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:
And now Fox Noise is taking issue with Obama having children attend the announcement on firearms measures tomorrow. According to one silver-tongued talking head, "this is just how sinister Washington has become." The kids invited are those that sent letters to the president concerning personal and school safety. But I'm confident that all those kids come from liberal, welfare-sucking, communist learning parents residing in trailer parks across the nation. Ain't nun of 'em gun-toting NRA kids gonna be seen in that photo-op. Hael no! "Em kids er being taught the truth, by God, that the 'gubmint' is out to git 'em 'n that half-breed squatter in the 'pepul's house' is the leader of the pack.
The kids are there for show.
It has nothing to do with FOX except they are correct.
All Obama is good for is show.
If they gave an award for BULLSH!T he would win first prize.
He tugged at heart strings enough to get back in office even though he sucks as president.
Why should he change plans now?
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.
@ Jim in Texas
You're no Texan that's for sure.
BTW, why do you drag the NRA into your rant?
The NRA only has 4+ million members. There are 85-100 million gun owners in the U.S. from all walks of life/educational backgrounds/economic levels etc...To try & portray all gun owners/pro-gun people as uneducated, toothless hillbillies is absurd & insulting.
A shame he didn't include families of Holocaust victims to tell how the Nazis made firearms possession by Jews illegal.
Well that is actualy a point that the dems made about Benghazi. So I definitly think that applies in this tradegy as well dont you?
The only thing sadder than all of this useless posturing and pretending that new, stronger laws are going to convince criminals and the mentally ill to see the error of their ways and get them all to turn their lives over to Jesus, or Mohammed, or Obama is the complicity of the sycophantic lap dog media in going along with this political charade.
Criminals could not give a rat's behind about gun laws. If they want guns, they will get guns. And insane people are so out of touch with reality that the ones who are going to engage in horrific massacres of innocence aren't even mentally on the same planet as the rest of us. That crazy guy they arrested two weeks ago in New York City had enough high-explosives to blow up an entire city park, and he and his rich American Princess girlfriend planned to do just that. Without guns, too.
for all of you complaining about Obama issuing Executive Orders to "get what he wants"...
George W. Bush 171 Executive Orders in first term.... Obama 144
Who gives a rats.
That was then this is now.
Besides a president has to be led to the pen by his handlers to sign anything.
What is your point?
Frequent male Flyer – That makes no sense at all. Are you are saying that walking all over the Constitution is a good thing? Or it's only good if Obama does it? Or Obama should do it as long as Bush did it first? Or ... what?
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
My point is... I'm sure NONE of the far right, gun-loving Republicans were jumping up and down screaming when Bush was pushing through his executive orders.
Walking all over the Constitution - that statement is laughable. Sit back and enjoy the ride, there wont be a Republican in the White House in your lifetime.
You are all so freaking paranoid. Do you peek out the window to see if a Fed is spying on your house?
"A head axe" Really...
Try to frequent fly in a pressurized aircraft from now on.
It appears you are suffering from "head bends".
De-pressurize and come back down to earth.
The Department of Homeland Security is directly under Obama's control. They just purchased enough ammo for their "assault rifles" and handguns to kill every man, woman and child in the US five times over!
Now Obama wants to use executive orders to deny guns and ammo to non-government civilians.
That is exactly what Hitler did in the mid-to-late 1930's. Then, just as now, the citizens didn't think the coincidence was significant.
We ignore the lessons of history at our own peril.
Nice comparison, lunatic.
"In The Hitler Myth, Kershaw writes that these incidents show how Germans fell victim to an "uncritical deification of Hitler."4 Kershaw also details how Germans held the myth that Hitler was not responsible for any troubles they felt. Rather, people blamed the corrupt Nazi party for anything negative and assumed Hitler had no knowledge of these actions
Sound familiar?
As to the ammunition purchase, ever heard of a firing range?
The Hitler issue is total BS. A law was passed in Germany in 1919 after WWI that allowed the Government to confiscate civilian fire arms. In 1928 that law was repealed and replaced with a system of firearm registration. In 1938, under Hitler, the registration requirements were relaxed so much as to be useless.
