E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSUpdated 1:05 pm -- President Barack Obama will publicly announce his gun-safety proposals on Wednesday, with new recommendations, including some executive actions in addition to legislative proposals like a ban on assault weapons and large capacity magazines.
"Tomorrow, the president and the vice president will hold an event here at the White House to unveil a package of concrete proposals to reduce gun violence and prevent future tragedies like the one in Newtown, Connecticut," White House spokesman Jay Carney said during a briefing Tuesday afternoon.
President Obama and Vice President Biden will announce a package of gun control proposals in response to the Connecticut school massacre, says White House spokesman Jay Carney.
Carney said that the president will be joined at the 11:45 a.m. event by children from around the country who wrote the White House with concerns about gun violence in the wake of the Newtown school shootings that left 20 children dead.
He added that the president has previously backed a "comprehensive approach" including an assault weapons ban and a measure to ban high-capacity clips, but he stressed that both items will require congressional action.
"The president will take a comprehensive approach, but it is a simple fact that there are limits on what can be done within existing law and Congress has to act on the kinds of measures that we've already mentioned, because the power to do that is reserved by Congress," Carney said of the need for "significant" action on gun control measures.
The president met with Vice President Joe Biden Monday - a day ahead of schedule - to discuss the Biden-led task force's recommendations after the group's series of meetings with stakeholders in the gun violence debate.
Congressional officials familiar with the task force meetings said late Monday that Biden and his staff have developed 19 areas where Obama could use executive orders to institute new gun control policy.
Brendan Smialowski / AFP - Getty Images
President Barack Obama speaks during a press conference in the East Room of the White House on January 14, 2013 in Washington.
The possible executive actions were not listed to the members of Congress who attended a Monday White House meeting, but officials said Biden mentioned new avenues for gun violence research as well as the strengthening of existing gun laws. Options pertaining to mental health were also mentioned.
Recommended: With House set to OK Sandy spending, efforts continue to add unrelated funds
The measures potentially implemented by executive action would be different than legislation regarding a possible assault weapons ban or a large magazine ban that may be introduced in Congress, officials said.
Conservatives have raised strong objections to the idea of any executive actions on the part of the White House, saying that the president's efforts constitute a violation of the Second Amendment.
Freshman Rep. Steve Stockman, R-Texas, has even threatened to introduce articles of impeachment.
"Any proposal to abuse executive power and infringe upon gun rights must be repelled with the stiffest legislative force possible,” he said in a statement. “Under no circumstances whatsoever may the government take any action that disarms any peaceable person — much less without due process through an executive declaration without a vote of Congress or a ruling of a court.”
But Democrats have pushed back at the notion that any executive action would affect gun ownership or rights, saying that unilateral action from the White House will merely reinforce current laws rather than creating new ones.
"There are many (options), but they all are directing federal agencies to increase or to activate more aggressively on items that already exist in the law," Rep Chaka Fattah, D-Penn., told NBC News. "The notion that he's circumventing Congress is not accurate at all."
Fattah was not at the meeting with Biden, but he said his staff was in attendance.
NBC's Carrie Dann contributed to this report.
Leave a Comment:
For all of the "low information" voters/ranters out there;
1. Almost NO true "assault rifles" are in the hands of civilians.
2. Since the 1994 "Assault Rifle ban" expired in 2004, crime has dropped EVERY year. Crime with so-called "Assault rifles" is less than 5% of all gun related crime.
3. The same mechanical principle that operates an "assault rifle" also operates a hunting rifle and a semi-automatic handgun. It was first developed in the 1880's.
4. An Olympic style rifle has a pistol grip, it is a very ergonomic way to hold a rifle and shoot accurately. The dreaded "pistol grip" does nothing to enhance the firepower of the dreaded "assault rifle".
5. ANY type of detachable magazine on the face of the earth can be extended to any length, therefore ALL guns with detachable magazines are on the "ban list" put forth by any democrat/communist party member.
6. Agreeing to any democrat/communist party proposal to restrict gun rights will turn into a federal gun grab and eventual revocation of Constitutional rights. Simply put, thus far there is no weapon invented that is not subject to some current or proposed gun restriction.
