Obama's a Crybaby...

[jknowgood]

Poor little guy, can't pass his gun laws by negotiating a resolution in Congress so he cries like a spoiled little boob.
No wonder the world thinks he's a joke and Americans are embarrassed by him.

Sad indeed that Obama would USE these children, the tragedy of it ... for his political gain.

Lumpy, I never thought very much of you, but I always held out hope that you'd someday prove yourself a worthy human.

You are absolute filth.

You're an asshole of the worst order.

I hope you have nightmares about these babies every single night until you die, you appalling scumbag.

Clear?

I hope the same about you and the millions of babies being murdered through abortion, you support.

 

[Flopper]

Poor little guy, can't pass his gun laws by negotiating a resolution in Congress so he cries like a spoiled little boob.

No wonder the world thinks he's a joke and Americans are embarrassed by him.

However, it seems the public agrees with him.

Well, that's what the liberal media tells their gullible followers I would guess.

No, that's what major polls have been telling us for years.
a CBS News/New York Times poll found that 92 percent of Americans — including 87 percent of Republicans — favor background checks for all gun buyers.

In 6 Quinnipiac polls conducted between 1999 to 2013 respondents were asked , "Would you support or oppose a law requiring background checks on people buying guns at gun shows or online". Yes replies varied from a low 86% to a high of 92%.
Guns

In 16 Gallop polls conducted between 1990 to 2015, a majority of responses in all but 3 polls supported more strict gun control laws. The current poll shows:
55% support stricter gun control
33% keep as it is now
11% less strict.
Guns

 

[Bob Blaylock]

a CBS News/New York Times poll found that 92 percent of Americans — including 87 percent of Republicans — favor background checks for all gun buyers.

If that were true, then where's the attempt to ratify a new Constitutional Amendment to allow it?

The Second Amendment is absolutely clear, regarding the people's right to keep and bear arms. Requiring anyone to pass any sort of background check as a condition of being allowed to exercise this right is absolutely a violation of the Second Amendment, and as such, illegal and unconstitutional.

The only way it could ever be legitimate would be to ratify a new amendment, which supersedes the Second Amendment, and which establishes the authority of the federal government to impose such limitations on this right. By wise design, it is not a trivial task to ratify a new amendment, but if there was really anything close to 92% public support for any such amendment, then that would be enough to make it almost certain to pass.

I say that the 92% claim, and similar claims that we've been hearing over the past several years, are blatant lies; and that those repeating theses claims know very well that they are lies. That, I say, is why there is no effort underway to enact a new amendment to make it happen legitimately; they know that there is nowhere near enough public support to give any such effort any plausible chance of success. That is why those on the wrong, rather than attempting to pursue this agenda through legitimate means, instead continue to resort to illegitimate, dishonest means to circumvent and violate the Constitution rather than trying to amend it.

 

[Valerie]

Sad indeed that Obama would USE these children, the tragedy of it ... for his political gain.

i never understood this line of reasoning on this topic... such bullshit.

 

[TNHarley]

The President isn't a crybaby. He's not using the victims for any wingnut-imagined agenda.
.

After San Bernadino, his first response was we needed gun control. NOTHING about the victims.
YOU believe it. Loosen up your skank skirt grandma..its cutting off circulation..

 

[Valerie]

After San Bernadino, his first response was we needed gun control. NOTHING about the victims.

more bullshit. btw you should have more respect for your grandmother.

Loosen up your skank skirt grandma..

 

[TooTall]

Shedding tears over 1st graders and their deaths is easy to do if one has emotion. He did. Benghazi was an awful thing, but I did not cry. San Bernadino, I did not cry although I was very angry and upset. See a kitten or a puppy being abused or hurt...I flood.

He was sincere in his grief thinking about those children. But, believe what you want. I liked his speech and his tears made me sad.

The point is he didn't have to mention those kids. Nothing he proposed would have made any difference ;in the outcome of that tragedy. But he sure would like for you to think so.

The point is, he DID mention those kids because they were victims to a gun attack and were part of the topic just as San Bern was, The theater, etc. And thinking about the children made him tear up. Finding excuses, making fun of him for having heart about those little kids is just....warped.

The point is he mentioned those kids to use them to make his political point.

 

[TNHarley]

After San Bernadino, his first response was we needed gun control. NOTHING about the victims.

more bullshit. btw you should have more respect for your grandmother.

Loosen up your skank skirt grandma..

lol ok
Grandma has said she dresses like a teenage girl craving a bukkake

 

[Flopper]

a CBS News/New York Times poll found that 92 percent of Americans — including 87 percent of Republicans — favor background checks for all gun buyers.

