Speak Out: What Do You Think Of Obama's Gun Control Proposals?
Barack Obama announces nearly two dozen goals for Congress.
President Barack Obama announced Wednesday a list of proposals to curb gun violence in the wake of mass shootings in Colorado and Connecticut. While acknowledging that the Constitution does protect certain rights, the country's citizens are still "responsible for each other," multiple outlets, including CNN reports.
1. "Issue a presidential memorandum to require federal agencies to make relevant data available to the federal background check system."
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."
The National Rifle Association released this statement in response:
"Throughout its history, the National Rifle Association has led efforts to promote safety and responsible gun ownership. Keeping our children and society safe remains our top priority.
The NRA will continue to focus on keeping our children safe and securing our schools, fixing our broken mental health system, and prosecuting violent criminals to the fullest extent of the law. We look forward to working with Congress on a bi-partisan basis to find real solutions to protecting America’s most valuable asset – our children.
Attacking firearms and ignoring children is not a solution to the crisis we face as a nation. Only honest, law-abiding gun owners will be affected and our children will remain vulnerable to the inevitability of more tragedy."
South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham also issued a statement:
“The recent tragedy at Sandy Hook Elementary School is heartbreaking and beyond words. However, the gun control plans brought forward by President Obama fail to address the real issues and I’m confident there will be bipartisan opposition to his proposal.
“One bullet in the hands of a homicidal maniac is one too many. But in the case of a young mother defending her children against a home invader -- a real-life event which recently occurred near Atlanta -- six bullets may not be enough. Criminals aren’t going to follow legislation limiting magazine capacity. However, a limit could put law-abiding citizens at a distinct disadvantage when confronting a criminal.
“As for reinstating the assault weapons ban, it has already been tried and failed.
“Finally, when it comes to protecting our schools, I believe the best way to confront a homicidal maniac who enters a school is for them to be met by armed resistance from a trained professional.”
South Carolina's senior Congressman Rep. Jim Clyburn (D-6) added the following:
“I applaud the President for his leadership on this issue, and I hope Congress will work with him in a bipartisan way to advance these proposals. This is about common sense. This should be about our children. This should be about mental health. This should be about whether or not it makes sense for individuals to be able to walk the streets with weapons that are made for war. This is also about whether or not we will have background checks to keep dangerous weapons out of the hands of felons and the mentally ill. This should not be any kind of a question about constitutional rights. The First Amendment guarantees free speech, but it does not give one the right to yell fire in a crowded theater. What this ought to be about is a discussion of how we maintain Second Amendment rights while keeping people secure in their homes and our children safe in their classrooms. I look forward to working with the President and my colleagues in Congress on this vitally important issue.”
What do you think of the president's proposals? Are they too aggressive? Not enough? Tell us in the comments section
Hal Millard
3:57 pm on Wednesday, January 16, 2013
I find it noteworthy that there is no assault-weapons ban mentioned here (though the POTUS has at least broached the subject). These proposals may or may not be good, I really don't know, but I would imagine that these proposals are going to be attacked by folks on both sides as either being too much or not enough. But I can't help but think that the anti-gun advocates will be (or should be) the most disappointed. Agree/disagree?
stanley seigler
11:53 pm on Wednesday, January 16, 2013
re: the anti-gun advocates will be (or should be) the most disappointed.
BO is disappoints...but guess he has to go slow to get anything done...
most of the items are what should be...should have been...SOP...ie, good vice greedy business practices...
BERT PATRICK
8:37 am on Thursday, January 17, 2013
More needs to be done and not just on the control of guns, but on the people who can own or have easy access to them. I point specifically to the fact that most, if not all, the mass shootings have been by those people who were mentally unbalanced and/or under the influence of very strong drugs that susposedly would keep their emotions in check. Well, I hope we all agree that keeping guns of all sorts out of the hands of these people should be a priority. Yes, I can hear the cries even now to what I say.... Invasion of Privacy rights! Infringement on the Second Admendment! How dare I say such things! That is discrimination! And so on.