7. Speaking of those dreaded "high capacity" magazines. First they demanded a "10-round" restriction, now they are imposing a "7-round restriction"(New York), then it will be five, then three, then one,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,then ZERO. As always,,,,,,,,,,,,any number of rounds is too many.
First is was "no new magazines", then is was "no selling the old ones" and now (New York) it is no possession of magazines, period. Demand for an outright ban, leading of course to a complete ban on ownership of firearms at some point.
8. As a party, Democrats do not believe you have the right to self defense.
9. As a party, Democrats do not believe you have the right to hunt.
10. As a party, Democrats do not believe you have the right to own any type of firearm for any reason.
11. Nearly all "mass shootings" involve a person with serious mental illness, some form of chronic drug use and a history of violent or threatening behavior. This person was typically ignored by every leftist he met in schools, colleges and medicine and was allowed to spiral out of control.
This persons actions were then blamed on people who did nothing wrong, simply because they own a firearm for their own use.
AT NO TIME, IS THE CRIMINAL BLAMED OR HELD ACCOUNTABLE FOR HIS ACTIONS, why is that? What makes democrats think it is a better idea to blame a law abiding person than a criminal?
As they say, it is not about guns,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,it is about Control.
When the President announces he has no interest in following the rule of law and will create his own system of laws by executive order he is no friend of the Constitution and he has ZERO respect for the rights of the average American.
Back to eating those funny mushrooms again, Fee? You might want to think about elevated gun mounts to protect yourself and your property from this "gun grab" you are predicting. I heard this same crap before ~ when the assault rifle ban was being proposed. None of it happened but when fear is the only element one has for a debate, I suppose hearing it again is to be expected.
I find it amusing that your president is calling for 19 new "executive orders" curbing the rights of gun owners and the state of New York is banning guns like their hair is on fire and you are claiming that "gun grabs" do not exist.
In your case, what does not exist is any common sense.
Didn't your dad run around screaming, "The Jews are fine, they just moved to Poland" in the 1940's?
I don't own a gun. At 72, I probably never will. Saying that, I took one year and looked at the homicides of children under the age of 13. In 1997 alone. 738 children under the age of 13 were murdered accross the country(but only 133 by guns, according by the FBI.
Yes we have a problem in America. Take all guns away. America would still have an infant homicide rate more than 3.5 times as high as the other western countries.
If I had the powers. I would spend a lot of my attention to the larger cities with violent gangs. Kids cannot control where they are born or financial wealth of their parents. More stress to these violent areas would be my top priority of homicides of children. Much more could be done in this area. Kids at least deserve to live in a safe community.
Why is banning guns in North Dakota, Wyoming or Montana helpful?
That is the democrats solution for crime in cities in this case.
According to this article from CNN gangs with ties to Mexican drug cartels are in 1000 U.S. cities.
Where do you think we should start? Maybe with securing our borders and enforcing our Immigration laws?
How about we start with Drug deaths in Mexico? Notice the 48,000 is only up till 2011 and does not include 2012 so add another 10,000+ bringing the total to 60,000.
http://www.cnn.com/2012/01/15/world/mexico-drug-war-essay/index.html
With Mexican Drug cartel presence in 1000 cities and you want to Disarm law abiding American Citizens?
Obama is working "hand in glove" with drug cartels and organized crime.
If they can legalize dope in all 50 states and encourage legalized drug use, they can move their cartel friends into "legal" business.
A good "first step" is giving 11,000,000 drug mules and gang members citizenship. They will vote as their cartel bosses tell them to avoid murder and kidnapping of their families and help re-elect dummiecrats to office. The dummiecrats will in turn demand legalized drugs for their "base" and refuse to prosecute drug crimes.
Follow the trail of slime. It goes through a DNC meeting to the White House.
More people are murdered by people using hammers.
Nobody is trying to take away the rights of the 2nd Amendment in the literal sense.
But in the world of mentally unstable, lawmakers should find a way to make our society a safer place. If restrictions placed on guns are what it takes, or stricter background checks, we should open the floor to debate.
