.com/2011/01/27/white-house-to-push-gun-control.html

Image
maasanova
They will never stop until there are no more guns.

They will stop when only the police, who are not punished when they murder people, and the drug dealers will be the only one with guns, just like in Mexico.

****

Obama intentionally did not mention gun control in his State of the Union, but aides say that in the next two weeks the administration will unveil a campaign to get Congress to toughen existing laws.

That was intentional, according to the White House. An administration official says Obama didn’t mention guns in his speech because of the omnipresent controversy surrounding the Second Amendment and gun control. Tuesday’s speech was designed to be more about the economy and how, as Obama repeated nine times, the U.S. could “win the future.”

But in the next two weeks, the White House will unveil a new gun-control effort in which it will urge Congress to strengthen current laws, which now allow some mentally unstable people, such as alleged Arizona shooter Jared Loughner, to obtain certain assault weapons, in some cases without even a background check.

Tuesday night after the speech, Obama adviser David Plouffe said to NBC News that the president would not let the moment after the Arizona shootings pass without pushing for some change in the law, to prevent another similar incident. “It’s a very important issue, and one I know there’s going to be debate about on the Hill.”
  1. groups:
    Community,   News and Politics,   Politics
  2. tags:
    News,  Politics,  Obama,  Congress,  5 more
  3.     
    |

43 comments // White House signals upcoming Obama gun control speech

  • TheEmpireGuy
    • 0
      TheEmpireGuy  

    • I don't think anyone here is saying that they fear that the government is going to "take" anyones guns.

      What people are saying is that guns are not what we should be focused on, but rather the insanity of a single man that went unchecked.

    • 1 year ago
  • unimatrix0
    • 0
      unimatrix0  

    • Wake up to the NRA propaganda! Gun control does not mean gun prohibition.

      Watch how they change the subject. All that is being talked about is some very modest, sensible changes in policy.

      Yet the gun perverts start screaming "their trying to take away my guns!" "Obama wants to take my guns!"

      It is time for an intervention. America is swimming in a culture of violence and the gun perverts are in denial.

    • 1 year ago
  • maasanova
    • -3
      maasanova  
    • unimatrix0:

      They will never stop until there are no more guns.

      They will stop when only the police, who are not punished when they murder people, and the drug dealers will be the only one with guns, just like in Mexico.

    • 1 year ago
  • Radical_Centrist
    • 0
      Radical_Centrist  
    • unimatrix0:

      When you hear politicians talking about MODEST & SENSIBLE reductions of out freedoms that USUALLY means bend over we are about to get screwed I remember when Dick Cheney was TRYING to sell us the same BS about the Patriot Act..

    • 1 year ago
  • cmdinc
  • floydyboy
  • Tyr
  • TheEmpireGuy
    • 0
      TheEmpireGuy  

    • I saw this coming the day the shooting happened. I do not believe it will change anything.
      The fact of the matter is he was a disturbed and mentally unstable man. People need to stop using this tragedy to further political ends.

    • 1 year ago
  • Tyr
  • TheEmpireGuy
    • 0
      TheEmpireGuy  
    • Tyr:

      Certainly, that is a valid point to be considered. We need to gain a better insight into how mentally unstable people operate in society and how easy it is for them to hurt themselves or others.

      Who can we blame here? The man who did the shooting, or those who failed to address the warning signs of insanity?

    • 1 year ago
  • Tyr
    • +2
      Tyr  

    • interestingly enough there were two people in the crowd who were carrying concealed guns at the time of the shooting and neither one did the John wayne or charles bronson vigilante thing and stopped the shooting by shooting the shooter..you guys always whoop it up about how safe we would all be if everyone was packing...given that logic places like Iraq or Somalia ought to be some of the safest places on Earth..oh yeah and just as an aside the great Wyatt Earp was only able to make places like Dodge City or Tombstone reasonably inhabitable was by banning guns in the town limits..you know , gun control...don't believe me ...pick up a history book and try reading it.

    • 1 year ago
  • Radical_Centrist
    • -1
      Radical_Centrist  
    • Tyr:

      One of the armed citizens made it very clear the "ONLY" reason he did not use his Gun was because they were able to subdue him as he was reloading, but he would have shot him sure as shit had that not been the case.

      The BIG difference between Iraq & Somalia is in those places MOST of the good people are disarmed so the Criminals/terrorists KNOW they are free to savage at will. Here MANY of the good guys have guns as well so it is a little more level a playing field.

