Obama unveils $500 million gun control package

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

  • 1

    SuperLib

    The NRA criticized the bill, saying in a statement, “These gun control schemes have failed in the past and will have no impact on public safety and crime.”

    What they meant to say was, "We've worked hard to sidestep every possible law that might restrict firearms, and now that we have hundreds of millions of guns on the streets and we know there's no way to enforce anything....which is just how we want it."

  • 8

    nostromo

    “Attacking firearms and ignoring children is not a solution to the crisis we face as a nation,” the NRA said in a statement after Obama’s announcement. “Only honest, law-abiding gun owners will be affected and our children will remain vulnerable to the inevitability of more tragedy.”

    apart from suggesting armed guards in schools, what other practical solutions have the NRA made to the debate??

  • 6

    Jimizo

    The NRA video was, as you'd expect from them, an appeal to a particular type of conservative clinging to the Second Amendment with all the reasoning skills of a fundamentalist Christian clinging to the book of Genesis. 40% of firearms being sold without thorough background checks is simply insane. Cut through the NRA's patriotic chest thumping and see this pathetic 'logic' for what it is.

  • -1

    okimike67

    So lets review the existing gun laws related to a few of the largest sprees in recent history: 1. Chicago: Toughest laws in the US AND YET they have more people killed with guns. In fact they have had more killed than have been killed in Afganistan. 513 were murdered, up 15% from 2011. 2. Conneticut: Extremely strict gun laws. In fact the gun used at Sandy Hook (27 killed) was prohibited by law. 3. Fort Hood, TX: 43 killed on a US Army base where gun control is HIGHLY regulated.

    What is common about all of these is not the fact that regular citizens have guns. In almost all "spree" cases there is mental issues at hand adn where gun violence is rampent there are social or drug issues that exacerbate a bad situation (high unemployment, gangs...).

    Gun violence is LOWEST in States with concealed carry laws adn states with the highest rate of issued permits. If guns were the problem this would not be the case.

    More and new laws WILL NOT, as history has shown, improve the situation. Enforcement of existing laws, improvement in mental health reporting and addressing the serious social issues WILL.

    Guns dont kill people, PEOPLE KILL PEOPLE! So lets not distort the facts any more please!!!

  • -13

    sailwind

    The NRA also released an online video Tuesday that called Obama an “elitist hypocrite” for having armed Secret Service agents protect his daughters at school while not committing to installing armed guards in all schools.

    NRA is just asking President Obama and others who can afford private schools with the requisite security that they pay a little more of their fair share in the security department for a much more fair and balanced security approach to protect all our children then the current security distribution system in U.S.

    The wealthy have disportionate amount of security that has accumulated in the top percent, leaving those in the bottom with little or no security other than what can be provided by Government by tax dollars. I'd recommend another tax on those making 250,000 or more a year be levied to achieve a better and fairer security distribution in the U.S.

  • 3

    Kuya 808

    The NRA criticized the bill, saying in a statement, “These gun control schemes have failed in the past and will have no impact on public safety and crime.”

    At least part of that is true. There was no measurable drop in crime with the enactment of the Clinton assault rifle ban and no measurable increase when it expired.

    The figures to support that position come from the Federal government itself.

  • 4

    gaijinfo

    How exactly will these laws help cities like Chicago, which have the toughest gun laws in the country, yet the highest murder rate?

    BTW, there are very, very FEW murders every year using "assault" rifles and "high capacity magazines." The VAST MAJORITY of gun crime involves ILLEGALLY OBTAINED handguns.

    These laws will do ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to stop the murders TAKING PLACE ON A DAILY BASIS with handguns that are already illegal.

    But those murders are mostly blacks. And the poor Sandy Hook kids were white.

    What's up with that, O?

  • 1

    WilliB

    " Obama signed 23 executive actions, which require no congressional approval. "

    Where is the press outrage about this? Executive actions are not meant to circumvent the the legal process. Instead of pointing this out, expect the media to parrot Obama`s talking points.

  • -2

    theFu

    I'm pro-freedom, including the right for citizens without any criminal convictions to own and use pretty much any firearm they want without restrictions. I would overturn the current restrictions on automatic firearms too, since it is effective only for people who follow the law, not any criminal. The difference between an illegal automatic firearm and a legal semi-automatic version is a rocker arm at a slightly different angle.

    Firearms do not kill people, people kill people. More people die on the roads in the USA every year than from all the terrorist actions in the last 100 years world-wide, but nobody is calling for all vehicles to be removed from the roads. That would be the only way we could save lives - remove all vehicles, right?

    I do not own any firearms. It isn't part of my culture, but I respect that other families DO enjoy sports and other activities with firearms. These family teach their children respect and responsibility. A crazy person will find a way to kill people - it doesn't matter if it is a firearm or gun or bus or metal pole or .... they can find a way to kill.

    I have no doubt that President Obama really thinks this is the best option to make a change for the better. I simply disagree. He's spent too much time in the NE and west coasts. He's lost touch with the rest of America on this topic, but needs to appear to try to do something - anything - to appease the nanny-state PAC.

  • 3

    cbgb64

    Guns rights activists love to quote the second half on the second amendment: "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." I'm not sure how many of them would actually be able to quote the whole thing, but here it is: "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." Why the Supreme Court ruled that the second amendment allows individuals to bear arms regardless of service in a militia is a mystery to me.

    You have to imagine, the founding fathers were worried that England would come over and kick our butts for creating our own country and they wanted people to be able to arm themselves. That is the obvious reason for the second amendment. They were also thinking mostly about muskets, you know, the kind of rifle that you had to manually pour in gun powder and drop a metal ball into. They drew no line and probably didn't imagine semi-automatic weapons. A line has to be drawn, I mean is it OK to keep a thousand pounds of dynamite in your garage? What if you figured out how to build a nuclear weapon? If arms refers to guns and rifles, what about a machine gun? The NRA would prefer no line because they get money from gun makers. I doubt that the NRA really cares about the second amendment, although they certainly hide behind it (the ass half of it anyways). It is a money game for them and they laugh all the way to the bank as we, Americans, continue to arm ourselves. Their recommendation for preventing gun violence in schools is to arm teachers. I don't know about you but certainly don't like the idea of my daughter's third grade teacher keeping a gun.

    This problem, like so many of American's social problems is going to be very hard to fix. There is a gun for every American in the states, that's right, 300 million of them. It is a problem waiting to happen. Even if the Supreme Court said that we has misinterpreted to second amendment and without serving in a state militia, you can't have a gun (which is the proper interpretation I think), how do you get rid of 300 million guns?

    There is no easy answers here and seems that the whole American society seems to be ripening to its own doom.

  • 1

    Mike DeJong

    Okimike... why don't you compare relevant statistics like these. Number of firearm homicides per country last year:

    Japan 11 Australia 30 England and Wales 41 France 35 Greece 29 Ireland 21 Netherlands 55 Spain 90 Canada 173 USA 9,146

    Need we say more? The US is a third world country when it comes to protecting its own citizens.

    • Moderator

      Readers, comparisons with other countries are not relevant to this discussion. Please stay on topic.

  • -2

    Peter Payne

    To @edbardoe sorry but you're out of line and need to re-think large portions of your life. Obama is a hardworking and honest person who's smarter than you or me. Sure there are issues of timing, he probably couldn't have become Harvard Law Review if he'd been born 20 years earlier, but if you think he doesn't deserve what he achieved, you're deceiving yourself.

  • 0

    SuperLib

    sailwind: NRA is just asking President Obama and others who can afford private schools with the requisite security

    If the NRA wanted to talk about the rich, they could have. But they talked specifically about Obama's children, and we both know that's weird since he's the President and we know why they have security. The number of schools that have armed guards as a percentage of all schools is small. The NRA is talking about flooding the system with guns in every single school. Again it relates to access. And more guns, which is the NRA's only position.

    okimike67: So lets review the existing gun laws related to a few of the largest sprees in recent history: 1. Chicago: Toughest laws in the US AND YET they have more people killed with guns.

    We both know an island of regulations won't do much when people can hop across a line and buy guns. Same with background checks on only a percentage of the people who buy guns a certain way. The system they are proposing would be national. At the end of the day if you really believe these laws will have no impact then you really have nothing to fear.

    okmike67: Gun violence is LOWEST in States with concealed carry laws adn states with the highest rate of issued permits. If guns were the problem this would not be the case.

    We both know those statistics are bogus since they compare inner cities with rural areas. The one stat that's important is that the US has an extreme number of guns and an extreme rate of death by guns.

    gaijininfo: The VAST MAJORITY of gun crime involves ILLEGALLY OBTAINED handguns.

    And we both know that some people want to maximize the number of guns on the streets, and that's what needs to change. If that weren't the case then we wouldn't have situations where anyone could get their hands on a gun. It's just odd that someone who wants to talk about illegally obtained handguns is the same person who wants to stop anything that might limit access.

    edbardoe: I wonder how the Japanese feel about a leader who was awarded his education for the accident of his racial background.

    Lovely. Just want to make sure that you're in the camp that supports guns.

    theFu: Firearms do not kill people, people kill people.

    And easy access to unlimited guns sure makes it easier for people to kill people.

  • 0

    presto345

    the right guaranteed by the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

    This amendment of course is medieval, in this era abused and used for dubious purposes.

  • -2

    sailwind

    Superlib,

    If the NRA wanted to talk about the rich, they could have. But they talked specifically about Obama's children, and we both know that's weird since he's the President and we know why they have security.

    The full "elitist" qoute in the NRA ad.

    "Mr. Obama demands the wealthy pay their fair share of taxes, but he’s just another elitist hypocrite when it comes to a fair share of security,” the narrator says. “Protection for their kids. And gun free zones for ours.”

    The NRA is taking the political "if you can't beat em, join em approach" and just emulated how Obama and the Democrat's practice their divisive politics and their class warfare messaging. The NRA knows they don't have a prayer of getting anything close to fair press in the Main Stream Media. The Media narrative is to demonize them as a pariah organization and they've decided to go full blown "Obama Campaign Mode" to spite the Media and make them report their outlandished ad's. They're playing the press for fools and so far the press has been happy to oblige by reporting their ad's. You don't think this hasn't driven hundreds of thousands of people their website?

    Also, I really don't agree with theNRA armed guard approach at all but I do agree with getting rid of the gun free zones 100 percent. In my opinon I think concealed carry would be much more effective as a deterrent factor than paying money for an armed guard. The guard will be the first one targeted to a crazy person who is determined to do something as atrocious as a school attack. We waste enough money on doing things that don't address the common sense obvious things avoiding trying to think how a nut actually would operate to do an attack. I would also support armed guards as long as the were not identified as such, undercover if you will and also not identified to the school population and only known to the staff if public dollars were going to used to pay for them.

    I think anything that can keep a crazy person guessing is going to be a good thing and be able to conceal carry on school grounds by staff or teachers who would have no problem with it (and supported by the individual school staff) is one sure is one way to keep that guess factor in a nuts head before he acts.

  • 0

    Nessie

    Welcome to the mindset of possible government-appointed "experts", hired to judge the "mental capacity" of a law-abiding citizen.

    Begging the question.

  • -2

    JustAGoodOleBoy

    Is there anything this guy won't leverage to spend more money and further indebt the US?

  • 1

    Novenachama

    Simply stated this debate over gun politics and gun control has been raging for years in America. On one side there is the National Rifle Association and the 2nd Amendment citizens who use firearms for hunting and self-defense. On the other, there is hand gun control and followers of the Brady Campaign who want to ban guns on the basis that they are dangerous. Both sides have strong arguments, anchored in historical precedent and statistical analysis. Anti-gun lobbyists arguments include the guarantee of the 2nd Amendment. Pro-gun control activists counter with anachronism of the 2nd amendment. Both sides of the issue present a compelling argument and need to be looked into carefully before any decision can be made. Good luck to Obama and the congress over this complex matter.

  • -3

    badsey3

    The Robo-Signer must be broken. =Obama actually is signing this one himself.