Pick a position, pro or con, and there are going to be emotional and even legal arguements against just exactly what needs to occur as I said above! So, I ask, what do we do? The same old half, failed measures again? Or get serious with controlling who can have a gun!??
The definition of crazy is; Trying the same old failed things over and over, while hoping for a different out come! That is where I see we are!
Cheryl
4:29 pm on Wednesday, January 16, 2013
Can you imagine the American People without right to Bear Arms when we cannot even trust our Government Officials.
Mike N.
4:42 pm on Wednesday, January 16, 2013
No, and that's why I'm glad that none of Obama's proposals repeal the right to bear arms.
Ken
5:10 pm on Wednesday, January 16, 2013
Where has anyone's right to bear arms been taken away?
reg
8:26 pm on Wednesday, January 16, 2013
There is no threat to the right to bear arms. There is no threat to ones who one already own assault weapons, either. The only recommendations/requests I've seen are that the loophole to buy without background check (like the gun shows) would be removed.
And if y'all want to address this "attack on the right to bear arms," y'all should go after the conservative supreme court justice Antonin Scalia --- he's the one who wrote the majority opinion in a 2008 case that said the 2nd Amendment only applied to weapons that were available back when the Constitution was first written.
Tom Utley
5:07 pm on Wednesday, January 16, 2013
Looks like he chickened out.
Alex Saitta
9:13 pm on Wednesday, January 16, 2013
The operative phrase in the US Constitution is, "... the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
Adding that word "infringed" makes the meaning very strong.
For instance, the phrase is not, the people have the right to keep and bear arms. That would mean to me, citizens can own guns and carry them, but the government can regulate them in all sorts of ways.
Adding the word infringe there, means the founding fathers wanted the government to back way way off and not even touch the private ownership or carrying of guns.
To me, infringe means to encroach on, trespass or tamper with. The way that phrase reads, the right is 100% -- government must keep its hands completely off private guns, whether people just own them or wear them on their person.
That may not be practical today. I don't want people carrying automatic machine guns in Walmart any more than you, but I think the literal meaning of that constitutional phrase says they can.
It is so hard to change the constitution, so those on the left haven't tired to change it. Instead, what those on the left have done is try to gray the wording, stating it says this or that. It doesn't. Again, that phrase is very black and white.
reg
9:24 pm on Wednesday, January 16, 2013
Then tell that to the conservative-appointed Justice Antonin Scalia --- he's the one who got it on record that the 2nd Amendment only applied to weapons that were available at that time, and did *not* include automatic weapons and military weapons.
stanley seigler
10:31 pm on Wednesday, January 16, 2013
re: he's [Antonin Scalia's] the one who got it on record that the 2nd Amendment only applied to weapons that were available at that time.
if possible and so incline would you pinpoint where AS said or implied 'only applied to weapons that were available at that time'...
not necessary to know, w/o doubt, SCOTUS' interpretation of the 2nd allows gun control...but interesting.
incomprehensible that NRA could hoodwink NRA shooter caps otherwise...NRA must laugh all the way to the bank to deposit their lobbying fees...
BTW it's painfully obvious that 2nd applies only to weapons available at that time...for the founders to write laws that applied to modern WMD would be like those who grew up w/ a slide rule writing laws for the computer/ipad/internet...
Alex Saitta
9:07 am on Thursday, January 17, 2013
I would like to read the opinion of that case Scalia was talking about. Can you provide the link? If the Constitution only applies to what was the case at the time, then it would be worthless today because most everything is different. I don't think the framers intended that to be the case and I have my doubts the point you are trying to make. The Constitution was intended to be a lasting document and was to serve as an anchor through changing times.
