Obama to announce new gun restrictions

#526
#526
Gramps said:
The President is asked policy questions by the media that wants to be called on. The media today liberal or conservative is not going to ask the tough question the way they did back pretty 1990. They will be careful what they ask or they will not be called on or called on rarely.

At a town hall it is not media. The one question the person ask is most likely the only question they will ever be able to ask a president in their lifetime so they can ask the question they want to.
Click to expand...

troll.jpg
 
#527
#527
theFallGuy said:
'The National Rifle Association sees no reason to participate in a public relations spectacle orchestrated by the White House,' spokesman Andrew Arulanandam told CNN.

can't blame them for that
Click to expand...

I do and am sure the majority of Americans will. The NRA is the voice of gun rights yet decide an invite by a president that is opposed to their views to dicuss gun rights.

Where they scared to ask a question?
 
#529
#529
Gramps said:
The President is asked policy questions by the media that wants to be called on. The media today liberal or conservative is not going to ask the tough question the way they did back pretty 1990. They will be careful what they ask or they will not be called on or called on rarely.

At a town hall it is not media. The one question the person ask is most likely the only question they will ever be able to ask a president in their lifetime so they can ask the question they want to.
Click to expand...

What was the most daring question he was asked. The one that stuck out to you as not being pre-screened?
 
#530
#530
Gramps said:
I do and am sure the majority of Americans will. The NRA is the voice of gun rights yet decide an invite by a president that is opposed to their views to dicuss gun rights.

Where they scared to ask a question?
Click to expand...

Would they have been allowed? You have no idea what conditions were placed on their invitation and you cannot honestly say there weren't. Nothing this guy does isn't orchestrated.
 
#531
#531
hog88 said:
What was the most daring question he was asked. The one that stuck out to you as not being pre-screened?
Click to expand...

I did not watch 5 minutes of it and turned the channel. Trump speaking in Vermont was a better show.
 
#533
#533
VolsNSkinsFan said:
"Freely taking questions". It was invite only
Click to expand...

Gramps said:
It was invite but people opposed to his policies were invited.
Name another president that answered questions from those opposed to their policies.
I cannot think of one. The townhall was useless but that is something I do not recall happening before
Click to expand...


Gramps is correct.

The NRA was invited.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#536
#536
hog88 said:
Under what conditions?

I'll ask you what I asked Gramps, what was the most pointed question O was asked, the one that stood out as not pre-screened?
Click to expand...

Exactly. I'm sure they were invited to look like the bad guys.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#537
#537
davethevol said:
Exactly. I'm sure they were invited to look like the bad guys.
Click to expand...

There's really nothing more to say here. After 7 years...if one doesn't understand why this would have been a bad arrangement for the NRA, then that person still doesn't understand Obama.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#538
#538
Gramps said:
I do and am sure the majority of Americans will. The NRA is the voice of gun rights yet decide an invite by a president that is opposed to their views to dicuss gun rights.

Where they scared to ask a question?
Click to expand...
How many people even knew about this thing, much less watched it? I think to say a "majority" is a reach.
 
#539
#539
hog88 said:
Under what conditions?

I'll ask you what I asked Gramps, what was the most pointed question O was asked, the one that stood out as not pre-screened?
Click to expand...


I couldn't say, I only saw part of it. I did see there were some women who seemed very upset at the notion of not being able to get a gun as they had personally been the victims of crime before. Obama said in response that none of his proposals would make it harder for them to get a gun. And of course that is correct.

The discussion of guns that are purchaser-specific and can only be used by the purchaser was interesting. The proposal is to research the possibility of that technology. What's wrong with that? I get people say its not feasible, but what is wrong with looking into it to see if it is?

Even if its just one day an option for people, as Obama pointed out, there might be a lot of people who would like that option so that, if they wanted to buy a gun to have for home protection, for example, they could be sure that their 3 year old didn't accidentally fire it, or that if they caught a burglar in the act the gun isn't turned and used against them.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#540
#540
lawgator1 said:
I couldn't say, I only saw part of it. I did see there were some women who seemed very upset at the notion of not being able to get a gun as they had personally been the victims of crime before. Obama said in response that none of his proposals would make it harder for them to get a gun. And of course that is correct.

