Analysis: Move on assault weapons creates risks for Obama

Comments (38)
Moondogblue wrote:

Moving on assault weapons (with gun control) creates risks for the stability of the whole country. More than 1% of all people eligible to vote submitted background checks last month alone. Government needs to back off and start doing their jobs. Folks are fed up being told what they can and cannot do, especially when the government plunges headlong from one crisis to another.

Jan 15, 2013 12:22am EST  --  Report as abuse

“honest with the American people”
Sir, your track record on honesty is not very good. May I suggest you sit down and shut up instead?

Jan 15, 2013 12:25am EST  --  Report as abuse
jimbojoker wrote:

Why will people fight to the death in the name of freedom their right to assault weapons and yet they’ll roll over like a dog to the abuses of the banks and wall street. I think we all know which has done more to destroy our freedoms.

Jan 15, 2013 12:26am EST  --  Report as abuse
carlloeber wrote:

Ann Coulter said it very well on Hannity this afternoon .. she pointed out the woman who shot an intruder five times yesterday and he escaped .. people in such situations need high capacity clips to defend themselves .. so called assault weapons .. when the coward president who refuses to arm Syrian rebels gives up his guns then I will know he is not a hypocrite ..

Jan 15, 2013 12:53am EST  --  Report as abuse
FreonP wrote:

I think a restrictive permit process for assault rifle ownership might be acceptable to a greater number of people, and just as effective. The main thing we need is better tracking of all guns. We currently track autos and prescription drugs far better than we do guns, and this needs to change. There certainly is nothing in the 2nd Amendment to prohibit tracking of guns, and no reason for responsible gun owners to fear such tracking. (People with a fear that government forces will use the data to sneak in and take their guns from under their tinfoil hats don’t count as responsible gun owners.)

Jan 15, 2013 12:57am EST  --  Report as abuse

Kudos to Andrew Cuomo on the NY gun legislation! That guy has balls. Obama needs to take a cue from him. The NRA is currently headed by sick, evil people who will not even listen to proposals that would let law-abiding, sane citizens keep guns while denying them to criminals and lunatics. Gun owners deserve better representation. If NRA supporters could only see how this stonewalling and stubborn behavior by LaPierre hurts gun owners rather than helps them. If the NRA just doesn’t listen or participate in the legislative process at all, Obama has no choice but to steamroll through new restrictions. Shooting themselves in the feet. Their paranoia, threats, and corrupt business dealings smell of the Nixon era. The NRA’s time has come. Fun to watch.

Jan 15, 2013 12:59am EST  --  Report as abuse
BobSimmons wrote:

I wont lie, expanded background checks wouldn’t bother me, nor would the merging of mental health databases in the background checks.

All of these spree shooters had been on some type of psychiatric medication, that is the only thing that they have really had in common, and this is being ignored by everyone b/c big pharma has the really deep pockets, not the NRA. I think if you take something like prozac you need to be but in a database and barred from gun ownership for several years after completing the medication, perhaps needing to be reevaluated before being cleared for firearms. Those around you would need to be warned as well. Something like that would stand a better chance of making a real difference than a stupid assault weapons ban, or limit on magazine capacity.

Jan 15, 2013 1:08am EST  --  Report as abuse
Prepared wrote:

There is not a million laws that could of prevented the Newtown shooting. He stolen the weapons that he use. Everybody seems to forget that fact. If you want to save lives then get prepared to deal with these monsters when they steel weapons & come after us & our loved ones. Get your own weapons & get prepared.

Jan 15, 2013 1:09am EST  --  Report as abuse
DeannaTx wrote:

I have to admit, out of everything that’s been said I actually found the following comical.
“high-risk strategy that is likely to further inflame tensions with Republicans..”
Obama has never needed to risk enflaming their tensions. The Republicans have kept themselves enflamed.. in fact, continually fanned the fires of high level dramatic cries of absolute destruction of an entire nation and everything it stands for. Which has been hardly the case. Which hasn’t been the case. But this is what happens when you get a handfull of fanatical lunatics and a lot of lobbying money involved.

