- Advertisement -
  • Most Commentedmost commented up
  • Most Emailedmost emailed up
  • Popularmost popular up
- Advertisement -

« News Home

Obama: Republicans decide 'it wasn't worth it' to protect America's children

Published: Wed, April 17, 2013 @ 6:34 p.m.


President Barack Obama says the Senate’s opposition to a bill that would have expanded background checks for gun buyers marks a “shameful day for Washington.”

He says a minority of senators decided “it wasn’t worth it” to protect the nation’s children.

Obama spoke in the Rose Garden shortly after the Senate vote. It marked a major blow to the gun control push Obama started in the wake of December’s shooting at a Newtown, Conn., elementary school.

The president pinned the blame for the measures’ failure on Republicans, though five Democrats also opposed the plan.

Obama was introduced by the father of a 7-year-old killed in the shooting.

Other families joined him in the Rose Garden, along with former Arizona Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, who was shot in the head in 2011.


1cambridge(3931 comments)posted 3 years ago

The teabagger/republicans have spoken.

Suggest removal:

2Ytownnative(1121 comments)posted 3 years ago

Wasn't he just saying let the system work and vote on the issue? Now that it didn't work his way he doesn't like it.

Suggest removal:

3cambridge(3931 comments)posted 3 years ago

It didn't work the way that 90 percent of Americans wanted. It worked the way a handful of gun manufactures wanted. The teabagger/republicans are cowards and more will be voted out next election and then they can become high paid lobbyist for the gun companies.

Suggest removal:

4Ytownnative(1121 comments)posted 3 years ago

90% of Americans? Where did you pull that number from? Oh wait I know

Suggest removal:

5LtMacGowan(704 comments)posted 3 years ago

What gets me is President Obama gets blamed for not doing stuff when its congress that either votes no or refuses to even vote. Its like President Obama lied! He said he would do "X" and he didn't!

no mention is made that "X" was sent to a subcommittee and buried by the House.

Therefore People must think President Obama is a dictator.

C'mon people Learn to blame the right person(s)

Suggest removal:

6Ytownnative(1121 comments)posted 3 years ago

He promises stuff that he knows cant pass. Might as well say "if I'm elected I will give everyone one billion dollars" Oh wait I would of done it but congress and the senate have comment sense and wouldn't let me print the money. sorry.

Suggest removal:

7DSquared(1727 comments)posted 3 years ago

Nothing in that Bill would have saved those kids. The fact remains that he and his Dept of Justice(Yeah Right), refuse to prosecute the VAST majority of gun violations in this country. Starting in his beloved Chicago, which has more killings than Beirut. He would rather demagogue the issue and continue to blame "the Straw Man". He sure is a brave leader!!!!!

Suggest removal:

8redeye1(5514 comments)posted 3 years ago

What a bunch of sore losers, OBAMMY REID& PELOSER. When are these people going to learn that the people are getting really tired of their BS.
Mac This law was nothing more then a feel good law that wouldn't have been enforced anyway.
Cambridge I don't know where you get your facts , but that number was so far wrong, it' was unreal ! This is a WIN for the MAJORITY and not the MINORITY, this is only the beginning. We are TIRED of being told how we can live by OBAMMY and his cronies. One other thing, I can't wait for the next election either, because alot of liberals will be GONE!

Suggest removal:

9najjjj(106 comments)posted 3 years ago

@toycannon.....It is shameful day when we forget we live in a democracy. Our representatives should REPRESENT US, and vote the way we want them too. The majority of voters in this country wanted this to pass. By the way, the majority of voters also want women to have authority over their own bodies....not your religious beliefs.

Suggest removal:

10Billyc1943(21 comments)posted 3 years ago

Portman should be ashamed!
He voted AGAINST a gun trafficking bill that would increase the sentence of those convicted. Would he rather decrease the sentencing guides for gun trafficking?
Most of the people want to put convicted gun runners away for longer periods. Except Portman!
I don't care if it's Hagen or someone else that runs against Portman, I'l be glad to donate time and money to his opponent in the republican primary. And if Portman is able to win his primary I'll even donate time and money to the democrat who runs against him.
Portman, you are a shameful example of a senator from Ohio.

