President Obama Is Pissed (Oregon Shooting Press Conference)

Status
Not open for further replies.
I see. So most college campuses in the US are not really enclosed inside gates and checkpoints. In addition to the gun laws which right now look like they really have to be reformed, maybe campus security should be improved as well. An armed individual shouldn't be able to go inside college buildings, labs, gyms, etc.

Why would college facilities be different from public spaces and public buildings?
 
Damn. I feel sorry for him after listening to that.

Running America must be such a headache.

No shit.

I'd have walked off this motherfucker three years ago.

Look at how it ages people. Look at the before and after pics of all the recent presidents after 8 years of this shit. I think the job ages you about 25 years.

But really, Presidents can't do shit. That rapid aging is from Congress repeatedly slapping them in the face with a 10 inch 10 pound dick during the course of their term.
 
You give the far right too much credit.

Interracial marriage had to be forced on the nation, it didn't become acceptable to a majority of the electorate until like the late 80's or early 90's. An entire generation had to grow up with it before the electorate turned. Gay marriage had to be forced, by courts and legislatures, on a lot of the country before the electorate started to turn. You underestimate the nation's collective ability to be total fucking morons a lot of the time. America gets it right eventually, but only after we've exhausted all other options.
 
I 100% support the president on this, but again I go back to his first two years in office where he had the house and senate and he didn't push many of his policies then. I feel something could have been done back then and he didn't.
 
Gives Zero Fucks Obama has been awesome. In another year he'll stop even bothering to be polite when he's this upset and we can all enjoy watching candidates trying to straddle the line between denouncing his complaints versus having to admit that they agree with what he says.
That rapid aging is from Congress repeatedly slapping them in the face with a 10 inch 10 pound dick during the course of their term.
My god, someone actually read one of my old Congressional fanfics!
 
How many times has Obama had to come out and address a mass shooting? It has to be a record at this point, right?
 
You're forgetting the guns to defend against the guns you bought to defend against your original guns. Also the guns to defend against those guns.

Really, you need as many guns as humanly possible.
r7.gif
 
Boy does his frustration show...and I can't say I can disagree with him.

For me, after a classroom full of kindergartners was shot up and absolutely nothing happened, I gave up hope.
 
I have to admit that speech was great, even in the retrospect of nothing being done etc etc. It acknowledges exactly what the problem is and embraces the fix. People that take issue with what was said are fucking morons.
 
Fox News talking about how the solution to school shootings is...

...Armed guards and police officers in classrooms.

Literally trying to put out a fire with fire.
 
Fox News talking about how the solution to school shootings is...

...Armed guards and police officers in classrooms.

Literally trying to put out a fire with fire.

Yeah sure PDs and colleges everywhere will pull all the required budget out of their ass to make that happen.

Bunch of idiots. They know it's not a viable solution but it's an easy way out because god forbid someone has an honest conversation about gun control.
 
Fox News talking about how the solution to school shootings is...

...Armed guards and police officers in classrooms.

Literally trying to put out a fire with fire.
And who will pay for that when they want to take money out of education already? How are schools going to pull that off? Ridiculous..
 
Fox News talking about how the solution to school shootings is...

...Armed guards and police officers in classrooms.

Literally trying to put out a fire with fire.

I don't disagree with heightened security (though of course that is overkill) perhaps with more buildings accessible with scannable student ID cards or something but the obvious answer has to be far more stricter gun laws. Even the President conceded in his speech that he doesn't want to take guns away from those who are responsible with them. It's not a binary decision. It's not all or nothing. There is a certain degree to which we can fix this, and we can't because people overreact and think in extremes. Yet when the extremes happen like today twice they talk not of the tragedy but of the president spinning a tragedy into politics which is exactly what they are doing as well. It is pure insanity to me.
 
Damn, this was in Roseburg? I've been out IRL for a few days. I'm from Eugene. And there are people that still want weaker gun laws.

The good news is, Oregon's the kind of state that'll make a big deal about this legislatively on a local level.
 
Fox News is toxic.

Yeah sure PDs and colleges everywhere will pull all the required budget out of their ass to make that happen.

Bunch of idiots. They know it's not a viable solution but it's an easy way out because god forbid someone has an honest conversation about gun control.

And who will pay for that when they want to take money out of education already? How are schools going to pull that off? Ridiculous..

Didn't the Obama Administration propose offering incentives for schools to hire resource officers?
 