There are 300 million guns in this country and people are arming themselves more and more. Despite the concern right now, the pro-gun lobby has won this one hands down. Those on the left are best to move on to another issue.
reg
9:47 am on Thursday, January 17, 2013
"Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons." http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf
Sammy
5:34 am on Thursday, January 17, 2013
Not a single one of these proposals is going to stop a mentally deranged person from getting a gun, if they want one bad enough, and using it to kill people. There is no way to ever prevent that from happening. Just as there is no way to stop a criminal from getting a gun and killing people with it. In Australia, the Government bought back 640,000 guns from the citizens, semi auto rifles, pump shotguns, and destroyed them. They required that the guns people got to keep, bolt action rifles and others to be kept lock in gun safes with the bolt out, unloaded. Armed robbery increased by 69%, Assault with guns by 28%, gun murders by 19%, and home invasions by 21%. Disarm the people and crime goes up.
stanley seigler
7:59 am on Thursday, January 17, 2013
insnt the issue mass murders of our children...so why conflate violent crimes with mass murders...in any event...
please provide link to these cherry picked stats...
BTW the following link:
'After a 1996 Mass Shooting, Australia Enacted Strict Gun Laws. It Hasn't Had a Similar Massacre Since.'
http://www.slate.com/blogs/crime/2012/12/16/gun_control_after_connecticut_shooting_could_australia_s_laws_provide_a.html
SAY:
[CLIPs]
1. On April 28, 1996, a gunman opened fire...killing 35 people and wounding 23 more. It was the worst mass murder in Australia’s history.
2. Twelve days later, Australia’s government did something remarkable...enacted sweeping gun-control measures. A decade and a half hence, the results of these policy changes are clear: They worked really, really well.
3. here’s the most stunning statistic. In the decade before the Port Arthur massacre, there had been 11 mass shootings in the country. There hasn’t been a single one in Australia since [1996].
4. That’s certainly how things looked after the Aurora shooting. But after Sandy Hook, with the nation shocked and groping for answers once again, I wonder if Americans are still so sure that we have nothing to learn from Australia’s example
[END CLIPs]
stanley seigler
8:52 am on Thursday, January 17, 2013
PS
in my yute (pre teen and teenage years) in sville there were no assault weapons (WMD)...only shotguns and hunting rifles in wall racks...and a few hand guns...shells were readily available
there were no mass murders...think this was true of most of america...well except for gangster/mafia incidents...eg, machine gun kelly, capone, dillenger, baby face nelson (slightly before my yute) ...and,
the gangster/mafia just shot each other and the law...there were no mass murders in school yards and theaters...this was violent crime not today's mass murders.
i only recall one accidental death with a rifle...kid had 22 over his shoulder it went off and killed his brother...we were very lucky as there was little gun safety education...pre-teen/teens had no business having easy access to guns...
reg
9:57 am on Thursday, January 17, 2013
Yes it will stop mentally deranged persons from getting guns. Make it less easily available (being able to buy one without any background check), make the records better kept (reporting court decisions with rulings of mental incompetence), and it would have stopped the West Virginia massacre. That guy already had a record, and already got declared unfit in a state court ..... and then was able to weapons and ammo, in person and online, with no problem.
reg
10:11 am on Thursday, January 17, 2013
To top it off, Sammy, you're using a questionable source that can't verify the claim. Only the US NRA made that claim, which the Australian government challenged (and which NRA never responded to). After Australia's law passed, gun murders FELL 59% (not increased by 19%, as you/NRA claim); assault by gun plunged, suicide dropped, and home invasion/burglary declined, too.
The only thing the Australian govt did was ban assault weapons, bought back such assault weapons, register individual weapons to their proper owners, and blocked private sales that didn't report the transaction to the government. (Which is a whole lot more than what's being proposed here in the US, btw.)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/08/02/did-gun-control-work-in-australia/
http://jeffsachs.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/Australia-Gun-Law-Reforms.pdf
Concerned one
10:01 am on Thursday, January 17, 2013
Has anyone heard of the battle of Athens, TN in 1946? Look it up, it is a perfect example of why the 2nd Amendment is needed. Here is the link to watch:
http://voxvocispublicus.homestead.com/Battle-of-Athens.html
If someone wants to kill people they do not need guns, look at Oklahoma City bombing, the uni-bomber, Bill Ayres etc... How many people were killed in car collisions? Drug and alcohol abuse? Guns are only as safe as the person using them.
stanley seigler
1:23 pm on Thursday, January 17, 2013
re: battle of Athens, TN in 1946... a perfect example of why the 2nd Amendment is needed.
a perfect example is NOT needed: we have the 2nd. what is it the NRA shooter cappers dont get about this...
perhaps a better Q: how can reasonable intelligent people allow themselves to be 'marks' for today's NRA, whose only motivation is 'sales/profit' for the gun mfgs...(BTW i had a similar Q re hitlers influence over the german people)
this is NOT yo daddy's NRA...