As to the firing range, most of the ammo are hollow points, which are designed to "increase in diameter once within the target animal, thus maximizing tissue damage, blood loss, and shock"
Regulations Against Jews' Possession of Weapons
11 November 1938
With a basis in §31 of the Weapons Law of 18 March 1938 (Reichsgesetzblatt I, p.265), Article III of the Law on the Reunification of Austria with Germany of 13 March 1938 (Reichsgesetzblatt I, p. 237), and §9 of the Führer and Chancellor's decree on the administration of the Sudeten-German districts of 1 October 1938 (Reichsgesetzblatt I, p 1331) are the following ordered:
§1
Jews (§5 of the First Regulations of the German Citizenship Law of 14 November 1935, Reichsgesetzblatt I, p. 1333) are prohibited from acquiring, possessing, and carrying firearms and ammunition, as well as truncheons or stabbing weapons. Those now possessing weapons and ammunition are at once to turn them over to the local police authority.
§2
Firearms and ammunition found in a Jew's possession will be forfeited to the government without compensation.
§3
The Minister of the Interior may make exceptions to the Prohibition in §1 for Jews who are foreign nationals. He can entrust other authorities with this power.
§4
Whoever willfully or negligently violates the provisions of §1 will be punished with imprisonment and a fine. In especially severe cases of deliberate violations, the punishment is imprisonment in a penitentiary for up to five years.
§5
For the implementation of this regulation, the Minister of the Interior waives the necessary legal and administrative provisions.
§6
This regulation is valid in the state of Austria and in the Sudeten-German districts.
Berlin, 11 November 1938
Minister of the Interior
Frick
"The Third Reich did not need gun control (in 1938 or at any time thereafter) to maintain their power. The success of Nazi programs (restoring the economy, dispelling socio-political chaos) and the misappropriation of justice by the apparatus of terror (the Gestapo) assured the compliance of the German people. Arguing otherwise assumes a resistance to Nazi rule that did not exist. Further, supposing the existance of an armed resistance also requires the acceptance that the German people would have rallied to the rebellion. This argument requires a total suspension of disbelief given everything we know about 1930s Germany.
A more farfetched question is the hypothetical proposition of armed Jewish resistance. First, they were not commonly armed even prior to the 1928 Law. Second, Jews had seen pogroms before and had survived them, though not without suffering. They would expect that this one would, as had the past ones, eventually subside and permit a return to normalcy. Many considered themselves "patriotic Germans" for their service in the first World War. These simply were not people prepared to stage violent resistance. Third, it hardly seems conceivable that armed resistance by Jews (or any other target group) would have led to any weakening of Nazi rule, let alone a full scale popular rebellion; on the contrary, it seems more likely it would have strengthened the support the Nazis already had."
http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcnazimyth.html
Just tell the children that you nor the police will be able to protect you if some comes to you school, cause the cops always show up after the fact.
Obama and our congressional individuals, all send their kids to schools with armed guards. Guess they are saying that their kids are more important than ours.
My kids are not under constant threat from fools like you, while Obama's kids could be targets from any TPRepub malcontent or racist who wanted to strike at the president or threaten any of his immediate family.
Your failure to recognize the difference says volumes about your lack of intelligence.
The Dems are not too high on our Constitution.
Its hard to roll a Dubie with it. That old parchment just doesn't burn well.
There is ever increasing evidence that the coroner was covering for this action.
The weapons used were pistols, not an AR.
This would be done to promote an AR ban.
Police video clearly shows them taking the AR out of the trunk of his car after the shooting.
If this is not enough to tell you how your government lies to you, I do not know what is.
The video shows a Saiga 12 gauge shotgun being removed from the trunk.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wLrxSgkqJQc
One video does.
He had multiple weapons.
But it really does not matter.
And how can you tell what brand it was?
Interesting.
In the vids I watched the officers were saying that it was an assault weapon.
It is a shame these "officers" do not know what an assault weapon is.
AND you did not see them pull pistols from the car.
The vid YOU posted clearly shows a shotgun.
Another shows an AR.
AND there were weapons pulled form the back seat.
The vid you showed does not even know that the mother was NOT a teacher at the school.
