Obama Takes a First Step on Gun Control After Sandy Hook

  • Share
  • Read Later
Charles Dharapak / AP

President Barack Obama stands with Vice President Joe Biden as he makes a statement on Dec. 19, 2012, in the Brady Press Briefing Room at the White House in Washington, about policies he will pursue following the massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn.

President Barack Obama announced Wednesday that the White House would submit new gun-control proposals to Congress next month and pledged to “use all the powers of this office” to identify and promote new polices to address the scourge of gun violence.

Obama tapped Vice President Joe Biden to head up a task force of Cabinet members, members of Congress and outside organizations, which will comb through existing gun-control proposals, devise new ones and submit a “very specific” set of proposals to Congress in January.

Obama did not offer details about what the proposals would contain, but he noted that he had chosen Biden — who was the White House’s point person on the stimulus package and has served as a liaison to Congress on tricky topics — partly because he had a hand in crafting the 1994 crime bill that outlawed assault weapons. Democratic Senator Dianne Feinstein has vowed to reintroduce a bill to ban assault weapons, which President George W. Bush let lapse, when Congress returns in January.

It was the third time Obama has spoken publicly about gun violence since 26 victims were massacred inside a Connecticut elementary school last week, and the first time he has outlined concrete steps to address the issue. A handful of NRA-backed Democrats have issued statements telegraphing openness to new restrictions on gun rights. But despite Obama’s pledges to tackle the problem — and a broad public outcry that has stirred optimism that the mass shooting might breathe life into dormant gun-control legislation — there are formidable forces arrayed against him.

Republicans still hold a majority in the House for the next two years, and there are enough gun-rights votes to stall a bill in the Senate. To move a bill, Obama will require the support of lawmakers from both parties who have felt beholden to the gun lobby or at least lacked the will to challenge it. The White House will also have to grapple with powerful gun-rights groups directly. In keeping with its traditional response to mass shootings, the NRA has said little since the tragedy at Sandy Hook Elementary, except to issue a statement pledging “to offer meaningful contributions to help make sure this never happens again.”

Seeking to sidestep a backlash from the NRA, Obama reaffirmed his belief in the Second Amendment and said he would seek common ground with the “vast majority” of responsible gun owners. “There is a big chunk of space between what the Second Amendment means and having no rules at all,” he said. Asked about the clout of the gun lobby, which has often cowed lawmakers into backing down on the divisive topic, Obama said, “The NRA is an organization that has members who are mothers and fathers, and I would expect that they’ve been impacted by this is as well.”

Obama promised that the task force was not merely a symbolic gesture. Washington has a not-so-storied tradition of promising change, assembling a blue-ribbon panel to untangle a knotty problem and then quietly bowing to the forces of inertia once the public’s attention locks onto another topic. “This is not some Washington commission,” Obama said, effectively acknowledging that it sounds like one. “This is not something where folks are going to be studying the issue for six months and publishing a report that gets read and then pushed aside … This is a team that has a very specific task: to pull together real reforms, right now.”

The President eschewed gun-control during his first term, and while he has said he supports a ban on assault weapons (“weapons of war,” he called them on Wednesday) and pointed to better mental-health-care practices as part of the solution, it is an open question what new kinds of proposals he would support. When a reporter buttonholed him about his inaction on gun control during his presidency, Obama rattled off the litany of challenges that have preoccupied him. “I haven’t exactly been on vacation,” he said.

Obama said he would use his State of the Union address next month to keep the country’s focus on the topic, in an effort to keep the spotlight on as Congress takes up the tricky issue. “It won’t be easy,” he admitted. “But that can’t be an excuse not to try.”

860 comments
jweav2002
jweav2002

Obama as commander in chief you should know "weapons of war" and assault weaspons are ALREADY ILLEGAL idiot. Stop inferring single shot guns with magazines  which may be decked out with lots of cool accessories as "assault weapons". You do this deliberatly and behind your criminal defense missleading media keep getting away with it. At some point the media will be forced to unveil you for the fool you think we are. We have been threratened with thermonuclear war by a lunatic leader with the ability to clean our clocks with just ONE nuclear strike and you remain silent on the issue! Where is our commander In Chief? We know where our snokered VP is. Out making a fool og himself.

jweav2002
jweav2002

He has been on vacation, are you kidding yourself obama. Four vacations since the begging of this year. Huge parties on our dime. Who do you think you are? Your spending of tax money on your hedonistic idulgments reveals your whole family to be callus greedy self-aggrandizing assess. Muchelle hired here two kids fort $10,000 each as aides during the vacations they took. All in different destinations tripling the costs to taxpayers.

