Pundits who predicted a month ago that President Obama wouldn't have the political courage to take on the gun lobby and try to change the politics surrounding the status quo were mistaken.
President Barack Obama unveiled sweeping new policies Wednesday aimed at limiting gun violence, teeing up a political showdown that will pit the broad public popularity for many gun control measures against Congress's tepid appetite for approving the most stringent restrictions on gun ownership.
"While there is no law or set of laws that can prevent every senseless act of violence completely, no piece of legislation that will prevent every tragedy, every act of evil," Obama said at a mid-day announcement at the White House, "if there's even one thing we can do to reduce this violence, if there's even one life that can be saved, then we have an obligation to try it."
The list of proposals from Vice President Biden's task force on gun violence is not short, but it includes universal background checks, a ban on "military-style" assault weapons, limiting ammunition magazines to 10 rounds, and strengthening existing penalties for gun trafficking. [Update: The entirety of the White House plan, entitled, "Now Is the Time: The President’s Plan to Protect our Children and our Communities by Reducing Gun Violence," is online here (pdf).]
The president also took 23 executive actions -- which will not require congressional approval -- though nearly all are fairly modest in scope.
They include providing gun dealers guidance on how to run background checks, nominating an ATF director (the Senate has refused to confirm an ATF director for six years), informing state health officials about the scope of mental health services that Medicaid plans must cover, and launching "a national dialogue ... on mental health."
Obama conceded that the bulk of the reforms must be approved by lawmakers and challenged them to act.
As the next phase begins in earnest, there will be plenty of speculation about what, if anything, can get through Congress, but in the meantime, it's worth appreciating the president's ambition on stemming the tide of gun violence. Obama didn't narrow his focus to a few ideas in the hopes that modesty might win over skeptics, he swung for the fences, unveiling "the most sweeping effort at gun control policy reform in a generation."
Second Update: The full video of today's White House event is above, and the transcript is now online.
Leave a Comment:
It makes me sad to say this, but I think the Secret Service's job just got harder.
Especially with Alex Jones still on the loose.
I was thinking exactly the same thing.
Secret Service Director to Obama: "Sir, could you, like, never leave the house again? Ever?"
I was also thinking about this...the NRA is a powerful, ugly fringe group and their members (along with the TPers) were already prepared to "take the country back" in 2008. Now they feel they have the right and the duty to carry that out.
I cried watching that news conference- not because I am cynical about how tough it is to pass even the modest changes that Obama proposes Congress pass.
I had a friend who was raped and murdered with a handgun with a 6 shot capacity. Had she been living in the UK, there is a 97% chance she would still be alive because they have sensible gun laws, and we don't. The numbers don't lie. Compared to the UK, do we really have one iota more freedom in the US from the tyranny of our government? One thing is clear- compared to the UK and all the other countries with sensible gun laws, we have a profoundly less freedom from lunatics with guns.
At any moment they are free to come into our lives and rip the rights to life liberty and pursuit of happiness from our loved ones.
That's why I am so offended by the President's words respecting the "rights" of gun owners. Make bullets cost $20 per round. Make handguns illegal. Make gun manufacturers liable for legal suits brought by families of victims of guns they build and sell. Treat guns with at least the regulation we treat motor vehicles- with people obliged to re-register every year and demonstrate their competence to use them responsibly, and show that they are authorized to be in possession of that particular firearm.
Lastly- The president said the important thing was for [people in red districts] to contact their congress person. Is that appeal the end of the effort? It wasn't with his campaign. He didn't just give a speech and ask people to vote for him. His organization used statistical techniques to identify voters likely to be persuadable, and psychological and logistical techniques to maximize the likelihood they would go out and vote.
The same type of organization could use the same type of techniques to motivate people sympathetic to various causes in Red / purple districts to contact their representative or take other action to influence their votes.
That's why Jim Messina's conference to determine the future of Organizing for America this week could be so important.
They way I see it (*cue me being attacked over and over for this comment) is that gun owners do have certain rights, but with those rights come responsibilities. And if too many of them won't be responsible, then those rights should be taken away.
I love President Obama and overall I'm so proud of him, but you're right...contacting a congress person does nothing.
It drives me mad that gun owners have all these rights they talk about...but what about a child's right to go to school and not have to worry about being shot? What about everyone's right to go out in public and not have to worry that someone is going to shoot them? Don't the rest of us have rights too?
Two of my brothers in law own gun shops. They keeps saying reform will hurt their businesses. When did we start caring more about $$ than people?
@John: Don't be lead astray by the gun kooks assertion that the 2nd Amendment is there to provide defense against a tyrannical government. It isn't. Fighting against the U.S. government by a citizen is treason (Article 3, Section 3). The 2nd Amendment can't be used to justify individual possession of firearms in order to guard against a government gone awry. That's what elections are for.
And which party is trying to make it so that elections have little to do with what the majority of people want?