There were two weapons found (supposedly) inside the building.
What were they?
Some officers are still saying the AR was in the car and never used.
It's a semi-auto shottie, therefore "assault weapon".
They didn't pull pistols from the car, because the pistols were in the school with the dead shooter. He killed himself with the Glock.
There were 3 weapons in the building. The AR-15, a Glock 10 mm and a Sig Sauer 9 mm.
The issue with the mother not being a teacher wasn't resolved until a couple days after the shooting. The day of the shooting, the rumor was that she had been a teacher.
Post a link showing an AR-15 being removed from the car.
Post a link showing that the children were positively killed with the AR.
You cannot.
The media poisoned the entire reporting process.
And like I said, it really doesn't matter.
And an assault weapon is NOT semi.
It has to be full auto to be classified as such.
I have a 12 guage 9 shot Winchester Defender.
Pistol grip, and the magazine is as long as the barrrel.
Perfectly legal.
FAR more deadly than any AR-15.
Oh, and the designator "AR" comes from the original designer of the weapon.
The Armalite Rifle Co.
Another thing, I don't own one.
I like the older rifles myself.
If he had used the shotgun the damage would have been far greater.
You claim that there is video showing the AR-15 being removed from the trunk of the car.
Prove it.
In the 1994 assault weapons ban, semi-automatic weapons, including shotguns, were legally defined as "assault weapons" for the purposes of the ban.
The ban was repealed because it was inaccurate and ludicrous.
The ban laid names to weapons that were not true assault weapons.
That is why it was repealed.
And that is why it will not be re-instated.
The ban expired after 10 years according to it's own sunset provision. It was not renewed due to partisan politics.
It was not repealed.
You claim that there is video showing the AR-15 being removed from the trunk of the car.
Prove it.
Google, this.
AR-15 Not used in Sandy Hook
You will find a direct link to your beloved NBC.
Try it.
No, the ban was not repealed, there was no need for it.
On this I was incorrect.
It WAS however, flawed and that is why it failed re-instatement.
We all knew we owned no assault weapons to begin with.
At the time, we all had what we wanted, and did not fight much
But, it will not happen again.
Unhinged conspiracy theories.
why does everyone keep saying that no one needs an assault rifle or assault rifles are only good for committing mass murder? please stop buying into the emotive fear mongering pushed by (im ashamed to admit) fellow liberals who say these things. there are sporting uses, hunting uses and collectors who prove the contrary is true. to say that no one needs an ak or ar is like saying no one needs a beer after work, or an SUV, a hammer, a knife, or a 4wheeler to ride. all of these things CAN be used to kill - but that completely depends on the user/owner. i may not agree with your alcohol use, but as long as you use it responsibly, and with no threat of harm to others, you should be free to do as you please. just because YOU dont own, or enjoy shooting or collecting them doesnt mean there is anything wrong with those that do. for nearly all of us, its simply a hobby or cultural aspect that we have grown to enjoy. its no more necessary or unnecessary than anything else that you enjoy doing in your life. until i cross the line and injure another, leave me alone and let me live my life.
arent we supposed to be the party of tolerance? the party that accepts and promotes individual freedoms and social responsibility? if it would seriously make a difference in society to ban the evil black rifles or magazines that hold more than some arbitrary "safe" number, then i would say go for it. but the simple fact is IT DOESN'T. criminals by definition have no concern for law and order, and the only ones that suffer are the law abiding citizens who follow the rules.
just because it's not what you enjoy spending your free time and money on - doesn't make it a crime, immoral, or dangerous. the only threat firearms pose to this society are from criminals and irresponsible individuals - and these threats will NOT go away with additional gun legislation, nor will their ability to mame, injure or kill another.
i am in favor of a strong government, that cares for its people and protects their rights for life liberty and the pursuit- but taking away their rights is NOT the answer. i dont want the government telling me how to spend my money, taking my property away, telling me who to marry, or what to do with my body - why should i be ok with them taking away my constitutional right to bear arms?
the one thing "gun nuts" are right on - is that this is a slippery slope - don't let this be another example of liberties lost. push for legislation that works, not that "feels good" or because it doesn't affect you and your interests. increasing accountability for guns is one thing, outlawing them outright based on appearance, or some arbitrary definition of what makes an assault weapon simply does not work and is just another example of liberty eroding away one small step at a time.
