DescentBB

Will Robinson wrote:There has been a very important step toward stopping these attacks left out by everyone.
Stop reporting the details, especially any details about the killers!

while I would agree with you, what can be done without infringing on First Amendment rights to prevent it happening?

It is definitely a big part of what they hope to accomplish, to be discussed, to be notorious, to be recognized as powerful, to have their emotions analyzed, etc etc.
Their mention should be limited to anonymously referred to as 'the killer' with little to no mention of anything remarkable at all.

24 hour news programming has a lot of detrimental effects on our culture, this is a big one. There is no reason we should provide these killers with the incentive to be 'prime time', to be the big story. Cable news is the Facebook update / Twitter feed of psycho killers. I bet in their planning these attacks they fantasize about their mention on the news more than anything else. Lets take away that incentive from them.

agreed. But the fix here has to come solely from societal pressure....i.e.STOP watching, boycott ad buys, etc, etc. Nothing the President or any politician can do besides rail about the problem and support such responses by the public.

callmeslick wrote:[...
Nothing the President or any politician can do besides rail about the problem and support such responses by the public.

If he can 'order' doctors by way of the CDC to survey gun owners family life he can surely use the FCC or some other branch of his tree to 'order' some responsible changes be made to the sensationalism business.

Will Robinson wrote:

callmeslick wrote:[...
Nothing the President or any politician can do besides rail about the problem and support such responses by the public.

If he can 'order' doctors by way of the CDC to survey gun owners family life he can surely use the FCC or some other branch of his tree to 'order' some responsible changes be made to the sensationalism business.

not that I can see, without encroaching on the First Amendment. Sure, for public broadcast, there could be guidelines, but that doesn't ever seem to get applied to cable outlets, which are the 24 hour news sources. Maybe you are right, but I don't see how.

callmeslick wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:

callmeslick wrote:[...
Nothing the President or any politician can do besides rail about the problem and support such responses by the public.

If he can 'order' doctors by way of the CDC to survey gun owners family life he can surely use the FCC or some other branch of his tree to 'order' some responsible changes be made to the sensationalism business.

not that I can see, without encroaching on the First Amendment. Sure, for public broadcast, there could be guidelines, but that doesn't ever seem to get applied to cable outlets, which are the 24 hour news sources. Maybe you are right, but I don't see how.

My main concern isn't that he can't really order them to comply, he is more than willing to over reach in that way to gain ground politically, to make himself look like he's doing something, etc.

What I'm concerned with is neither he, nor anyone else, has even brought it out in public for discussion. I can't be the only one who has thought of this. I'm guessing they at least have some advisers in the medical profession that have mentioned this aspect and yet not a peep. I know it doesn't make hay politically but in the world of crazy people shooting up a crowd it is much more of a 'cause' than a thirty round magazine or how scary soccer moms find the AR-15's appearance.

I'm very frustrated at the inept efforts and showboating that surrounds these alleged attempts to solve a real crisis. If I was the Boss I'd fire the whole damn lot of them and call a temp agency to restaff with a random selection of unemployed hopefuls.

I think you are selling the entire effort short, Will. Not that I'm shocked at that, but still......at any rate, to attempt to return of the point of my creating this thread, it seems you really don't find anything objectionable that was DONE, merely that you feel the results won't be profound and issues you wish to address weren't covered.
And that gets to my core point: After a few weeks of absolute hysterics by the gun lobby and certain fringes of the gun owning community, what actually came out of the Obama White House was pretty acceptable to virtually everyone except the extreme fringes. Sort of as I expected........folks looking to nickel and dime Obama are going to nitpick, but most of them think he was born in Kenya, is a practicing Muslim and wants the nation to become a Communist Dictatorship. My advice to gun advocates would be this: stay calm, and if anything, loudly reject the hysterical voices at the extremes. Otherwise, you risk being considered one of those extremists, and ultimately, will be marginalized by the general public. Obama has clearly learned a great political lesson. He now realizes the vast power of coming off as the adult in a room full of crazy juveniles. It might serve his opponents well to see that lesson and learn it, as well.