BTW reg reminds of the irony/hypocrisy in voterID and anti-gun law positions...they are similar as well: both address non existing problems...there is no fraud at the ballot box and no one is gonna take anyone's gun.
bet the kochbros and NRA folks are laughing themselves silly over how easily they tricked the rednecks...
BTW2 the chances of the a 'battle of athens' occurring today are almost as good 'a shootout at OK corral' (a perfect example of something) happening in hutchinson sq...both very similar to the chances of a snowball in hell.
Cold War Vet
10:18 am on Thursday, January 17, 2013
It's interesting to note that those that are mentally ill are responsible for a myriad of gun related incidents. Perhaps we should ban SSRI & SNRI antidepressants. From: http://ssristories.com/ -- "On December 15, 2010, PLoS Medicine released a study which showed that, in regard to prescription medications and violence, the FDA had received the most reports of violence from the SSRI & SNRI antidepressants (except for Chantix, the smoking cessation drug.) The study listed Prozac as the number 2 drug for violence, and Paxil as number 3." The preceding link shows a database of 4,800 acts of violence related to taking SSRI & SNRI antidepressants. Click the link "School Shootings / Incidents" and you'll see the majority of gun related violence were the result of someone who was, or had been taking SSRI & SNRI antidepressants.
reg
10:39 am on Thursday, January 17, 2013
Those cases identified by Rx medications only demonstrate commonality, not cause. For example, all of the recent mass killings were by right-handed, unmarried men; that commonality isn't the cause, though.
The only conclusive factor that this demonstrates is that persons who are emotionally and/or mentally strained should not have access to weapons. Just like those declared unfit can't get a driver's license, can't be primary caregivers of children and similar, they shouldn't be able to carry a gun, either.
Our state does not comply with the national office that keeps such records, either. In the past 13 years, the only time SC has reported persons who were declared unstable in courts of law was when those persons filed for concealed permit; in other words, those people who fall under "legally-blocked" class already had personal weapons because the state never reported them when they were supposed to.
reg
10:24 am on Thursday, January 17, 2013
Here's what I don't understand. It seems like the same folks who say we don't need laws about guns are the same ones who say we need laws about Voter ID. I mean, people get killed in mass attacks by assault weapons, but NO --- there's no need for any law that would restrict that right. But there is absolutely no record of any fraudulent voting in South Carolina .... and they say we MUST have that law to PREVENT that from ever occurring. That's hypocritical.
David
3:18 pm on Thursday, January 17, 2013
It's hardly hypocritical to say that 'an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure' but voter fraud IS happening & HAS happened. What is wrong with voter ID to ensure that those who vote are the ones who vote once, not 10 times, or who are unqualified to vote for whatever reason? When it comes to gune people might be killed by guns but what about decent citizens' rights to prevent those who would kill them from doing so
. Let's deal with the real problem where guns are concerned: those who use them & the culture that breeds the kind of people, mentally ill or reacting to a situation with violence rather than reason, & then the problem will be addressed. This "there ought to be a law" philosophy when something we don't like occurs is a knee-jerk reaction which solves nothing!!
reg
3:48 pm on Thursday, January 17, 2013
Provide me with ONE example of fraudulent voting that this ID law will prevent. There aren't any --- go ask the same people who wrote this law but who admitted they had no example.
I can provide you HUNDREDS of examples of lives that would have been saved if persons who were mentally unstable were prevented from access to weapons.
