UPDATED WITH LIST OF EXECUTIVE ACTIONS: Today The White House Will Put Forth Their Proposals To Reduce Gun Violence
I know, I know… another gun post. Today, around noon, President Obama and Vice President Biden will announce their proposals to reduce gun violence. I will attempt to blog this event in the comment section – help from our commenters would be greatly appreciated. Thanks.
(The link above takes you to White House’s live stream of the event. CSPAN will be covering it, as well.)
UPDATE: 23 Executive Actions
1. Issue a Presidential Memorandum to require federal agencies to make relevant data available to the federal background check system.
2. Address unnecessary legal barriers, particularly relating to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, that may prevent states from making information available to the background check system.
3. Improve incentives for states to share information with the background check system.
4. Direct the Attorney General to review categories of individuals prohibited from having a gun to make sure dangerous people are not slipping through the cracks.
5. Propose rulemaking to give law enforcement the ability to run a full background check on an individual before returning a seized gun.6. Publish a letter from ATF to federally licensed gun dealers providing guidance on how to run background checks for private sellers.
7. Launch a national safe and responsible gun ownership campaign.
8. Review safety standards for gun locks and gun safes (Consumer Product Safety Commission).
9. Issue a Presidential Memorandum to require federal law enforcement to trace guns recovered in criminal investigations.
10. Release a DOJ report analyzing information on lost and stolen guns and make it widely available to law enforcement.
11. Nominate an ATF director.
12. Provide law enforcement, first responders, and school officials with proper training for active shooter situations.
13. Maximize enforcement efforts to prevent gun violence and prosecute gun crime.
14. Issue a Presidential Memorandum directing the Centers for Disease Control to research the causes and prevention of gun violence.
15. Direct the Attorney General to issue a report on the availability and most effective use of new gun safety technologies and challenge the private sector to develop innovative technologies.
16. Clarify that the Affordable Care Act does not prohibit doctors asking their patients about guns in their homes.
17. Release a letter to health care providers clarifying that no federal law prohibits them from reporting threats of violence to law enforcement authorities.
18. Provide incentives for schools to hire school resource officers.
19. Develop model emergency response plans for schools, houses of worship and institutions of higher education.
20. Release a letter to state health officials clarifying the scope of mental health services that Medicaid plans must cover.
21. Finalize regulations clarifying essential health benefits and parity requirements within ACA exchanges.
22. Commit to finalizing mental health parity regulations.
23. Launch a national dialogue led by Secretaries Sebelius and Duncan on mental health.
Asked Congress to:
Universal background checks
Crack down on gun trafficking
Assault weapon ban
Limit magazine numbers
Meanwhile, the NRA finds new lows. Josh Marshall sums it up:
It takes a lot for the NRA to shock. But this is just beyond disgusting. The NRA has launched a new ad campaign calling President Obama a ‘hypocrite’ for allowing armed Secret Service agents to protect his school aged daughters.
There are so many vile things about this ad. But one thing to note is the ad is really only designed to appeal to people who have a deep – really deep – animosity toward the President. The sort of people who don’t think he and his daughters should be in the White House and wish him the sort of ill citizens should never wish upon a freely elected head of state.
Vile is the perfect word for the NRA’s behavior.
UPDATE: The NRA has issued a statement that basically says, The ad we ran about the President’s daughters is not about the President’s daughters.
Tags: gun control, guns, NRA
Interesting Fox News Opinion today:
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/01/16/what-everybody-needs-to-know-about-our-constitution-and-gun-control/
Dont think your know what is says just because it was on Fox…
Here we go… Biden speaking first – acknowledging the families of Newtown.
Committee has put together proposals ofExecutive action and Legislation Obama can call for.
Universal background checks — good.
As is unfettering research on gun violence.
Obama:
In the month since Newtown, guns have killed 900 Americans
Willing to use “whatever weight his office holds” to reduce gun violence
Strengthen background checks, give funds to schools for officers – if they want them, more help for the mentally ill – “who are more likely to be victims of violence.”