  • 0

    Virtuoso

    Given the public's short-term attention span, the success or failure of the gun control bills before congress will be contingent on whether or not, during their deliberation, another crazy with an AR-15 shoots up a school, shopping center, church or cinema in which over 10 fatalities result.

  • 0

    Virtuoso

    I think anything that can keep a crazy person guessing is going to be a good thing and be able to conceal carry on school grounds by staff or teachers who would have no problem with it

    Sailwind@That assertion appears to carry an assumption that crazy people on the verge of committing mass murder are capable of rational, proactive thinking. In most of the recent mass shootings, they killed themselves before shooting it out with an armed rescuer.

  • 1

    sakurala

    Yet again, I am so happy that I am not living in America...but I feel so sorry for all of those who suffer violence at the end of a gun. I can only hope that one day either guns will only be in the hands of responsible individuals who know how and when to use their firearms, or an America that is relatively free on guns to make it incredibly difficult for the bad guys to get a hold of these quick-kill weapons.

  • -2

    Jasser

    1) In nearly every case of a mass shooting the shooter was on prescription drugs, usually SRIs. SRIs have a warning that reads "may cause psychosis, suicidal behavior."

    2) There is absolutely no reason to compare the gun laws and gun related crimes in the US to other countries. Answer me this, "Do you think all countries in the world should have the same kind of government and the same laws?" Well, I don't. I want a world with a wide variety of governments and cultures, some are low risk / low reward and some are high risk / high reward (socialist vs capitalist). Some people want high taxes with more government services, some people want low taxes with few government hand-outs. Some people want big government and some don't.

    3) The United States of America is the last hold-out against tyranny. If your country gets out of hand, big brother style, you can flee to the US, you can stock up on food, weapons and ammo and get dug-in out in the wilderness and escape. No one can touch you unless they have a death wish. Try to do that in a flat in London.

    4) 3D printers can now print pistols and AR-15 mags and accessories to make them FULLY auto. Thousands of people a day are downloading the file to be able to print their own weapons. Obama = too little, too late. Hundreds of thousands of people have 3D printer weapon manufacturing files on their computers: the government can't get them. The government f'd up when they allowed the citizenry to have the internet.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q10Jz2qIog8

  • -1

    okimike67

    Nessie,

    Perhaps so (for suicides involving guns) but not all sucides are gun related. And if someone wants to kill themselves there are MANY more ways to do so than with a gun. So your point is nullified.

    And you miss the point entirely. There are far more "important" areas to focus on than limiting guns. AND the fact that people kill people and not guns killing people is a point that needs to be made adn understood. But since this is a Liberal agenda item those are all washed under the carpet. The Liberal "We Care and want to protect you" hypocracy needs to end. They dont want anyone to have guns, period!

  • -3

    jforce

    Actually this is a smoke-screen. The bill will only effect law abiding citizens for the most part. As for NY, the recent (sneaky)midnight passing of the the new gun laws just further penalized responsible gun owners. This has no effect on crime, but makes gun owners more unhappy with anti-gun lawmakers and administrations. There are crazy people out there. They do crazy things. There are many criminals out there that do not follow laws because they are criminals. Therefore, this law in NY and the bill in Washington will have no effect on violent crime. Yet, it does keep the debate going ... which is needed.

    The NRA, is a lobby that protects these people. The NRA does not make laws, but stands by to preserve them. This is my understanding.

    Now, does the NRA add anything to the discussion? Well they gave the outdated "video game" and "violent movie" argument. This however shouldn't be disregarded by the other side. There is a violent culture in America and to me it seems people are more prone to let their kids watch violent TV and play these games without a frank discussion about what is happening. A lot of parents are simply ignorant. With that said, both sides need to address the issues, but not be so unwavering.

    Background checks is a no-brainer. They should be mandatory. Safety in schools? Well, duh! Tougher penalties for carrying ilegal guns? Yes!

    A lot of the bill and the law passed in NY already state the obvious. A lot of the points are already carried out in previous legislation, but many of these politicians are using this to pad their re-elections (yes, already). America is not a bad country for having guns, but it is a sad country for not having discussion within the home, community, and government. Instead they just take sides and turn their backs.

  • 0

    Laguna

    It is kinda fun to see the nuts coming out of the closet, though. So far, state legislators in three different states have proposed legislation to ban the enforcement of any new federal gun bans, making it a misdemeanor for federal law enforcement to enforce any new federal gun bans.

    Gee, these crazies are invisible when two dozen school kids or a theater full of movie viewers are slaughtered, but they suddenly get so indignant they want to nullify federal law when the president requires such basic steps as, well, requiring identification when purchasing a weapon.

    Smoke 'em out, Obama. Radical statements anemical to American values will brand their issuers as the monsters they are.

  • 0

    sailwind

    Sailwind@That assertion appears to carry an assumption that crazy people on the verge of committing mass murder are capable of rational, proactive thinking. In most of the recent mass shootings, they killed themselves before shooting it out with an armed rescuer

    For your due consideration. They do tend to off themselves before they would face another gun to stop them, they're rational enough alright to know that as soon as another gun appears on the scene to counter them they have to either stop shooting victims or off themselves. Just imagine if that gun to counter the nut all of the sudden appearing to challenge them in the very first moments they start to kill..........It changes everything.

    .

  • 1

    okimike67

    @Laguna

    What you fail to realize (or acknoledge anyway) is that these are State rights and not Federal. If a State wants to make laws regarding the use of guns then they can. While I dont agree with NY's new enactment it is their right as a State to do so. If their constituency does not agree they will get bounced out adn the laws changed.

    For the FED to enact by proclimation (Ex Order) new and sweeping mandates it not only circumvents the checks and balances established to regulate the government but also denies the States given rights. More FED power is what it is all about.

  • 0

    Kuya 808

    Jasser It’s true that the Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitor (SSRI) drugs that you mentioned have been implicated in an overwhelming number of recent mass shootings as well as a large number of murders, assaults and suicides around the world. One common warning is “May cause suicidal and/or homicidal ideations”. They are frequently prescribed to young people that exhibit non-conforming behavior such as ADHD and depression. The link between SSRI use and violent behavior is well documented but you don’t hear that much about it.

    But you have to remember that the Pharmaceutical industry is huge and extremely profitable. SSRI sales alone are a multi-billion dollar a year proposition. Collectively, the pharmaceutical industry spent over thirty-one million dollars on direct lobbying in 2012. With that kind of money floating around it’s not hard to see why our law makers are not that interested in rocking the boat, so to speak. You wouldn’t want to kill the cash cow by starting to yelp about how these readily available, easy to obtain drugs are playing a significant role in the violent acts we are seeing our communities. It’s just not good for business.

    As an aside, the National Rifle Association spent a little over seven million dollars on direct lobbying in the same time period

  • 0

    BurakuminDes

    I really hope President Obama can deal with these Gun-crazies/ terrorists and make America a safe country like most of the world's great democracies. Civilised nations like Japan, Australia and the UK do not allow military assault weapons for gun-crazies. Does America love their children like the rest of us do - that is the big question here?

  • 0

    praack

    for Nostromo- the NRA enacted a free service- that is being run independent of the NRA- so they fund it, but don't push armed security

    this service is free to schools to evaluate and give advice on how to increase security - many schools only have very simple items in place- certain doors locked and a teacher roaming the corridors.

    that's because we live in a country where our politicians wish us to believe our children are safe because of laws stating you cannot have a firearm nearby, or that you are not allowed on premises if you do not belong there.

    but our politicians - not just the President but others ensure their children go to school under different standards. sure i can understand the President- but the rest? there is nothing to worry about - that's what my local school said....

  • -3

    smithinjapan

    “Only honest, law-abiding gun owners will be affected and our children will remain vulnerable to the inevitability of more tragedy.”

    What a crock. The guy who committed the massacre, as with the kids who carried out the Columbine massacre, were all law abiding citizens until they pulled the trigger of their parents LEGALLY owned guns. The kids in Connecticut weren't gunned down by gangs with illegal guns.

    The NRA is getting evermore pathetic in its attempts to justify the unjustifiable. No one needs guns, let alone military assault rifles with ammunition clips that hold extra rounds.

  • 1

    SuperLib

    sailwind: They do tend to off themselves before they would face another gun to stop them, they're rational enough alright to know that as soon as another gun appears on the scene to counter them they have to either stop shooting victims or off themselves.

    I'm not going to praise a gun for stopping another gun after the fact. Let's hear your ideas about making sure these people don't have access to guns in the first place.

  • 0

    globalwatcher

    http://www.darkgovernment.com/news/list-of-u-s-militia-groups/

    I am fully supporting this gun control package. The violence needs to end and this is a good start.

    The above is a weblink for militia groups in each state.

    Recently some of these militia groups are removing their posts and now hiding undergrounds. NRA, Militia, US gun manufactures and the Republican (especially TP) have been promoting a violent culture of US.

    And We want to change and we WILL.

  • 3

    SuperLib

    Jasser: 1) In nearly every case of a mass shooting the shooter was on prescription drugs

    Except when they weren't, like the guy who took out some firemen recently. And shooters also go to places where there are no armed guards, except when they don't like a college campus or a military base.

    No one outside of the NRA gives the prescription drugs argument much credibility. Given the small number of shooters and the large number of people on these types of medications it's obvious that it's not the case. The only people promoting this point of view are people who want to keep their guns. Oh, and Scientologists.

    What you should really be asking yourself is why is it so easy for these proposed madmen to get their hands on guns.

  • 1

    slumdog

    In nearly every case of a mass shooting the shooter was on prescription drugs

    In every case of a mass shooting the shooter was shooting a gun. Less of them means less to shoot.

  • 0

    globalwatcher

    okimike67Jan. 17, 2013 - 09:27AM JST

    Guns dont kill people, PEOPLE KILL PEOPLE! So lets not distort the facts any more please!!!

    You and Alex Jones, Rush Limbaugh, NRA, Militia, US Gun industry, and the Republican have been telling this lie too long to the American public. We do not believe your lie any more.

    Gun does KILL and people KILL people You are simply shifting a blame. True freedom has two faces; responsibility and right. It is a time for you all to share the responsibility if you demand your rights. Enough.

  • -4

    Probie

    Yeah, because they last assault weapon ban really worked! When was Columbine again? Oh, yeah, right in the middle of the last assault weapons ban.

    These kind of weapons are very rarely used. I think I read somewhere that 75% of gun crime related deaths, are due to gang violence, using 9mm handguns.

    Have mental heakth check for people who own guns, and poeple who live with the people who own guns. It is very rare that someone without a mental illness commits crimes like that at Sandy Hook. This isn't about guns. It's about mental health.

    Yeah, guns make killing people easier. But, the main thing is here, is that the people doing these crimes, and all bats**t insane.

  • 5

    SuperLib

    Laguna: Radical statements anemical to American values will brand their issuers as the monsters they are.

    It just keeps pointing to a larger picture. I know the gun issue isn't completely black and white, but it does follow party lines to an extent. And it's just not surprising to me to hear it coming from Republicans more. We've heard all kind of nutty stories from birthers, about Obama being a Muslim, a socialist, guns in schools because of the lack of God, we watched the Republican convention and were amazed by the backwards thinking of the candidates, the teaching of creationism in schools, prescription drugs, video games, Alex Jones and his 9/11 conspiracy theories, the Tea Party, government gridlock over debt and spending issues, no tax pledges, odd rape comments, seeing Russia, BangaziGate, Mitt Romney's flip-flop till you drop campaign, Donald Trump, not enforcing laws. And that's just off the top of my head.

    It just seems like we have quite a few fundamentalists on the Republican side of the fence and the crazy gun control statements are just par for the course. These people really need to evolve and retire the thought that simply saying "freedom" and "God" justifies every ass backwards thought they produce.

  • 2

    slumdog

    Have mental heakth check for people who own guns, and poeple who live with the people who own guns.

    Is the NRA for such checks? Are gun owners that are against 'gun control' for such checks. I am pretty sure that there have been at least a few on this site saying they are against registration and such checks. I can't see for the life of me why they would be though.