Obama's still got it. Great speech, but a little sad that it won't change anything and there's nothing he really can do about it.
 
I 100% support the president on this, but again I go back to his first two years in office where he had the house and senate and he didn't push many of his policies then. I feel something could have been done back then and he didn't.

You make it sound easy when some of these people are getting paid by powerful lobbyists and getting all sorts of good services across the board. Until some of these assholes have witnessed what common citizens are going through, i doubt they care, they after all have bodyguards too.
 
I finally listened to his speech, and fuck, did I come away feeling chastised. That's the voice Obama uses when he knows Sasha and Malia fucked up, and he is about to ground the shit out of them.

He gave the country a disappointed dad speech, and I loved it. He was visibly shaken, angry, and exhausted by once again having to come out and explain to us something that should be common sense to any rational minded adult.

If I could vote him on a third and fourth term. I would. Yet I know this being his last term is why he's able to take the kid gloves off and be real with us.

Man. After that speech, me and my wife were like, "should we go to our room? No tv and phone privileges for a week? Damn, dad..."

Fantastic speech, but I expect the usual pundits to attack it, and the President, and find another way to justify why families once again mourning the loss of loved ones due to excessive gun violence is fair trade so we can preserve our 2nd amendment rights.
 
Fox News is toxic.





Didn't the Obama Administration propose offering incentives for schools to hire resource officers?

It's a slow and arduous process that would likely take far longer to implement nationwide than it would take for the next campus shooting to occur.

It's just another half-assed "solution" proposed to people who want any excuse to continue to bury their heads in the sand.
 
I finally listened to his speech, and fuck, did I come away feeling chastised. That's the voice Obama uses when he knows Sasha and Malia fucked yo, and he is about to ground the shit out of them.

He gave the country a disappointed dad speech, and I loved it. He was visibly shaken, angry, and exhausted by once again having to come out and explain to us something that should be common sense to any rational minded adult.

If I could vote him on a third and fourth term. I would. Yet I know this being his last term is why he's able to take the kid gloves off and be real with us.

Man. After that speech, me and my wife were like, "should we go to our room? No tv and phone privileges for a week? Damn, dad..."

Fantastic speech, but I expect the usual pundits to attack it, and the President, and find another way to justify why families once again mourning the loss of loved ones due to excessive gun violence is fair trade so we can preserve our 2nd amendment rights.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JeD0eR3ol6c :(
 
No shit.

I'd have walked off this motherfucker three years ago.

Look at how it ages people. Look at the before and after pics of all the recent presidents after 8 years of this shit. I think the job ages you about 25 years.

But really, Presidents can't do shit. That rapid aging is from Congress repeatedly slapping them in the face with a 10 inch 10 pound dick during the course of their term.
I don't know how it works in America, but in Canada, parliament has a leading minority or majority composition of the winning party, aka the Prime Minister. Since there are essentially two parties in the US, wouldn't the majority of congress be democratic? Why wouldn't they support their leader then?
 
Can someone explain to me the difference between how the UK's/Australia's way of running the gov't is different from the US.

How can one incident cause such a fast response from one country but not the US.
 
Stop posting that guy, him and others like him should be ignored. Giving them views or calling them out will just make them double down.
 
Its such a deep rooted problem in America. With a lot of money and people behind keeping it as is. Some people would rather die than let the government take their guns... and if thats the hill some would die on I would cheer the government taking them up on that.

So much death, for an ancient outdated right. Ive lost family to gun violence and it was only an accident. I dont know how a proponent could face a mass shooting victim's family in the face with their proposals.
 
This is a summary of President Obama's proposal for gun law reform:

  • Requires background checks for all gun sales and strengthens the background check system. This would include removing barriers under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act so that states may more freely share information about mental health issues involving potential gun purchasers.

  • Provides states with monetary incentives—$20 million in fiscal year FY 2013 and a proposed $50 million in FY 2014—to share information so that records on criminal history and people prohibited from gun ownership due to mental health reasons are more available.

  • Bans military-style assault weapons and limits magazines to a capacity of 10 rounds.

  • Provides additional tools to law enforcement. The plan proposes a crackdown on gun trafficking by asking Congress to pass legislation that closes “loopholes” in gun trafficking laws and establishes strict penalties for “straw purchasers” who pass a background check and then pass guns on to prohibited people.

  • Urges Congress to pass the administration’s $4 billion proposal to keep 15,000 state and local police officers on the street to help deter gun crime.