Says Congress needs a universal background check, close the loophole because 40% of gun sales requires no background checks.
Congress should ban on military type assault weapons and limit 10 round magazine
Oh snap! Quoting Reagan!
Nice — invoking Saint Reagan to support the ban on military-style assault weapons.
Congress needs to help law enforcement by cracking down on people who buy guns to sell them illegally.
Put more cops back on the streets
He’s isolating the leaders of the NRA, painting the leaders of the NRA as unreasonable
Here’s the WH’s list of proposals:
1. Issue a Presidential Memorandum to require federal agencies to make relevant data available to the federal background check system.
2. Address unnecessary legal barriers, particularly relating to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, that may prevent states from making information available to the background check system.
3. Improve incentives for states to share information with the background check system.
4. Direct the Attorney General to review categories of individuals prohibited from having a gun to make sure dangerous people are not slipping through the cracks.
5. Propose rulemaking to give law enforcement the ability to run a full background check on an individual before returning a seized gun.
6. Publish a letter from ATF to federally licensed gun dealers providing guidance on how to run background checks for private sellers.
7. Launch a national safe and responsible gun ownership campaign.
8. Review safety standards for gun locks and gun safes (Consumer Product Safety Commission).
9. Issue a Presidential Memorandum to require federal law enforcement to trace guns recovered in criminal investigations.
10. Release a DOJ report analyzing information on lost and stolen guns and make it widely available to law enforcement.
11. Nominate an ATF director.
12. Provide law enforcement, first responders, and school officials with proper training for active shooter situations.
13. Maximize enforcement efforts to prevent gun violence and prosecute gun crime.
14. Issue a Presidential Memorandum directing the Centers for Disease Control to research the causes and prevention of gun violence.
15. Direct the Attorney General to issue a report on the availability and most effective use of new gun safety technologies and challenge the private sector to develop innovative technologies.
16. Clarify that the Affordable Care Act does not prohibit doctors asking their patients about guns in their homes.
17. Release a letter to health care providers clarifying that no federal law prohibits them from reporting threats of violence to law enforcement authorities.
18. Provide incentives for schools to hire school resource officers.
19. Develop model emergency response plans for schools, houses of worship and institutions of higher education.
20. Release a letter to state health officials clarifying the scope of mental health services that Medicaid plans must cover.
21. Finalize regulations clarifying essential health benefits and parity requirements within ACA exchanges.
22. Commit to finalizing mental health parity regulations.
23. Launch a national dialogue led by Secretaries Sebelius and Duncan on mental health.
With rights come responsibilities — quite so. And the responsibilities is too often missing from the conversation.
Obama’s speech is very personal and emotional. Mentioning individual gun violence incidents.
YES — denying the right of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness to those slain. This is the question I keep asking that no one wants to address.
I’m glad Obama is not letting America forget the victims.
“denying the right of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness to those slain. This is the question I keep asking that no one wants to address.”
Government is not taking the lives, individuals acting alone are.
Nice — surrounding himself with children on the day the NRA wants to make him look like he doesn’t care about other people’s kids.
And your point is what, exactly? I am not claiming that the government is taking those lives. Understanding that you don’t much care about the question that is being asked — I want to know why my right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness is somehow less important that making sure that Americans can be armed to the teeth.
I’m trying to explain that you are citing a passage from the Declaration of Independence, which has no rule of law, to counter an amendment to the Constitution, which does.
A well conceived list, I agree with all of it. But remember that at this point the long anticipated greatest fear of the gunners has been realized: “Obama’s comin’ fer yer guns!!!”, at least in their tiny minds. And as usual in a propaganda campaign truth is of no value to the intended target. I am surprised that with the large number of politicians the NRA own they have been stupid enough to launch the ill considered “elitist Obama” campaign against the presidents daughters, perhaps next they’ll attack teddy bears and flowers.