Suggest removal:

11Ytownnative(1121 comments)posted 3 years ago

The Majority? Does anyone actually look at how they arrive at this 90% ?

A gallup poll surveyed 1012 adults out of 213,000,000 adults.

0.0004751173708920188 percent of the target audience surveyed and it is presented as fact.

Using that percentage and a population of 238,310 for Mahoning county surveying one person in the county would speak for the entire county. Keep in mind the number would actually be lower I included the entire population not just adults.

It would be a total of 42 people for the entire state of Ohio.

Suggest removal:

12HappyBob(360 comments)posted 3 years ago

Today's voting wasn't about kids or safety or security or gun violence.

It was all about the Republicans kicking Obama's butt.

That became very clear to me when Portman voted NO to increasing the sentencing for convicted gun runners, people who resell to felons for a profit.

He may have different ideas about what the 2nd amendment means, so maybe I could accept his vote on background checks .... but to vote to against the gun trafficking bill --- well it makes no sense at all.

His vote was an anti-Obama vote, and so he voted NOT to stiffen the penalty of people convicted of gun running as a comercial business. Awesome!

Just who is Portman listening to!!!

Suggest removal:

13cambridge(3931 comments)posted 3 years ago

The majority of America is for the background check's, the Senate voted 54 to 46 in favor of background checks and The President of the United States is in favor of the background checks and it fails? WTF!!!

This is the tail wagging the dog. Every teabagger/republican needs to be voted out.

Suggest removal:

14thinkthentalk(302 comments)posted 3 years ago

The NRA, GOA stand for more gun violence, more deaths, more gun sales.
The more guns that are in the hands of criminals, the more violence there is. More violence, more fear, more gun sales.
All the arguments the NRA presents are bogus, lies, red herrings. There is no registry in Clarksburg VA. You are a brainwashed foolish kook if you believe that the govt, or the UN, will take away your or my rifle if you are a law abiding citizen. Dont be stupid and think otherwise.
If this legislation would not prevent deaths, then why fight it? Why? Because more guns in the hands of criminals, more gun sales.

Suggest removal:

15Ytownnative(1121 comments)posted 3 years ago

Happybob did you read the bill and research? The gun trafficking part took separate laws already on the books and combined them as gun trafficking. purchasing a firearm for someone who is otherwise prohibited from possessing a gun, buying guns to be illegally smuggled out of the country, delivering guns in the knowledge that they will be used in the furtherance of crimes — are already illegal under existing law.

Suggest removal:

16HappyBob(360 comments)posted 3 years ago

Not to be too technical but it wasn't a bill. It was an amendment.
You are right, the gun trafficking amendment took laws that are already on the books and put them together in one place, then INCREASED the penalty for violations.

What I don't get is why making the sentence stiffer for criminals is something that Portman and the other republicans can't get behind.

Suggest removal:

17cambridge(3931 comments)posted 3 years ago

Bob....the republicans can't get behind it because they take their orders and cast their votes for gun manufactures not the American people. Requiring a 60 percent vote instead of a simple majority is exactly why nothing gets done in Washington. Anyone, r or d that voted against this amendment is a coward that voted against America.

Suggest removal:

18Ytownnative(1121 comments)posted 3 years ago

Bob they don't even prosecute the ones they catch now.

How do you figure the majority of America is for this ? Because of the 0.0004751173708920188 percent that were polled ? I surveyed the same percentage in the county and they were against the bill. 1 person. So the Majority, using their math, in the county oppose this bill

Suggest removal:

19HappyBob(360 comments)posted 3 years ago

I think I noticed in todays paper a bunch of people that were arrested/indicted by the feds for criminal possession of a firearm.