Jan 15, 2013 1:12am EST  --  Report as abuse

Does he really believe the 50 million law abiding gun owners with their 300 million guns are just going to hand them over to the Government? I really think this guy is looking for a fight and will try anything to advance his agenda. If so, it is not going to end well.

Jan 15, 2013 1:12am EST  --  Report as abuse
johneurope wrote:

Do you mean like the Fast and Furious Gun Thingeeee; all those guns they DOJ were suppose to track. You mean the US Governent, bad track record see deficit.. Again you mean the US Governent?? Please better to let a foreign power do it perhaps. Ever hear of a guy named Eric Holder the guy rsponsible for the over sight..ON FAST AND FURIOUS, sems they could not track a few thousand guns, and you think it should be turned over to those clowns?

No it is not a fear of Governent but of Idiots in cities who buy and use all those illegal drugs.. Liberals and progressives mostly, whoppe du light one up, break out the water pipe professor…

Jan 15, 2013 1:20am EST  --  Report as abuse
johneurope wrote:

I am not aware of any Assault rifle being legal . please which one do you mean.Must be one I do not know.
NOT the AR 15.. The ARMILITE RIFLE AR= ARMILITE RIFLE, the assault rifle title is for pecker heads who think the name assault is cool, mostly pot heads and such or hollweed types..

Jan 15, 2013 1:23am EST  --  Report as abuse
Speaker2 wrote:

Frankly I am more scared of a typical gun owner walking around with a concealed weapon, then I am being robbed. After all the majority of gun related shooting deaths are by people you know, friends and family plus those mentally unbalanced folks who are scared of the government and criminals.

Jan 15, 2013 2:06am EST  --  Report as abuse
TastySalmon wrote:

Speaker2 wrote:

“Frankly I am more scared of a typical gun owner walking around with a concealed weapon, then I am being robbed. After all the majority of gun related shooting deaths are by people you know, friends and family plus those mentally unbalanced folks who are scared of the government and criminals.”

Sorry, but individuals with concealed weapons permits are statistically some of the most law-abiding people in the United States. If they weren’t they wouldn’t voluntarily put themselves into a database where local law enforcement knows they are probably carrying a firearm if they’re pulled over on the road or apprehended in public. Please research this if you’re doubtful.

Then again, if you’re from an area where firearms aren’t common, I can understand your fear of guns. Generally speaking, statistics show the more exposure you have to legal firearm ownership, the less likely you are to commit a crime with a firearm. In more rural areas, like the Inland Northwest, the odds are excellent that the neighbors on both sides of your house own firearms, however violent crimes with firearms is very low compared to densely populated urban areas.

Jan 15, 2013 2:35am EST  --  Report as abuse
Buzzby wrote:

Speaker2 – “Frankly I am more scared of a typical gun owner walking around with a concealed weapon”

Concealed-carry permit holders are 1/3 as likely as the average citizen to commit any crime. They are 1/7 as likely to commit a violent crime. That being the case, your worries are misplaced.

Jan 15, 2013 4:06am EST  --  Report as abuse
jbrest wrote:

Oh so it is okay to supply other country’s with all the “Assault Weapons” they need like in Iraq and Syria. Weapons they use to kill thousands of innocent people in the name of their so called freedom. However it is not okay for The American people to own them to preserve their freedom when it is their Constitutional right and duty to do so!
Dont Tread On Me Mr. President!

Jan 15, 2013 5:49am EST  --  Report as abuse
Abulafiah wrote:

Prepared wrote:
“He stolen the weapons that he use. Everybody seems to forget that fact”

No. Nobody is forgetting that fact except the NRA. The whole point of gun regulation is to stop criminals being able to borrow or steal guns so easily.

The simple fact that criminals repeatedly do this shows that your average gun-owner is not responsible enough to lock his/her weapons away securely, so regulations (as in the UK) are needed to make them do that.

Jan 15, 2013 6:57am EST  --  Report as abuse
Abulafiah wrote:

AmericanThinker wrote:
“Does he really believe the 50 million law abiding gun owners with their 300 million guns are just going to hand them over to the Government?”

