Vice President Biden will be reporting recommendations from his gun violence task force to President Obama as early as Tuesday of next week. The task force met with the all-powerful NRA yesterday. They first met with hunting and wildlife groups during the day of meetings.
The vice-president said, "There is a surprising recurrence of suggestions that we have universal background checks." He also told reporters before the NRA meeting that he would likely recommend a ban on high-capacity ammunition clips. The NRA emerged from the meeting with the following critical statement, "It is unfortunate that this administration continues to insist on pushing failed solutions to our nation's most pressing problems. We will not allow law-abiding gun owners to be blamed for the acts of criminals and madmen." Were they in the same meeting as the one Joe Biden attended?
The vice president also acknowledged that there is a "small window" of opportunity for changing gun laws. People are still upset about the Newtown shooting, and there is consensus among the American people that it is time to do something about the gun laws in this country. He knows people are fickle, and they will soon change their minds again.
Also mentioned was the most recent school shooting in California at Taft High School as a reason to do something quickly. However, that shooter was not armed with an AR-15 or an AK-47; he was armed with a "shotgun" that belonged to his brother. A ban on high-capacity magazines and all the background checks in the world would not have prevented that kid from getting his hands on a gun. Would the ban and the background checks have prevented the Newtown massacre? Perhaps. Would it have prevented the Aurora shooting? Maybe.
While nobody needs an AR-15 to hunt animals or for self-protection, those weapons and others like them should be banned from civilian hands. President Obama should take the recommendations of the task force and propose immediate legislation. That's the easy part. And it won't prevent any and all future school shootings. After the legislation is passed, it will be time to start working on the hard stuff... fixing society so that these kids don't keep falling through the cracks and winding up on the news. Hey, that's a great way for the Republican party to redeem itself. They could choose to lead that effort, but they have to lead without the hell fire and damnation, without guns blazing, and without demonizing people that don't think exactly as they do. Well, it was just a suggestion. Instead they will point their finger at the President and the Vice President after the next school shooting when/if one occurs after the new laws take effect and say, "We told you so."
Image Source: International Business Times
recommend
Facebook
Twitter
bookmark 
print
Comments: 154
GOOD GRIEF, TALK ABOUT OVER REGULATION and BIG GOVERNMENT
Not to mention, STRIPPING 2nd AMENDMENT RIGHTS!
Now, I'm being told that the administration is only considering to request for Congress to reinstate the same restrictions and regulations which were in effect from 1994 to 2004. One hellava let down to say the least.
This is especially hard to take, since I have been practicing what I would do when they came for my guns. I was all set to start throwing a good old fashion childish trantrum. It was my intention to begin by laying down in the middle of the street, kicking my feet and screaming to the top of my lungs, not my guns, not my guns, no way, my guns are my masculinity, my guns are my love of life, my guns get me off just by running my fingers over their stiff barrels, both the long ones and the short ones as well and no one is going to take them away from me. I had it planned to then stand on the top of my car and preach to all those passerbys who would listen, "Not even from my cold dead hands will I allow the government to take away my guns" I felt that would be a dramatic conclusion before sinking into total depression in front of the masses, (all two curious onlookers) while loudly refusing to ever again believe in Santa Claus.(I have found that it's always a crowd pleaser to mention St. Nick)
All for naught, what a let down, well there's always next year and good conspiracy theories never die.
and, factually inaccurate...
also, Ad Hominem and post hoc...
FBI crime statistics show in 2011, almost 13,000 people were murdered with a weapon. Of those, 1,700 people were killed with knives; almost 500 were killed with hammers, bats, and clubs; and 728 were killed by another's bare hands. Statistics show only 323 people were killed with rifles. That's just 2.5 percent of all weapon-related murders.
If you care about reducing homicides, we must ban knives, base ball bats, hammers and and clubs...
Those claw hammers are particularly vicious...
Is drooling all over yourself still allowed, 'cuz that happens to me every time I try to think. So I'll just agree with Rory & Scott--totally brilliant!
Your humor rates two thumbs up, I love it.
Thanks Michele :-)
The sane folks and rational leaders should just discuss how much control they want to impose.