callmeslick wrote:I think you are selling the entire effort short, Will. Not that I'm shocked at that, but still......at any rate, to attempt to return of the point of my creating this thread, it seems you really don't find anything objectionable that was DONE, merely that you feel the results won't be profound and issues you wish to address weren't covered.
And that gets to my core point: After a few weeks of absolute hysterics by the gun lobby and certain fringes of the gun owning community, what actually came out of the Obama White House was pretty acceptable to virtually everyone except the extreme fringes. Sort of as I expected........folks looking to nickel and dime Obama are going to nitpick, but most of them think he was born in Kenya, is a practicing Muslim and wants the nation to become a Communist Dictatorship. My advice to gun advocates would be this: stay calm, and if anything, loudly reject the hysterical voices at the extremes. Otherwise, you risk being considered one of those extremists, and ultimately, will be marginalized by the general public. Obama has clearly learned a great political lesson. He now realizes the vast power of coming off as the adult in a room full of crazy juveniles. It might serve his opponents well to see that lesson and learn it, as well.

I think with regard to reactions thus far and actions thus far you are looking to declare it was all an over reaction way too soon. I don't think many of us expected his 'executive orders' to have much impact and pass the test of the law. You can only do so much with them but we know better than to think he is done.

With regard to your suggestion we need to disavow the fringe or risk being portrayed as loons etc.
Forget it. The pop culture mouth pieces and mainstream media won't allow there to be a moderate progun voice! Last night a mainstream icon compared Obamas struggle against the NRA with the fight against Hitler!
Lol, so seeking to be portrayed a little less dangerous than Hitler is not enough incentive to worry about it...we have been here before and the strength in numbers is our only hope....strange bedfellows and all that rot.

gun owners aligning with the NRA, given the current tone of the NRA, is part of the problem, Will. Moderation won't be voiced by the NRA, it's up to others to do so. I think, as always is the case, trotting out the Hitler analogy is lame. Still, if the gun issue comes down, nationwide, to Obama vs the NRA, Obama is an easy winner.

callmeslick wrote:gun owners aligning with the NRA, given the current tone of the NRA, is part of the problem, Will. Moderation won't be voiced by the NRA, it's up to others to do so. I think, as always is the case, trotting out the Hitler analogy is lame. Still, if the gun issue comes down, nationwide, to Obama vs the NRA, Obama is an easy winner.

What exactly is the "tone" of the NRA that we 'normal' gun owners should rebuke?
Last week it was that they suggested armed police in schools. Today that idea is one of the 23 brilliant ideas Obama came up with.
This week it's that they brought children into the discussion. Were those midgets and dwarves on stage with Obama yesterday?

I'd like you to tell me, using actual statements by the NRA, what ideas and policy suggestions they have that I should run away from.

And it was Bob Schieffer who introduced the Nazi component into the mainstream medias characterization of the NRA yesterday, and yes, it was lame. But you wont hear any pop culture mouthpieces say so. You won't see any mainstream media moments dedicated to Schieffers disgusting use of the Hitler analogy.

I think you enjoy the hyperbole of the left so it doesn't really register other than a passing chuckle, but for those of us who are ridiculed for doing nothing more than enjoying our constitutional rights it is noticed, up front and personal. No chuckles here.

The people you say I should be more appealing to and attempt to win acceptance from, are the ones who wage a constant public relations war designed to get stupid people to think I'm the reason Adam Lanza blew his mothers brains out in a psychotic temper tantrum and then sought out and massacred a bunch of children he thought had more of his mothers love than he did!

So excuse me if your suggestion falls a little flat. I'm trying hard to accept your words at face value and not believe you offer them as a taunt instead of friendly advice. Considering the company you keep and the things you have said on this matter that is going to be a long hard struggle.

As to the Obama winning the nationwide debate vs. NRA. The winning and losing for gun owners will be in the Congress and that isn't a nationwide fight per se, it is a district by district, congressman by congressman, fight and the NRA is the best chance we have to keep the proper number of 'districts' in line to avoid a loss on the matter. Obama can win the nationwide polling on the 6 o'clock news and we can win the protection of our rights.