If you don't mean those prosecutions, maybe you could clarify what you do mean.

As a mental health professional you ubdoubtably had some training with regard to sampling and statistics. You know (as well as I do) that your argument against polling is BS.

Suggest removal:

20walter_sobchak(2595 comments)posted 3 years ago

Seems to me that the US already has laws on the books regarding guns that officials must not be enforcing. while I'm not against some expansion of background checks and prohibition of straw gun sales, I am totally against the creation of a gun registry or owner's list, which the legislation ultimately intended to do since "a well-regulated militia, being necessary to a free state, the right of the PEOPLE to bear arms shall not be infringed". In any event, Barack Hussein Obama was undermined by his own democrats. Four republicans crossed over to support the legislation but at least four democrats also crossed over the other way.

The federal government is not a pure democracy, it is a democratic republic. The power is with the citizens but it is delegated to a democratically selected representative. That representative is free to vote as he or she sees fit for whatever reason. The problem becomes that our representatives believe they always have to do something in response to a tragedy which can lead to the "soft despotism" that de Tocqueville wrote about.

Suggest removal:

21Ytownnative(1121 comments)posted 3 years ago

80,000 Americans were denied guns after providing false information about their criminal histories during the background check. it’s a felony to lie during this process. Yet only 44 would-be buyers were ever charged with a crime. Yea got it about surveys if you want the opinions of 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 if there was that many of anything you only need to survey 1012 Doesn't mean it isn't total BS.

Suggest removal:

22HappyBob(360 comments)posted 3 years ago

You have made the incorrect assumption that 80,000 Americans committed perjury.

Useful information comes from John Lott, the gun-rights statistician, who wrote really fact filled article in 2011 discussing what has now come to be known as the "lack of prosecution"

In his article he uses 2009 data because by 2011 he can now tell what the disposition of background check denials really was.

He states: Take the numbers for 2009. There were 71,010 initial denials. Of those, only 4,681, or 6.6 percent, were referred to the BATF for further investigation. “The remaining denials (66,329 – 93%) did not meet referral guidelines or were overturned after review by Brady Operations or after the FBI received additional information.”

(Most common reason for reversal of an initial denial is lack of discriminatory identification information being provided…. Not being able to tell Joe Jackson (the felon) from all other Joe Jacksons))

So now you have 4,681 cases that might be prosecutable. 2,390 of these cases are “delayed denials”, where the firearm has already been released (3 days) by the FFL and ATF agents are sent into the field to recover these weapons. Why aren’t they prosecuted for perjury? Because they will already be prosecuted for illegal possession, and when convicted go to jail.

What about the remaining 2,291 cases? Lott writes that the government admits that a deeper review of records that 572 of those cases were subsequently found “not to be prohibited persons”.

That leaves 1719 cases that are potentially prosecutable for perjury. We haven’t begun to discuss the merits of individual cases. After prosecutors have examined the merits, only 140 cases are sufficiently strong and the offense sufficiently egregious to warrant spending the public tax dollars to prosecute.

As Lott goes on to say, while prosecutors tend to go forward with their strongest cases, those prosecuted are often not found guilty. (or the threat of perjury is used to leverage (plea deal) to a guilty plea on a more substantive charge).

So the 44 number is not really such a surprise, if you realize that 80,000 didn’t commit perjury. They were just initial denials.

Suggest removal:

23HappyBob(360 comments)posted 3 years ago

Opps, Really should have said the all 80,000 didn't necessarily commit perjury, they were just initial denials.

Suggest removal:


HomeTerms of UsePrivacy StatementAdvertiseStaff DirectoryHelp
© 2016 Vindy.com. All rights reserved. A service of The Vindicator.
107 Vindicator Square. Youngstown, OH 44503

Phone Main: 330.747.1471 • Interactive Advertising: 330.740.2955 • Classified Advertising: 330.746.6565
Sponsored Links: Vindy Wheels | Vindy Jobs | Vindy Homes