A reporter ask Hillary Clinton if she was in favor of mandatory buy-back of guns. She said "That would be something that I would consider." Don't worry, I'm sure she said something different elsewhere.
Looking for suggestions
- Thread starter WATU2
- Start date
A reporter ask Hillary Clinton if she was in favor of mandatory buy-back of guns. She said "That would be something that I would consider." Don't worry, I'm sure she said something different elsewhere.
Given your interest in US history, Gun Fight should be an interesting read.
I have never read a Trump tweet in my life and don't intend to start.
We need leadership to bring the plight of inner cities to the forefront. I expected a black President from Chicago would be that person. I was wrong. If we can organize thousands to protest the killing of a black man who robbed a convenience store in Missouri then why can't we organize tens of thousands to march and protest the killing of thousands of black men each year? How about protesting the deplorable living conditions of our inner city residents?
Until we bring these issues to the forefront in a national discussion nothing will change. The President sets the national agenda. He would rather talk about the domestic terrorism (the 1%) to justify his gun restrictions than open an honest national discussion about the thousands who are murdered every year. Do black men murdering black men not politically sell gun control? We should be embarrassed about the conditions that currently exist in our cities. Yet.....let's not discuss it.
According to the fact check linked in my post above, your data contained the same factual error as Trump's.
Focusing attention on the plight of the poor and violence in the streets is an excellent idea. Black Lives Matter took over Bernie's political speech here in Seattle and rubbed his nose in it. He's been more sensitive to the issue since. Haven't seen any other candidate pick up on the issue. Trump, Cruz, Rubio, etc. would rather talk about the impending Islamic apocalypse, building fences on the border, etc.
You may not like the President's EO, but it's modest and sensible. All the arguments against are political theater. I have no sympathy for this Congress hand wringing over EOs. Remember when the House refused for over a year to take up the Senate's bipartisan immigration bill? Boehner's defense was the President had the power to take care of it. No bill needed. Much later when the President finally acted, Boehner went berserk. Such is the stuff of our politics these days. Obamacare needs fixes that everyone can agree on, but the House ignores these improvements, and sits around holding pointless votes to eliminate it without offering an alternative.
Is this a great country or what?
Last edited:
I said this in another thread but it is worth repeating:
Following 911 Congress passed the Patriot Act. The President carried it out using executive powers.
Recently Congress refused to pass what this President wanted. He announce at since Congress would not act he would. He used executive orders to thwart the will of Congress. The difference is huge.
When Boehner said the president had powers to control gun sales, he did not intend for him to add powers which Congress was against. Article I of the Constitution is about legislative powers. It begins:
All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.
The President can veto laws, but he cannot make or change laws. Whether you like what Bush did or not, he acted after laws were passed. He did not use the "I've got a pen and I will act" tact.
By the way, the Patriot Act passed the House 357-66 and the Senate 98-1. It's hard to say that Bush's executive orders were in defiance on Congress. Clearly, Obama's "If Congress won't act, I will" orders are in defiance of Congress and a usurpation of power by the executive.
In the past EO was used to expidite or refine issues; appoint judges, rename national patks, .
not to make sweepinging law changes.
too much power in the hands of ONE man.
not to make sweepinging law changes.
too much power in the hands of ONE man.
We are likely talking about different events. Bush was caught with secret server at an ATT nexus copying every message going through. A whistle blower brought it public. Here is the tech community's take: https://www.techdirt.com/articles/2...a-surveillance-legal-because-he-said-so.shtml. He justified his actions with a secret EO.
Don't forget his lying to Congress about the cost of Medicare Part D and all the lying about torture and waterboarding.
Poke makes a fair point about precedent. Let's agree that the founders had a well justified fear of the executive branch ( aka the King ) and understood its tendency to increase its own power. Cheney was quite candid that the post Watergate restrictions on the executive had to be reversed and he repeatedly acted in secret and refused to provide Congress with oversight information. Bush did the same with secret EOs. In the area of surveillance Obama continued much of what Bush started and been very tough on what most think of as whistle blowing. One reason Snowden acted the way he did was Obama's
record of prosecuting whistle blowers as criminals.
