As predicted Obama politicizes tragedy with calls for gun control

[Liquid Tension]

As predicted, rightwingers politicize tragedy by vilifying the President for saying something that makes perfect sense.

Um, I don't see where I vilified BHO in my post (#2).

[Fenris]

As I predicted, Obama said he's not going to change existing gun laws.

[keck553]

As I predicted, Obama said he's not going to change existing gun laws.

Just lip sevice for sarah and michael I guess.

[Watchman]

As I predicted, Obama said he's not going to change existing gun laws.

Didn't he actually say he wouldn't promote new gun control legislation? If I understand the situation, if Obama agrees to the UN Small Arms Treaty and Harry Reid doesn't bring it up for ratification vote in the Senate, then the treaty will be treated as binding until such a time as it is formally rejected by the Senate. If that is incorrect, I hope someone will correct me...but that is my understanding. If that happens, then we will have given our sovereignty to the UN...and I'm told there is wording in the treaty stating it can be changed at any time without approval of all the signatory nations. Now THAT's under the radar...to borrow a phrase.

W

[keck553]

Didn't he actually say he wouldn't promote new gun control legislation? If I understand the situation, if Obama agrees to the UN Small Arms Treaty and Harry Reid doesn't bring it up for ratification vote in the Senate, then the treaty will be treated as binding until such a time as it is formally rejected by the Senate. If that is incorrect, I hope someone will correct me...but that is my understanding. If that happens, then we will have given our sovereignty to the UN...and I'm told there is wording in the treaty stating it can be changed at any time without approval of all the signatory nations. Now THAT's under the radar...to borrow a phrase.

W

And we know how effective the UN is at enforcing......um....well anything

[RevLogos]

As I predicted, Obama said he's not going to change existing gun laws.

Yes, as I recall he said earlier he would work on gun restrictions "under the radar".

[Fenris]

Didn't he actually say he wouldn't promote new gun control legislation? If I understand the situation, if Obama agrees to the UN Small Arms Treaty and Harry Reid doesn't bring it up for ratification vote in the Senate, then the treaty will be treated as binding until such a time as it is formally rejected by the Senate.

I don't think that's how it works. Until the Senate votes on a treaty it is non binding.

[keck553]

Yes, as I recall he said earlier he would work on gun restrictions "under the radar".

Yeah. It was called "Fast and Furious." how'd that work out?

[Watchman]

I don't think that's how it works. Until the Senate votes on a treaty it is non binding.

If I heard correctly on the radio broadcast, there is an agreement called the Vienna Accords under which this treaty would be considered binding until either repudiated by the POTUS or the Senate. I'll try to find more info. Vienna Accords may not be the correct title.

[Watchman]

And we know how effective the UN is at enforcing......um....well anything

I'd be completely for the dissolution of the infamous UN. It is a worthless, secular humanist bureacracy that hates this country.

[keck553]

I'd be completely for the dissolution of the infamous UN. It is a worthless, secular humanist bureacracy that hates this country.

Not to menton a waste of $$

[Watchman]

Not to menton a waste of $$

A waste is something used up uselessly. Our money is being used AGAINST us by the anti-American UN. These folks hate us...so they need to do without our money, our support, or digs on our soil. They are criminals and traitors of the worst sort.

[NHL Fever]

Hyperbole corrupts your argument into silliness.

Not really, the best arguments are those that still make sense when taken to their full conclusion. Where do you stop? Semi-automatic, fully automatic, bazooka, tank in the garage, AA gun on your porch? What 'arms' actually means should be defined for this debate to make any sense, other wise it's just meaningless catch phrases.

However Fenris is right, nobody is going to bring this up. Polls show Americans are more pro-gun than ever. Within a democratic primary challenge, the pro-gun guy will probably win.

[keck553]

Not really, the best arguments are those that still make sense when taken to their full conclusion. Where do you stop? Semi-automatic, fully automatic, bazooka, tank in the garage, AA gun on your porch? What 'arms' actually means should be defined for this debate to make any sense, other wise it's just meaningless catch phrases.

However Fenris is right, nobody is going to bring this up. Polls show Americans are more pro-gun than ever. Within a democratic primary challenge, the pro-gun guy will probably win.

hyperbole is a emotional argument. Emotion is not a sound platform for a rational debate. Everyone of sound mental acuity knows what the second amendment covers. When it was written private arms were equal or superior to the armed forces. Heck the plains Indians outgunned the US Calvery (see General Custer). There was no call to "ban assault Henrys" in the wake of the US Army being outgunned by civilian arms. So the musket argument is lame. In my opinion we should not need permission to excersize our 2nd amendment rights any more than we should need permission to express our opinion. Abuse of either should lead to serious and real legal consequences.

But this I do know. 90,000 gun laws, of which about 10 are enforced plus one is not going to stop lawlessness. An AR15 without a threaded barrel and a bayonet lug still shoots a 5.56 x 45mm.

If America really wants to continue to go down the path to being a Godless society with no God-breathed moral standards, then I really don't think anything is going to make people safer short of enslaving te population in a totalitarian society.

[NHL Fever]

hyperbole is a emotional argument. Emotion is not a sound platform for a rational debate.

Check the definition of hyperbole, it has no necessary connection to emotion or lack of reason. It is a rhetorical device.

I think you need to define what you think 'arms' means in the 2nd amendment. Just things that shoot bullets? Is so what is the caliber limitation? Why? The 2nd doesn't specifically tell us, but it does tell us what arms are for. And that is in order to have a well-regulated militia. Have you got one of those?

Everyone of sound mental acuity knows what the second amendment covers. When it was written private arms were equal or superior to the armed forces. Heck the plains Indians outgunned the US Calvery (see General Custer). There was no call to "ban assault Henrys" in the wake of the US Army being outgunned by civilian arms. So the musket argument is lame. In my opinion we should not need permission to excersize our 2nd amendment rights any more than we should need permission to express our opinion. Abuse of either should lead to serious and real legal consequences.

This is an argument for both and against. The against part is the fact that when the 2nd amendment was passed, the available arms were far, far less deadly or capable of mass killing than what you have today. The founders could not have conceived of the destruction that could be wielded in the hands of a single person. I'm not sure what you mean by 'sound mental acuity'. Can you quantify that in any way? I can offer something more than just conjecture: States with highest gun ownership rates: Louisiana, Mississippi, Alaska, Alabama, Nevada. The lowest rates?: Hawaii, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, Connecticut, New York. One way to evaluate 'minds' is educational attainment. Have a look at those lists and give me your best guess of which group does better in the 'mind' category. Is there a better criteria to use for the mind we could try?

But this I do know. 90,000 gun laws, of which about 10 are enforced plus one is not going to stop lawlessness. An AR15 without a threaded barrel and a bayonet lug still shoots a 5.56 x 45mm.

If America really wants to continue to go down the path to being a Godless society with no God-breathed moral standards, then I really don't think anything is going to make people safer short of enslaving te population in a totalitarian society.

No doubt any nation that departs from God will have problems. However there are plenty of nations on earth that have tight gun control, and are not totalitarian. One can have tight gun control, and a free and stable society and plenty of countries prove this. I always find the 'freedom vs tyranny' argument a little odd, its as if people don't realize reality exists outside of the US. Freedom is supposed to mean better equality of opportunity for example, but today the US has one of the lowest levels of economic mobility in the developed world. More guns have not objectively resulted in more freedom.