With that said, the U.S. has averaged more than 18 gun deaths every day since the Newtown School shooting. Some thing should be done.
How many of those gun deaths are suicide? Chances are a large percentage of those would still happen.
Sometimes you need to drill down and analyze the numbers. "Figures lie & liars figure".
Nobody Pat? Really? What about Senator Dianne Feinstein who said, "If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them. Mr. and Mrs. America, turn 'em all in, I would have done it. I could not do that. The votes weren't here."
Kanin,
The Gun Manufacturing Lobby doesn't own America. We do......
If we tackle this problem correctly, it will resolve the Fast and Furious dilemma so it never occurs, again...........LMAO.
What are the statistics of these criminals getting the guns legally? There are restrictions on many things, and that is what makes a criminal A CRIMINAL!! They do not obey laws, restrictions, ect..
Correct me if Im wrong but isnt muder already banned? So i seriously doubt a person planning on commiting muder is going to care whether he get his weapon legaly are not.
dear ED-2874315: i checked the fbi website myself and just so you know... hammers have been used for murder more than guns. maybe we should outlaw hammers?
i have an opinion
So Obama wants to violate OUR Constitution?
Here's the language of the 2nd Amendment:
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.
ssmithlg,
Universal Gun Background checks and limits to magazines over 10 rounds wouldn't infringe upon any law abiding citizen within a State from bearing arms.....like the Contitution is written.
Your argument is a stupid one! It compares to arguing your right to have a drivers license for driving a vehicle would be infringed upon if law required a background check (like a universal gun background check) to get your license from the DMV or law outlawed high capacity engines (like magazines) allowing citizens to drive 200 miles per hour.
When has Obama proposed anything different than the examples just sighted????
He hasn't........shut up with this neurotic charade of yours. Your full of sh*t.......
Actualy its the first step. next thing is when these killing keep on happening we will have to ban handguns shotguns etc etc. Its jsut like a tax increase it will never stop. Its like the ole saying goes give them an inch and they will take a mile.
Teapublicans,.. doubling down on incoherent nonsense..
.
""Freshman Rep. Steve Stockman, R-Texas, has even threatened to introduce articles of impeachment. ""
When a sitting president violates OUR Constitution... he SHOULD be IMPEACHED!
K1200RS, what is it that you don't understand about the language of OUR 2nd Ammendment?
"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."
The Second Amendment is already regulated, or "infringed".
Scalia, a strict interpreter of the Constitution, said there's an "important limitation" on the right to bear arms.
"We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of 'dangerous and unusual weapons'," Scalia wrote, in an opinion first cited by UPI over the weekend.
Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/scalias-2008-second-amendment-opinion-2012-12#ixzz2I4MPKJ5Q
Scalia said exceptions to gun rights were recognized when the Second Amendment was written, including a tort that prohibited people from carrying a “really horrible weapon just to scare people like a head ax or something.”
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/07/29/scalia-opens-door-for-gun-control-legislation/#ixzz2I4MoLOl5
ssmithlg
So, by your interpretation of the 2nd. amendment, you can own an RPG and an M1A1 tank and a nuke too?
Remember, when you try to have a rational, intelligent debate with a gun owner, you are most likely (by statistics) speaking to a lower-educated, white, middle-aged, lower-income Southerner. Good luck with that...
Actually enjoying the gun nut froth fest... It's highly amusing...
The most entertaining aspect of it, is their irrational belief that in their self constructed, fantasy based narrative, they actually have any impact at all, on what happens in this country..
Most well balanced individuals realize that it's nothing more, than the squalling of children who are about to have their favorite toy, taken away...
K1200RS you're typical "Low Information Obama Voter", IGNORANT of OUR Constitution.
GOP Representative Steve Stockman (R-TX) took the gun control debate up a notch Monday when he issued a statement threatening to file articles of impeachment if President Obamabans assault weapons or attempts other gun control measures via executive order.
Stockman said any such actions on the president’s part would be an infringement on a “constitutionally-protected right to keep and bear arms.” He called the possibility of an executive order “unconscionable” and vowed to “thwart this action by any means necessary, including, but not limited to…filing articles of impeachment.”
