Let’s grant for a moment that Barack Obama is the wussiest wuss who ever wussed. That means that whatever he asks for is the bare minimum we need to combat ISIL, and all the chest beating manly men in the Republican party should do at least that and much more. Here’s the ask:
Here’s the response: No, Maybe and Probably Not* They’re too scared of the NRA and too unwilling to give Obama any power to do two of the three bare minimum items on the list.
*That the article has the responses to 2 and 3 mixed up due to bad editing, but you get the picture.
kc
Y’all know the no-fly list is shit, right?
Marmot
There’ll be no connection made between Repub unwillingness to implement those measures and those same Repubs’ toughness. It’s not the kind of follow-up that standard reporters are comfortable making, sadly.
Also, whatever happened to the word “request”?
PaulW
Yup. Thing is, it’s something even the Far Right wingnuts should respect as a “sensible” limiter for gun sales restrictions. And still, the party of Law and Order and National Security are wholly owned by the NMA (National Murder Association) to do anything about THAT.
Amir Khalid
Well you do have a fundamentally unserious Republican-dominated Congress, whose main mission is not to govern, but to flip Obama the bird every chance they get.
Peale
He should order them destroyed! No more containment. Order them destroyed!
I have a plan to destroy them. It’s to order the DoD to use it’s military might to destroy them. It’s the first thing I’ll do if elected. I’ll give orders.
I’m running as the anti-Baud.
The Republic of Stupity
But… but… I thought Obama was a ruthless dictator who’s been shredding the Constitution for the sake of frivolous goals like universal health care… it’s so confusing…
If only we had a true strongman in office, like Vlad the Bad, who may or may not actually have his opponents murdered…
btw… perhaps the real way to get Congressional Republicans to move on gun control is to start a vicious rumor that liberals have decided to arm up and are now buying guns in record numbers…
Peale
@The Republic of Stupity:
Please give me a heads up when the rumor starts as I’ll probably want to be armed against the people who’ll be defending themselves against me.
scav
@Peale: I somehow assume you are discussing congress.
Oatler.
“Enhanced” PATRIOT Act 2017. Criswell predicts!
Nutella
@kc:
Yes. If we’re going to have it at all it should include only people who are actually suspected terrorists and they should be treated as suspected terrorists (no flights and no guns).
Or if we’re slapping all sorts of miscellaneous people on it who are not suspected terrorists then it shouldn’t have either of those restrictions.
NonyNony
@kc: And yet people are not allowed to fly if they’re on that list, but can buy guns.
The fact that this proposal is being met with with “the no-fly list is crap” as an argument by sitting Senators and Presidential candidates as to why it shouldn’t be used to restrict who can buy guns, and yet they AREN’T proposing to fix the no-fly list to make it something actually meaningful tells you everything about how screwed up this country’s politics are.
MomSense
@kc:
Yes, but the people who believe in that shit are ok with those “terrorists” purchasing firearms. Shows how this is all BS to call them on their own security theater nonsense.
catclub
@Amir Khalid: Re: US House Of Reps:
Paul Ryan is growing a hippie beard.
Brachiator
I have no problem with these proposals, but would they have helped with San Bernardino? Supposedly, a friend originally bought the weapons used, and these weapons were reconfigured, whatever that means, to be deadlier.
I don’t know whether the people involved bought or borrowed the guns or how that transfer could have been prevented.
And the no fly list needs to be cleaned up and the whole point of it re evaluated. A former boss was on it simply because his name was confused with that of some suspicious person. And the former boss still has trouble when traveling and the authorities have had years to fix the problem.
Bobby Thomson
@kc: this is designed never to be acted on. It’s cover so that when terrorists legally buy and use guns, Obama can use Republicans’ failure to act against them. At a minimum, it’s a common sense measure that Obama can visibly request repeatedly and make a big deal about when Republicans reject it.
Simple background checks, registration, licensing, and insurance would make a lot more sense, but you use the tools you’re given.
The Republic of Stupity
@Peale: Somehow this brings to mind Walt Kelly’s famous Pogo quote…
Or perhaps Cleavon Little’s immortal New Sheriff scene from Blazing Saddles…
catclub
@Nutella:
I wonder if divorced FBI agents put their exes on the list – or the new flame of the ex?
Amir Khalid
@catclub:
Some image consultant must have told him he needed to look more mature.
benw
Ban automatic weapons and ammo used for them, no exceptions. Given that that’s not going to happen, I’m just glad that Obama seems to be trying to do the least amount of stupid/useless things possible.
Felonius Monk
These are excellent questions to be asked on the anniversary of the Day in Infamy when (according to RWNJ revisionist history buffs) Germany attacked Japan at Pearl Harbor.
rikyrah
I am so glad that Barack Obama is our President right now.
Felonius Monk
@srv:
Pataki?
Shirt
I am an immigrant and I’d favor laws limiting gun sales to citizens. That certainly would be constitutional. It would also diminish a talking point.
You’d also be juxtaposing anti-immigrant feelings against pro-gun fervor. It’d be fun!
