Gun lobby chief challenges Obama to televised debate.

[TITAN308]

We don't know if it was one attempt or not. However, I can understand why they wouldn't spend a ton of time trying to get the NRA to cooperate with them.

That makes no sense, wouldn't the NRA be the core source you would want to continue dialogue with? If you can eventually made head way with the NRA, that would trickle down to gun owners.

It has happened in the past!

[Pangean]

But he had time for a "beer summit". LMFAO

He apparently had his priorities straight them. What would you want to do? Have some beers and chat with some folks or spend an hour with Wayne Lapierre? The choice is obvious.

[Nefarious Tea]

Seems pretty clear that's your opinion.

Pro-tip:

Dishonesty and posturing is a life philosophy for lobbyists.

[Kalis]

Is it normal to go into a debate and do no research on common topics for the subject you know ahead of time?

Why do you think people want to know the questions beforehand? It's so they can use appropriate research in order to answer the questions.

Are you openly admitting that for all his talk about guns, he actually doesn't know a lot of information about them?

Still coming off as as excuses to me personally.

I highly doubt Obama knows every single firearm statistic available. Has anyone ever made the claim he does? I expect like most politicians he has a team of advisors doing what advisors do.

Obama is President of the USA, he has to know a lot about a broad range of subjects, now compare that to what is expected of someone who leads the NRA and what their specialist subject would be.

[Wells]

That makes no sense, wouldn't the NRA be the core source you would want to continue dialogue with? If you can eventually made head way with the NRA, that would trickle down to gun owners.

It has happened in the past!

The value in trying to engage them is entirely contingent on how willing to be engaged they are. One could reasonably look at the NRA's actions these last few years, especially with regard to this Administration, and conclude that their desire to sell arms is going to make any attempt to bring them on board a huge waste of time.

A group that's used fear of Obama to drive up sales is not likely to then turn around and work with him on gun control. It would be against their interests.

[Ghostpanther]

We don't know if it was one attempt or not. However, I can understand why they wouldn't spend a ton of time trying to get the NRA to cooperate with them.

I don't particularly care if the tears were genuine or not. He's got kids of his own. He's said before inaction on this issue has been his biggest regret. So maybe it was real. Maybe it was all a ploy. Doesn't change anything.

I do not know if his tears were real or not. But what he has decided to do is not going to have much, if any impact on gun violence. It is basically a ploy so his legacy will have it on record he tried to do something. Even if it was about useless. He knows he lacks the support in Congress to make any major changes to do it the right way. :P

[Kronik85]

Reported LaPierre for nation bashing. His stance on crime is admirable and well reasoned though, I mean it's so obvious! How have we not come up with this before!? You just have the "Justice Department to flip <Insert City> upside down until every criminal with a gun, criminal gangbanger with a gun and drug dealer with a gun is arrested" It's genius.

/s

[Dystemper]

He apparently had his priorities straight them. What would you want to do? Have some beers and chat with some folks or spend an hour with Wayne Lapierre? The choice is obvious.

I would talk with Wayne Lapierre. Very smart man. Have actually met him.

[Wells]

I do not know if his tears were real or not. But what he has decided to do is not going to have much, if any impact on gun violence. It is basically a ploy so his legacy will have it on record he tried to do something. Even if it was about useless. He knows he lacks the support in Congress to make any major changes to do it the right way. :P

I don't think it'll do much either. But he's spent a lot of time trying to work with Congress and nothing's happened, so trying to use what little power he has here to make change before he's left office is understandable.

Lackluster solutions can be better than no solution.

[Flurryfang]

But he had time for a "beer summit". LMFAO

.... A highstakes debate is going to take more resourses and time, then a beer summit. It is also not good to give in to challenges as a president, since it would give the sign that everybody can just do it. He will proberly do it when he is out of office, but now..... He just can't take action like this.

[TITAN308]

The value in trying to engage them is entirely contingent on how willing to be engaged they are. One could reasonably look at the NRA's actions these last few years, especially with regard to this Administration, and conclude that their desire to sell arms is going to make any attempt to bring them on board a huge waste of time.

A group that's used fear of Obama to drive up sales is not likely to then turn around and work with him on gun control. It would be against their interests.

Obama drove up gun sales simply because we are a gun nation. The NRA can help stir the pot, but I know plenty of people who stocked up on some extras after Sandy Hook without any influence from the NRA.

You would be absolutely surprised how many gun owners don't pay attention to the NRA. I'm not saying they don't have a large following, I just don't think they are some omnipotent magic source of gun owner angst.

- - - Updated - - -

Lets not forget Obama's gun salesman of the year award is also partially related to those who came before him.