Thanks God for Alex Jones. His obvious insanity has helped put the entire lobby in clear perspective.
And...this guy doesn't even have a dog in the hunt...he is Canadian...from Quebec...
My drivel is better than your drivel. Sticks and stones may hurt my bones, but drivel from Jo Jo will never harm me. Na Na Na Na Na.
On a more serious note, no drivel by either of us will have any effect on the implementation of more gun restrictions and regulations from being enacted by the Congress. The time has come, it's going to happen and there's nothing which anyone can do to prevent or to stop it.
Albeit, you could go sit in a corner and cry in your beer, which for some may help them to deal with the inevitable. Or, if it makes you feel better, you can keep attacking me, as if I had some klind of control over the situation. As for me, I'll live with the new rules without any consternation nor regrets.
It is just that you "liberals" are being distracted from the real problem...Obama's economy, by the hot button issue de jure...
The Biden solution:
1. Will have no effect...
2. Is a mere sop for you emotional feel gooders...
If Congress tries to repeal the 1st Amendment. I will do as 99% of all Americans will do, which is to raise holy hell. The same I would do if Congress tries to repeal the 2nd Amendment or for that matter, any other Constitutional Amendment. The Constitution has withstood the trials of time and has survived with only being verbally assaulted, but never to the point of suffering what you suspect is the plans of the Obama Administration.
The problem is, many people, such as you, are forseeing an event that will never come to pass nor even close to actually materializing as a true threat. If it does, I will stand shoulder to shoulder with you to defeat any such attempt to repeal any part of the Constitution. Not speaking for others, but I would be willing to bet that all those you call Liberals, will be right there with you as well.
The Constitution is just as dear to me and all people I know, as it is to you. You do not have a lock on the document, it belongs to all Americans.
Rory M. Jan 11, 2013, 7:59am EST
Since gun rights advocates have abandoned sanity and eschewed rational discourse they should just be left out of the discussion at all levels.
The sane folks and rational leaders should just discuss how much control they want to impose.
On the other hand, Rory makes some very valid points, none of which are effected by his nationality.
I like your drivel more than my drivel, may I have your permission to use it the next time I am verbally accosted by some conservative bully ? (I don't mean Jo Jo, he's just a dog faced boy)
Jo Jo, technically I don't think you can call infinity times infinity until you've gone through the obligatory number of "Nuh uh!" "Yu huh!!"s.
This doesn't count...
"He is making my argument for me..."
"And you making mine........."
"I not making yours..."
These "liberals" don't give a rat's ass about children...they are hyping tragedy for political gain...
And...ignorance breeds arrogance...
Stupidity breeds bad punktuashun, speling and gramer...
Really? Because I'm pretty sure the driver that was doing 90 in a 35 zone would not have been able to destroy our lives if he hadn't been driving a semi-truck irresponsibly. He was neither drunk, nor high, just irresponsible. You have to have a special license, be certified, & have insurance with much higher limits to drive a semi because they're far more dangerous, difficult to control, & can do far more damage than a car. I won't bother with mentioning the restrictions on driving or owning a car--including those on younger drivers.
So how much sense does it make not to at least do our best to make sure that irresponsible people don't get their hands on guns when their only purpose is to kill?!
These drunk driver/hammer/kitchen fork/knife/choked on a Tootsie Roll justifications are ludicrous! You're arguing that irresponsible people use guns irresponsibly, therefore, we shouldn't have laws that try to prevent irresponsible people from owning guns that are the equivalent of a semi-truck. It makes no logical sense whatsoever!
In 2009, Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia issued the opinion that the federal government cannot remove the right of gun ownership from individuals as that would be unconstitutional. HOWEVER, with all the paranoid talk of forming 'armies' by gun owners 'ready to take them out'--the Second Amendment DOES allow for a regulated militia. If it's not regulated and its stated purpose is to 'take down the federal government'....folks, that's treason. And if you're displaying alarming threatening behavior (like this guy) then the government does indeed have the right to come take you to jail, revoke your concealed carry license and confiscate your weapons. After all, if you're threatening harm to somebody, you're dangerous--possibly mentally ill--and shouldn't have access to firearms.
