Get PJ Media on your Apple

Obama’s Gun-Control Home Stretch: ‘This Is Not About Me’

VIDEO: Reid says there is "no reason" for GOP's "blatant obstruction" except "fear of considering anti-violence proposals" in public view.

by
Nicholas Ballasy

Bio

April 8, 2013 - 10:30 pm
Page 1 of 2  Next ->   View as Single Page
YouTube Preview Image

Taking aim at gun-control critics in Congress, President Obama said his push for stricter gun laws is “not about politics” but making it “a little harder for our kids to get gunned down.”

Both Obama and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid are going on the offense against a Senate Republican threat to filibuster any gun-control bill.

“I’ve also heard some in the Washington press suggest that what happens to gun violence legislation in Congress this week will either be a political victory or defeat for me; Connecticut, this is not about me,” said Obama at the University of Hartford on Monday.

“This is not about politics. This is about doing the right thing for all the families who are here that have been torn apart by gun violence. … Let’s make it a little harder for our kids to get gunned down.”

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) is joining an effort by a group of GOP senators to block gun=control legislation, which Obama criticized.

“If our democracy’s working the way it’s supposed to and 90 percent of the American people agree on something, in the wake of a tragedy, you’d think this would not be a heavy lift and yet some folks back in Washington are already floating the idea that they may use political stunts to prevent votes on any of these reforms,” Obama said to boos from the audience.

“They’re not just saying they’ll vote no on ideas that almost all Americans support. They’re saying they’ll do everything they can to even prevent any votes on these provisions. They’re saying your opinion doesn’t matter — and that’s not right.”

In a floor speech on Monday, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) said Senate Republicans are “afraid” to allow debate on gun-control measures, including a ban on assault weapons.

“There is no better place than the United States Senate to begin a national conversation about such critical issues — even if they are divisive issues. We should not stifle debate, run from tough issues or avoid difficult choices. This body — the world’s greatest deliberative body — has a proud tradition of such robust and constructive debate,” Reid said.

“So I am deeply troubled that a number of my Republican colleagues plan not only to oppose stricter gun violence laws, but to prevent the Senate from even voting on those measures. This flies in the face of a Senate tradition of spirited discussion that began in the first days of this institution.”

Comments are closed.

Top Rated Comments   
Whenever anyone says "it's not about me" they mean "it's all about me."
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
"Sequestration for thee, but not for me".
Obama spends OUR MONEY flying people around in Air Force One for his political circus acts, and throws lavish parties with high paid celebrities in the White House, while hard working, legitimate agencies are threatened with budget cuts.
One of his primary responsibilities is border protection, but he couldn't be bothered with any actual responsibility, nor will he be called to account for his dereliction of duty.
What's wrong with this country?
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Gun violence is not the problem. Gun violence, or just plain violence, has been illegal forever. What is different is the attempt by the democrats to impose State control of actions that are almost entirely the province of the States.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
All Comments   (28)
All Comments   (28)
Sort: Newest Oldest Top Rated
When the people elected to Congress of the USA are unable or unwilling to halt the
greed of an unprincipled, incompetent, lying president, then it becomes the problem of the people. Stop the money flow. Load your guns. God help the USA !!!
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
The solution to gun use and violence is to lift up the Ten Commandments and prayer. Since prayers and commandments were taken out of schools in 1963 we have seen greater violence, much of it in schools.

We CANNOT allow President Obama or any president to change our Constitution on gun rights because it does not solve the problem; and it would make us more vulnerable to take-over and oppression. Even assault rifles must be allowed. An army coming in with big guns would not be fearful of handguns. IF we give our government authority to change the US Constitution, we would have now power to keep our other rights either.

In 1833 God revealed that He created our US Constitution and it was for all mankind to be used with holy and just principles.
(Doctrines and Covenants 98, and 101:77-80) God gave us authority to have guns to encourage peace, not violence. We are America’s unpaid army and preventative police force, an unnumbered army to protect us from abuse by our government, and continually as a preventative to keep us safe from foreign attack and takeover, as well as a deterrent to individual home invasions.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
"God gave us authority to have guns.."