I think Clinton and his failed AWB is what left a really sour taste in everyones mouth. It showed if given the power to do so, the government can and will knee jerk and over react.

[Wells]

You would be absolutely surprised how many gun owners don't pay attention to the NRA.

Not at all! And that's really more to my point than anything. The NRA is to the right of gun owners, (because they don't really give a shit about gun owners) so really, what's to be gained by exerting a ton of effort to maybe get them on board?

They're a fear mongering industry lobby group that has made their desire to take a hardline stance in excess of most gun owners clear. Engagement is a pointless use of energy.

[Pangean]

I would talk with Wayne Lapierre. Very smart man. Have actually met him.

He is an odious troll who engages in fear mongering to aid his masters to sell more guns. I would rather have a beer.

[TITAN308]

He is an odious troll who engages in fear mongering to aid his masters to sell more guns. I would rather have a beer.

One would argue people like Michael Bloomberg are the doppelgangers of the Wayne Lapierre's.

But I don't see anyone here calling that shitlord on his bullshit.

[Dazu]

"Bloody Obama, wanting to significantly lower the crime rate, including having an intentional homicide rate a quarter of what it currently is. Who does he think he is?"


Unless he envisions Obama releasing hordes of killer kangaroos into the US, I'm not seeing how that is a bad thing to level at Obama.

Careful, the pro gun people think for some reason Australia is worse off since we had gun laws come in and get tightened. Sure theres still illegal guns getting around, but ive never walked down the street worried that someone is going to shoot me, and ive never seen a gun in a public place that wasnt on a police officer/soldier etc either.

Seriously, I use guns for my job, only reason id want one at home was if I might need to kill feral animals such as dogs and cats on a farm, or if I was travelling around in a caravan for a long time (and once again, only for wild animal safety).

[Pangean]

One would argue people like Michael Bloomberg are the doppelgangers of the Wayne Lapierre's.

But I don't see anyone here calling that shitlord on his bullshit.

LOL you think I like Bloomberg or support him in any way? I think he is a vile toad as well. Keep trying Broski.

[TITAN308]

Careful, the pro gun people think for some reason Australia is worse off since we had gun laws come in and get tightened. Sure theres still illegal guns getting around, but ive never walked down the street worried that someone is going to shoot me, and ive never seen a gun in a public place that wasnt on a police officer/soldier etc either.

Seriously, I use guns for my job, only reason id want one at home was if I might need to kill feral animals such as dogs and cats on a farm, or if I was travelling around in a caravan for a long time (and once again, only for wild animal safety).

We are two nations of different cultures and history and that is OK.

The whole "we need to be more like them" gets old, on both sides of the argument.

Now I know this is usually where the hyperbole response like, "What? You mean you don't want to be like a nation with less gun deaths?" Just don't, I've heard that tired line dragged out plenty of times.

- - - Updated - - -

LOL you think I like Bloomberg or support him in any way? I think he is a vile toad as well. Keep trying Broski.

It was just a general statement.

[vindicatorx]

Is he really serious? Whenever someone mentions tighter gun controls it doesn't mean take away all guns and burn the 2nd amendment. Maybe, JUST MAYBE there should be mental health checks for people and some more indepth background checks.

yeah gun grabbers immediately go into this line of thinking.

[Ghostpanther]

I don't think it'll do much either. But he's spent a lot of time trying to work with Congress and nothing's happened, so trying to use what little power he has here to make change before he's left office is understandable.

Lackluster solutions can be better than no solution.

That is the point. They will be useless measures, not even up to par with lackluster. If he could not do anymore than that, it would be better to sit down with his DA and tell her to start looking into making a stronger effort to enforce the laws already on the books. Then go to congress with his annual budget bill request for more funds for the FBI to help get it done. Then tell the people with his State of the Union message, that was his goal. Not this " Well, congress is all to blame, so I am going to try to make myself look good and them look bad even if what I am doing is not the correct way or the right answer."

[Swizzington]

Saying that , you would need to look at the rest of the Constitution as well then with the same critical eye and with "the values of today".
Free speech ,Religion ...etc etc all need to be looked at ,right?
2nd is not a relic, the threat of tyranny has not gone away nor will it ever...that was the point of the 2A.
The right of the citizen to take arms up against their government is the final line against tyranny.
I am sorry you miss,ignore or do not like that rather large fact...or the responsibility that it implies.

That ship sailed a long time ago. What chance do you think a few rednecks with rifles have against fucking drones, tanks, stealth jets and all the rest of the shit the government has as it's disposable? Overthrow the U.S. govt? Not a snowball's chance in hell.