  • Maximizes efforts to prevent gun violence and prosecute gun crime. The president calls upon the attorney general to work with U.S. attorneys across the country to determine gaps occurring in this area and where supplemental resources are appropriate.

  • Provides training for “active shooter” situations to 14,000 law enforcement, first responders and school officials.

  • Directs the secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services to issue a statement to health care providers that they are not prohibited by federal law from reporting threats of violence to the proper authorities.

  • Launches a national gun safety campaign to encourage responsible gun ownership and authorizes the Consumer Product Safety Commission to examine issues relating to gun safety locks.

  • Helps schools invest in safety. The president’s plan calls for more school resource officers and counselors in all schools through the Community Oriented Policing Services hiring program. The plan also calls for the federal government to assist schools in developing emergency management plans.

  • Improves mental health awareness through enhanced teacher training and referrals for treatment. The plan calls for the training of 5,000 additional mental health professionals nationwide. The plan also calls for coverage of mental health treatment under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and the Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act of 2008.

Source: NCSL
 
I don't know how it works in America, but in Canada, parliament has a leading minority or majority composition of the winning party, aka the Prime Minister. Since there are essentially two parties in the US, wouldn't the majority of congress be democratic? Why wouldn't they support their leader then?

The President and Congress are elected separately in the U.S.. The majority of congressmen are Republicans right now and not on Obama's side.
 
My god did a breath ever say a thousand words. That deeep breath Obama took right before his final prayer/sentence in the speech, goddamn. Such frustration.
 
I don't know how it works in America, but in Canada, parliament has a leading minority or majority composition of the winning party, aka the Prime Minister. Since there are essentially two parties in the US, wouldn't the majority of congress be democratic? Why wouldn't they support their leader then?

congress be the other party

the presidential term is four years, congressional elections happen every two (and congressional terms are 6 yrs). a party can win the presidency and still lose every single seat in congress they have up for reelection. in 2008, obama won presidency and dems won both house and senate. in 2010, dems lost house (they only won two years before because coattail effect). in 2012, obama won re-election and senate stayed dem and house stayed gop. in 2014, dems lost majority in senate.
 
The President and Congress are elected separately in the U.S.. The majority of congressmen are Republicans right now and not on Obama's side.
So for Congress, they are voted by some region right?

Was it a majority Democratic or Republican Congress in his last term? And I assume the President also gets a seat in Congress?
 
One of the things people in this thread keep bringing up is Australia, and how after the Port Arthur shooting they heavily restricted gun sales and there have been no massacres since then.

However there is one thing that also happened: a conservative government is the one that essentially forced the measures through, and the leaders essentially lost their jobs soon after, getting voted out of office. They decided the good of the country was better than their jobs and did (what they saw) as the right thing over politics. The gun thing wasn't the only reason they got the boot, but it didn't play well with their base.

Obama and the democrats could definitely get some stronger gun control laws passed. They cannot make any 2nd amendment changes as they don't have the votes to pass it off, but they could definitely give the ATF stronger powers, force background checks on all private sales, shift money around to provide open public background services for private sales, etc. Some would get challenged in courts and probably lose, but there is a lot of executive and budget power Obama wields. He would poison the well and not get a single other thing passed in his term, but its not like a lot is happening anyways.

So why don't the democrats do this? Because anyone who did it would get voted out of office next term and it would more or less guarantee a republican victory in most races as it would be a massive rallying cry against the democratic party. It would guarantee the president in 2016 is a republican.

After the Colorado shootings some minor gun control laws were passed in Colorado - limit the amount of bullets a magazine can hold and require gun shows to run background checks. A number of democrats who passed that legislation got recalled out of office soon after in special elections.
 
Fox news is nothing but a business. They are intended to give a product to people that they are trying to sell, and they are selling hate for Obama, liberals, "the other", etc. That's all they are. Sometimes you will have legit logic be put forward, but at the end of the day they are just selling to the people what they want to hear. Same goes for liberals that watch fox, or, the crowd that only watch to be angry over what they say.

That's why you have idiots saying random dumb shit (IE, "whats stopping someone from getting all potted up and driving?"). Their target audience really is the 70 year old retired conservative that wants their world view to be upheld.