    • 1 year ago
  • maasanova
    • -2
      maasanova  
    • Image
    • Tyr:

      http://www.lewrockwell.com/north/north165.html

      Before the US invasion of Iraq and the Fake War on Terror, the Iraqi people could go out in the street and fire AK47s into the air.

      After the invasion, after gun control was introduced by US forces, in came "Al Qaeda", death squads and mass murder of the Iraq people by US troops and the coalition of the stupid.

      By the way, is it a coincidence that it's always the hawkish warmonger Dems are the main ones clamoring and wringing their hands to impose their will and put restrictions on the first and second amendments?

      ***

      "I have twice seen the same film clip on CBS news: an Iraqi citizen buying what looks like a machine gun (Kalashnikov), and another citizen trying out a semi-automatic pistol's slide action. Both times, the voice-over warned of Iraqis preparing to defend themselves.

      Nobody mentions the obvious: unless the film clip was staged, Saddam Hussein lets Iraqis buy guns and ammo.

      This testifies against the theory that Saddam fears an organized uprising. If he fears assassination — his supposed use of look-alikes in public — he doesn't fear it enough to impose complete gun control."

    • 1 year ago
  • Tyr
  • Tyr
  • Radical_Centrist
    • 0
      Radical_Centrist  
    • Tyr:

      Most people with a CC Permit myself included do not go around LOOKING for the first chance we get to shoot somebody. The one thing we all learn is the use of your weapon is your LAST resort not your first in a situation that "might" call for you to use your weapon.

    • 1 year ago
  • Radical_Centrist
    • 0
      Radical_Centrist  
    • Tyr:

      Since MOST of the "good" people in Somalia have never been armed it would have been better had I said unarmed as opposed to disarmed, but the gist of what i said remains the same.

    • 1 year ago
  • Tyr
    • 0
      Tyr  
    • maasanova:

      P{lease do yourself a favor and compare the number of murders committed in the United States with guns and compare them to England. If you cannot or rather will not acknowledge the difference between a population running around armed to the teeth and one where they are not then nothing I or any other reasonable person can do to open your eyes.

    • 1 year ago
  • Wetdog
  • southrabbit
  • Radical_Centrist
  • coolplanet
  • ImConcerned
  • cmdinc
  • ImConcerned
  • cmdinc
  • ImConcerned
  • jeffreyak
  • Radical_Centrist
  • jeffreyak
  • floydyboy
  • Paratus
    • -1
      Paratus  

    • NO amendment is safe. I didn't think he would start this unless he won a second term and was a lame duck. He doesn't have the support outside the Beltway for this and damn little on the Hill. What we need to watch out for is a backdoor U.N. treaty that is already sitting out there like some IED waiting to demo 2A. Additionally we need to be wary of regulations that essentially "infringe". This is what New York City is proposing as a way to combat the recent SCOTUS decisions upholding 2A as an individual right but leaving the door open to regulation. Expect to hear the words "common sense" a lot. This rat bastard will sell us down the road again, call your reps and make sure they know NOT to support more infringements on the Constitution.

    • 1 year ago
  • GENERALNATTY
    • +1
      GENERALNATTY  

    • perhaps people should get mental health checks in order to get a firearms license , but there is problems with that too because , in the arizona case jared loughner was clearly not always exhibiting mental problems , suppose for example you got a gun license and had to get a mental health check every 5 years , jared loughner could easily fall through those cracks.

      Honestly i think this whole chipping away at liberties piece by piece is stupid , america needs to start having a conversation about whether or not they trust their government enough to give up 99 percent of there rights to firearms, its just that simple.

    • 1 year ago
  • jeffreyak
  • a619ko
    • -1
      a619ko  
    • jeffreyak:

      Indeed, NO GUNS = NO UPRISING, if people can't get that through there heads, please move to North korea, or Cuba. No one but the soldiers and cops own guns there.

    • 1 year ago
  • jeffreyak
  • maasanova
  • 2helenahandbasket
    • +6
      2helenahandbasket  

    • You can pass all the laws you want, ban guns from the earth, but if some nut decides he's going to kill someone he'll find a way. It has nothing to do with guns. Some people are just crazy, and they'll find a way.

    • 1 year ago
  • maasanova
  • jeffreyak
  • maasanova
  • Radical_Centrist
  • Radical_Centrist
more from Community:
from the community

top videos