Did you check that with your Bishop before posting?
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
So Ayatollah Amabo wants to make it “a little harder for our kids to get gunned down.” while at the same time he wants it easier and paid-by-guv for anyone, anywhere, and anytime to slice and dice and flush a pre-born, almost-born or just-born human baby.

Where are the adults?

It's getting very dark, my friends.


DC
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
President Obama and family will have pleanty of guns around to protect him and his family for the rest of their lives. He would never dream of giving up the Second Amendment protection for the political elite. Still to this day many are clueless as to what is transpiring. I'm up in the North East visiting right now and am astounded by the ignorance from those I talk to.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
When will people understand the ultimate goal is to take all guns away. Even some of the politicians drafting this current draconian legislation have said they have no idea if it will do any good but I guess they are willing to sacrifice us to find out. Restricting the rights of law abiding citizens will have no effect on gun violence mainly because we are not the ones committing the crimes.

To think that passing restrictive laws will have any effect on gun toting criminals is shear folly. Criminals have other avenues to get firearms; just include guns with the next shipment of drugs. The cartels will simply start marketing guns along with their drugs. If our government banned sugar, the cartels would start selling it. Banning alcohol worked really well in the 1920's, didn't it?

To disarm law abiding American citizens and leave them at the mercy of armed criminals is immoral. To anyone that thinks a civilian cannot or will not defend themselves needs a little dose of reality. Read the monthly column titled the "Armed Citizen" in the American Rifleman.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
"Criminals have other avenues to get firearms..."

Yes indeed! About 500,000 on average per year taken easily from legal gun owners who don't care about keeping their dewadly weapons secure from loss.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
What is a dewadly weapon? Does it come with a 30 round magazine? I want one!!!!
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Proven statistical evidence please, I thought you were really big on that.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
I've posted it several times on PJM -- find it! Don't be so lazy!
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
It is almost unbelievable that the gun control debate would result from the Newtown massacre, but it did, such is the opportunism of POTUS. I wrote about the immediate response from both liberals and conservatives here: http://clarespark.com/2012/12/15/sandy-hook-massacre-and-the-problem-of-evil/. The takeaway: we are afraid to identify persons with mental illness.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Background checks are a violation of the presumption of innocence.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
90% Barry? 90? Really? You're not real handy at math, are you? When have you EVER had the support of 90% of the people on ANYTHING?
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Reid is correct on ONE thing, and that only: the Senate IS a great place to begin a CONVERSATION about firearms, public safety, and rights. Trouble is, he, and his kind, have gone far to assure a true conversation will not occur. Many gunbanners have gotten up and spewed nonsense, but no one has had opportunity to press them on their sources, false statements, flawed reasoning, nor gotten below their emptional rants about "common sense" and "its for the children". And NO ONE has had the spine to call for, much less actually engage in, a serious examination of the conflicting details and reports of what actually happened in Newtown. Far too many conflicting details call into question the story as repeated by the present administration.

DiFi calls for an AWB, yet refuses to hear the FACT that even our DoJ has examined the last one we had, and found it made no difference. Never mind the questionable reports that a Bushmaster was even used at Newtown...... how stupid do these frauds think we are? They are NOT on about protecing the children, but using them as emotioinal props to rid WE THE PEOPLE of our most effective means of protection.. as individuals against others bent upon doing us harm, and as a people against a government bent on tyranny. There is a long history of both needs, and our Founders worked hard to assure us the means of protection against both dangers. These traitors want to undo that work. They can't. That Second Articla of Ammendment does not GIVE us the right to arms, it merely declares we already HAVE that right, from our Creator, as part of our birthright, and that NO ONE, nor NOTHING, can take it away. However, if we are stupid enough, we CAN give it away voluntarily.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Swimming pools kill 3 times as many children than do guns. (Freakonomics) Why don't we ban pools?
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Obama is exactly correct, this arms debate is not about him, it is about the intelligence of the American People and their ability to recognize a lying Progressive when they hear them speak.
Read some history America, every country who accepts arms controls end up with a dictator holding guns to their heads.
We have the 2nd Amendment and we better make sure we do not lose it for any reason.... Obama is a natural liar and will always be the same. Do not listen to the fool or you will be the bigger fool....
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
1 2 Next View All