If they are not, then they are not responsible gun-owners and should be disarmed.

Jan 15, 2013 6:58am EST  --  Report as abuse
americanguy wrote:

The assault weapons ban did not hurt Reagan, it probably won’t hurt Obama. Of course, the right wing nut cases who like to pretend they are in the Army by having military weapons, will be upset.

Jan 15, 2013 7:24am EST  --  Report as abuse
PKFA wrote:

One factor in the right-to-bear arms debate: those in the majority tend to live in impersonal, high-density population areas while the minority occupy a larger geographic area with a lower population density. Urban dwellers have more contact with government, enjoy its largess more, and tend to distrust individual strangers. Rural and suburban dwellers have less contact with government, tend to be more self reliant and are more distrustful of government than of strangers. This is perfectly normal human behavior, the result of which is that those in population centers favor a disarmed citizenry while those who trust more in the individual tend to feel threatened by any government effort to limit their Constitutional rights. However, as demographics continue to shift in favor of higher population density, ultimately the long term end result will be a disarming of the populace.

The American majority continues to voice its preference for increased security, whether it be social legislation, healthcare or firearms. Regarding firearms, this will be accomplished without running afoul of the Second Amendment by simply making the import, manufacture, distribution and sale, but NOT POSSESSION of firearms illegal. Strong penalties for prohibited activities and confiscation of firearms used in crimes or brandished by those without registration will go far to improve that sense of security. This WILL come to pass. It is only a matter of time and demographics, as vividly demonstrated by the recent election.

Jan 15, 2013 7:38am EST  --  Report as abuse
Abulafiah wrote:

Speaker2 wrote:
“Frankly I am more scared of a typical gun owner walking around with a concealed weapon, then I am being robbed.”

Indeed… and the last think I want is one of these amateur Wild West wannabes ‘protecting’ me from an armed criminal.

Jan 15, 2013 7:42am EST  --  Report as abuse
reality-again wrote:

Obama is perfectly reasonable, and the ones who could be taking a big risk in this case are those Republicans who fail to remember that assault rifles are not necessarily a priority for many Christians, women, blue collar voters in swing states, and other parts of the electorate who are not all cast in Sarah Palin’s image, as we all know.

Most Americans feel that something must be done to end this gun madness, and Obama is on the right track.

I wish more Republicans stood on the side of their conscience in this debate. It should be an issue that’s beyond party lines.

Jan 15, 2013 8:55am EST  --  Report as abuse
ConstFundie wrote:

@abulafiah, and Speaker2, Irrational fear should not dictate law beyond the Constitution. This is how we ended up in decades of war, an over-powered Executive – encroaching on civil rights and rationalizing military crimes, and now states legalizing deadly force when someone feels frightened.

PKFA, afoul indeed, that is among the most foul nonsense i have ever read.

Jan 15, 2013 9:33am EST  --  Report as abuse
jaham wrote:

Notice Obama said essentially nothing about the mental health issue; just wants to focus on the red herring of “gun control”

That just seems to be Obama’s style: politicize events to get token legislation of no efficacy concerning the issues at hand.

Same thing happened with the fiscal debate….

Jan 15, 2013 9:49am EST  --  Report as abuse
Abulafiah wrote:

@ConstFundie

What irrational fear? There is nothing irrational about thinking that some amateur with a gun is maybe not the best person around to deal with a potentially deadly situation.

There is, however, a huge amount of arrogance on the part of gun lobby. A gun is just a tool; it doesn’t impart good judgement on the owner and an idiot with a gun is just that – an idiot with a gun. What gives them the right to decide that the best course of action is a gun-fight?

Jan 15, 2013 9:59am EST  --  Report as abuse
corynoone wrote:

@Abulafiah

I don’t think that peacefully resisting a government attempt to disarm the citizens shows that said citizens are irresponsible gun owners. It just means that they don’t trust that the government will forever and always be interested in our best interests. It isn’t irresponsibility. It’s a back up plan in case the checks and balances we have in our system cease to function as they are supposed to and our government becomes unrecognizable from what it is now.

Jan 15, 2013 10:05am EST  --  Report as abuse
Overcast451 wrote:

In who’s hands have guns taken the most lives?