Here's a fascinating timeline: https://www.eff.org/nsa-spying/timeline
I guess what leads me to these long comments is the difference in reaction to Bush's repeated use of secret EOs and lying to Congress and the current reaction to Obama's modest, very public step to close what most think of as a loop hole in the law.
My example was immigration. If Congress wants something their way, then they should not pass the decision making off to someone else. The bi partisan Senate immigration bill would have pased in the House, but Boehner wouldn't bring it up because he was afraid of the TP, so he basically told the Preisident to handle it. Boehner knew if the President acted he could whine about it.
I certainly agree that there is a difference in reaction to Obama's excess use of power against the will of Congress. Obama used to like to say the elections have consequences. It's very true. But he only seems to believe that Presidential elections have consequences. His party has lost Congress and rather than try to work with the current Congress, he has taken to using executive orders to try to go around it.
I'm not so much defending the President, there's a lot that I don't like, but my regard for Congress, especially the gerrymandered House, is much lower.
It also make a difference to me that in this case it's a very small step that the American public supports and is done openly.
What the Bush administration did was in secret and criminal but papered over later with 'national security' or just papered over by a Republican Congress.
Most worrisome is the ability of Presidents to use 'national security' scare tactics to dramatically extend their power at the expense of the Constitution and long held principles, because that is exactly what the Republican candidates for president are using right now: scare tactics. The popular appeal is frightening, and the polls and history show it usually works.
It also make a difference to me that in this case it's a very small step that the American public supports and is done openly.
What the Bush administration did was in secret and criminal but papered over later with 'national security' or just papered over by a Republican Congress.
Most worrisome is the ability of Presidents to use 'national security' scare tactics to dramatically extend their power at the expense of the Constitution and long held principles, because that is exactly what the Republican candidates for president are using right now: scare tactics. The popular appeal is frightening, and the polls and history show it usually works.
First, there are a ton of myths, "one liners," and made up crap running around on both sides of this issue. Quoting NRA or Michael Moore talking points isn't helpful - both are equally distortions.
Second, I own a wide range of firearms and many rounds of ammunition. All of my firearms are legal and purchased from reputable and registered sources. I have a lot of ammo because it is cheaper to buy a case than a few boxes, and it keeps well. I bought my son a bolt action .22LR for his 10th birthday when it was time for him to trade in "toy" guns and begin respecting actual firearms. I am not against law abiding citizens owning firearms.
Third, I also think there is a problem with firearm violence and think we can do better.
Lets start by busting on the left:
- The Second Amendment has been held to be an individual right to bear arms
- Americans use firearms for perfectly innocent, even family oriented activities including hunting, sport, and collecting
- Some people ARE actually safer with a firearm than without a firearm
- Government do go to hell and people do need to rise up from time to time
- Not every gun owner is a "gun nut"
- Criminals will almost certainly be able to get an illegal firearm in this country for the rest of my life, we need to find a way to deal with that fact
- The guns you think are the most deadly, aren't. Just because they are scary looking doesn't mean they are the ones criminals are actually using
Now, lets make the right angry:
- The Second Amendment is not an unbridled right, government has huge discretion and a more than a hundred years of precedent in "well regulating" that right
- Firearms are the preferred tool of terrorists, petty criminals, gangs, angry people, mentally disturbed people, and suicidal people. They cause more human destruction in this country than any other "tool"
- Most people are not safer with firearms, statistically more people with firearms leads to far more accidents or crimes of the moment than it prevents (and most law enforcement would tell you to please not try to "help")
- Firearm ownership is well correlated to firearms deaths both nationally, and worldwide
- This isn't 1776, your hunting rifle or even AR isn't taking down an Apache or an Abraham's, and the French aren't coming to help
- Every other civilized country has been able to curb gun violence to a reasonable level, but we just keep saying we "can't"" because there are too many guns, then add more guns.
Great. Now that everyone has calmed down and agreed with everything I said we can actually try to find a solution that:
1) Is more likely to keep firearms away from criminals, terrorists, and crazies; but
2) Does not prevent law abiding citizens from owning firearms.
There is some compromise and understanding both ways that needs to happen. Unfortunately, I feel that for the last ~20 years the "gun lobby" has acted like a kid with his fingers in his year shouting "la la la" when the adults are trying to have a conversation... even if some of those adults are also crazy. The pragmatic representatives of each side should be able to enact a long term solution - because no action we take will have much effect in the next 5-10 years, and the left needs to accept that.
Second, I own a wide range of firearms and many rounds of ammunition. All of my firearms are legal and purchased from reputable and registered sources. I have a lot of ammo because it is cheaper to buy a case than a few boxes, and it keeps well. I bought my son a bolt action .22LR for his 10th birthday when it was time for him to trade in "toy" guns and begin respecting actual firearms. I am not against law abiding citizens owning firearms.
Third, I also think there is a problem with firearm violence and think we can do better.
Lets start by busting on the left:
- The Second Amendment has been held to be an individual right to bear arms
- Americans use firearms for perfectly innocent, even family oriented activities including hunting, sport, and collecting
- Some people ARE actually safer with a firearm than without a firearm
- Government do go to hell and people do need to rise up from time to time
- Not every gun owner is a "gun nut"
- Criminals will almost certainly be able to get an illegal firearm in this country for the rest of my life, we need to find a way to deal with that fact
- The guns you think are the most deadly, aren't. Just because they are scary looking doesn't mean they are the ones criminals are actually using
Now, lets make the right angry:
- The Second Amendment is not an unbridled right, government has huge discretion and a more than a hundred years of precedent in "well regulating" that right
- Firearms are the preferred tool of terrorists, petty criminals, gangs, angry people, mentally disturbed people, and suicidal people. They cause more human destruction in this country than any other "tool"
- Most people are not safer with firearms, statistically more people with firearms leads to far more accidents or crimes of the moment than it prevents (and most law enforcement would tell you to please not try to "help")
- Firearm ownership is well correlated to firearms deaths both nationally, and worldwide
- This isn't 1776, your hunting rifle or even AR isn't taking down an Apache or an Abraham's, and the French aren't coming to help
- Every other civilized country has been able to curb gun violence to a reasonable level, but we just keep saying we "can't"" because there are too many guns, then add more guns.
Great. Now that everyone has calmed down and agreed with everything I said we can actually try to find a solution that:
1) Is more likely to keep firearms away from criminals, terrorists, and crazies; but
2) Does not prevent law abiding citizens from owning firearms.
There is some compromise and understanding both ways that needs to happen. Unfortunately, I feel that for the last ~20 years the "gun lobby" has acted like a kid with his fingers in his year shouting "la la la" when the adults are trying to have a conversation... even if some of those adults are also crazy. The pragmatic representatives of each side should be able to enact a long term solution - because no action we take will have much effect in the next 5-10 years, and the left needs to accept that.
If instead of doing an end run with the legislation, congress had actually been able to review and revise it, maybe it would have worked better.and not need tweeking. if congress balks at passing legislation, the wh can take their issue to the public to preasure their congressman to pass it. Oh, i forgot, most voters didn't want obamacare and still dont. Even the people that need obamacare dont want it; otherwise obamacare enrollment would approach 100%.
He modified policy not law. if his EOs were wrong, how many were reversed by congress or the court?
Obama's tears are comical when you realize he's ordered the collateral killing of children himself using drones.
Drones kill a very high percentage of innocents along with the terrorists - something in the neighborhood of 9 out of 10 in some instances. I doubt there is a shooter in the US that has accounted for more innocent children's deaths than BHO.
Drones kill a very high percentage of innocents along with the terrorists - something in the neighborhood of 9 out of 10 in some instances. I doubt there is a shooter in the US that has accounted for more innocent children's deaths than BHO.
Last edited:
Does bho really want to to do something about gun violence? He should start by going to Chicago and fix it there.
https://www.thebureauinvestigates.c...mes-of-over-700-killed-by-drones-in-pakistan/
There is a written/recorded list of children who died as well in another article, but I couldn't pull it up. The ages listed were from infant to 17 years old. You have to wonder if Obama wept for them since he ordered their deaths - but its just collateral damage ya know. But of course he stayed away from the messy part and let his minions do the dirty work.
There is a written/recorded list of children who died as well in another article, but I couldn't pull it up. The ages listed were from infant to 17 years old. You have to wonder if Obama wept for them since he ordered their deaths - but its just collateral damage ya know. But of course he stayed away from the messy part and let his minions do the dirty work.
Last edited:
The drone killings is a great example of where Obama SHOULD be open to criticism. I'm fine with dropping bombs on foreign terrorists with a certain confidence interval, it is dirty, and certainly should be carefully weighed against the negative consequences (both on a human scale, and politically). But boy have we gotten cavalier about it.
Worse yet, with no trial or any due process - we have deemed it acceptable to assassinate Americans that the executive has labeled enemies of the state. So long as they are overseas.
What the hell? Try them in absentia if you want to. Even if the Hitler was an American, you can't execute him without due process (exceptions clearly made for actually battlefield confrontations).
Worse yet, with no trial or any due process - we have deemed it acceptable to assassinate Americans that the executive has labeled enemies of the state. So long as they are overseas.
What the hell? Try them in absentia if you want to. Even if the Hitler was an American, you can't execute him without due process (exceptions clearly made for actually battlefield confrontations).
The problem is that we have not declared war on this enemy, thus these killings are probably an illegal act of terror as well. But Obama and his party are unilaterally killing innocents and just ignoring the consequences because he and they CAN. I'm pretty sure that is even against the Geneva convention unless war has been declared. But Obama gets the pass on these atrocities from the international press and community. What separates us from them if we do what they do? As Obama likes to say -"That's not us." Ha! What a joke.
We didn't declare war on North Korea, but killed about 500,000 people. We didn't declare war on Vietnam, but killed about 600,000 people. We didn't declare war on Nicaragua, Panama, Grenada, Yugoslavia, Kosovo... we didn't declare war on Iraq, but we killed 35k the first go 'round and another 100k or so the second time. We don't declare war on anything real anymore (just poverty or drugs...).
Suddenly with Obama in the White House this is an issue?
And every other President has utilized extra judicial killings, including airstrikes, cruise missile attacks, and drone strikes when they became available. Again, suddenly this is an issue?
I agree with your basic premise, we would be more than hostile if Russia decided some Israeli was a terrorist and dropped a bomb on him in Tel Aviv. However, I disagree that this is somehow an Obama issue as opposed to simply an American issue.
Well taken points about us not declaring war on "some' of our past adversaries, but that also solidifies my point. Those other POTUS' you mentioned hadn't used the "crying over children tactic" to gain sympathy before. But Obama did THAT and will do it again when the need arises imo.
But he directly targeted "individuals" (that were surrounded by innocents including children), not industrial complexes, troop barracks, gun emplacements etc. No, those drones attack and kill people, mostly civilian as I stated earlier. And if there is collateral killing of women and children, then that in and of itself is "inhumane".
Hope that clarifies my point about BHO's crying. Obama ordered those drone "assassinations" and is somewhat responsible for all the casualties incurred in them including the children who died from them. That's the difference imo. Obama needs to cry for them too and the media needs to hold him personally responsible for those acts. In that instance, tears aren't enough. But I respect your view on this and wouldn't have posted on the topic if Obama hadn't used the "sympathy card" to carve into the second amendment which saves many innocent lives every year.
No problem, your view is well founded and well argued. I enjoy the discussion or wouldn't have commented.
I have no opinion on Obama's "crying," if it was contrived it is shameful. If it is honest, then you rightful call to question the juxtaposition of sympathy for Americans and a seeming disregard for those he drops bombs on.
However, I will point out that the civilian casualties from our target strikes (from Reagan through Obama) have far less civilian casualty rates than any other method. Certainly less than carpet bombing (as suggested by some recent candidates) and far less than conventional wars. I still have significant concerns, as stated above, and adhere that a viable alternative exists for US citizens (due process) - but in that I can't come up with a viable solution to neutralizing the threat of militants in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen and other countries harboring Muslim (or other) terrorists... I have to trust our military and politicians to weight the costs and benefits. That includes both Democrats and Republicans (who would almost certainly have taken the same course of action and been criticized by Democrats, both frikkin hypocrites).
Any alternative ideas to accomplish the goal (no dead Americans, safe allies, economic interest protected) with less costs?
I have no opinion on Obama's "crying," if it was contrived it is shameful. If it is honest, then you rightful call to question the juxtaposition of sympathy for Americans and a seeming disregard for those he drops bombs on.
However, I will point out that the civilian casualties from our target strikes (from Reagan through Obama) have far less civilian casualty rates than any other method. Certainly less than carpet bombing (as suggested by some recent candidates) and far less than conventional wars. I still have significant concerns, as stated above, and adhere that a viable alternative exists for US citizens (due process) - but in that I can't come up with a viable solution to neutralizing the threat of militants in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen and other countries harboring Muslim (or other) terrorists... I have to trust our military and politicians to weight the costs and benefits. That includes both Democrats and Republicans (who would almost certainly have taken the same course of action and been criticized by Democrats, both frikkin hypocrites).
Any alternative ideas to accomplish the goal (no dead Americans, safe allies, economic interest protected) with less costs?
Only more concentrated strikes/attacks to kill or capture the individuals who are guilty like the Bin Laden raid did. And if we know when they are gathered together with their terror companions. We need the best surveillance. But if we kill a lot of innocents in the process - that too can be used as a "recruiting tool" for them - an overused term nowadays. But killing children will certainly recruit a lot of the enemy jihadists to their cause just like 9-11 recruited many americans to fight the good fight back at them, but also probably caused us to enter a war in Iraq we "possibly" were wrong to fight.
You made the "who said we were talking about ownership" statement on Jan 5 and I answered.
Now a few weeks later you say the same thing. Mandatory buy-back involves ownership. Hillary said she would consider it. But she says whatever sounds good at the moment in front of the group she is talking to.
Now a few weeks later you say the same thing. Mandatory buy-back involves ownership. Hillary said she would consider it. But she says whatever sounds good at the moment in front of the group she is talking to.
By the way, the Denver Post reports and makes the comment also that Hillary will say whatever seems to please the group she is talking to, including concerning gun ownership.
http://www.denverpost.com/editorial...-clintons-suggestion-gun-buyback-is-step-back
"However, Clinton's praise of the Australian buyback, while it may win her points in the Democratic primaries and move her to the left of Bernie Sanders on a key issue, does nothing to advance efforts at reasonable gun control."
http://www.denverpost.com/editorial...-clintons-suggestion-gun-buyback-is-step-back
"However, Clinton's praise of the Australian buyback, while it may win her points in the Democratic primaries and move her to the left of Bernie Sanders on a key issue, does nothing to advance efforts at reasonable gun control."
The research study that led to the bill defunding the gun violence research.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8371731
Scary stuff, research.
Perhaps recognizing that we have multiple gun violence problems will help us understand the issue.
(My apologies to those who find videos off putting)
(My apologies to those who find videos off putting)
So what would your view be of the Republican presidential candidates who are all accusing the President of being way too soft militarily and promising such things as carpet bombing entire areas, civilians and all, as their solution to ISIS/ISIL?
Ignoring and dismissing ISIS as they grew and gained territory and money is the biggest foreign blunder of Obama's presidency (Libya would be second). Unfortunately, we will be paying for this inaction for years to come. At this point we seem content on the control of the organization and not the eradication. Looks like Russia has taken the lead in Syria as our policy for regime change there has failed. A multinational effort to defeat ISIS would be a step in the right direction.
Honestly, if those are the biggest blunders... they're not too huge. I'm sure we've made attempts to get a coalition together against ISIS but there's just no backing in the region for it. I'd rather the president kept us out of a war to the best of his ability than send us into multiple ones.
The power in the region (Iran) has been seeking an international coalition to battle ISIS since last summer.