  • 2

    globalwatcher

    SuperLibJan. 17, 2013 - 04:25PM JST

    And it's just not surprising to me to hear it coming from Republicans more

    The Republicans have always been STRONGLY associated with NRA in history. I am listing all Republicans who are receiving political contributions from NRA listed below.

    When Bush became a president, some comprehensive gun control acts were dropped in 1994 until Obama reversed and signed today.

    You have a great insight. There are tons of facts about anti Obama movements I would like to share with you someday when the timing is appropriate.

    http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/recips.php?cycle=2012&id=D000000082

  • 2

    Thunderbird2

    3) The United States of America is the last hold-out against tyranny. If your country gets out of hand, big brother style, you can flee to the US, you can stock up on food, weapons and ammo and get dug-in out in the wilderness and escape. No one can touch you unless they have a death wish. Try to do that in a flat in London.

    Funniest thing I've heard all morning. If that's meant to be a reason for keeping guns then I think you're barking up the wrong tree.

  • -3

    Outta here

    Probie

    Yeah, because they last assault weapon ban really worked! When was Columbine again? Oh, yeah, right in the middle of the last assault weapons ban.These kind of weapons are very rarely used. I think I read somewhere that 75% of gun crime related deaths, are due to gang violence, using 9mm handguns.

    Your right, in addition to banning assault rifles and the like they should ban handguns as well. Quite simple.....

  • -3

    sailwind

    Let's hear your ideas about making sure these people don't have access to guns in the first place.

    I'm going to assume your talking people with mental issues or who have made some suspicion by their actions and their individual behavior to flag a enough of a concern in either a co-worker, teacher, medical person, neighbor that they feel they should mention it to someone. Privacy concerns are going to huge if one wants to try go this route to try and identify the ones that we really should look out for. ACLU will have a fit also.

    So don't even bother, nobody wants our society to devolve to not being able to trust anyone at all ( well most nobody)

    Just use good old common sense and use existing social norms.

    Background check and add what anyone else has to do when filling out a job application, provide three references with one very important difference. The references would actually have to be notified by the seller and would have to give consent to the seller prior to allowing the purchase of a firearm and I would codify by law that the person used as a reference could also be held partially liable for the misuse of the firearm in a major crime. The actual details could be worked out of course on the extent of that liability , but you'll sure weed out those that are trying to buy a gun if they can't get three people to willing to vouch for them at some sort of actual risk to themselves also.

    We ask for co-signers on loans and hold them financially liable if the one they vouch for turns out to be a deadbeat. Do the same here with gun purchases. Your not going to stop this 100 percent in a free country but you can use that very same freedom to get it down to a very rare thing. That freedom of choice to actually vouch or not vouch for someone that you trust them enough with a firearm and that you are willing to put your name potentially your own money on it.

    This wouldn't have stopped Lanza as he stole the weapons in his household and he wasn't giving any indications that he was as evil as he turned out to be, but I'm pretty sure something like this would have stopped Loughner in Tuscon, the Virginia Tech shooter and Holmes in Aurora all of these nuts were giving off signals they were bad news and I highly doubt they would have been able to get three references to verify and sign they would be a good risk to sell a gun to under a potential financial penality to oneself. These are some ideas that will work that don't make a mockery of the first amendment with freedom of speech not being restricted or afraid to happen with the fear of being reported to the authorities by your Doctor or the 2nd amendent that is deeply ingrained in the America DNA.

  • -7

    sailwind

    It just keeps pointing to a larger picture. I know the gun issue isn't completely black and white, but it does follow party lines to an extent. And it's just not surprising to me to hear it coming from Republicans more. We've heard all kind of nutty stories from birthers, about Obama being a Muslim, a socialist, guns in schools because of the lack of God, we watched the Republican convention and were amazed by the backwards thinking of the candidates, the teaching of creationism in schools, prescription drugs, video games, Alex Jones and his 9/11 conspiracy theories, the Tea Party, government gridlock over debt and spending issues, no tax pledges, odd rape comments, seeing Russia, BangaziGate, Mitt Romney's flip-flop till you drop campaign, Donald Trump, not enforcing laws. And that's just off the top of my head.

    Sigh, you so much better than posting this kind of tripe.

  • -1

    Thunderbird2

    Maybe Obama could look at the rules for gun ownership in the UK:

    • Anyone with a gun needs to have a certificate, issued by their local chief police officer.
    • The certificate must be renewed every five years, and can be revoked.
    • Applicants are supposed to have a "good reason" for owning a gun, such as "sporting or competition purposes or for shooting vermin".
    • The chief police officer is expected to take into account previous cautions or convictions when deciding whether to grant or renew a certificate.
    • They should also consider evidence of mental health problems, aggressive behaviour and alcohol or drug abuse.
    • They may also consult the applicant's GP to obtain medical data.
    • Convicted criminals sentenced to five years or more are banned permanently from owning a gun; those sentenced to three years or more are banned for five years.
  • -1

    JDB829

    Finally, some sort of action. It won't solve the whole problem, but it is a definate step in the right direction. Remember, a journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step.

  • 0

    cwhite

    all you need to do is introduce compulsory lessons for gun ownership much like obtaining a car license. That plus a bunch of behaviour, physiological exams and anger management + all the usual CRP, what to do if you do accidently shoot yourself in the foot or gun blows up in your face. If that doesn't weed out the majority of emotionally impaired within a few weeks of courses, training and exams then not much else you can do. Other deterrents might be registered bullets that are obtained in much the same way as prescribed medicine, cost of ownership much like you put tax on cigarettes, alcohol and gasoline. How about a $5000 bullet, that will make you think twice about killing of your boos if he's not worth it. There is only so much you can do, but anything they do now will be seen a positive move.

  • 2

    Laguna

    okimike67-san,

    What you fail to realize (or acknoledge anyway) is that these are State rights and not Federal. If a State wants to make laws regarding the use of guns then they can. While I dont agree with NY's new enactment it is their right as a State to do so. If their constituency does not agree they will get bounced out adn the laws changed.

    The system of government in the US might be compared to nesting dolls - states may adjust their laws to suit their needs, but their overall system must fit within what the federal government proscribes; e.g., a state may legalize assault rifles unless they are prohibited by federal law. That is the way the system works.

    For the FED to enact by proclimation (Ex Order) new and sweeping mandates it not only circumvents the checks and balances established to regulate the government but also denies the States given rights. More FED power is what it is all about.

    Executive action is only applicable to the focus of the departments that the president has authority over; in other words, the president has no power or authority to create laws. The three acts Obama signed today that have any significance were those which instructed federal agencies to coordinate and disseminate information more systematically; all others were simply aspirations on which the Congress must now act.

    The president cannot create mandates; the president cannot circumvent the checks and balances inherent in the system. If Congress chooses to act, they may well trump state law, but that time has not yet come.

    Welcome to democracy.

  • 3

    TrentonGaijin

    "The president also called for improvements in school safety, including putting 1,000 police officers in schools."

    There are 2500 public schools in NJ alone; what good is 1000 cops spread across all the schools in all the states?

    Who decides where these cops will be stationed? Only at inner city high schools? Oops, Sandy Hook was a suburban elementary school. Maybe it'll be the schools which congressmen's kids attend.

    Useless measure that will have no effect whatsoever.

  • -1

    Herve Nmn L'Eisa

    " , the rifle Lanza used is not covered by Connecticut's "assault weapon" law or by the federal ban, which used similar criteria. Both laws ban the Colt AR-15 by name, but rifles not on the list of forbidden models are banned only if they have detachable magazines plus at least two of these five features: 1) a folding or telescoping stock, 2) a pistol grip, 3) a bayonet mount, 4) a grenade launcher, and 5) a flash suppressor or threaded barrel designed to accommodate a flash suppressor. The gun used by Lanza was legal in Connecticut, so it did not meet these criteria, which means it also would have been legal under the federal ban that Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) promises to reintroduce next month (a bill President Obama supports)."

    It should be noted that the 500M dollar estimate is a low-ball and as with such proposals the actual costs just snowball.

    All the discussion obout rules in other countries is irrelevant, sorry, as it's not a "one size fits all" situation.

    I should commend the community organizer for polarizing the country so sharply. Divide and conquer.

    After reading the dictatorial edicts, I'm not sure which or any would have actually prevented the tragedy at Newtown or would reduce the largest percentage of firearms murders(innercity gang/drug-related killings).

    A knee-jerk reaction like this(and the misnamed Patriot Act) neither increase safety nor protect liberty. It's a further decline into a Police State.

  • 0

    Herve Nmn L'Eisa

    Here the rails to soft, comfortable totalitarianism are once again being greased by rhetoric about "protecting the children", much like the government's attempts to control the flow of information on the Internet by claiming the aim is to stop child pornography. So, if you oppose "sensible limits" on gun ownership then you support child pornographers. Or something like that. It's government logic -- the same logic that would seek a gun ban if Lanza had run over those Newtown children with his car -- and it's hard for morally correct and sensible people to follow. "My starting point is to focus on what makes sense, what works," said Obama on Monday, "what should we be doing to make sure that our children are safe and that we're reducing the incidents of gun violence." Did you catch it, good reader? How gun violence just got tacked on to the part about keeping kids safe? It's quite the jump. After all, children are rarely hurt by guns in the US or anywhere. They are more often hurt and even killed by their own parents and guardians who often use their bare hands. And what Obama is calling for, and what his supporters really want, is not a ban on guns. It's just to make sure that the guns are in the hands of the state, which also has all the planes and drones that blow up several innocent children every few days.

  • 2

    Herve Nmn L'Eisa

    People call Obama a hypocrite, but he's been pretty consistent on this: he wants to keep American kids safe. Kids in the countries he wants to drone bomb can go to Hell. If you're going to call Obama a hyprocrite on anything, you could do what the NRA has. The NRA has pointed out in a "controversial" ad that the president thinks armed guards at schools make complete sense IF it's the school where his own precious daughters are. Armed guards at commoner schools? Ha! Don't make your elitist hyprocrite political masters laugh!

    I will admit, however, that it does seem awfully suspicious that the state is attacking gun ownership at the same time they're stocking up on enough armor-piercing rounds to turn every man, woman and child in the country into Swiss cheese. "I'm confident that there are some steps that we can take that don't require legislation and that are within my authority as president," says The Man Himself. Obama gets it. Congress has all along been a smokescreen to make the American people actually believe that they have some say in the political process, that their president really wasn't supposed to act like a monarch and that their little government wasn't supposed to grow into an imperial one. Now to be clear. I'm not saying Obama is going to be next mutant offspring of a Stalin-Hitler-Mao-Pot fourway. But something awful is indeed shaping up. Maybe Obama is just prepping the stage for the nutcase fascist general who will ride in on a tank to assume the mantle of Caesar. Maybe that Caesar will be the sort of ruler who isn't afraid to get his hands good and red with the blood of resisting patriots. Or maybe it will be Obama himself.

  • -1

    Jay North

    The NRA are a bunch of dumbnuts. See this satirical piece on the NRA's views: http://sorrysods.com/an-apology-from-the-nra-on-recent-mass-shootings.

  • 1

    Herve Nmn L'Eisa

    " The NRA are a bunch of dumbnuts."

    Note that patriotic Americans are joining the NRA in DROVES, in just the past few days.

  • 1

    Jasser

    @Thunderbird2

    Rules for owning a gun in the UK: Applicants are supposed to have a "good reason" for owning a gun, such as "sporting or competition purposes or for shooting vermin

    In America shooting vermin means shooting those who would try to take your gun.

  • -2

    Laguna

    Oh, Herve, I was waiting for your entertaining commentary - and you came through in spades!

    I should commend the community organizer for polarizing the country so sharply.

    Certainly, a massacre of two dozen or so children would not polarize the country; no, it is the President's fault for bringing this up - kind of like the person who dares to open the window when grandma gets gas, eh?

    Here the rails to soft, comfortable totalitarianism are once again being greased by rhetoric about "protecting the children", much like the government's attempts to control the flow of information on the Internet by claiming the aim is to stop child pornography.

    Wait - requiring presentation of identification before purchasing a gun is akin to censoring the Internet?! Why didn't I think of this when I was still a minor and couldn't buy beer!

