Rather, he says he'll just "talk about" the issue hoping to effect "political change." In other words, he has no ideas and cares nothing about either lives or gun control, but cares a lot about further dividing Americans in time for next year's elections.
Need further proof? Then consider the fact that Obama has had over 6 years to present his "common sense" ideas, and instead he's given us this...
(12/21/12)
One of the previous ways Mr. Common Sense wanted to curtail gun violence was by having the DOJ give guns to Mexican drug cartels and then track what happened. Unsurprisingly, it turns out that the guns were used to kill hundreds of people, including U.S. border agent Brian Terry.
Also, following the Sandy Hook shootings, Obama tasked his most trusted associate with the job of coming up with bold, innovative new "common sense" gun control policies. Not that we actually remember him producing any...
(1/9/13)
No, wait - Shotgun Joe did finally come up with a "common sense" idea to end mass shootings! And this was it...
(2/1/13)
Of course, waiting for non-violent videogames to change our culture is a slow process, which is why the Obama administration needed to posit ways for people to protect themselves in classrooms and offices without using guns...
That's right. Homeland Security actually released a video asserting that scissors, staplers, and tape dispensers all made perfectly dandy defensive weapons. Which makes us wonder why Obama isn't currently whining about "common sense" regulations to control dangerous office supplies.
(4/9/14)
Then in 2014, Eric Holder pitched another "simple" idea which only Rube Goldberg could love...
Clearly, the Obama administration has had plenty of time to come up with "common sense ideas," but has failed miserably to do so. Because, as is the case with most issues this president has faced, actual solutions are less useful politically than keeping the problems alive as devisive wedge issues.
But on the positive side, Hope n' Change will note that even our current gun regulations, while not perfect, at least weed out the obvious lunatics...
(1/18/13)
It’s been suggested this week that we make the Sidwell Friends School and the White House a “Gun Free” zone, even take down that fence.
ReplyDeleteOn a more serious note. A gun-free zone, is a designation that keeps concealed-carry licensees from bringing their weapons into the area. One pundit wondered if that decision opens the owners to legal liability for forcing people to disarm themselves without having enough security to protect them. He suggested that the owners of a gun free zone could be sued for failing to provide sufficient protection. Some would argue that those who believe such a ban puts them at risk are free not to enter the property. Aren’t people assuming any risk, and waiving any right to recompense, when they knowingly and voluntarily enter a gun-free zone? I disagree with that argument! One could go down one block to buy a cake, but there is only one Community College in the local region.
Doesn’t a property owner have a right to ban guns from his property, even if it is unwise to do so? Sure, but they must assume any and all risk and liability.
The Oregon College only had one un-armed security guard. The message a large dollar court settlement would bring to the table would be that you must provide real security or pay the cost another way.
What is more useless than having an unarmed security guard? I know, it's a rhetorical question. But just the word security denotes that that person is somehow going to provide protection. How in the name of Chesty Puller can anyone provide protection without the means to do so? And the left is trying to throw statistics at us showing that after certain countries took away all the guns that gun violence went down. But they fail to show that (1) now only the bad guys have guns and (2) the crime continues, only now it is with knives, rocks, sticks and stones. I want to see stats showing all crime with all weapons. Oh, where is my 'shine?.......
ReplyDeleteAnd, Joseph ET, you are spot on with the liability. When an entity prevents someone from having the ability do defend themselves, they should be responsibility for any and all actions resulting from same. I would just love to see billions and billions (to paraphrase Dr. Carl Sagan) of dollars paid out to victims and families of victims resulting from the negligence of certain entities.
If this psychotic wants gun control, I suggest he start with his own security team. I'd be willing to bet that they carry weapons. Just more obfuscation of facts to take emphasis off his failed presidency and divide the country. If anyone involved in any of these tragedies had been armed, I'm sure the shooters would have been taken down resulting in fewer deaths. Why is this so hard for these libs?
ReplyDeleteBwhahahahahahaha!! Very funny stuff :)
ReplyDeleteThe Oregon shooters ignorant father blames the guns he didn't know his son had 14 of.
ReplyDeleteI figure if you didn't know your son had 14 weapons, you have pretty much given up any right to make stupid statements in your grief, you didn't really care. If you had really cared about him and your convictions Pops, you would have turned him in as a threat and prevented all this so, STFU.
