Wednesday, January 21, 2015

Obama Makes No Mention Of Guns In State Of The Union Address



One word was noticeably missing from President Barack Obama's State of the Union address on Tuesday: guns.

In a sign that the sun has set on Obama's gun control agenda, the president's prepared remarks contained no mention of the issue. Two years after the shooting massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut, the absence of guns from Obama's speech marked a departure from previous years, in which the president urged Congress to pass legislation aimed at reducing gun violence in America.

Obama made a thinly veiled reference to mass shootings while discussing national tragedies that have brought Americans together.

"I’ve mourned with grieving families in Tucson and Newtown; in Boston, West, Texas, and West Virginia," he said.

37 comments:

  1. Not sure why gun loons attack Obama on guns, he's made no move at all to do anything about guns. Actions speak louder than words.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Did you sleep through 2013?

      Delete
    2. I guess I did. Please list for me all the anti-gun legislation Obama has sponsored and pushed for passage in the Congress.

      Delete
    3. “Please list for me all the anti-gun legislation Obama has sponsored and pushed for passage in the Congress.“

      Well, the big one was the “Safe Communities, Safe Schools Act of 2013” which included the Manchin-Toomey amendment to make private sales illegal, a proposal to ban “assault weapons”, and a proposal to ban magazines that hold over 10 rounds. Oddly, he was completely silent on the proposal to actually expand background checks by Tom Colburn, so maybe that’s what you meant by him only talking about wanting to expand background checks, but then avoiding action.

      http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/16/obama-gun-control-proposals_n_2486919.html

      Though most of the laws he pushed for didn’t make it passed the Senate, there was also the 23 executive actions that he took on gun control, which pretty clearly qualifies as making a move on guns.

      http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/16/obama-executive-actions-_n_2488490.html

      Delete
    4. Sorry TS, I read the 23 points and see nothing about a "move on guns." There were actions on making background checks easier and more inclusive, actions on guidelines for medical people and other preventative measures that were not an infringement on a persons right to own, buy, and use guns. If you think background checks are unconstitutional, I disagree. If you think getting medical professionals involved for prevention, or to try and identify those who might be irrational enough to do something dangerous, I disagree. I saw nothing about ban on guns, ammunition, magazine size, or other issues that might even be considered a threat on the right to own, use, and buy guns.

      Delete
    5. "I saw nothing about ban on guns, ammunition, magazine size, or other issues that might even be considered a threat on the right to own, use, and buy guns."

      ...apart from the proposal to ban magazine and assaulty guns included in the "Safe Communities, Safe Schools Act" which he called a "shameful day in Washington" when it failed.

      Delete
    6. Plus there was this executive action which barred the import of legal to own guns:

      http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/3836183

      Delete
    7. ...apart from the proposal to ban magazine and assaulty guns included in the "Safe Communities, Safe Schools Act . . .

      Not to mention the "Urban Policy" page at Whitehouse.gov, as soon as he took office:

      [Obama and Biden] also support making the expired federal Assault Weapons Ban permanent.

      Oh, and how about "But Obama told the National Urban League here that he believes a lot of gun owners would agree that 'AK-47s belong in the hands of soldiers,' not civilians on American streets," in 2012?

      Delete
    8. TS, you're just being petty and difficult again. Obviously, Sammy is not talking about proposals or the expressed desires of the prez. Obama didn't do shit for gun control. Let's not confuse efforts with results.

      Delete
    9. No, that's exactly what he meant. He claimed Obama "made no move on guns" and then asked me to point out legislation that he "sponsored" and "pushed for".