Using grieving families AGAIN for political gain by having them replace you - not join you- but replace you in addressing congress on gun control issues is one of the most egregious cowardly things I have ever witnessesd. You are a despicable coward, you have zero respect from me and millions more. . The lives of our people in  Bengasi people were thrown under the bus and murdered and though you find the money to throw huge parties at the people's WHITE HOUSE, there is NO money to pay the way for the mother of the Navy Seal who died at Bengasi (talk show host Sean Hannity) is paying for her and a needed companion to be able to be at her son's award ceremony. How cheap and cruel you are. You are a real detrement to your race - the race of Mankind in general.

JeffCombs
JeffCombs

Why dont they make a file of ballistics for guns before there sold, so they have the guns fingerprint on file for furture use ? criminal cases !

dontn123
dontn123

"In the wake of the shooting rampage in Newtown, Conn.,Jewish groups are looking to build alliances and back legislation to strengthen gun control laws.


A number of Jewish groups have indicated that they will back a gun control bill proposed Monday by Jewish Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), the first since the Newtown shooting. It would ban more than 100 assault weapons and ammunition clips that contain more than 10 rounds.
Feinstein helped draft the last iteration of an assault weapons ban, in 1994. It lapsed in 2004, after the National Rifle Association fought against its renewal.
Rabbi David Saperstein, the director of the Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism, said that his group is assembling a coalition that would be ready to act once the right legislation comes along.

Saperstein told JTA in an interview. “When the parents across America start crying out for effective action, if there's religious leadership, it will galvanize the community to create the moral demand that moves toward sensible legislation.”
Staff at the RAC, the locus in the Jewish community for gun control initiatives in past decades, spent Monday reaching out to other Jewish leaders, as well as to leaders of other faith communities.
B'nai B'rith International on Monday demanded the reinstatement of the assault weapons ban.
The Jewish Council for Public Affairs circulated a petition through its constituent Jewish community relations councils that calls for "meaningful legislation to limit access to assault weapons and high capacity ammunition magazines, aggressive enforcement of firearm regulations."
The National Council of Jewish Women, which has also taken a leading role in the Jewish community on gun control initiatives in the past, announced its support Tuesday for the Feinstein legislation and for legislation proposed by Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) that would tighten background checks. The NCJW has in the past mobilized a grassroots network of activists to push for gun control legislation. “We support her bill.”
The United Synagogue for Conservative Judaism and the Conservative movement’s Rabbinical Assembly on Monday called not only for a ban on assault weapons, but for longer purchase times, deeper background checks, coding ammunition for identification and banning online sales of ammunition.
In addition to Feinstein and Schumer, a number of other Jewish lawmakers have also weighed in. Rep. Nita Lowey (D-N.Y.), who in the next Congress will be the top Democrat on the House Appropriations Committee, said in a statement that “expressions of sympathy must be matched by concrete actions.”
Jewish Sen. Joseph Lieberman (I-Conn.), who is retiring, expressed support for an assault weapons ban and proposed a national commission on mass shootings. In addition to banning assault weapons, Jewish groups are also seeking broader initiatives to address violence.

“We will back any legislation that bans assault weapons and the ammunition as well as giving families what they need to treat individuals with a proclivity toward violence,” said Turnbull, a former vice-chairwoman of the Democratic National Committee. “I think this will be the ‘big idea,’ that the president is not going to limit the conversation to just guns."
http://www.jpost.com/JewishWorld/JewishNews/Article.aspx?id=296498

Why build alliances that they already have due to FAITH and ANCESTRY BACK GROUNDS? NO MORE TALK ABOUT THE NRA. How many JEWS are in these groups?

Video about ZIONIST - Jewish Gun Grabbers in America these Jews are also responsible for schools being gun free why would they do that and make schools wide open to criminals:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dgPZ-9Q8T4U

dontn123
dontn123

Something evil part 2 being played out on the heart strings of the public? Watch this video about Sandy Hook
http://youtu.be/dvq2zABOtL8

CAUGHT why would they do this kind of acting?

dontn123
dontn123

King Obama and IRONY or is it hypocrites

"Some interesting news has broken in the wake of the latest push for gun control by President Obama and Senate Democrats: Obama sends his kids to a school where armed guards are used as a matter of fact.
The school, Sidwell Friends School in Washington, DC, has 11 security officers and is seeking to hire a new police officer as we speak.
If you dismiss this by saying, "Of course they have armed guards -- they get Secret Service protection," then you've missed the larger point.
The larger point is that this is standard operating procedure for the school, period. And this is the reason people like NBC's David Gregory send their kids to Sidwell, they know their kids will be protected from the carnage that befell kids at a school where armed guards weren't used (and weren't even allowed).
Shame on President Obama for seeking more gun control and for trying to prevent the parents of other school children from doing what he has clearly done for his own. His children sit under the protection guns afford, while the children of regular Americans are sacrificed."
The 11 guards are in addition to Secret Service details
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/12/23/School-Obama-s-Daughters-Attend-Has-11-Armed-Guards-Not-Counting-Secret-Service

