Obama versus Trump responding to school shootings

[Epic Beard Man]

Interesting analysis.....

 

[socharlie]

Interesting analysis.....

what they say does not matter, what the do is different
Gun production has doubled under Obama

 

[Shaul]

Are you forgetting “Fast and Furious”? Obama actually sold guns to criminals through his DOJ.

 

[Valjean]

what they say does not matter, what the do is different
Gun production has doubled under Obama

But that had less to do with Obama than with a right wing talkstorm about Obama's imminent plan to ban and confiscate firearms.

 

[socharlie]

But that had less to do with Obama than with a right wing talkstorm about Obama's imminent plan to ban and confiscate firearms.

you really think that there is any difference between them? nothing changes... industrial military pharma complex they serve, at the end of the day nothing changes.

 

[Revoltingest]

Obama did nothing in the way of meaningful gun regulation.
Trump hasn't either, but he's only been in office a little over
a year. It's early to judge.

 

[Buddha Dharma]

you really think that there is any difference between them? nothing changes... industrial military pharma complex they serve, at the end of the day nothing changes.

This sounds more like an attempt to convince oneself than us

 

[Buddha Dharma]

Obama did nothing in the way of meaningful gun regulation.
Trump hasn't either, but he's only been in office a little over
a year. It's early to judge.

That's because presidents don't have the power to make gun regulation, arguably. Odd how conservatives sometimes think they do though. I remember having to explain to my niece that the president can't take guns because her teacher actually told her Hillary Clinton would if she got elected.

 

[Revoltingest]

That's because presidents don't have the power to make gun regulation, arguably.

They have the bully pulpit, so they do effect legislation in their own way.
I look at their advocacy.

 

[Buddha Dharma]

They have the bully pulpit, so they do effect legislation in their own way.
I look at their advocacy.

Be honest though @Revoltingest. I acknowledge what you say here. OF COURSE they influence policy. That being said- do you really think Obama could have, or Hillary Clinton would take anyone's guns?

 

[Revoltingest]

Be honest though @Revoltingest. I acknowledge what you say here. OF COURSE they influence policy. That being said- do you really think Obama could have, or Hillary Clinton would take anyone's guns?

I didn't claim that.
Only that they're proposed no useful regulation.

But regarding taking guns, I wouldn't put it past them if they sensed ripe opportunity.
And gun banning isn't solely about banning all, but rather the banning of any brand,
class or gun sporting certain features. If some are banned, then this is banning.
Moreover, there are many pols, posters & others calling for total & near total bans.
So the slippery slope is a real concern.
Let's not forget how extreme a Hillary can be. Back in the day of the "unprecedented
co-presidency" with Bill, she proposed nationalized health care which prohibited any
private service under penalty of law. Quite an authoritarian streak she had & has.

 

[Buddha Dharma]

But regarding taking guns, I wouldn't put it past them if they sensed ripe opportunity.

Forgive me for seeing this as misplaced hype. I can't help it. What possibly led you to conclude such a thing?

And gun banning isn't solely about banning all, but rather the banning of any brand,
class or gun sporting certain features. If some are banned, then this is banning.

I haven't heard many people suggest banning at all, so much as better regulating. It would be unconstitutional to full out ban. Democrats and Republicans might disagree on details concerning this issue, but not that I hope.

Moreover, there are many pols, posters & others calling for total & near total bans.

I don't attribute that to Democrats or Republicans necessarily. Polls also show that terrorism tops the list for most Americans as a concern, even though we haven't had anything non-domestic since 9/11, which many won't even acknowledge domestic occurrences as terrorism. My point? I distrust most of our electorate's intellectual capabilities. We live in a culture after Reality TV. Hey I told people it was emotive, mind-rotting trash when it came out. I CAN tell people I told them so.

So the slippery slope is a real concern.

Not really.

Let's not forget how extreme a Hillary can be. Back in the day of the "unprecedented
co-presidency" with Bill, she proposed nationalized health care which prohibited any
private service under penalty of law.

Yep because gods forbid a politician try to protect the people rather than private interests of profit.

Quite an authoritarian streak she had & has.

Authoritarian seems quite arbitrary in this case, as you're using it.

Bill Clinton was a sitting elected president. The verdict is still out on Trump.

Clinton never did anything like what Trump or even Bush done to undermine our democratic institutions- and compared with Trump, I consider Bush a saint.

 

[Revoltingest]

Forgive me for seeing this as misplaced hype. I can't help it.

I forgive you.

I haven't heard many people suggest banning at all, so much as better regulating. It would be unconstitutional to full out ban. Democrats and Republicans might disagree on details concerning this issue, but not that I hope.

As I said, not all bans are total.
I oppose many of the partial bans I've heard, preferring useful regulation.

