Biden: Obama Considering 'Executive Order' to Deal With Guns

[Locke]

Agreed. No reason to go right up to the line of merely the 2nd amendment when you can propose throwing away the 1st amendment in the bargain. We'll have to wait and see what "recommendations" means but even the suggestions presupposes a link that doesn't exist.

I feel like he is just trying to appease people, not actually address the problem. If that turns out to be the case, all the people yelling and screaming about him taking their guns are going to look really stupid.

Any number of sociologists, psychologists, and criminologists could tell him that it's a dead end. Yet, he is still pursuing it? Nope, I'm not buying it. Guaranteed he knows that there is little-to-no correlation. I'll withhold judgment until it actually comes from his administration, but if he actually pursues this, I'll have a hard time respecting the man...

[COphinphan89]

Whatever he does, I hope it's nothing like that moronic bill the NY state legislature passed. 7 bullets? Are you ****ting me?

[Dolphins9954]

He's going to make his decree tomorrow surrounded by kids.

President Barack Obama, flanked by school children, will unveil “a package of concrete proposals” on Wednesday meant to prevent another massacre like the one that left 20 first-graders dead at Sandy Hook Elementary School in December.

Obama and Biden "will be joined by children from around the country who wrote the president letters in the wake of that tragedy expressing their concerns about gun violence and school safety, along with their parents,” Carney said.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.




Throw up in my mouth.

[Dolphins9954]

Whatever he does, I hope it's nothing like that moronic bill the NY state legislature passed. 7 bullets? Are you ****ting me?

I wonder how many bullets Cuomo's guards have in their clips???

[SkapePhin]

He's going to make his decree tomorrow surrounded by kids.




To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.




Throw up in my mouth.

Exploitive...

And also a tad hypocritical considering you could probably fill that room with the children who have been casualties of drone strikes over seas during his administration. Save the kids, Ban drones.

[TheWalrus]

Exploitive...

And also a tad hypocritical considering you could probably fill that room with the children who have been casualties of drone strikes over seas during his administration. Save the kids, Ban drones.

Drones and gun control are related issues?
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[SkapePhin]

Drones and gun control are related issues?
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

They aren't, but if the President wants to exploit this tragedy to push an agenda, then he should take a similar stance against his own policies. The reason why this particular incident spurred such debate and action was because the remarkably evil nature of the crime - slaughtering children, the very manifestation of innocence. Yet, this incident is a statistical anomaly. This is the first time in US history that guns have been used to murder elementary school kids in this manner. Is this really a vast threat that will envelope the nation? Will elementary school mass shootings be on the rise? Sure, it is something that could definitely occur again, but it won't occur with any frequency. Of course we should take measures to reduce the occurrence of such incidents in the future, but not at the expense of constitutional rights, and certainly not by declaring executive orders to push it through without going through the democratic process of checks and balances.

I am just a bit put off by how this whole thing is being approached. It is an issue because innocent children were being killed. Yet, the President's own policies in regard to drone strikes have killed more innocent children than Adam Lanza. I just seek some consistency between the President's policies.

[TheWalrus]

They aren't, but if the President wants to exploit this tragedy to push an agenda, then he should take a similar stance against his own policies. The reason why this particular incident spurred such debate and action was because the remarkably evil nature of the crime - slaughtering children, the very manifestation of innocence. Yet, this incident is a statistical anomaly. This is the first time in US history that guns have been used to murder elementary school kids in this manner. Is this really a vast threat that will envelope the nation? Will elementary school mass shootings be on the rise? Sure, it is something that could definitely occur again, but it won't occur with any frequency. Of course we should take measures to reduce the occurrence of such incidents in the future, but not at the expense of constitutional rights, and certainly not by declaring executive orders to push it through without going through the democratic process of checks and balances.

I am just a bit put off by how this whole thing is being approached. It is an issue because innocent children were being killed. Yet, the President's own policies in regard to drone strikes have killed more innocent children than Adam Lanza. I just seek some consistency between the President's policies.

If you don't think we need more gun control as a result of this and the bevy of other shootings that have taken place in the last few years, that's fine. I still don't know where I come down on the issue myself. There's always a price to be paid for freedom and sometimes that price is blood. Events like Newtown have a way of recalibrating how much blood people think is enough, is all. I don't think there's anything wrong with that.

But it has nothing to do with drones. Innocent people get killed as the result of our foreign policy decisions, and sometimes those people are children. It's unfortunate, but it happens. And not just because of something we do, like the drone program. Sometimes it happens because we don't do something. How many children would be saved if we invaded Syria right now? Thousands, I'd say. Maybe tens of thousands. Doesn't mean it's the right thing to do, though. Doesn't mean if you don't think we should invade you're a hypocrite if you think we need gun control.

I mean, forgive me for being callous, but wouldn't we all say that American children are more valuable to us Americans than the children of other nations? Isn't that pretty much understood? I honestly don't this kind of comparison is particularly useful. Each issue has a full enough life to be discussed on it's own.

[Dolphins9954]

If you don't think we need more gun control as a result of this and the bevy of other shootings that have taken place in the last few years, that's fine. I still don't know where I come down on the issue myself. There's always a price to be paid for freedom and sometimes that price is blood. Events like Newtown have a way of recalibrating how much blood people think is enough, is all. I don't think there's anything wrong with that.

But it has nothing to do with drones. Innocent people get killed as the result of our foreign policy decisions, and sometimes those people are children. It's unfortunate, but it happens. And not just because of something we do, like the drone program. Sometimes it happens because we don't do something. How many children would be saved if we invaded Syria right now? Thousands, I'd say. Maybe tens of thousands. Doesn't mean it's the right thing to do, though. Doesn't mean if you don't think we should invade you're a hypocrite if you think we need gun control.

I mean, forgive me for being callous, but wouldn't we all say that American children are more valuable to us Americans than the children of other nations? Isn't that pretty much understood? I honestly don't this kind of comparison is particularly useful. Each issue has a full enough life to be discussed on it's own.

How many children will we kill invading Syria???

It's simple don't pull the kid card to promote your agenda while your own policies kill children with drone bombs. It's called having a moral leg to stand on and Obama doesn't have squat. As for american children. Obama killed one of those too.

[Dolphins9954]

Exploitive...

And also a tad hypocritical considering you could probably fill that room with the children who have been casualties of drone strikes over seas during his administration. Save the kids, Ban drones.

It would be a disgusting display of politics.