The American Politics thread

[Cevno]

CNN saying that Connecticut has some of the toughest gun laws in the states with all weapons needing registering. Assault rifles only before 1993 are allowed as they were banned afterwards.

[Spikey]

ahahahahha the nra has never given obama a cent

[Redbacks]

Originally Posted by Spikey

hahahahahahahhaha a referendum.

need a tyrant

Is it too much to assume people know how a constitution works...

[Top_Cat]

Originally Posted by Cevno

How much could be Obama be getting paid by these NRA folks ? I mean he is a Democrat president with so many spread out people funding him, why the hell is afraid of tightening these laws ? But on the other hand he liberalized them more from what Top Cat is saying ?

Why assume Obama wants to? From a debate before the election

QUESTION: President Obama, during the Democratic National Convention in 2008, you stated you wanted to keep AK-47s out of the hands of criminals. What has your Administration done or planned to do to limit the availability of assault weapons?

OBAMA: We’re a nation that believes in the Second Amendment, and I believe in the Second Amendment. We’ve got a long tradition of hunting and sportsmen and people who want to make sure they can protect themselves.

But there have been too many instances during the course of my Presidency, where I’ve had to comfort families who have lost somebody. Most recently out in Aurora….

So my belief is that, (A), we have to enforce the laws we’ve already got, make sure that we’re keeping guns out of the hands of criminals, those who are mentally ill. We’ve done a much better job in terms of background checks, but we’ve got more to do when it comes to enforcement.

But I also share your belief that weapons that were designed for soldiers in war theatres don’t belong on our streets. And so what I’m trying to do is to get a broader conversation about how do we reduce the violence generally. Part of it is seeing if we can get an assault-weapons ban reintroduced. But part of it is also looking at other sources of the violence. Because frankly, in my home town of Chicago, there’s an awful lot of violence and they’re not using AK-47s. They’re using cheap hand guns.

And so what can we do to intervene, to make sure that young people have opportunity; that our schools are working; that if there’s violence on the streets, that working with faith groups and law enforcement, we can catch it before it gets out of control….

The old rubbish of 'enforcing the laws we have'. A 'national conversation'? ****ing. Weak. Everyone knows the old assault weapons ban was piss-weak and he isn't showing any interest in getting that back up, let alone what's really needed. Obama, by any standards other than American, is pro-gun.

Again, I'm amazed at how little flack he's getting on this, his lack of action has absolutely contributed and were a more rootin', tootin' Texan in the White House, he'd be getting smashed by the press. During Obama's presidency, as I've said before, aside from all of the other spree killings a ****ing Congresswoman was all but murdered in one and still, nothing has changed. Under Obama, can't see how that won't continue.

[silentstriker]

He doesn't. Americans don't. I think most Americans are, in the final scheme, willing to live with violent outbreaks such as this if they can keep their second amendment rights. It's not a political issue. People don't want change - it wouldn't work even if Obama wanted it.

[99*]

It's a legislative issue. Obama can only do so much in terms of saying what he would like but in the end he needs both the House and Senate to come to an agreement on what any change would be.

And with the Republicans that currently run the House, you're asking for a miracle.

@ TC

[Top_Cat]

Lucky he's demonstrated no intention to try.

And, I might add, that doesn't get him off the hook when he's had prior opportunities in the past 5 years when the house and senate compositions were different and has done nothing.

[Spikey]

Democrats have long accepted they're on the losing side of the gun rights battle. the american people are gonna have to convince the party to take it back it up, and that the country wants it

[Top_Cat]

Yet a Democratic adminstration got the assault weapons ban up in the first place with opposition just as hostile to them as Obama faces.

[morgieb]

Originally Posted by Top_Cat

Yet a Democratic adminstration got the assault weapons ban up in the first place with opposition just as hostile to them as Obama faces.

Wrong. Democrats had large majorities back in 1993 (is this the Brady incident?), now the Republicans have the house.

Also, I think there was pro-gun control Republicans back then, that's declined along with the decline of the Republican suburban vote in liberal areas.

[Top_Cat]

Having majorities didn't stop them voting against it a couple of years prior and, I might add, stop the vote from initially being lost, only being won after the speaker held open the vote for some good old fashioned arm-twisting. Clinton faced significant resistance within his own party, back when party members didn't vote automatically along party lines like they do now.

[silentstriker]

It doesn't matter though. If you look at the polls, people don't want it. Any significant legislation against assault weapons would be overturned.

[Jono]

Originally Posted by Top_Cat

I just watched this video

President Obama Makes a Statement on the Shooting in Newtown, Connecticut - YouTube

Yeah, y'know what? Tough ****, Barack. No tears for the kids who've died in Pakistan and Yemen? We're supposed to think you're more human because you've shed a few tears in a presser on an issue you should have acted on years ago? Tears which will fairly quickly be forgotten as, once again, you'll likely utterly capitulate to the gun lobby in the months to come?

I don't give a **** about Barack the parent, I really want to see more of Barack the president on this issue. This presser is piss-poor.

It's time for action to halt obscenities

[Goughy]

Originally Posted by silentstriker

It doesn't matter though. If you look at the polls, people don't want it. Any significant legislation against assault weapons would be overturned.

Yeah, the key is that people dont want greater gun regulations enough for things to change and those against any such legislation are well organized. At its core, gun ownership and peoples beliefs on the matter and are culturally ingrained. Now we have seen culture and opinion change many times when it looks like it will not and the change happens very quickly - whether the acceptability of spousal abuse or gay marriage - but we are a long way from that at the moment.

Of course Id be in favor of stricter legislation on assault rifles but my fear would be that this type of legislation would allow one side to claim a victory while actually making little impact on the major underlying concerns. Mass shootings will continue to happen if assault weapons are banned or not.

[mugshot]

Originally Posted by Spikey

ahahahahha the nra has never given obama a cent

No but they have too much power in politics that gun laws will never get too strict.