D58826
Funny how 20 dead six year olds at Sandy Hook didn’t generated this much of a political response by the RWNJ. I sometimes think the best thing to do is dig a very deep hole, stock it with lots of good food, a nice comfortable chair and all of the books that I haven’t had time to read. And maybe when I emerge in 20 years some level of sanity will have returned. And if not rinse and repeat.
Calouste
@MomSense: I think that is Obama’s long play. He wants to convey to the American public that the GOP is ok with terrorists purchasing firearms. At the moment he’s giving them a choice of to bad things for them: either admitting that the no-fly list sucks or that they have no problem with people on the list, alleged suspected terrorists, buying firearms. In a while, Obama will give the GOP another choice between a simple fix and confirming that they are ok with terrorists buying firearms, and again they will choose for the latter. Rinse, repeat.
LWA
I agree that accepting the framing of needing a Strong President Daddy is foolish.
We need to heap scorn and ridicule on those who blubber and whine for a Big Man on Horseback to save us.
FlipYrWhig
BTW, maybe this is obvious to everyone already, but it dawned on me yesterday: I think the thing the right is trying to do with the terrorists/guns thing is suggest that The Government would ban terrorists from buying guns, then blacklist troublemaking conservatives by designating them as terrorists, then take away their guns and chortle heartily.
catclub
@Brachiator:
Not sure the legality of ‘full-auto kits’, but that is certainly a thing. Also, larger magazines.
Peale
@D58826: It did generate a huge backlash. Against the lying mothers mothers and fathers who apparently can’t be trusted to have seen the corpses of their own children and who use their lies to discredit lawful gun owners. Which the shooter was by the way, most of the time. Except for maybe 5 minutes when he was killing children but who are you to judge a life based on a 5 minute lapse of judgement. As far as I can tell he was six sigma on the right side of the law when his life is taken as a whole, not just the tiny bit you want to focus on. Throw stones and your own glass hut why don’t ya.
ETA: Plus broken homes and video games.
raven
The weapons were NOT automatic, they were semi-automatics.
Feebog
@Brachiator:
The assault rifles were legally purchased because of a loophole in California law called the “bullet button” loophole . This allows the weapon to be considered a fixed magazine rather than detachable. One of the .223s was modified to accept a 30 round magazine.
I see Raven beat me to it.
What Have the Romans Ever Done for Us?
I made this exact argument on FB a couple weeks back and every wingnut from high school attacked me saying that the Republicans must have a plan that’s better than Obama’s, because. They didn’t even seem aware that we’ve been conducting more airstrikes against ISIS than the rest of the world combined. They weren’t aware, until I told them, that Obama had asked the Republican Congress to authorize the steps he’s already taken but that they won’t, because that would mean they can’t just carp from the sidelines. None of it was in any way convincing to them, because they don’t want to be convinced. They want to believe he’s weak so they’re gonna, just like Donald Trump is gonna believe thousands of Muslims celebrated in NJ on 9/11 and Carly Fiorina is gonna believe those baby parts videos exist.
Ruckus
@What Have the Romans Ever Done for Us?:
Are you trying to say that republicans are against every thing that President Obama wants to do because he is black? I can’t believe that half the people in our nation are racists.
49% maybe but not half.
BobS
@What Have the Romans Ever Done for Us?: Yet despite “conducting more airstrikes against ISIS than the rest of the world combined” they managed to continue their lucrative oil smuggling operation to our staunch and reliable NATO ally Turkey unabated (oil that eventually found it’s way to Ashdod, in Israel, another staunch and reliable US ally). @srv: I’m guessing ISIS oil exporters would tell you that the Arabic word for kabuki is ‘Obama’.
What Have the Romans Ever Done for Us?
@Ruckus: I don’t necessarily think it’s because he’s black. They don’t trust anyone with a (D) next to their name. Most of them say they’re not Republicans but that they hold their nose and vote for them anyway as the lesser of two evils, to which my stock reply is then form your own party you CAN believe in and vote for those guys. But, they’re too chicken for that.
@BobS: Are you saying the Republicans would do better? Because, as far as I can tell they won’t do anything, at all. Not even the “kabuki” that Obama is doing. I mean, it’s not like Congress has voted on a bill ordering the POTUS to do X, Y, and Z to combat ISIS. Congress could do that, but they won’t. And if they did do something it would probably be the wrong thing (see, Iraq, invasion of) and would be much worse for the nation than what Obama is doing, and a lot less effective.
BobS
@What Have the Romans Ever Done for Us?: What did I write that suggests I think the Republicans would do better, worse, or the same? I was simply pointing out the aiding and abetting of ISIS (and Turkey and Israel) by the US government and Obama. Sorry I hurt your feelings.
Ruckus
@What Have the Romans Ever Done for Us?:
BobS is an old troll, reincarnated. Almost sounds realistic until you get to the punchline. Then not so much.
BobS
How dare I come here and not cheer Team Obama.
Jim, Foolish Literalist
@BobS: You just keep it too real. Man. Not many people can handle your level of real-ness.
BobS
Go team!