    It's just to make sure that the guns are in the hands of the state....

    That's right, because once the state has sole control over heavy ordnance and nuclear weapons, they will have nothing to fear from the people.

    Maybe Obama is just prepping the stage for the nutcase fascist general who will ride in on a tank to assume the mantle of Caesar.

    Right - that fascist general who will require you to show identification before you buy whatever hundreds of varieties of guns that are still available.

    I love over-reaction. It is a window into twisted souls.

  • 0

    Herve Nmn L'Eisa

    Laguna, your view is short-sighted.

    " Certainly, a massacre of two dozen or so children would not polarize the country; no, it is the President's fault for bringing this up…"

    What a farcical twist. The polarization began long before the Aurora and Newtown tragedies.

    " Wait - requiring presentation of identification before purchasing a gun is akin to censoring the Internet?!"

    Who said that? Background checks have been the law for a long time when buying a firearm legally, but in case you haven't noticed, not one gangbanger has ever presented an ID to a back-of-the van thug.

  • 1

    Laguna

    Background checks have been the law for a long time when buying a firearm legally, but in case you haven't noticed, not one gangbanger has ever presented an ID to a back-of-the van thug.

    Forty percent of gun transactions are private or conducted at gun shows, neither of which require any vetting. Obama cannot change this by executive order - this requires legislation. Do you support all gun ownership changes being subject to identity checks? If not, why not?

  • 1

    SuperLib

    Herve Nmn L'Eisa: Note that patriotic Americans are joining the NRA in DROVES, in just the past few days.

    May I ask why you included the word "patriotic"? Is there some link in your head between patriotism and joining the NRA?

  • 3

    SuperLib

    sailwind: Sigh, you so much better than posting this kind of tripe.

    Sail, I've watched you defend these people over the years despite the high level of disconnect they have with modern reality, but I've always had the sense that you see them more as a liability and your defense is more of an unwilling burden. I don't recall seeing you put much faith in the birther movement, having much support for the far religious right, or believing in government conspiracies. You do your part to support the party but personally I get the impression isn't not always an easy task for you.

  • 1

    SuperLib

    Herve: Background checks have been the law for a long time when buying a firearm legally, but in case you haven't noticed, not one gangbanger has ever presented an ID to a back-of-the van thug.

    It's the same old NRA slight of hand that we've always seen. Herve knows that background checks can be easily skirted by buying guns in states where gun shows do not require background checks or buying them directly from private parties. Yet he feels entirely comfortable saying that "background checks have been the law for a long time." It would be like me saying that capital punishment has been banned in the US (because there are some states that do not allow it.)

    Why is this situation possible? Because the NRA has fought tooth and nail to water down any possibility of background checks. It's insane to listen to them talk about enforcing existing laws when they know damn well they've done their best to water down or eliminate as many laws as possible.

    I support applying some basic common sense at the point of sale which brings new guns into society. That should help to make sure the wrong people don't get them directly from sellers and also stem the flow of guns that get onto the streets. Because of the NRA, common sense strategy like requiring gun shop owners to keep track of inventory is not required. You can be obviously drunk off your ass and still go into a shop to buy a gun and there's nothing that says the owner can't sell to you. You can go to a newspaper in Arizona or an auction and buy a gun without any kind of check at all and there's nothing to stop you.

    Seriously, these are just common sense items that should be no-brainers. But by framing the debate as "patriotic Americans" vs. "Hitler supporters" the NRA pushes common sense to the sidelines. Then NRA supporters tell us we need guns to protect us from thugs buying guns from the back of vans, as if their actions have absolutely nothing to do with that gun making it from the manufacturer to the street in the first place.

  • 1

    yabits

    We ask for co-signers on loans and hold them financially liable if the one they vouch for turns out to be a deadbeat. Do the same here with gun purchases. Your not going to stop this 100 percent in a free country but you can use that very same freedom to get it down to a very rare thing. That freedom of choice to actually vouch or not vouch for someone that you trust them enough with a firearm and that you are willing to put your name potentially your own money on it.

    I have been advocating something like this for quite awhile now. While I am not for an outright ban on any weapons, I am in favor of categorizing them into two classes: One class contains those weapons and ammunition designated as "military-type" and the other as "sport/self-defense." Co-sponsors would be required for any firearms purchase, but for the class of weapons purchased to protect against government tyranny, that would not be all.

    For those weapons, a public notice must be placed in the local newspaper -- just as when someone applies for a license to sell liquor. What that does is give the public the chance to evaluate and express concerns with the applicant. Three co-signers might not be aware of the applicant's family situation, whereas neighbors would more likely be.

    Also, prior to approval, the applicant of the higher-class of weapons must take and submit the results of a psychological screening, as well as pass a state-certified training course. The easiest way to accomplish both is simply to consider the application for military-type weapons to be an application to join the state's militia/Guard unit.

    For those purchasing the lower class of weapons, hold the co-signers responsible for modifications made to the weapons by the owner they have vouched for.

    There are a lot of ways to close the loopholes and still enable people to protect against tyranny if that's what they are seriously into. Just hold them up to a much higher level of responsibility and make them demonstrate it on a continuing basis.

  • -2

    RomeoRII

    As an NRA life member I agree with Obama in relation to prosecuting gun traffickers. I say we start with Eric Holder.

    RR

  • -1

    yabits

    One other thing: The previous so-called "Assault Weapons ban" failed because of the stockpiling and grandfathering that took place.

    The right way to approach the situation with weapons of that category is to consider the owners as automatic members of their state's militia/Guard units. No grandfathering -- If you own that type of weapon, welcome to the Guard. (Or, if you want to avoid Guard duty, you have until a certain time to turn it in.) As the Second Amendment starts -- "A well-regulated militia..."

    If a person wants to own a certain category of weapons to protect against tyranny, much more should be demanded from them to accomplish that goal.

  • -1

    FullM3taL

    Slightly off-topic, but some comments on are here perfectly demonstrate why most people now think Republican base is a growing bunch of senile people who live in an alternate Universe.

    On-topic, kudos to Obama for finally showing the balls to do something. He has compromised on far too many important issues far too many times with bullies like the NRA and GOP base. Oh, and stupid things like saying Obama's daughters get armed security at school so others should too is just plain old ridiculous. He lives in the White House. Maybe the rest of America should move there too. And while we are at it, why not let everyone fly in Air Force One, or have access to the same clothes, food and other commodities that the President of the USA uses. Oh wait, yeah that's right. There's a particular group that's against spreading the wealth, isn't it? But spreading the guns, yes why not? Moronic thinking on epic proportions.

  • -1

    FullM3taL

    Also, if patriotic Americans = armed Americans, my oh my surely there are more unpatriotic Americans that patriotic ones in the USA right now? Well never mind, the NRA, which is so full of "patriotic Americans" will take care of them.

  • 1

    Kuya 808

    No one outside of the NRA gives the prescription drugs argument much credibility

    Super Lib

    I'm not too sure about that. I recently attended a symposium for mental health and social service professionals where the topic was the impact of prescription medications on social issues. Of course, there was a lot of ground covered in regards to use and abuse of pain management drugs like oxycodone and other prescription narcotics but selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors were very much on the agenda.

    This event had an open format and the attendees were given the opportunity to address the group and share their experiences and opinions. One after another, participants related their own experiences with cases of family violence, assault of a non-family member, violence in the schools and suicide. It was the professional opinion of many of them that SSRI anti-depressant drugs not only played a role in many of these incidents, but in fact a determining one. Many attendees voiced real concerns about the proliferation of these types of drugs and see them as a major issue in society today. While this symposium took place before Newtown; the link between similar occurrences, in the US, Europe and even Japan, and the use of SSRIs was noted and discussed. So was the topic of firearms; which the majority of the attendees are very much against.

    Firearm proponents will naturally seize on this type of information because it supports their agenda and deflects attention away from their guns. Firearm control proponents will have a tendency to downplay it as NRA propaganda. Which is unfortunate because it is a very real issue and has a valid place in the conversation about violence in our communities.

  • 1

    Kuya 808

    One other thing: The previous so-called "Assault Weapons ban" failed because of the stockpiling and grandfathering that took place.

    Yabits

    If the intent of the previous assault weapons ban was to eliminate the private ownership of such guns, then you make a valid point.

    But you have to remember that the previous "Federal Assault Weapons Ban" was part of the much larger "Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act" and had the expressed goal of facilitating the reduction of the violent crime rate in America. In that respect it failed because it didn't achieve it's stated goal. Even the federal government reported that if there was a reduction in crime related to the ban it was so small that it could not be reliably measured. And the same could be said about any increase after the ban was allowed to expire in 2004.

    It failed because it didn't work.

  • 1

    yabits

    If the intent of the previous assault weapons ban was to eliminate the private ownership of such guns, then you make a valid point.

    The point of any rational firearms regulation program ought to be ensuring the weapons do not fall into the hands of people who should not have them because of a mental condition -- criminality, stupidity, irresponsible negligence, etc.

    That does not mean taking them away from responsible, intelligent and trustworthy citizens.

    But as soon as someone in the United States in 2013 starts talking about needing high powered weapons and ammunition to fight government tyranny, the needle on the mental health gauge starts heading towards the Danger zone.

  • 1

    SuperLib

    Kuya, I have no problem with a discussion. As long as it's with mental health professionals. Hearing it from the NRA is a bogus attempt to obfuscate the gun control issue. They aren't the appropriate people to be leading the discussion. They also talked about armed guards in schools in Israel which also turned out to be a bogus claim that has nothing to do with school shootings. Israel has since told the NRA to take a hike. I'm guessing mental health professionals would feel the same.

    Even the federal government reported that if there was a reduction in crime related to the ban it was so small that it could not be reliably measured. And the same could be said about any increase after the ban was allowed to expire in 2004.

    The ban gets us to where we need to be which is having a discussion about how much firepower one person should be allowed to reasonably have. At the very least it puts the topic on the table and starts to apply some common sense to the situation. I know the assault ban won't have much of an impact on crime in the short-term but we have to think about 20,40, 60 years, etc. Eventually these guns will be taken out of circulation entirely and that's when we can see the actual impact. But again it's about having a discussion about what limits the average citizen should have when it comes to firearms and that's a good thing to have.

  • 2

    Herve Nmn L'Eisa

    The Constitution expressly prohibits all governments from infringing upon the right of the people to keep and bear arms. This permits us to defend ourselves when the police can’t or won’t, and it permits a residue of firepower in the hands of the people with which to stop any tyrant who might try to infringe upon our natural rights, and it will give second thoughts to anyone thinking about tyranny.

    The country is ablaze with passionate debate about guns, and the government is determined to do something about it. Debate over public policy is good for freedom. But the progressives want to use the debate to justify the coercive power of the government to infringe upon the rights of law-abiding folks because of what some crazies among us have done. We must not permit this to happen.

    The whole purpose of the Constitution is to insulate personal freedom from the lust for power of those in government and from the passions of the people who sent them there.

  • 0

    Herve Nmn L'Eisa

    Laguna, if I may answer your question:

    " Do you support all gun ownership changes being subject to identity checks? If not, why not?"

    Whether you or I support that notion is immaterial. What does matter is the constitutionality of the law. The collectivists at the forefront of this debate are set on federally legislating that which in within the individual states' rights(Tenth Amendment applies). A major problem that has been allowed to grow in past decades is the expansion or creep of federal powers, in contradiction of the spirit of the Constitution, very often via the contorted interpretations of the Commerce Clause.

    The Constitution was written broadly with regard to the rights of the people, but narrowly regarding governmental powers for the express purpose of limiting government. Lincoln essentially destroyed that.

  • 0

    Wolfpack

    @RR:

    As an NRA life member I agree with Obama in relation to prosecuting gun traffickers. I say we start with Eric Holder.

    As someone who is not an NRA member I agree that the laws should be upheld and the AG should not be above the law. He is responsible for the deaths of a border patrol agent and who knows how many others along the border. But as we all know, Liberals make the laws for others to obey (see David Gregory breaking a gun control law in DC and getting away with it - because he is a Liberal).