U.S. BANS IMPORTS OF ASSAULT RIFLES IN SHIFT BY BUSH
By CHARLES MOHR, Special to the New York Times
Published: March 15, 1989
Sign In to E-Mail
Print
The Bush Administration today banned imports of semiautomatic assault rifles indefinitely, pending a review of whether the military-style weapons are being used for sporting purposes.
http://www.nytimes.com/1989/03/15/us/us-bans-imports-of-assault-rifles-in-shift-by-bush.html?pagewanted=all
Clinton turned to his executive powers several times during his second term to tighten down on gun ownership.
One such measure was an order banning the importation of more than four dozen makes of assault weapons, such as variations of the AK-47. The order, signed in 1998, targeted the importation of guns that were not subjected to the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban.
Another measure was an order in the eleventh hour of Clinton’s presidency banning the importation of certain makes of so-called “assault pistols,” such as Uzis, and requiring firearms dealers to submit to fingerprinting and background checks.
http://civilliberty.about.com/od/guncontrol/a/Bill-Clinton-Gun-Control-Second-Amendment.htm
ssmithlg:
The Second Amendment can be repealed. After all, it was an "amendment" in the first place, no? You and the other pro-gun fanatics imagine that the Constitution is unalterable, but it is not. We have changed it 27 times already; it is time to change it again.
It is illegal to own a fully automatic weapon (machine gun).
How do YOU define an "assult weapon"?
Sum... you are welcome to attempt to amend the U.S. Constitution, that is a process. Comrade Obama feel he has the power to usurp OUR Constitution by executive fiat, THAT is unconstitutional!
Wrong. Executive orders are legal and have been used in the past to enact gun control policies.
They can also repeal the 4th amendment. Which is the only way they'd be able to repeal the 2nd. Just some food for thought...
Laws cannot be enacted by executive order. He can order anything (restrictions) he wants but to make it a law is against the Constitution.
1. 2/3Rd's majority in US House
2. 2/3Rd's majority in the US Senate.
3. 3/4ths of the States.
To ratify the US Constitution. Do you think the Democraps have these votes to repeal the 2nd Amendment?
no, but they do have the Senate and the Presidency, which is something the Republicans wont ever see in this lifetime. The Republicans can only ever have a chance of a House majority by manipulating voting districts and pandering to the radicalism of their districts - which is often a small, homogenous population.
I know the solution that would 100% stop all violent crime in the world: Ban people.
We should follow the Canadian model of gun control-- you know, Canada, which has become a genocidal dictatorship since strict gun control measures were implemented? (sarcasm)
Seriously, let's follow the Canadian model: You don't get to own assault rifles or related weapons, period. But you can own a bolt-action hunting rifle or shotgun for hunting after you pass a strict background check and have two character witnesses (non-relatives) to vouch for you as someone who can be trusted with a gun. No high-capacity magazines, and you have to sign for every box of ammunition that you purchase, with strict limits on how many bullets you can purchase. If you try to stockpile ammunition or otherwise do something suspicious, you will be looked at more closely by the government, as you should be.
'Merika follow a foreign model ??? LOL!!!!
Not on any issue,.. healthcare, OR on gun control...
We have WAYYYY too many red state throwbacks to actually implement an efficient system based on a model that works in another country...
Sorry...
@ Sum
If you are so worried about guns in the U.S. then there is a far simpler solution for you. Just move to Canada & your problem is solved.
Your odds of getting killed by a firearm (all types combined) in the U.S. is a small fraction of 1%. You have have a greater chance of getting struck by lightening.
Your odds of getting killed by a firearm (all types combined) in the U.S. is a small fraction of 1%. You have have a greater chance of getting struck by lightening.
So why are all the gun nuts screaming they need guns for self protection?
@ starbuck
Your odds of getting murdered by a firearm are low. According to the FBI Uniform Crime Reports (2011) there were 8,583 murders committed by firearms. That is out of a U.S. population of 315 million. So, your odds of getting murdered by a firearm are a small fraction of 1%.
