WN: Obama angrily denounces gun-rights groups as willful liars - Wash

[WorthyNewsBot]

President Obama angrily blamed the defeat Wednesday of his centerpiece gun-control proposal on lies spread by the National Rifle Association, calling it "a pretty shameful day for Washington."

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/apr/17/obama-denounces-gun-rights-groups-willful-liars/

[ayin jade]

Has he looked in the mirror lately?

[revolutionist90]

I thought those who oppose the bill had a good point in that it would not stop another Sandy Hook or terrorists attack. The guns of the Sandy Hook murderer were either taken from his mother who is legally sane and safe or they were illegal. And the mother had the guns for a while so a longer/stringent background check would not have affected her. The son would not have been able to get guns but he could just get them from his mom. The bill would not really help with guns that are already illegal to have anyway. I think the gun laws are a response to emotional pain from Sandy Hook. There just seems to be a urge to do something even if that something would not help another incident from occurring. Also how far would the background checks go? Would it include anyone who has had some type of psychological spout such as depression or anxiety even if the events occurred many years ago? What type of psychological problems would be screened? Would it over rule patient-doctor privacy? Due to the problems the DEA has with drugs trafficking I really don't think bills that try to stop gun trafficking are going to have any more success.

I'm also getting more and more discontent with Obama due to some of the laws he is passing (and not telling the people about) so I don't really think he should be talking so strongly.

[OakWood]

Obama shows anger at those interfering with his anti-gun policies, but he doesn't get angry over the deaths of innocent people such as the Boston Marathon attacks or the Sandy Hook massacre. In fact Obama shows no anger over the things that would make most people angry but only shows anger when someone or something is interfering with his political agenda. What does this say about the President? You can decide.

Edited April 18, 2013 by WillowWood

[JustinM]

Where did I hear about misuse of Senate rules to pass a law before? I remember, wasn't it the simple majority 51 votes that passed obamacare, which turned out to be a tax? Why wasn't the President complaining about misusing the rules then?

I am relieved that he has suffered a defeat. But, I know he won't give up on his pursuit of the destruction of the US Constitution, so we have to challenge him every time he tries to undermine/usurp it. Hopefully, he won't be able to get anything else accomplished throughout the rest of his term. He won't fully grasp having a lameduck 2nd term until after the 2014 elections. He will get to sit impotent (not omnipotent as he's been accustomed to) as he sees the disasters of his presidency come to fruition. The implosion of Obamacare will be the first of these disasters, if not the economy or global conflict.

[RejectedStone]

But, I know he won't give up on his pursuit of the destruction of the US Constitution, so we have to challenge him every time he tries to undermine/usurp it.

How exactly does expanding criminal background checks for firearm purchases destroy the Constitution?

[The_Patriot21]

its the first step to complete confiscation rejected, first off, second, its none of the governments business. The second ammendment says we have the right to keep and bear arms-not the right only keep and bear arms that the government knows about. Seeing as the second amendment was put there, as a fail safe in case the government falls to tyranny, the government knowing where the guns are so they can confiscate them, kinda defeats the entire purpose of the second amendment.

[RejectedStone]

its the first step to complete confiscation rejected, first off, second, its none of the governments business. The second ammendment says we have the right to keep and bear arms-not the right only keep and bear arms that the government knows about. Seeing as the second amendment was put there, as a fail safe in case the government falls to tyranny, the government knowing where the guns are so they can confiscate them, kinda defeats the entire purpose of the second amendment.

Saying that it's the first step to confiscation is ridiculous. This is akin to saying that there can be no limit to any constitutional rights. This isn't the case, and never has been. Are anti-libel laws the first step to the abolition of free speech? Are city permits the first step to taking way the right to peaceably assemble? Of course not.

Also, the law in question didn't create a mechanism for the government to "know about" where all the guns were. It provided for criminal background checks for most (not all) gun sales. If the goverment wanted to know who legally owned guns, they could check the state permits. I suppose those are unconsitutional as well?

[MorningGlory]

Obama shows anger at those interfering with his anti-gun policies, but he doesn't get angry over the deaths of innocent people such as the Boston Marathon attacks or the Sandy Hook massacre. In fact Obama shows no anger over the things that would make most people angry but only shows anger when someone or something is interfering with his political agenda. What does this say about the President? You can decide.

I think the President DID show anger and consternation about both the Sandy Hook and Boston atrocities. He also suffered a stinging defeat with his own party not supporting the proposed gun laws. The people don't want tighter restrictions and the Congress doesn't want to suffer the consequences of passing them. IMO, it's DOA...

[MorningGlory]

its the first step to complete confiscation rejected, first off, second, its none of the governments business. The second ammendment says we have the right to keep and bear arms-not the right only keep and bear arms that the government knows about. Seeing as the second amendment was put there, as a fail safe in case the government falls to tyranny, the government knowing where the guns are so they can confiscate them, kinda defeats the entire purpose of the second amendment.

Saying that it's the first step to confiscation is ridiculous. This is akin to saying that there can be no limit to any constitutional rights. This isn't the case, and never has been. Are anti-libel laws the first step to the abolition of free speech? Are city permits the first step to taking way the right to peaceably assemble? Of course not.

Also, the law in question didn't create a mechanism for the government to "know about" where all the guns were. It provided for criminal background checks for most (not all) gun sales. If the goverment wanted to know who legally owned guns, they could check the state permits. I suppose those are unconsitutional as well?

All the government has to do is enforce EXISTING gun laws to tighten up access to weapons....they lack the political will to do that as well.