THANK YOU, PRESIDENT OBAMA!

[catbyte]

for the executive actions on gun violence. "The gun lobby may hold Congress hostage, but they can't hold America hostage."

[ChisolmTrailDem]

1. He's had enough and he's throwing the book at the NRA! nt

[mainstreetonce]

4. One of the best speeches I have ever heard

God Bless Barack Obama

[hack89]

9. But he didn't do anything of major significance.

hard to see how this will have any real impact on gun violence.

[ChisolmTrailDem]

10. The speech itself was significant. nt

[H2O Man]

11. Right.

President Obama understands the Power of Ideas. His presentation was amazing.

[hack89]

12. I see it as a sign of weakness

"I couldn't get significant gun control passed in 7 years so I will make some minor tweaks via EOs and give an emotional speech instead."

[ChisolmTrailDem]

13. Well, I'm not surprised...considering. nt

[randys1]

27. Gee, what a surprise. It never ends here at DU

[AlbertCat]

38. It never ends here at DU

What never ends?

constructive criticism of policies?

or goo-goo eyed worship?


(much of both)

[NBachers]

29. . If only you were there to show him how to do it the right way

[hack89]

34. I certainly would have handled the post Sandy Hook situation differently

talk about a self inflicted wound.

[1StrongBlackMan]

74. Do share what you would have done differently! eom.

[hack89]

75. Sure

in essence, every Dem in Congress saw it as an opportunity to reintroduce every failed gun control law, even though most would not have not stopped Sandy Hook. The biggest error was in thinking that they had sufficient public support to steamroll the NRA and other gun groups and therefore made no effort to work with them. However, public polls at the time clearly showed that while there was strong support for stronger background checks, there was little to no support for gun bans or issues like registration.

If they simply concentrated on those things with strong public support, we most likely would have had stronger background checks. Instead they presented the NRA with a perfect opportunity to rally the troops and ended up with nothing. Don't forget that after the Va Tech shooting, the NRA worked with gun control groups to strengthen background checks - it was the only significant Federal gun control legislation passed since 1994.

I just think the entire thing was poorly conceived and badly managed - a self inflicted political wound that could have been avoided.

[1StrongBlackMan]

76. I disagree; but, Okay. eom.

[GGJohn]

77. Ok, so why do you disagree with hack89?

Pretty much everything hack89 said was the truth, on the AWB and mag. capacity limits introduced by Sen. Feinstein, Harry Reid told her flat out that there was little support for those 2 measures, that's why he separated them from the main bill, but by then, the damage was already done, the NRA seized upon that to rally the troops in opposition, on the day of the vote, the AWB couldn't even garner 41 votes and the mag. limit only garnered 46 votes, not even a 50 vote threshold, much less the 60 votes needed to overcome a filibuster.

If not for those 2 items, we would have most likely gotten the UBC bill passed and signed.

[hack89]

78. The results speak for themselves

Unless you are saying it was impossible to get any legislation passed.

[Grown2Hate]

63. Quite frankly, the House and Senate being what they are, what would you

have had him do? He has no recourse but Executive Orders and speeches. It's, quite literally, the MOST he can do at this point. And I'm honestly asking... what more should he have done either now or directly post Sandy Hook (when the make-up of the Congress was not much different)?

Another point; I always bring up Sandy Hook when I hear right-wingers at my work (or out and about) talk about how they're going to "come get our guns". My response: "If TWENTY TODDLERS getting shot in the FACE didn't change gun policy in this country, NOTHING will." It usually shuts them up completely, and makes me shudder every time.

[passiveporcupine]

71. Oh stop already!

[totodeinhere]

55. We need more than another speech. His executive actions will only harden

opposition to sensible gun control and won't really stop much gun violence. Only congressional action can do that.

[Dem2]

14. He's not a dictator

He presented what needs to be done - take back Congress from NRA control, then more significant changes can be implemented.

[hack89]

15. Except the real fight is at the state level

people forget that most gun laws are at the state level.

