Meet The Press: David Gregory Interviews POTUS [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : Meet The Press: David Gregory Interviews POTUS


LockHavenYellow
12-30-2012, 07:32
Grab the popcorn, folks...fiscal cliff and gun control are on the docket today. :upeyes:

Pierre!
12-30-2012, 09:24
It was pretty interesting....

David Gregory having to ask POTUS "What about Gun Control, GUN Violence"...

POTUS doesn't want to take this on is kind of what I gathered. I imagine this will be a Congress and Senate thing, so getting the letter writing mill setup for email as well as mail correspondence will be helpful.

Like them or not, NRA, GOA, NSSF will be great partners if they will organize these campaigns and make it EASY for those of us who care to FLOOD the offices of our elected officials with the "Voice Of Reason".

By expanding efforts with additional 'Enthusiast Sites" (perhaps like GlockTalk / AR15 / AK Forums / Ect...) will only add to the effectiveness.

AND - The physical mail campaign will also add support to the mail system... and that will help to reduce private sector job competition (silver lining?).

It seems very clear to me that with more engagement with the 'Public' we can make huge headway on this effort.

Get NRA, GOA, and NSSF to support FREE introduction to Firearms Safety events all around the nation will go a long way.

So many don't understand how fun our sport(s) can be, and education and familiarity will break down barriers big time.

This is a GREAT Grass Roots opportunity to re-introduce the concepts of accountability, responsibility, and immediate consequences to the populace.

We need to make the BEST of this opportunity, and activate rapidly to 'Win The Hearts And Minds'.

That's my thoughts...

Who's Next?

Happy New Year Full Of Opportunities!

Patrick

Restless28
12-30-2012, 09:36
It was pretty interesting....

David Gregory having to ask POTUS "What about Gun Control, GUN Violence"...

POTUS doesn't want to take this on is kind of what I gathered. I imagine this will be a Congress and Senate thing, so getting the letter writing mill setup for email as well as mail correspondence will be helpful.

Like them or not, NRA, GOA, NSSF will be great partners if they will organize these campaigns and make it EASY for those of us who care to FLOOD the offices of our elected officials with the "Voice Of Reason".

By expanding efforts with additional 'Enthusiast Sites" (perhaps like GlockTalk / AR15 / AK Forums / Ect...) will only add to the effectiveness.

AND - The physical mail campaign will also add support to the mail system... and that will help to reduce private sector job competition (silver lining?).

It seems very clear to me that with more engagement with the 'Public' we can make huge headway on this effort.

Get NRA, GOA, and NSSF to support FREE introduction to Firearms Safety events all around the nation will go a long way.

So many don't understand how fun our sport(s) can be, and education and familiarity will break down barriers big time.

This is a GREAT Grass Roots opportunity to re-introduce the concepts of accountability, responsibility, and immediate consequences to the populace.

We need to make the BEST of this opportunity, and activate rapidly to 'Win The Hearts And Minds'.

That's my thoughts...

Who's Next?

Happy New Year Full Of Opportunities!

Patrick

Good idea, great post.

unit1069
12-30-2012, 09:50
The most telling comment by the president was when he insisted something must "fundamentally change" in America about guns. Of course, that's exactly the same terminology he used in 2008 when Candidate Obama told voters we were only five days away from "fundamentally changing America". He won in 2008 and then nationalized 20% of the economy while making things so onerous for private enterprise that we've never actually had a real recovery from the Democrat-induced financial crisis and subsequent recession.

Obama will follow his m.o., which is claim he's involved in discussions when he's actually only repeating his demands. He'll let Democrats go over the edge by having Party leaders strong-arm the rank-and-file, use the mainstream media to vilify the NRA and those who dissent, then claim credit when he and the "progressives" nationalize the Second Amendment, effectively voiding it permanently when Obama nominates one or more Radical Left apparatchiks to the US Supreme Court.