I was getting my security clearance reissued once and the interviewer asked me the standard "Do you support the overthrow of the US government?" question
He was a bit taken aback for a second when I looked him dead in the eye and said without blinking"Yes, every four years"
If violence is the last refuge of the incompetent then, Guns are the last bastion of the philosophically bankrupt
Change begins with US. I do enjoy all the salient, reasonable, and pragmatic solutions and commentary on this blog. But, while it's great that we share them with each other, in times like these, it really is a form of intellectual activism that needs to be taken a big step further.
If you've never before written a member of Congress, there are tabs and a map, on the website below, that will tell you how to find members, and others that show you how to direct, address, and compose your email.
Click this link: http://www.congressmerge.com/onlinedb/
If we really want to be an active part of the solutions to our collective mires we need to let the right people know how we feel. We must inundate the email inboxes of our members of Congress with our wishes and strongly urge them to vote the way we want them to vote...even those in the GOP. The "will of the people" is what they love to opine about--well, let those intransigent obstructionists hear, loudly and clearly, your urgent call to action. If we bombard their inboxes with emails (even simply paste in your post with some polite urgency--promises to vote against them if they don't do our bidding--and suggested action!), we will have a better shot at achieving our goals. Talk is cheap...let's give it some real value.
Clisk this link to facilitate that end:
http://www.congressmerge.com/onlinedb/
If you've never before written a member of Congress, there are tabs and a map, on the website below, that will tell you how to find members, and others that show you how to direct, address, and compose your email.
Let's use all avenues of due process available to us to achieve useful, pragmatic change NOW!
well at lease its action and not in-action and sweep under the rug or passed down the road until forgot.
good start.
If the President is successful and gets everything he wants, what do theGun Hoarders lose. At best less then 1% of all weapons availble to them.They will still have 99% of weapons to choose from. If they say they needa Bushmaster to protect their home and family, well here's my recipe:
1. An ADT security system or similar with a few signs on the doors and windows
2. Buy and install brite lights connected to motion sensors
3. A big bad dog or two
4. A good handgun, shotgun or rifle.
(Criminals hate all of the above, especially brite lights and big dogs)
If your 1,2,3 line of defence fail, you have your weapons, if you are not skilled enough to defend yourself and your family with a good handgun, shotgun or rifle,the last thing you need is an assault rifle with 20 or 30 rounds, you will only be a danger to your family, yourself and your neighbors as those rounds can very travel far.
Once again we are only talking about less then 1% of all the weapons availble to you.
.)
Cheer up, everyone.
They said Obama wouldn't get the stimulus passed and he did.
They said Obama wouldn't get health care passed and he did.
They said Obama wouldn't end the war in Iraq and he did.
They said Obama wouldn't end "Dont ask, don't tell" and he did.
They said Obama wouldn't end the discrimination against gay marriage and he did.
They said that Obama wouldn't end the abuse of the second amendment and he ---- (I'll bet he does!)
That's the way! In one fell swoop, it is again the GOP that stands to be marked as the ones who would rather let the country suffer than attempt anything to make things better.
Sado-masochism is an important element in political identification, and those on the right are obviously predominantly sadistic.
This shouldn't be described as "sweeping" gun reform. Sweeping gun reform would ban ammunition or ban handguns or something truly transforming. By calling it sweeping, you overstate it's implications and allow the gun absolutists to say, when you get just a little bit of it passed, that more than enough has been done. By calling it "reasonable" or "minimal" gun reform, you don't allow that. You make it much more easy to paint the gun kooks as, well, the kooks they are.
I wouldn't characterize it as sweeping either; for that, we'd need a functioning House. In fact, I never said it was. I said "in one fell swoop", as in Obama did it in one act, rather than trickling them out over the course of days or weeks (which could be a valid tactic to maintain the sense that Something Is Being Done and to keep the pressure up by keeping the discussion in the foreground for the American goldfish memory). It IS minimalist, and it's the bare base of what NEEDS to happen. To get to reasonable, we've got some distance to go.
Yep. It's hardly anything to brag about that the President is coming out with something folks like Benen are describing as "sweeping" and it's not even expected to take the country back to 1994 when a (badly written) assault weapons ban actually did pass. If today's assault weapons ban does actually pass, only then will I be mildly optimistic. Should have been willing to put more demands in it to give further room to give in.
Hey Grumpy! We are trying to make this country better for all of us. The problem seems to be the people of your mind set that believe what you get from the liberal media! Let's see Obama promissed to cut the deficit in half his first term. That didn't happen did it. He was going to be a president of transparency, and that never has happened. He was going to work together with the conservative side, and that hasn't happened. Today he hides behind children for his gun reform executive orders. Which will go no where! He should have apologized to those kids for spending their futures. He needs to stop deflecting his own mistakes his presidency has set upon this nation, and get back to what this country needs. A leader. Maybe he can get onto Al Gore's old TV network. He'll fit right in...