    Very few of Obama/Biden's gun control measures will be supported by either house of the US Congress. I predict that several Dem Senators will join with most Republicans and uphold the second amendment. As for the executive orders, they are really just actually a pledge to enforce the laws already in place.

    The bottom line is that Democrats are too lazy to do what they would really have to do to stop all gun violence in America; and that is to repeal the second amendment to the Constitution and go around door to door and confiscating every one of the 250 million handguns, rifles, and shotguns in the hands of private citizens.

    The assault weapons ban did not stop the Columbine school shooting. Therefore, there is no logical reason to believe that it would have stopped Sandy Hook or any other similar event. Limiting the number or rounds in a clip will also do very little if nothing to stop or even limit the carnage of a mentally unstable shooter. Everyone knows it yet somehow gun control advocates will not just come out and say they want to end private gun ownership in America (ie. strike down the second amendment). Until you do that, you can issue all of the executive orders you want, track every gun owner in a national database, and stop the sale of certain types of weapons based on the way they look, and it will do absolutely nothing to stop mass shootings. Dems are too worried about getting voted out of office to propose banning guns altogether. They are morally outraged but aren't so upset that they will risk their political power.

    All of this gun control talk now is about politics - playing to the Liberal base and acting morally superior (see Bob Scheiffer, Chris Matthews, Obama, Biden, etc.). Even if every one of Obama's idea's were passed in full by Congress, the number of deaths by guns in America will not change in the least.

  • 0

    Herve Nmn L'Eisa

    superlib,

    " May I ask why you included the word "patriotic"?"

    Certainly. It's the patriotic duty of any American and particularly of one who takes an Oath of Office to" support and defend the Constitution against enemies, foreign AND domestic." This is a central concept of the NRA.

  • 0

    Herve Nmn L'Eisa

    " You can go to a newspaper in Arizona or an auction and buy a gun without any kind of check at all and there's nothing to stop you."

    The Land of Liberty.

  • 0

    Wolfpack

    @Herve Nmn L'EisaJan. 18, 2013 - 07:27AM JST

    Outstanding post!

  • 1

    sfjp330

    In a U.S. general election, the NRA had exactly zero effect on the outcome. Turns out that the officers and lobbyists of the NRA actually represent weapons manufacturers, not rank and file gun owners. That's why they refuse to support common sense restrictions on military style assault weapons, magazines that hold a hundred bullets, or background checks for anyone who buys a gun, even though most Americans and many gun owners support these measures.

  • 0

    Herve Nmn L'Eisa

    "…I agree with Obama in relation to prosecuting gun traffickers. I say we start with Eric Holder."

    RR, Hear! Hear!

    The Attorney General and his minions who participated in "Fast & Furious", deliberately and intentionally placing untold numbers of illicit weapons into the hands of known Mexican drug cartel members, with no tracking nor accountability, have so far been protected and given complete immunity by the same president who now touts actions against law-abiding US gun owners.

    Does the stench of duplicity and hypocrisy not deeply offend the nation's olfactory senses? Where is the media outrage?

  • 0

    sailwind

    Sail, I've watched you defend these people over the years despite the high level of disconnect they have with modern reality, but I've always had the sense that you see them more as a liability and your defense is more of an unwilling burden. I don't recall seeing you put much faith in the birther movement, having much support for the far >religious right, or believing in government conspiracies.

    The only that I see is that in any large segment of a group of people there will be things that are commonly agreed on and things that will been so out there that they have nothing to do with the commonly agreed on things. Republican's and Conservatives generally espouse smaller Government, more self-reliance, fiscal restraint, free markets and a free people and the best path for a better future for our children. I defend that. I don't defend individuals espousing their own pet ideas, theories or ideas if I don't agree with them at all or use those off the off wall ideas to tar and demonize the whole group. It's just crass smearing that's all.

    Democrats and Liberals espouse a more activist Government, a more sharing of the overall wealth and a it takes a village approach to progress forward. There is plenty of people in the Democrat circle that I consider total whack-jobs in their pet ideas, theories or ideas. Sandra Fluke can pay for her own damn birth control for example instead of demanding the U.S taxpayer pay for it. Do I think all Democrat women are of this bent? Of course not, but it would be so easy, as those on the left do all the time to use her or so many other women like her such as Code Pink in the Democrat party to use them as the real examples that this is what the Democrat's are really all about deep down. Radical Feminists are quite out there in my opinion on their pet issues, and there plenty of other examples beside feminists in the Democrat coaltion that are really fringe on many of their positions. But they are a vital part of the Democrat Coalition, just as what you consider far right Christians are in the Republican side.

    Demonization works, Democrat's are just better at it and have a much more sympathic ear in the Media to use the Alinsky tactic. Media sees Planned Parenthood as a activist group working for women's health not as a group promoting all American's pony up for Sandra Fluke to go have sex without worrying about getting pregnant. Media sees the NRA as nothing short of gun nuts and toothless rednecks out in hick country and that's the press they will always get..

    It is what it is, Republicans have to get better at countering this tactic so far they've not been very good at it.

  • 3

    Herve Nmn L'Eisa

    I also find it quite disingenuous by the president and vice-president that they didn't take such actions as they are now doing immediately following the Aurora cinema massacre. Was it that the timing was just not right, meaning BEFORE the election? Ah, too politically risky.

  • 0

    RomeoRII

    I'll register every one my firearms the day after I read that all the Crips, the Bloods and members of all other gangs in America have registered their guns.

    RR

  • 1

    Herve Nmn L'Eisa

    RR, I agree with you about the registration issue. A perfect example of how such information can be abused is how the rag "The Journal " in NY published the addresses of registered handgun permit holders. Very dangerous.

    Registration is a first step that makes eventual confiscation not only possible, but even more likely.

  • 0

    SuperLib

    Herve: will give second thoughts to anyone thinking about tyranny.

    That just sounds paranoid to me. Surely we can find a way for you to keep your tyranny-preventing freedom-loving guns while trying to reduce the 30,000 killed every year from guns. There's really no reason why you should be against basic things like universal background checks.

  • -1

    Herve Nmn L'Eisa

    "The CDC says the number of gun homicides was 11,493." And most of those were in urban, innercity areas plagued with drug gang turf wars, like Chicago.

    There really IS a reason to oppose "universal " background checks AND registration : States Rights as protected by Tenth Amendment.

    “In 1928, the Reichstag relaxed the regulation(prohibiting civilian gun ownership) a bit, but put in place a strict registration regime that required citizens to acquire separate permits to own guns, sell them or carry them." Further, only non-opposition party members received the permits, excluding the groups that would soon be herded up and led to slaughter.

    Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it. That's the relevance we should all learn from those very dark years in the 20th century.

    Do recall a certain ethnic group were also rounded up and interned during WWII in the good old US of A. That's domestic tyranny.

  • 1

    Herve Nmn L'Eisa

    Superlib, in SCOTUS decision of D.C. vs Heller there's a clear reference to the anti-tyranny protection, included in the following exerpt:

    " The Supreme Court held: [43]

    (1) The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53. (a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22. (b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. ****The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved.**** Pp. 22–28. (c) The Court’s interpretation is confirmed by analogous arms-bearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed the Second Amendment. Pp. 28–30. (d) The Second Amendment’s drafting history, while of dubious interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms. Pp. 30–32. (e) Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the late 19th century also supports the Court’s conclusion. Pp. 32–47. (f) None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542 , nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252 , refutes the individual-rights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174 , does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes. Pp. 47–54. …"

  • 0

    Nessie

    Do recall a certain ethnic group were also rounded up and interned during WWII in the good old US of A. That's domestic tyranny.

    For this to be relevant, you need to demonstrate that Japanese Americans did not have the right to arm themselves at the time and the arming themselves would have changed anything.

    • Moderator

      Back on topic please.

  • 1

    Kuya 808

    I have no problem with a discussion. As long as it's with mental health professionals. Hearing it from the NRA is a bogus attempt to obfuscate the gun control issue. They aren't the appropriate people to be leading the discussion Superlib

    I don’t see the gun control debate as a black or white, winner take all kind of thing. Instead I see it as existing on a continuum with extremist minorities firmly entrenched at their respective ends of the scale and the vast majority of Americans holding positions somewhere in between. Right now I see the opposing extremes in this debate as being engaged in a tit-for-tat exchange of sensationalized rhetoric in an attempt to pull those in the middle closer to their camp. This only serves to further polarize public opinion and thusly move the discussion away from a meaningful solution that is mutually acceptable for the majority of Americans.

    The key to having a productive discussion is listening. If the parties on either side of an issue would make the effort to really listen to what the other side is saying and try to understand their opposite’s point of view, it would go a long way in promoting a more positive outcome. Of course that means resisting the urge to denigrate, malign and apply derogatory labels to the other side. Discounting anything and everything that the other side has to say just because you don’t like them really doesn’t do much to move the discussion in a positive direction either. Both sides of this current disagreement are equally guilty of that. When a discussion is allowed to degenerate into a name calling, finger pointing shouting match the chances of finding a realistic compromise are pretty slim and both sides run the risk of ending up someplace where they really don’t want to be.

    At this point I think it would be best if the extremists on both sides would back off and let the more moderate middle work something out. After all, they (the middle) will have to live with whatever comes down and, to be honest, given the unique history and character of the American experience I don’t think too many Americans really want to live in a country as it is envisioned by the extremists on either side.

    BTW- Thanks for using the term "obfuscate" I haven't had an opportunity to use it myself for quite a while and it was good to be reminded. I always liked that word, maybe because of the way it looks.

  • -1

    SuperLib

    Herve Nmn L'Eisa: There really IS a reason to oppose "universal " background checks AND registration : States Rights as protected by Tenth Amendment.

    Nah. Mostly it's about paranoia. I'm not sure if it's best described as an obsession, slavery, or a religion. You'll accept school shootings if it means you can sleep at night knowing Obama is being held one step further away from knocking on your door and rounding you up into a prison camp. Or whatever it is you imagine happens to Americans without guns.

    “In 1928, the Reichstag

    Fascinating, I'm sure.

    Superlib, in SCOTUS decision of D.C. vs Heller there's a clear reference to the anti-tyranny protection, included in the following exerpt:

    Uh huh. I feel like I should thank you for protecting me from the American holocaust. Or, again, whatever it is you think happens in an America without guns. Maybe one day when the war starts you can save a bunch of people. Imagine yourself on the hood of your truck, machine gun in hand, with a big American flag flying behind you.

  • -1

    sailwind

    Nah. Mostly it's about paranoia.

    Small point of order. Obama's actually doing a fine job in egging on the paranoia in those that fear the Government is getting more and more tyrannical.

    He's signed 23 executive ORDERS on gun control on his authority alone. This article sugar coated this and called it in a much more innocent sweet benign way ....."Obama signed 23 executive actions" to avoid that tyrannical word.

    One thing that will never change, he can always count on the media carrying his water that's for darn sure.

  • 0

    Serrano

    The U.S. government doesn't have $500 million.

  • -1

    yabits

    Small point of order. Obama's actually doing a fine job in egging on the paranoia in those that fear the Government is getting more and more tyrannical.

    Wow. So now Obama has to take responsibility for "egging on...paranoia" by doing his job as president. And this from a person who became apoplectic over someone's pointing out that marking target crosshairs over political opponents (and/or maps of their districts) contributes to a climate where "second amendment (violent) solutions" become more accepted as a norm. I suppose now you'll claim that if someone makes an attack on the president or his family, that he/they will have had it coming by signing these "tyrannical" executive orders/actions.

    He's signed 23 executive ORDERS on gun control on his authority alone.

    Wow....All caps. oooooh..... That sure contributes to my paranoia. LOL!

    This article sugar coated this and called it in a much more innocent sweet benign way ....."Obama signed 23 executive actions" to avoid that tyrannical word.

    Time for the paranoid to take a few big deep breaths and educate themselves: Any memorandum from the president is considered, technically, to be an "executive order." An honest portrayal of facts, which readers can't expect from someone who constantly and hypocritically slams the media, would clearly show this article using the term "executive orders" when describing a few of them below. You know, for those who actually take the time to read things before going off half-cocked and hysterical.

