Update, 12:45 p.m.: The National Rifle Association (NRA) issued the following statement in response to President Obama's proposals:
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.
---
President Obama announced Wednesday he will ask Congress to pass legislation requiring universal background checks for anyone attempting to buy a gun, restore a ban on military-style assault weapons, and limit magazines to seven bullets.
What do you think of the president's proposals? Tell us in the comments section.
Obama also said he will sign 23 executive orders to enhance background checks, give mental health professionals more options for reporting threats of violence, and providing additional funds to schools to hire resource officers.
Repeatedly mentioning mass shootings in Newtown, CT; Clackamas, OR; and Aurora, CO, Obama said significant enhancements in gun control will come only if people from all parts of the country—including current gun owners—support the changes.
"We have to examine ourselves and our hearts, and ask ourselves, what is important?" he said. "This will not happen unless the American people demand it.”
More details on Obama's proposals can be found in the attached PDF or on a new White House website dedicated to the topic.
Maybe a picture will help... http://i448.photobucket.com/albums/qq203/redgewock/funny%20pics/eputu7y5_zpse92217d2.jpg
Heck, if preservation of life in all cases and as the President has said his bar is 'just one life' maybe some increased restrictions on abortion should be considered. Prove that the proposed restrictions will have a net positive to the violent deaths in this country.
There are the people who want all guns banned. I see people like this on these forums sometimes. They are nuts. There are the people who want all guns legal for law-abiding citizens like themselves. They are also nuts. Then there are normal, reasonable, people who believe there should be some controls on guns. What is frustrating, and the source of my irritation and sarcasm. is that it is impossible to have a discussion on gun control without the people closer to the "all guns should be legal for all law-abiding citizens" end of the spectrum spouting the same bumper sticker slogans, over and over, and drowning out any meaningful discussion. One common tactic, which you heartily employed, is to appeal to peoples' emotions by attempting to demonstrate that the "Founding Fathers" (as if they all agreed on anything!) wanted us to be armed so we could threaten the Union. This has two problems: 1. Your puny weapons don't threaten the government. If you think they do, refer to the Branch Davidians and Ruby Ridge. 2. The founding fathers didn't envision the kind of weapons, or even the kind of society, we have now.
What the Congress should do is do what they do best and tax. Congress should impose a 50% tax on any weapon that can handle 10 rounds or more. For guns that are already owned , there should be a 50% taxes on ammunition for any assault type weapon. We should start with a 50% tax on any .223 round and its reload brass. You would still have the right to own, but you would have to pay for their social danger.
Where are the people who cried about GW Bush after 9/11? The DHS, TSA and Patriot Act were wrong. I haven't changed my mind. And at the time the anti-bush crowd was fit to be tied. But now that their dude is running the show these self-identified liberty advocates disappear into the shadows. The burden of proof for additional restrictions needs to be high and on the person proposing the change. Trading liberties in knee jerk ways is not the way to make changes. If the goal is 'rational' discussion, lets talk about it in 6 months? Of course by that time there won't be any support for the sort of things that Obama is proposing and so he knows it is now or never. Unfortunately this is coming at the cost of the real debate which is the ever-increasing size and spending in government.
I am just frustrated that it isn't possible to have a discussion without being shouted down with sound-bite arguments lifted from well-organized pro-gun websites.
So I don't see a major gain. Sure it might feel good to do something, but that doesn't mean it is good policy.
The picture you linked to has some truth to it. But I haven't advocated that we disarm law-abiding citizens, so I am mystified as to why you think this picture will help me in any way. My principal beef is with the NRA. They pretend to be an advocate for the gun owner, and at one time they were, but no longer. If they were an advocate for gun owners, they might have come out of the meeting with Biden saying they supported closing the background check loophole. Polls show a majority of NRA members support this. Instead, LaPierre just spewed out a bunch of crazy talk demeaning the whole idea of any kind of gun regulation, no matter how sensible and well-supported. I wouldn't care much about the NRA if they didn't exert such extraordinary influence over our government. They aren't just crazy - they're crazy dangerous.