Deficit cutting was derailed by an obstructionist, disloyal House; if they had been doing their jobs, the deficit would be well on its way out, but no, it was more important to try and score political points. Too bad they lost the game, except for gerrymandering. He's been more transparent than any president up until now, especially more so than his predecessor. He's hiding behind nothing; he's reacting to the will of a majority of the electorate... oh, but that's right, your side doesn't hold much with polls, that's why you thought Romney was going to win big.
He IS a leader. This is what leading entails: doing what needs to be done, not what yahoos like you bitch and moan and scream about. Personal note? The fact that you don't like it means, to me, he's doing the right thing. Anything that makes a teabilly whine has got to be the right way.
It seems the value of responsibility is lost on the NRA. Basic assurances all well adjusted human beings make all the time without even thinking of them. Yet, the NRA seems to think itself exempt from these basic responsible assurances.
Guns aren't like other pieces of hardware - they only have one use, to kill! -Kevo
All y'all: Responsibility is the key word, here.
Over on PolicyMic, a gentleman by the name of Darwin Long wrote an article about Responsibility and Protecting the 2nd Amendment. His thesis was that we wouldn't need to "have the gun control debate at all" if gun owners took ultimate responsibility if/when their property harmed someone.
Here's the thing: the biggest and loudest "Libertarian" advocates of "personal responsibility" - who also turn out to be the biggest and loudest defenders of the 2nd Amendment - excoriated poor Darwin to H-E-Doubletoothpicks.
So much for taking responsibility. It's all very well and good to call out all those "welfare frauds" for not taking personal responsibility but the second somebody suggests that you are responsible if a gun registered to your ownership is used to harm someone...oh, no, no! Not my responsibility! Hypocrites and immature babies all of 'em! FANSWATS!
Loved your post, CarolinaLady. I've been saying here that I think people who own guns should bear partial legal responsbility when that gun is used in a crime. Make it a crime to be careless with something as dangerous as a pistol or rifle or shotgun.
Part of the process, should charges be filed and the gun owner plead not guilty, is a hearing, just as in any other crime. If there are truly mitigating circumstances, the owner can be cleared of the charges. But along with the Right to bear arms comes the Responsibility to manage them safely.
I know this was not part of the President's proposal today. But as someone who chooses not to own a gun myself, I think I should have the assurance that, at the very least, gun owners are legally required to use the utmost care in their custody.
Yeah, make gun owners carry liability insurance, or risk going straight to jail should one of their precious guns be used in a crime because they let it get stolen or lent it out to a friend! -Kevo
I had to carry liability insurance when I owned a pit bull, and I was liable if he got out of our fence, or if he bit someone...even if he bit someone who was poking him with a stick. So I have to pay to insure the actions of my dog, but a gun owner doesn't have to be liable for what happens with his/her weapon!?
You people on here are NUTS! Just had to come over to the dark side, and see what the slower minded people have to say. Wow, you guys really believe this stuff. You can be fixed. Maybe a little bit of FOX news will help you out. That's my perscription for you knuckleheads. Get a grip, and see what going on. I think you guys live in a fairy tale world. Wake Up!
Fairy tale? That's a FOX description if I ever heard one. You know, the reason they can't get shown up north is the Canucks require FACTS to allow it to be called news. If anyone needs a wake-up call, it's you.
You'll note that Jeff did not present one cogent idea in that entire rant. He's learned his lessons well at the knee of Rush & Co.
So the Senate has not confirmed an ATF director for six years, yet we have an acting ATF director.
Is this evidence that if the Senate refuses to advise or consent, we can fill appointments with 'acting' equivalents? 'Acting' executive branch appointees? 'Acting' Cabinet Officials? 'Acting' Federal Circuit Judges?
If Harry Reid is reluctant to bring forth real filibuster reform, this could be the way to go. Set a policy where if an appointment is not acted on in say, six months - let the nominee assume 'Acting' authority if and until they get an upperdown vote.
Right! Sort of like common-law marriages, but this would be common-law appointments. I love it.
sounds nice - but that would be in violation of the constitution which REQUIRES congressional consent.
Consent is sometimes tacit.
Only in the US Senate is a 51 yea and 49 nay vote considered a loss.
So... did the POTUS "cave" to the gun lobby...
It's been a full 20 minutes...has the gun lobby gone bananas and tried to get him impeached yet?
Has FOX started in with their "Reporting" on the massive and shocking abuse of power he has committed by issuing executive orders?
If not they will before the close of business today
They've apparently begun by instructing people on how to get around the NY state laws over there at Fox ...
I knew it wouldn't take them long
Anything that keeps demonstrating that it is the neo-Confederates (who aren't all found in a geographic region) who are The Problem.