    Again, technically speaking, executive "actions" are considered to be those orders which do not modify any existing law. So when the president directs one of the executive branch agencies to increase the dissemination of information, as in sharing data between executive branch agencies, he's simply giving an order under his authority as president. I believe it is only those who are prone to paranoia who react that way. After all, it's like the president's team came out painting crosshairs on the NRA.

  • -1

    yabits

    After all, it's like the president's team came out painting crosshairs on the NRA.

    Should have read: "It's not like the president's team did that.

    Which allows for one more point. One of the more interesting and nefarious types of executive actions are the "signing statements" made to laws passed by Congress -- which are kind of like memos the president makes to the bill he is signing. President Obama's predecessor used them extremely often, sometimes even writing the equivalent of: "The President considers this law to have no bearing on the executive branch."

    Of course an action like that had no effect whatsoever on those now blaming President Obama for increasing their paranoia. I'm sure that if and when President Obama ever adds a signing statement like the one above the right-wing-nut-o-sphere will have a field day and the nation will be made aware of these "tyrannical" signing statements.

    Conservatives have been trying to sell people on the idea that they are the ones who promote individual responsibility. If so, I think they should take responsibility for their own feelings of paranoia. Especially when their stated cause is just a pretty decent and popular president doing his job. (I do understand how foreign that is to them.)

  • -2

    sailwind

    Wow. So now Obama has to take responsibility for "egging on...paranoia" by doing his job as president.

    Gun stores running low on weapons as sales surge, owners say

    Interviews with gun store owners in four states after Obama's speech show that passion among buyers has not decreased over the month since Newtown; if anything, Obama's speech appeared to set off a new frenzy of buying, with some stores running low on guns.

    You were prattling on about something?

    http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/01/18/16570552-gun-stores-running-low-on-weapons-as-sales-surge-owners-say

  • -1

    sailwind

    Don't worry Yabits,

    I'm sure your pleased that at least President Obama has finally succeeded in getting one portion of the retail economy humming with his leadership skills.

  • -2

    yabits

    Gun stores running low on weapons as sales surge, owners say

    Yes, that's right. Keep embarrassing yourself, wind.

    What's funny is that executives will often use the word "action" rather than "order" as a way of softening the language over things like directing one executive branch agency to increase sharing of information with another agency. But that doesn't fool you paranoid folks: Nosiree, you'll see the very attempt to soften the language as just another part of the overall conspiracy -- and then blame Obama for increasing the paranoia.

    That the paranoid are running for their guns only proves something true that President Obama observed early on about them. I also think it proves the old adage about fools and their money.

    The gun industry feeds off of them.

  • -1

    Herve Nmn L'Eisa

    Yabits, et al, perhaps the term "paranoid" would more aptly describe the leftist camp's fear of hardware. The apprehensions of the pro-gun side have indeed been validated by those intent to limit or eliminate the constitutionally protected right of the common man as evidenced by the most recent dictatorial edicts of you-know - who.

  • -1

    yabits

    Yabits, et al, perhaps the term "paranoid" would more aptly describe the leftist camp's fear of hardware.

    Well, again, that be you, Herve, completely misreading things -- and why we should never trust anyone of the libertarian ilk to have anything valid to offer on their reading of anything.

    A libertarian like yourself would like to make others believe that you could view pictures of or walk through the classrooms at Sandy Hook -- where little kids were literally shot to pieces -- and come away with a sense that everything is perfectly fine as far as guns in America go.

    When I was a young person learning to drive, I was shown graphic movies of the results of automobile accidents. Was this done by leftists in order to make me "afraid" to drive, or to instill in people a fear of cars? I don't think so. And so I don't believe it's a fear of "hardware" that is driving people to seek out sensible regulations on firearms -- it's a healthy fear of what can happen when those weapons fall into the wrong hands. (And those "wrong hands" could very well be the same purchaser and owner whose life circumstances and/or mental health have taken a turn for the worse.)

    What happened at Sandy Hook and Aurora was more along the lines of a commercial airline disaster. After such a disaster, it is a "dictatorial edict" of the federal government (via the FAA, ASTB, et al.) that the tragedy be studied so that lessons can be learned and steps taken to prevent similar disasters. I am one who happens to believe that, as a result of those agencies with near-tyrannical power to ground flights, that total airline safety has improved. Far more than it would if just left to private airline companies.

    I believe that reasonable measures and changes will come out of the result of the recent mass gun slayings. A large and growing majority of Americans favor universal background checks on all gun sales and transfers. That means 100%. (Just like every pilot has to file a flight plan.) It is clear, however, that not much constructive is going to come from NRA-types and libertarians like yourself -- who feel that the status quo with gun handling is just fine, and even trumps the lives of many innocent people.

    You see, Herve, we live in what is called a "society" -- you know, with other people. Unless you live in a place where every bullet that emits from every gun you own remains within the confines of your own property, we have a problem that is social in nature. I think is more reasonable to fear one of my neighbors making some kind of mistake or misjudgment with his/her high powered weapons -- as Nancy Lanza did -- FAR more than fearing a tyrannical federal government.

  • -2

    yabits

    eliminate the constitutionally protected right of the common man as evidenced by the most recent dictatorial edicts of...

    Once the "common man" gathers enough of an education, he'll understand why libertarians like yourself are rightfully such a minority in the 21st century.

    Knowledge helps drive away fear, and it's the completely irrational fear of some horrific federal "tyranny" in the United States that is the ultimate threat to growing the ranks of libertarians beyond the hopelessly anti-social, narcissistic and paranoid.

  • -4

    lucabrasi

    @yabits

    I'd give you a million thumbs-up if I could. Problem is, you're preaching to the insane... : (

  • 0

    SuperLib

    sailwind: Interviews with gun store owners in four states after Obama's speech show that passion among buyers has not decreased over the month since Newtown; if anything, Obama's speech appeared to set off a new frenzy of buying, with some stores running low on guns.

    Do you really think it's passion? Early in Obama's administration sales spiked because people were convinced that he'd ban guns. Then it happened again after the Newtown incident. It seems more like they are acting out of fear than anything else. We both know banning guns under the Obama administration is a pipe dream. Right now he doesn't even have the votes to ban the assault weapons. But that didn't stop a lot of people from shelling out some serious cash because they thought a ban was right around the corner.

    He's signed 23 executive ORDERS on gun control on his authority alone.

    And the most contentious measures he left up to Congress, as I'm sure you know. I can't say that I support executive orders, but it's becoming the norm rather than the exception and it started before Obama so it's nothing that should be used to describe him as anything more than his predecessor.

  • -2

    Ishiwara

    Let's welcome America to the civilized world; get rid of your guns, get rid of the death penalty, give healthcare to your own people;

  • -1

    gcbel

    He's signed 23 executive ORDERS on gun control on his authority alone. This article sugar coated this and called it in a much more innocent sweet benign way ....."Obama signed 23 executive actions" to avoid that tyrannical word.

    OMG! 23 executive ORDERS! on his presidential authority alone!

    Rubbish. This is just plumbing the depths of silliness now. Do you even know what you're talking about? Every president since Washington has issued executive orders (except for Harrison. He died before he got the chance)

    http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/data/orders.php

    If you want to make an intelligent contribution you could list the EO's where you think he exceeded his authority, or the one(s) you think would be counterproductive. But implying that EO's are some sort of power grab in and of themselves just shows you'll blithely repeat any silly winger comment you hear.

    So, which of the 3 memoranda do you object to?

    http://shanereactions.wordpress.com/2013/01/17/the-hysteria-over-obama-executive-orders/

    Tyranny, indeed.

  • -1

    Ishiwara

    I think some people need to reminded constantly that Obama is not a commie extremist or whatever, but is actually elected (twice) by the American people, and therefore has a mandate to change some things, and put in place policies that some people disagree with. It is called democracy.

  • -1

    gcbel

    1. Issue a Presidential Memorandum to require federal agencies to make relevant data available to the federal background check system.

    This one?

    2. Address unnecessary legal barriers, particularly relating to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, that may prevent states from making information available to the background check system.

    or, this one? Yeah, oops..

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2013/01/16/here-are-the-23-executive-orders-on-gun-safety-signed-today-by-the-president/

  • -1

    yabits

    Address unnecessary legal barriers, particularly relating to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, that may prevent states from making information available to the background check system.

    I can see the stampede to buy guns now in reaction to this. There's nothing more threatening to liberty than removing an unnecessary legal barrier.

    Thank you, gcbel; You do the forum a great service.

  • 0

    sailwind

    Rubbish. This is just plumbing the depths of silliness now. Do you even know what you're talking about?

    I'd like to thank all here for the clarifications of Presidential Executive Orders. The historical background has been most enlightning. I'm sure since most American's aren't really into the weeds of Political policy other than a cursory glance at the newspaper or new media and aren't really inclined to do the fine indepth research that was accompished on this thread to enlightened those of us that do consider ourselves as being more politically aware. Since politics interest us ana much than your average Joe.

    I'm pretty sure that those that do not really care for the nuances of policy and usually never read further than the first couple of paragraphs in a news article as they just want to get the gist of the story, a cursory reading of the words "President Obama signs Executive Orders further restricting guns" has zero tyrannical type implications to what is considered your normal American "low information" voter.

    (It's why this biased article puts the words "executive action" in the first part of the article to make it sound more palatable. they know the average reader doesn't read further than the first couple of paragraphs as they loose interest. The Media absolutely knows its market and how to appeal to it to keep in business).

  • -3

    gcbel

    It's why this biased article puts the words "executive action" in the first part of the article to make it sound more palatable.

    Makes no sense. There's nothing manipulative or untoward about using the term Executive Action because that's what they, in fact, are. Technically, Obama didn't sign any Executive Orders he issued 3 Presidential Memoranda which are Presidential actions

    Executive action or rather presidential action would be the more accurate term to use. This administration has three types of presidential actions:

    A. Executive orders, EO - Reestablishment of Advisory Commission

    B. Presidential memoranda - the 3 in question

    C. Proclamations - Martin Luther King, Jr., Federal Holiday, 2013)

    http://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/presidential-actions

  • 0

    sailwind

    There's nothing manipulative or untoward about using the term Executive Action because that's what they, in fact, are.

    The term executive action used in the second paragragh is much more benign then executive orders. The article does use the term exectuive orders at the towards the very bottom of the article. So far down that you need a shovel to find it and as I pointed out most readers will never go that far into an article as they lose interest and just read the first couple of paragraphs until they feel that they've "got-it" as to what the article is about and move on.

    The term executive action does not bring any connotations that there is any punishment involved if the action is not carried out due to whatever complications may arise in implementing the action. The term executive order has that implication that punishment or discipline can and will result if the order is not carried out. There are enough military vets in the U.S and enough people familiar with the background of what the term orders mean and the have to complied with connotations.

    This article is classic text book bias in how it uses its word placement and knows the average readers habits to advance its over arching preference for policy on gun control. I actually prefer the term "self-defense prevention" instead of "gun control" myself but I'm not in charge of editing articles and word substitution to advance my political views and then be able to sit back and call it fair and unbiased reporting.

  • -2

    gcbel

    Yeah, no, it isn't. Not even by a stretch.

    I note that you haven't disagreed that Executive or Presidential actions are correct terms or that these are in fact presidential memoranda.

    I'm going to guess that your preferred non-MSM news source sites use the term Executive Order to Executive Action (the more correct term). That tells me that it's those sites that evince the bias you speak by preferring the EO term for the reasons you kindly lay out above'' [it] has that implication that punishment or discipline can and will result if the order is not carried out'' beyond their actual import and weight. Thus the Much like your own use of the word tyrannical btw.

    Clearly you're carrying over the bias from your own biased news source sites.

    Now, back to the 23 diktats. Do you object to some or all of them? Which one makes you think it's worthy of being dubbed an imperial power grab?

  • -2

    yabits

    Clearly you're carrying over the bias from your own biased news source sites.