Btw - I am not for an assault rifle ban or taking away weapons, i just find the 'it's in the constitution' excuse to be simplistic and intellectually incomplete. The constitution has changed as recently as 1992, to say it is somehow unacceptable in this case is a poor argument.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ASjfzG4mpyU http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gv2u7l8rKrQ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YQEDvqmAfqg http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gq2faC-u87g
So people such as myself who seek to be in good standing with the law are forced to compromise our freedom to make some politicians feel good about themselves and the availability for criminals stays the same with the added benefit of easy prey.
As for the NRA meeting with Joe "BiteMe," I don't believe the VP called the meeting to listen to the NRA. Rather, it was, This is my government and you will do what I want!
How's the economy working for you John? Who will Obama blame for the last 4 years. How long has it been since Congress passed a budget? Obama hasn't the courage or character to accept blame for anything! But, he sure as hell is "fundamentally changing America!" Now it's "gun owners" who are his target. How about the armed bank robber, armed store robber or any armed criminal. Where the hell do you think they got their weapons? Oh, I forgot. This is just "static" for you. So you just tune it out. How pathetic!
(1) Guns enable gun violence. This is self evident. (2) The NRA's primary objective is helping the gun industry sell more guns. Again, this is pretty obvious. (3) I don't see the NRA doing anything to curb gun violence. I wouldn't say that the NRA enables gun violence, but the evidence is there if somebody else wants to say it.
Blaming Obama for a the lack of a budget betrays your lack of knowledge of how the system works; and/or reveals you are so biased that you're going to blame Obama for everything, including stuff he has no legal authority over. I didn't vote for the man either, it doesn't prevent me from being an honest broker when it comes to his actions. You want a legitimate, impeachable complaint about the man? He orders high tech assassinations on American citizens who haven't been charged with a crime, much less convicted of anything. If your side was honestly concerned about the our 'rights' and the Constitution they would be screaming to the sky over this, but their not. The Libs who screamed about about GWB shredding the Constitution then standby silent when Obama does the same thing are just as bad. Both are nothing more than 2 sides of the same partisan extremist coin. The 'it's okay when my guy does it, but its the end of the world when the other guy does the EXACT SAME THING' partisan mentality is what killing this country, not Obama, and not Bush. Neither man has the power to do that on their own, we voters are bear most of the responsibility.
Some may argue the NRA does this already but unfortunately, the NRA is not neutral and promotes steps forward as well as two steps backward - such as lobbying for laws that prevent the CDC from studying gun violence in the same way they study auto accidents.
People often ask, who needs semi automatic weapons anyhow? Well some U.S. citizens along the gang infested border apparently do.
The Supreme Court is vested with the final authority to interpret the Constitution. Whenever their interpretation contradicts or augments a plain text reading, their interpretation prevails. You don't have to like their interpretation, but you are legally bound to it. The Supreme Court has confirmed that the government is allowed to regulate what firearms are legal, who qualifies to purchase one, and is allowed to designate the process for purchasing one. When the government does so, there are always ignorant shouts that they are ignoring the Second Amendment. We allow people to shout their ignorance because the First Amendment protects their right to do so. The rights of the government to regulate firearms is not limitless. We now know, at long last, that a citywide ban on handguns is unconstitutional. We only know that because it's what the Supreme Court decided that in DC v. Heller in 2008. If you're still reading this, I should point out that I am not really addressing these comments to you. Facts are no more likely to persuade you than name calling is likely to persuade me.
Sorry---I'm having trouble understanding what your point is. Could you rephrase it? I was simply pointing out that the basis for having any laws, rules or regulations in society is the same across all laws. Even though gun rights and regulations are a very emotional issue for most of us that is no reason to exempt them from the sound reasoning that is the basis for a society that is held together by laws.