Obama to propose sweeping gun control measures Wednesday

Comments (41)
Globalman wrote:

Obama wants to make law abiding gun owners into criminals. In addition he wants to give citizenship,and entitlements to millions of illegal immigrants. I am sorry but this picture does not seem clear to me.

Jan 15, 2013 12:45pm EST  --  Report as abuse
StevePVB wrote:

I heard one measure was to exempt criminals from prosecution if they steal guns. This will further Obama’s main objective of getting guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens. After all, control is everything.

Jan 15, 2013 12:59pm EST  --  Report as abuse
supremacy wrote:

Oh, the reason is clear enough. It takes little effort to just ban guns and call it a day, because we now live in a country that does not value personal freedom and responsability. It would actually take some work to deal with the mental health issues plaguing this country and figure out why our society is beginning to rot from within.

But no, it’s just easier to placate your base and let the country tear itself apart while you sit in your white castle.

Jan 15, 2013 1:09pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Stickystones wrote:

The President should worry more about governing than restricting citizen rights. This is more about ‘letting no crisis go to waste’ than any real attempt to reduce violence.

Jan 15, 2013 2:22pm EST  --  Report as abuse
USAPragmatist wrote:

The three commentators so far are a perfect example of why the right is becoming more and more marginalized, they are making suppositions about our President that are simply not true.

Jan 15, 2013 2:33pm EST  --  Report as abuse

When regulation reaches the point that only 1 person in all of 340 million people can legally be permitted to purchase a firearm, then technically, your (the peoples) “rights” haven’t still haven’t been taken away. You simply don’t qualify as being cookie cutter enough to be blessed with the ability, but the so called “right” was never taken from you. restriction IS a ban.

The argument that military grade or semi-auto weapons don’t need to be in private civilians hands is idiotic unless a guarantee can be made and proven that the home invader will also not have those weapons in their possession. If you want UK style gun control, then start at step one in mimicking it. Disarm the police.

Jan 15, 2013 2:44pm EST  --  Report as abuse
MetalHead8 wrote:

@speaker2 Conceal carry members are less likey to commit a crime. Look up the info, if you dare.

Jan 15, 2013 2:46pm EST  --  Report as abuse
ConstFundie wrote:

@Speaker2, as long as the type of gun is not an armament, and the caliber, or number of bullets it can hold or shoot does not effect its use as such. It is illegal for anyone, including the President or Congress to legislate away Personal Liberties guaranteed by the Bill of Rights.

Don’t like it, Amend it.

Jan 15, 2013 2:58pm EST  --  Report as abuse
skyraider wrote:

We legal gun owners have long begged for stricter enforcement. The president should give the Dept. of Justice an executive order to get off their dead ass and do their job.

Jan 15, 2013 3:02pm EST  --  Report as abuse

If those laws worked, then Chicago would have one of the lowest rates of shootings in the country, not to mention it would be drug free (for a looong time now). It is neither, quite the opposite in fact.

Jan 15, 2013 3:31pm EST  --  Report as abuse
jaham wrote:

I find it interesting, too, that after liberals kept talking about “all options/issues are on the table” there is no press conference to be held on Wednesday to address the mental health issue…

This looks like yet another liberal witch hunt that will result in “feel good” initiatives that don’t actually solve the problem….the last such instance resulted in a tax-the-rich plan that won’t nearly rectify or fiscal problems and this one will result in infringing upon my right to bear arms while not preventing mass shootings…..is America content with “feel good” initiatives that don’t solve the problem? Apparently so….

Jan 15, 2013 3:46pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Speaker2 wrote:

@ConstFundie

I think the Supreme Court might differ with you. Yes there is a constitutional right to own a gun. It has also been ruled Congress can regulate guns, including the type, caliber and how many rounds it can hold.

@metalhead8,

I am more concerned with concealed weapon carriers, over-reacting in a public setting, if something scares them or they feel frighten.

