It's my football and I want to play quarterback.

Interesting take Jack, but mine was a little different. As soon as I heard the question I commented to my wife about Obama being savvy, "He knew what the question was going to be, and that's why he turned to that particular reporter."

I doubt the Pres wanted to get too far into the weeds on gun control, and needed to address the economy. But he had to have the question so he could shift gears and not appear to lack compassion. No one with a question about gun control ever had a chance to get picked first.

So Obama wants to address the culture of violence. Well maybe he should start with the government's response to foreign problems.

Why bother? We have to maintain our status as the world's number one weapons dealer.

We don't need more gun control. It will not prevent another terrible attack. That man can kill just as many defenseless children with a handgun, sword or knife. Our schools need armed guards, so do the malls.

If he wanted to talk about guns all he needed to do was not turn answers on the fiscal cliff into 5-minute filibusters. Obama talked about exactly what he wanted to talk about. As usual, the New York Times is full of it.

mcinor, have you ever been to South Africa?
That is how the white and some of those of color live, there. I thought it was a dreadful existence.
I do not wish to live like that! It also doesn't work.

What Newleaf said.

ahh...the irony....a certified and de facto "loose cannon," Joe Biden, is going to head up the the study on gun violence.

How apt.

Such biased (bigoted?) typing fingers that sprong sputtered invective here, at Obama without any mentioned notice that the TVradio BROADCASTING is killing civilians, children, humankind, democracy, decent moral sense and much much more. Crush TVradio broadcasting 'media property ownership' -- just Socialize it, so every one and each of us taxpayers has access to the microphone, in turn, saying things we do, things we know, fairly and conversing -- and that way the root of the fascism dies, which is MassMind one-way broadcasting.

MassMind mesmerizing media made Obama the president.
Obama did not make broadcasters say the poisoning hate broadcasters are saying.

Obama is bad, highly criminal -- he's a friggin' CIA agent totalitarian for crysakes!
(READ all about it HERE, true reporting that media persons are death-threated if they tell us.)

Whereas mass-broadcast media are rotting human culture in both Science&Arts; media are ending people's lives; privately capitalized media are poisoning the global ground conditions in which and whereupon human culture and human lives evolve and prosper.

Misinformer Of The Year: Rush Limbaugh, Media Matters Blog, JEREMY HOLDEN & ZACHARY PLEAT, Dec. 20, 2012

Guilty mainstream media do not condemn and castigate and embargo and eradicate guilty Rash Lamebrain-FOX fascism. Guilty mainstream media makers revel & relish in the trash. Rebarfed by comments above.

As NOT Seen On TV.

REPORT: Ecosystems in Upheaval, Biodiversity in Collapse ~ New study documenting climate change shows sweeping changes happening faster than previously recorded and bringing 'cascading effects' ~ Common Dreams, Andrea Germanos, December 20, 2012

I used to think Obama was an articulate orator. I was wrong again.

His prepared speeches are well written, perfectly paced, and well delivered. But when he goes off script, has to ad lib, or must wing an unprepared reply, the wheels fall off.

Just like the debate where he appeared high, as soon as he starts stammering, he has a very difficult time getting the train back on the tracks.

Anyone else notice he has a crib sheet of who to call on next when it's clear he has not even seen them? No wonder he has a history of banning reporters that don't stick to the per-approved questions.

Thanks Tensky.

"We don't need more gun control. It will not prevent another terrible attack. That man can kill just as many defenseless children with a handgun, sword or knife. Our schools need armed guards, so do the malls."

For crying out loud, I thought you useless gun freaks would at *least* hold off for a month in spouting inanities about an armed population reducing gun violence. We already are armed as there's 310 million guns in America. What could go wrong there? Never would one of those guns get stolen, lost and in the hands of bad people. /sarcasm.

But nope, you're here less than a week after 20 five and six year olds getting blasted away. Congratulations.

Nobody should ever own more than a handgun with a 10 bullets to a magazine/clip. One (non-hunting) gun per domicile. That's it. Hunting rifles are mostly bolt action, and hunters are by in far the most responsible gun owners there are. No need for more regulation on their guns, imo. G-bangers aren't killing people with hunting rifles.

The issue with gun control is supply. There's too many guns on the streets.

So the logical means is to limit the supply of ammunition.

Sorry gun owners, too many people are irresponsible with guns and don't lock them up. Then they get into the hands of the bad people.

There is a means to counter a mass slaughter of this sort. Would have been nice if someone was packing heat among the administrators.