dontn123
dontn123

" No Guns for Negros

In much the same way, gun control has historically been a tool of racism, and associated with racist attitudes about black violence. Similarly, many gun control laws impinge on that most fundamental of rights: self-defense. Racism is so intimately tied to the history of gun control in America that we should regard gun control aimed at law-abiding people as a "suspect idea," and require that the courts use the same demanding standards when reviewing the constitutionality of a gun control law, that they would use with respect to a law that discriminated based on race."

http://jpfo.org/articles-assd02/cramer-racist-roots.htm

According to that people that want gun bans are RACIST

How about No Guns for JEWs?

"No Guns for Jews" is a major breakthrough and a potent weapon with tremendous potential to destroy “gun control” at this critical time in America, but millions must see it and take action! To that end follow these three simple steps —
1. Watch the film perhaps two or three times to fully appreciate its raw stopping power against Jewish "gun controllers" leading high profile 2A attacks.
2. Share it with everyone you come in contact with: every website, blogger, writer, commentator, gun owner, shooting club officer, lawmaker – Everyone!
3. Make a special effort to get a copy in the hands of your Rabbi, minister or other influential religious contacts, to arrange group showings.

No Guns for Jews exposes, the …
Dangerous stupidity and hypocrisy of Jewish "gun controllers".
Evils of those who use man’s law to subvert G-d’s self-defense laws.
Mental Illnesses distorting the minds and ethics of "gun controllers".
Suicidal Jewish support for the United Nations’ small arms treaty.
Jewish support for Nazi policies in American laws and regulations.
Biblical evidence calling for an armed citizenry and much, much more""

Jews for Preservation of Gun Ownership Link

http://jpfo.org/filegen-n-z2/ngj-download-view.php

fitty_three
fitty_three

Oh, but wait, you NRA bozos!

The newest mass shooting involved a madman with a Bushmaster assault rifle! Just like the Sandy Hook shooter.

So hey, what now?  It doesn't count?  What about the shooting in Penn.  

Maybe you idjits need to wake up and realize that 15 mass shootings and 18,000 other deaths means only one thing:

There. Are. Too. Damn Many. Guns. On The. Street.. Ban assault rifles and tighten screening and eliminate loopholes.

Got it?

Look up "parsimony", too. 

dontn123
dontn123

I remember losing a brother mny years ago and no one in my family was smiling and joking the next day. Other families that have known were also severely emotional for week months and even years later......except these which were filmed by news teams...these are actual reported peole at Sandy Hook that lost family the day before.....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9QVKu4_JxcE&feature=youtu.be


Shall we mention the fake crying from OBAMA?

Ralph
Ralph

"To move a bill, Obama will require the support of lawmakers from both parties who have felt beholden to the gun lobby or at least lacked the will to challenge it."

Leave it to the left wing media to come up with a statement like this. Could anyone actually be thinking about the constitution and the stripping of our constitutionally guaranteed rights as they vote for or against things?

Actually, TIME is correct. they didn't think of our rights when they voted for "The Patriot Act" or HR1540. Why would they think of them now.

j45ashton
j45ashton

According to a recent poll, 70% of NRA members do NOT support assault weapons, extended magazines & unchecked sales at gun shows.  Why the hell politicians fear a membership of 1.2 million people is beyond me...but just marks most of them as nothing but self-seeking cowards.  I don't expect to convince any of the 1.2 million NRA members of the abject stupidity of supporting assault weapons, extended magazines & unchecked sales at gun shows any more than I'd expect to convince a 6 year old that eating 2 gallons of ice cream in 10 minutes would make him sick.  This isn't a matter of debate.  It's a simple matter of authority.  Keep your hunting rifles & normal clip handguns.  Assault weapons & extended magazines should be banned.  Unchecked sales at gun shows banned.  The laws need to changed and enforced.  End of story.  And yes, Wayne LaPierre is crazy.  Crazy, warped & completely mentally & emotionally disturbed.  

Marky_D_Sodd
Marky_D_Sodd

So. Just in time for Christmas!!!

Two more NRA-Terrorist murders!!!!

This time two firefighters.

No doubt the insane LaPierre will now say the solution is police protection for Firefighters!!!

The solution is to outlaw ALL firearms for ALL persons, except military and police.