Right?
Your reasonable (logical) approach to the question of necessary gun control diffidently defines you as a sensible liberal.
{The difference is when someone is irresponsible with a gun many people tend to blame guns and not the human}
It's your warped mind and twisted reasoning which is your worst enemy and not gun control advocates who are at fault for what you believe to be, but which in reality is not. Inasmuch as the part of your comment which I have paraphrased above is totally ass backwards to the truth.
When a gun is used in an inappropriate manner (crime) it is not the gun which reasonable people blame, as you claim in your comment. It's the criminal who is arrested, it's the criminal who is put on trial and it's the criminal who is sent to prison, not the gun !!! To claim otherwise, as you attempt to do, is totally disingenuous and/or paranoid in reasoning.
Yes, gun control advocates want certain types of guns restricted from sales to the general public, but not because we believe that those weapons are to blame for past crimes. We want those type of weapons restricted because they afford a mentally deranged person the ability to injure and kill more people in a single assault than other similar weapons.
Gun control advocates realize that it is almost impossible to prevent such mentally ill people from committing a wanton assault on unsuspecting innocent people. However, we also reason that we, as a moral society, must do whatever we can to lessen a mentally ill or psychotic person's ability to commit mass murders.
IMO, it is the NRA, gun manufacturers and associated organizations who financially profit from open/unrestricted gun sales which are summarially amoral in their greed. It is such uncaring organizations who create an atmosphere of fear and paranoia for their own financial benefit. But, it's people like you (Chicken) who openly make disingenuous claims in an attempt to make reasonable people appear as being the ones who are wrong, which are the most immoral of all.
Love your posting. It reminds me of how I have felt after reading some of the comments posted to many of the previous articles here on GNP.(total disbelief)
Despite launching a gun control agenda that threatens to disarm the American people, President Obama has signed a bill that would afford him armed Secret Service protection for life.
“The legislation, crafted by Republican Rep. Trey Gowdy of South Carolina, rolls back a mid-1990s law that imposed a 10-year limit on Secret Service protection for former presidents. Bush would have been the first former commander in chief affected,” reports Yahoo News.
The new bill, which will cost American taxpayers millions of dollars, is a re-instatement of a 1965 law which will see presidents protected for life as well as their children up to age 16.
The irony of Obama seeking to surround himself with armed men for the rest of his life while simultaneously working to disarm the American people via a gun control agenda that is likely to be enforced via executive decree represents the height of hypocrisy.
So I have to pay taxes to pay for highly armed personnel to protect Oblama and his family for life but I will be restricted from buying the same level of protection for my family all because someone I never heard of in another town committed a crime?!?!
That would be the libtard hate machine!
That would be the libtard hate machine!
And he thinks he needs the same level of protection. Either clinically paranoid or he is just as annoying in person and makes a lot of enemies.
The first meaning of "assassinate" in Merriam Webster is "to injure or destroy by treachery" The second meaning is to murder.
Lincoln, Garfield, McKinley, and Kennedy, were killed by assassins.
Theodores Roosevelt and Ronald Reagan survived shots by assassins.
But shots were fired at Andrew Jackson, Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman, and Gerald Ford. Shots were fired at the White House whle Bush I was in residence there.
Lincoln, Garfield, McKinley, and Kennedy, were killed by assassins.
Theodores Roosevelt and Ronald Reagan survived shots by assassins.
Four Republicans, one Bull Moose and one Democrat (who was shot by a communist ). So, yeah, let's say this is all TEA Party members fault for the increase in SS protection for presidents and their families.
Would you cite the bill number please? I like to read these things up for myself; I don't take the 'media reports' at face value--and that's whether it's Michael Savage or Arianna Huffington saying it.
Actually, until Obama signed that bill into law, he was entitled to Secret Service security for the rest of his life. This is actually a huge savings to the American public.
Here's the relevant link from Wikipedia.com. Scroll down to the lower half of the page to the first paragraph under the heading "Post-Presidency".
WASHINGTON - President Barack Obama has signed into law a bill granting lifetime Secret Service protection to former presidents and their wives.