If that were true, then where's the attempt to ratify a new Constitutional Amendment to allow it?

The Second Amendment is absolutely clear, regarding the people's right to keep and bear arms. Requiring anyone to pass any sort of background check as a condition of being allowed to exercise this right is absolutely a violation of the Second Amendment, and as such, illegal and unconstitutional.

The only way it could ever be legitimate would be to ratify a new amendment, which supersedes the Second Amendment, and which establishes the authority of the federal government to impose such limitations on this right. By wise design, it is not a trivial task to ratify a new amendment, but if there was really anything close to 92% public support for any such amendment, then that would be enough to make it almost certain to pass.

I say that the 92% claim, and similar claims that we've been hearing over the past several years, are blatant lies; and that those repeating theses claims know very well that they are lies. That, I say, is why there is no effort underway to enact a new amendment to make it happen legitimately; they know that there is nowhere near enough public support to give any such effort any plausible chance of success. That is why those on the wrong, rather than attempting to pursue this agenda through legitimate means, instead continue to resort to illegitimate, dishonest means to circumvent and violate the Constitution rather than trying to amend it.

Most Americans don't want to strike down the 2nd amendment but neither do they want completely unrestricted access firearms. In other words, most Americans won't some measure of gun control but they don't want to abolish private ownership.

It would be difficult to change the constitution to include gun control because the country is too divided as to the amount of gun control they want and what kind of control. Till then, which may be never, the courts will have to determine just how much gun control is allowed.

92% does seem high. Possibly this poll was taken the day after a mass shooting. However, there are just too many polls by major polling services that all come up the same conclusion, most people want stricter gun controls. It's also clear from the polls that the specific gun control measure is very important to people.

 

[Flopper]

Shedding tears over 1st graders and their deaths is easy to do if one has emotion. He did. Benghazi was an awful thing, but I did not cry. San Bernadino, I did not cry although I was very angry and upset. See a kitten or a puppy being abused or hurt...I flood.

He was sincere in his grief thinking about those children. But, believe what you want. I liked his speech and his tears made me sad.

The point is he didn't have to mention those kids. Nothing he proposed would have made any difference ;in the outcome of that tragedy. But he sure would like for you to think so.

The point is, he DID mention those kids because they were victims to a gun attack and were part of the topic just as San Bern was, The theater, etc. And thinking about the children made him tear up. Finding excuses, making fun of him for having heart about those little kids is just....warped.

The point is he mentioned those kids to use them to make his political point.

If the death and injury of children from guns were a rarely, then I would say the president is out of bound, but it isn't. 10,000 Kids Are Injured Or Killed with Guns Each Year In The U.S.

 

[TooTall]

Shedding tears over 1st graders and their deaths is easy to do if one has emotion. He did. Benghazi was an awful thing, but I did not cry. San Bernadino, I did not cry although I was very angry and upset. See a kitten or a puppy being abused or hurt...I flood.

He was sincere in his grief thinking about those children. But, believe what you want. I liked his speech and his tears made me sad.

The point is he didn't have to mention those kids. Nothing he proposed would have made any difference ;in the outcome of that tragedy. But he sure would like for you to think so.

The point is, he DID mention those kids because they were victims to a gun attack and were part of the topic just as San Bern was, The theater, etc. And thinking about the children made him tear up. Finding excuses, making fun of him for having heart about those little kids is just....warped.

The point is he mentioned those kids to use them to make his political point.

If the death and injury of children from guns were a rarely, then I would say the president is outbound, but it isn't. 10,000 Kids Are Injured Or Killed with Guns Each Year In The U.S.

That is true, and nothing Obama has proposed would change that in the least.

 

[Clementine]

He is not a cry baby. He is a fraud. If anyone thought those tears were real... I got some swamp land to sell you.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Most Americans don't want to strike down the 2nd amendment but neither do they want completely unrestricted access firearms. In other words, most Americans won't some measure of gun control but they don't want to abolish private ownership.

You can't have it both ways.

The Second Amendment affirms the right of the people to keep and bear arms, and forbids infringement of this right. As long as the Second Amendment stands, every act of government which interferes with this right is blatantly illegal and unconstitutional.

If it is desired that government should have any legitimate authority to interfere with this right, then this can only be achieved by ratifying a new amendment which supersedes the Second Amendment, and which establishes this authority on the part of government.

Unless and until that is done, the highest law of the land is that the American people do, indeed, have an unrestricted right to acquire, possess, and carry arms, and that there is not a thing that government can legitimately do against this right.