I was trying to figure out who in the O'Baja administration wouldn't be allowed to legally purchase a handgun.
Suppose it would have been a quicker endeavour to list the ones who could pass a background check.
Check out You Tube - Firewall - Bill Whittle -Number One With a Bullet. Puts it in perspective.
ReplyDeleteI am glad that you ran these Stilton. They were all from before I started following and they are good ones. I especially liked the one of Oboy not being able to buy a gun, made me laugh out loud! I would actually hate to be near him if he did carry. He has a few screws loose.
ReplyDeleteLet's see...a white guy kills 9 black Christians in South Carolina and the media goes into overdrive labeling it a racial hate crime. Now a half-black guy kills 10 white Christians in Oregon and no mention of race or hate crime is made.
ReplyDeleteSeems completely unbiased to me.
Yes, we need extreme gun control measures so that the entire country can be as peaceful and non-violent as Øbonzo's home town of Chicago. Oh...wait a minute.
There were 2 political cartoons that I cannot find now. One showed a smirking, winking Obama with a voice asking the question "You want to take guns away from Americans to keep guns out of the hands of the insane, while paving the way for madmen In Iran to get nuclear weapons?" The second political cartoon shows inspectors watching Ahmadinejad working on a nuclear missile and he says with a smile "It's a clock."
ReplyDeleteI heard the term "gun safety" used as a synonym for "gun control" during his blabbering. Heard it from a few other talking heads over the weekend. Maybe I'm behind the times, but is "gun safety" the new term, like progressive vice liberal?
ReplyDeleteGreat re-runs, Stilton! But they once again made me shake my head that we are still stuck with a bunch of liberal ass kissers in the press who refuse to expose the lunacy going on in DC and many state gubmints as well. The founders gave the press a lot of power and protection so they could keep gubmint honest. What the heck happened?!
ReplyDeleteI'd like to rally everyone who still thinks for themselves to write a letter to your local nooz-paper editor. Write a nice, short polite letter suggesting that gun control really has not worked, so perhaps we should consider making it illegal to shoot people.
@Dan,
ReplyDeleteGun "control" sounds too.... controlling. Apparently O'Liar and his minions have finally figured out that people don't WANT gun "control," so they thought up a cutesy new name. Sort of like calling beheading by guillotine "a haircut," or hacking up babies and selling their parts, "women's health."
Since Bill Whittle tends to be so awesome, here's a handy link to the video mentioned above by Dave N. Enjoy!
ReplyDeleteIt occurs to me that people have been killing people long before guns were invented. Cain slew Abel with his bare hands.
ReplyDeleteEven more to the point, Samson slaughtered 1000 Philistines with the jawbone of an ass. Should not jawbones be outlawed? Or, perhaps, anyone who uses an ass as their political symbol should be arrested for hate crimes.
It occurs to me that people have been killing people long before guns were invented. Cain slew Abel with his bare hands.
ReplyDeleteEven more to the point, Samson slaughtered 1000 Philistines with the jawbone of an ass. Should not jawbones be outlawed? Or, perhaps, anyone who uses an ass as their political symbol should be arrested for hate crimes.
"But when pressed for specifics, he unsurprisingly doesn't offer any of the "common sense" ideas which he claims would solve the problem of mass shootings."
ReplyDeleteI guess suggesting that we do what they did in Britain and Australia wasn't quite the same as coming out and actually saying "Let's collect and destroy the guns of everyone Progressives don't like in America". But it was close enough for me.
Unfortunately, there are no "common sense" solutions that anyone can think of that would have prevented last week's tragedy. (I think Charles Cooke from the National Review did a pretty good job of pointing that out on PMSNBC)
So in the absence of any actionable solution in the short term, the President and the left will do what they usually do; demagogue anybody who dares stand in their way. They can read polls as well as anybody, and know that the majority of Americans are still not yet ready to totally give up on the Bill of Rights. So they'll just keep doing what they've been doing for decades, and just keep chipping away at people until the day comes when there's enough people for a overthrow.
@Joseph ET, of course the kids of the elite at Sidwell Friends School will remain protected by well-armed gendarmes, as well as the elites themselves. The gangs in the ghetto will remain well armed as well. The only people totally disarmed will be the honest folk of the middle class.