[BlueCaliDem]

32. Exactly. Take back Congress via States - because that's where U.S. Reps and U.S. Senators come from.

Federal laws always, always supersede State laws. If we take back Congress from pro-NRA voting Senators (looking at you, Senator Sanders) and U.S. Reps - who are all elected at the State level, we'll have a U.S. Congress that'll work to pass some real gun safety laws that will supersede any lax State gun laws.

[hack89]

35. So when RI legalized gay marriage, that was illegal because of DOMA?

Colorado and Washington had no legal right to legalize marijuana?

It is not as simple as you think - states have sovereign powers as outlined in the Constitution. There are areas at the state level where the Federal government has absolutely no jurisdiction.

[BlueCaliDem]

42. Yes, IF it were challenged. Same difference with Colorado and Washington States and that scenario.

All someone had to do was file a challenge, and it would die before it hit the U.S. Supreme Court. Why do you think advocates for same-sex marriage and legalization of weed want a FEDERAL law passed in order to legalize them?

Again, Federal law supersedes State law and wins over any State law that conflicts with Federal law. Every. Single. Time.

ON EDIT: This is the price States pay in order to get those billions of Federal dollars for their States and protection under the U.S. Military, just to name a few advantages.

[hack89]

44. No

for example, the Federal Government cannot pass a law regulating intrastate commerce of a particular state.

[BlueCaliDem]

52. Yes.

Article I, Section 8, Clause 3 of the U.S. Constitution:

[The Congress shall have Power] To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

The Commerce Clause describes an enumerated power listed in the United States Constitution (Article I, Section 8, Clause 3). The clause states that the United States Congress shall have power "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes." Courts and commentators have tended to discuss each of these three areas of commerce as a separate power granted to Congress.[1] It is common to see the individual components of the Commerce Clause referred to under specific terms: The Foreign Commerce Clause, the Interstate Commerce Clause,[2] and the Indian Commerce Clause.

Dispute exists within the courts as to the range of powers granted to Congress by the Commerce Clause. As noted below, the clause is often paired with the Necessary and Proper Clause, the combination used to take a broad, expansive perspective of these powers. However, the effect of the Commerce Clause has varied significantly depending on the Supreme Court's interpretation. During the Marshall Court era, Commerce Clause interpretation empowered Congress to gain jurisdiction over numerous aspects of intrastate and interstate commerce as well as non-commerce. During the post-1937 era, the use of the Commerce Clause by Congress to authorize federal control of economic matters became effectively unlimited. Since the latter half of the Rehnquist Court era, Congressional use of the Commerce Clause has become slightly restricted again, being limited only to matters of trade or any other form of restricted area (whether interstate or not) and production (whether commercial or not).

So, once again, Federal law supersedes State laws if State law conflicts with Federal law and it is challenged in the Courts.

As you read above, some SCOTUS' expanded the meaning, some restricted it, but throughout it all, the Federal Gov't not the State governments has the last say. As long as intrastate commerce remains within the State, and it doesn't conflict with Federal law, and no one challenges its constitutionality at the Federal level, all is well.

Same-sex marriage in RI meant, only in RI or other States that legalized same-sex marriage, is the marriage valid. Had some RWer challenged the same-sex law and DOMA was still in effect, it would've been defeated.

Think back to SB 1070 of Arizona - a discriminatory law against brown people that was overwhelmingly passed by the RW-legislature and signed into law by the RW-finger-pointing governor. It was challenged by the Department of Justice and it was gutted until their was nothing left, ultimately becoming an empty shell of a law with ZERO power.