Two more reasons the NRA Murder Machine is going down this time!

revman
revman

I am not an NRA menber but they have 4 million(paying) members and seem to make MORE sence than Biden does.

superlogi
superlogi

Progressive mantra: Never let a tragedy go to waste when you're trying to weaken the Constitution and strengthen the government.

TerryClifton
TerryClifton

Why is it that 99.9999% of all people who die by a gun are unarmed themselves? Imagine that.. I wonder if the parents of those children who were killed in Newton, were blaming the NRA when they learned that their children were killed by a P-O-S coward? I find it absolutely ridiculous that some people in here are blaming the NRA for the murders of those children and not the coward and his mother for this heinous act. I'm not a NRA member but I own 2 guns for my protection, and if the anti-gun Nazis get their wish both of my guns (.40cal Beretta handgun/20 gauge pump shotgun) will be illegal; so what then? Should I blindly believe that the police will be there to protect my life if someone breaks in my home? 

TerryClifton
TerryClifton

So what's wrong with an armed policeman posted at every school in America? Our local school district has an officer at every school. Last year a deranged man came to a local high school waving a gun and was shot and killed by a woman police officer who was posted there. No student or faculty member was hurt. The officer was hailed as a hero, and rightly so. The man was carrying a .38 caliber pistol.  So, again what's wrong with having local police officers on duty at our schools? David Gregory from NBC doesn't think it's a good idea, even though his children attend a school that has a security team of 11 personal.

mwacky4u
mwacky4u

Anger can be a response to horrific events.  But it will not improve public safety.  We need thoughtful dialogue.  We need measured restraint.   Civility--without hostility against the NRA and gun owners--is our best hope for a brighter future.   We are not a mob, we are a nation.  When we stand together, we can accomplish great things.  Let us determine to do so.

Marky_D_Sodd
Marky_D_Sodd


With the NRA's public meltdown via Wayne LaPierre's television appearance, there is no need for anyone to be on-the-fence about gun control now!  The NRA's position which he stated makes it very plain that the murderous NRA represents gun owners' beliefs that we should raise our children in a military-type environment of fear with armed guards all around them in the most-free country in the world.

Thus, the NRA has clearly and publicly shown that it is, by its own policies and definition, un-American.

I'm proud that my son could have, and most of the kids in this country can,
play and go to school without armed "soldiers" standing over them like a
Middle East country. The NRA had not made it necessary, when he was a boy, for my son to deal with the deadly potential of weapons as a necessary skill by which he MIGHT survive adolescence.

There simply is no valid reason for private possession of weapons whether
handguns, rifles, and shotguns.  So I am learning how to be an activist to shut down the NRA death-machinery.  I begin by showing  the NRA leadership up for its cowardice, hiding behind military weapons designed to kill large numbers of people in war. 

Today is the NRA's greatest day of shame. The unfortunate reality is that a free society can never provide enough security of any kind to protect every last school in the country from a lone, deluded murderer. A suicidal killer will find a way to carry out his evil plan even if there was an armed guard in every classroom.

REPEAL THE SECOND AMENDMENT!

CLOSE DOWN THE NRA DEATH MACHINE!

TELL YOUR CONGRESSPERSONS THIS *IS* A 2014 ELECTION/REELECTION ISSUE!

Marky_D_Sodd
Marky_D_Sodd

What sane person can imagine trying to turn the principals and teachers who care
for our children every day into an armed mob. And let’s be clear,
civilians bristling with guns to prevent the “next Newtown” ARE an armed
mob even with "training" offered up by the deranged Mr. LaPierre. Any town officials
or school principals who take up the N.R.A. on that offer should be fired.
 

The frantic and wild-eyed Mr. LaPierre said the Newtown killing spree “might” have been averted if the killer had been confronted by an armed security guard. It’s far more likely that there would have been a dead armed security guard — just as there would have been even more carnage if
civilians had started firing weapons in the Aurora movie theater.

In the 62 mass-murder cases over 30 years examined recently by the
magazine Mother Jones, NOT A SINGLE ONE was stopped by an armed civilian. We have
known for many years that a sheriff’s deputy was at Columbine High
School in 1999 and fired at one of the two killers while 11 of their 13
victims were still alive. 

He missed four times.
 

Madmen like Mr. LaPierre want us to believe that civilians can be
trained to use lethal force with cold precision in moments of fear and
crisis. Such belief requires a willful ignorance about the facts. 

Police officers know that firing a weapon is a huge risk; that’s why they avoid
doing it. In August, New York City police officers opened fire on a
gunman outside the Empire State Building. They killed him and wounded
nine bystanders.


Mr. LaPierre said the news media call the semiautomatic weapon used in
Newtown a machine gun, claim that it’s a military weapon and that it
fires the most powerful ammunition available. 