Odd that the NRA cries out against stigmatizing "law-abiding gun owners" but is perfectly happy to stigmatize non-violent, law-abiding individuals who have had mental illness and consulted a doctor for help.
Hey, why don't we stigmatize all them god-hating atheists, too? They're a minority, so no one will object. And if they do, we'll just call them Elitists.
Oh, so weary of this slandering of the dangerous OTHER. Makes me wonder why my ancestor, orphaned by England's Bloody Assizes, ever bothered to catch a ship to the Colonies.
Not to mention stigmatizing anyone who doesn't own a gun and doesn't think they need one. They automatically become crazy hippie peacnicks and worse
Not just 'hippie peaceniks' but 'sitting ducks,' just asking to be shot down.
Change begins with US. I do enjoy all the salient, reasonable, and pragmatic solutions and commentary on this blog. But, while it's great that we share them with each other, in times like these, it really is a form of intellectual activism that needs to be taken a big step further.
If you've never before written a member of Congress, there are tabs and a map, on the website below, that will tell you how to find members, and others that show you how to direct, address, and compose your email.
Click this link: http://www.congressmerge.com/onlinedb/
If we really want to be an active part of the solutions to our collective mires we need to let the right people know how we feel. We must inundate the email inboxes of our members of Congress with our wishes and strongly urge them to vote the way we want them to vote...even those in the GOP. The "will of the people" is what they love to opine about--well, let those intransigent obstructionists hear, loudly and clearly, your urgent call to action. If we bombard their inboxes with emails (even simply paste in your post with some polite urgency--promises to vote against them if they don't do our bidding--and suggested action!), we will have a better shot at achieving our goals. Talk is cheap...let's give it some real value.
Clisk this link to facilitate that end:
http://www.congressmerge.com/onlinedb/
If you've never before written a member of Congress, there are tabs and a map, on the website below, that will tell you how to find members, and others that show you how to direct, address, and compose your email.
Let's use all avenues of due process available to us to achieve useful, pragmatic change NOW!
As a responsible gun owner, I don't see any issues with any of his proposals. I do wish he went further in regard to screening and treatment of people with mental health issues though.
I read the proposal and as a gun owner, hunter and competitive shooter, I don't find any of the 23 items he is going to handle via executive order offensive. I'm surprised they aren't in place already.
The only difficult items are the limitations on magazine capacity, and restoring the assault weapons ban. To tell you the truth, I think the assault weapons ban is an unnecessary distraction. Scary looking or cuddly shouldn't be a deal breaker. We can accomplish all that needs to be accomplished by reducing magazine capacity to 10 rounds. The problem with the 10 round limit is your average Glock style pistol (almost all modern pistols) holds more than 10 rounds.
I have concerns about the mental health provisions, but those are privacy and due process concerns that don't involve the 2nd amendment. If we are going large on the mental health side, we need to make sure we really provide treatment. Simply stimatizing a lot of people isn't going to get the job done.
I worry more about the average hot head then the mentally ill. My ex had the background check and legally owns a gun. He is a law abiding citizen, no felonies, and no mental illness but a VERY short temper. That is a person who can legally own a gun, but I don't think NEVER should be given the responsibility of one...how do you screen for that?
Ron B: We have moved way beyond "scary looking" or "cuddly". Not a single honest person will tell you an AR15 is not the single easiest weapon to use in a mass killing.
Amber.
Thanks for writing that! It is too bad that there is no "temper" test!
That was why I felt that getting insurance companies involved and requiring liability coverage would help by making those who might be deemed 'risky' would be recognized by a party that will benefit or lose monetarily by it.
I agree, Amber. Everybody's jumping on the "mentally ill" bandwagon, but I'm just as concerned with the hot-tempered/aggressive/domineering/intimidating/drunk/vengeful/trigger-happy individuals roaming the streets of America. Those people who feel a need to own an assault weapon, along with a conceal carry permit, are a big part of the problem.
Why can't we screen for anger disorders? I am sure that there is another name for it, but have heard of "anger management" classes...
Judging a person's "risk" seems like common sense when it comes to weapons, but for those in production, sales, and promotion of the weapons, this is specifically what destroys their maximum profitability. That's why there will be no discussion with them, cause it will cut into their market share.
You ladies (Amber, Jani lisa, Eileenjj and the other Eileen) have hit on a crucial point. I believe that the danger to most Americans isn't so much that a depressed or schizophrenic person will get his or her hands on a gun (so seldom a woman, though) or that a gang shootout will suddenly erupt across the street. But when a gun is nearby and emotions fly off the chart, that's a volatile situation. IMHO, it's the biggest danger in keeping guns around.
I have personally been in a situation where I had no option but to call 911 and sneak my daughter out of the house and wait outside for police to arrive. Even though no shots were fired, the gun was prominently displayed and it was scary. How many others bear these invisible scars? I mean, in addition to people who've been wounded or killed with guns?