Dana - you are absolutely correct. The problem actually is not guns (any more than it is alcohol) - it is the "nut" behind the wheel or trigger. And what so many are screaming for is not the abolishment of guns, but of Monsters with guns, and everyone knows that simply cannot be done - so they point to some magical definition of an extra-deadly weapon, call it an assault weapon and say "if we do away with these, then we have done something". The something is absolutely useless, but they can now tell the voters how much the have done for the problem.
What weapon facilitated the deadliest mass murder in America? Answer: a $5 box knife on 9/11 that facilitated the murder of 3000+ people. Yet not one anti-violence group has called for the banning of box knives.
I've offerred a solution to preventing unsound individuals getting guns but few of the anti-gun movement seem to have ignored it. Maybe that's because they have a reason to not undergo full national security background checks. Things like criminal records or mental health issues that could be put into a national database and used against them.
The first burglary of a home on the gun owner list published by the newpaper has occurred. It's time to limit the free-speech of newspapers hiding behind the Constitution don't you think? What's good for for one side of the argument is good for the other. Watch the free-speech/anti-gun movement start screaming about their rights!!
Hey, Avg Joe from TX,
You don't have the brains to understand it wouldn't be possible to kill 20 second graders within two minutes with a box knife??? Ever heard the saying, "never bring a knife to a gunfight"?
What makes you think were going to stand by and do nothing while the Left is trying to turn Law abiding citizens into criminals?
When the database/s get into the hands of criminals, or some left wing "News Agency"(sarc) uses the information to print maps and expose everyone to criminals and risk there lives, then what?
http://www.nysenate.gov/press-release/breaking-news-attempted-gun-burglary-tied-journal-news-gun-maps
http://www.examiner.com/article/former-fbi-burglary-suspect-on-newspaper-gun-map-newspaper-list-like-gold
http://nation.foxnews.com/journal-news/2013/01/07/inmates-use-newspapers-gun-map-threaten-guards
This is all just a show. So you reduce magazine capacity from huge to large, on the premise that saving just one life is worth the restriction. What, exactly, does that mean? 25 instead of 26 dead at Newtown is acceptable? Fewer people would have died in Newtown or Aurora or Tucson with a 10-round per magazine limit? I once talked with an experienced, skilled, and usually armed, pistol carrier about his seeing the governor with 3 state patrolmen as her bodyguards. He said he could take them all out (two rounds apiece from a 7-round magazine, plus one in the chamber) before any of the state patrolmen could even draw his duty weapon. I had no reason to doubt him. None of the proposed "bans" will do anything effective to stop people from killing people. Again, they're just for show, to placate the voters, so that people can get re-elected, or their cronies can get elected, by saying they "took a strong stand" on gun control. For every complex problem there is a quick, simple, understandable wrong solution.
So the Failure in Chief is going to surround himself with children to protect himself as he begins another assault on the Constitution.
I guess that press conference yesterday, where he wasn't able to act like a MAN, but instead acted like a spoiled brat showed that he needs to get some folks in on his level to protect him from the "mean" press that FINALLY asked him some questions beyond "What's your favorite chile?" or "What's your favorite color?", or even the toughest of them all, "What super-hero superpower would you like to have?"
Tomorrow of course it will be "about the children" and to hell with the rights of over 300 million Americans and the Constitution.
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.
will Obama be kissing babies at this event?....it might be a good opportunity for him to announce future plans of creating Youth or Indoctrination Camps for those kids.....
He won't be "joined". The White House is FLYING THEM IN, probably on your tax dollar, so Obama can do the photo op of how much he "cares" for everyone.
Everyone except of course the LAW ABIDING citizens of this nation who's RIGHTS get attacked every time a criminal or crazy does something that allows the left to call a "crisis" and further erode the Constitution and the FREEDOMS that those law abiding citizens are supposed to have.
@Hopeisgone...
Now that I have your IP address, can you say the word "LIBEL"?