    An additional question: How have those supposedly biased MSM news sources reported on other presidents' use of executive orders? Did the MSM make a big thing out of them, the way that certain conservative circles have done with President Obama's. (That is: asserting that the media not making such a big thing of them is, in itself, a kind of bias.) Or, have the MSM they handled the reporting of executive orders/actions pretty much the same way regardless of whether it's a Republican or Democrat who is president?

  • -1

    badsey3

    However, the Supreme Court ruled in Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 US 579 (1952) that Executive Order 10340 from President Harry S. Truman placing all steel mills in the country under federal control was invalid because it attempted to make law, rather than clarify or act to further a law put forth by the Congress or the Constitution. Presidents since this decision have generally been careful to cite which specific laws they are acting under when issuing new executive orders.

    =Is Supreme Leader Obama trying to make law, or his he clarifying or acting to further a law put forth by Congress or the Constitution.

  • -3

    efftta

    The NRA insists that the best way to prevent more mass shootings is to give more “good guys” guns.

    And what happens when one or some of those "good guys" flip out or forget to take their medication.....? LOL, the NRA are nuts.

  • 3

    T-Mack

    Obama may be smarter, However if someone want's a gun bad enough, they will get it...and nothing Obama say's or does will do anything to remove guns from the hand's of mentally ill criminals...Once more the great and mighty Obama side steps congress, like they are part of the problem...Obama would like to side step the Constitution as well...Make up his own laws, maybe, Where is the balance between Congress and the President?...Just not the right way to go about it....Take away the 2nd amendent, then take away Congress, then Obama could be the perfect Dictator.....

  • 1

    Xeno23

    $500 million? If that's earmarked for improvements in school security, okay, but I suspect it'll be eaten up in no time by ineffective expenditures.

    There's an interesting debate shaping up among mental health care professionals about the unintended consequences of the "mental illness" aspects. Treatment and response to mental health issues is extremely complicated, and compelling professionals to respond to arbitrary statutes is problematic. Many say that existing regulations are adequate, when properly enforced, and that additional impositions may have the negative effect of reducing options for treatment, or access to treatment - that can't be good for any of us.

  • 3

    realdoll

    The NRA is right on the mark. I joined today.

  • 2

    sailwind

    I'm going to guess that your preferred non-MSM news source sites use the term Executive Order to Executive Action (the more correct term).

    An additional question: How have those supposedly biased MSM news sources reported on other presidents' use of executive orders?

    Gents,

    What is being done by the Media is what is now termed and defined by the urban dictionary as "BenSmithing".

    (v) A political tactic that disguises itself as journalism in order to protect Democrats, most specifically Barack Obama.

    1. Ben Smith (or the equally dishonest PolitiFact and Media Matters) pretend to investigate it, write something up disguised as "definitive," and then hand the complicit media an excuse to ignore it.

    http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=BenSmithing

    This article does its BenSmithing in the two sentences in the second paragraph at the beginning where all readers are not going to stop reading.

    2nd paragraph:

    Obama signed 23 executive actions, which require no congressional approval. But the president, speaking at the White House, acknowledged the most sweeping, effective actions must be taken by lawmakers.

    It's written up as "definitive" as checked into it and really nothing to worry about folks because Congress hasn't approved so you just ignore it, but it sure makes Obama look good for his leadership.

  • 0

    realdoll

    BenSmithing.. I'll have to remember that one..

  • 0

    yabits

    It's written up as "definitive" as checked into it and really nothing to worry about folks because Congress hasn't approved so you just ignore it, but it sure makes Obama look good for his leadership.

    Well, you were asked several times to provide some knowledgeable response as to which of the 23 executive actions should cause worry, and why they should, and all you have done is avoid the question. Earlier, you were claiming that the mere use of the term "action" as opposed to "order" was some kind of cover-up. (Where, of course, it was shown that no such cover-up exists; merely ignorance on your part.)

    This article does its BenSmithing in the two sentences in the second paragraph at the beginning where all readers are not going to stop reading.

    LOL!! The article contains over 20 paragraphs. So you're going to point to one of them and claim it represents the entire article? So, which of the 23 actions should US citizens be worried about? Which were under-reported as a "tactic" for "protecting" President Obama?

    Perhaps we should consider the term, "Sailwinding." (v): a tactic employed by conservatives when they want to deflect attention from rather than answer a direct question that would reveal their lack of knowledge and/or substance about a question put to them on a topic; usually one they themselves brought up to rant about. One of the symptoms of a condition known as ODHS: Obama Deranged Hatred Syndrome. (Synonyms: hypocrisy, shiftiness, lack of integrity, false-accusing.)

  • 0

    sailwind

    Well, you were asked several times to provide some knowledgeable response as to which of the 23 executive actions should cause worry, and why they should, and all you have done is avoid the question.

    Not worth answering as its just desperate deflection on your part to avoid the fact that gun sales are skyrocketing after Obama's speech.

    I guess you don't want to address that "success" on the P{resident's part on keeping guns out of more hands.

  • -2

    yabits

    Not worth answering as its just desperate deflection on your part to avoid the fact that gun sales are skyrocketing after Obama's speech.

    You are the one who is asserting that the 23 directives have a direct causal link to spiking gun sales. (Up above, you claimed that issuing the "orders" was Obama's way of "egging on paranoia" of others.) Therefore, it is more likely that your failure to give a single example of one that would cause the American people to have to worry so much that is the desperate deflection. A textbook example of "sailwinding."

    When the MSM appears to take on your attitude and seems (to the paranoid) to deem something as "not worth reporting," the paranoid scream and howl about it. When a rational person asks them, what, specifically, is in the 23 orders that is worth screaming and howling about, they desperately try to deflect the issue to gun sales.

  • -1

    Wolfpack

    Obama is "all hat and no cattle." The executive orders make it seem like he is doing something - things he could have done over his previous four years in office but didn't bother doing - when he actually isn't. None of his executive orders or even his legislative ideas will change the level of gun violence in the US by one iota. Reducing gun violence first requires amending the US Constitution. Then confiscation of the 250~300 million guns already in the hands of the public. Once that is done, it would be possible for the Democrat party to control guns with very tight regulations and a national database to keep track of these potentially dangerous people.

    Of course, nothing even remotely like this could ever happen in the US - because Democrats are either too lazy to do the hard work of amending the Constitution or they are too worried that they will lose political power by going a bridge too far in the reach for the utopian Progressive society. Besides, Harry Reid is one of the NRA's best friends in Congress.

  • -1

    sailwind

    You are the one who is asserting that the 23 directives have a direct causal link to spiking gun sales.

    I'm reading the results of interviews of gun store owners after his speech. I never asserted anything more or less then his speech was the cause for getting that old free market motivated to give you more of your not being paranoid reasonable fear that your neighbor's are now packing a whole lot more heat after shopping this weekend.

    Interviews with gun store owners in four states after Obama's speech show that passion among buyers has not decreased over the month since Newtown; if anything, Obama's speech appeared to set off a new frenzy of buying, with some stores running low on guns.

    http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/01/18/16570552-gun-stores-running-low-on-weapons-as-sales-surge-owners-say

  • 0

    gcbel

    Interviews with gun store owners in four states after Obama's speech show that passion among buyers has not decreased over the month since Newtown; if anything, Obama's speech appeared to set off a new frenzy of buying, with some stores running low on guns.

    Couldn't possibly be that these folks have been primed to fear that their guns are going to be taken away from them? By whom?

    Anyway, the run on guns falls squarely in the "who gives a crap" category. So, what? If all these folks bought their guns legally, good for them. Brining it up really adds nothing to the conversation as to what should be done to reduce gun violence in our country. Just the usual partisan stuff adding to the frenzy.

    However, if one wants to consider the Executive Actions (or whatever calling them makes you happy) and the $500 million package proposal, I'm sure there's fodder there for useful discussion. Any suggestions? Anything missing from the president's proposals?

    And if you feel that a discussion on policy is a "desperate deflection" feel free not to participate in the conversation.

  • 0

    sailwind

    However, if one wants to consider the Executive Actions (or whatever calling them makes you happy) and the $500 million package proposal, I'm sure there's fodder there for useful discussion. Any suggestions? Anything missing from the president's proposals?

    To be perfectly honest, I consider the President's proposals as a complete waste of time and public money and the totally wrong approach on something that you'll be quite surprised about. That is: I totally support actions and measures that discourage private gun ownership and from keeping guns from falling into the wrong hands.

    The difference is that I support policies that do not really infringe on the Second amendment or puts more Government in people's lives. A media that has an left leaning agenda to support legislation to ban guns makes the policies I support so much more difficult to even consider to implement. An unbiased and objective media would actually give my views an others like me who hold the same a pretty good shot in the public's discourse that this is the way to go.

    I'll lay my policy ideas out and hopefully you might also understand when I'm through how an agenda driven media actually cheats all of us in the long run.

    My first and foremost policy idea is to discourage a person from thinking he or she needs a gun in the first place for self-defense by just stating real facts. For my policy idea to be truly effective I would need a Media to actually do its job that it just really refuses to do anymore as it has become pretty much nothing but a mouthpiece for the Democratic party, and the policy the Democrats want to promote right now is gun control.

    FACT: The violent crime rate in America including those using firearms in the U.S has been dropping like a rock for decades now. We are a safer country than we have ever been. Crime rates are the lowest since 1964 and this is with massive population growth and private gun ownership at an all time high. This drop is based on verified FBI statistics and can't be disputed or spun.

    The Media does not highlight the drop in crime it in their reporting. For every shooting or crime that makes the papers the media should balance it out with the fact that it is becoming rarer and rarer crime rates continue on their downward trend. This is called objective and balanced reporting. As in, I'll pick a county name off the top of my head, say Puma county and a gun crime takes place there..........Report in the local goes something like this ...Despite crime in Puma county being at its lowest level since 1964 an armed robbery did occur today at..........Factual reporting that is not going to cause your average Joe to rush to the gun store and accomplishes the common goal we both seek and does not cost 500 million dollars and does not require more useless Government regulation..

    Spree killing, also as tragic and horrid as they may be have not been increasing over the decades and though the latter part of 2011 through 2012 saw a spike it has not shown itself as yet as starting a long term trend in these types of acts. The actual facts are you are more than likely in the U.S to be struck by lightning than a victim a spree killing. Do not think I am devaluing this atrocities, I am not. I am putting them into a balance that should also be reported by an objective media to lessen over-reactions on the general public's part.

    Americans and anybody else with common sense knows that crime will never get down to zero, but if the real facts are consistently laid out that the country is much safer with crime rates down and spree killings a rare occurrence with the stories. Then the Gun stores will have to attract their customers using different tactics than a constantly enforced built in fear factor the Media drives with its narrative agenda driven reporting.

  • 0

    gcbel

    Appreciate the effort. I'd rather pass on commenting (much) on the parts of your post that are a rehash of your views on the media. I have my own critical views about the quality of today's media reporting - sensationalistic, shallow, sound-bite & news cycledriven, driven, short on facts. And I think you already know my opinion of your view, as being not particularly compelling, biased and somewhat self-serving.

    To be perfectly honest, I consider the President's proposals as a complete waste of time and public money and the totally wrong approach

    Not surprised here. I'm sorry, but if you can't find a single measure or proposal you agree with, not a single one, then I suspect nothing the Obama administration did would ever satisfy.

    on something that you'll be quite surprised about. That is: I totally support actions and measures that discourage private gun ownership and from keeping guns from falling into the wrong hands

    While i admit i haven't a wholly formed view on all that can be done to reduce gun-related violence in America and am open to being swayed by well-reasoned fact-supported arguments, my starting point in this is that I'd tend to agree with reasonable measures toward keeping guns from falling into the wrong hands. I don't, however, see that it should be the government's business to spend money discouraging private legal gun ownership. I'd add to the former, measures to promote gun safety and reduce the allure of violence in our culture.

  • -1

    sailwind

    Not surprised here. I'm sorry, but if you can't find a single measure or proposal you agree with, not a single one, then I suspect nothing the Obama administration did would ever satisfy.