However, that doesn't negate the fact that people defend themselves, depending on the study, 1.5 million - 2.5 million times per year with their firearms, most times without even firing a shot.
In addition, I'm not a psychic who can predict the future, are you? Just because the odds of you getting targeted by a criminal might be low can you predict if and when it might happen to you? Hopefully, it never happens but no one can predict it ahead of time.
Do you really feel you have the right to tell people that they don't have the right to defend themselves/their families, if they have the opportunity to do so, if they are about to be victimized by a criminal?
Just because your odds of getting killed by a gun is low criminals do use other weapons to attack people (knives, clubs, bats, hammers, rope, gas/matches, fists etc...). You have a right to defend yourself against any form of attack by another, not just when the bad guy is using a gun.
Also don't forget that a gun puts:
1. 5'3" 105 lbs. woman on equal footing with a 6'4" 240 lbs. rapist
2. senior citizen on equal footing with a 20 yr. old punk high on meth who is trying to rob the senior
3. person who is by themselves on equal footing when confronted/attacked by a small group of punks
etc, etc, etc.....
Not everyone is some 6'4" muscle bound freak, who can bench 600 lbs. who has a 5th degree black belt & who was a former member of military special forces.
Even some semi-superhero like I just described could easily be taken out at a distance by some small, skinny, 130 lbs. gang banger/criminal/punk etc...who was armed with a gun.
A gun doesn't guarantee that you'll survive or come out on top if you're attacked. Every situation is different. But I"m not going to tell someone that they don't have the right to defend themselves with a gun, if that is what they choose to do, because it isn't my place to do so & I'm not living in their shoes.
I personally don't carry a gun. I don't have concealed carry permit to do so. I'm also not a hunter. I own guns because I enjoy target shooting & I also like to collect older somewhat rare rifles that not everyone owns.
My guns are put away & so are my bullets so if someone broke into my house I wouldn't be able to get to one of my guns in time to use it. That is my personal choice but I don't expect anyone else to live by my standards.
Show me something where they are trying to take away ALL your guns? No one is going after pistols. Hi capacity magazines, military style assault rifles is what they want off the streets. NOT PISTOLS. NOT CONCEALED CARRY PERMITS. Gun registration, like cars is what they want. Better mental health checks is what they want.
Job1 I see a lot of the LIB talking points and jabs, but nothing substantiating any thing you spout. Try thowing out some facts or PMSNBC may be forced to fire you.
Hey Patriotic........JOB 1 is doing the best he can with his "low information" brain. You're really expecting too much out of too little. JOB 1 needs to get a job; maybe that would stimulate a second grade thought!
What type of gun was used in the Sandy Hook shootings?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ju_NllT1iDo
The Constitution was written by men who were surely smart enough to realize that permitting citizens to be well-armed would, sadly, permit a madman to murder innocents by the handful. But they also realized that forbidding citizens from being well-armed would permit a madman to murder innocents by the millions.
They wisely chose to protect our country from the far greater evil.
It does not get any more clear than that!
The reason this argument does not fly, is because people say, "It didn't happen in my lifetime (or local area), therefore, it can't happen."
It's the same damned argument against economic disaster -- people think because a crash hasn't happened in their lifetime, that they have not experience it, that it cannot or will not happen. A dictator, we haven't seen one in a long time. That doesn't mean such a thing is impossible.
What do you consider well armed? Nukes, fuel-air bombs, helicopter gunships, tanks, APCs, F-16s and others, rocket launchers, mortars, high speed gas cooled machine guns, hell fire missiles, armed drones? That's what the "Government" could bring down on your head. Your puny little AK or AR will only get you killed. You made a truly specious argument.
A "puny little" weapon is no match for a tyrannical government? Then the people clearly need heavier weapons to defend themselves!
@ Dennis
Well those terrorist in Afghanistan with their puny little AK-47s & IEDs have done pretty well against the U.S. military. We've been there for 10+ years & still haven't defeated them. They also sent the Russians packing back in the '80s.
Need another example? Look at Vietnam. They also did pretty well against the U.S. military with their puny weapons. We didn't defeat them either.