I say to those stay-at-home Republican voters and Ron Paul voters for whom Romney wasn't "pure" enough, did you expect this guy was going to just start respecting the constitution in a second term when his first term indicated the exact opposite?

Restless28
12-30-2012, 10:09
The most telling comment by the president was when he insisted something must "fundamentally change" in America about guns. Of course, that's exactly the same terminology he used in 2008 when Candidate Obama told voters we were only five days away from "fundamentally changing America". He won in 2008 and then nationalized 20% of the economy while making things so onerous for private enterprise that we've never actually had a real recovery from the Democrat-induced financial crisis and subsequent recession.

Obama will follow his m.o., which is claim he's involved in discussions when he's actually only repeating his demands. He'll let Democrats go over the edge by having Party leaders strong-arm the rank-and-file, use the mainstream media to vilify the NRA and those who dissent, then claim credit when he and the "progressives" nationalize the Second Amendment, effectively voiding it permanently when Obama nominates one or more Radical Left apparatchiks to the US Supreme Court.

I say to those stay-at-home Republican voters and Ron Paul voters for whom Romney wasn't "pure" enough, did you expect this guy was going to just start respecting the constitution in a second term when his first term indicated the exact opposite?

No amount of stay at home voters and Ron Paul voters could have changed the outcome of that election. The Democrats have the women and the minorities.

unit1069
12-30-2012, 10:13
No amount of stay at home voters and Ron Paul voters could have changed the outcome of that election. The Democrats have the women and the minorities.

You're simply wrong about that! In November Obama received 2 million votes less than he did in 2008 while Romney received 6 million votes less than John McCain did in 2008. Republican and "purist" voters didn't turn out, plain and simple. Obama is only the third re-elected president in history who received fewer votes in his second election.

aircarver
12-30-2012, 10:31
Maobama is a lame-duck, and we need to rub his nose in it ... :steamed:

.

Henry's Dad
12-30-2012, 10:34
It was pretty interesting....

David Gregory having to ask POTUS "What about Gun Control, GUN Violence"...

POTUS doesn't want to take this on is kind of what I gathered. I imagine this will be a Congress and Senate thing, so getting the letter writing mill setup for email as well as mail correspondence will be helpful.



I agree. His response was not the declaration of someone who is confident about getting something passed.

Gregory asked him if he has the stomach for a fight on guns. He didn't answer diectly with, "you bet I do!"

Instead he hemmed and hawed about having to see where the American people are on this issue.

Not saying we should be complacent in our efforts to fight anti-gun proposals, but I don't see this going anywhere.

Also, the following is a partial list of Democratic senators up for reelection in 2014:

Begich-Alaska
Pryor-Arkansas
Mark Udall-Colorado
Landrieu-Louisiana
Baucus-Montana
Tom Udall-New Mexico
Hagan-NC
Johnson-SD
Warner-VA
Rockerfeller-WV

Do you think Harry Reid would risk his majority by strong-arming any of these folks to vote for gun control?

Restless28
12-30-2012, 10:35
You're simply wrong about that! In November Obama received 2 million votes less than he did in 2008 while Romney received 6 million votes less than John McCain did in 2008. Republican and "purist" voters didn't turn out, plain and simple. Obama is only the third re-elected president in history who received fewer votes in his second election.

I disagree with your assessment. The Democrats have the folks who get out the vote. Besides, they own the electoral states that determine elections. The popular vote doesn't win elections. Ask Al Gore.

devildog2067
12-30-2012, 10:36
No amount of stay at home voters and Ron Paul voters could have changed the outcome of that election. The Democrats have the women and the minorities.

The tendency of one side to treat "the women" and "the minorities" as monolithic voting blocs is exactly why the other side has them.

I'm "a minority" who was born in this country. I am a military veteran gun owning athiest college professor. Tell me, who do you think "has" me?

Restless28
12-30-2012, 10:38
That's a loaded question, DD. I may have been too frank.

