Trollheart

Look, I admit I know little of the struggle that goes on between the pro-gun (do you call if pro-defence? Dunno, but just in case) and the anti-gun factions in the US, but is calling for the impeachment of a president who is finally trying to bring some sanity to the massive availablity of guns in the USA not pushing it? Does anyone --- particularly those who fall on the, shall we say, pro-guns side --- agree, or think this is a step too far? And is there any possibilty of it being passed or even considered seriously?

I'd love to know what you there "on the ground" who have experienced the different sides of this long-raging argument feel about this.

TH

Republican Congressman Threatens To Impeach President Obama Gun Safety

__________________
Trollheart: Signature-free since April 2018

blastingas10

Definitely irrational. I'm not really pro or anti-gun, but I have no problem with obamas new proposals. He's not even trying to ban guns, only assault rifles, which I don't think should be a very big deal.

mr dave

I think it's mainly just posturing. On one hand the congressman gets his name in the press and more attention for their inevitable re-election campaign; on the other it's like a situation where you enter a negotiation asking for a million dollar settlement but really only want a thousand - whatever they offer, you come out ahead and they look like they caved.

__________________
i am the universe

CLOSER

I think this reaction to new discussions about anti-gun laws is telling of the times to come for not only America, but the world as we know it. This is more than just civilian safety now, its BIG government business and the corrupt powers who are behind furthering this selfish agenda are relentless.

Franco Pepe Kalle

The republican party appears to many people as the party of Guns. That is not good. If this continues I don't know how the Republican party can remain relevant.

__________________
The problem with Franco Pepe Kalle is that he is a unpredictable character. There is surprising info about this man. You think he only likes Franco and Pepe Kalle but when you find out that he hears other artists, you are shock.

Girls are the sexy thing that God created.

Important to notice FPK.

Janszoon

Honestly, conservative politicians pull shit like this all the time over here. It's melodramatic and dumb but it's just business as usual for that crowd. It's just a way for that jackass to get his name in the paper. There's no potential of it being passed.

__________________
A Night in the Life of the Invisible Man

Time & Place

25 Albums You Should Hear Before the Moon Crashes into the Earth and We All Die

last.fm

Freebase Dali

As an independent myself, I don't have any problem with any of the executive orders Obama signed. In fact, I think they were all excellent ideas.

I'm a little less receptive to the assault weapons ban, because if it's instituted in the way that the previous one was, and guns are not actually taken away (as Obama has assured us), it's not actually going to do anything. I can think of many more things to legislate for the saving of many more lives than the miniscule percentage of fatalities caused by assault rifles. And, considering that the ban would simply ban the new manufacturing of them, it doesn't do anything for the millions of assault rifles that are already here.

So, ultimately I think this is more of a political win that's trying to be made, rather than an attempt to actually solve a problem, which is really disturbing to me in that the administration is trying to score a political win off the backs of 20 dead children because "the picking is good right now", with everyone still emotional over the event and more likely to support the legislation.

Is all that impeachable? Probably not. Happens all the time.

Trollheart

OK I see. Thanks for explaining it guys. Just the last time the I word was used it was supposed to land Bush in the dock. Of course it never happened, but at least he would have had a lot more to answer for than trying (however ineffectively) to get guns off the street.

That sort of mad rhetoric worries me, but I suppose it's similar to the possibilty of abortion being made even slightly legal here: just not going to happen, no matter how many people want it. Catholic Ireland will always win out; the priests trump the politicians every time, which is weird really when you consider the scandal and pure scumfest the former have been involved in so very recently...

__________________
Trollheart: Signature-free since April 2018

P A N

i don't even think all this is about a political win, personally. i think it's way crazier than that. or, potentially, anyway. i mean, it seems like that, but i doubt that it is.

i watched obama's little speech where he kind of alluded to his plan on this a bit, and it was just emotional bullsh*t geared toward what in my opinion was winning over the hearts of vulnerable people. and that, of course, seems like political tactics.

but i don't imagine it doing anything. and that's pretty telling. i just can't shake the feeling that this new legislation is just one more step toward orwellian domination, particularly in the mode of thought crime.

they know that even if they banned all guns (aside from causing a civil war) the criminals will get what they need to be criminals. so what i see happening is they limit the guns, crime rate will probably continue to escalate, and then they'll get more into the "psychology of criminals" instituting legally bound criteria to arrest and detain someone for looking suspiciously at a fire hydrant.