Like I have stated before, the majority of gun deaths are not caused by criminals, but by people you know or family members.

@LysanderTucker

You have a better chance of winning the lottery than have a group of armed folks bring in your house and shoot you.

Jan 15, 2013 3:47pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Jameson4Lunch wrote:

What’s with people thinking the AR-15 is military grade? That would be one piss poor military. It resembles a military grade gun, has some of the jamming problems of the original model it was based on, but without full auto or burst, it has little place in a war theater.

I’ll admit that their actual use is a bit hard to define. Not really for hunting, not really for war. At best, glorified target guns with a slew of mostly useless and expensive attachments that help drive one of the few manufacturing industries left in the US.

Jan 15, 2013 3:49pm EST  --  Report as abuse
ConstFundie wrote:

@speaker2, I think you are wrong, but it depends what you mean by “regulate”. The SCOTUS has ruled against banning entire classes of weapons and even banning them by legislating against their common and intended use. see DC v Heller. Further the court ruled that the purpose of the 2nd Right was in part to prevent the abridgement of ‘the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved.’ check mate?

Jan 15, 2013 4:27pm EST  --  Report as abuse
moonhill wrote:

Bert2–I live in the country. I doubt my nearest neighbor would hear even the loudest alarm system. I’ll keep my guns, thank you.

Jan 15, 2013 4:40pm EST  --  Report as abuse
cheeze wrote:

Sounds like a plan, a lot of these gun nuts hang onto the second amendment “right to bear arms”, how about a musket with one ball bearing shot, that is what was intended. Not a military assault weapon, any one with any brains knows the police and military people are the only one’s who should have these type guns. Way to go BAM….

Jan 15, 2013 5:55pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Loucleve wrote:

Come and Take Them.

And good luck with that.

Jan 15, 2013 8:45pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Dragos111 wrote:

Obama made it very clear that he would have much more flexibility in his second term. By that he meant that he would do whatever he darn well pleases. He is going to start by raising taxes on the rich, then trying to take away our ability to protect ourselves, and he is driving up the cost of healthcare. Next he will increase taxes on the middle class.

America, you voted him in. Now get ready to feel his shaft as he tries to remake our society into his Marxist dream.

Jan 15, 2013 8:47pm EST  --  Report as abuse
ConstFundie wrote:

@Jameson4lunch, they are used as target sport guns, varmint guns, and for home defense. They are also used for hog and deer hunting but not widely recommended because the small caliber promotes wounding shots unless perfectly placed. It could literally come back to bite you, in the case of a charging hog. The small .223 caliber is selected as an armament in part because it is easy to fire and has reduced lethality in adult humans.

Jan 15, 2013 8:59pm EST  --  Report as abuse
jertho wrote:

nobody is taking your guns or making you into criminals you paranoid jerks, stop listening to your silly propaganda and join the rational world again please.

Jan 15, 2013 9:06pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Speaker2 wrote:

New York is off to a good start with the new gun control laws passed today.

Jan 15, 2013 9:15pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Decatur wrote:

Instead of coming unhinged over what he might say or what some AM radio show said he would say, how about considering what he actually does say tomorrow? Obama is closer to Eisenhower or Truman than he is to F D Roosevelt, and none of them were Marxists… give us a break with the rhetoric please.

I’m hoping for consideration of mental health (lots of warning signs for the massacre type shootings), closing of gun show loophole that boosts illegal gun supplies, and more uniform and thorough pre-purchase checks – hey look, no guns getting taken way with these ideas.

If specific weapons come into discussion, there is a distinction to be made. AR-15 type rifles are now really popular with the marksman set. Not my idea of a hunting rifle but lightweight and accurate, falling into the historical marksman ethos of America. Part of the problem with changing the AR-15 into the M-16 were all the changes forced on the Armalite by the Army Arsenal – different powder, manual bolt closure, that led to the Vietnam era problems. Now it’s working well for military as the M-4 and it’s part of mass culture for a growing number of sportsmen and familiar to new generation of veterans. If anything, the focus to ban or restrict any type of gun from sale should be aimed at less accurate types, like Ingram MAC 10 etc. ‘machine pistols’ even in semi-auto form, because they are easier to conceal, have no sporting use like AR-15, mini-14 etc, and are more of a drug cartel or thug ‘spray of bullets’ weapon than a marksman or sportsman firearm. These types made plenty of tragic headlines already, and serve perhaps the least useful purpose for civilians.