1. Mostly law-abiding citizens who legally buy and register their guns.
2. Criminals – who don’t care about a gun ban one way or the other?
3. Governments – pretty much the SOLE starter of wars in history.

It’s not #1 – I know that much..

And then – why should we trust government or their police forces to have guns?

Are they; for some reason, ‘more trustworthy’ than people? I doubt the police are giving up their ‘Military Style Assault Weapons’ – are they? I doubt politicians will give up their armed body guards, I doubt celebrities will give up their armed body guards.

Anyone want to take some bets if the guards are armed for some of these high profile people who are out against guns?

Can anyone – who supports a gun ban; tell me why it’s SO HORRIBLE for the general public to own a gun; when the SAME general public can get a job as a police officer or join the military and have a gun superior to what they can get on the street?

Is there something ‘magical’ that happens to prevent them, once they work for the government, from going nuts with it?

How can people sit and agree with this nonsense? The military will stay well armed – I’m sure you 100% trust them, and know that shootings on a military base will never happen. Cops never kill anyone outside of their job, right?

Jan 15, 2013 10:16am EST  --  Report as abuse
Overcast451 wrote:

*After all the majority of gun related shooting deaths are by people you know, friends and family plus those mentally unbalanced folks who are scared of the government and criminals.*

No, the majority of shooting deaths are caused by governments – making war with each other. And this is why people are paranoid of government – history shows, it’s for good reason.

But you can ignore that fact; as most people do. Still doesn’t change the fact; however.

Jan 15, 2013 10:19am EST  --  Report as abuse
moonhill wrote:

Here’s a history of what happens after governments have disarmed their citizens:

1911 – Turkey disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1915 – 1917 they murdered 1.5 million Armenians.

1929 – Russia disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1929 – 1953 they murdered 20 million Russians.

1935 – China disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1948 – 1952 they murdered 20 million Chinese.

1938 – Germany disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1939 – 1945 they murdered 16 million Jews.

1956 – Cambodia disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1975 – 1977 they murdered 1 million Educated people.

1964 – Guatamala disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1964 – 1981 they murdered 100,000 Mayan Indians.

1970 – Uganda disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1971 – 1979 they murdered 300,000 Christians.

Jan 15, 2013 10:24am EST  --  Report as abuse
Overcast451 wrote:

*Kudos to Andrew Cuomo on the NY gun legislation! That guy has balls. Obama needs to take a cue from him.*

lol, yes.. Kudos indeed.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/06/nyregion/violent-crime-fell-tell-it-to-east-harlem.html

“In the case of East Harlem, rising crime fears are accompanied by an obvious statistical explanation: Countering trends in most of the city, crime there has increased drastically. Over the past year, it has gone up by 17 percent, according to Police Department figures, with increases in rape, robbery and felony assault, among other transgressions. (Rapes, in fact, have risen citywide over the past two years in an uptick of 5 percent, a subject little discussed by city officials.) In May, East Harlem community leaders led a march calling for an end to the rampant violence that in the preceding month had included the stabbing of a police officer in the head by an emotionally disturbed man on Third Avenue and 107th Street, and the attempted armed robbery of a pharmacy on First Avenue”

Yes, indeed – KUDOS!

lol

Jan 15, 2013 10:26am EST  --  Report as abuse
TimoB wrote:

We need to ban all guns that can discharge more than 10 rounds a minute, and anything that can be used to modify a gun to shoot more than 10 rounds a minute.

Jan 15, 2013 10:29am EST  --  Report as abuse
TimoB wrote:

We need to ban all guns that can discharge more than 10 rounds a minute, and anything that can be used to modify a gun to shoot more than 10 rounds a minute.

Jan 15, 2013 10:29am EST  --  Report as abuse
Speaker2 wrote:

@TastySalmon

As a Vietnam vet, I am hardly scared of guns, as I have a very personal knowledge of guns and what they can do. Growing up in Texas I killed my fair share of deer and quail.

I am not scared of guns, but the people who carry them in public. No, not they will snap and go crazy and shoot people and that is possible, but their response if they become scared and over-react.

