White House photo
President Obama with his cabinet
On Friday, reflecting on the day's massacre in Newtown, Conn., President Obama said Americans would have to take meaningful action to prevent more tragedies like this, regardless of the politics." A day later, in his weekly address, the president used identical language. By Sunday night, Obama spoke in more depth, vowing to "use whatever power this office holds to engage my fellow citizens -- from law enforcement to mental health professionals to parents and educators -- in an effort aimed at preventing more tragedies like this."
It's far from clear what we should expect in terms of the policy manifestation of those intentions, but it appears the president, at a minimum, is serious about moving forward.
President Obama on Monday began the first serious push of his administration to attempt to reduce gun violence, directing Cabinet members to formulate a set of proposals that could include reinstating a ban on assault rifles.
The effort will be led by Vice President Biden.... Obama, who has appeared shaken by the Sandy Hook shootings, met Monday with Biden, who advocated for stricter gun-control measures during his years in the Senate. The president also spoke Monday with Education Secretary Arne Duncan, Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr., and Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius "to begin looking at ways the country can respond to the tragedy in Newtown," according to a White House official who spoke on the condition of anonymity.
Others involved in the new effort include White House Counsel Kathryn Ruemmler; Biden's chief counsel, Cynthia C. Hogan; and senior adviser Valerie Jarrett, who traveled with Obama to Connecticut on Sunday to address a memorial service for the Sandy Hook victims.
It's obviously too soon to say what will come of the initiative, but there were some concerns over the weekend that the White House would soon shift its attention away from the violence at Sandy Hook Elementary, and when pressed, officials would say they awaited congressional efforts.
As of yesterday, it appears that's not going to happen, and the wheels, however slow, are in motion.
Leave a Comment:
There is not way the White House can wait for Congress on this and no excuse if they do. This need to be fixed. The laws that can be put into place to regulate firearms must be put into place and enforced. It doesn't matter what the militia members think, it doesn't matter what the NRA thinks or the gun manufactures or the hunters or anyone else, because if it does there won't be a country for them to complain in anymore.
I agree. Whatever the President can do by Executive Order, he should do so now.
Maybe we can get the gun nuts to give us their addresses. I'd love to come take their guns from their cold dead hands. We're overpopulated as it is, and reducing the population of white male morons is a good way to "cull the herd."
It's nice to see that the "gun nuts" are no more unstable than the far left. Calling for the "culling" of white males immediately following the tragic death of 20 white children? No...that is completely sane and in good taste.
And calling for the President to bypass Congress while legislating against the Constitution to prevent violence....all the while we are killing children by the hundreds in White House approved drone attacks...nope...no hypocrisy there.
Assuming that anyone who supports the US Constitution (which every single soldier, politician and officer swears an oath to defend) is some sort of crazy right wing militia member or "gun nut" is simply foolish.
Thank you for showing me how intelligent and reasonable the extreme left can be.
"Those who would sacrifice freedom for a little bit of security deserve neither" - Ben Franklin
I think magazine restrictions would pass the Senate today, and put tremendous pressure on the House. An assault weapon ban will be tougher to pass, because the right wing won't even admit the AR15 is an assault weapon.
Agreed.
A small step, and easily passed.
Government buy back of magazines that hold more than 5-7 rounds. And thereafter a $500 fine for possession of each hi-cap magazine.
Too draconian? Then a $500 license fee for each magazine. Renewable yearly. . .
IMO , small steps are worthless , it would just re enforce the DO NOTHING culture we have witnessed while we have watched these events happen again and again , if dems AND gop members do not ride the tide this event have produced , the minority NRA and extremists will take this issue back , and keep the gun nut culture thriving
Right now SANE people must fight and gain ground on this insanity , the culture of dems , AND EVEN OBAMA , not being able to touch this issue for fear of losing an election must be addressed NOW , or it never will be
One example , Obamas home town of Chicago becoming a war zone , and how many times did that come up in the last election? The NRA gun nuts have controlled the narrative to the point we do not even discuss it , what a terrible truth that is for all of us
And I am all for sane gun ownership
The do-nothing gun nut culture is the trick.