G36's Rule
12-30-2012, 10:41
The tendency of one side to treat "the women" and "the minorities" as monolithic voting blocs is exactly why the other side has them.

I'm "a minority" who was born in this country. I am a military veteran gun owning athiest college professor. Tell me, who do you think "has" me?

In your state, it doesn't matter. The Dems have you no matter what...

Restless28
12-30-2012, 10:47
In your state, it doesn't matter. The Dems have you no matter what...


They also have the Electoral votes.

RussP
12-30-2012, 11:28
Obama will follow his m.o., which is claim he's involved in discussions when he's actually only repeating his demands. Well said...

porschedog
12-30-2012, 11:37
A LAme Duck? Seriously? He is a lame duck in that its his last term but its now his unimpeded opportunity to use the media he owns to get his way

This guy doesn't discuss, he lectures
Wake up - he Hates us and all we stand for and he intends to crush us.

porschedog
12-30-2012, 11:38
Oh yeah, stop hating the NRA and join
Stop whining about all the mailings they do
They are our last chance to preserve our freedom

ddbtoth
12-30-2012, 11:53
Maobama is a lame-duck, and we need to rub his nose in it ... :steamed:

.

A lame duck president indicates one who is powerless to do anything because he is out of time. This jackass has four years and is immune from control or removal. He's not a lame duck (that was early November before the election) he is a rising phoenix and we are the ashes. Well, so much for Sunday cheer.:crying:

devildog2067
12-30-2012, 12:00
That's a loaded question, DD. I may have been too frank.

How could it be a "loaded" question?

Women are people, just like men. Minorities are people, too. They have all kinds of different opinions and values and views. Even just applying the label the way that you have implies a division between "us" and "women/minorities/everyone else." As Rabbi keeps saying, it's a message of segmentation, not a message of inclusion.

Fox
12-30-2012, 15:01
The tendency of one side to treat "the women" and "the minorities" as monolithic voting blocs is exactly why the other side has them.

I'm "a minority" who was born in this country. I am a military veteran gun owning athiest college professor. Tell me, who do you think "has" me?

Single women have the state as a provider rather than a husband. It's why they instinctively vote Democrat.

Many of the racial minorities have bitter resentments and an entitlement mentality. This is especially true for many blacks, which is why the likes of Jessie Jackson, Al Sharpton, and Louis Farrakhan are spokesmen for the black community. Remember the sermons of the reverend Jim Wright? The marxist liberation theology resonates among many.

devildog2067
12-30-2012, 15:16
Single women have the state as a provider rather than a husband. It's why they instinctively vote Democrat.

Many of the racial minorities have bitter resentments and an entitlement mentality. This is especially true for many blacks, which is why the likes of Jessie Jackson, Al Sharpton, and Louis Farrakhan are spokesmen for the black community. Remember the sermons of the reverend Jim Wright? The marxist liberation theology resonates among many.

How are you not getting this?

Do all white people vote as a group?
Do all men vote as a group?

No. Of course not.

Why, then, would you think it makes sense to say that "single women" have the state as a provider rather than a husband? I know dozens of single women who make upwards of a quarter-million dollars; they don't look to "the state" to provide anything. Yet statements like the one you make alienate them from the political party that they should probably align with, fiscally speaking.

unit1069
12-30-2012, 15:27
How are you not getting this?

Do all white people vote as a group?
Do all men vote as a group?

No. Of course not.

But when 95% of a single minority repeatedly votes for a candidate based upon his/her racial identity ... ?

We might expect that of a completely illiterate sub-group in the population but not when there's a sufficient HS/College graduates in this segment.

Can you say "identity politics", and if you can please explain why in 21st Century America --- following nearly a half-century of Great Society programs --- this is America's future instead of our historic "melting pot" that absorbed tens of millions of immigrants from all over the world?

And while you're at it, maybe you can explain why the solidly racial bloc leaders virulently attack any and all members of that racial group who dare hold opinions contrary to the Party Line?