That’s not true. 

What is true is that there is a growing call in America for stricter gun
control, beginning with repeal of the anachronistic Second Amendment.

Marky_D_Sodd
Marky_D_Sodd

We hear the staccato bursts of semi-automatic fire echoing off the walls of a supposed place of safety. We register not only the terror but the bewilderment on the faces of tiny survivors as they are marched, hands on the shoulders of kids in front of them, from the grounds of Sandy Hook Elementary School.

Last week's Newtown, Conn. massacre reminds us that America is emphatically not, as President Obama and the rest of us would wish it to be, "better than this."

Indeed, we are the only First World nation that has routinized a failed response to gun violence -- weak, craven, ineffectual. It's not that other parts of the world are immune from "rampage violence." It's just that when it does happen those other countries tend to take action while the U.S. dithers, continuing to far outstrip the rest of the developed world in rates of mass murder.

In keeping with a tradition of both public and private grieving, we light our candles and gather to weep with others on street corners and in houses of worship. We cry tears into the sink as we rinse out our coffee mugs, or transfer clothes from washer to dryer. We write editorials, such as this one, bemoaning the "gun culture," inadequate laws and controls, and our society's failure to help, or at least protect us from, those suffering dangerous forms of mental illness.

Then, for those of us who did not lose our own children, we return inexorably to the habits of daily living. With absolutely nothing accomplished.

We are in denial about our duty to stop gun violence. We're awed by what we stupidly perceive to be the power of the National Rifle Association, -- a stupid perception exposed after the ranting, demented performance of Wayne LaPierre --and the political clout of those RepubliKKKan members of congress whose loyalty has been purchased by the NRA.

So we wait. We wait for the next slaughter, knowing it will surely come. Nothing has changed, nothing will change. Not unless we resolve to become, in the president's aspirational words, "better than this."

How do we accomplish that? Through repeal of the Second Amendment—which made sense when it was written but makes no sense now--and the enactment of a new replacement amendment.

And what would the new amendment look like?

• RESTRICTION OF GUN OWNERSHIP to those persons who are current members of a “well-ordered” militia: which means a military branch of the government.

• Registration of all those firearms;

• Licensing of all persons possessing guns as part of their membership in “a well-ordered militia”, to include full psychological examination and EVALUATION, completion of a full background check, and a passing score in a gun-safety course approved by the military;

• Safe and secure (locked) storage and transport of all firearms;

• Criminal and civil penalties for owners whose guns have fallen negligently into the hands of violent felons, minors, the mentally ill, or any person who subsequently uses those weapons in the commission of any felony, and prosecution as a co-defendant of those owners whose weapons have been used in any felony in which a life is lost;

• ABSOLUTE ban on all assault weapons and high-capacity magazines, except for those possessed by the military and law enforcement;

• Ban on so-called "armor-piercing" handgun bullets;

• The elimination of the infamous gun-show loophole in the Brady bill.

Troubador222
Troubador222

Watching this unfold, and doing some research, unless people who want gun control find an advocacy group and help fund it, the NRA is going to stay very powerful. They can afford to hear all the criticism about their opinions that come along. Bottom line is, in the 2010 elections, the NRA spent 8 to 10 million, (sums vary according to sources). The largest advocacy group for gun control, the Brady Center spent 5000 dollars. Seriously, the way things work, people need to find some group that will compete, and donate to help fund them. As a disclosure, I am a gun owner, but I do not and never will belong to the NRA.

Marky_D_Sodd
Marky_D_Sodd

Wayne LaPierre, the executive vice president of the National Rifle Association, would have been better advised to remain wherever he had been hiding after the Newtown, Conn., massacre, rather than appear at a news conference on Friday. No one seriously believed the NRA when it said it would contribute something “meaningful” to the discussion about gun violence. The organization’s very existence is predicated on the nation being torn in half over guns. Still, we were stunned by Mr. LaPierre’s copious lying, delusional,deranged rant.

Mr. LaPierre looked wild-eyed at times as he said the killing was the fault of the media, songwriters and singers and the people who listen to them, movie and TV scriptwriters and the people who watch their work, advocates of gun control, video game makers and video game players.

According to the deranged LaPierre, the NRA --which devotes itself to destroying compromise on guns--is blameless. So are unscrupulous and unlicensed dealers who sell guns to criminals, and gun makers who bankroll Mr. LaPierre so he can help them peddle ever-more-lethal, ever-more-efficient products, and politicians who kill even modest controls over guns.


Marky_D_Sodd
Marky_D_Sodd

GRIEVING MOTHERS IN CONNECTICUT WILL HAVE A CHRISTMAS

MEMORY FOR THE REST OF THEIR LIVES THANKS TO THE NRA!!! 