They want endless debate, they want diversions -- constant picking at minutia to find even the smallest doubt that can be exploited to the end of further foot-dragging.
I, for one, am sick and tired of this same old song and dance, and no longer care what the gun nuts have to say. And I'm encouraging my federal and state representatives to do the same.
When we agree guns don't equate to protection, and see them for what they do offer - power for the person who holds them - then maybe we can have an honest dialog about regulating them.
Power ill-begotten should be extremely punishable in a democracy where the norm should be the bravest among us have no guns! Any usage of a firearm for the purposes of harm to life or property should bring incarceration to the perp lasting a long time, until he/she is too old to lift one up! -Kevo
We need to ban Assault weapons, ban large clips/magazines, close the loop holes for buying guns and walking away with them at Gun Shows, and ban the sale of any weapon to someone who is on the terrorist watch list.
Its one thing to keep tabs on international terrorists but we need to watch the ones here at home more
Which naturally would feed their paranoia...
While we're at it, let's ban drugs! That'll get them off the street! oh wait...
I don't understand why gun rights trump our greater right to safety and security. WHY??? I don't understand why the need some people feel to own a gun due to their obsessive paranoia is more important than our freedom to live our lives in the pursuit of liberty and happiness. This gun culture is killing us.
One could say that owning a gun provides safety and security. I'm all for banning military grade weapons and large clips, but I believe that if more normal citizens had a permit to carry, stuff like this wouldn't happen as often.
Safety and security from what? That is another way of defending the paranoid state of mind all too many are suffering from and in turn cause us to suffer.
"Safety and security" are often in the eye of the beholder.
Rural America and the Inner City are two very different environments.
I lived 60 years without a cell phone,, but now that I have one, I feel "safer", even though I have yet to dial 911.
Amber1992,
Respectfully, how does one legislate "normal"? For that matter, how does one classify "normal" in order to legislate it.
Can any piece of paper or background check ever determine a human being will never be a threat to society?
My point is that those who believe in second amendment remedies are arming themselves with assault type weapons against the day the think the government will storm their communities. They are not arming against varmints, space aliens, or for self protection but against some improbable threat from the government. Jesus, Mary and Joseph, the Revolutionary war is over.
People need to arm themselves against the government by teamwork, involvement, cooperation rather than fear and anger and GUNS.
Amber:
People who are trained regularly in how to respond in these kinds of situations never know if something will happen that will cause them to freeze. You wingnut morons who think "trained" citizens can do better probably believe 2+2=22.
Your girlfriends in Stepford want you back home, bimbo.
-deleted-
"Respectfully, how does one legislate "normal"? For that matter, how does one classify "normal" in order to legislate it."
Oh, that's easy..."normal" means ideologically sound/theologically correct, doncha know.
On a slight detour, I'm happy that the conversation has finally started but as opposed to the child advocates and "keeping children safe" (which I hear over and over and is somewhat of an insult to the collective), we really need to focus on keeping "everybody" safe. In fact, we've been needing to keep the general public safe since tyrants became no longer a reasonable threat to the nation at large. I like the idea of an extraordinarily stringent and biased toward caution "psych-eval" before any purchase and the idea that insurance be mandatory for owning a gun, storing a gun, etc. If you must have a gun there is no reason why your militia shouldn't be "well regulated", after all, it says that right in there!
|:-P
On another blog I was reading, the tag-line of one commenter was "What part of 'shall not be infringed' do you not understand?"
I was very tempted to respond "What part of 'well-regulated militia' do you not understand?"
Unfortunately, the "Michigan Militia" is very well armed but not very well regulated.
Regulated means trained in the 1790's meaning of the word.
Again, I appologize for not identifying the Obama/Sandy Hook/bad speling/ under the last charts article as a snark...
I don't know that our mental health system is such a failure, this kid would probably have got past/played any country's system.. There for limit access to guns.
As I understand it, there are now chemicals in the enviroment/water that mimic estrogen. This can't be good for developeing males.