The discussion of guns that are purchaser-specific and can only be used by the purchaser was interesting. The proposal is to research the possibility of that technology. What's wrong with that? I get people say its not feasible, but what is wrong with looking into it to see if it is?

Even if its just one day an option for people, as Obama pointed out, there might be a lot of people who would like that option so that, if they wanted to buy a gun to have for home protection, for example, they could be sure that their 3 year old didn't accidentally fire it, or that if they caught a burglar in the act the gun isn't turned and used against them.
Click to expand...
The free market will take care of it. If there is a market for this kind of weapon, S&W/Glock/H&K will make one. Attempting to force this thru legislation will not work, and once again, it won't do a damned thing to solve the problem that he is allegedly targeting.
 
#541
#541
SpaceCoastVol said:
The free market will take care of it. If there is a market for this kind of weapon, S&W/Glock/H&K will make one. Attempting to force this thru legislation will not work, and once again, it won't do a damned thing to solve the problem that he is allegedly targeting.
Click to expand...


Its not forcing them to do anything. Its government funded research. They can assist if they want, but are not required to.

Their incentives are mixed. Presumably, as Obama said, there might be a market for such an option for certain types of gun owners.

On the other hand, the gun manufacturers might worry that people would be diswayed from buying such a gun because then they could not buy and resell in straw purchase situations, or even just for cash in a pinch.

Honestly, I don't know how the gun manufacturing owners sleep at night knowing that they are making their money by selling an inherently dangerous product that they could make much safer, if they wanted to, but don't for the sake of money.

Must take some pretty tortured logic in their minds each night to put all that aside.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#542
#542
lawgator1 said:
I couldn't say, I only saw part of it. I did see there were some women who seemed very upset at the notion of not being able to get a gun as they had personally been the victims of crime before. Obama said in response that none of his proposals would make it harder for them to get a gun. And of course that is correct.

The discussion of guns that are purchaser-specific and can only be used by the purchaser was interesting. The proposal is to research the possibility of that technology. What's wrong with that? I get people say its not feasible, but what is wrong with looking into it to see if it is?

Even if its just one day an option for people, as Obama pointed out, there might be a lot of people who would like that option so that, if they wanted to buy a gun to have for home protection, for example, they could be sure that their 3 year old didn't accidentally fire it, or that if they caught a burglar in the act the gun isn't turned and used against them.
Click to expand...

I see nothing wrong with private companies investing R&D money on this technology. I have an issue with the government funding or requiring the research.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#543
#543
lawgator1 said:
Its not forcing them to do anything. Its government funded research. They can assist if they want, but are not required to.

Their incentives are mixed. Presumably, as Obama said, there might be a market for such an option for certain types of gun owners.

On the other hand, the gun manufacturers might worry that people would be diswayed from buying such a gun because then they could not buy and resell in straw purchase situations, or even just for cash in a pinch.

Honestly, I don't know how the gun manufacturing owners sleep at night knowing that they are making their money by selling an inherently dangerous product that they could make much safer, if they wanted to, but don't for the sake of money.

Must take some pretty tortured logic in their minds each night to put all that aside.
Click to expand...

On big piles of cash since 2008.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#544
#544
lawgator1 said:
I couldn't say, I only saw part of it. I did see there were some women who seemed very upset at the notion of not being able to get a gun as they had personally been the victims of crime before. Obama said in response that none of his proposals would make it harder for them to get a gun. And of course that is correct.

The discussion of guns that are purchaser-specific and can only be used by the purchaser was interesting. The proposal is to research the possibility of that technology. What's wrong with that? I get people say its not feasible, but what is wrong with looking into it to see if it is?

Even if its just one day an option for people, as Obama pointed out, there might be a lot of people who would like that option so that, if they wanted to buy a gun to have for home protection, for example, they could be sure that their 3 year old didn't accidentally fire it, or that if they caught a burglar in the act the gun isn't turned and used against them.
Click to expand...

I didn't see any of this so could you (or anyone) explain how such research into such tech isn't already happening?