Guns are DESIGNED to KILL.

Cars are not designed to kill.

Ropes are not designed to kill.

Motorcycles are not designed to kill.

Knives are not designed to kill.

Loaves of bread are not.

Baseball bats are not designed to kill

Movies are not designed to kill.

Videogames are not designed to kill.

Airplanes are not designed to kill.

GUNS ARE DESIGNED TO KILL!

NRA PROMOTES SLAUGHTER AND DEATH!

GRIEVING MOTHERS: UNITE!  M.A.D.D. WILL BE HAPPY TO HELP YOU DO SO!  

Marky_D_Sodd
Marky_D_Sodd

When Gabby Giffords was shot in Arizona, she was speaking to a
crowd of a couple hundred people. It being AZ, news reports said there
were people in the crowd who were carrying guns. Yet nobody pulled out
their piece and shot the guy. Why not?
Because they weren't stupid, that's why.
In an incident like that, everything happens very fast and there is
complete chaos. Even if you were standing in the front row with your
gun in your clothing and happened to be looking in the right direction
at the right moment, here's what you risk if you draw it:
1. Being mistaken for the bad guy and getting shot yourself by some other 'citizen hero'.
2. Shooting a citizen hero or plain clothes cop thinking they're the bad guy.
3. Shooting an innocent bystander.
4. Getting shot by the bad guy, who, unlike you with your handgun, has a
semi automatic rifle spraying off a 30 round (or up to 100 round) clip
in a matter of seconds.
Furthermore,
remember that many of the bad guys are fully prepared, wearing bullet
proof vests and the like. You'd better have an excellent aim, good
eyesight, and a steady arm so
you can hit him in the head with your one shot. Cuz if you miss and he
turns on you, its no match gun for gun.
Imagine the scene at the Giffords shooting if 4 or 5 people pulled out guns and started shooting.
Seriously, the gun lobby is delusional if they really believe this nonsense is a practical idea. The body count would escalate
dramatically.

Marky_D_Sodd
Marky_D_Sodd

"There are 20 thousand gun laws in this country. Why do we need any more?"

Think about it. Most of those laws are city ordinances. If one community has tough gun control laws and a city nearby has little or no gun control laws, the gun laws won't have a lot of effect. The guns will flow from the city with no restrictions to the city with strict laws. New York City is a good example of this. Most guns used in crimes in New York were purchased legally somewhere else and transported to NYC. But the experiences of many other nations have shown that when a few reasonable, modest gun control laws are passed on a nation-wide basis, they DO have a significant effect on reducing crime.

CerebralSmartie
CerebralSmartie

Picture this. Teacher has gun near desk and turns his back on students as he gives power point presentation in darkened room. Student knows where gun is hidden and steals gun.

easyweblinx
easyweblinx

now is the time to act....................!

As a european the gun laws in the US are hard to understand.


easynewslinx.com

CerebralSmartie
CerebralSmartie

PresidentObama  please to read this. Australia’s response to a massacre holds lessons for U.S.


Australia has much in common with the United States. It was initial ly settled by teeming  masses — in its case, largely convicts — fleeing England. Its identity was forged in the populating of its vast, empty spaces. And today it retains a considerable frontier mentality, and a considerable amount of ranching and hunting. But the similarities end when it comes to guns. While gun ownership has been a part of Australians’ way of life, they have a much more utilitarian view of their purpose.

Since ’96 law,no mass shootings--So, when a gunman killed 35 people in 1996 with a semiautomatic rifle in the tourist town of Port Arthur, on the island of Tasmania, the Australian people decided it wastime for a change.

A new law, backed by a conservative prime minister, divided firearms into five categories. Some of the deadliest assault-style weapons and large ammunition clips are now all but impossible for individuals to lawfully own.

Firearms are subject to a strict permitting process, and dealers are required to record sales, which are tracked by the national and territorial governments. What’s more, the law encouraged people to sell their firearms back to the government, which purchased and destroyed about 700,000 of them.

The results are hard to argue with. According to a Harvard University study, 13 gun massacres (in which four or more people died) occurred in the 18 years before the law was enacted. In the 16 years since there has been none. Zero.

The overall firearm homicide rate dropped from 0.43 per 100,000 in the seven years before the law to 0.25 in the seven years after. By 2009, the rate had dropped further, to just 0.1 per 100,000, or one per million. In the USA, the 2009 firearm homicide rate was 3.3 per 100,000, some 33 times higher than Australia’s.