[daybranch]

66. The way to take back states is to get rid of Gerrymandering

Yet I have never actually heard President Obama no the democratic candidates make any statement on this. Maybe because this Gerrymandering supports establishment Democrats in New York , republicans in Florida etc.? John Kasich, our governor here in the heavily Gerrymandered state of Ohio has proposed extending Issue 1, our recently passed redistricting amendment to our state constitution, to cover Congressional elections. Passed by an overwhelming 2 to 1 margin, Issue 1 does not now cover congressional (US House of representative) elections. If we want to get a Congress , Bernie or any other democrat can work with , the fight against Gerrymandering must be won. Let us push Bernie and the other Candidates to take a position loudly and often against Gerrymandering. We must work to elect Bernie in my view but we also need to work to get a congress elected from competitive districts and therefore like Bernie, beholden to the people. But no matter which democrat is elected, until Gerrymandering is removed money will talk, and ideas to improve the people's well being will walk. Go Bernie!

[BlueCaliDem]

83. And gerrymandering is done WITHIN States by State Legislatures and Governors.

The Federal gov't has no jurisdiction over dividing up and allocation of districts within the States. It's why it's vitally important that people vote in ALL elections - even those elections that seem inconsequential and especially in census years, which is every ten years (next one up: 2020 and then 2030, 2040, etc).

Every Republican State Rep and Senator (and gerrymandering is mainly done by Republicans, btw) who wins an election, strengthens their side with one more Republican to gerrymander. Every time people elect a Republican governor, they help Republicans in their quest to gerrymander.

State and Local elections are vitally important to get the U.S. Congress we need. Voting for a self-proclaimed Socialist to be president will do nothing.

By the way...has Sanders been campaigning on gerrymandering? Because I haven't heard him say a thing about it.

As an aside, it would make your posts easier to read if you broke them down in smaller paragraphs to about 3-5 sentences per paragraph. That way, people won't roll their eyes or go cross-eyed when reading them.

[daybranch]

68. Two statement both too obtuse for use-

Bernie is not favorable to NRA. I have no idea why you are calling your laws gun safety laws. Gun safety laws could imply many things, such as courses in how to handle a firearm safely, how to recognize other hunters and statistics on accidents etc. I am no lover of assault type weapons and I do favor background checks, getting rid of gun show loopholes, outlawing modifications to semi-automatic weapons such as sliding stocks which increase greatly the rate of fire, high capacity and or drum magazines etc. I do not as a principle believe that when a gun manufacturer or any other type of product manufacturer has a legally produced product used for other than a lawful purpose without some action on the manufacturer's part to aid in this misuse that such manufacturer be subject to a product liability higher than on any other legally manufactured liability. For example, mentallly ill people drive their vehicles into people killing them, but we do not hold the automobile manufacturer accountable unless the result comes from a defective product. To hold gun manufacturers accountable in this way I am sure opens up a great deal of work for the lawyers who make up a significant portion of Hillary donors. As Bernie says there is a great deal of common sense gun laws that we all agree on and shouting at your end of the spectrum at the NRA is nothing but noise. So quit oversimplifying the complex issue of reducing gun violence with your inaccurate portrayal of what you really support in order to try to attack Bernie.
Your other statement is pretty much useless as a plan of action. Take back the Congress and they will vote your way. I too want a congress that votes with the people but there are several steps in accomplishing this and they go much farther than simply vote for Hillary or Bernie and that will help us take over congress with democrats elected who will vote the way we want. I have a shocker for you, democrats, for the most part, like republicans, vote the way their large money donors want. I recognize this is a killer for you Hillary people but your assumption that Hillary is popular across the board and your reliance on acting as if her support versus Bernie's in red states will ever count in electoral votes is over simplification that can easily cost democrats the eletion. Furthermore where are your plans to fight Gerrymandering or Citizens United, huge obstacles to democracy and rule by the people? Hillary's campaign has desperately seized on gun manufacturer product liability as some great issue but it is antithetical to our legal system. Actually it is probably the last hope of Hillary to try to establish progressive credibility but she forgets freedom and non-interference in people's legal choices are progressive values that most progressives defend. Thank you for your comment. It provided great insight into the lucidity of Hillary supporters. Do not fear,maybe cognitive dissonance will prevail, it has been working for the other supporters of the rich oligarchy, the republicans.