Jan 15, 2013 9:26pm EST  --  Report as abuse
ConradU812 wrote:

@speaker2,

I am no longer amazed at the number of people in the U.S. who would willingly give over their freedom and the protection of their families to the same government who brought them Watergate, Iran-Contra, Fast & Furious, the Libyan Embassy massacre, etc.

Problem is, the government, including police, are NOT required to protect you or your family. YOU are responsibility for their protection and your own.

“Those who would trade freedom for security deserve neither and will lose both.”
- Benjamin Franklin

Jan 15, 2013 9:40pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Decatur wrote:

I agree with half of your points ConstFundie…

The small .223 (M-16, etc) caliber is still very lethal, kinetic energy rises with the square of velocity and I think the Military finally bought into such a small but high speed bullet when they saw it could severely wound the enemy, plus was lighter than larger .30 ammunition used for 3 generations before. The same ‘less lethal’ arguments get made for .22LR and kids still get injured or die because there is no substitute for safety or responsibility, not even a BB gun or ‘soft air’ gun is an inherently safe caliber.

That is not to say we should throw up our hands about any gun laws because any gun can be dangerous, just be careful of implying inherent safety. Intended uses by gun type and proper ownership checks and training are worth considering.

Jan 15, 2013 9:42pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Sugarshaw wrote:

I just don’t understand what gun control will accomplish, its not as if a criminal is going to follow the law anyway. Where there’s a will there’s a way. Criminals will do they’re dirty work in some other form then.Its like trying to ban drugs, their illegal. However, drugs are still around. I own many assault weapons, I don’t intend to use them for criminal purposes. I use them for my enjoyment such as a weekend going down to the range and fire off rounds at targets. Helps me keep up my soldier skills when we are not at a scheduled range. Heck most of the time there is 6 months in-between qualifying with my M4. And also in the defense of my family. And honestly, why? Why do the weapons have to have a purpose? There is a purpose for all weapons called target practice (unless your a criminal, not quite sure who those people are yet..). And actually they just look cool and are fun to shoot. I don’t want people taking away MY hobby that is MY form of enjoyment and stress relief, just because they don’t like it. And ya know what? If assault weapons get banned, or a limit on rounds a magazine can have..How about his security personnel follow those laws to? Better yet make the military follow those laws. We will be pushovers.
“To Conquer A Nation-First Disarm It’s Citizens” – Adolf Hitler

Jan 15, 2013 9:52pm EST  --  Report as abuse
deerecub1977 wrote:

When he ran for president he knew we were a country that had the 2nd amendment. If he didn’t like the constitution, he shouldn’t have run.

Jan 15, 2013 9:54pm EST  --  Report as abuse
weintrouble wrote:

It’s ok to send assault weapons to Mexican drug cartels. It’s not ok to be a law abiding citizen who is registered to own a gun? What kind of STUPID logic is that? Obama has sinister plans for this country. This is only the beginning. He is using a terrible tradgedy to progress his agenda. These haneous crimes are always committed with stolen guns and no Obama legislation will keep them off of the streets.

Jan 15, 2013 9:59pm EST  --  Report as abuse
CountryPride wrote:

“No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government”

Thomas Jefferson

Will we follow the path of the founding fathers that made this country great or follow Obama into a 3rd world dictatorship?