I think it would be interesting to see just how little a campaign donation it takes from the NRA to buy a congressman.
The mental health biggy, I believe, is that all humans are happier/better adjusted if they have 100 people in their lives that they know well enough to talk to.. If only this kid had been a mentor, had a mentor, belonged to some clubs, etc...
Obviously you don't know anything if you "don't know that our mental health system is such a failure." It is, and it has been since they emptied the mental hospitals in the early 1980s, they said for issues related to freedom, but actually to save a whole boat load of money.
Luz , those of us who know you , knew it was a snark , no biggy
I read that the averaged out costs for mental illness treatment is $17,000 a year , america not addressing these issues for the last 30 years has probably helped double that number to this point , I'm sure
1) Comparing Us laws to Chinese laws is really realy really stupid(which other chinese laws should we adopt their internet policies? their free speech policies? 1 child? suicide nets at dollar an hour factories.
2) Comparing Us laws to British laws(oh by the way they have a much higher crime rate) If I remember correctly the folks who wrote the constitution went to quite a bit of trouble to not live under British law.
3) Firearms reform could look something like:
1) banning the further sale of "black rifles"(assault rifles whatever call them modern warfare/halo style guns )
2) give internet or smartphone access to private sellers to the nics check system(thats what gun stores use)
3) limit magazanines to somewhere between 10-15 rounds(many guns come standard with a 15)
4) make a 50 state permit available allowing similar rules throughout(about 30-35 states largely do this already thru reciprocity agreements) Theres little advantage to the laws of ct,nj,ca someone looking to do wrong brings the weapon across state lines your only disarming the people who do follow the rules.
5) Gun free zones would be permitted but armed security required with a TSA style system for schools Times Square, the national mall what have you.
6) carry would be concealed in most spots but open carry would be allowed in some lower population areas..such as alaska or parts of nevada, arizona where carrying a gun on ones back or openly is completely acceptable social behavior.
I don't understand why anyone should have a concealed-carry permit, except an undercover police officer.
If you think you have a legal right to carry a firearm, you should have to openly carry it. Alternatively, a large target pattern on your torso, front and back would be permissable.
When the U.S. Constitution was written, only a lily-livered coward would try to hide a derringer up "his" sleeve. In the Wild West, you strapped your iron to your leg for all to see. Man up or stay home.
Mike,
When the US Constitution was written the Derringer did not exist. Guns were limited to muzzle loaded pistols and rifles, which were expensive and not owned by most people. Even in 1800 the majority of the US population lived in cities, towns, and villages not on the frontier.
Guns ownership greatly increased after the Civil War, when they were much easier to use and cheaper. Increase in gun violence led to local law enforcement banning open carrying of guns in many towns, such as in Dodge City under Wyatt Earp and 'Bat' Masterson.
When the constitution was written the internet did not exist either lucky for us the courts have ruled the right of free speech extends here(not necessarily so in great britain where you could be brought up on charges for stuff routinely seen on these message boards) There are a million concealed carry holders in Florida alone, hundreds of thousands in Texas, and despite a few high profile stories the streets of Miami, Tampa, Houston, Austin and Dallas are safer than those in Philly, La, Chicago, and Detroit.
You should have a concealed carry permit because if a mentally disturbed 20 year old kid breaks down the back window with gunfire, you may want to have the choice of running for cover or meeting force with force. Or if someone carjacks you you may want to have the same options available.
@John, thanks for the history lesson. But banning the "open" carrying of weapons did not permit the "concealed" carrying of weapons. My point is, if you think you need to carry a deadly weapon, then the general populace around you should be aware that you are carrying that weapon.
@Alex, it does not matter at all to me that a homeowner or driver may "want the option" of whether to be involved in deadly force. I say if you buy a handgun, let alone carry one in public, you are stating unequivocally that you are prepared to take a human life. And everyone, from the lady in the next seat on the bus to the perp who breaks down your door, should know that. More effective than that sticker proclaiming "Security by Smith&Wesson" don't you think?