    Thank you for the consideration of my rather long post. I just wish to clarify something on this that I feel you might be missing. President Obama pretty much had boxed himself into a corner previously with his rather dismissive "bitter clinger guns remarks" and was already quite suspect with many American's on his fidelity to keeping the Second Amendment intact. Given this previous attitude displayed toward gun owners it does not take a rocket scientist to note that if he wishes to tightened gun laws through 23 legal Presidential stand alone "Executive Firm Decisions" that a huge chunk of the population that is already suspect of him on the issue isn't to react very positively toward this type of approach he took. That they are going to vote with their wallets by stocking up on ammo and guns. Which is the very last thing anybody really wants to encourage at all so I call Presidents Obama's approach as a total failure.

    But this isn't Obama's and his administrations goal at all actually. I don't doubt for a minute that Obama and his team are not absolute masters at wedge politics and at basting their opponents with as much negative connotations as they can make stick. Any opposition to any of these ever oh so reasonable actions on Obama's part will be turned around on those as not wanting to stop guns from murdering innocent school children.

    This will be a factor in the 2014 mid-terms and will be used to further motivate his base to get out and vote in the next mid-term elections to keep the uncivilized backwards bible clutching gun heathens from entrenching themselves further still, might even be enough to flip the House of Representatives back into the Democrat loving nanny state arms as labels such as extremists will be thrown out like cheap candy over the next two years.

    He's doing nothing but politics and he's willing to accept the short term flood of guns to the long term benefit of being able to continue to demonize his political opponents ever further. I believe his calculus is if he is able to get a Democrat majority again then he can move legislation to actually get gun control passed and more restrictive measures in place on them at the Federal level.

    Just standard operating procedure for this President. I happen to be pretty disgusted by it myself. Rather the man started being President for all American's on the Domestic front and not just the Democrat party and worked on a more embracing policy on guns by focusing on tamping down on the domestic desire to want to go out and buy one. But this approach doesn't bring votes or the possibility of crushing your political opposition. And with Obama it really is "never let a crises go to waste" to advance the overall political agenda he has of a bigger more intrusive Government into American lives.

  • 0

    gcbel

    Again, I appreciate the time spent in crafting this ...ahem... lengthy reply. No, I don't think I missed anything. You are a rather well-known quantity by now. I think you've confirmed my thought that it really doesn't matter what the administration does you're going to object, block, ascribe ulterior motives and give only the most cursory attention to discussing the policy itself. I think it's pretty much reflective of the polarized state of American politics and American society these days. And I think it's sad state of affairs (for which there is ample blame to go around). It won't surprise you to hear that my views on the politics of this (but not necessarily on the policies) are pretty much mirror opposite and that I had difficulty finding anything at all in your above post to agree with as based in reality (except maybe for your second paragraph but I suspect you didn't intend the double negative :-)

    I'd have thought we could've delved a little deeper into a discussion about gun violence reduction policy but you're clearly still intent on the politics of it. I'm just not particularly interested in going there with you because it'll just wind up going nowhere fast.

    One favor to ask though, please, it's Americans, not American's.

  • 0

    BurakuminDes

    Obama is doing the right thing - but he can't win in the eyes of the rednecks. 1 - he wants to take away their military weapons that they feel they need (and what are helping to make America the laughing stock of the civilised world). 2 - he is a black man. Enough said.

  • -2

    Vast Right-Wing Conspirator

    A waste of time, money, and political capital.

    a/ All an "assault weapon" is, is a standard long gun dressed up in military garb. Nothing unusual or unusually dangerous. Plus, they are used in so few crimes that trying to ban them is idiotic.

    b/ Countries with strict gun control often have high rates of other violent crimes. The UK, for example, has far higher rates of rape, armed robbery, assault, burglary, battery, than the US.

    c/ The chance of being murdered with a firearm in the US, if you simply steer clear of the illegal drug trade, is quite low.

    A dose of reality please, everyone. Would those of you who are anti-gun be willing to put a sign in your front yard that says, "This Home Proudly Gun-Free"?

    Didn't think so.

  • -2

    badsey3

    http://www.hardwirellc.com/

    Too bad most of the 500 million will be wasted, when we could be arming our teachers from these dangerous Libs on psychotropic medications. The time to act and start defending yourself from these drugged-out criminals is now it seems.

  • -1

    sailwind

    I think you've confirmed my thought that it really doesn't matter what the administration does you're going to object, block, ascribe ulterior motives and give only the most cursory attention to discussing the policy itself.

    The Obama administration really doesn't really do serious domestic policy to be able to discuss it. It governs the domestic agenda in a perpetual campaign mode with the requisite focus group tested sound bites. It passes clap-trap feel-good legislation and avoids hard decisions that real Leaders need to make. It is his style of governing that does nothing but polarize and divides and it is on his lap not his opponents. Wedge issues, soundbites, messaging and photo-ops is what really passes for policy in this administration. He signed his 23 gun control directives surrounded by children as basically human props. I found the optics of that pretty craven myself.

    And he's ramping his campaign machine up it back up for four more years of this type of so called Governing.

    President Barack Obama’s campaign operation is about to be fired back up just a few months after helping him win a second term with a new mission to assist the president in promoting his top legislative goals and progressive issues.

    http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/01/09/obama-political-machine-to-be-fired-up-ready-to-go-for-second-term/

    When he ever actually offers a comprehensive policy on gun control

    .

  • 0

    gcbel

    Once again, you brought mostly the same old partisan tripe one can find on any dittohead website. Not worth much comment.

    Much like your Romney "don't sweat it" landslide prediction, it's based on nothing but the sputterings of the self-deluded and -deluding right wingers. It's pretty impressive how you guys are able to convince yourselves of this stuff.

    President Barack Obama’s campaign operation is about to be fired back up just a few months after helping him win a second term with a new mission to assist the president in promoting his top legislative goals and progressive issues.

    Falls squarely in the "I should darn well hope so!" category. First of all it's a little odd that you'd think this is significant. It's been pretty clear for a long while that politics and campaigning don't take a vacation. Neither party is going to unilaterally surrender. It'd pretty naïve to think they would. And that's also pretty rich coming from someone who supports the GOP and who's mission since before day 1 of the Obama presidency was to make it nigh all impossible for Democrats to govern to pass anything, good of the country be damned. You know, if you know anything, everything the GOP did from the start was solely aimed at capturing Congress and the Presidency. What do you think these initiatives to make change electoral college votes from winner takes all to proportional in red-controlled blue states is about?

    The whole gun control debate, just another excuse, opportunity for the GOP to contrive some made up imperialistic intentions, to inject hyper-partisanship in what should be a policy discussion. You want your explanation for the run on guns? Bet you didn't think to look to how you folks have so primed people to believe Democrats are after their guns that it'd be sufficient for Obama to say the word "gun" for you folks to whip them into a frenzy. Your "29 Executive Orders"... Tyranny, tyrannical word associations... Hilarious!

  • 0

    sailwind

    You want your explanation for the run on guns? Bet you didn't think to look to how you folks have so primed people to believe Democrats are after their guns that it'd be sufficient for Obama to say the word "gun" for you folks to whip them into a frenzy. Your "29 Executive Orders"... Tyranny, tyrannical word associations... Hilarious!

    Apparently you've been so concerned about correcting my grammar, that you don't actually read what is being said. I addressed who primed the pump quite specifically for the run on guns and why I felt he should have used a different tack to not cause a run for the gun store to stock up on ammunition. I'll refresh you memory. From my Jan. 22, 2013 - 03:57PM JST on this thread.

    President Obama pretty much had boxed himself into a corner previously with his rather dismissive "bitter clinger guns remarks" and was already quite suspect with many American's on his fidelity to keeping the Second Amendment intact. Given this previous attitude displayed toward gun owners it does not take a rocket scientist to note that if he wishes to tightened gun laws through 23 legal Presidential stand alone "Executive Firm Decisions" that a huge chunk of the population that is already suspect of him on the issue isn't to react very positively toward this type of approach he took. That they are going to vote with their wallets by stocking up on ammo and guns.

    In case you forgot Obama's quote was in 2008 and he said, "And it’s not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."

    As I stated, this isn't rocket science. I'll leave the rest of your republicans bad, bad, bad, rant alone as it's not really not worth commenting on at all.

  • 0

    sailwind

    Much like your Romney "don't sweat it" landslide prediction, it's based on nothing but the sputterings of the self-deluded and -deluding right wingers

    It was based on my firm belief that as bad as he handled the economy that he wouldn't get re-elected. Americans almost always vote who can best handle the economy. This year was a huge exception to that and I was pretty shocked at the time. But in retrospect Obama's team did a masterful job along with his girlfriends in the media to pretty much make sure Romney was nothing short of the spawn of Satan and he really never had a chance.

    As I've pointed out many times Obama does excel at one thing and that is campaigning, he's and his team is in a league by itself when it comes to that. Governing though, he's terrible at it.

  • 0

    gcbel

    Apparently you've been so concerned about correcting my grammar, that you don't actually read what is being said.

    No need to be purposely obtuse. Did read. Did understand. Did you not understand that I was asking you if you'd considered the rest of the equation? There's something you're obviously not quite grasping.

    As I stated, this isn't rocket science. I'll leave the rest of your republicans bad, bad, bad, rant alone as it's not really not worth commenting on at all.

    Of course not. It's just easier to regurgitate media bad, bad, bad, democrats bad, bad, bad then not accept a response in kind.

    It was based on my firm belief that as bad as he handled the economy that he wouldn't get re-elected.

    Yep, that's my point your firm beliefs. Not a doubt in your mind.

    As the Billy Joel song goes, And the only people I fear are those who never have doubts Save us all from arrogant men,and all the causes they're for

    Will only respond to posts on policy from this point further.

    • Moderator

      Readers, please keep the discussion civil.

  • 0

    sailwind

    Will only respond to posts on policy from this point further.

    Obama's gun control policy has resulted in people flocking to gun stores to buy weapons and stock up on ammunition. To discuss a gun control policy that is actually driving people to buy weapons as being worthy of a serious discussion as to its actual merits is just insane. I do not see how a rational discussion on any policy that is doing exactly the opposite of what its suppose is really even feasible without willfully trying to lower ones I.Q to room temperature..

    When the White house actually embraces a policy that actually doesn't cause a rush on ammo and empty stocks of guns in stores. I'd consider that now we have good place to start building that policy and work for a further consensus on reasonable law and policy on gun control. Until that happens I do believe we have really have nothing further to discuss on the issue.

  • 0

    T-Mack

    Oh Lord!, is this issue ever going to be laid to rest....baby we can talk all nite and that aint getting us no where, I love you, I want you, but there ain't no way I am going to love you....Gun Control...2 reasons to list us to tax or take, No to 500....Obama be the first to let unarmed guard's protect your children, and I will alway's love you!...and will give you every gun I have...but until then you live and be happy!!! with your children, they will be safe with gun's, but mine will not , I cant find a job, you take my gun,s, now what's next you side step congress and give your self another term??????? but I will alway's love you...!!!

Login to leave a comment

OR
  • African Speaking Sales manager

    African Speaking Sales manager
    JPC TRADE CO.,LTD. (株式会社JPC)、Tokyo
    Salary: ¥200,000 ~ ¥450,000 / Month Negotiable Basic Salary + Incentives
  • Recruitment / HR Generalist

    Recruitment / HR Generalist
    Temple University, Japan Campus - テンプル大学ジャパンキャンパス、Tokyo
    Salary: Commensurate with experience plus transportation from/to TUJ
  • Program Assistant

    Program Assistant
    Temple University, Japan Campus - テンプル大学ジャパンキャンパス、Tokyo
    Salary: Commensurate with experience plus transportation from/to TUJ
  • Portuguese Speaking Sales Manager

    Portuguese Speaking Sales Manager
    Autocom Japan (オートコムジャパン株式会社)、Kanagawa
    Salary: ¥270,000 ~ ¥800,000 / Month Commission Based
  • Interim Administrative Systems Support Lead

    Interim Administrative Systems Support Lead
    Temple University, Japan Campus - テンプル大学ジャパンキャンパス、Tokyo
    Salary: Commensurate with experience plus transportation from/to TUJ

More in World

View all

View all