Jan 15, 2013 10:35pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Humanist11 wrote:

Banning certain types of guns and ammo will do almost nothing to prevent gun violence. It will not prevent another Newtown incident. I’m not against banning assault weapons or high capacity clips, but I don’t think it will affect safety in any real way. Requiring robust background checks for ALL gun sales and waiting periods will avert some gun violence and I hope it will be included in the president’s plan. What I don’t see is a proposal for harsh punishment for using a gun in a crime. What if using a gun during a crime results in a minimum 20 years in prison without the possibility of parole? That might stop a lot of violent crimes. We could tax guns and ammo to pay for the extra prison expenses.

Jan 15, 2013 11:11pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Humanist11 wrote:

Banning certain types of guns and ammo will do almost nothing to prevent gun violence. It will not prevent another Newtown incident. I’m not against banning assault weapons or high capacity clips, but I don’t think it will affect safety in any real way. Requiring robust background checks for ALL gun sales and waiting periods will avert some gun violence and I hope it will be included in the president’s plan. What I don’t see is a proposal for harsh punishment for using a gun in a crime. What if using a gun during a crime results in a minimum 20 years in prison without the possibility of parole? That might stop a lot of violent crimes. We could tax guns and ammo to pay for the extra prison expenses.

Jan 15, 2013 11:12pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Humanist11 wrote:

Banning certain types of guns and ammo will do almost nothing to prevent gun violence. It will not prevent another Newtown incident. I’m not against banning assault weapons or high capacity clips, but I don’t think it will affect safety in any real way. Requiring robust background checks for ALL gun sales and waiting periods will avert some gun violence and I hope it will be included in the president’s plan. What I don’t see is a proposal for harsh punishment for using a gun in a crime. What if using a gun during a crime results in a minimum 20 years in prison without the possibility of parole? That might stop a lot of violent crimes. We could tax guns and ammo to pay for the extra prison expenses.

Jan 15, 2013 11:12pm EST  --  Report as abuse
dakine1 wrote:

Thanks, countrypride and conrad. Good quotes. The problem with these regulations is that they will increase incrementally. I fail to see how anyone can trust the democrat leadership. From Pelosi’s voting to keep minimum wage low in American Samoa(where her husband’s company, Starkist has a plant, to Reid and his many, many scandals and sleazy dealings, to Obama’s denial of his upper class upbringing( his grandma was a bank vice president)., they’re all a bunch of sleaze merchants. Republicans aren’t much better.
Both parties are in the pockets of corporations, and unless something changes, we’re screwed. I hunt, but I think we may need those guns for something else.
“We have met the enemy and he s us”
Pogo

Jan 15, 2013 11:33pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Wassup wrote:

Ah yes, our fearless leader in action to control law abiding citizens who have guns. What is he proposing to keep the insane, criminals, his Attorney General from owning and using, or “trading in” firearms?
How about the Cartel in the SW USA? What’s he proposing for doing away with that threat? Oh, that’s right, there is no threat on our Southern Border except from guns provided by the Attorney General. We have idiots making and mandating laws.

Jan 15, 2013 11:33pm EST  --  Report as abuse
ConstFundie wrote:

Elect a Republican and the Constitution and personal Rights are eroded from one end, elect a Democrat and they are eroded from the other.

Jan 16, 2013 1:37am EST  --  Report as abuse
Wabofi wrote:

Why is that gun owners are coined ‘gun nut’? The supposed ‘enlightened’ people act as if gun owners are knuckle-dragging neanderthals. Yet these ‘enlightened’ can be some of the most rabid people I’ve ever met. What is it about gun owners that has you foaming at the mouth? Some people actually buy guns just for sport, as in target shooting. Shall the gun owners become rabid about what you do for fun? People talk about freedom yet they’re more than willing to take others’ freedom if it doesn’t coincide with their beliefs or the current fads. Being free no longer exists in a society that feels the need to police every part of your life; in a society that thinks the government should make laws to fit the society’s whims.