Alex,
Since you are referring to state concealed carry laws, let's compare state violent crime rates for the cities you cite* (per 100,000 people, from the US Census):
Florida: 612.6
Michigan: 504.4
Texas: 491.4
California: 473.4
Pennsylvania: 388.9
Hmmm, violent crime appears to be lower in states with more restrictive gun laws. Who knew? Btw, New York, which has stricter gun laws than those above, has an even lower violent crime rate.
*Illinois stats were not available (Illinois and Minnesota apparently use different definitions for some violent crimes, so their numbers are not comparable to the rest of the country)
And let's not forget where these 'inner city criminals' (rightspeak for blacks and Latinos) get their weapons, since they can't get them in most major metropolitan areas - they go to states such as AZ, WVA, VA, KY, and any other of the 'rural' (rightspeak for predominantly white) states that have lax gun laws and gun shows where one can go buy crates of assault weapons and thousands upon thousands of rounds of ammunition.
Seems to be if these criminals couldn't get combat weaponry so easily, gun violence would be reduced, huh Alex?
Why does the right wing support arming criminals and terrorists? Huh Alex?
Because they still think we are playing cowboys and Indians. oops I'm showing my age. Now we are playing robo killer and Rambo! They won't grow up, maybe?
There are hundreds of incidents every month where crime is prevented by a gun owner its in the "armed citizen" section of the nra pubs every month. Unofrtunately one or two dead slimeballs doesnt make for much national news. There was the woman who killed the intruder while on with 911 that got some coverage recently. There also was a home invasion that was thwarted in the Tampa area that made some papers. Theres literally 5-10 such events in the armed citizen section every month and im sure they select from hundreds. Now since I'm conceding every policy point thats being sought anyway what is your issue?
Which part of the policy I outlined are you fellas taking issue with anyway?
Why is this the only policy debate where the left uses questionable statistics....
DC is off the charts on violent crime maryland and illinois both much higher than texas its all on census.gov...have fun....Frankly the statistics arent particularly good evidence for the argument on either side. However crime has gone way down nationally as gun count has gone up
Do the inner city criminals shop at the same gun shop as the redneck meth cookers? Or do they use different armories???
I don't think an "assault weapons" ban is enough, and I don't think it is realistic to expect Americans to give up their sporting and self defense firearms. We need to do more, much more, especially with mental health. Look at the chart posted on this site last night. We didn't have meaningful gun control before 2007, but mass shootings seem to be coming faster and faster. What has changed? I don't think anybody knows or if they do they aren't saying.
By the way there are millions of 20 and 30 round magazines out there. As much as I think restricting magazine size is part of the solution, I don't think we are going to do away with them anytime soon.
If you ban large clips, the price of the remaining ones goes up. People hoard them. If you regulate the gun shows better, even fewer will change hands.
There are gun nuts who want to own and keep these firearms (like the shooter's mother). And then there are the suicidal nuts that want to be remembered, like the shooter himself. In this case his access to weaponry was in his own house, but for most perps this won't be the case.
Eliminating or severely reducing the available stock will reduce access. It's not perfect but it will help.
As I said above, Ron, a buy back- say $50 each x whatever number,- is dirt cheap- for a nation that spends $300 million per F-35 fighter plane.
Nobody is saying that common sense restrictions are the end-all. All they are is a start. If you take those magazines off the market, that means it becomes harder to acquire them. And this "mental health" thing is a canard. Our society has privacy protections that will trump anything meaningful as far as pegging people for intervention, the "science" of mental health is not objective.
Lebowsky Dude,
In other words it is just too damned expensive to do anything about mental health.
The "privacy protections" crap is the real canard.
Ron B: You seem to be proposing something completely different from the rights we now have as Americans, so I have a few questions. Who or whom is going to be making these interventions, and on what basis or criteria? These interventionists that will be empowered, who will regulate or watch over them? Will it be family members, friends, neighbors? What if the intervention is objected to be the subject, what would then be the avenue?
Thats why I say this notion that we need to not focus on guns, but instead somehow have a magical new "mental health" awakening is indeed a canard. What you propose tramples all over the Constitution, and you know it. The truth is that the 2nd Amendment allows for guns, but the government certainly has a right to protect the citizens from potential and real harm.