At the direction of my attorney, and in cooperation with Newsvine, I have been told that this
message is all I am permitted to use in reply to you.
Anyone remember what that nice gentleman Ho Chi Minh from North Vietnam would surround himself with children and tell them stories while his death squads invaded the south to murder women and children.
I love how Obama tends to use unconstitutional executive orders to further chip away at our constitutional rights......
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
@Hopeisgone...
Now that I have your IP address, can you say the word "LIBEL"?
At the direction of my attorney, and in cooperation with Newsvine, I have been told that this
message is all I am permitted to use in reply to you.
Say What?...you are a moron! (add that to the libel case).
@Hopeisgone...
Now that I have your IP address, can you say the word "LIBEL"?
At the direction of my attorney, and in cooperation with Newsvine, I have been told that this
message is all I am permitted to use in reply to you.
Say What?...if you weren't such an idiot, you'd realize that "libel" comes from someone defaming another person's real name or business name. I am fairly certain that your parents didn't name you "say what?" and I don't believe you are intellectually capable of owning a business...never mind one with that name. Although, given your predisposition for stupidity....I guess your parents giving you this name could be a possibility....
Say What?-809562 - You have been spamming this same moronic attempt at intimidation dozens of times, so I read your posts for the last several days and didn't find a single one with true facts – or even mildly interesting lies. They are all just an irritating distraction from the meaningful posts. Consequently, you are on Ignore!
@Hopeisgone...
Now that I have your IP address, can you say the word "LIBEL"?
At the direction of my attorney, and in cooperation with Newsvine, I have been told that this
message is all I am permitted to use in reply to you.
Kannin...
Is the wording in it too confusing for you? "THIS MESSAGE IS ALL I AM PERMITTED TO USE...."
it will be interesting to see a summons filled out in crayon.....
In 2011 - the latest year for which detailed statistics are available - there were 12,664 murders in the US. Of those, 8,583 were caused by firearms.
And the figure proudly released by Planned Parenthood Federation of America in their report delineating how many abortions they performed in fiscal 2011 continues, with 333,964 murders in 2011.
Seems to me, that if we want to decrease murders, we should be looking elsewhere.
Try looking at a text book. A fetus is not a baby.
I don't know about the rest of you but my wife never said to me "Honey were going to have a Fetus".
I've never seen a woman wearing a "Fetus in the Oven" T-shirt or a "Fetus on board" T-shirt.
I've never heard of woman having a "Fetus Shower" for a pregnant woman.
I've never heard of a man or woman at work Proudly proclaiming their going to have a FETUS.
If calling it a Fetus makes you feel better than calling it what it is when your about to Murder it, a BABY, I hope you able to sleep at night.
Fetus /fe·tus/ (fēt´us) [L.] the developing young in the uterus, specifically the unborn offspring in the postembryonic period, in humans from nine weeks after fertilization until birth.
Baby A very young child; an infant.
@ blearyeyed. Maybe you should read the bible. Or maybe your mother should have aborted you.
@ED-2874315 - I won't disagree with your body count going all the way back to 1949. But I will say that more people are killed by drunk drivers in this day and age than by guns each year, and yet we are not so stupid as to blame the deaths on booze again (tried that once, failed miserably, remember?). How many more? In round numbers about 25% more (approximately 8,000 murders, approximately 10,000 deaths in alcohol related traffic incidents - numbers are from FBI and CDC statistics).
Remember that today over 50,000,000 responsible gun owners did not fire even one shot with malice toward anyone.
As with drunk driving and alcohol, it is not the alcohol that is to blame, it is the person using it.
Oblama will now step up on his extra tall podium and tell us all how he "did something" about it all. Doing "something" to fix something without going to the root cause of the problem usually ends up mucking things up worse than they were before. Once again the Government, in the guise of the POTUS, is trying to step in where the Federal government shouldn't even go.
All of you gun grabbers can keep fantasizing about guns disappearing or getting banned, in particular black semi-auto rifles. A ban like that isn't going to make it through Congress.
Some new minor restrictions might get passed & existing gun laws might be strengthened but that's about it. Obama can surround himself with all of the kids he wants because anyone with a brain can see through that pathetic stunt.