Australia passed a law that blocked sales of assault weapons, required all weapons to be registered and licensed, and required all sales (even private ones) to be reported to authorities. In other words, *the same thing we do with automobiles and driver's licenses.* Since that law passed, there has been NO mass murder in Australia -- the homicide rate plummeted -- the suicide rate dropped -- the robbery rate went down. And everyone who is capable of responsible gun ownership still owns their weapons, too.
David
3:09 pm on Thursday, January 17, 2013
Anything done by government about guns is too aggressive because they enable criminals & protect no decent law abiding citizen. The things recommended by Obama are nothing more than political theater to say they have "done something" about gun violence when they have not addressed the cultural problems of this country that are desensitizing people, especially the most directly affected, the younger people many of whom subsist on a steady diet of video games depicting gratuitous violence. Some movies do this also but then Hollywood would be offended if they dealt with gratuitous violence in some films when Hollywood is owned by the left & helped Obama get re-elected! This move to take guns away from citizens will continue until it will be virtually impossible for the average citizen to protect themselves. Chicago has discovered this. They have some of the toughest gun laws but the highest gun violence, more even than Afghanistan last year. Rom Emmanuel, former Obama adviser & mayor of Chicago says the guns are coming there illegally. So criminals & other perpetrators of gun violence will always get guns but what about those who the guns are being used on? If citizens use a gun to protect themselves against violence
they will be in more trouble than the criminal. This will happen countywide if Obama & his cohorts get their way!!
reg
3:43 pm on Thursday, January 17, 2013
are DUI offenders enabled by having their licenses suspended? And, please -- can you tell us where in the proposals you see any mention of anyone having their guns taken away from them? Your "move to take guns away from citizens" is unsubstantiated -- and unfounded --- and completely false. Citizens who use guns to protect themselves won't be affected, because these proposals don't in any way alienate their rights.
George Grace
5:48 pm on Tuesday, January 22, 2013
Citizens having AR-15's didn't prevent Sandy Hook. So how can you say having millions of them floating around protects citizens?
David
3:22 pm on Thursday, January 17, 2013
Everything Obama does is done for show, not for substance. He has proven this since before he was elected. He is a person of contradictions such as when he voted not to raise the debt ceiling when a senator but now favors it so he can continue to spend the country into oblivion. Any president who says, with a debt like our country has due to reckless spending, that spending is not the problem is more out of touch than any president this country has ever had!! Political theater is his game & to hell with who the fallout damages!!!
robert willis
9:50 pm on Sunday, January 20, 2013
Any gun controls are desperately needed now. If you oppose these measures, you're a stupid redneck or you have no heart or empathy at all for your fellow human beings.
mark nabors
5:07 pm on Tuesday, January 22, 2013
robert, i see that you are enjoying and taking advantage of your right to free speech guaranteed by the constitution . please allow me the same courtesy with my 2nd amendment rights.
reg
6:32 pm on Tuesday, January 22, 2013
just like 1st Amendment rights can be restricted in particular areas at particular times and through particular venues ---- *as can all constitutional rights* --- restricting gun sales to the mentally incompetent and convicted felons is in no way unconstitutional.
stanley seigler
10:18 pm on Tuesday, January 22, 2013
just wondering what do you see as your 2nd rights...maybe right to ensure free/easy access to WMD so to allow kooks to murder our children...
stanley seigler
11:24 pm on Tuesday, January 22, 2013
PS
this in response tp mark nabors' request: allow me the same courtesy with my 2nd amendment rights.
Shawn Drury
11:42 pm on Sunday, January 20, 2013
Robert, I deleted your last comment. No profanity please. Thanks.
stanley seigler
12:18 am on Wednesday, January 23, 2013
what chas mayor joe riley thinks:
'we should encourage our Senators and Congressmen to support President Obama's common sense gun control program that would eliminate high capacity magazines, ban assault weapons, close loopholes and create a universal background check for the purchase of guns. These measures and others will reduce gun violence in our country and in this community.'
http://uspolitics.einnews.com/article/133462078
who's a fellow to believe: utley, 5wv, etc or a respected mayor for 36 years...