I'm not a betting kind of person. Neither am I a qualified political pundit as so many other DKos diarists are. But I admit to my sometimes contradictory nature when I say President Obama's thoughts on gun (measure) controls isn't going to do a damn thing by changing the mindset of gun owners, especially the likes of the NRA. There is an inherent love for weapons in this country; a so-called need factor that will never go away, regardless how many tragic Newtown or Colorado movie theater massacres occur (i.e., citing that hackneyed phrase, "Better to have a weapon and not need it rather than need the weapon and not have it").
And here's my take on the outcome of the president's take on this contentious issue: I think he's going to cave when push gets to shove. And Congress, like the NRA and all the gun toters claiming the "need" factor, is going to bury this issue once and for all in the final analysis. Here's my reasoning why I think and feel this way. . .
The president's agenda currently goes as follows (though on any given day, and depending on which way the wind's blowing, or which Republican guards he wants to court, his decisions are likely going to change):
President Obama is weighing as many as 19 different gun control measures that he could take without congressional approval, as he prepares to unveil a comprehensive plan to address gun violence amid claims from Republicans that he's overstepping his bounds.
The president could reveal the details of that plan as early as Wednesday. During the final press conference of his first term, Obama said Monday that he will "vigorously pursue" the recommendations.
It's unclear how many of the 19 options the president would eventually take up. Those options reportedly could include more aggressively enforcing existing gun laws and beefing up national research on guns.
That's the gist of his intention: 19 different gun control measures. If he got just one of those measures passed, say, outlawing military style weapons that literally are overkill when used against humans and animals. . .effectively instilling a blockade on this market helps some, but makes those other weapons in circulation rather dear. (Kind of like Prohibition years, only with more fire power, not fire water to bootleg and make an enormous profit from sales.) Of course, he may also try and prevent the sale of bullets for such weaponry, thereby hobbling gun owners with such WMD (I think they are such). Then again, hold your breath on such a likelihood. Well, maybe don't hold your breath for fear of fainting (or worse).
His stance on the matter continues. . .
The president has already voiced support for separate legislative measures in Congress, like the renewal of the assault weapons ban. That is expected to face the toughest opposition in Congress. But Vice President Biden, who led the gun violence task force and met with the president Monday, indicated the group is also pressing for limits on high-capacity magazines -- as well as background checks for anyone seeking to purchase a gun.
Hmmmm, background checks, is it? Does he really think that's going to work? Like that recent basket case in New York who ambushed the firemen, because he just liked to kill people, he was a felon; he should not have had any weapons, yet he manage to procure same. Let me cite teachers who are entrusted to students must also comply to such measures, yet look how many of their ilk end up being charged with heinous crimes committed with the very people they are supposed to teach and protect. Indeed, the frontier mentality of the state where I live sometimes seems more like a feeding ground for pedophiles and SO's, many of them repeat offenders. How did they manage to pass the background check? Is it even possible background checks are reliable? (Now my own question has me wondering about Dick Cheney!)
Continuing the president's proposal, if he goes through with it. . .
Such changes "make sense," he said. He (also) said lawmakers will have to "examine their own conscience" in the debate ahead.
Now there's a word (IMHO) I seldom see practiced in political circles––conscience. Still, it's a nice gesture and ideal worth living up to, if only.
Continuing. . .
But the president's push is drawing resistance from Republicans in Congress. Rep. Steve Stockman, R-Texas, is now vowing to try to impeach Obama if he takes any action via executive order.
Wow, what huevos, huh? I mean, a plate full and bullets for a side dish. Do you think old Stevie is posturing merely to vent steam and try and stave off a possible aneurysm he's sensing? Or is the intent real and forthcoming? (Personally, I'm hoping for the latter.)
Continuing. . .
He called the plan to implement some controls administratively "an unconstitutional and unconscionable attack on the very founding principles of this republic." "I will seek to thwart this action by any means necessary, including, but not limited to, eliminating funding for implementation, defunding the White House, and even filing articles of impeachment," Stockman said.
Well, I'll leave it go at that. I just wanted to end this diary on an upbeat. I mean, impeachment, really? All for the sake of the president's would be stance on gun control? You would think the wonder and worry about the augmenting environmental Armageddon we're headed into, the continuing true story of a down-spiraling economy denied by spin doctor economists and the like, and the social and political unrest that continues to raise hell with our country should take a measure or a modicum of interest and action. I am also citing ten million Dk diaries about such issues that are posted on any given day. . .and, yes, sometimes I am prone to hyperbole. Well, I think the agitated Republican from Texas plainly does not know triage from massage. A move for impeachment by any other reason, sure, that's drastic call sometimes sorts out the problem. But to suggest such a move for the sake of violence inherent in a nation's typical preoccupation with guns. . .that's gone way around the bend.
But that's just me. . .way around the bend. And those of you who are the real pundits given such affairs I am sure you have more salient remarks on this matter. So have at it. That being said I look forward to such insight, as commentary via erudite diary postings.