Obama to Address Gun Control Soon

[Frodo]

I don't know why he caved in to gun control activists -he would be much better off maintaining his silence on the issue:

President Is Likely to Discuss Gun Control Soon

By JACKIE CALMES
Published: January 28, 2011
 
WASHINGTON — Administration officials say that President Obama, largely silent about gun control since the Tucson shooting carnage, will address the issue soon, potentially reopening a long-dormant debate on one of the nation’s most politically volatile issues.

The officials did not indicate what measures, if any, Mr. Obama might support; with Republicans in control of the House and many Democrats fearful of the gun lobby’s power, any legislation faces long odds for passage. Among the skeptics is the Senate majority leader, Harry Reid, Democrat of Nevada.

Still, Mr. Obama has come under increased pressure to speak out from gun-control advocates, including urban Democrats in Congress and liberal activists and editorial writers. They would like him to at least support a bill that would restore an expired federal ban on the sort of high-capacity ammunition magazine that was used in the Jan. 8 shootings in Tucson that killed six people and injured 13, including Representative Gabrielle Giffords, Democrat of Arizona.

The advocates, including Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg of New York, were critical after Mr. Obama did not propose any measures in his State of the Union address Tuesday night to address gun violence. In interviews since, senior White House advisers have said without specifics that Mr. Obama would address the issue in coming weeks, though just how has not been decided.

[dead0man]

boo hiss

[Keystone Phil]

What a relief! I was worried that his approval ratings were getting too high.

[Verily]

boo hiss

How could you support high-capacity magazines? Let us know.

[Swedish Rainbow Capitalist Cheese]

Why? It's a battle has no chance of winning. Why spend political capital on it? It's not like Obama has been eagar to please the liberal base before, why try to do so on this issue? Americans like guns, get over it.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Why? It's a battle has no chance of winning. Why spend political capital on it? It's not like Obama has been eagar to please the liberal base before, why try to do so on this issue? Americans like guns, get over it.

Suburban swing voters swung nasty in 2010. And there you have it, perhaps.

[DrScholl]

No one will really care about a simple bill about these magazines. This will not be the silver bullet the Republicans would hope it would be. The President is not stupid, he'll know how to handle it.

[Landslide Lyndon]

Waving the bloody shirt of a 9-year old victim will make him look like a concerned parent and Republicans like callous tools of the NRA.

Yeah, I know I'm scum for thinking like that. But then again as you say "politics ain't beanbag".

[Keystone Phil]

The President is not stupid, he'll know how to handle it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_elections,_2010

[DrScholl]

The President is not stupid, he'll know how to handle it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_elections,_2010

And your point is? That was a fluke based on a poor economy, nobody could have stopped that travesty.

[Smash255]

What a relief! I was worried that his approval ratings were getting too high.

CBS Poll   63-34% favor a ban on high capacity clips, same 63-34% for favoring a ban on Assault Weapons

[Keystone Phil]

The President is not stupid, he'll know how to handle it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_elections,_2010

And your point is? That was a fluke based on a poor economy, nobody could have stopped that travesty.

Glad you agree Obama's 2008 landslide was a fluke, too. And Clinton's. And Reagan's. And Roosevelt's...

[Keystone Phil]

What a relief! I was worried that his approval ratings were getting too high.

CBS Poll   63-34% favor a ban on high capacity clips, same 63-34% for favoring a ban on Assault Weapons

1) If you read the article, it states that the President hasn't specified what he would target. Oops. Can I use that pun in this situation since we're going after the big, bad guns?

2) It's a distraction.

[DrScholl]

Glad you agree Obama's 2008 landslide was a fluke, too. And Clinton's. And Reagan's. And Roosevelt's...

Midterms are vastly different than Presidential elections, there isn't even any comparison.

[Keystone Phil]

Glad you agree Obama's 2008 landslide was a fluke, too. And Clinton's. And Reagan's. And Roosevelt's...

Midterms are vastly different than Presidential elections, there isn't even any comparison.

So ignore my point. Good. Good.

[DrScholl]

So ignore my point. Good. Good.

There wasn't really a valid point to ignore. Midterm elections are reactions to conditions, Presidential landslides are usually heavily weighted on the popularity or likability of a candidate.

[Swedish Rainbow Capitalist Cheese]

Why? It's a battle has no chance of winning. Why spend political capital on it? It's not like Obama has been eagar to please the liberal base before, why try to do so on this issue? Americans like guns, get over it.

Suburban swing voters swung nasty in 2010. And there you have it, perhaps.

Well maybe, although I believe American suburban swing voters could care less about gun legislation as their neighberhoods isn't the ones with the gun problems. There might be some popularity right now due to the recent shootings, but I believe it will seem really irrelevant in a few months to those voters, and they might just be annoyed that once again Obama allows himself to be distracted from creating jobs and get the economy going. I asume he could also do it because he belives it's right, but even so he must realise he'll never get it through the house and the filibuster, and that losinging on something like that would only make him seem weak.  

[Keystone Phil]

So ignore my point. Good. Good.

There wasn't really a valid point to ignore. Midterm elections are reactions to conditions, Presidential landslides are usually heavily weighted on the popularity or likability of a candidate.

You then said that winning was a fluke because of the economy so the Presidents that won their elections based on the economy were elected because of a fluke, too.

[dead0man]

boo hiss

How could you support high-capacity magazines? Let us know.

high capacity magazines don't kill people, rapid blood loss does

[Free Palestine]

boo hiss

[Associate Justice PiT]

Why? It's a battle has no chance of winning. Why spend political capital on it? It's not like Obama has been eagar to please the liberal base before, why try to do so on this issue? Americans like guns, get over it.

Suburban swing voters swung nasty in 2010. And there you have it, perhaps.

Well maybe, although I believe American suburban swing voters could care less about gun legislation as their neighberhoods isn't the ones with the gun problems. There might be some popularity right now due to the recent shootings, but I believe it will seem really irrelevant in a few months to those voters, and they might just be annoyed that once again Obama allows himself to be distracted from creating jobs and get the economy going. I asume he could also do it because he belives it's right, but even so he must realise he'll never get it through the house and the filibuster, and that losinging on something like that would only make him seem weak.  

     Suburbanites tend to believe that their livelihoods are under threat from guns (drugs too, but those are already illegal), even though such views are essentially unfounded. Hence they support restricting these things, even though they have little to no understanding of the actual issues. The sweet thing is that this generally begets laughably ineffectual gun control measures, such as the AWB.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Why? It's a battle has no chance of winning. Why spend political capital on it? It's not like Obama has been eagar to please the liberal base before, why try to do so on this issue? Americans like guns, get over it.

Suburban swing voters swung nasty in 2010. And there you have it, perhaps.

Well maybe, although I believe American suburban swing voters could care less about gun legislation as their neighberhoods isn't the ones with the gun problems. There might be some popularity right now due to the recent shootings, but I believe it will seem really irrelevant in a few months to those voters, and they might just be annoyed that once again Obama allows himself to be distracted from creating jobs and get the economy going. I asume he could also do it because he belives it's right, but even so he must realise he'll never get it through the house and the filibuster, and that losinging on something like that would only make him seem weak.  

Look and 1996 and 2000. Meh.

[Iosif]

Don't take our guns! How are we going to protect ourselves!!!

[Bandit3 the Worker]

So when's he gonna address right-wing hate radio vitriol?

[Marokai Backbeat]

Wow, this thread is garbage with not even two full pages. No wonder we can't seriously address this issue (and others) in this country.