Here come the gun control creeps.

[Skinny Shooter]

http://www.newsweek.com/2011/01/27/w...n-control.html

Obama intentionally did not mention gun control in his State of the Union, but aides say that in the next two weeks the administration will unveil a campaign to get Congress to toughen existing laws.


At the beginning of his State of the Union address, President Obama tipped his hat to Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, who’s now recuperating in a Houston medical facility. But throughout the hourlong speech, he never addressed the issue at the core of the Giffords tragedy—gun control—and what lawmakers would, or should, do to reform American firearm-access laws.

That was intentional, according to the White House. An administration official says Obama didn’t mention guns in his speech because of the omnipresent controversy surrounding the Second Amendment and gun control. Tuesday’s speech was designed to be more about the economy and how, as Obama repeated nine times, the U.S. could “win the future.”

But in the next two weeks, the White House will unveil a new gun-control effort in which it will urge Congress to strengthen current laws, which now allow some mentally unstable people, such as alleged Arizona shooter Jared Loughner, to obtain certain assault weapons, in some cases without even a background check.

Tuesday night after the speech, Obama adviser David Plouffe said to NBC News that the president would not let the moment after the Arizona shootings pass without pushing for some change in the law, to prevent another similar incident. “It’s a very important issue, and one I know there’s going to be debate about on the Hill.”

The White House said that to avoid being accused of capitalizing on the Arizona shootings for political gain, Obama will address the gun issue in a separate speech, likely early next month. He’s also expected to use Arizona as a starting point, but make the case that America’s gun laws have been too loose for much longer than just the past few weeks.

As the White House prepares its strategy, several gun-policy groups are saying they were burned by the lack of any mention of guns in the president’s highest-profile speech of the year. “President Obama tonight failed to challenge old assumptions on the need for, and political possibilities of, reducing the gun violence—which he suggested should be done two weeks ago in Tucson,” said Paul Helmke, president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, the nation’s largest gun-safety group. No group said it had been consulted by the White House regarding legislative suggestions.

Meanwhile, the National Rifle Association has stayed largely silent following the Arizona shootings. Asked about a specialized White House effort on guns, a spokesman for the powerful gun lobby declined to comment.

And the comments are interesting too:

Stephen
Like everyone else I cannot believe the way this article is written. "The issue at the core of the Giffords tragedy—gun control...", "assault weapons", "Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, the nation’s largest gun-safety group."

And my favorite: "The White House said that to avoid being accused of capitalizing on the Arizona shootings for political gain... Obama expected to use Arizona as a starting point," I mean come on! Those sentences are back-to-back!

Obama is not stupid. The reason he didn't mention his anti-gun stance it in the State of the Union speech is because he knows it is a losing agenda. This is probably about the LAST thing he should be trying to push for to keep his ratings from falling any lower. He'll put on a dog and pony show, waste everyones time, and then accomplish nothing.

Although this may be a good remember to WRITE YOUR CONGRESSMEN and ask them to not support any anti-gun nonsense.
Today, 4:17:53 PM– Flag – Like – Reply – Delete – Edit – Moderate

D James
Oh goody... BHO will make another speech. The man does love the sound of his own voice.

Joe
I believe in gun control, in fact every time I squeeze the trigger with a clear sight picture, my gun is in my complete control.
Today, 4:08:02 PM– Flag – Like – Reply – Delete – Edit – ModerateLiked byRod in KS

Tamara Kreisler
The strongest reason for the
people to retain the right to keep and bear arms
is, as a last resort, to protect themselves
against tyranny in government.
Thomas Jefferson

FYI...In cases of mass genocide it always started with disarming the people.
Today, 4:06:00 PM– Flag – Like – Reply – Delete – Edit – ModerateLiked byRod in KS

Michael Miller
FYI Jefferson didn't write the Constitution, nor was he even in the US at the time of the writing. Seems no one quotes the people who were there.
Today, 4:11:06 PM– Flag – Like – Reply – Delete – Edit – Moderate

Tim Gunderson
FYI - She didn't say that he helped write the Constitution
Today, 4:14:45 PM– Flag – Like – Reply – Delete – Edit – Moderate

Dave Colf
Why, then, do Statists use Jefferson to subvert the First Amendment by making the specious claim that there is a "wall of separation between the church and the state"?
Today, 4:16:12 PM– Flag – Like – Reply – Delete – Edit – Moderate

Lex Terry
Typical; Where did he say that was in the constitution. You are to eager to disagree and argue, engage your brain first.
Today, 4:17:31 PM– Flag – Like – Reply

Wndsrf Boston
I cannot believe I am lowering myself to post on a "Newsweek" story, but I knew Obama would use this as a way to try to disarm people (i.e. pee on the Constitution yet even more than he has). Constitutional Attorney indeed, more like Anti-Constitutional attorney. People have that right to arm themselves but I do agree people should have mental health exams and then training prior to purchasing in addition to the background check. of course there is always the black market so the point is meaningless.
Today, 4:00:05 PM– Flag – Like – Reply – Delete – Edit – ModerateLiked byRod in KS

scott c
The 1st step toards total control is to take away the peoples ability to fight back. The founders of this nation specifically put the 2nd Amendment in as a check against government oppression.
For those that are not very good at history, the founders fought against an oppressive, totalitarian governemnt that didn't care about their rights. They used guns to do so, they made sure that if the new government they formed became something like the one they overthrew, their decendants would have the ability to stop an oppressive government.

Government officials that want to ban guns, don't want to ban them to prevent civilians from shooting civilians. They want to ban them to prevent civilians from shooting government officals and as a measure of control over the populace. They want the law abiding to live in fear. People living in fear will accept the loss of their rights if it gives them a sense of security.
Just look at the TSA. We've gone from metal detectors, to nude body images to full on molestation, all in the name of "safety".


But as has been mentioned every time a shooting like this occurs, the liberals can't grow the man bits to lay the blame where it belongs. The criminal that did the shooting is the problem. Not the firearm.
Today, 3:59:47 PM– Flag – Like – Reply – Delete – Edit – Moderate

D James
Citizens do not shoot citizens, criminals shot citizens. Bo you think a criminal gives a rats @ss about the law?
Today, 4:17:46 PM– Flag – Like – Reply

Jon D
"... the issue at the core of the Giffords tragedy - Gun Control".

This is about as stupid as stupid can be. To suggest that the GUN had some sort of control over that wacko is not only miss leading, but people are put into padded rooms for projecting human attributes onto inanimate object.
Today, 3:57:02 PM– Flag – Like – Reply – Delete – Edit – Moderate