The measure Obama signed Thursday applies to presidents elected after Jan. 1, 1997, specifically Obama and former President George W. Bush. It reverses a 1994 law that ended Secret Service protection 10 years after a president leaves office. Under that law, the Homeland Security secretary could extend such protection on a temporary basis.
A sponsor of the bill, Republican Rep. Trey Gowdy of South Carolina, says increased terrorist threats and the greater mobility and youth of former presidents made the change necessary.
The new law also authorizes Secret Service protection for the children of former presidents until they turn 16.
___
The bill is H.R. 6620.
I mean, really, if there were something you shouldn't take at face value, you'd be practically declaring it an axiom, but something like this you're going to question. Saturday night live, here we go.
The NRA answer is- let's punish him for that bad thing he did. Uh, guys, he did kill himself- how you gonna punish him?
But again, they are NOT going to tolerate the idea that ALL gun sales need to exclude insane people or criminals. They hold out for the idea that gun sales in a brick and mortar store can check IDs, but if you are at a gun show or over the internet, you should be able to sell to criminals or the insane.
Sorry NRA, just telling it like it is.
Now...are you willing to stop there???
I have bought 2 in the last two weeks and it took 30 seconds...
All the gun rights advocated making the meaningless connection between gun homicides and drunk driving deaths don't want to acknowledge that, even though it is not designed as a weapon, we still require the registration of cars. Why not guns, which are after all designed to kill?
BTW...when Obama gets an unlimited budget and starts printing money to pay for food stamp votes and useless infrastructure projects, I have an Idea...
LET'S BUILD A 20 FOOT HIGH, 10 FOOT THICK WALL ALONG THE ENTIRE CANADIAN BORDER...
WITH A MOAT...
FULL OF CROCS...
Wrong on both counts...AR 15 is the weapon of choice for eradicating feral hogs, a huge menace...
Also, the AR 15 is the weapon of choice for those of us that are serious about home protection...from the crowds of zombies that will decend upon us looking to redistribute some wealth when Obama runs out of food stamps...
You should stick to writing about things you know about...
Also, the AR 15 is a mediocre assualt rifle, at best...you lefties like to talk about it because it is the only one you know about...I prefer the AK 47 or the M1a...Or the Bull Pup...
Both you, your family and all others concerned, have my deepest sympathy for your loses.
DUI has certainly taken tens of thousands of lives over the past 100 years and is a hellish blight on our society. Unfortunately, no amount of laws will ever eradicte the disease nor the thoughtless mentality of those who allow their personal self indulgence in alcholic beverages to dictate their actions and overrule their normal adult reasoning.
However, just as with regulations needed for gun control, deaths by those who are convicted of DUI have been greatly reduced in most communities over the past 30 years. Thanks mainly to the organization known as MADD and all those concerned people who supported their cause, effort and agenda. Because of that organization, tougher laws were instituted and the results of those laws have been quite remarkable in decreasing DUI cases. Those who would continue to drive while intoxicated are being convicted under and/by those laws are now loosing their driving privilages, paying large fines and prison sentences.
1. Buy up assault rifles...
2. Wait for ban...
3. Sell to criminals for 10 time what I paid...
We need to have the same approach to gun laws. Take what you can get, and be prepared with the next improvement at the next opportunity. That's what we did with drunk driving. With gun laws, take the universal background check... and then enforce the HELL out of it. I think the extended magazines need to go as well, and I think that can happen.
Jo Jo, quit arguing about which weapon people use for an example of an assault rifle. For purposes of this discussion, they're all the same.
You would have a much btter argument if you were arguing about a handgun ban...approx 8,000 homicides in the same time period...
They don't give a rat's ass about children...if they did, the would be for a zero tolerance drunk driving policy and save a BUNC of children...
They want an all out gun ban and this is just their first step...the old salami game...
Exploit a tragedy...
Just like Bush did when he used 9/11 as a pretext to invade Iraq...
But...I know that the left likes to use emotion when facts are inconvenient...