There are, to be sure, some significant differences between Australia and the United States. Australia has 3 million guns; America has roughly 300 million. The U.S. has greater constitutional protections for keeping and bearing arms. And the gun lobby in Australia is nowhere near as powerful as the National Rifle Association is in the U.S. But the Australian experience demonstrates what can be accomplished if a people gets serious about gun violence. The key is not merely to adopt new gun laws, but to undergo a cultural shift. Similar shifts
have occurred around such issues as smoking and excessive drinking, especially when driving is involved.

The early signs are that the massacre in Newtown, Conn., will cause a significant push for tighter gun restrictions, which the White House endorsed on Tuesday. As the debate takes shape in coming weeks, lawmakers would do well to focus on the successes in Australia. That country has shown how tighter gun laws, and sensible attitudes about the role of guns in society, can make a real difference. We could learn
much from our friends down under.

Marky_D_Sodd
Marky_D_Sodd

There were two armed guards at Columbine at the time of the shooting, and they were unable to stop the kids. When you have a couple people with automatic or semi-automatic weapons whose sole goal is to kill as many people as possible with no regard for their own life, it is very difficult to take them out before they have done a lot of damage.

There were two armed guards at Columbine at the time of the shooting, and they were unable to stop the kids. When you have a couple people with automatic or semi-automatic weapons whose sole goal is to kill as many people as possible with no regard for their own life, it is very difficult to take them out before they have done a lot of damage.

83 Americans have been killed by a gun since the Sandy Hook massacre ended.

Marky_D_Sodd
Marky_D_Sodd

A well-armed gunman gets into a school. Will the armed guard be

a)trained

b) in the right place at the right time 

c)alert to what is happening in time?

d)well enough equipped with armor as well as heavy
guns to react effectively?

e)able to dispatch the gunman without harm to
the kids? 

Chances are he/she will go down with the kids.

 If an armed guard is stationed in every school, what about the
school BUSES? Even if an armed guard was on each of them, one could
shoot the students from outside the bus....unless the bus were armored,
of course. And then, a grenade could fix THAT! OR the kids gathered at
school bus STOPS? Even with a guard at each of these, a driveby
shooting could take them all out in a flash. So where does it STOP?
What about commuter trains and buses? What about churches and synagogues?

On every ferry? In every hospital?  In every Nursing home?  At every Little League game and soccer
practice? At movies and theaters?  At Boy Scout Jamborees?  At Girl Scout summer camp?

Marky_D_Sodd
Marky_D_Sodd

So, let's play this out. If everyone in the crowded, darkened theater

in Aurora Colorado had drawn and fired there would have been fewer

casualties? And at Sandy Hook, if the teachers, the janitors, homeless
people, random passers-by, and parents rushing into the school, had
responded, guns blazing...what exactly would have been the body count?
The only people NOT shooting in this scenario would most likely be the
police who would not be able to tell the difference between the bad guy
and the idiots.

You have to love this new theme: "guns don't
kill people...liberals do with their gun laws." The defense of
extended magazines and assault weapons is obscene.

Apart from the tiresome infighting wherein the RepubliKKKans reject their own proposals, and
Mitch McConnell filibusters himself, do Republicans really want to be the party of Death and No Taxes for the Rich?

Marky_D_Sodd
Marky_D_Sodd

Not one delusional, lying,  paranoid and self-serving word spewed by the NRA
today was convincing. Not one. Their statement was dark, it was
threatening and as Mayor Bloomberg called it, evasive. I might add it
was also really creepy.

They offered a truly ugly vision of America's future that my family and I want no part of.

They have shown their hand. Ideologically inflexible, they have no intention
of acting in good faith to help lead America out of this nightmare but
are prepared to double down on the insanity. And the death of innocents.

They must now be completely cut out of the equation for our country's good.
They have blown completely this historic opportunity. Did anyone really
expect them not to? It's time for the rest of us, the responsible
adults, the true conscience of this country, to force the change our
country needs without them. Because we love our children more than we
fear our own government.

That's always been a specious argument of convenience for the gun nutters anyway.

I predict the 2nd Amendment will soon be amended as to be unambiguous. It
is the most poorly worded part of the Constitution and it's definitely long past time. The founders would be grateful.

Marky_D_Sodd
Marky_D_Sodd

When Gabby Giffords was shot in Arizona, she was speaking to a
crowd of a couple hundred people. It being AZ, news reports said there
were people in the crowd who were carrying guns. Yet nobody pulled out
their piece and shot the guy. Why not?

Because they weren't stupid, that's why.