Freebase Dali

While I won't presume to predict a trajectory based on our current events, and I won't even blame Obama for the whole of what I disagree with, I do have to make the following observation and wonder why it is not considered by most:

More and more of our state legislatures, congress in general, and an increasing number of media-fueled individuals seem to be latching onto the argument of saving lives as it relates to removing assault weapons and high-capacity rounds on the basis of "They're designed to kill", and "We don't need that sort of thing anyway".

The problem I find with the argument about saving lives being based on how these devices were designed and whether we actually need them as a culture is this:

Why are cigarettes not being proposed for bans? We definitely don't need them to live our lives, and they not only hurt the person using them, they hurt those around them when they choose to ignore the laws that are in place to limit such a thing.
Cigarettes don't add anything positive to anyone's life. Yet, guns do have a positive effect. We see that effect in the legitimacy of police forces' ability to neutralize situations, armies to protect a nation, and individuals to protect themselves and others in the ways that they see fit.
If we were to use a comparison between tobacco-related deaths versus assault weapon deaths in the civilian population, we wouldn't even need actual figures to know which should be the higher priority.

And what about alcohol? Does it benefit our lives in any significant way? Maybe for the personal enjoyment (which can be applied to any other thing a person likes doing), but does it assume the role as a causal factor in many deaths? Yes. So this is another situation where major loss of life is being ignored because it is not politically advantageous to attack it at the moment.

What about swimming pools? Many children die accidentally in swimming pools because of negligence of parents (and because we can't breathe underwater). Shouldn't we be banning swimming pools? Or would such an action seem like an assault on personal liberties, simply because swimming pools don't seem as nefarious as assault rifles, even though there are probably more accidental deaths in them than there are assault rifle homicides in the United States.

As for why these things are not banned in order to save lives, regardless of whose lives they are, I am only left to the assumption that, at this point in time, government officials simply can't pass such legislation because too many people enjoy these things and have not cultivated a demonized perspective of them yet, and would isolate those people and lose votes.

When we have a tragedy involving mass murder, ESPECIALLY one involving innocent children, we are understandably affected on an emotional, irrational level. The propensity of this is what makes new legislation against such things more of a political strategy because of the emotionally-driven support that doesn't actually look at the effectiveness of that legislation.

Ultimately, if the argument is about saving the most lives as efficiently as possible, assault weapon bans are probably the very last thing we should even be looking at in the grand scheme of things. Unfortunately, in order to do this, we'd have to assail the freedom of a lot more people to do so, and it's just a simple fact that, right now, after Sandy Hook, the easiest ones to get to give up their own freedoms are going to be the public who is seeing things from an emotional reaction, versus a practical one.

And that's exactly why it will work, which is sad and unfortunate. Because it sets a precedent not for the government taking away freedoms, but for the people willingly submitting them, because they are mislead into thinking that if they can save one life by stopping the new manufacturing of assault rifles or mandating 10 bullets to a magazine, that somehow that will make everything ok, while they puff on their cigarettes, drive drunk, and allow their children to drown in their swimming pools, and god forbid if those freedoms are taken away.

If we are going to ban items that are designed for killing, we might as well just start banning hunting knives (and not steak knives), pesticides and killing poisons (and not any other dangerous chemical), and anything else that kills so many people but isn't "designed" to do something productive.
While we're at it, we can just start banning things we don't actually need. Why stop at assault rifles? If the argument is that we don't need it, and it's harmful to ourselves and others, I can think of a million other things that should be looked at, rather than a knee-jerk emotional response to what amounts to a very low percentage of loss of life in comparison with all these other things we currently enjoy, that kill, but aren't needed.

Ultimately, I think people need to focus more on the actual problems, rather than allowing themselves to be proponents of agendas simply because they're that predictable and provide opportunities for those in power. Maybe then we could get things done around here, instead of being herded like a bunch of sheep because that's where the media led us.