Do children need to continue dying just so grown-ups can keep their guns?
Apparently gun rights are more important to some and why those people have a more powerful voice is a mystery to me.
The White House and Congress could pass significant common sense improvements to our federal gun laws before the end of the lame duck session. These improvements should include:
1) National quick check for all gun sales, to verify both the owner and the seller are legit and that the gun is legally owned by the seller. Gun shows would be required to provide this service for small sellers, and gun shops could provide the service for small sellers for a reasonable fee.
2) Limit the size of ammo clips to as low as possible, and offer to buy back currently owned clips above the new maximum.
3) Restrict the sale of weapons that can handle sustained high rates of fire, and offer to buy back those currently in private hands. Let well-regulated gun ranges (those with proper gun safes, supervision, etc) offer AR-15's for those wishing that experience.
Yes, we need to address mental health as well, but no mental health system is perfect and the above measures would greatly limit the firepower available to anyone intent on hunting people. None of these measures would violate the Second Amendment, for citizens can still join their local well-regulated militia (aka the National Guard).
I hope Obama is able to take some meaningful action in hopes of limiting the access of combat weapon's, clips, etc., that no well adjusted American civilian needs or requires. Of course it's doubtful when paranoid conservatives are elected to office, however. Yet as devastated I was of first learning of the Sandy Hook shooting that took the lives of so many children in a single instance, I couldn't help to wonder how many days it will take for the same number of children, same ages, same innocence, to be killed across this country in separate violent gun related instances each of which might make the news for one, maybe two cycles, until it's time again that we as a society simply move on again with our daily lives.
Those citizens who want assault type weapons and guns that spit out a zillion bullets a second should enlist in the military! Go fight a war somewhere and leave the rest of us in peace!
If the father had stayed in the home, this would not have happened.
At least one of the Columbine killers had a home with both parents...and that didn't stop him.
Or if he'd made it a condition of her custody that there be no guns in the house.
Or had the sense not to have a second child with a bat-@!$%# crazy gun nut.
Obama comes from a one parent home , so much for that being a negative huh?
Really?? How do you know that? How do you know what the relationship was between family members?
clearly the OP knows nothing about mental illness. A father can't cure it and neither can God. It takes a good psychiatrist and medications to keep it well managed....and a whole host of other mental health professionals.
Some facts....
1) AUTOMATIC weapons have been banned or heavily regulated and nearly impossible to obtain for about 80 years
2) Assault rifles ARE ILLEGAL IN CT RIGHT NOW(I'd like a clarification on how the rifle was permitted perhaps grandfathed?)
3) By definition Lanza obtained his guns illegally not legally he committed Matricide for goodness sake to obtain the weapons
Oh, well in that case, nevermind. Pffft.
1) Yes, yes we all know that some people say "automatic" when they mean "semi-automatic." What those people want is to reduce the ability of one person to kill dozens of people in a matter of a few minutes.
2) Why do you need clarification? The press has stated that the guns were permitted. You say they are currently outlawed in CT. By logic they must have been grandfathered or otherwise exempted.
3) If he killed his father too, would you say he deserved sympathy because he was an orphan??
Hey Alex,
- The AR-15 is NOT illegal in CT. It was given a waiver due to the factory being inside CT.
- Semi Automatic weapons fire rounds as fast as you can pull the trigger. How many of shots does it take you to bring down that deer anyways?
- Adam Lanza obtained his guns from his mother because he knew where they were and how to get access to them. Every child knows how to get their parents weapons in a crisis. The problem is that the mother shouldn't have owned these weapons in the first place. A hundred rounds of ammo were said to have been fired in that incident. Why did she need to have that many rounds for such a weapon?
This defense of yours is the problem. You think the 2nd Amendment trumps society's need for public safety. Sorry to break this to you. It doesn't. We have police to manage our safety concerns. We have weapons for self defense and hunting. The weapons this woman had were basically artillery level. We need to start banning them from society to prevent the next disaster.