Will Robinson wrote:

callmeslick wrote:gun owners aligning with the NRA, given the current tone of the NRA, is part of the problem, Will. Moderation won't be voiced by the NRA, it's up to others to do so. I think, as always is the case, trotting out the Hitler analogy is lame. Still, if the gun issue comes down, nationwide, to Obama vs the NRA, Obama is an easy winner.

What exactly is the "tone" of the NRA that we 'normal' gun owners should rebuke?

the tone of utter hysteria....especially around the notion that Obama is going to take your guns. The NRA sponsored a bunch of sites(physical, not web) around central PA, where I used to live. They were geared toward electioneering before the last election. The level of hysteria over Obama and guns they tried to gin up was staggering, and sort of disgusting. On the recent debate, their ad campaign is sort of repugnant, and some of their spokeman's statements callous at the very least.
I haven't the time necessary to dredge up their online ads from the past year, but you can view them and decide. Many Americans already did, back in November, which is why their campaigns last year did so dismally bad.

And it was Bob Schieffer who introduced the Nazi component into the mainstream medias characterization of the NRA yesterday, and yes, it was lame. But you wont hear any pop culture mouthpieces say so. You won't see any mainstream media moments dedicated to Schieffers disgusting use of the Hitler analogy.

I think you enjoy the hyperbole of the left so it doesn't really register other than a passing chuckle, but for those of us who are ridiculed for doing nothing more than enjoying our constitutional rights it is noticed, up front and personal. No chuckles here.

but, I did condemn it, above. Likewise, I called the reaction to the goofy video app overblown. It is that sort of more thoughtful response I am not seeing from a lot of responsible gun owners. Maybe I will, over time, so I am not going to rush it. My point remains that if gun owners wish to pit themselves on the same side as the NRA, or far worse, the goofy Ted Nugent, Charlie Daniels, Alex whats-his-name(from Piers Morgan rant fame) fringe, they will come to regret it.

The people you say I should be more appealing to and attempt to win acceptance from, are the ones who wage a constant public relations war designed to get stupid people to think I'm the reason Adam Lanza blew his mothers brains out in a psychotic temper tantrum and then sought out and massacred a bunch of children he thought had more of his mothers love than he did!

no, they don't.....at least, not now. They think that a long failure by the nation and it's politician to look at gun laws, mental health laws and other matters because it was 'too difficult' a set of issues is the reason. I am urging you to keep that opinion by the general public intact.

So excuse me if your suggestion falls a little flat. I'm trying hard to accept your words at face value and not believe you offer them as a taunt instead of friendly advice. Considering the company you keep and the things you have said on this matter that is going to be a long hard struggle.

I've given the same advice to the gun owning membership of my Sportsmans Club, face to face, more than once. Luckily, they seem to have a more willing acceptance of intelligent politics.

As to the Obama winning the nationwide debate vs. NRA. The winning and losing for gun owners will be in the Congress and that isn't a nationwide fight per se, it is a district by district, congressman by congressman, fight and the NRA is the best chance we have to keep the proper number of 'districts' in line to avoid a loss on the matter. Obama can win the nationwide polling on the 6 o'clock news and we can win the protection of our rights.

well, here I will lay out my best guess scenario. It is, by the way, just that: a best GUESS.
1. Senate passes some, but not all of Obamas legislation. Some tinkering occurs, because, well, because that's the Senate. They also confirm the ATF
director, which has been blocked at the request of the NRA for several years.
2. House brings the vote to the floor, at the behest of the moderate wing of the GOP, which seems to have recently located their testicles. The Senate
bill passes.
3. President signs bill. The world, as we know it, does not end.
4. Massive campaign bullseyes both Moderates who voted for, and others who voted against the measure in the House and Senate. Those who voted
for prevail, reflecting the same trend we've seen in the past couple of election cycles.

callmeslick wrote:...

well, here I will lay out my best guess scenario. It is, by the way, just that: a best GUESS.
1. Senate passes some, but not all of Obamas legislation. Some tinkering occurs, because, well, because that's the Senate. They also confirm the ATF
director, which has been blocked at the request of the NRA for several years.
2. House brings the vote to the floor, at the behest of the moderate wing of the GOP, which seems to have recently located their testicles. The Senate
bill passes.
3. President signs bill. The world, as we know it, does not end.
4. Massive campaign bullseyes both Moderates who voted for, and others who voted against the measure in the House and Senate. Those who voted
for prevail, reflecting the same trend we've seen in the past couple of election cycles.