And Mr. LaPierre, this is for you: My having a gun would NOT have been the way to stop the other person with a gun.
You'd have to be a real screwball to get pizzed about this action, but they're out there. Smart thing to throw some Repub meat and let them act out as the rabid dogs that (most of'em) they are.
@Dragoon21b:
"Rep. Steve Stockman (R-Tex.) says he’s willing to initiate impeachment proceedings against President Obama should the White House implement new gun regulations through executive action."
Yeah and when that doesn't fly he will start in by supporting state "Nullification" and then secession...and then something about how "the South will rise again!"
That guy should have been elected Mayor of crazytown
Please proceed, Governor. He didn't enact any new regulations.
Fox starts their new update vaguely announcing that he made 23 sweeping executive orders for gun control, that many in congress feel he is over stepping his executive boundaries...lol
Rep. Steve Stockman: Please Proceed
I don't understand why gun owners don't realize the NRA is in this for the gun manufacturers. They could care less about the gun owner. The gun owners membership fees are nothing like the income from the gun manufacturers. Wonder how much the NRA receives in commission for promoting guns that should be used in combat. One sided war when someone can enter a school and murder 26 people.
Gun owners (and other low information voters...BTW is that a fancy way of saying dumbasses?) already vote against their economic interests. Why would this surprise you?
Trainerbarry- I'm a gun owner and I agree with every single proposal the Obama Administration put forward today. Rachel did a segment on this not long ago- the majority of gun owners do support reasonable gun control laws. Heck even the majority of NRA members support them (I'm not member). Stigmatizing gun ownership and gun owners is not going to help.
Change begins with US. I do enjoy all the salient, reasonable, and pragmatic solutions and commentary on this blog. But, while it's great that we share them with each other, in times like these, it really is a form of intellectual activism that needs to be taken a big step further.
If you've never before written a member of Congress, there are tabs and a map, on the website below, that will tell you how to find members, and others that show you how to direct, address, and compose your email.
Click this link: http://www.congressmerge.com/onlinedb/
If we really want to be an active part of the solutions to our collective mires we need to let the right people know how we feel. We must inundate the email inboxes of our members of Congress with our wishes and strongly urge them to vote the way we want them to vote...even those in the GOP. The "will of the people" is what they love to opine about--well, let those intransigent obstructionists hear, loudly and clearly, your urgent call to action. If we bombard their inboxes with emails (even simply paste in your post with some polite urgency--promises to vote against them if they don't do our bidding--and suggested action!), we will have a better shot at achieving our goals. Talk is cheap...let's give it some real value.
Clisk this link to facilitate that end:
http://www.congressmerge.com/onlinedb/
If you've never before written a member of Congress, there are tabs and a map, on the website below, that will tell you how to find members, and others that show you how to direct, address, and compose your email.
Let's use all avenues of due process available to us to achieve useful, pragmatic change NOW!
I honestly can't understand why it isn't worth it to enact all these proposals. The NRA says they won't work, so let's DO it and see. If they don't work, no harm, no foul. I feel so frustrated that there isn't more I can do although I may for the first time write my Republican senator.
I guess the hardest thing for me to understand is why all the gun-lovers can't picture those 20 children and WANT these things to be done.
Those in the Gun Cult obviously don't give a flying fig about those 20 children except insofar as they can be used in the Gun Cult's "More guns!!!" "crusade".
Looking for ways to influence Congressional votes to support this important gun safety bill - other than my local senators and reps - which I have already contacted. Thanks!
The President used a good strategy by emphasizing that all those killed had their civil rights violated. No right is unlimited. The right to free speech has its limits, the rights of the press have limits, the right to free exercise of religion has its limits. So does the right to bear arms.
I wonder why these rapid fire guns with high capacity magazines cannot be classified as machine guns which are already banned. What is the legal definition of a machine gun?
bflynch, you aske a good question. Many people don't understand the difference in the guns. (I don't own a gun nor claim to be an expert). Automatic guns (like machine guns) require just one pull of the trigger to fire multiple times. Semi automatic requires a single pull of the trigger to fire, they do not require any action to engage the bullet into the chamber.
Gun experts, is this correct?
I guess that's what surprises me. It is not legal to drive a Formula 1 race car on regular highways, yet the auto manufacturers and average drivers have not raised a hue and cry about the potential assault on minivan-owning civil liberties being violated.
While this is a dangerous analogy in some ways, I often wonder about the ways that the NRA and 2nd Amendment activists can claim that a similar type of slippery slope will really stop them from owning guns at all, rather than just seeing it as a limitation in a right that they have always had, and likely always will.
hoosierprof, the biggest difference in the comparison is that the Constitution does not specifically mention the right of citizens to own "automobiles" for obvious reasons, but it does say that about guns. It specifically says government can't "infringe" on that right and the discussion is exactly what that means.