The problem we have now is the chorus of people pushing to disarm the public. Authorities are moving fast with various power grabs because of the internet reformation. A more discerning public is more difficult to control. The erosion of civil liberties is moving at a rapid pace.

Tyrannical rule begins with disarming the citizens. If only the authorities have arms, the cost of tyranny is much lower.

This is an even less desirable outcome today as people eventually realize that we are ruled by criminals.

Inrercept et al

Oh noes, the civil liberty of not being able to own an AR-15! The horror! What's next, banning high capacity magazines? What, I can't "protect" myself with 30 rounds now!? Outrageous! What if the guv'mnt comes and tries to break into my home while I'm sleeping and tries to make me a Communist!?

The US Gov't doesn't feel threatened by people owning guns. They could blow us all up with drones in two seconds, not to mention the billions of dollars in materiel they (we) have. Tell me how good your 9mm works against a tank. In fact don't, because your argument is stupid.

People think too highly of the mythical powers they think they have if they own a gun -- even if millions of people own guns.

And wow, can you imagine teachers being able to have concealed guns at a school in a neighborhood like south Chicago -- a place riddled with gun violence?

"But the teacher has a gun, I'll bring one to school too."

I seriously cannot take you gun freaks seriously. I don't wish to abolition guns, that's engraved in stone anyways, but you people are just insane right-wing nutjobs.

Yes, guns needs much more regulation. Look, if I have to take my freakin' shoes off at the airport for terrorists, you can relinquish more rights -- much more -- with your damned guns.

"The US Gov't doesn't feel threatened by people owning guns."

Right.

Yeah, I know, "right." If they wanted to inhumanely and unjustly eliminate as many people as they wanted to, nothing's stopping them.

I might also mention, your Red Ryder BB gun sure as hell isn't stopping them, either.

Lets all go order some bio weapons on line tool!
Then we will have all the guns AND some of the weapons of mass destruction too save ourselves from a guvmint take over!
More guns do NOT equate to a safer society.
If you want to pack automatic weapons around all the time Intercept, move to Angola, or Nigeria, or Afghastanistan, or a lot of other places that are SO much safer and better run than the United States.

Let's see how happy other societies are with knee-jerk responses to drug-addled dorks shooting up schools:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=So3uoR-JCIY

Intercept:

I am so tired of these trite arguments about guns and its laws. You have all been brainwashed.

Of course criminals don't follow gun laws! It's about limiting supply. Guns are purchased legally and often end up in the wrong hands. Theft, guns getting lost, guns being exchanged freely, etc. We simply have too many guns in supply in the US to keep citizens safe.

There's 300 million people in the US. I wouldn't trust half our population to walk a dog around a block properly, if that gives you a perspective on who should own a gun or not.

Remember when there was a big deal about pseudo-ephedrine being sold behind counters and needing a prescription in Oregon? Oregon has seen a precipitous drop in meth-related crime because of it. Are there drugs out on the streets? Of course, but meth use is way down. A little inconvenience is okay. Remember that supply theory above?

The 2nd Amendment was never written to include military style semi-automatic weapons. Our technology has completely outdated a lot of what's in the Constitution regarding this matter.

Wake up. We're not being knee-jerk; you're just in denial.

I don't see advances in technology rendering the constitution irrelevant. That may be the excuse for those who wish to eliminate the constitution. Messages in the media that allude to this misconception can be considered a form of brainwash.

The 2nd Amendment was designed to raise the cost of tyranny. The intent of the founders was to provide the option to overthrow our government once it fails to abide by the governed. Technological advances are not relevant to this basic premise.

If there is a precipitous drop in any crime related to the erosion of civil liberties, the assumed benefit pales in comparison to the long-term damage of liberties lost.

I love the arguments like this,
"The 2nd Amendment was never written to include military style semi-automatic weapons. Our technology has completely outdated a lot of what's in the Constitution regarding this matter."
Maybe we should limit the freedom of speech to just those medium available in 1791.

tankfixer

No, I am making the argument that the Constitution is a living document and that its amendments needs to apply to a rapidly changing world. Otherwise, gun owners would be using muskets. Do you really think I meant that.

Our world is one of increasing technology; the idea that since the Second Amendment says we have the right to bear arms doesn't help us much when man has created atomic and biological arms.

Your point on freedom of speech is perfect as we are fully in the digital age -- something our Founding Fathers didn't even think of. Rulings of digital media, etc. do factor this in and that's good.

Banning assault weapons and high capacity magazines is not an affront to the Second Amendment. It's perfectly within its interpretation.

The "fiscal cliff" is way more important. That's why Joe Biden will chair the commission to "study" "what to recommend to do" about "gun control".