You have entirely too much faith in the potential integrity of politicians, on both sides of the isle! I wish it really could work out like that but I say that with the disclaimer that the 'tinkering' in the Senate, and plenty of tinkering will happen before they even get it, is likely to make me change my mind.

I see Obama's big picture perspective coming into play. That being the premise that the government has a right to mandate lots of behavior modification since 'they have to pay for our mistakes' (as if it isn't our money...another topic). We get sick with no insurance therefore they now have the authority to fine us for being that burden to them. He didn't really have the authority to do that but it made it through the Supreme Court so he does have that authority.
I give this example because the big picture perspective I attribute to him is that he sees his victory in selling that premise as his mandate to now modify pretty much any behavior he likes. The precedent has been set so to speak, it just comes down to packaging it for the sale. He has lots of help in the pop culture public relations department.

The executive orders had a few Obama Care components, I don't know what they are but regardless of their particulars he is intertwining his 'authority' on health care with his soon to be authority on gun control. He will need the CDC studies for example, to buttress his argument that what ever he decides must happen with gun rights is because we have caused this crisis. 'Only government can tackle such a huge problem' etc. Same sales pitch, different day...

Because it is so hard to get a single idea from concept to law without 'tinkering' often poisoning it, the federal governments solutions often hurt more than they help. Racial discrimination=problem. Solutions=complex and difficult. Affirmative action=good concept.....quotas=terrible one size fits all...not... 'solution'.

I anticipate paying a dear price for his help.

I started a Gun Trust yesterday, I'll be sure to have some guns registered with the BATF, owned by the Trust, if I'm going to go to that trouble I might as well make them 'special'. And I'll have some that are never going to be registered. Trying to cover both scenarios of how they might come for it all. I'll be buying reloading equipment because they have made it clear that ammo is in what they consider a 'grey area' not necessarily protected by the Bill of Rights. you see, they say they wont take our guns but their actions tell otherwise. If it does come down to that I stand a better chance of having some or all of it grandfathered in and my family can own it as long as the Trust is allowed to exist.

no real comment on the above. You are welcome to your views, you've heard mine. I'm ok leaving it at that. Just an FYI, the only parts of the exec orders that pertained to the Healthcare Act were by way of clarification, enabling healthcare providers to be assured that they can inquire about gun ownership when it is pertinent to the ongoing health of the patient or his family. There had apparently been a provision, which the NRA had requested be inserted, that had been used in some states to deter that process from happening. Obama clarified that, as was his power to do so.

callmeslick wrote:no real comment on the above. You are welcome to your views, you've heard mine. I'm ok leaving it at that.

Well that is awfully generous of you! I get to have my views. I'm glad you are OK with it

At least for now anyway. I guess if I start swinging too many votes the wrong way though watch out.
Because, you know, when the 1st amendment was written the founding fathers never imagined the internet with those darn blogs....or cable networks with 24/7 dissent....

callmeslick wrote: Just an FYI, the only parts of the exec orders that pertained to the Healthcare Act were by way of clarification, enabling healthcare providers to be assured that they can inquire about gun ownership when it is pertinent to the ongoing health of the patient or his family. There had apparently been a provision, which the NRA had requested be inserted, that had been used in some states to deter that process from happening. Obama clarified that, as was his power to do so.

I think doctors already had the ability to ask about how someone got a bullet hole in them or if the person mentioned suicide they could ask about firearms in the house.
If it wasn't one of those questions I'd like some clarification by the administration just what other scenarios the government has decided are "pertinent to the ongoing health of the patient or his family".
Does this include questions on gun storage? Number of weapons? Types of weapons? Do the children feel intimidated or in danger by the weapons?
Do the answers to those questions trigger some other mechanism in the parts of the law that aren't yet written....you know, one of those last minute tinkerings that 'they have to vote for before we are allowed to know what's in it'.

Will Robinson wrote:

callmeslick wrote:no real comment on the above. You are welcome to your views, you've heard mine. I'm ok leaving it at that.

