Yes Dave, it's time to raise the issue again

[Len44]

Also, yes I am not happy that Obama won re-election but that doesn't really matter at all. He won so get over it. However, I do not agree with the president's notion that because he won the American people have given him a "mandate". When I here politicians speak in terms of mandates I get a bit nervous about their motivation. Are they looking out for the best interest of the American people or have they convinced themselves they are above reproach?

Oh really???

Can't but wonder how "nervous" you were back in 2004:

2004-11-05 04:00:00 PDT Washington -- President Bush proclaimed his election as evidence that Americans embrace his plans to reform Social Security, simplify the tax code, curb lawsuits and fight the war on terror, pledging Thursday to work in a bipartisan manner with "everyone who shares our goals."

Bush staked his claim to a broad mandate and announced his top priorities at a post-election news conference, saying his 3.5 million vote victory had won him political capital that he would spend enacting his conservative agenda.

"I earned capital in this campaign, political capital, and now I intend to spend it," Bush told reporters. "It is my style."

As he had done in his victory speech Wednesday, Bush spoke of building a bipartisan consensus and reaching out to the 48 percent of Americans who voted against him. Yet he made plain that he had no intention of moderating his agenda to reach that goal.

"When you win, there is ... a feeling that the people have spoken and embraced your point of view," Bush said. "And that's what I intend to tell Congress, that I made it clear what I intend to do as the president; now let's work."

There have been few signs, beyond a few token words, of conciliation from either side in the immediate aftermath of the contentious 2004 election. Bush's victory was large enough for Republicans to assert they had a majority on their side, yet too small for Democrats to feel intimidated about standing in their way.

"He's not reaching out; he's just saying if you agree with us, you can come along for the journey," said Rep. George Miller, D-Martinez. "And I suspect that is how it's going to play out in the second term."

At the news conference, Bush said he would resurrect an initiative to allow workers to divert a portion of their Social Security payroll taxes into private stocks and bonds, an idea that many Democrats have rejected out of hand as a first step toward dismantling the popular 70-year-old entitlement program. He also said that he would work on a tax-simplification plan that would not add to anyone's income tax bill and a curb on medical liability lawsuits to reduce health care costs and that he would continue to promote democracy in Iraq, Afghanistan and around the globe.

"I really didn't come here to hold the office, just to say 'Gosh, it was fun to serve,' " Bush said. "I came here to get some things done."

He acknowledged Americans expected "bipartisan effort and results," yet he dismissed the suggestion that he might build bridges by nominating a "consensus" choice when an opening on the Supreme Court occurs, commit to bringing new Democrats into his Cabinet or work regularly with Democratic leaders to reach compromise solutions.

And this with Bush barely surviving the voting on his 2nd term. Obama was reelected with far more of the electoral vote, as well as the popular vote. So, IF Bush had a "mandate", then Obama had a MANDATE +.

Just sayin'...

 

[runnin17]

Len,

It is becoming more apparent that you are more interested in criticizing opinions different than yours and not about having a serious conversation about the gun control issue.

Again, please be civil and stay on topic. Also, who ever mentioned anything about Bush? Did I ever mention him anywhere? I don't think I did. If you are assuming that I agreed with everything Bush did, you would be sorely mistaken.

 

[Len44]

IThere is no one miracle fix for gun violence in this country. I personally do not believe that stricter gun control is the right answer to address this issue.

Well, at least President Obama has the guts to at least try something to improve things, and protect innocent people. Sure, the proposed solutions may lack perfection, but at least it is a good-faith effort, and better than those ninnies standing on the sidelines proclaiming that no changes whatsoever are needed. Or the GOP shouting "NO!" to everything President Obama proposes just because, well, the President proposed it.

BTW, initial polling indicates the majority of Americans agree with the President's proposals.

 

[Len44]

Len,

It is becoming more apparent that you are more interested in criticizing opinions different than yours and not about having a serious conversation about the gun control issue.

I guess you can add that statement to an increasingly long list of things about which you are mistaken.

Again, please be civil and stay on topic. Also, who ever mentioned anything about Bush? Did I ever mention him anywhere? I don't think I did. If you are assuming that I agreed with everything Bush did, you would be sorely mistaken.

Your lectures are becoming quite tiresome. I am neither in need of nor desirous of your constant lectures.

Regarding Bush, I was merely addressing YOUR point about Presidential mandates.

BTW, You are not allowed to limit my freedom of speech. You know, that FIRST Amendment thingy...

 

[runnin17]

Len,

You are becoming increasingly hostile. You are obviously very emotional about this issue. Also, where was I attempting to limit your freedom of speech exactly??? I merely asked nicely that we be civil and stay on topic. If you would like to deny that you are not willing to stay on topic, then please feel free to prove me wrong and let us stay on topic in this thread.