[daybranch]

69. Two statement both too obtuse for use-

Bernie is not favorable to NRA. I have no idea why you are calling your laws gun safety laws. Gun safety laws could imply many things, such as courses in how to handle a firearm safely, how to recognize other hunters and statistics on accidents etc. I am no lover of assault type weapons and I do favor background checks, getting rid of gun show loopholes, outlawing modifications to semi-automatic weapons such as sliding stocks which increase greatly the rate of fire, high capacity and or drum magazines etc. I do not as a principle believe that when a gun manufacturer or any other type of product manufacturer has a legally produced product used for other than a lawful purpose without some action on the manufacturer's part to aid in this misuse that such manufacturer be subject to a product liability higher than on any other legally manufactured liability. For example, mentallly ill people drive their vehicles into people killing them, but we do not hold the automobile manufacturer accountable unless the result comes from a defective product. To hold gun manufacturers accountable in this way I am sure opens up a great deal of work for the lawyers who make up a significant portion of Hillary donors. As Bernie says there is a great deal of common sense gun laws that we all agree on and shouting at your end of the spectrum at the NRA is nothing but noise. So quit oversimplifying the complex issue of reducing gun violence with your inaccurate portrayal of what you really support in order to try to attack Bernie.
Your other statement is pretty much useless as a plan of action. Take back the Congress and they will vote your way. I too want a congress that votes with the people but there are several steps in accomplishing this and they go much farther than simply vote for Hillary or Bernie and that will help us take over congress with democrats elected who will vote the way we want. I have a shocker for you, democrats, for the most part, like republicans, vote the way their large money donors want. I recognize this is a killer for you Hillary people but your assumption that Hillary is popular across the board and your reliance on acting as if her support versus Bernie's in red states will ever count in electoral votes is over simplification that can easily cost democrats the eletion. Furthermore where are your plans to fight Gerrymandering or Citizens United, huge obstacles to democracy and rule by the people? Hillary's campaign has desperately seized on gun manufacturer product liability as some great issue but it is antithetical to our legal system. Actually it is probably the last hope of Hillary to try to establish progressive credibility but she forgets freedom and non-interference in people's legal choices are progressive values that most progressives defend. Thank you for your comment. It provided great insight into the lucidity of Hillary supporters. Do not fear,maybe cognitive dissonance will prevail, it has been working for the other supporters of the rich oligarchy, the republicans.

[catbyte]

16. To hear Fox-PAC tell it, what Obama just did is an impeachable offense.

I made the mistake of turning to Fox-PAC after the speech, and there was some so-called "legal expert" asshole on who was simultaneously saying that Obama did nothing for 8 years and that he's doing too much & negating the separation of powers. I got fed up and whiplash within 3 minutes and had to turn the channel to "Chopped."

[jillan]

41. Wait a minute - there is only so much he can do by executive order.

[hack89]

45. So what is going to change in the near future

that will allow him to pass more stringent laws?

[jillan]

46. Nothing - he said that nothing will happen during his term other than

what he said today. His hands are tied with this congress.

Midterms matter as well as Presidential elections. If only Dems would understand that.

[hack89]

49. Don't assume that a Dem congress means strict gun control

remember that it was Harry Reid protecting Dems from pro-gun states that helped torpedo meaningful legislation post Sandy Hook.

The Senate is where gun control lives or dies.

[jillan]

50. Agreed.

[BlueCaliDem]

54. "The Senate is where gun control lives or dies." AND now, the U.S. House.

Agreed.

[hack89]

56. The Senate is the dominant power in this fight

remember that Wyoming and Montana has just as many Senators as NY and California. On the other hand Wyoming and Montana have a combined total of 2 representatives while NY/California have 80 between them.

So popular support for gun control in states with large populations (as seen through House of Representative votes) is checkmated by the non-proportional power of the Senate.

[BlueCaliDem]

60. That's true. But if any gun safety law bills are brought to *this* House, it gets set aside,

never coming up for a vote. California and NY have many pockets of RWer voters who vote straight Republican. How many Democratic U.S. Reps does Wyoming and Montana have?

So I'm not incorrect in stating that, currently, any legislation to pass new gun safety laws dies in the U.S. House, too.