Well that is awfully generous of you! I get to have my views. I'm glad you are OK with it

oh, puhleese, as my daughter used to say as a teenager.....I'm just saying that further back and forth won't change either of our minds. Right?

At least for now anyway. I guess if I start swinging too many votes the wrong way though watch out.
Because, you know, when the 1st amendment was written the founding fathers never imagined the internet with those darn blogs....or cable networks with 24/7 dissent....

I dare say there is almost every aspect of Modern America they never imagined. They did, however, provide a flexible governmental framework, so as to accomodate the unseeable, unknowable nature of Progress.

I think doctors already had the ability to ask about how someone got a bullet hole in them or if the person mentioned suicide they could ask about firearms in the house.
If it wasn't one of those questions I'd like some clarification by the administration just what other scenarios the government has decided are "pertinent to the ongoing health of the patient or his family".
Does this include questions on gun storage? Number of weapons? Types of weapons? Do the children feel intimidated or in danger by the weapons?
Do the answers to those questions trigger some other mechanism in the parts of the law that aren't yet written....you know, one of those last minute tinkerings that 'they have to vote for before we are allowed to know what's in it'.

as I understand it, the clarifications are around the initial part of your paragraph. And, yes, you are correct, they did have the ability to ask those sorts of questions. Apparently, such questioning has been stifled in some states, under pressure from gun lobby representatives, citing wording in the Health Care act. The other hypotheticals you ask about, I can't be sure, so no answer from me. If you find hard details, post it here. I figure these gun threads will have enough legs, they'll likely be still alive when I return to town on Tuesday, so take your time, look it up over the weekend and get back to me.
Those are important distinctions, and details. I will ask somebody or two who ought to know, to the letter, should I run into them down in DC in a couple days, so I will report back too. My comprehension and even ability to remember that I was planning to ask will depend completely upon adult beverage intake(honest disclaimer)

callmeslick wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:

callmeslick wrote:no real comment on the above. You are welcome to your views, you've heard mine. I'm ok leaving it at that.

Well that is awfully generous of you! I get to have my views. I'm glad you are OK with it

oh, puhleese, as my daughter used to say as a teenager.....I'm just saying that further back and forth won't change either of our minds. Right?

Relax, borrow some humor from your daughter, it was meant in jest (note I even put in smiley so there would be no mistake to the first part. The second part was more jesting, a little barb turning the lefts argument around. I find it just as silly when I use it as when they do.

callmeslick wrote:

At least for now anyway. I guess if I start swinging too many votes the wrong way though watch out.
Because, you know, when the 1st amendment was written the founding fathers never imagined the internet with those darn blogs....or cable networks with 24/7 dissent....

I dare say there is almost every aspect of Modern America they never imagined. They did, however, provide a flexible governmental framework, so as to accomodate the unseeable, unknowable nature of Progress.

Yes but they purposely made it extremely hard to flex to avoid emotionally charged bull★■◆● bending to whims....and to make it hard to seize power in a permanent fashion for a person or party.
I think trampling the second amendment largely because of a mental health problem is a whim of political bluster over substance.

If a crazy person got a hold of his physician mother's case full of flu shot cartridges and used the cartridges and a pneumatic hypo rig to inject a bunch of school children causing their deaths....we wouldn't be having a debate on the need for pneumatic hypo rigs!
We wouldn't be deciding how many cartridges should a doctor have in their case! At best the only discussion about the rig would be confined to a storage issue as in how to keep crazy people from getting those cases and rigs!

Unless of course there was a National Pneumatic Hypo Rig Association that contributed heavily to only the republicans...then the debate would be at least clouded to implicate or marginalize that political foe in some way.

No, the 23 executive orders would have been all about the mental illness with a footnote on storing medical supplies because everyone would rightly know we had a crazy problem, not a hypo rig problem. I guess somewhere in the war room Rahm Emanuel would still have been be pouring over pharmaceutical company donations to see who he could strong arm with a threat of putting them in the spotlight....but really, do we want to support that kind of representation? Oh, that's right, we do, with great pride! Go R's beat those D's.....Yea D's beat those R's.
/rant