The handguns owned by the Lanzas were run of the mill self defense pistols. The ar-15 exemption is interesting I wonder if all smith and wesson products are legal in Ma.(i doubt it) The policy I outlined would ban the bushmaster anyway I think its a matter of optics more than tactical capability though.
Tragedy moves us emotionally, not actually. Besides letting pass continuous mass murder of children over the years, we harbor pedophile priests and accept 25% childhood poverty as merely part of the societal landscape, and Obama thinks it's just fine to allow guns in national parks. Good luck.
Gun control? Politically impossible? Perhaps. But gun control per se is attacking the symptom, not the malady. What's lacking in all this is personal responsibility, accountability. Guns are an inherently dangerous instrumentality, just like dynamite. You can't just go out and buy a bunch of high explosive and even if you can buy it, you are ultimately responsible for what happens when it explodes.
I propose a similar "fix" for the current situation. You want a firearm? Fine! Just be responsible for it. You want to manufacture and/or sell a firearm? Fine! Just be responsible for it. How would that work?
There is a concept in liability law called strict liability. I suggest that there be a federal strict liability statute requiring (a) that every firearm made or imported into the USA be test fired and a "fingerprint" record be kept in a federal database (available to local law enforcement authorities). The manufacturer/importer than becomes strictly liable--in both civil and criminal law--for whatever comes out of that firearm barrel. A portion of this liability remains when the firearm is sold, with the buyer taking on, say, a 90% criminal and civil liability. If the firearm is "stolen" that's tough. It should have been contained in a gun safe, where it cannot be stolen. Liability still attaches to the original seller and the ultimate purchaser.
The idea is that most people who own firearms are careful, sensible owners who use and store their possessions safely and sensibly. This kind of liability would not prevent anyone from owning a firearm. It would just hold them responsible at law for what happens with that weapon. Nobody's gun gets taken away. Nobody's constitutional rights get taken away. People just have to be responsible and accountable for what they do and for what they don't do.
Liability only works to a limited extent. The owner of this gun is dead. It was taken from the mother by force.
The problem is the type of weapons we have out in society. If someone were wanting to use Dynamite or Nitro in your neighborhood it wouldn't likely be allowed due to safety concerns. Why do we allow high powered semi automatic assault weapons to be brought into those same places? Because we don't ban them.
Begin by controlling the types of weapons allowed in civilian possession. Limit the ammo clips sold. And start regulating and licensing gun owners properly. Liability is just one small sliver of the resolution. We have a safety issue of epic proportions out there. We need to make a stand today on reclaiming our society from the fearmongers that hold such artillery.
I think a good start would be to:
1) Re-instate the assault weapons and high capacity clips/magazines ban
2) Bring back a waiting period for handgun purchases - 3 days I think it was in the 90s.
3) Equip legally purchased handguns with some sort of biometric safety mechanism, for instance a fingerprint reader on the grip of the gun that would only allow the owner of the gun to engage the firing mechanism. Trigger locks are easily bypassed and seldom used in my opinion.
4) If there is some sort of medical record database that keeps information about the potential mental instability of a person, maybe integrate that with the felony offender database as well, so if someone wants to purchase a gun, they could be prevented from doing so if there is an indication of some sort of instability. This is just an idea off the top of my head, but I think it has potential.
These are practical moves that could be made at the purchase level.
Start "fingerprinting" ammo so it is known where it came from when used.
ask the parents of those kids what laws they would like
Just another thought for y'all to ponder -
So, CalPers and the Calif Teachers Association pressured Cerberus to sell off the Freedom Group. Does that mean that CalPers and the Calif Teachers Association will pressure or withdraw their funds from Hollywood to stop making movies where firearms are included ? Will they pressure actors and actresses from contracting into movies or tv shows that have "gun violence" ? Will they pressure video game makers to do the same ? Of course not, the hypocrits.
The primary fault at Newtown are Adam's parents. They both knew Adam was "nuts". Regardless of their divorce they created him thus their responsibilty. Family financial issues do not appear to be a hindrance for getting Adam psychiatric help - they both failed.
