remember firearms brought to Obama's appearances-is that

[StarsInHerHair]

partly why he now seems to give in so easily, because what we saw was the only PUBLICLY visible form of the threats he was receiving in private.


Essentially, the message may have been:

We can kill you anywhere you are, you will never be safe.

Well, does this seem feasible?

[hack89]

1. No.

He lives in a country awash with guns. Whether overt or not, the threat is always there. Unless you feel Obama is a spineless coward, I don't thing one or two nuts with guns is going to scare him.

[StarsInHerHair]

2. I was never referring only to those with guns I said they were

the most visible of threats, that there were more threats behind closed doors. This was also referred to here by talking about showing the Pres. "tapes" of say, Kennedy, & that explained his sudden slow-down & rightward swing.

[hack89]

3. And just who is threatening him? nt

[StarsInHerHair]

7. those who will not meet with him? Were you not here when

DU was erupting in concern over what was being brought to rallys & then when people began discussing Obama's sudden slow-down, & then slow-motion turning rightward?


Is the headline too shocking for you? It is just the tip of the iceberg, people here were wondering the same thing as I just posted. Instead of being "spineless" or a "cowardly lion", or just "not a fighter" it may be something else, like protecting his family.

[hack89]

15. So one or two nuts with guns is enough to cow Obama?

maybe we need a leader with some spine? Or maybe you are overwrought over nothing?

[jaxx]

4. What are you saying?

[CJCRANE]

5. Um...

No.

[StarsInHerHair]

8. um...

yes

[benEzra]

6. No. No private guns were ever brought into a secured zone, or anywhere near the President.

For example, the guy who brought the unloaded AR-15 carbine to the "protest"? That was a private publicity stunt staged totally for the media, several blocks away from the secured zone, intended to divert media attention away from Obama's speech. Unfortunately, it worked; the media gleefully fell for it, and knocked Obama's message on health care reform right off the air for a week or two.

The United States Secret Service takes it's job very seriously, and they are an exceedingly highly trained and well-equipped force. The fact that they often keep a low profile does not mean that they are not present in overwhelming force wherever the President goes.

[StarsInHerHair]

9. but how does that expalin the unseen behind closed-doors

meetings & Obama pivoting away from so many things he campaigned on? It wasn't just empty or full guns that I am talking about

[secondwind]

10. Are you a troll or something? Why are you so fixated on this topic!

[StarsInHerHair]

11. I guess no one gets the concept, but thankx for calling me a troll

nt:hi:

[benEzra]

13. What I think? Institutional inertia. A bunch of power-brokers and self-styled experts in D.C.

who tell every incoming President "listen to our advice, we're the experts and you need to continue this course or else things will go badly."

Obama didn't keep Bush appointee Ben Bernanke as Fed chairman (and de facto master of the economy) because he was afraid of U.S. gun owners, but because he was basically told that Bernanke was the Anointed One and that anyone but Bernanke would lead us into financial ruin. So Obama kept Bernanke, and in so doing he kept the Bush/Goldman Sachs approach to the Wall Street fraud that basically precipitated Depression 2.0 in the first place.

Ditto for Surveillance Nation, secret death warrants, imprisonment without trial, etc. etc. Those are things that gun owners oppose more strongly than the general population does, so Obama certainly didn't continue those policies because he was afraid of gun owners. More likely, the homeland security establishment convinced him that if Bush's extra-constitutional powers weren't retained, then the terrah-ists would carry out another 9/11 or nuke a city or something.

The *only* thing it makes sense to me that Obama might be careful about re: gun owners is the fact that he has backed away from the "assault weapon" fraud and has made it clear (with the possible exception of the BATFE appointment) that he has no intention of abridging the rights of lawful gun owners. But as far as fear of gun owners driving his policies on the economy or surveillance, no, I don't see it.

FWIW, I own guns (handguns and "assault weapons") and probably feel much the same way you do on this, at least with regard to the perpetuation of the wrongheaded Bush policies regarding the economy and unconstitutional surveillance.

[lynne]

12. No firearms were ever near Obama -

- none were allowed into the secured area so he didn't get the "message" you refer to as he has some of the best security in the world.

Not to mention that he's from Chicago so I'm sure he's more than familiar with gun violence.

No, not feasible.

[Kaleva]

14. No