If you would like to get all worked up by bringing your uncontrolled emotions into this debate then that is your right. I won't try to limit that, but I will also not be limited in pointing out that you are being overly hostile and emotional in your arguments. If others disagree or even if you disagree, I understand, that is the nature of debates after all.

I am not trying to sway anyone at all over to my side. In fact, I would like to understand the mindset of people dead set on very strict gun control. I just don't understand it.

Also Len, to address the issue that at least Obama is doing something about it, you are absolutely correct. Please name off the 23 executive orders and explain to me how the government will enforce them or how they will make any appreciable difference in reducing gun violence. I do not believe the president is making the correct decisions regarding gun violence in America. You bring up the republicans and the NRA, but where have I said that I agree with any proposals that either one of those entities have made? I admit that there should be a serious debate about gun violence and what can be done to decrease it. I do not think knee jerk reactions or what appears to be taking advantage of a terrible tragedy are the correct decisions about something as important as the 2nd amendment.

Again, I am not in anyway trying to limit your free speech. You bringing up that actually does more to hinder your credibility as a rational poster in my opinion. I will continue to try and steer the conversation back on topic because I truly believe this is an issue that is very, very important and deserves a careful, educated decision making process by our government.

 

[Len44]

@runnin17 Hard to have a discussion or debate or whatever if all you do is hurl insults and try to belittle me. You are the one who took it to a personal attack -- not me.

Further, you use this tactic to avoid responding to ANY of the points I made.

Since it is clear you are uninterested in a legitimate discussion of the topic, I will leave you to your rigid mindset.

 

[runnin17]

@runnin17 Hard to have a discussion or debate or whatever if all you do is hurl insults and try to belittle me. You are the one who took it to a personal attack -- not me.

Further, you use this tactic to avoid responding to ANY of the points I made.

Since it is clear you are uninterested in a legitimate discussion of the topic, I will leave you to your rigid mindset.

Can someone else please weight in on this. I do not feel as though my responses fit what Len44 is accusing me of at all.

I am not using any "tactics" as I am accused of using. Again, I have not resulted to insults and I will not result to insults. I have made observations and unfortunately it seems as though Len44 believes that I am attacking him personally. I do not believe that to be the case.

Also, where have I portrayed a rigid mindset in any of my posts? I have given my opinion and have not demonized anyone with a different opinion (which, I might add, is exactly what I feel Len44 is doing regarding my posts).

 

[Gordon Gray]

Please chill.

I trust we can have a reasonable conversation without resorting to the typical "them vs us" BS that occurs way too often.

I hope that this forum is better than that.

GG

 

[timm]

Gordon -- what the heck??? I was just getting out the popcorn!! sorry.... anyway ... Len/Runnin .... I love the passion both of you exude....(I don't think I've ever actually written that word... so spell check....) .... I agree with both of you on many points... and disagree about others... but in any case having the debate is good stuff...

I would just try to avoid using the word 'you' or directly referencing the other person - unless it is complimentary... ... that is when it seems personal... You both make good points....at least I think.... Nothing wrong with having opposing views among internet 'friends'....

I have yet to hear the detail re: the President's and VP's proposal..... I really think they were between a rock and a hard place here... they had to do something....I think people want some activity in this area... they couldn't just 'stand there like the house by the side of the road' (hey, some people quote Ben Franklin... I quote Ernie Harwell!!)

 

[Hocky]

@Hocky: So explain to me where we need to draw the line here on who is and who isn't a "target".

Are you telling me that due to the small risk of my family being a target that I should not have the same right to protect them as the president? If so, that thinking is on the verge of viewing the president as a "lord" and the rest of the populace as mere peasants in my opinion.

I understand that people should quickly learn life is never fair; however, I distinctly remember hearing Obama lecturing on how he wants to make people give "their fair-share" and "do their part". So I would ask, who decides what that will be? Should Obama be the final say in what is fair? I personally don't think so.

There is obvious hypocrisy taking place is this gun regulation debate. My concern is that too many people are making an emotional decision and not a logical one.

You do have the option to have the same protection as the president, you just have to pay for it. I'd bet that you could pay off duty police to follow your family around 24/7 if you wanted to. The president and his family have it by default because like I said, they are obviously a target.

 

[runnin17]

You do have the option to have the same protection as the president, you just have to pay for it. I'd bet that you could pay off duty police to follow your family around 24/7 if you wanted to. The president and his family have it by default because like I said, they are obviously a target.

It seems people are missing my point here. I don't really care that the president has protection. I agree he should have the protection that he has. My issue is that his "protection" uses the same weapons that he wants to ban from the general population.

The fact that the president has body guards is not the issue. The issue is that the president is okay with his body guards using "assault weapons" and yet the American people cannot be trusted to use the same type of "assault weapons". Also understand that the weapons many people are up in arms about are not really assault weapons. Assault weapons refer mainly to fully automatic weapons. The weapons people are talking about are essentially the same thing as hunting rifles, but they just look more "dangerous".