This is why time blocks typically change around an election. Remember how Alan Colmes got deleted from Hannity and Colmes (to just make a show called Hannity) right after Obama got elected? They knew going into his presidency what their business model was going to be and followed through, from it, they were able to build narratives about liberals, progressives and government in general. Hell, Glen Beck even did full shows on what a progressive is and why it should be hated.

Its kind of like how Frank Luntz gets is a master pollster. If you phrase the message/question in the right way, you can ultimately get a response that you are looking for.
 
So for Congress, they are voted by some region right?

Was it a majority Democratic or Republican Congress in his last term? And I assume the President also gets a seat in Congress?

nah bruh, checks and balances and shit.

closest to that is vp is leader of the house or senate or some shit but even then they don't get any real power outside of some beauracratic power.
 
This is a summary of President Obama's proposal for gun law reform:

(list)

That's all good stuff, but why stick the 'assault weapon ban' business back in there? It's like adding a poison pill on purpose. We know those weapons don't play any appreciable role in total firearms death statistics, and as a package that proposal would be much more likely to fly without it.
 
I don't know how it works in America, but in Canada, parliament has a leading minority or majority composition of the winning party, aka the Prime Minister. Since there are essentially two parties in the US, wouldn't the majority of congress be democratic? Why wouldn't they support their leader then?

No. Canada is a parliamentary democracy, the US is a presidential democracy.
 
Obama looks pretty tired and defeated there. Almost like he's so sick of it and he knows nothing will change so he doesn't even want to do this shit anymore.
 
Not from the US so I don't know how this works, but how do the campus shooters, armed with multiple guns and sometimes explosives, get past the campus security? Or is campus security not strictly enforced?

They're generally very open and shooters always have the element of surprise. Being armed doesn't mean shit if someone shoots you first.

A shooter can kill as many people as bullets in a clip before you can even unholster your gun after you hear the shots being fired
 
One of the things people in this thread keep bringing up is Australia, and how after the Port Arthur shooting they heavily restricted gun sales and there have been no massacres since then.

However there is one thing that also happened: a conservative government is the one that essentially forced the measures through, and the leaders essentially lost their jobs soon after, getting voted out of office. They decided the good of the country was better than their jobs and did (what they saw) as the right thing over politics. The gun thing wasn't the only reason they got the boot, but it didn't play well with their base.

Like you say, it may have been a factor but it wouldn't have been the only factor. To many of the Aussie Left these days Howard's only redeeming factor was pushing the gun laws through and it's the only thing many will give him credit for. He and his treasurer, depending on who you ask, absolutely nutted our economy during his reign.
 
That's all good stuff, but why stick the 'assault weapon ban' business back in there? It's like adding a poison pill on purpose. We know those weapons don't play any appreciable role in total firearms death statistics, and as a package that proposal would be much more likely to fly without it.
The Obama-Biden Administration's plan for reducing gun violence addresses this on page 4 and 5.

2. Get military-style assault weapons and high capacity magazines off the streets

A 2010 survey by the Police Executive Research Forum found that more than one-third of police departments reported an increase in criminals’ use of assault weapons and high-capacity magazines since the prohibition on high-capacity magazines and assault weapons expired in 2004.

To protect law enforcement and enhance public safety, we must redouble our efforts to:

  • Reinstate and strengthen the ban on assault weapons: The shooters in Aurora and Newtown used the type of semiautomatic rifles that were the target of the assault weapons ban that was in place from 1994 to 2004. That ban was an important step, but manufacturers were able to circumvent the prohibition with cosmetic modifications to their weapons. Congress must reinstate and strengthen the prohibition on assault weapons.

  • Limit ammunition magazines to 10 rounds: The case for prohibiting high-capacity magazines has been proven over and over; the shooters at Virginia Tech, Tucson, Aurora, Oak Creek, and Newtown all used magazines holding more than 10 rounds, which would have been prohibited under the 1994 law. These magazines enable any semiautomatic weapon to be used as an instrument of mass violence, yet they are once again legal and now come standard with many handguns and rifles. Congress needs to reinstate the prohibition on magazines holding more than 10 rounds.

  • Finish the job of getting armor-piercing bullets off the streets: It is already illegal to manufacture and import armor-piercing ammunition except for military or law enforcement use. But it is generally still not illegal to possess or transfer this dangerous ammunition. Congress should finish the job of protecting law enforcement and the public by banning the possession of armor- piercing ammunition by, and its transfer to, anyone other than the military and law enforcement.

Keep in mind this proposal is dated January 16, 2013.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom