Analysis: Obama's gun-control plan faces steep challenge in Congress

Comments (15)
TheNewWorld wrote:

Any Congress member that wants to be re-elected will vote the will of their constituents and vote no on an assault weapons ban. They will water down the package with more background checks and closing loopholes on bypassing background checks as should be done.

Jan 16, 2013 6:59pm EST  --  Report as abuse
sjfella wrote:

@TheNewWorld,
You’re kidding, right? The majority of those bozos will be re-elected no matter what they do.

Jan 16, 2013 7:09pm EST  --  Report as abuse
insoucianced wrote:

Life in Prison-no parole if caught using Assault Weapon in commission of any crime

10 years Prison & $250k fine for owners whose registered guns are used by others in a crime

Not perfect but I bet it will clean up a lot of things. Criminals will always get to guns if that’s how they want their deed to be handled, so make it painful if the above is implemented.

Jan 16, 2013 7:12pm EST  --  Report as abuse
HemiHead66 wrote:

Obama is setting the Dem’s up for a big fall. It won’t take much to swing the vote in the GOP’s favor. Then the GOP will really do some damage. First is Obamacare. Second is robbing Social Security & Medicare. Third is doubling down on pork-barrel Defense spending. The money they rob from SS & Medicare will cover the cost of that. Then they’ll work their way down the line with scrapping what little environmental laws we have left. Deregulating the robber-baron-bankers. And on and on and on. God help us.

Jan 16, 2013 8:44pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Bob9999 wrote:

Let’s face it. There’s no way to address this issue without amending the Constitution. The pro-gun control set realizes this, because, for all the Sturm und Drang, the “reforms” they have proposed (not including Constitutional amendment) are fairly meaningless from a practical point of view.

The reason we don’t hear about amending the Constitution is that the gun lobby doesn’t want to change it, while the extreme gun control faction recognizes that only very moderate reforms would make is through the amendment process. But that’s the way a political system works.

Jan 16, 2013 8:54pm EST  --  Report as abuse
reality-again wrote:

@TheNewWorld

Strange… -In what part of this country do you live?

Jan 16, 2013 9:10pm EST  --  Report as abuse
TheNewWorld wrote:

@sjfella

You are more than likely right. Congress continues to get sub 20% approval ratings, and the incumbants still win year after year.

Jan 16, 2013 10:04pm EST  --  Report as abuse
TheNewWorld wrote:

@reality-again

Currently I live in the south east, but it was no different in the mid-west. The only areas that are against assault weapons are north east, and west coast, there are goind to be some liberals in cities here and there, but it isn’t enough. Assault weapon bans are a losing issue for Democrats. You can get a majority with stricter background checks and closing loop holes. Feinstein bill though is a no win. That was a large part of what led to the Democrats losing the House and Senate in 94.

Jan 16, 2013 10:07pm EST  --  Report as abuse
rakeshdry wrote:

Congress must be salivating over the opportunities these bills present to attach all manner of earmarks and pet projects in need of funding.

Jan 16, 2013 10:57pm EST  --  Report as abuse
taxcorps2 wrote:

@HemiHead66: who do you think you are kidding? You are blatantly using the usual tactic of the Republican elitists: accuse the Democrats of doing and being exactly what it is that the Republicans are doing, of being what the Republicans actually are. Democrats robbing SS and Medicare, and doubling down on military spending? Really? Oh, the quantities of Cool-Aid you must have been drinking.

Jan 17, 2013 12:37am EST  --  Report as abuse
ConstFundie wrote:

I agree that this will work against the Dems. It comes down to liberty, and Constitutional Rights, that’s what put the nail in the coffin for the GOP last election cycle, and this will likewise push support away from Democrats.

Jan 17, 2013 12:56am EST  --  Report as abuse
flashrooster wrote:

TheNewWorld: “The only areas that are against assault weapons are north east, and west coast, there are going to be some liberals in cities here and there, but it isn’t enough. Assault weapon bans are a losing issue for Democrats.

A majority of Americans support a ban on assault weapons. We don’t need assault weapons. The 2nd Amendment does not guarantee a right to own assault weapons.

http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/01/14/16510092-poll-majorities-favor-assault-weapons-ban-background-checks?lite

(Maryland) Voters favor the assault weapons ban 62 percent to 35 percent
http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2013-01-13/news/bs-md-gun-poll-20130113_1_support-capital-punishment-penalty-gun-control

“A ban on the manufacture, sale and possession of semi-automatic assault guns, such as the AK-47: 56% in favor, 44% opposed”
http://www.pollingreport.com/guns.htm

Administration aides have said the president is likely to include a call for a renewed ban on the most powerful rifles even in the face of heavy opposition from the National Rifle Association. In the poll, 58 percent of Americans support the ban, which expired in 2004 after 10 years as the law; 39 percent oppose it:
http://www.standard.net/stories/2013/01/14/poll-most-americans-support-assault-weapons-ban-armed-guards

As usual, you on the right are being dupes for the gun industry, just like you are for the defense industry, the healthcare industry, the tobacco industry, the fossil fuels industry, etc. They tell you anything to increase their profits and you guys will believe it. Anything. It’s pathetic.

President Obama would be derelict in his duty as President to do nothing about our liberal gun laws. He’s acting like a President.

Jan 17, 2013 12:57am EST  --  Report as abuse
ConstFundie wrote:

@Bob9999, I think it would be difficult, but the reason primarily because of GOP resistance. They are playing for both sides of the issue, and weaker for the 2nd Amendment side. The issue being that the 2nd Amendment was put in place to balance the power of a strong Federal standing army. Therefore a reduction of Personal arms Rights should naturally be balanced by Constitutional limits on the allowed use of Federal agents and troops on American soil, and limits on weapons they can employ, except in the case of invasion. Further it might require limits on the size of our standing army on a per capita basis except under Declaration of war by Congress, and states to have their own trained reserve or militias, instead of a National guard.

Jan 17, 2013 1:21am EST  --  Report as abuse
flashrooster wrote:

ConstFundie: Liberty and Constitutional rights? Really? What about the liberty and rights of my family? I don’t want to go out to eat or take my kids to a skating rink and then see someone with a gun stuffed in their belt roaming near my familyh. I don’t know the person and I don’t know if he’s about to pull that gun out and shoot my children. I don’t want strangers with guns around my family. That’s not being unreasonable. That’s being human.

And what Constitutional rights are being threatened? The Supreme Court ruled that the 2nd Amendment only protects a person’s right to own the type of weapon that existed at the time the Amendment was written:

“We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller (an earlier case) said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those “in common use at the time”. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of ‘dangerous and unusual weapons. ” — Justice Antonin Scalia

Jan 17, 2013 1:30am EST  --  Report as abuse
ConstFundie wrote:

@Flashrooster, A Constitutional Republic is Government restricted by the rules of the Constitution, not a panicked self-righteous majority and a pandering Executive, or any and all branches, craving Power and adulation.

If you are threatened or attacked with a weapon then your liberty has been infringed. Every time you take your kids to the skating rink, you risk their injury, and fingers being cleaved by skates. Every time you pass another car on a highway you do not know if the person on your left will intentionally, or by accident, pull head-on into you and your family. So, wouldn’t you feel safer if we all cleared-off the rinks and roads for your family outings?

Scalia refers to “weapons in common use” at the time of Miller (1939), to justify not countering the SCOTUS ruling in US vs Miller allowing the Government to restrict sawed-off shotguns, and also to not make president that regulation on automatic weapons is Unconstitutional (which, btw, is). The argument by the Government in Miller was in part: “The Second Amendment protects only the ownership of military-type weapons appropriate for use in an organized militia” and ‘that a sawed-off shotgun was never used by a militia’. An assertion being absolutely wrong, out-of-hand, as short barreled shotguns were historically used in militias even in the 18th century, aka, the Blunderbuss.

Gun regulations are given and rationalized to the people in order that the Government, esp. Executive and friends can continue to “play” the most powerful men in the world with an over-sized standing army at their whims. If RPGS, automatic weapons, grenade launchers (which had also been used, albeit rarely, in the 18th century) were properly legal, then an Amendment would be forced, and that would most certainly require balance with things they do not want addressed such as limitations on Federal troops and armaments allowed on American soil in times of peace, defined uses and limitations of use of the standing army by the Executive, maximum allowed size of the standing army per capita, etc.

Jan 17, 2013 10:17pm EST  --  Report as abuse
This discussion is now closed. We welcome comments on our articles for a limited period after their publication.