      Delete
    10. Mike, yes.
      TS, there is zero legislation while Obama has been president to ban, or stop qualified buyers to buy and use guns. Seems it's the old argument about what you mean buy infringement on the 2nd A. I don't think laws, or regulations on guns, ammunition, and other gun accessories are an infringement on the 2nd A. Obama has been president during some of the worst gun massacres; do you expect him to say we have no gun problems in this country? I find Obama has been more than reasonable in his gun positions and he will not go down in history as an effective anti gun president. When America did ban some weapons (Saturday night specials, fully auto, etc) who was president? The final say on this you already stated, "Though most of the laws he pushed for didn’t make it passed the Senate." A Democratic Senate I should add.

      Delete
    11. Obviously, Sammy is not talking about proposals or the expressed desires of the prez. Obama didn't do shit for gun control. Let's not confuse efforts with results.

      Um, Mikeb? "Obviously," Sammy asked for examples of legislation that Obama "sponsored or pushed for"--with not a word about what Obama actually accomplished along those lines. And that makes vastly more sense than limiting the discussion to infringements on that which shall not be infringed that he has succeeded in inflicting on the nation. After all, why should he be given a pass simply because he has failed? Do people not go to prison for attempted murder?

      And add to that, with all his failings, that is his "biggest frustration."

      Delete
    12. Talk about moving goalposts. Look at the very first post of this thread. You said you don't know why gun owners would have a problem with Obama because he made no moves whatsoever against guns. Now we see that change to he made no moves that you personally find unreasonable. So you can see how if someone doesn't think guns should be banned because of the shape of its grip, or doesn't think it should be a federal felony if you go out of town for more than a week without first transferring all your guns to your roommate, that they might want to attack Obama on his gun policies.

      Delete
    13. Mike, I'm also wondering what you expect gun owners to do in the time period when gun legislation is proposed and debated but before it's voted on. In this case, the four months between Sandy Hook and mid April when the legislation failed. I guess we're supposed to keep our mouths shut and only complain about what Obama did to us after it passes. I can see why you would like it that way.

      Delete
    14. Bullshit TS, he made no move that changed laws, or infringed on anyone's right to own, use, or buy guns, yet you and your ilk would have us believe the opposite . Enjoy your delusion.

      Delete
    15. Now you're saying he didn't change any laws. That's different than how you started this conversation. He sure tried to change the laws, though.

      Delete
    16. Now you're saying he didn't change any laws. That's different than how you started this conversation.

      Exactly, TS. Sammy is clearly a big fan of Mikeb's portable (self-propelled?) goal posts.

      Fine, we book Obama for Attempted "Gun Control," instead of First Degree "Gun Control." It's still a heinous crime against humanity.

      Delete
    17. All right. Obama made some moves but none that resulted in anything. Can we leave it at that?

      Delete
    18. All right. Obama made some moves but none that resulted in anything.

      So does that mean you're ready to denounce this statement of Sammy's (my emphasis added):

      Not sure why [liberty advocates] attack Obama on guns, he's made no move at all to do anything about guns.

      Now if I had said something so blatantly false, as you now admit, I strongly suspect you would call me a liar. And you know what? For the first time, you would be right in leveling such a charge against me.

      Somehow, though, I get the feeling that Sammy won't be held to such standards (and low standards are definitely best suited for him).

      Delete
    19. Yeah, we can leave it at that. He made his move on guns, pro-gun people took exception to his proposals and "attacked" Obama on his gun policy and ended up winning this round.

      Maybe "Sammy", who didn't know why anyone would attack Obama on guns now has a better insight to what happened in 2013.

      Delete
    20. Right TS who made the claim Obama was some how making anti gun law, yet, by your own admission no such ideas became law. What do you argue now, the Sun rises everyday?

      Delete
    21. I never said the president makes laws- he pushes for laws and then signs them after congress makes and passes laws. You asked for examples of Obama "sponsored and pushed for". Those were your words- go back and look. And of course that makes considerably more sense for what we are talking about- whether or not gun owners have reason to be upset with Obama. You are suggesting gun owners only have reason to attack Obama if he makes laws against gun rights- something of which the executive branch isn't even allowed to do.

      Delete
    22. You gun loons love to divert, twist, and dodge the issue, and you have done that well TS.