And I did catch the proposal by some rep from somewhere blue suggesting legislation permitting anyone in the gun trade to be sued anytime someone else does something bad with a gun, which obviously would put everyone out of business in short order. Of course, since such legislation would be a slippery slope (which politically incorrect product category will be next?) I seriously doubt such legislation would ever see the light of day.
How long would @Stilton last having to settle suits for all the ruined keyboards?
@OpenTheDoor, the fact that the father is blaming his son's actions on the gun tells you pretty much all you need to know about that situation.
@Dan, yes I caught that too. I expect that to be the new narrative. The left is all about twisting the language to suit their agenda, and soon "gun safety", which practically everyone, including gun owners are in favor of, will soon be synonymous with "gun control".
In the meantime, I'll continue my quest to demand the prohibition of alcohol before guns.
A prerequisite to any law-abiding common U.S. citizens giving up their guns or ammo should be: All blow-hard high-level politicians lose Secret Service protection. Even then, I still won't give up mine. And yes, I'm trained, practiced, and know how to use each of them effectively in a variety of conditions.
ReplyDeleteActually, you hit the nail on the head. IF you have a problem and do not solve it, it is because you want that problem. He wants Chicago to be a murderous city along with those other S**t holes in the north. His solution to strangling people is to cut everyone's hands off, except his, as he would never do that. This is one strange person for a president. I cannot believe our elected officials will not stand up to him and call him out.
ReplyDelete@ James Daily, sigh...I totally agree. Someone should have called him out long ago, but no one wants to be called a racist.
ReplyDeletePretty much ALL of us here at H&C blog have the president's number! Here in Oklahoma, I rarely talk with someone who does not; after all, this IS Oklahoma! But....across this great nation, we all know there are those people who just do not understand evil, and are willing to give it a pass for the sake of 'giving peace a chance', or some other PC reason!
ReplyDeleteAll that to say, thanks, Stilt, for all the effort you put into creating your strips, and some really brilliant commentay...I'm sure we all appreciate you!
@James Daily, perpetual problems are justification for more government, which keeps these people in power and millions employed happily feeding money and power back to the top. They can't afford to solve the problems.
ReplyDelete@chef621, I consider myself a failure if I'm not called a "racist" by someone at least once a week. It means that I haven't made a Progressive cede any argument.
Meanwhile, we get to learn more about shooter 20151001:
Oregon shooter's dad: 'That's what guns are, the killers'
Of course, we start with "It was the guns fault". It couldn't have possibly been that perhaps the kid's emotional or psychological problems resulted from a broken home with dysfunctional parents. So much easier to blame inanimate objects.
‘When they spill a little blood, the whole world knows who they are’
Another wanna-be social media celebrity. It's social media's fault.
Oregon shooter rants in writings about having no girlfriend
No girlfriend. It's women, feminist's and the media's fault. MTV lied to him.
And finally, Oregon Shooter's Mom Reportedly Bragged About Gun Stash
"The mother of the 26-year-old man who massacred nine people Thursday at Oregon's Umpqua Community College reportedly bragged in the past about the stash of weapons she was stockpiling in anticipation of stricter gun laws."
It's Obama & the Democrats fault for always threatening to outlaw and seal everyone's guns.
Plenty of blame to go around.
I normally give the parents a pass because most do the best they can with what they have. His dad appears to be an exception
ReplyDelete1) I never ever told my parents 'I am about to do something really stupid' as a matter of fact the key operative word was sneak and I did not brag about it afterwards to their face (the sole exception was enlisting in the Marine Corps at 17 y/o)
2) At age 26 I was more worried about what my kids did.
3) I had a job that already had sent me half ways around the world (and kindly brought me back) and was responsible because of the stripes on my arms for what other stupid 'kids' did.
4) My dad will be 90 next week the Good Lord willing and he does not know how many guns I have. He didn't when I was 26 even though we enjoyed shooting and hunting together. Not because I was keeping deep dark secrets, but because it was never an issue.
5) His mother is correct in her assessment.
Geoff King
ReplyDeleteI have often thought there was a mix up in the interpretation of the Creation story and the Samson epic with the correct version being that he slew a 1000 philistines with Adam's rib and vice versa. Most women I share this with think I am wrong.
It's very insulting when anyone uses the phrase "common sense". What they are inferring is that if you don't agree, you have none.