IMO, guns by their very design are meant to kill, whereas, automobiles are designed for transportation. That being documented truth, there is no way to equate the two when discussing the regulation and control of either. Both being individual entities with each requiring a different approach in regulating it's proper usage. To attempt to equate the two is not only reaching for unreachable straws, it is ludicris and devoid of normal adult reasoning.
In the Charleston, S.C. Newspaper today there was an article concerning a 61 year old man who was found to be DUI when he caused an accident which took the life of a 77 year old woman in 2012. He was given a 9 year imprisonment sentence w/$10,000.00 fine. This was sad in all aspects of the story. There were no winners and all involved suffered to some extent, some more than others, but all being loosers nonetheless.
For the record, cases where automobiles are intentionally used a weapon to take another person's life are extremely rare. Whereas, guns {are} weapons and as such, are commonly used as a weapon to take another person's life. That is why, it is a ridiculous analogy or comparison argument to make when discussing gun control.
Better DUI laws, fine with me and all of which I will support when such comes before the public. As of now, it's better gun laws which are the topic of discussion and the yet to be announced legislation which will be proposed to Congress for their approval.
All it does is restricts the rights of those who are the least lkiely threat...law abiding citizens...
The banning of alcoholic beverages are not the topic of this article. You have a right to grieve and as I previously stated, you and your family have my sincere sympathy for your sibling loss.
Not every cause of death can be prevented. Society cannot be made perfectly safe. Tragedies will always occur. But the prevalence of guns in America and the vastly out of proportion occurrence of homicide and suicide by gun are indications that there is a preventable cause of those excessive deaths.
In countries where gun ownership is more tightly controlled far fewer people die from gun violence. That is the simple, inescapable fact of the matter.
Where Homicide is concerned, there is; crack down on Inner City Gangs and Drugs.
Suicide won't be prevented. Those who intend to end their own lives will find a way.
It works very well in New York City, which is why the Mayor is so determined to stop the influx of guns from states like North Carolina where the murder rate is higher.
I'm sure that you well know that no one can debate a subject or an issue in a reasonable manner with people like Eric and Jo Jo. Such individuals are so closed minded and self indoctrinated to their own wants, needs and agendas, that they never stop to consider what our country would be like without sensible regulations, restrictions and laws by which to live.
Their arguments in a debate will always refer to themselves as being right in their POV according to the Articles of the Constitution. However, in citing those articles, they refuse to see the Constitution as a legal guide for society as a whole, not the few. A document which was written for the benefit, welfare and protection of all Americans and not for the benefit of those with specific agendas, such as themselves. A document, which the authors in their wisdom, foresaw the need for it's Articles to be amended by future generations and thus within it's writings, made provisions for any such required changes to be legally enacted. A document which understood the future need for additional enactment of new laws, regulations and restrictions and afforded government the right to enact such laws to defend and protect society.
To such self centered people, the Constitution was written for their benefit alone and subject only to their interpretation of it's Articles. As such, they refuse to see any one else's point of view. Inasmuch, whenever others see a need to enact a law which such individuals view as being against their interpretation of the Constitution, those who suggest such laws are viewed as being haters of the Constitution. It's the old cowboy mentality of there are only, The Good Guys and the Bad Guys. Therefore, in their reasoning, no one can be a Good Guy if they suggest the enactment of laws which the {real} Good Guys oppose.
IMO, such closed mindedness and refusal to listen to another person's POV, is not a disease, it's a self imposed immaturity of reasoning in some, and the ignorance of lesser attained education in others.
I'm sure that you well know that no one can debate a subject or an issue in a reasonable manner with people like Scot. Such individuals are so closed minded and self indoctrinated to their own wants, needs and agendas, that they never stop to consider what our country would be like without elitist liberals to mis-interpret regulations, enact draconian, mis-guided restrictions and laws by which to attempt to live.
I like it better this way.
I'm sure that you well know that no one can debate a subject or an issue in a reasonable manner with people like Eric and Jo Jo. I'm sure you can make your point without personal attacks.
It is there for the VERY PURPOSE of allowing the minority to have a say...
AND...
I'M RUBBER AND YOU'RE GLUE
YOUR BS BOUNCES OF ME AND STICKS TO YOU
NEENER, NEENER!!!
