Blog powered by Typepad

« Yet more German incompetence | Main | Is Theresa May the most ghastly woman in politics? »

Tuesday, 06 October 2015

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

The ironic thing is that the latest killer had a white father and a black mother. Rather like you-know-who.

So he did, BOE, well spotted!

Obama likes to talk about gun control because it pisses off the people who are never going to vote for him anyway (responsible gun owners) yet pleases those who hold guns illegally. No laws will result, but it sounds the right note. And it might be my imagination, but he does seem to be more outraged by white people killing blacks than any other category. Even if, as in Ferguson, the white guy is a cop and the black "victim" is a violent criminal.

The London/Manchester riots started because a known black criminal carrying a gun was shot dead. Tbere seems to be a mentality in some places where criminal scumbags irrespective of colour are idolised. And they do seem to like running amock and ruining businesses in revenge. Using CS against those idiots is a rather weak response.

One of the many wonderful things about the US is the Constitution. Because there is a constitutional right to bear arms, it will take more political capital than Obama has to do anything about it.

4legdog....notice too that the 2nd Amendment is tucked nicely below the First Amendment. The placement means a great deal. I've read that during WW2, the Japanese never considered an invasion of the US because it was said "behind every blade of grass is a rifle". We have much more grass today.

Crocodile tears. To end significant gun violence it would sufficient to legalise drugs.

Whitewall. We in Britain have no blades of grass. We just have to hang around for the next suicide bomber courtesy of our politicians.

Jimmy, from what I am reading, you had better plant some. Grass I mean.

You don't know any more about American politics on your own blog than you do on P.M.'s, David, though the audience isn't as likely to catch on. Though they had a majority, the Democrats did not have control of the Congress for 2 years as you claim. Because of a contested election in Minnesota, Obama only had a 60 vote, filibuster-proof Senate from July 7, 2009 to August 25, 2009 when Ted Kennedy died. There was another period from September 25, 2009 when a Democrat was temporarily appointed to replace Kennedy until February 4, 2010 when a Republican won Kennedy's seat in a Massachusetts special election. Altogether he had about 6 months. The remainder of the time Republicans filibustered nearly all the legislation he backed. See the chart at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/111th_United_States_Congress#Senate

Bob, if what you are saying is correct then Obama was is a lame duck president. So did he achieve anything progressive for the poorer masses of USA citizens? He certainly did nothing for those dispossessed of their homes when the recession and banking crisis hit.

First of all, Bob, welcome to D&N but given your political leanings I do trust that you are wearing your full bio-chem suit lest you catch anything here!

So, according to you, your poor, helpless President was unable to do anything about gun laws during his first two years (or since) despite the fact that he rammed through 'Obamacare', successfully, against all opposition! Please note, I understand that had tried on gun law legislation he might have failed which would have hurt his high sense of self-importance, but he didn't even try! How many poor, big city, blacks have died by the bullet since 2008?

(For the benefit of my usual commenters, I am a regular visitor and commenter at

http://pmcarpenter.blogs.com/p_m_carpenters_commentary/

a solidly, in all senses of the word, Left-wing site 'over there'. Bob is just one of the commenters there who regularly attempts, metaphorically speaking, to throw me into Boston harbour! Actually, it is a fairly civilised site and worth a visit if only to see how the children are behaving!)

@ jimmy glesga

First a clarification of an American term is needed. As it pertains to Obama a "lame duck" is a president who is not running for office again. Lame ducks usually have less power because the president's party is lining up to support the new candidates. Obama has done exceptionally well as a lame duck.

The most important bill he passed to help "the masses" was probably a stimulus package that provided jobs, especially in infrastructure construction, and that kept the recession from becoming a depression. Though almost constantly blocked by the Republicans in Congress, he did manage some other improvements such as executive orders that benefited federal workers. The groundwork for the housing crisis was laid during the Clinton and especially Bush administrations. The downturn began in September of 2007.

@ David

To explain why gun owners and manufacturers have so much influence in the US would take pages. Our somewhat unique history of citizen soldiering, the second amendment to the constitution and cynical politicking all give the president, any president, little power over gun laws. This is likely to change but not for many years. If I ever did toss you into a harbor I would certainly follow up with a life preserver. We're not animals over here, nor have any of our politicians yet been caught molesting animal parts.

Bob. Thanks for your USA interpretation of 'lame duck'. Over here it basically means useless. A government should not cease to operate and be progressive because an election is pending.
Gun laws will never stop people from obtaining them the present case the CIA supplying the so called anti Assad rebels and Yanks supplying the IRA. Anyone with the will can get them.
Decent Americans should be able to own them for their sporting actiivities and self defense.

The comments to this entry are closed.