ReplyDelete@REM1875, the fact that today we frequently refer to 26-year-olds as "kids" is likely much of the problem. You're right; a generation or two ago, by 26 most people had been to war and back, been married for years, likely had two or three kids, had a career, or at least gainful employment, or some combination thereof. Today, people can navel-gaze into middle age, and beyond if they wish. I think the ultimate symbol of this insanity was perma-student Sandra Fluke who in her 30s unabashedly stood before Congress and argued that those of us who'd been acting like adults and working since our teenage years should be made to pay for her recreational sex while she remained unemployed into middle age.
ReplyDeleteMrs. Econ & I like watching old movies. We marvel at the "adult" stars from the 30s-through-50s who although frequently under 30 years old, were regarded as "mature", "astute", and "debonair". Compare that to most of today's celebrities under 30 who usually seem like overgrown teenagers who you wound't for a second trust with your car keys or liquor cabinet. Those adults from the 30s-through-50s were the ones that vanquished fascism and conquered Soviet communism.
What chance does a country led by useless community organizers and people who take Sandra Fluke seriously have against enemies who are fundamentally determined to destroy us? Not much, I am afraid. In fact, they're already capitulating.
@Readers- Once again, circumstances have kept me from commenting here (all is fine, it just seems that there are fewer hours in every day). But I've been reading all the comments and there are some great dialogues going on.
ReplyDeleteWell @Stilton, the days do seem to be getting shorter. I swear that it's been getting light later in the morning, and dark sooner in the evening since June. "Climate change" is no doubt responsible. Good thing Obama and the Pope are on that.
ReplyDeleteI thought that days were shorter in the winter and longer in the summer because cold contracts and heat expands. Hmmmmmmmm......
ReplyDeleteThe surge in shootings at what would be considered 'safe' venues is directly a result of the infatuation the news media has for every event that happens. I believe that many of the shootings that have occurred since Gabby Giffords was shot is due to the sensationalism of the coverage and the fixation of the news for weeks on end about the 'tragedy' du jour.
ReplyDeleteWhile these events are truly tragic, I would suggest that the minute by minute reporting of every minutia of data simply encourages other potential murderers to 'show everybody' how they feel. This is not any different from the notion of a crowd mentality steering the behaviors of strangers in the same direction.
When leftists have created a godless and immoral society, why do they complain that there need to be more controls. The media celebrates mass killers. most people can name a mass killer from the past ten years. Can anybody name the three heroes of the Belgium train shooting? Given that TV, game, music and movies glorify violence, guns, blood and gore; why would not expect the mentally unstable to want that glory and celebrity status? We now live in a society that promotes violence, sex abuse and deviancy, drugs and alcohol abuse; A society that mocks morals and clean living, self-discipline and then expect there to be no violence, blood, abuse. What a society supports, a society gets. Liberals generally know this by deny it and blame inanimate objects. It relieves them of responsibility and allows them to be tolerant of others sins.
ReplyDelete@Jan Blickenstaff, you've hit the nail on the head. There is little new about guns or their availability; they've been openly around us and available since the beginning of this country. Heck, only a couple of generations ago they used to teach shooting and gun safety in public schools!
ReplyDeleteBut what has changed is the coarseness of our media and culture. I believe that this went into high-gear when the responsible "adults" in the media started ceding the reins to the "children" in the name of "art" and profits. From there, it was a race to the bottom. To make things worse, they got sanctimonious about it, so today Larry Flynt is regarded as a "free speech" patriot while actual political speech is constantly under attack.
It's little surprise that so many of the mass killers we see today also (with minimal adult supervision) have been immersed in years of value-free media containing pornography and violent content in the form of movies and video games. I have little doubt that it will be revealed as the same with the most recent example.
Ironically, this appears to be the appeal of fundamentalist Islam to so many of these disaffected youth; as twisted an ideology as it is, it does offer something that our chaotic anything goes pop-media culture does not: Solid values and social order.
So what is the solution? As a staunch free speech advocate, I find the notion of allowing the state to purge media of things it finds offensive, especially considering the leftist-run state we have today. We generally agree here that outlawing guns is pointless as they're already out there and the infrastructure exists for getting more even if they are outlawed.
But if is inevitable that the state is going to seize our guns, then our civil rights are going to be shot anyway. (pun intended) We should also demand a clamp-down on gratuitous media, and as I've said before, alcohol too. (since it kills more people every day than guns do in years)
Are we going to be a "free" society or not? This is the real decision.