I think, if we want to continue more down the road of banning and regulations, we have to consider amending the constitution. IMHO>
Rob, this is why I said that the comparison is disingenuous in some ways, but the basic point is that all American liberties that are guaranteed in the Constitution are limited. No right is absolute/pure, and to date nobody has talked about taking away "regular" guns from owners... yet the NRA and some owners are talking about these discussions as though the US government is plotting to stalk them, enter their homes, and remove all weapons.
hoosierprof,
I realized years ago that those on the right routinely pretend that their rights are absolute.
hoosier, I don't disagree that rights are limited. And not to defend the NRA, but like most activist groups, they push towards the extreme in order to try and preserve a spot in between. Typical negotiation tactic. Point taken.
From my perspective, there are two general camps, those on the side of the greatest freedom and those on the side of the greatest public safety. With all of the federal and state laws already in place, what would a sensible addition be to federal law?
To begin, any new law must balance the two Consitutional demands of freedom and the public welfare. Additionally, I would argue, any new federal law must address the needs of all parts of the nation, from the rural to urban, from self-defense, to hunting to sport shooting. In order to meet these competing demands, the law must allow states and municipalities to implement and enforce local laws applicable to the needs of their particular populations. Therefore, any new federal law must meet three criteria: 1) maximizes freedom 2) maximizes public welfare and 3) allows states to make additional requirements as needed.
Since the first two criteria are in conflict, a compromise between them is needed. Several existing laws show us a path to what that comprise looks like. Background checks prior to sales of firearms, for one. Bans on fully automatic weapons, except to specially licensed persons, for another. Historically, there was the 1994 "assault weapons ban" legislation. The presidents recent proposal covers these topics and more, most of which I agree with. However, I would suggest a change to one of his proposals, reinstatement of the '94 ban and restrictions.
Rather than an outright ban on "assault style" (or military style, pick your name) weapons, I would suggest mimicking the stronger license and background check requirements for automatic and other specialty weapons. It is generally illegal for the public to own dynamite or other explosives, yet an individual may apply for and receive permission to own and use these items. It is my opinion that crafting a stronger licensing requirement meets all three criteria, and would be easier to pass in the current political climate.
The issue of magazine (or clip) size or, more generally, the number of rounds a weapon may hold prior to reloading is somewhat more complicated; primarily because manufacturers engineering of weapons and magazines is non-standard. Revolvers may hold 5, 6, 7 or 8 rounds, shotguns may hold between 4 and 8 rounds. Semi-automatic handguns often hold 7, 10, or even 15 rounds in the factory issues magazine. Placing an arbitrary limit of 10 rounds, or 7 or 12, does not really address the issue of larger amounts of ammunition being available to potential shooters. Further, it impacts the sport shooting community. Concerning this aspect of gun control, I have three suggestion:
1) Eliminate all after-market magazines and modification that increase the amount of ammunition a weapon can carry. Just as we made illegal modification to make guns fully automatic, there is no particular need, even for sport shooters to increase the factory capacity of a weapon.
2) As a companion to the special licensing requirements for semi-automation military type weapons, such a license could also cover the existing 20 and 30 round factory magazines.
3) Do not grandfather existing oversize magazines, allow a suitable amnesty/turn-in period, and provide for future legal destruction or registration of owners with the new licensing requirements.
The point of any legislation, it seems to me, is to make it more difficult for persons to obtain weapons that may be used for mass violence. These suggestions, special licensing and magazine size limitations and control, seem to me to strike a better balance between freedom, security, and state's rights, than an all out ban at the federal level. The federal level, to me, should be the bottom threshold of action or limitations, while allowing states or municipalities to create stronger legislation if needed to serve their constituents.
I agree with most of what you said. One exception: the outright ban on military-style weapons. What is the purpose of a military weapon in sport or hunting? I think driving and firing a tank would be awesome, but I'll never be allowed to get one, will I? At best licenses for these weapons should only be awarded to the people that work with the military to produce them.
How about requiring secure storage of any semi-automatic weapon? If an owner cannot afford to buy a gun-safe and trigger locks deemed sufficiently secure (with some form of combination and biometric locks), then require storage of the semi-automatic weapon at a gun range equipped with such safes.
After all, military bases and national guard armories lock up the guns for their soldiers, as did colonial and revolutionary era militias. It is all part of the 'well regulated militia' experience.
Here's my summary of the executive orders:
1-6 related to background checks
7-8, 15 gun safety issues
9-10 tracing guns from crimes
11 nominate ATF director
12-13 law enforcement training
14 study what causes violence (like we've never done that before)
16 - 17, 19, 21, 22, 23 healthcare and mental health issues
18 armed security in schools
Now, the question, which ones would be most likely to have prevented any of the recent mass shootings?
I am not aware of the exact contents of the Executive Orders, but considering the categories in post #18...