I'M RUBBER AND YOU'RE GLUE
YOUR BS BOUNCES OF ME AND STICKS TO YOU
That's not nice.
Two gunmen shot a 14-year-old boy several times Friday night as he stood on his porch, leaving him to die in the front hallway of his Humboldt Park home, authorities said.
The shooting came just hours after a 15-year-old boy was fatally shot in a separate attack in the Little Village neighborhood. Including both homicides, at least six teens were shot since Friday afternoon, according to police.
In the Humboldt Park shooting, two male shooters opened fire about 11:50 p.m. in the 2400 block of West Augusta Boulevard, striking the boy multiple times in the chest, Chicago Police Department News Affairs Officer Amina Greer said.
What Chicago and Illinois need is some really strict gun control laws .... oh wait, never mind.
When, by the bye, are you ever going to get those Teeth fixed???
I bet he watches 'rasslin', too...
Just because some people with a subject mindset think trading essential liberty for a imaginary security is "common sense" is no obligation for those of us who still know we are citizens to accept their submissive, servile attitudes.
The constitution says nothing about hunting or self protection. The amendment was written so that we can in fact protect ourselves from tyranny. That is why the founders said nothing about what "arms" are, by design. The wisdom was clear and simple. You can write all the laws that say that we should not commit murder, ban this gun, that gun, clips above 30,20,10, or 2 bullets and register everyone. The fact is that most people who go through the training and obtain a gun, do not use it to commit evil. My question is how are you going to ever get the guns out of the hands of those who should not have them if you can even enforce the laws you have? All of this talk is just window dressing, an act and talk is cheap. At the end of the day evil will find a way to kill and politicians' will find a way to take rights from those of us who live by the law. Then someday tyranny will rise and the people will have to through them self's in front of tanks and hope that someone else in the world is watching.
Indeed that it was, Clark.
Everything...well-said.
Democracy is a dangerous condition...but not as dangerous as totalitarianism.
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."
3. "Improve incentives for states to share information with the background check system."
4. "Direct the attorney general to review categories of individuals prohibited from having a gun to make sure dangerous people are not slipping through the cracks."
5. "Propose rulemaking to give law enforcement the ability to run a full background check on an individual before returning a seized gun."
6. "Publish a letter from ATF to federally licensed gun dealers providing guidance on how to run background checks for private sellers."
7. "Launch a national safe and responsible gun ownership campaign."
8. "Review safety standards for gun locks and gun safes (Consumer Product Safety Commission)."
9. "Issue a presidential Memorandum to require federal law enforcement to trace guns recovered in criminal investigations."
10. "Release a DOJ report analyzing information on lost and stolen guns and make it widely available to law enforcement."
11. "Nominate an ATF director."
12. "Provide law enforcement, first responders, and school officials with proper training for active shooter situations."
13. "Maximize enforcement efforts to prevent gun violence and prosecute gun crime."
14. "Issue a presidential memorandum directing the Centers for Disease Control to research the causes and prevention of gun violence."
15. "Direct the attorney general to issue a report on the availability and most effective use of new gun safety technologies and challenge the private sector to develop innovative technologies."
16. "Clarify that the Affordable Care Act does not prohibit doctors asking their patients about guns in their homes."
17. "Release a letter to health care providers clarifying that no federal law prohibits them from reporting threats of violence to law enforcement authorities."
18. "Provide incentives for schools to hire school resource officers."
19. "Develop model emergency response plans for schools, houses of worship and institutions of higher education."
20. "Release a letter to state health officials clarifying the scope of mental health services that Medicaid plans must cover."
21. "Finalize regulations clarifying essential health benefits and parity requirements within ACA exchanges."
22. "Commit to finalizing mental health parity regulations."
23. "Launch a national dialogue led by Secretaries Sebelius and Duncan on mental health."
Translation..."People are stupid and have a short attention span...we need to exploit this tragedy while it is fresh..."
How far off the mark are you--if Obama's measures are not challenged in the Supreme Court and are therefore not voted down?
Answer?
Far off the mark.