In the aftermath of the recent mass shootings around the country, the National Rifle Assn (NRA) has come out with yet another ad aimed this time at the President's school age daughters. The ad, later pulled after criticism from conservatives such as Joe Scarborough purported to connect the Presidents use of Secret Service protection for his children at school as hypocritical to the rest of Americans who supposedly face the same type of threat.
Scarborough related on his Morning Joe show via Media Matters: Scarborough, who as a Congressman was a strong supporter of the NRA, responded to the ad, asking "what's wrong with these people?" He continued, pointing out that once Obama decided to run for president, his children "have targets on their backs." Scarborough also said that the NRA is now a "fringe organization with millions of mainstream members." He concluded by saying the ad was "frightening and over the line."
The NRA wasn't the only dog whistle being blown, El Rushbo was also in on the act:
Comparing the executive order signing yesterday with children standing around the President, Limbaugh bellowed: "The children's as human shield show" Others collaborating with Rush on twitter includes FOX radio's Todd Starnes who yapped:
Another spare parts talker, FOX' Tammy Bruce tweeted "Really? How about Obama using dead children as pawns?"
Republicans are threatening to impeach Obama over executive action on gun control, but many presidents have issued executive orders on gun control, including George H. W. Bush and Bill Clinton.
Executive orders concerning a ban on assault weapons is nothing new. In 1989 after a mass schoolyard shooting in Stockton Calif, then President George HW Bush signed an executive order banning the importation of certain semi-automatic . This was based on the 1968 gun control act.
1952 Supreme Court ruled Executive Orders cannot be used to make new laws. However, Executive orders can be used to manage the enforcement of an existing law such as the Gun Control act of 1968. Both the 1989 signing and President Clinton's signing in 1998 banning 50 semiautomatic weapons that were modified due to "sporting purposes" exemptions.
The President could also use another existing law to sign additional orders. The National Firearms Act (NFA) of 1934,(after the St Valentines Day Massacre,FDR signed) which levied a tax on the transfer of firearms. The President could use an executive order to institute a database and background checks centered on the sale of firearms; in other words, managing an existing law.
Fringe is the "no gun" left, and the "militia men" right. I am far more in the middle than any of you. And "fall back, reorganize & attack" .. maybe when a "Sgt Pussy" here is in charge. Find cover & fight for your life and the lives of your fellow soldiers is more like it. My brother was wounded in Iraq. He didn't have any chance to fall back when his convoy was attacked. He kicked ass and saved another man's life by hauling him to safety under fire. I am lucky my brother is alive today. There is a huge difference between what the military & police do, and running away as TS suggests. Charging only works in video games and movies.
TS ignores my point about teachers being in the line of fire, and also avoids military because he knows they are paid too little. My arguments make absolute sense, you're just afraid of guns because you believe that everyone will kill you with one. Sorry, you're wrong again. You've probably passed thousands upon thousands of concealed weapons on law abiding citizens and you have never even known it, because there was never an issue. If guns were so dangerous in the right hands, you'd be dead by now.. but they aren't and you aren't.
Yes, accidents happen. But so do car accidents on the road, knife accidents in the kitchen, etc. Gun accidents are far more rare, because the vast majority of gun owners know how to respect a firearm.
TS, Andrew, Sgt. Rock, et all. You keep arguing a mute point. It is a waste of time, and I'm going to stop writing about it. Assume you can't ban guns, assault weapons or high capacity magazines. What are your solutions then? You have offered nothing positive to this conversation as of yet. Let's see if you can pony up.
Posted by: Broken One | January 21, 2013 at 10:38 AM
Breaking NEWS!!!
TS is not a he.
Posted by: Sinbad | January 21, 2013 at 11:07 AM
LOL, I should have guessed. Andrew probably isn't either.
Posted by: Broken One | January 21, 2013 at 11:09 AM
TS ignores my point about teachers being in the line of fire,
I am a teacher. And as for being in the line of fire, we all may be in the line of fire one day and when we least expect it.
I've responded to everything you've put out there. Your tirades are becoming longer, redundant and less interesting. I'm out.
Posted by: TS | January 21, 2013 at 12:52 PM
"Tirades" You are a joke TS. Be out, dodge more questions. I ask you to provide some alternate solutions, get off this line of gun control and you have no interest in even trying to come up with anything! You're just like Andrew. Losers with a one track mind. Uninterested in any points of view but your own narrow minded thinking.
What do they say about teachers? Oh yeah, "Those who can't teach..."
Posted by: Broken | January 21, 2013 at 01:29 PM
whatever
Posted by: TS | January 21, 2013 at 02:04 PM
President Obama was talking about you today, Broken. He said "name calling is no substitute for debate." Have you visitied Sound Politics? You would fit in perfectly there.
Posted by: Walt | January 21, 2013 at 02:20 PM
Yeah, I have been the only poster throwing insults in this forum. People can dish it out, but they can't take it.
I tried to get out of the hot-button part of this debate, and people just want to stick on the button. I ask, why? What is so wrong about discussing alternatives to no guns? What is wrong with talking about what else might have driven these people to become mass murderers? Nothing is wrong with it, except that it takes a brain. There, another insult. Obama ain't my mama!
Posted by: Broken | January 21, 2013 at 04:47 PM
There is nothing at all wrong with regulating certain weapons, magazines or ammunition. It’s not the end of the world and it just may curtail the madness.
Posted by: Gentlemen Rouge | January 21, 2013 at 07:59 PM
Because we all know the best way to put out a fire is to buy more matches.
And a can of gasoline.
Posted by: Walt | January 21, 2013 at 10:09 PM
Well with that logic, I guess we'd never be able to put out oil well fires. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_well_fire
How are you going to stop a criminal with a gun who is coming to kill your family Walt?
Posted by: Broken | January 22, 2013 at 12:54 AM
This scenario occurs in the minds of fearful people.
Posted by: Gentlemen Rouge | January 22, 2013 at 10:51 AM
Haha. Colbert did some funny bits last night on fear. The only ting we have to fear is fear itself and . . .
Very funny.
Posted by: TS | January 23, 2013 at 07:31 AM
"ting" - s/b "thing" of course.
Posted by: TS | January 23, 2013 at 07:31 AM