It would be difficult to change the constitution to include gun control because the country is too divided as to the amount of gun control they want and what kind of control. Till then, which may be never, the courts will have to determine just how much gun control is allowed.

92% does seem high. Possibly this poll was taken the day after a mass shooting. However, there are just too many polls by major polling services that all come up the same conclusion, most people want stricter gun controls. It's also clear from the polls that the specific gun control measure is very important to people.

By wise design, it is indeed difficult to amend the Constitution. But if there was really anything close to 92% support for it, then it would happen. 92% support is more than enough to assure that such an effort would be undertaken, and that it would succeed. That it has not happened, and that there is not any plausible effort underway to make it happen proves, beyond any question, that the 92% claim is a flat-out lie, and that most of those who insist on repeating it know damn well that it is a lie.

 

[eagle1462010]

 

[Flopper]

Shedding tears over 1st graders and their deaths is easy to do if one has emotion. He did. Benghazi was an awful thing, but I did not cry. San Bernadino, I did not cry although I was very angry and upset. See a kitten or a puppy being abused or hurt...I flood.

He was sincere in his grief thinking about those children. But, believe what you want. I liked his speech and his tears made me sad.

The point is he didn't have to mention those kids. Nothing he proposed would have made any difference ;in the outcome of that tragedy. But he sure would like for you to think so.

The point is, he DID mention those kids because they were victims to a gun attack and were part of the topic just as San Bern was, The theater, etc. And thinking about the children made him tear up. Finding excuses, making fun of him for having heart about those little kids is just....warped.

The point is he mentioned those kids to use them to make his political point.

If the death and injury of children from guns were a rarely, then I would say the president is outbound, but it isn't. 10,000 Kids Are Injured Or Killed with Guns Each Year In The U.S.

That is true, and nothing Obama has proposed would change that in the least.

I don't think anyone knows what the impact might. Although it may appear to be major step toward restricting gun sales, it's really not much.

 

[Rustic]

Killed by a progressive nutter...

 

[Flopper]

Most Americans don't want to strike down the 2nd amendment but neither do they want completely unrestricted access firearms. In other words, most Americans won't some measure of gun control but they don't want to abolish private ownership.

You can't have it both ways.

The Second Amendment affirms the right of the people to keep and bear arms, and forbids infringement of this right. As long as the Second Amendment stands, every act of government which interferes with this right is blatantly illegal and unconstitutional.

If it is desired that government should have any legitimate authority to interfere with this right, then this can only be achieved by ratifying a new amendment which supersedes the Second Amendment, and which establishes this authority on the part of government.

Unless and until that is done, the highest law of the land is that the American people do, indeed, have an unrestricted right to acquire, possess, and carry arms, and that there is not a thing that government can legitimately do against this right.

It would be difficult to change the constitution to include gun control because the country is too divided as to the amount of gun control they want and what kind of control. Till then, which may be never, the courts will have to determine just how much gun control is allowed.

92% does seem high. Possibly this poll was taken the day after a mass shooting. However, there are just too many polls by major polling services that all come up the same conclusion, most people want stricter gun controls. It's also clear from the polls that the specific gun control measure is very important to people.

By wise design, it is indeed difficult to amend the Constitution. But if there was really anything close to 92% support for it, then it would happen. 92% support is more than enough to assure that such an effort would be undertaken, and that it would succeed. That it has not happened, and that there is not any plausible effort underway to make it happen proves, beyond any question, that the 92% claim is a flat-out lie, and that most of those who insist on repeating it know damn well that it is a lie.

I might believe the country needs striker gun control but that doesn't mean I will necessary vote for a candidate that supports it because there are many many other issues to consider. Gun control can be anything from an age restriction, to outright abolishing private ownership. There are few people that think that young children should be able to buy guns but most people would be against abolishing private ownership. So when we say gun control without specifics, it can mean different things to different people.

Also, the polls vary a lot with current events and attitudes. For example, the Gallop gun control poll had a high of 78% supporting stricter controls just before 911 and a low of 44% in 2012. A single poll is not very important but when many polls over a period of years show most Americans favor stricter gun control, then that is meaningful. Over 70% of Gallup Gun Control Polls conducted from 1990 to 2015 show most people favor stricter gun control. The latest polls show 55% of the people favor stricter controls.

In these polls, gun control measures that would effect all gun owners such as licensing and registration of all firearms was very unpopular while closing the loop on background checks at gun shows had a high level of support. In short, most people support gun control as long as it doesn't effect them personally.