Jan 16, 2013 1:42am EST  --  Report as abuse
sylvan wrote:

Unless this reporter is a US Constitutional lawyer, he is WAY out of his scope of practice to say our Constitution gives citizens the right to bear arms. That is false political propaganda and unfit for a newspaper of Reuters’ once sterling reputation. The 2nd amendment, if this is what the pundit meant, states that We The People….interpreted everywhere else in the Constitution to mean the collective citizens, have the right to bear arms in a “well-regulated militia”. No where does it give citizens rights to guns without restrictions or qualifiers. So if the gun-toters want to join a militia and work out routinely, and train once a month under the auspices of the state, then give a gun once they join the National Guard. But until the basement-dwellers are willing to put down the chips, remotes, and gaming consoles, take away their assault rifles. And reporters should only report facts. If this clown wants to be a lawyer, he should go to law school and compete for the right to be a Constitutional lawyer; until then, his opinion pieces should be labeled as such.

Jan 16, 2013 6:11am EST  --  Report as abuse
sylvan wrote:

Wabofi:
What we have against gun owners is that some of you walk into elementary schools and mow down our collective children and their teachers. Or walk into a movie theatre and kill and terrorize people who came to see a movie, not be a target for a whack job with an assault arsenal. Or shoot our legislators in the head because you can’t express yourselves verbally. Since gun owners want no restrictions on their so called rights to terrorize the rest of us, we will make it illegal for those of you earning the nut label to get certain guns. There are way too many examples of your nutty whack job section following the article to pretend it is a small percent of total gun owners. So seeing innocent children slaughtered, and terrorized at school makes us foam at the mouth with anger against the tyranny of the assault weapon and high volume clips. And if we start murdering innocent people, then please yes, make fun of us for it; better yet, force us to stop. Until then, there is a plank in your eye that needs medical attention; and yes, Obamacare covers that, especially after we remove the public menace and expense associated with the diagnosis GSW.

Jan 16, 2013 6:31am EST  --  Report as abuse
richinnc wrote:

We should ban airplanes – because they can be used to destroy buildings. We should ban freedom – because as long as we are free – people may do bad things. I do NOT mean to diminish ANY murder – how many homeless / street people are killed in a year – and they do not get front page coverage. I believe each of us is made in the image and likeness of God, and that includes those aborted. Should we not ban abortion?

Jan 16, 2013 7:46am EST  --  Report as abuse
GLK wrote:

Anyone remember when it was the Left that challenged authority and didn’t trust Government? It was the Left that protested against laws that took away freedoms, campaigned for the preservation of the Constitution and vehemently fought for our civil rights. The Left questioned everything and never took an authority figure’s word for anything. The Left was thoughtful, intelligent and demanded that the Status Quo be accountable for their actions through airtight investigation and quantification. What USA Pragmatist and her minions haven’t figured out yet is that they are all proud members of the new Right. Some of us are not fooled.

Jan 16, 2013 7:52am EST  --  Report as abuse
lensmanb wrote:

Louisville Slugger better ramp up production before someone declares a baseball bat to be a deadly weapon….wait, it won’t be the bat that kills…will it?

Jan 16, 2013 8:47am EST  --  Report as abuse
ConstFundie wrote:

@sylvan, you are absolutely wrong. Read the last SCOTUS ruling DC vs Heller, read the Federalist Papers and the Anti-Federalist Papers, read the Bill of Rights proposed by the Conventions of the states, like Virgina, leading up to their inclusion. The second Amendment is a Personal Right of “the People” to keep and bear arms, not a soldier, and Armaments are weapons useful for war and not squirrel guns. A state can have a regulated militia not controlled by the Union government, except for their summoning upon declaration of war by Congress, e.g., for insurrection, rebellion, or invasion. The militia may be trained and supplied by the state and limited by Constitution and law (regulated). The main purpose of the 2nd Amendment was to balance the power of a standing Federal army, and the perceived potential threat of such an army to personal liberties and free states.

Jan 17, 2013 1:44am EST  --  Report as abuse
This discussion is now closed. We welcome comments on our articles for a limited period after their publication.