... better mental health screening and tighter background checks on weapons and ammunition would have increased the chance of stopping the shooter in Aurora...
... stricter requirements on the safe storage of guns, such as biometric trigger locks, may have restricted access to guns for the shooter in Newtown ...
... and restricting clip size should have reduced the number killed at several shootings, especially the one at Tuscon (where the shooter was tackled when he had to reload).
Will the Executive Orders be enough? Probably not, for we elect Presidents, not Kings. But doing everything possible through Executive Order removes one of the more legitimate arguments against the need for new laws.
Absolutely none of them. The shooting in CT could not have been prevented by anything other than an armed guard on the door.
Precisely. The question we all should be asking is "how would these new laws have prevented these tragedies?" If the answer is "they wouldn't", then why should we pass these new laws?
pessuj
I call BS on that one . The first thing the shooter does is take out the armed guard , if their mission is to kill.
Remember the school was locked and he broke in.
sick-n-effin-tired, the shooter would first have to know where the armed officer was and I would think, a trained officer (which is what most school resource officers are) would have heard the breaking in noise and responded appropriately. But, we are just guessing...training officers would have a better take.
Many schools and communities go to the expense of having an armed officer on campus. Are you saying they are wasting their money?
14 study what causes violence (like we've never done that before)
We HAVEN'T done that before! The god-damned Republicans actually passed a LAW that FORBADE the CDC from doing any research on gun violence!
Rob Don ...If, If ,If ,
Here's a big IF for you
IF these rules and changes stop one shooting , one murder, they are worth it.
That is one family NOT devistated by gunfire
Mass shootings are the outlier; the U.S. has more people gunned down every day than all of 2012’s mass shooting combined.
The question to ask is “can/will the executive orders reduce the amount of day-to-day carnage happening on our streets and in our communities?”
Had the assault weapons ban NOT been allowed to expire in 2004, the Lanza woman wouldn't have been able to purchase the Bushmaster, no?
So yes, these laws can and will prevent gun violence. Not all obviously.
"16 - 17, 19, 21, 22, 23 healthcare and mental health issues"
for starters.
once again fix all>>save all>> nope but its a good start and its ACTION as apposed to IN_ACTION and pasting it down the road, or hope it just goes away.
citizen, the assault weapon ban was not one of the executive orders.
Giant, I agree, mass shootings kill less than the "day-to-day carnage." We need to address the bigger picture and not just reactionary measures.
sick, using your "if" logic, "if is stops one...then it is worth it" we should outlaw cars, drinking, etc...if doing so stops one needless death...so, you have to look deeper.
Alan, so, the President's executive order is violated law???? I challenge you to find that law. I'll admit I am wrong if you show source. My guess, you will not. I await.
Pilotshark, you might be correct. I know there has been some discussion on if a counselor knew things that should have been reported. Don't know if that was the majority or just a few of the cases. ACTIOIN is needed...in a lot of areas in Washington, not just lip service.
I am 53 years old, and have NEVER heard anyone representing the NRA quote the Second Amendment. Why is that? Are they afraid it will reveal the rampant ignorance which is the very foundation upon which the NRA has been built?
Remember a fundamental point about the NRA, of which I'm a member because I think gun safety training is important. It once was a normal apolitical mainstream organization for sportmen and shooting enthusiasts to promote gun safety. It supported gun controls. In 1977, a bunch of Southern fundamentalists took it over and turned it into the right-wing gang of nutbags it is today. The date is not coincidental. It followed the civil rights era, implementation of which the new NRA leadership deeply feared. They defined gun ownership as a fundamental right for white people who could defend themselves against government tyranny (maybe, although it's hard to believe a bunch of overweight middle aged farmers could stand for more than 30 seconds against a three-man SEAL team), but more particularly against an uprising of black people. AR-15s are very popular, produced by at least 50 US manufacturers, precisely because I believe many of their owners (I own one, but I don't think I'm in this group.) believe they are a symbol of white superiority to people of color. It's a relatively expensive rifle, so most owners are not underprivileged. I think many of the most rabid NRA members equate assault rifle ownership (and despite the technical balderdash the NRA relies on to deny their existence, everyone knows exactly what an asssault rifle is) with their ability to resist the demographic and social changes that are so evident in the country, and I believe that their pending failure to maintain the status quo reflects their inability to change the demographic tide. Who defends these firearms so fervently.... older, white, religious fundamentalist, rural and mostly Southern men, the most endangered U.S. demographic group. The young, women, people of color.... all the groups rising to political power, simply are not swayed by the symbol of power and oppression that assault rifles have become. That's why the NRA, which will resist change no matter what, as long as the current generation of supporteres draw breath, and ultimately lose. America's gun culture simply won't matter in the long run, and it's merely a matter of time until the Supreme Court validates the legal point that possession of assault rifles are not integral to the Second Amendment of any other right of U.S. citizenship.