[Lizzie Poppet]

79. I don't agree.

I don't expect any big drop in crime rates or anything dramatic, but this slate of executive memoranda contains some potentially useful stuff. Making "not really a dealer" gun dealers pony up for an FFL is something that should have happened long ago. Half a billion for mental health is very welcome, as well.

Perhaps my biggest issue is that so much of this (including media coverage) is focused on mass shootings. A worthy goal...but such a tiny portion of gun violence.

As an aside, a friend of mine was invited to sit in the front row for this speech. Her Facebook postings, including some cool photos, were pretty wonderful. You could almost taste how thrilled she was to be invited to the White House. Jenna's a very reasonable gun control advocate, working to pass sensible measures (I helped out a bit on UBCs here in Oregon, an effort she helped lead)...not someone who advocates confiscation or other such nonsense. And I'm glad for that...because she's mediagenic as fuck!

[lewebley3]

24. Its nice to a Bernie supporting Obama: Since lately are they do is

bash him.

[ChisolmTrailDem]

25. I don't like everything the president has done (or not) but I know this:

He's the best goddamned president we've had in a long time, if not ever.

I am deeply hating that he has to go. I don't want him to go.

[lewebley3]

26. He will be helpful to Hillary

[ChisolmTrailDem]

28. And that's ok with me. If Bernie wins, that'll suit me just fine. However, if Hillary wins...

...I will gladly vote for her (and recommend to everyone I know to do the same) and never look back. And I don't care what my fellow Bernie supporters think about that.

[BlueJazz]

43. Nothing wrong with that, Chislm. I'd like to have Rolls Royce but I'll settle for a Mercedes.

The republicans are '76 Yugos.

[lewebley3]

59. i dont' know why he would help Sanders after all the attacks

[ChisolmTrailDem]

61. I didn't suggest that he help Sanders, did I? I also haven't said a negative word about Hillary...

...So why are you trying to make an argument out of what I believed to be an exchange of friendly sportsmanship and intra-party camaraderie?

[randys1]

30. Thanks for that. Actually, consider the obstruction then look at his accomplishments

the economy alone, makes him Superman in some ways.

[AlbertCat]

39. Its nice to a Bernie supporting Obama: Since lately are they do is bash him.

Does this mean anything in English?

[jillan]

48. I'm a Bernie supporter and I love Obama. I am so happy he is my President. I don't agree with

everything (TPP) among other things but overall, I am so proud to have voted for this man twice.

[ChisolmTrailDem]

2. Fingerprint tech for guns. nt

[flamingdem]

3. Great quote

one for the history books.

[jberryhill]

5. "they can't hold America hostage...." except for wildlife refuges, apparently.

[SammyWinstonJack]

21. +1000000

[oldtime dfl_er]

6. "..stand up to gun lobbyists' lies"

Yep!

[H2O Man]

7. Recommended!

I just posted a very similar OP, before seeing your's.

[mainstreetonce]

8. The tears

I cried with him

This is important and the people who oppose it are heartless.

Great things don't happen over night,but it will be remembered that Obama did his part.

[Stuart G]

17. k and r..nt.

[Duval]

18. Kicked and recommended.

[world wide wally]

19. And thank you for knocking Trump off the news for over an hour

[alcibiades_mystery]

20. Every "illegal gun" began as a legal gun

Every single one. We don't have illegal gun factories. Only legal ones.

Every thing we can do to stop, reduce, dent, impinge on, delay, slow, eradicate, understand, and reflect on the transformation from legal to illegal firearm, we should do.

The makers of legal guns know that their profits rely on the legal to illegal pipeline. It's why they must fool their dupes into thinking this is about freedom. They profit off our misery.

We don't have illegal gun factories. Only legal ones.