I know Gordon disagrees with me on that point, but that is still my opinion of the matter about banning semi-automatic weapons. Another point is to look back at the previous "assault weapons" ban of 1994. It had no appreciable drop in the gun violence rate in America. I will again say that bad people will do bad things. The only people that further regulations and strictions on guns will punish is law abiding citizens.

 

[Gordon Gray]

runnin,

As I said before, I fully respect your position on this as I trust you do mine. Also appreciate your participation. This is not easy for anyone.

Interesting historical tid bits I heard on NPR last night regarding past gun control legislation.

After Bonnie and Clyde were captured and killed in 1933, anyone purchasing an automatic weapon (machine gun) was required to fully register the purchase / possession with the government.

In 1967, the automatic weapon ban was passed.

Interesting article on the nbcnews homepage website this AM wherein they speculate what impact Obama's "plan" would have had on the last five major gun violence episodes in this country. Newtown to Columbine.

GG

 

[Hocky]

It seems people are missing my point here. I don't really care that the president has protection. I agree he should have the protection that he has. My issue is that his "protection" uses the same weapons that he wants to ban from the general population.

The fact that the president has body guards is not the issue. The issue is that the president is okay with his body guards using "assault weapons" and yet the American people cannot be trusted to use the same type of "assault weapons". Also understand that the weapons many people are up in arms about are not really assault weapons. Assault weapons refer mainly to fully automatic weapons. The weapons people are talking about are essentially the same thing as hunting rifles, but they just look more "dangerous".

I know Gordon disagrees with me on that point, but that is still my opinion of the matter about banning semi-automatic weapons. Another point is to look back at the previous "assault weapons" ban of 1994. It had no appreciable drop in the gun violence rate in America. I will again say that bad people will do bad things. The only people that further regulations and strictions on guns will punish is law abiding citizens.

Secret service guarding the presidents kids carry assault rifles? Somehow, I doubt it. Either way, I think you're right that banning those weapons is kind of pointless and won't accomplish much.

 

[eknuds01]

Secret service guarding the presidents kids carry assault rifles? Somehow, I doubt it. Either way, I think you're right that banning those weapons is kind of pointless and won't accomplish much.

I haven't been around the President or his kids (and the guards associated with protecting them) but I have walked by the White House a number of times. Sometimes the guards on the perimeter have assault weapons out in the open and sometimes they keep the guns in "bags" that can be quickly removed.

 

[twich54]

It seems people are missing my point here. I don't really care that the president has protection. I agree he should have the protection that he has. My issue is that his "protection" uses the same weapons that he wants to ban from the general population.

trust me the weapons at the disposal of the Secret Service go WAY beyond what is being talked about here

The issue is that the president is okay with his body guards using "assault weapons" and yet the American people cannot be trusted to use the same type of "assault weapons".

no they can't, again we're talking different weapons here

The weapons people are talking about are essentially the same thing as hunting rifles, but they just look more "dangerous".

not even close, yes, in some states AR-15 style of semi-automatic is legal for 'some' kinds of hunting(usualy varmint hunting), yet some states(Pa for example) do not allow any type of semi-automatic (single projectile / metalic cartridge) weapon to be used.

I will again say that bad people will do bad things.

we agree on this point !

 

[runnin17]

Hocky,

What are your opinions on the steps that need to be taken to help decrease gun violence?

 

[Hocky]

I haven't been around the President or his kids (and the guards associated with protecting them) but I have walked by the White House a number of times. Sometimes the guards on the perimeter have assault weapons out in the open and sometimes they keep the guns in "bags" that can be quickly removed.

Sure, they definitely do, but as far as I am concerned, that is a military compound and should be guarded as such.

 

[Hocky]

Hocky,

What are your opinions on the steps that need to be taken to help decrease gun violence?

As I have already said, I have no idea. The problem is far deeper than gun control. The only way that gun control would accomplish anything is to eliminate all of the private guns in the country. For obvious reasons, this is not possible.

 

[runnin17]

As I have already said, I have no idea. The problem is far deeper than gun control. The only way that gun control would accomplish anything is to eliminate all of the private guns in the country. For obvious reasons, this is not possible.

I appreciate your honesty. I actually am a little suspicious that some of the Senate democrats would like to completely ban all guns in America. For obvious reasons they will not come out and say this. I guess a question for members here would be: Would you support a representative, senator or president that proposed banning all guns and doing away with the 2nd amendment?

EDIT: Also, I wanted to see what people thoughts are on Governor Cuomo's legislation in New York state. I am curious to see if the majority of people understand the implications of the restrictions put in place in New York.

 

[Hocky]

I guess a question for members here would be: Would you support a representative, senator or president that proposed banning all guns and doing away with the 2nd amendment?

For me, if it could be done in a fashion that EVERY firearm was collected from the public, I would be indifferent. I think it sets a bad precedent, but I think having the worst murder rates in the civilized world does, too. But they can't possibly do that, so no, I wouldn't.