Personally I have seen no reason since leaving the service to own a gun. I don’t own a gun by choice. Two, as I have stated before, more people are killed by friends, family members and people they know than criminals. So to me, people carrying guns in public are the ones who are irrational and scared.

I think most people say, okay you can own guns, but we as a society have the right to control the type of gun, the caliber and the number of rounds the weapon can hold, and where you can carry and use those weapons. People do not need military grade weapons to hunt and I really question the need to keep a gun in a home for self-protection.

Jan 15, 2013 10:31am EST  --  Report as abuse
Speaker2 wrote:

@Overcast451

Yes, more people are killed by wars. However to me it irrational to be paranoid of the government, especially our government. You guys should read up on militia. I know quite a few here seem to think the militia exist to protect the people from the government, in reality they have always been designed to protect the government from the people.

Do we have the same degree of freedom as our forefathers, the answer to that is no, look at all the privacy we gave up due to everyone’s over reaction to 9/11. We can of course change this by electing members to congress who think more of the people and less of the state.

The US military has spent the last two wars mastering urban warfare, the average citizen would stand little chance in an armed rebellion.

Jan 15, 2013 10:46am EST  --  Report as abuse
ConstFundie wrote:

@jaham, I agree. The most salient point in mass murders and violence is the mental health of the perpetrator. And specific to school violence, oblivious, biased, irresponsible parents and teachers. It is disingenuous to take the tact that no issue is sacrosanct for a solution and then react with political dogma.

Jan 15, 2013 10:50am EST  --  Report as abuse
corynoone wrote:

@Speaker2

“The US military has spent the last two wars mastering urban warfare, the average citizen would stand little chance in an armed rebellion.”

For most people willing to do so, if it got to the point where things were bad enough that they felt they had no other choice but to pick up a gun and fight, I’d say chances are good that many of those people (myself included) would rather die trying to regain freedom than roll over because it would be a hard fight.

Jan 15, 2013 11:17am EST  --  Report as abuse
bemore2day wrote:

At last! Someone has had the nerve to say what I have suspected was the ONLY LOGICAL EXPLANATION from anyone for not wanting a ban on assault weapons and high capacity magazines.

corynoone wrote: “For most people willing to do so, if it got to the point where things were bad enough that they felt they had no other choice but to pick up a gun and fight, I’d say chances are good that many of those people (myself included) would rather die trying to regain freedom than roll over because it would be a hard fight.”

Stockpiling assault weapons for a possible rebellion against our government, or a paranoid dooms day event like the “zombie apocalypse” are the only sad reason for wanting to “protect your 2nd amendment rights” when it comes to weapons of mass destruction. Is this really the unfortunate mentality behind so called gun rights?

Jan 15, 2013 6:05pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Abulafiah wrote:

@moonhil

Well done – a fine copy-and-paste job from here: http://warriortimes.com/2011/04/24/what-happens-when-governments-disarm-their-citizens/

I can’t be bothered pointing out every error in that idiotic post that you have chosen to copys, but I will take the first one to pieces.

First error – Turkey did not disarm its population in 1911. Bog mistake there. In 1911, Turkey was being invaded by Italy.

What Turkey did do in 1911 was suppress an armed rebellion by Albanians, which including offering amnesty to anybody involved who handed in their weapons and went home. Not exactly a government disarming the population…

The author of that post then tries to draw some bizarre connection between that and the Armenians four years later. That is about as stupid as it gets, as Armenians are a completely different event, and they were never disarmed. They were never disarmed because they were never armed in the first place. Non-Muslims in the Ottoman Empire were not allowed to carry weapons.

A more revealing lesson from history is how many of those oppressive regimes installed themselves with the helped of an armed militia. Hitler had his brownshirts, Mussolini his blackshirts, Stalin his Red Army, Pol Pot his Khmer Rouge, etc.

These all have more in common with the GOP and its NRA than they do with Obama.

Jan 16, 2013 4:04am EST  --  Report as abuse
This discussion is now closed. We welcome comments on our articles for a limited period after their publication.