In an incident like that, everything happens very fast and there is
complete chaos. Even if you were standing in the front row with your
gun in your clothing and happened to be looking in the right direction
at the right moment, here's what you risk if you draw it:

1. Being mistaken for the bad guy and getting shot yourself by some other 'citizen hero'.

2. Shooting a citizen hero or plain clothes cop thinking they're the bad guy.

3. Shooting an innocent bystander.

4. Getting shot by the bad guy, who, unlike you with your handgun, has a
semi automatic rifle spraying off a 30 round (or up to 100 round) clip
in a matter of seconds.

Furthermore, remember that many of the bad guys are fully prepared, wearing bullet proof vests and the like. You'd better have an excellent aim, good eyesight, and a steady arm so
you can hit him in the head with your one shot. Cuz if you miss and he
turns on you, its no match gun for gun.

Imagine the scene at the Giffords shooting if 4 or 5 people pulled out guns and started shooting.
Seriously, the gun lobby is delusional if they really believe this nonsense is a practical idea. The body count would escalate
dramatically.

Marky_D_Sodd
Marky_D_Sodd

The NRA’s suggestion to arm schools perfectly reflects its primitive
cognitive abilities: fight fire with fire, a bullet with a bullet. Let’s
reduce schools to armed fortresses, and have children wear bullet-proof
back packs. This is not civilization; this is a step backward to the
Wild West, to the jungle. It paints a chilling vision of society: every
man, woman and child packing a gun, ready to dive behind the nearest
car and fire on anything that moves. The NRA attitude is cynical and
Puritanical: humans are inherently evil and unable to help themselves.

Similarly,
in the wake of the Connecticut disaster America continues to ask the
wrong questions. We ask: what do we tell our children? Why didn’t we
see the warning signs in these troubled individuals? How can we
increase school security? These questions are knee-jerk, non-reflective
reactions that allow us to point our fingers at someone or something
else like mental health and building security, rather than at our
collective selves. Instead of reactive, we need to be more proactive.
We need to ask: what are we doing as a society that makes these deadly
situations too easy to happen?

The knuckle-dragging NRA worships
individual freedom and disdains the collective well-being. But
sometimes the collective just has to make pragmatic decisions. If a
child, in a fit of unfettered freedom, is pounding a hole in the living
room wall with a hammer, we take the hammer away from him or her. It’s
time to grow up America.

Marky_D_Soddd
Marky_D_Soddd

Since 1950, every public shooting of 3 or more people has taken place in gun free zones with the exception of the Gabby Gifford shooting.

Marky_D_Sodd
Marky_D_Sodd

JOIN THE NRA!!!

They have GALLONS of blood sitting around, just waiting to initiate you!

Marky_D_Sodd
Marky_D_Sodd

Marky_D_Soddd -- Sarah says you can have Todd.  He likes effeminent boys, and she's tired of him.

Mother Jones reported the other day, based on a pretty thorough look at mass shootings, that “not one of the 62 mass shootings in the United States over the last 30 years has been stopped” by an armed civilian. In a couple of cases a bystander subdued the gunman after the fact. In a couple of other cases, attempted interventions went horribly wrong, with well-intentioned civilians shot dead or wounded by the assailants.

While other advanced countries have imposed gun control laws, America has conducted a natural experiment in what happens when a society has as many guns as people. The results are in, and they’re not counterintuitive.

OldBenFranklin
OldBenFranklin

Would you put a sign in your yard that said, "Gun Free Zone"? Do you want anyone who drives through your neighborhood (especially at night) to know there are no guns in your home? No you don't want everyone to know that. Not unless you're a halfwit. So, why would anyone put a "Gun Free Zone" sign in front of an elementary school?

OldBenFranklin
OldBenFranklin

Here is a thought experiment. Put all the gun control advocates on one side of the country (say the Eastern US) and all the gun owning/carrying advocates on the other side of the country, Western US. Now, does anyone have to be told which side of the country the burglars, night stalkers, rapists and other assorted crazies will move to?

Marky_D_Soddd
Marky_D_Soddd

I am actually a member of the lemon party check us out!

Marky_D_Sodd
Marky_D_Sodd

About the only thing more terrifying than a lone gunman firing into a
classroom or a crowded movie theater is a half a dozen more gunmen leaping
around firing their pistols at the killer, which is to say really at each other
and every bystander. It’s a police officer’s nightmare.

In the movies, the bad guys can empty 200 rounds at the Green Hornet and
miss every time, while the good guys can knock a man off a fire escape from 200
feet with a rusty pistol, but here are a few facts from the real world:

In 1999, New York police officers who were actually trained to use their
weapons when seconds count (i.e., unlike civilians), fired 41 shots at Amadou
Diallo and missed 22 times.

Last August, two New York police officers fired 16 rounds in an altercation
with an armed man outside
the Empire State Building. Ten people were hit – the gunman and nine
bystanders.

Does anyone think armed civilians would do better?