The Declaration of Independence is the predicate to the Constitution — a statement of political principles. If the rules of Natural Law that it enumerates don’t mean anything, then the Constitution that is based in defending that Natural Law doesn’t mean anything.
And yet, in the courts, one has the force of law and the other doesn’t. I’ll say this for you, you’re just like a conservative — when you’re wrong, you always double down.
Geezer’s totally right but as the old saying goes “the liberty to swing your fist ends at my nose.” Cass has a point.
And that point can be addressed in court. If my guns hurt Cassandra, she can sue me.
If she’s alive. If not, then I guess her family can sue.
And that’s the thing… the outcome with guns is not equivalent with a fender bender. The consequences of gun violence are pretty severe.
Cassandra – surely you see the point that is being made – after all you chide on the importance of precision in these posts.
Ill go so far to say that there is some truth in the NRA ad – however stupid and ill-conceived. The SCHOOL that Obamas (and many other D & R Presidents) children attend hires armed gaurds for the safety – outside of the SS – of all students. So the response from the white house that protecting the rest of the nations children with guns in schools is omehow extreme – lacks some integrity as well. Unfortunately this paints me as somehow defending their ad – which I dont.
Unfortunately this paints me as somehow defending their ad – which I dont.
I’m not so sure you don’t, since you say there’s some truth in it. The school houses a lot of high profile, people’s kids – kids that could be targeted for political kidnapping. That’s the point.
What infuriates me, is that up until Obama became President no one – and I mean no one – questioned protection for these kids. We understood how these kids could be used to create an international/national incident.
People who agree with this ad have also called out the President for having Secret Service protection. ALL of this is merely another way to cry that Obama isn’t a legitimate President. This NRA ad is trash.
And yet, in the courts, one has the force of law and the other doesn’t.
And apparently, you’ve no idea what the word “predicate” means. Which is OK. That is what you have in common with conservatives — willful ignorance.
The ad is stupid. The president’s kids are different than your kids. People don’t threaten to kill you and your mom and dad up to 30 times a day. Apparently it’s already been taken down. Not surprised.
There was an armed guard at Columbine. Much good it did them.
Not to mention that point 18 addresses this:
18. Provide incentives for schools to hire school resource officers.
So people still going on about how providing SR officers to schools won’t happen weren’t paying attention. I know, shocking.
lots of (at least) Delaware schools have SROs already. My high school did more than 10 years ago.
You can change the subject all you like, Cassandra, and you still will be wrong. The Second Amendment has been and can be adjudicated. A clause from the Declaration cannot.
You wanted to know why your right to those things enumerated in the Constitution does not count as much as the right to own guns. I explained it for you. You don’t like the explanation, yet you can’t refute it.
Willful ignorance right back at you.
“4. Direct the Attorney General to review categories of individuals prohibited from having a gun to make sure dangerous people are not slipping through the cracks.”
Can anyone provide an explanation as to how a right enumerated in the Constitution can abrogated by legislation or regulation? Certainly there are individuals who should not possess a firearm, but what’s the legal rationale? Is there something in the Constitution that would trump their 2nd Amendment rights? For felons, for example, I can understand how society would reduce/restrict their citizenship rights, but how about the mentally ill for instance?
I’m still on this subject right here. Which doesn’t have a thing to do with adjudication, but I get that you need to deflect the discussion away from this basic question. Most conservatives do.
Who are you alleging is depriving the slain of their rights? Your initial sentence is in the passive voice.
And save the name-calling. I couldn’t care less what you think I am. Save the “conservative” epithet for someone who takes you seriously.
Did you or did you not call for all vehicles entering certain neighborhoods to be searched by police, probable cause or not?
Pandora – I am aware of the Resource officer section and support it and all of the Exec. Orders. In particular, it seems to leave it locals to decide if they persue this and get the funding.
Cassandra – I am pointing out that the school – REGARDLESS of the presidents children – protects them with armed gaurds. The SS and and protection of the first family is above and beyond those gaurds – as it should be. I dont support the idea that the children in this school are somehow more worthy of protection.
The President and WH reversed on this idea and now seem comfortable enough with it (The NRA proposed that the government pay for putting an armed guard in every school in America, an idea President Obama did not greet warmly on Meet the Press Dec. 30th.).
This school chose to do so and i suspect others will as well. The NRA AD tried to make this point but – as usual – went over the top and then into some back alley.
Dave: SCOTUS has your answers.
Independent: If that’s the NRA’s solution, let’s have them fund it. That said, I support it as a jobs program. I’m glad conservative gun owners agree, but since their guns make those jobs necessary, let’s tax guns and ammo to pay for them.
Dave – Whe Delaware stopped doing State background checks – those with domestic violence charges, Restraining orders and pending drug convictions – slipped through the cracks – at least for a period of time – (our automated system is not yet working to quickly report to the national level from my understanding) – it takes time for this to happen.
This means that those “prohibited persons” could get a gun because the federal BG check didnt yet have the infromation to stop it. I read that this provision will develop some mechanism for ensuring there is a deeper check – perhaps with awaiting period.
Geezer – I think there is some good in concept of funding the RO from Gun sales, etc.
At this point it is no longer the NRA’s idea but also the WH.
If we did go that way – It wont be long before the conversation turns to drivers of cars funding crossing gaurds… and the like.
Independent: So we should hire guards at all schools in the US to prevent the handful of shootings that occur at them? Is that really an efficient way to combat the problem, or is it just the most knee-jerk reaction to the obvious fact that we get more upset when children are the victims?
Funny how you condemn the window-dressing laws proposed by liberals, but you love a window-dressing solution suggested by conservatives. Independent my ass.
Geezer – As proposed it allows the locals the choice to do so. Yes, I do think that we are more upset when children are harmed and obviously the reason we are having another gun control debate. As you said broke the camels back again.
You missed it again – if it is window dressing it should be called as such – i dont care where it comes from.
P.S. – Efficiency? That is a joke right?
Geezer – you do understand the intersection of the Gun free zone discussion and armed guards at school?
Independent: You don’t get it. An enormous number of laws on the books are window dressing. Sorry, but your “rights” are at the bottom of my to-be-concerned-about list, mainly because I don’t own guns.
Tell ya what — right after we stop taking everyone’s shoes off at the airport, I’ll get around to condemning this bit of window dressing.
“As proposed it allows the locals the choice to do so.”
They have always had the right to do so.
“Dave: SCOTUS has your answers”
Geezer, you could be right. I have just be unable to find it. I was hoping for a more detailed answer, such as the actual answer. LOL.
Everyone agrees that those with mental illness should not possess firearms, but if we can constrain a constitutional right of one class of individuals, what limits the infringement to a single class? So I was kind of looking for what rationale was.
Geezer: Nope – for Delaware public schools Dover defunded this – did they not?
If you suggest they had the ability to pay for armed guards – maybe via PTA, et al. – this would be news to me.
Laws are one things and proposals are another. Right now we stand n the doorway of effecting legislation – and if we keep more window dressing out during the knee jerk response – great. Especially if it gets workable solutions.
As for shoes at airport – does it not do any good to do so or does it prevent those from trying to hide stuff in their shoes? hard to say I suppose… However taking shoes off is not a law – rather a TSA rule correct? Seems important to differentiate. Havent noticed a right to wear shoes at a certain time and therefore the difference.
Lastly – My rights, your rights, all rights deserve to be defended – in my book. Not a problem for me if my rights are not your priority.
“For Delaware public schools Dover defunded this – did they not? If you suggest they had the ability to pay for armed guards – maybe via PTA, et al. – this would be news to me.”
Of course they did, at the school board level. Red Clay opted to keep theirs. There was no ban on it.
“if we keep more window dressing out during the knee jerk response – great.”
Why? You apparently didn’t care about knee-jerk laws until your own ox was gored.
“As for shoes at airport – does it not do any good to do so or does it prevent those from trying to hide stuff in their shoes? hard to say I suppose”
Are you playing dumb, or are you actually dumb? Have you heard of a single bomb being found? Considering the clowns being prosecuted as “terrorists,” do you think they would fail to publicize such a case if one occurred? It’s a rhetorical question, BTW.
“My rights, your rights, all rights deserve to be defended – in my book.”
You have no right to an assault weapon in the Supreme Court’s book. Guess which book weighs more, yours or theirs?
Dave: That is not the only class restricted. Also restricted are children, felons and what we used to call the ‘mentally deficient.’
Geezer – Red Clay – again news to me and I think it great. Sounds like those that want it get more funding – those that didnt have the money, but want it, get support.
You dont know me or what I was in favor or against. Ill say it again – I oppose feel good laws that effect individual rights and in general all feel good laws that dont accomplish.
Rhetorical qeustion or not – you are suggesting someone that knows a bomb will be found if hidden in their shoes… will still hide it in the shoes? Nope – they move to their underwear, printers as shipped items, etc.
You now want to mince definitions – the “assault” guns were included in “guns” that all have the right to own before the ban and after the ban. Those that already had them – kept them during their ban… more rights for them…
I am for all kinds of rights that I dont exercise – You dont like mine – then make your stand, vote your conscience. If I can vote my and effect legislation to protect kids, preserve rights – I will.
You wanted to know why your right to those things enumerated in the Constitution does not count as much as the right to own guns.
Actually, this is not what I was asking, but for Christ’s sake, just stop playing. I think that it is plenty clear that you *aren’t* going engage on the question asked. Willful ignorance indeed.
Did you or did you not call for all vehicles entering certain neighborhoods to be searched by police, probable cause or not?
Um, no. You keep trying to use this as a deflection from the topic at hand, which is how we know that you’re played out.
Armed guards in schools as a deterrent to assault weapons sounds a bit like duct tape and plastic sheeting to me. And the NRA swipe is just a phony distraction. The Obama kids go to private school, in addition to the security guards (provided for the students who don’t have Secret Service protection), I’m sure their tuition provides for the best fruit rollups in the land too.
Assault weapons is such a terrible term. Isn’t any object used in violence an “assault weapon”? Besides, more people are killed every year by hammers and bats than rifles of all types. But I understand, a tragedy happens and people need to see something done whether or not it will actually works. Just think if bombs were banned before the first trade center or oklahoma city bombings, all of those people would be saved.
Hey, while we are at it, let’s ban drugs like cocaine and heroin. We all know how much violence follows in their wake.
In a Fresh Air interview today, Dustin Hoffman noted that he had never held a gun in a movie role on principle.
Little Big Man?
Also Ishtar, Straw Dogs, Marathon Man, Billy Bathgate and Hook.
http://www.imfdb.org/wiki/Dustin_Hoffman
I guess he punked Terry Gross.
How do you want your question addressed? It’s clear I’m not doing it correctly.
“What about the rights of the slain?” is the question, correct? We charge people who kill others in the courts is the only answer I know of to that question.
I had to laugh. I have read that statistically, because I own guns, I am obviously more likely to be shot than someone who doesn’t own guns. So what happens yesterday? I slipped and fell down 14 steps stone cold sober in broad daylight (as such as yesterday had any broad daylight). I guess one just can’t mitigate all risk in one life.
Need money for gun control? Tax guns, by whatever amount is needed to make safe, legal gun ownership possible. It could be an equally distributed tax among gun owners; perhaps a rising rate for multiple guns. Taxing real estate property pays for government entities that makes real estate ownership possible. By the same token, those that don’t own such ‘property’ don’t pay the tax just as folks who don’t drive cars, don’t pay gasoline tax at the pump.
Dennis claims to be a gun collector. (The following video switches back and forth between two households:) Keep watching, as the doctor and law enforcement come to Dennis’s home. Gun advocates, kindly observe Dennis and decide if this ‘gun collector’ and family, needed help. If you don’t think so, kindly explain, why not.
http://www.aetv.com/hoarders/video/
Meatball – I hope you werent seriously injured.
