On Wednesday January 16th, President Obama revealed his highly anticipated gun control plan, which included executive orders, mental health attention, and a highly controversial ban on semi-automatic assault weapons. In the wake of the tragic school massacre in Newtown, many of the president's more progressive supporters have been clamoring for new gun control measures, with many hoping to institute a law similar to the assault weapons ban that ended in 2004.
Although groups like the NRA have been unwavering in their position that more gun restrictions are simply counter-productive, many media outlets have reported that even among gun owning NRA members there seems to be a feeling that something has to change. Although the support for things like closing "gun show" loopholes and strengthening the mental health system is the highest, even measures like universal background checks and regulating the size of magazines seem to have fairly strong support. The problem with the President's proposal is that it combines those issues into the issue of an assault weapons ban, which does not receive anything near the broad range of support that previously mentioned policy proposals seem to have.
The major political issue for Obama and Democrats on the hill is that in the political fight that will inevitably occur when gun-regulating legislation comes up, opposition to one aspect of the plan (i.e. the assault weapons ban) could severely damage support for the seemingly much more achievable goals. The President and his allies may have been smarter to pass measures individually, not only to prevent all the hype and fear-mongering that occurs when large comprehensive programs are debated, but it would also force representatives to prove how controlled they are by the gun lobby. Many swing states are still pro-gun, but some representatives in those states might have a difficult time explaining why they voted against closing loopholes that allow anonymous customers to purchase weapons without any background checks. It seems on this issue the Obama team may have overplayed their hand.
recommend
Facebook
Twitter
bookmark 
print
Comments: 98
It won't go before the Supreme Court because it won't be challenged on Constitutional grounds.
The republicans would have to take the House and the Senate in 2014 to impeach him.
HHAHAHAHAHAHAHahahahahahahahahaHAHAHaHaHaHahahahaha!!!
The way they are going Republican will be lucky to keep half their seats in congress.
Furthermore, great Americans like Ret. Gen. McChrystal and Gen. Colin Powell have endorse a ban on assault type weapons being sold to the civilian public. Extreme right wing and weapons industry walk hand and hand and there mouth piece such as the N.R.A. as the body count rises and do nothing to really protect law-abiding citizens other than to promote fear and make money by selling more guns. And I do support the right of gun ownership but with restriction. Those policies by President Obama and V.P. Biden have my support.
Strangely they are the ones that claim they are anti gun. Here we are trying to fight for the right so they can abuse it.. I thought the whole purpose for the 2nd amendment was to keep the citizens safe fromthe governmen... Leaving us to use fire arms incase we have to over throw our government...Once they take that right away Americans will start losing more and more "freedoms".
You must decide what side you are on. The side of personal freedom and the right to defend your freedom against tyranny or if you are on the side of tyranny to take your freedom, including the right to live.
I think the choice is simple. I choose freedom.
Big Mama you never even served in the military never wore a uniform to protect this country. I doubt you'll survive the first attack of the zombies.
wanted people to have guns to fight the government is so absurd it could only be held by the dimwitted.
Hey paranoid conspiracy guys, ever hear of the two U.S. Militias known as, The National Guard and the U. S. Army Reserves, do you think maybe that was the kind of defense the 2nd Amendment was referring to and not as you have been led to believe, arming the general public against our own government.
Yes, yes I do, what if 8 people decide to break into my house and I use 1 slugs per person I will now have to reload once just to be legal. Up until now one mag was all I needed.
What if Hitler came to power in this country. I will not be one of those Germans who played along while millions were killed and then acted like they did not know anything bad was going on... So you all can give up your rights one at a time and poke fun at those of us who remind you of history.
The founders remembered when the British were coming. They were not coming to get there tea tax. They were coming for our guns!
what if 8 people decide to break into my house and I use 1 slugs per person I will now have to reload once just to be legal. Up until now one mag was all I needed.
It is well known that paranoia of the mind when left untreated, will in a short period of time, render a person totally incapable of all sane reasoning. Your above paraphrased comment is proof of your self induced delusional paranoia and the extent to which it has overtaken your mental thought pattern.
As you likely know, strong emotional impact can change one's behavior.
Guns good enough for his kids but not good enough to protect yours? If you have kids this should outrage you.
What are the limits to the authority that the federal government holds?
Not only would they have conducted such scrutiny, under any circumstances--but especially they would have, when you consider the volatile and controversial nature of the Executive actions, set forth by the President.
Good points Nikita...
My 8:17 comment was directed at 8:13.
Even though you very likely gathered that, I was making sure.
Thing of it is, they don't even have the awareness to do even do THAT, unwittingly.
they simply throw ANYTHING at the wall--to see what sticks.
Isn't it just terribly exciting how puns can sometimes work SO effectively?