We don't know all the facts yet. So your description that Adam was "nuts" is very premature. Adam was a child that may or may not have had autism. It's been reported that he did but not anything specific. Autism kids are not "nuts". They are just different and sometimes very gifted. The problems we are seeing so far is that the Mother had high powered semi automatic weapons and she may have allowed her children to use them. Teaching your children responsible gun use is important and somewhere along this line this failed to take. There are too many variables still to see clearly what happened yet. So conjecture only creates confusion.
The fact is that a high powered gun got into the hands of someone that shouldn't have had it. It wasn't video games. It wasn't movie violence. We have too many semi automatics out there that are finding their way into the wrong hands. Period. We need Gun Control.
As a southern gun owner (inherited hunting and antique weapons, definitely no high-capacity people-shooters), and as someone who personally knows many people who believe they need these assault weapons, I am very familiar with all sorts of pro-gun rhetoric.
However, in light of recent events, I believe everyone can (or at least should) agree that something must change.
Personally I would like to see a law, not necessarily banning these types of weapons, but enforcing responsibility for them. If the original gun owner/purchaser was required to share in the sentence for a crime committed with their weapon(s) I think we may see an increase in gun owner responsibility, and a decrease in the number of guns falling into the wrong hands. The 20 year old responsible for this tragedy was not even old enough to purchase these weapons, and neither were the Columbine shooters. Someone else allowed these weapons to fall into their hands, and perhaps these people would have been more careful if they had thought they may spend time in prison for simply letting these guns go unaccounted for.
It would be hard to make a claim for your right to bear these arms, but refuse to accept the necessity of their responsible use. It would also allow for the truly responsible owners out there to be able to empty 1000 rounds into a tree (or whatever it is they "need" these weapons for) without removing their ability to own the weapons.
I understand your position. It's just gotten out of hand. Over the past two decades we have seen too many increases in the number of assault weapons and high capacity clips being sold to civilians. The main reason is the fear generated by heated political rhetoric from the far right. Every civilized society once born has a problem weaning themselves off the weapons that brought about their new government. We on the other hand never gave them up for fear we would fall prey to tyranny from outside or within. It's been over 200 years and there is no longer a reason to continue upping the number, caliber and clip size on our civilian arms. It's just become a large safety issue that is erupting in mass deaths.
Going the route you suggest might have worked 20 years ago before the assault weapons came on the scene. But now we have groups of these people that cling to their guns out of empty fear. I doubt your method would work with them. It's time we restricted the types of weapons that are allowed in public hands. Period.
It's a shame people can't be trusted to be safe with their high powered semi automatics. But this isn't a video game. This is real life. And people are dying from their abuse.
I certainly do not disagree with you. And am a supporter of reform, including the expired ban. My fear is each extreme side of the issue digging-in, and the same hands-tied political response we have seen for other issues recently will be the result.
In an ideal world I would like to see a multi-bill approach, perhaps with varying degrees of restriction that can be reasonably debated on their own merits. I just hope this doesn't become a single "shove it down their throats" rally from the "I told you so" soapboxers that will be allowed to again expire under the next conservative presidency.
I guess what I am getting at is making faster, less controversial steps in the right direction, and trying to avoid political polarization. Maybe I am just naive.
In addition to severely restrictive gun laws to be applied to ALL weapons of mass destruction, including a give-back (as opposed to a buy-back) of these artillery weapons, there should also be closure of all the loopholes and a heavy tax on any gun or ammo and anything else to do with owning a gun. That will help the economy and can be used to fund mental health efforts and for victims of crime.
It was said fairly clearly by Larry Pratt, Executive Director of Gun Owners of America, that we need assault rifles to essentially overthrow our own government when we decide we have had enough.
This, my friends, IS THE PROBLEM!
Hunting and Self Defense is what most gun owners own guns for. But there is a fringe group of gun owners that think just like this guy Pratt. They think the 2nd Amendment gives them the right in this day and age to "overthrow their government by force of arms" if they so decide to do so. This isn't realistic in today's Popularly Elected Democratic Government. There is no Tyranny. There is nothing but the government that is elected by the People. We have processes to correct wrongs in our government. So why is it that these people think THEY are allowed to attempt an armed coup of OUR government?