Not really.

Things like the oft proposed AR15 ban would accomplish nothing other than the
substitution of other weapons, which would then become subject to banning.
It's a slippery slope because the impetus for the original ban would remain.

Yep because gods forbid a politician try to protect the people rather than private interests of profit.

It seems that you're OK with a total government takeover of health care,
with the private alternative being made illegal. But I see this as very
bad policy, & that anyone who'd propose it should be kept from office.

Authoritarian seems quite arbitrary in this case, as you're using it.

Then you're missing the authoritarian element of making private health care illegal.

 

[socharlie]

This sounds more like an attempt to convince oneself than us

I do not need to convince myself anymore: I watched long enough.

 

[Buddha Dharma]

Things like the oft proposed AR15 ban would accomplish nothing other than the
substitution of other weapons

Is there many other weapons that substitute for an AR15? I mean short of full out automatics used on the front lines.

It surprises me that conservatives do not see how excessive and ludicrously unnecessary it is for anyone to own a high powered military grade weapon in civilian life. To what purpose?

which would then become subject to banning.

I don't see that at all. In light of my above post.

It seems that you're OK with a total government takeover of health care,
with the private alternative being made illegal

I didn't say that. Without government regulation though, it seems businesses bulldoze over the little guy. Libertarians seem to assume a benevolence in business owners that they can be trusted to do the right thing. I haven't seen it...

Then you're missing the authoritarian element of making private health care illegal.

You took what I said to quite a stretch.

 

[Revoltingest]

Is there many other weapons that substitute for an AR15? I mean short of full out automatics used on the front lines.

I could give a long list.
Is this really so unknown?

It surprises me that conservatives do not see how excessive and ludicrously unnecessary it is for anyone to own a high powered military grade weapon in civilian life. To what purpose?

It isn't really military grade.
Similar, but less capable.
I've covered the origins of the 2nd Amendment, & the usefulness of being armed if ever
the rare circumstance arises that such defense is necessary. No one ever reads those.

I don't see that at all. In light of my above post.

Perhaps it's just that I'm more familiar with the alternatives.
You're not that big into shooting, eh?
I've had target rifles more capable than the AR15.

I didn't say that. Without government regulation though, it seems businesses bulldoze over the little guy. Libertarians seem to assume a benevolence in business owners that they can be trusted to do the right thing. I haven't seen it...

I'll skip this mistake filled red herring.
(We'd derail the thread.)

You took what I said to quite a stretch.

Are you OK with a single payer system which bans private health care services?
I'm not. I'd want a plan B for when government slips up.

 

[Buddha Dharma]

It isn't really military grade.
Similar, but less capable.

It isn't similar enough to be a concern? Now Donald wants school teachers to be armed.

I've covered the origins of the 2nd Amendment, & the usefulness of being armed if ever

The origin of the second and it's application are not the same. The first amendment's origins is in protecting puritans, even though it's content runs directly contrary to Biblical teaching.

You're not that big into shooting, eh?

I don't see the point in firing bullets at targets.

I've had target rifles more capable than the AR15.

That fire as many rounds?

I'll skip this mistake filled red herring.

Fine with me. We'll skip it.

Are you OK with a single payer system which bans private health care services?

What defines private? Clearly people don't realize that private can't apply to anything pertaining to the public sphere.

 

[tytlyf]

what they say does not matter, what the do is different
Gun production has doubled under Obama

Ya, republicans/NRA scared the crap out of their base. Old news.

About that Obama administration ammunition-buying conspiracy theory | Megan Carpentier

 

[Revoltingest]

It isn't similar enough to be a concern? Now Donald wants school teachers to be armed.

Arming school staff is a separate issue, & is
independent of which gun defenders might face.
The AR15 is just one of many possible threats.

The origin of the second and it's application are not the same. The first amendment's origins is in protecting puritans, even though it's content runs directly contrary to Biblical teaching.

Biblical teaching is no more useful to me than Harry Potter.
The Constitution is the law of the land.

I don't see the point in firing bullets at targets.

Then I recommend avoiding target shooting.

That fire as many rounds?

One, the M1A.

What defines private? Clearly people don't realize that private can't apply to anything pertaining to the public sphere.

"Private" refers to someone providing a service for a fee.
If I wanted some service which government didn't provide,
I should be able to buy it from a private provider. Hillary
opposed this.

 

[Buddha Dharma]

Biblical teaching is no more useful to me than Harry Potter.
The Constitution is the law of the land.

Wow, way to miss my point

One, the M1A.

Then reasonably, we're not talking about regulations on a wide array of guns

"Private" refers to someone providing a service for a fee.
If I wanted some service which government didn't provide,
I should be able to buy it from a private provider. Hillary
opposed this.

Should the government be able to provide it?