I'll make the same argument I did in another thread; at such point this tech is sufficiently accepted that LEO and other government agents would carry them I'd consider that tech pretty well vetted. Short of that, I'm not buying any.

HOWEVER, I think it a swell idea to have the option of such devices available. I'm sure there would be a market though I'm not sure how big or how soon they'd be generally accepted. (see above)

Then there's the "we don't trust the government" issues. You can play the role of Captain Dismissal all you want but these are issues people would have.

At what point could/would such tech become "mandatory"? This segues very nicely into having the "devices" tracked. (de facto universal registration)

For "our" safety would such devices be capable of being OnStar-like shut down? If so, how does one guarantee that process couldn't be hacked by the bad guys? Or the government at their discretion?

Upshot, I don't think the base idea of smart gun tech is bad but it's something that people who have trust issues with the government (read: all rational people) are wary of regarding it's use.
 
#545
#545
Gramps said:
I do and am sure the majority of Americans will. The NRA is the voice of gun rights yet decide an invite by a president that is opposed to their views to dicuss gun rights.

Where they scared to ask a question?
Click to expand...

A President sitting in a room filled with his sycophants holding a Town Hall Meeting on a network that is merely an extension of the Democratic National Committee. I could see why they turned it down. CNN doesn't have a history of being fair to those who don't have a (D) next to their name.

Somehow I doubt the President would accept a similar invite from the NRA to appear in a debate held on the Blaze Network or Fox News with Cavuto, Hannity, and Krauthammer moderating.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#546
#546
lawgator1 said:
Honestly, I don't know how the gun manufacturing owners sleep at night knowing that they are making their money by selling an inherently dangerous product that they could make much safer, if they wanted to, but don't for the sake of money.
Click to expand...

Perhaps they should merely give those guns to Mexican drug lords free of charge without any background check or string attached?

That seemed to work fine for the well-rested gun supplier residing on 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue in the District of Columbia. Perhaps it would work equally well for those who actually have to follow the law in these matters.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#547
#547
T.N. Buckingham said:
A President sitting in a room filled with his sycophants holding a Town Hall Meeting on a network that is merely an extension of the Democratic National Committee. I could see why they turned it down. CNN doesn't have a history of being fair to those who don't have a (D) next to their name.

Somehow I doubt the President would accept a similar invite from the NRA to appear in a debate held on the Blaze Network or Fox News with Cavuto, Hannity, and Krauthammer moderating.
Click to expand...


Anderson Copper is as fair as any reporter in the media.

This was not a debate.It was a town hall. So you know the difference?

The NRA could have expressed a concern and ask Obama a question about it, instead the cowards at the NRA refused to make an appearance concerning the one thing they are the nation's largest lobbyist. NRA = COWARDS.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#548
#548
Gramps said:
Anderson Copper is as fair as any reporter in the media.

This was not a debate.It was a town hall. So you know the difference?

The NRA could have expressed a concern and ask Obama a question about it, instead the cowards at the NRA refused to make an appearance concerning the one thing they are the nation's largest lobbyist. NRA = COWARDS.
Click to expand...

Now you're trolling...
 
  • Like
Reactions: 6 people
#549
#549
Gramps said:
The NRA could have expressed a concern and ask Obama a question about it, instead the cowards at the NRA refused to make an appearance concerning the one thing they are the nation's largest lobbyist. NRA = COWARDS.
Click to expand...

This was a reply to LG in another thread but it essentially mirrors the context here.

Or...and stay with me on this...the NRA already knows they're polarizing as hell as an entity (I've literally heard the argument they're a terrorist organization posited by some) and want "the people" that hold their shared values to make the argument.

Maybe that's the right ploy and maybe it isn't. Maybe, as you suggest, they should have a direct representative in attendance. All I'm saying is it might not be...and not for the reasons you suggest.
Click to expand...
 
#550
#550
hndog609 said:
This was a reply to LG in another thread but it essentially mirrors the context here.
Click to expand...

That was actually a quote from lg. I remember it, mainly because I was surprised that I wasn't a bit surprised when lg played the "terrorist" card.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top