This is the 21st Century. We no longer have the ability to takeover our government by force of arms by a bunch of civilians. We haven't had that ability since the Civil War era! It's time we slammed the door on these wild ideas of retaking our government by force of arms. It's pure fantasy and it has lead us to this very dangerous moment in time.
We are a government of the People, by the People. And that hasn't changed in over 200 years time. It's time to bring these lunatics into the 21st Century.
Well said John. The cave man mentality has to stop. Minds must evolve beyond mere survival. Some minds are stuck with the same kind of reasoning that early man probably used to defend themselves- kill first or be killed! Everything and everyone is to be feared!
Here it is the 21st century and some people are still acting like Neanderthals.
Those damn neanderthals, thinking they can control what other people do...
Neanderthals with guns!
We have amended the Constitution 27 times, some repealing previous amendments, but all with the knowledge that those forming a government in the late 1700's couldn't possibly know what specifics would be necessary in the early 21st century. I don't see people getting misty-eyed over the 3rd amendment, which prohibited the forced quartering of soldiers. It was a good amendment 200 years ago, and it seems irrelevant now at times, but it really isn't.
If the founders of our government had moral failings for allowing slavery, they at least had brilliant intellects that could conceive a form of government that would last a long time, and change with the times. And the US government has shown itself to be very resilient and timeless in many ways, but in one very special way: the military has always been forced to keep itself out of civilian affairs. Other countries have not been so lucky or well-founded, and they've paid dearly. Our ci
tizens have kept watchful eyes to make sure this doesn't happen. There is a civilian world, and there is a military world, and the two do not intertwine.
In the civilian world, according to the 2nd amendment said, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.". There it is again, an implied separation of government and military.
It seems evident to anyone trying to be objective, that the types of weapons we now have can be divided into the same two groups. A rifle, revolver, handgun--those allow a person to defend themselves under extreme duress, or hunt for game and be self-sufficient. Other weapons--machine guns, bazookas, AK47's---that can fire with great speed or do tremendous damage-- those are clearly weapons of the military. We get tragic results when the lines become blurry, and we know all too well the consequences.
Can we stop the ideological war? Can we have a dialogue that says no matter what my feelings on guns, I want to stop the slaughter of school children and people in shopping malls? This is no time for theater and slogans--it's time for real action and that important word--compromise. I'm sure there's some solution that is best for all. And the best way to find that solution is to keep ourselves planted on the backs of the giants who formed our government. We must start at the the assumption that the military and the civilian world are separate, and then the solution will become much more apparent. I hope those on the right and the left can do this--because without compromise and vigilance, we could quickly move into national chaos, a chaos that is already a reality for many grieving Connecticut parents.
A constitutional amendment clarifying the right to own a gun would be much much more likely to pass than one banning guns
The 2nd Amendment made sense when it was written over 200 years ago. Does it make sense today? Circumstances are different. Society is different.
Has anyone asked that question or even thought about it?
TO I agree that the value of the 2nd amendment is a good discussion, for this amendment was obviously written with different situations in mind. I don't like guns, and I wish we could live without them, but even though the environment in post-Revolution America was different, there are contemporary situations where people really need guns. E.g.-- A 95-pound woman who is being stalked or abused by a pathological male deserves to have something to equalize the situation, because the law surely doesn't help. There are of course numerous other examples--all for personal protection, and apart from the need to bring the military into civilian life.
The situation is definitely different. In the 18th century, they had a definite way of fighting corruption and a destruction of personal liberty. Now, we have no means. All we can do is continue to be victimized by the ruling classes (both corporate and political). Could you imagine if we didn't have a means to protect ourselves? Could you imagine the ease at which an enemy (foreign or domestic) could run through the citizenry if we had nothing but bats and ball-peen hammers? Since the 2nd amendment is alive and well, and for good reason, can we focus on whether the 14th is still necessary?