You also assume that everyone in the military would follow orders & turn against the citizens in this country if they were ordered to do so. Well, the last time I checked the soldiers took an oath to honor & uphold the Constitution against all enemies foreign & domestic.
They didn't take an oath to follow the government or a would be dictator president who was giving them unconstitutional orders.
So if it ever happened it could turn out to be some full time soldiers who do follow illegal orders against civilians/soldiers who uphold the Constitution. It wouldn't just be civilians & their puny guns up against the military because the civilians would have the military on their side too.
Senator Manchin said there will be no legislation because there are not the votes. Senator Reid said the House should go first. I have never seen so many cowards. Their actions are just telegraphing to the Nation that NRA donations are more important than the safety of our children.
WHAT......"because the power to do that is reserved by Congress" ME THINKS THE RIGHT TO OWN A GUN IS RESERVED BY THE CONSTITUTION.
I'm sure that one of Ole Barry's "concrete proposal" coming our way tomorrow is to mandate doubling of his Secret Security protection budget. He's likely to need it!
I am going to state this as simply as I can for an uninformed voters: NO ONE can pass a law by him/herself and bypass Congress. Obama can propose actions, but he CANNOT write an executive order to ban anything!
The Constitution is the source of the authority that gives the CONGRESS the authority to pass any law that any president may ONLY propose.
He cannot pass a law by executive order. He would be guilty of a violation of his oath of office to DEFEND AND PROTECT THE CONSTITUTION.
That IS an impeachable offense.
U.S. BANS IMPORTS OF ASSAULT RIFLES IN SHIFT BY BUSH
By CHARLES MOHR, Special to the New York Times
Published: March 15, 1989
The Bush Administration today banned imports of semiautomatic assault rifles indefinitely, pending a review of whether the military-style weapons are being used for sporting purposes.
http://www.nytimes.com/1989/03/15/us/us-bans-imports-of-assault-rifles-in-shift-by-bush.html?pagewanted=all
Clinton turned to his executive powers several times during his second term to tighten down on gun ownership.
One such measure was an order banning the importation of more than four dozen makes of assault weapons, such as variations of the AK-47. The order, signed in 1998, targeted the importation of guns that were not subjected to the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban.
Another measure was an order in the eleventh hour of Clinton’s presidency banning the importation of certain makes of so-called “assault pistols,” such as Uzis, and requiring firearms dealers to submit to fingerprinting and background checks.
http://civilliberty.about.com/od/guncontrol/a/Bill-Clinton-Gun-Control-Second-Amendment.htm
Okay.
Let's ban shotguns.
A shotgun does much more damage at close range than an "assault style" weapon ever could.
But you anti-gun nuts watch too much TV and play games.
So, you have no idea what you are talking about.
Yet, you still thump your chests.
"Proposals"
Like the closing of Guantanamo, (only to see it get new paint)?
And with kids in tow.
Ever the showman.
You have to give that much to Obama.
And so many took it hook line and sinker.
You need to do a few things for added gun control.
I have no problem with extensive background checks, I have nothing to hide.
But we DO need armed police in schools and a few of the higher ups should be armed as well.
He will not be taking away guns and his proposals will more than likely fail.
We need to concentrate more on getting the mentally ill and the gangsters off the streets.
Obama has armed guards for his kids.
Are they any more precious than yours?
Leave the law abiding gun owners alone.
We, in the end can only HELP you.
All of this arguing about guns days after day is hilarious.
I always refer to people as gun grabbers. There are gun owners on the left who support the 2nd Amendment. There are those on the right who don't own guns & don't support the 2nd.
Though it really is a waste of time arguing with anti-gun/gun grabbers.
1. They don't care about differences between real assault weapons (military grade) & semi-auto firearms civilians own. Why bother explaining to them over & over again.
2. They don't care about the 2nd Amendment or the Constitution for that matter. They are only concerned with their political agenda & think the Constitution should be used for toilet paper.
3. Their ultimate goal/fantasy is to ban all guns from all law abiding citizens. That way only the criminals will have guns (great plan they have, isn't it).