      Delete
    23. Did you or did you not use the words "sponsored and pushed for"?

      The issue is whether or not gun owners have reason to oppose Obama, right?

      Delete
    24. Did you or did you not use the words "sponsored and pushed for"?

      He said precisely that, but like Mikeb, apparently reserves the right to utterly change the meanings of his own words, when the standard, English meaning becomes inconvenient and indefensible (as it so often does with these two).

      Delete
    25. Did you not say,
      "Though most of the laws he pushed for didn’t make it passed the Senate, there was also the 23 executive actions that he took on gun control, which pretty clearly qualifies as making a move on guns."
      I already went through the 23 points and you already said that none of the legislation passed, so what is your petty false point TS?

      Delete
    26. The point is gun owners have reason to "attack" Obama's gun policies- which is an answer to your very first post on this thread.

      Delete
    27. Yes, I did say that. Obama pushed for restrictions on guns, gun owners rightfully "attacked" him on the issue and successfully prevented its passage. That's certainly a lot better than only waiting for after onerous law passes before speaking up, wouldn't you say?

      Delete
    28. Sorry, but one like you that uses diversion and dishonesty doesn't get any reason to claim a valid point. Enjoy your delusion.

      Delete
  2. Obama Makes No Mention Of Guns In State Of The Union Address

    Good thinking on his part. It's when he's silent about guns that he sounds the least intellectually and morally bankrupt on the issue.

    ReplyDelete
  3. He and those around him know that to push anymore for his his anti gun fantasies would only hurt the Dems chances of retaining the WH in the ever nearing election.He like most politicians lacks the courage of his convictions nearing elections especially after the Dems just got their asses handed to them in the last election.They want to retain power above all else.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I don't think the Republican success in the mid-terms was due to the gun issue. I do think you're right that politicians normally sacrifice their convictions when they think it'll help them get elected. That goes for politicians on both sides.

      Delete
    2. "I don't think the Republican success in the mid-terms was due to the gun issue".... Im not sure how much effect it had either Mike...What I do know is that I and 25 others that I know of voted for Gov Sandoval in Nevada specifically because he vetoed the anti rights background check bill that the Dem controlled leg past last year forcing the antis to get a petition certified and ignored by the leg and the Gov now it heads to the people for a vote in 2016 where as I have said before I believe it will pass given the number of Dems in Clark county, Nevada's most populated county of course I could be wrong about that we will have to wait and see

      Delete
    3. I do think you're right that politicians normally sacrifice their convictions when they think it'll help them get elected. That goes for politicians on both sides.....This we agree on completely Mike

      Delete
  4. And let's not forget that now that he's a lame duck President, another priority is to help support legislative campaigns in the upcoming election. I wonder if he got any requests to lay off the calls for gun control to prevent losing any more seats on that issue.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I wonder. I think that would be a mistake, especially since the gun issue is small potatoes compared to the economy and foreign policy issues.

      On second thought, I suppose quite a few gun owners are concerned with their gun rights above all else. So, maybe laying off the issue is a good strategy.

      Delete
  5. I guess effective gun control laws probably are best determined by local governments. Certainly in today's NRA-infected political climate, even with control of both houses like we had in 2008, any federal gun regulation is DOA. Even you guys defend the rights of domestic abusers to own guns. Why, in the name of God? Guys that have restraining orders stemming from domestic violence and stalking cases. Completely irrational support of gun rights.

    I think maybe the only issues on which the president could possibly cooperate with this goofy congress might be improving the VA or other benefits to veterans. Maybe a resolution to keep, "Under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance or a constitutional amendment to insure that the currency always has "In God We Trust."

    But lame duck? I don't really think so. There is a lot that a president can do other than simply making laws with congress. It will be interesting. He is, after all, one helluva man. He is still the most powerful man in the free world. Boehner is washed up like last night's dishes.

    ReplyDelete