There will always be a 'gun culture', but like racism and homophobia, it will fade generation after generation until it no longer poses a daily threat to individual liberty.
Most of them probably don't belong to the NRA, but I'm willing to bet there are more assualt, military type weapons in the city of Chicago, than there are in any city in the South. They also supposedly have the strictist gun control laws in the country. Check out their murder total this monty. And you sir, are a racist.
pessuj... and where do you think the black gangs you are referring to (obviously since you bring up Chicago, we're not stupid here) get those guns? How do guns wind up gun gun free zones??
You think it may be due to the fact that anyone anywhere can go to a state with lax gun laws and buy as many guns and bullets they can afford, no questions asked, no background check, no nothing?
It's time gun dealers take responsibility for what they sell and who they sell it to.
Why does the right wing insist on arming criminals and terrorists??
You sir are an ignorant fool.
I guess I just don't understand why you'd continue your association with an organization that you yourself characterize as inflaming and then preying on the ignorant fears of crackers as its primary m.o. (all in order to get them to purchase more guns and keep the NRA's real clients in business), greatly harming the nation's culture as a result, simply because it provides the minor benefit of some firearms safety training. So do Ducks Unlimited and any number of smaller organizations, but they're not the launderer of the weapons industry influence over our political process. In fact, one commonsense regulation would be to require training and certification in the use of a purchased firearm as a part of a national registry of ownership; which would have the happy side benefit of causing a proliferation of these alternative providers of safety classes. That would perhaps sever any remaining loyalty rational people such as jrsiii have toward an otherwise deplorable institution and leave it exposed as the industry shill that it is.
If I leave, the NRA gets even worse.
In what way? Have you as a member modulated Wayne LaPierre's or the group's outrageousness downward? Attended meetings to speak some sense to the rabbling hordes of resentment?
(Or were you just being cheeky? Sorry if I misread)
OMG (to use that overused and probably out of date expression) but I had never thought about President Obama's action for gun control, making him more of a target for wackos with guns, but from some of the comments, that sounds like a new fear. This is outrageous and shows just how sick these people are who want NO control or ban on any kind of guns.
Okay. We all feel better now? We have our wish list written out all pretty.
Now, flesh out the background check database like the NRA says they want, declare victory, and go home.
Ain't nothing more substantial getting through Congress, so let's move on to the American Jobs Act and gain votes in Congress rather than losing them to a feel-good Valhalla.
I don't enjoy saying "I told you so," enough to screw ourselves silly in 2014.
If someone steals my car and wrecks into you my insurance "makes you whole". a gun should have the same sort of paper trail,to determine the original ownership&weather or not responsible ownership was in practice or a straw deal was the culprit . Ballistic test firing of a gun before it is sold will tell you whose gun was fired at any future crime scene. The NRA blocked all these measures,too costly,blaa blaa blaa.If you own a gun and someone steals it or you sell it to a clown and they kill someone,you are to blame. guns do stuff like kill, and your ignorance of the gravity of the situation caused a death.
Excuse the pun, but the paranoid gun nuts are going to go BALLISTIC! They will be scurrying from their rat holes with a vengeance. Sadly, the Secret Service is going to have get into hyper-drive mode from here on out. God protect you, Mr. President.
I have a few questions: If the new regulations
does that mean if I sell my own personal gun to a family member who lives down the street, I have to contact the FBI first? What if I just give a gun to them as a gift, or let them borrow one?
My primary home defense gun doesn't not have a high capacity magazine or an extended magazine. It has a standard size magazine. It has a 15 round capacity. It fits inside the gun. It doesn't poke out the bottom of the handle, see?
http://www.imagecoast.com/images/alvagoldbook/mahgun.jpg
Does this mean that I'm a criminal now?
Um, don't these guys know that the whole "armor-piercing" bullet thing was a bunch of a bull-pucky?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teflon-coated_bullet#Controversy
There are bullets that will pierce body armor. Any rifle round will do exactly that. Does that mean that we've just banned all rifle ammunition?
* Give law enforcement additional tools to prevent and prosecute gun crime.
Such as?
Weren't we supposed to already be doing that?
What, we don't already know that it's caused by poverty and income inequality?
Will these technologies make guns less reliable? Or am I going to have to fumble around with some unnecessary add-on feature while someone is breaking into my house? When seconds count, trip gun owners up?
Just about every police department in the country switched over to issuing Glocks to their officers because the Glock design limits necessary features. Research showed that having a manual safety cost officers lives, because in the heat of the moment, officers would sometimes forget to disengage the safety.
The same principle applies to using a gun for self defense. The more barriers you have to protecting yourself, the more likely you are to die.
It must suck living in a haze of fear and paranoia. I thought America was the land of the free and home of the brave, not the land of bed wetting pussies who want to play GI Joe.
I'm sorry, but, your comment on a story shouldn't be longer than said story...if you want people to read it.