Pawcatch@aol.co
12-30-2012, 15:57
The most telling comment by the president was when he insisted something must "fundamentally change" in America about guns. Of course, that's exactly the same terminology he used in 2008 when Candidate Obama told voters we were only five days away from "fundamentally changing America". He won in 2008 and then nationalized 20% of the economy while making things so onerous for private enterprise that we've never actually had a real recovery from the Democrat-induced financial crisis and subsequent recession.

Obama will follow his m.o., which is claim he's involved in discussions when he's actually only repeating his demands. He'll let Democrats go over the edge by having Party leaders strong-arm the rank-and-file, use the mainstream media to vilify the NRA and those who dissent, then claim credit when he and the "progressives" nationalize the Second Amendment, effectively voiding it permanently when Obama nominates one or more Radical Left apparatchiks to the US Supreme Court.

I say to those stay-at-home Republican voters and Ron Paul voters for whom Romney wasn't "pure" enough, did you expect this guy was going to just start respecting the constitution in a second term when his first term indicated the exact opposite?

I don't doubt that he wants to do this,but how is that going to get through the House?Obamacare was passed when the Dems controlled both house and the senate,barely that is.
I think a new AWB is likely,but I don't see how any radical changes can take place in the next two years.

Restless28
12-30-2012, 16:28
How are you not getting this?

Do all white people vote as a group?
Do all men vote as a group?

No. Of course not.

Why, then, would you think it makes sense to say that "single women" have the state as a provider rather than a husband? I know dozens of single women who make upwards of a quarter-million dollars; they don't look to "the state" to provide anything. Yet statements like the one you make alienate them from the political party that they should probably align with, fiscally speaking.

You know dozens? That's nice.

Because there are millions who aren't wealthy who vote on issues important to them, most of which that Republicans do not represent in their opinion.

frank4570
12-30-2012, 16:38
You're simply wrong about that! In November Obama received 2 million votes less than he did in 2008 while Romney received 6 million votes less than John McCain did in 2008. Republican and "purist" voters didn't turn out, plain and simple. Obama is only the third re-elected president in history who received fewer votes in his second election.

I personally know more than one woman who said they don't like Obama at all, but they are afraid of Romney's anti-choice leanings. If I personally know women who actually said it out loud, then they are just the tip of the iceberg. That is one of the groups who caused romney to lose. If the women hadn't voted against romney, he would have won. If the hispanics hadn't voted against romney, he would have won.

concretefuzzynuts
12-30-2012, 16:42
Did David Gregory wave his 30 round mag in the prez's face?

devildog2067
12-30-2012, 17:00
But when 95% of a single minority repeatedly votes for a candidate based upon his/her racial identity ... ?

Two things jump to mind:

1) Saying "many black people voted for Obama because he is also black" is a very different statement than "The Democrats have the women and the minorities."

2) We both know you made up the 95% number.

I, like you, suspect that many black people in this country probably voted for Obama because he is black. However, I know that I can't prove it and I definitely can't put a number to it with any certainty.

devildog2067
12-30-2012, 17:02
You know dozens? That's nice.

Because there are millions who aren't wealthy who vote on issues important to them, most of which that Republicans do not represent in their opinion.

I'm one guy who knows a bunch of people in one company. Multiply that by the entire country.

Regardless, the point is that "single women" are a diverse group of people. They have varying incomes, religious beliefs, behaviors and attitudes and values.

Restless28
12-30-2012, 17:06
I'm one guy who knows a bunch of people in one company. Multiply that by the entire country.

Regardless, the point is that "single women" are a diverse group of people. They have varying incomes, religious beliefs, behaviors and attitudes and values.

I do not disagree with this.

And, as I said, I was too frank. Regardless of the demographics, the Democrats have a solid firewall in place with the important states in the Electoral College.

I think we can agree on this, and that it will remain this way for years to come.