Gun manufacturers and the NRA need to pay a fine for every death in a mass murder event. Say - $100,000. After about 20 ($2,000,000), they'd start taking some action and making proposals to reduce their litigation and punitive damages costs.
Alternatively, simply make it legal for the families to sue the manufacturers and lobbyists.
This is a problem. We can't ignore it. Lead, follow, or get out of the way. It behooves the manufacturers and lobbyists to get in front of this so they can steer the outcome in a direction they can live with.
How about the person that committed the crime pays!!!!!
@ blearyeyed
So I guess you're also in favor of:
1. Car manufacturers paying a fine every time one of their cars is involved in a crash that kills someone because the driver didn't follow the rules or laws or didn't drive safely.
2. Pharmaceutical companies paying a fine every time someone overdoses on one of their medications because the patient taking the prescription didn't follow the directions or use the medication safely.
etc, etc.........Yeah, that makes perfect sense. God forbid that the criminal who used the gun illegally should be held responsible for their actions.
Dear Blearyeyed,
A drunkard ran my Dad down in the street as he legally crossed, he was 84. Why didn't I sue GMC? After all they made the truck and according to "leftist retard logic" that allowed him to kill needlessly.
The state did not offer to jail a car salesman for the awful deed, they went after the driver. I know it seems strange but they held him accountable for the crime.
Using "leftist retard logic", the American Automobile Association should have been charged and fined in the very least. Those bastards encourage driving, travel in cars and the safe use of cars. They must be punished!!!!!
It stands to reason, correct?
The NRA promotes safe use of firearms, sponsors organized competitive shooting events nationwide, trains firearms safety instructors and advocates on behalf of law enforcement and gun owners.
AND oddly enough, leftist idiots blame them for gun related crime???
Tell us lefty, if GMC cannot be held accountable for their truck killing my Dad. Why can a gun maker be held accountable for a criminals misusing the gun they made?
The gun was sold and licensed by the federal government, the fed did the background check and the fed approved it's purchase. You don't seem to demand an ATFE agent go to prison,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,why?
Give us your best "leftist retard logic" answers,,,,,,,,,,,,,,if you have the nerve.
That's right bleary, it's NOT those poor criminals that commit the crimes that are at fault, it's the guns they use. It's NOT the violent crazy that's allowed to walk the streets because the ACLU sues for their right to be out there who's at fault, it's the guns they use.
It's people like YOU who make criminals and crazies out to be the "victims" of society and of course if there weren't any guns why there just wouldn't be any criminals, crazies, or mass murders, would there?
Based on the out and out IDIOCY of your argument we should fine every knife manufacturer, rope maker, hatchet maker, saw maker, freezer maker, car manufacturer, home builder or absolutely ANY company that had involvement with mass murders, because of the likes of John Gacy, who killed THIRTY THREE boys and young men and put parts in his freezer while burying him under his home, Ted Bundy, who killed at least 30 women kidnapping them and taking them away in his car to strangle them, or Gary Ridgway who strangled at least SEVENTY women in his car.
How about every time someone commits a crime because of drug, or even buys drugs YOU pay say - $10,000? After all, drug users are just "victims" and it's YOUR fault that they use drugs because you don't DEMAND that the DoJ, DEA, or any law enforcement agency does much of anything to keep illegal drugs off the streets.
It must be pretty easy for you to forget the gun ban in D.C. that resulted in a RECORD murder rate, or the tough guns laws in Chicago that has resulted in HUNDREDS of murders. You EVER wonder why? It just couldn't be that criminals know the law abiders will NOT be able to defend themselves so they rob, rape, and murder with impunity.
And let's fine the government a billion dollars for each abortion (murder) they finance?
'Package of concrete proposals'
Is that like a pair of cement overshores???
Obama is boxed in with very little room to move.
He CAN issue Executive Orders that direct how current laws passed by Congress are executed. That is what an Executive order IS. He cannot legally direct ANYTHING by Executive Order that is not within the spirit and intent of the existing laws. He also cannot create new laws via Executive Order. ONLY CONGRESS CAN CREATE LAWS AS PER THE CONSTITUTION.