[BlueCaliDem]

40. Excellent points to remember, alcibiades! We have the 2nd Amendment. We have only LEGAL

gun manufacturers. It is perfectly legal to have and keep as many guns as we want. I've got nothing against that. I do believe in the 2nd Amendment, more specifically, this part of it, "a well regulated militia". Our ridiculously lax gun safety laws make a mockery of that part of the 2nd Amendment and 30,000 plus Americans die every year because of those lax-to-none-existent gun safety laws.

It's so easy to make those legal guns illegal by "losing" them, like the Bushmaster that Bull’s Eye Shooter Supply of Tacoma, Wash. "lost" (or sold) and what ended up in the DC Sniper's possession.

Irresponsible gun ownership is another.

Had Adam Lunza's mother securely locked away all her guns and made sure her mentally unstable son could never get his hands on them, twenty 6-year-old children, six wonderful teachers, and his mother would be alive today.

[nolabear]

22. What an outstanding speech and an outstanding president.

This is what we should aspire to.

[SunSeeker]

23. K & R

[mwrguy]

31. BEST PRESIDENT EVER

[randys1]

33. The rightwingers are losing their minds. If a President Romney did the EXACT same thing

they would applaud it.

[Bigredhunk]

36. Giddeyup!

Yup

[63splitwindow]

37. Everything the man has done takes a courage...

completely foreign to the Religious Right scumbags (they are NOT worthy of the term "Conservative&quot .

Thank you very much Mr. President.
[link:|

[napkinz]

47. K&R!!!

[Tarheel_Dem]

51. K&R

[Marrah_G]

53. Now this is change I can loudly applaud

[LonePirate]

57. People opposed to his actions obviously support guns being bought by people who shouldn't have them

We need to redirect the war of words against the gundamentalists who are weak on crime judging by their reactions to this news.

[spanone]

58. K&R...

[lovemydog]

62. Thank you President Obama.

Absolutely the best President in my lifetime, best Administration I've ever seen and one of the greatest in American history.

Let's all support local, State and federal candidates who say 'No.' to the gun lobby.

[moondust]

64. Thank you, Mr. President.

We all know he would do more if he could to stop the ongoing slaughter.



Remember that 90% of Democrats in Congress voted for bipartisan, common sense gun legislation after Sandy Hook while 90% of the bloodthirsty Republican ghouls voted against it.

[Cha]

65. Mahalo catbyte~ President Obama once again shows how grateful I am that he's been our President

for the last 7 years!

[phleshdef]

67. He made his case as effectively as possible and used his authority as effectively as possible.

There are unfortunate limitations because of our screwed up legislative branch. But President Barack Obama is not going out without throwing all the punches he can possibly throw. History will judge him much, much greater than a lot of his contemporaries.

[liberalnarb]

70. Yay!!! I get to post this again too!

[lonestarnot]

72. Ditto Mr. President!

[EdwardBernays]

73. Just hope

It doesn't have a long term negative impact and result in more gun deaths and violence. Which it easily could.

Not a fan of this myself and think it's mostly political showboating.

[catbyte]

81. So you would prefer the President do nothing?

[EdwardBernays]

82. nothing vs making things worse

...and you assume worse is the better option?

Can you tell me what the SPECIFIC goals of these executive actions were, so were can verify if they are working?

Can you tell me what specific amount of gun violence you personally think they will stop?

And - in 5 years - when the entire media is agreeing that these have failed, because 10s of thousands of Americans are still being shot, and killing sprees are worse than ever, what will your argument be then, that gun control does indeed work?

After the AWB expired the American public had no huge interest in getting it reupped, specifically BECAUSE there was no proof it had done any good.

In fact:

"in a (2015) Washington Post/ABC News poll .... just 45 percent want to ban (assault) weapons, down from 80 percent in 1994."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/assault-weapons-ban-poll_56715c23e4b0dfd4bcbff62e

Crappy laws with vague goals that don't have tangible results can SEVERELY damage underlying support for larger connected goals.

So - if you look back in 5 years and wonder why there's less support for gun control, and more people are buying guns, and there's at least as much gun violence, remember this: sometimes nothing is better than making things worse.

[napkinz]

80. kick

[Liberal_in_LA]

84. kick