What's funny is that the political thumb suckers in D.C. might pass a few new restrictions or strengthen existing gun laws but they won't be able to get a ban on black semi-auto rifles through Congress.
If by some slim chance they did it wouldn't apply to all of the existing black rifles that are already owned or out in the marketplace. So not much will change.
Nothing that I've heard the gun grabbers in D.C. propose so far would have stopped/prevented Sandy Hook/Aurora/VA Tech etc...It's all just a bunch of feel good/hey we did something B.S.
Potentially, a government is the most dangerous threat to man’s rights: it holds a legal monopoly on the use of physical force against legally disarmed victims. When unlimited and unrestricted by individual rights, a government is men’s deadliest enemy. It is not as protection against private actions, but against governmental actions that the Bill of Rights was written.
—AYN RAND
It will now be necessary for the gun dependent and gun addicted to stop the rationalizations posted here and elsewhere and deal with their personal issues. A dependence or addiction on guns, just as on alcohol, gambling, drugs, or sex with children exacts a toll on loved ones and society. Do we have a "right" to abuse drugs or children sexually? No and no more so than so absurdly clinging to guns and defending a gun habit, as a junkie does a needle and a drug habit.
You're being completely ridiculous & absurd to equate 85-100 million gun owners in the U.S. to drug addicts. In fact that is very insulting.
You do realize that most law enforcement/military members are also pro-gun & they own personal firearms apart from their jobs/service, don't you?
1. There is nothing wrong with hunting, though I personally don't.
2. There is nothing wrong with wanting to be able to protect yourself from criminals, should you ever find yourself in such a situation.
3. There is nothing wrong with collecting guns/learning about their history as a hobby, just like some people collect coins/stamps/bottles of wine or whatever. I fall into this category.
4. There is nothing wrong with target shooting for fun/recreation. All gun owners do this.
5. What difference does it make if someone owns 1 gun or 100 guns. A person can only shoot 1 gun proficiently at a time (maybe a handful of great competition shooters could use 2 handguns proficiently at the same time).
6.. What difference does it make if someone has thousands of rounds of ammo. People go through a lot of ammo target shooting. Competitive shooters go through a ton of ammo getting ready for/during competitions. Lots of people also buy ammo in bulk because it is cheaper to do so & ammo is expensive.
When criminals have no more guns, mental cases are all locked up and the marxist dictator in the White House is gone, then come talk to me about gun control. Until then, STFU.
This topic is probably an intentional diversion by Obama off of the debt limit/taxation battle until such time as we have reached the limit and yet another crisis and finger-pointing drama can reach center stage. He had his entire first term to follow through on his campaign promise for gun control measures but chose to do nothing, because doing something might have prevented his and other Dems. reelection.
Stevephoenix,
Parents had their children ripped apart by bullets, Christmas shoppers and movie goers were massacred, firemen ambushed, the recent list goes on and on. There is no diversion. The healthy members of America want to take back our country from the gun dependent and gun addicted. It is that simple.
It is simple.
You take the mentally ill out of the picture.
Everything else takes care of itself.
I just got back from a gun range.
All the patrons are in disbelief.
We, all of a sudden are made out to be the criminals we are not.
WE are the law abiding, responsible carriers of the second amendment to the US Constitution.
And we will be around long after everything else crumbles.
Kamannia, WHO is addicted to guns?
No one but criminals.
Who is addicted to the government?
Liberals.
How you can compare a responsible weapons owner/user to this I do not know.
Perhaps you are the one in need of government mental health care.
VR,
It seems the topic gun dependence/addiction hits close to home for you.
You are funny, in a very strange way.
I hope you own no weapons.
@ Kamaaina
I'm sure you have things that you enjoy doing/owning that others might question or object to. Maybe we should put your life under a microscope & see what turns up.
Nothing is going to get passed in the GOP controlled House, so this is nothing more than a tool to paint the GOP as obstructionist for the debt-ceiling debate.
Sadly, many will believe that when the GOP are just acting like the adults in the room and advocating for restraint. The Dems are like a teenager at College with a credit card... and idealistic/unrealistic like a teenager when it comes to firearms.