Right on, Lori. I suspect that for some people, their hatred of Pres. Obama is so intense, and they're so desperate for something, anything to put an end to his presidency, that they want something terrible to happen to his children if it will somehow get him out of the Oval Office.
For some, Obama Derangement Syndrome knows no bounds.
"Regarding what, Clark?"
You prove my point.
You either think that the government does not have limitations, or you don't know what they are. Feel free to read the constitution.
The dubious statistic of guns that avoided background checks — which is actually 36 percent — comes from a small 251-person survey on gun sales two decades ago, very early in the Clinton administration. Most of the survey covered sales before the Brady Act instituted mandatory federal background checks in early 1994.
Wrong again, Renee. That statistic, which is actually 40% as R.F. pointed out, comes from the National Institute of Justice's 1994 National Survey of Private Ownership of Firearms, and it included 2,568 survey participants.
Sure, it's an old study, but you've linked to some that are just as old. It would be good if there were more current studies, but as explained in this NY Times article, "scientists in the field and former officials with the government agency that used to finance the great bulk of this research say the influence of the National Rifle Association has all but chocked off money for such work."
It seems to me that a lot of Teabaggers, gun fetishists, etc. don't want more academic study of these issues, in part because it might be used to counteract the ridiculous nonsense they post from dubious (talk about an understatement) sources like Glenn Beck, Alex Jones, WorldNutDaily, Rense, Breitbart (the site, not the dead guy), etc.
I also think the requirement for securing weapons should end at being sure nobody is harmed accidentally, with usual circumstance. This means being secured from children and behind locked doors. I do not think one must hide guns in fort knox to protect it from thieves. Surely you will have laws against that?
About 10 to 15% according to ATF agent Jay Wachtel. More common ways are straw purchases and illegal purchases from crooked gun dealers.
Still, 10 to 15% of crimes involving firearms is a lot of crime, and a lot of stolen guns. How weird that so many people say they keep guns to protect themselves, their families, and their property, and it turns out that it's more likely that those guns will be stolen than that they'll be used for protection against a burglar.
I agree that banning assault weapons is controversial. But what I don't see is why it is controversial. The NRA wants security officers in every school. But as long as insane people continue to get access to assault weapons, having security officers in schools would be a bit pointless, because they would be so thoroughly outgunned by the Bushmaster-toting nut cases.
Why would anyone need an assault rifle? Not useful for hunting, not even the best choice for self defense. But it does work pretty well for wiping out a classroom of 6 year olds or shooting up a movie theater. What I have not yet heard from the gun rights crew is a reason why access to Bushmasters is so key. Why? No answer behind the silly slippery slope argument.
Hey you cannot buy an RPG or a true machine gun, what is the difference?
The same is true with assault rifles. They require a class III license, with the same restrictions.
What you call, incorrectly, an "assault" rifle is a semi automatic rifle that has hunting purposes, as well as competitive shooting and just plain entertainment with the family.
The NRA is your organization to hate today, but they are not responsible for what you claim. Ignorance runs rampant.
I will trust the government to have honorable intent when they have the same restrictions as what you hope to impose on those of us that abide by the law.
yeah a Bushmaster is a semi automatic. What's your point. we have seen what a Bushmaster can do, and it was not fun for certain families.
but when you add it all up and multiply it across a few generations,
You end up with Paranoia and then all sensible reasoning is abandoned because of the unreasonable fear which you have planted in your own mind.
The gun issue is a deliberate distraction from the Debt/Deficit crisis which is of monumental importance...
Calm down, the Congress will get to those issue in due time. (when Obama leaves office)
This is step one.
In other words, DEBUNKED!!!
There are only two good solutions. Replace RINO's with conservatives or Replace the party. Then and only then will you have backing to do what is right.
"The gun issue is a deliberate distraction from the Debt/Deficit crisis which is of monumental importance..."
...actually Obama knows the gun issue has to be handled before the debt/deficit crisis, because the debt/deficit crisis isn't going to be fixed. The reason they keep postponing the inevitable is because when the dollar crashes, all hell will break loose and they don't want any guns in our hands. Fools and morons they are. Rory, are only those left of left allowed to wear tin foil hats? Yours polishes up quite nicely. What does the RED lettering say?
Most dictatorships and aristocracies in the 20th century preferred their citizens be disarmed. With many weapons the people have an implicit limit to the oppression they will take without revolt. one might hypothesize that with adequate citizens weapons possession some of the major wars of the past 100 years might never have occurred as the people would have been free already.
Hitler famously was a gun control advocate. In the Orwellian era the increase of invasive state power is egregious expanding to all realms in search of prosecutable thought crimes and anti-state activities etc.
I am left scratching my head by statements such as yours.
Ron, Hitler clearly did not want the 14 year old Jews or any Jews for that matter to own fire arms. Were the 14 year olds that you wrote about part of the Nazi Youth (young military)? In that case, sure he was going to arm those who were loyal.