If Obama is foolish enough to overstep his powers by issuing unconstitutional Executive Orders you can be sure of 3 things happening in very short order:
1) Lawsuits and restraining order requests will be filed IMMEDIATELY against illegal Executive Orders.
2) For knowingly disobeying the US Constitution, MILLIONS of Americans will demand impeachment proceedings be initiated
3) Given the current make-up of the Congress (such that impeachment cannot be successful even if it is the case that the President broke his oath of office by knowingly issuing unconstitutional Executive Orders), tens of thousands of American patriots will march on Washington DC and remove the President from office by force. Further, the US military (having taken an oath to protect & defend the Constitution) will support the patriots and not stand in their way
AGAIN, Obama CAN issue executive orders that direct how to execute current laws. No one can prevent him from doing that. So if current law says that all FFL-provided guns require a background check to be done within a reasonable amount of time he could impose an order that prescribes a process that causes a waiting period that does not exist right now for the check to be done. People might not like it, but this would be a legal Executive Order.
On the other hand, if Obama issued a unilateral Executive Order to ban assault-style rifles then unless he can demonstrate that this is consistent with the spirit and intent of an existing law that was passed by Congress then the wannabe Emperor will be TOAST!
This is about the scenario, no need to panic. Most of my guns, I have had background checks on. Big WHOOOP.
Background checks, big deal, just got done with my 4th in the last 2 weeks, guess what, still not a criminal. When David Keene makes a statement in NRA state of union, that AWB and ban on high capacity magazines is unlikely, you know he has already counted the "NO's" and they are enough, or he simply would not state that. When Obama (Carney) says AWB and High Capacity Magazine ban still has to go through house, and Biden says just because we can't do everything doesn't mean we will do nothing, means, no AWB or no High Capacity Magazine bans. Thank GOD for the NRA, I am sending them a big check when this BS is over with.
I wonder if Obama will turn to the kids and 'pass the hat' after telling them how much each owe him and our incredible national debt.
He won't. He's a coward. He'll wait for someone else to tell them the awful truth.
I understand obammy intends to reveal the coward he is by standing behind a group of school children. A man protects children by standing in front of them. Only a coward hides behind children. However, what do we expect from "Mr. Victim."
He is enslaving our children with his massive spending and then claims he wants to "protect them" from left wing lunatics with guns? Who is going to protect our children from obammy?
Nancy Lanza was a registered Republican.
Peter Lanza is a registered Republican.
Adam Lanza was not registered.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/9750422/Connecticut-school-shooting-Adam-Lanza-was-assigned-psychologist.html
So who cares what his party affiliation was "Obama"????
The guy that shot Giffords was a left wing NUTJOB, but I don't see you pointing that out.
I've seen nothing that will stop a criminal, nothing that will accomplish anything. Just like the rest of his "ideas", all bs from the liar and chief.
180 grams of lead traveling at 3000 ft./sec will stop them most of the time!
Stop who, the criminals or the wannabe Emperor?
Obama could make his "big announcement" today.....but, he wants to fly in a bunch of kids first to make good TV........
Maybe when he has all those children around him He can explain to them how hes destroying their future.
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/04/obama-2006-vs-obama-january-2011-vs-obama-april-2011-on-the-debt-ceiling/
Hopeisgone,
F'ing hilarious. Just went back to see what the B.S. that that Jacka$$ (saywhat) was fussing about.
plus, I didn't know you could libel an anonymous name. Go figure and keep the thorn going
Bush inherited surpluses from Clinton. If Bush had been a responsible President, he would have used those surpluses to pay down the debt, which was only $5T when he took office.
Instead, he gave away the surpluses as tax cuts with deficit spending, started 2 wars with deficit spending, created Med-D/donut hole with deficit spending and added TARP to the deficit.
Democrats were right to to criticize Bush for lack of leadership in 2006.
Obama inherited a mess, he didn't create it.
Gun Owners across the nation had nothing to do with any of these criminal acts, yet they are blamed and their rights curbed.
Criminals and the mentally ill? Are simply given DNC membership cards and sent off to rob our homes while we work.