@Phil
“Assault weapons is such a terrible term. Isn’t any object used in violence an “assault weapon”?”
Fail. There can be huge differences in the number of people killed depending on the weapon used. It’s a huge component, it factors big time.
“Hey, while we are at it, let’s ban drugs like cocaine and heroin. We all know how much violence follows in their wake”
Epic Fail. In countries where stringent gun control laws were passed and enforced, they saw notable declines in murder rates. I welcome you to name one example – via creditable source – where this was not the case.
Scritchy – Agreed the weapon can cause huge differences… but since not all rifles fall into the “Assault Weapon” then these numbers are scary:
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-11
Even if we attribute a percentage Overall vs. rifles) of the “Guns Unknown” to the rifle category and assume ALL rifles are Assualt weapons… it suffers in comparison to hands, feet and fists…
Does that mean do nothing – no, we need changes – no doubt. But we are still talking about a “right” as enumerated in the bill of rights and the numbers dont seem to explain a ban based on this limited definition of “Assault Weapon”.
The background checks, stopping the P2P and magazine restrictions/bans in addition to the Pres. XO items seem to put these “assault weapons” back in the “normal guns” if there is such a thing…
why dont we just base it on rate of fire? If you pull the trigger and lot’s of bullets come out….. it doesnt need to be in any civilian’s personal stash.
” If you pull the trigger and lot’s of bullets come out”
Already illegal.
Dangerous Persons In Possession of Gun Weaponry
The above shouldn’t become the ‘new normal;’ and something people need to ‘adapt to,’ as republicans would suggest. Although people may need to adapt in the short term, as changes are made.
The subject isn’t ‘Guns at Schools.’ Just a short generation ago, there was no need to protect from ‘guns at schools’ People would have said, that’s just plain crazy. The ‘subject’ is ‘Dangerous Persons In Possession of Gun Weaponry’ as the broader subject. Just as Sandy woke people up re climate change; Newtown made people realize, Newtown is their town. Especially because of easy access to increasingly dangerous guns/ammo. Sure, one bullet can kill; but rapid fire can kill more, quicker and with more damages. That’s the reason 27 people shot – no ambulances were needed.
Dangerous people in possession of blunt or sharp instruments, is a different topic. There are places for people who can’t handle sharp instruments. Lanza knew which weapon he wanted to use, which ammo and why. Lanza, with a sharp instrument, wouldn’t have been standing for five seconds.
The Newtown rampage wasn’t just about kids at school and school personnel. It also involved a person, who wasn’t the gun owner being in possession of someone else’s guns. Had he been considered dangerous, while ‘permitted’ to practice skilled marksmanship? Should dangerous persons be allowed to practice with guns? Or was his dangerous condition, something that happened a day or hours preceding his mother’s death. Is it about a person, perhaps becoming recently ‘dangerous?’
It’s also involves domestic violence – was violence in the home ongoing? If so, are parents or guardians legally required to seek help? How many times do you read of an abused person, excusing the abuser, not seeking legal action, only to be abused again. (But ah loves him.) How often are police called, but charges aren’t filed? Perhaps abused victims, should be legally required by law to report every type of abuse, have possession of a filed, report of record, so that authorities will be required to follow through on that complaint for a correct evaluation and suitable action..
Perhaps the current case, is about a bright youth, without a positive direction, without coping skills, without a future. Had I read that he had ‘fallen off the radar for three years?’ Was he a young man, not at school, who practiced his shooting skills, didn’t work, lived with a frustrated mother, who wanted him perhaps ‘put’ away? Obviously, after the fact, one can say, help was needed at that home.
Killing and suicide are violent acts. Included in the ‘problem’ were both of his parents, their lack of involvement in his direction and certainly, their lack of safety regarding powerful, rapid fire guns, which he was trained to handle, and that were made accessible by the people who (most likely) knew of the ‘situation.’ Hopefully, investigations will provide some insight into what went wrong in that home and that family or what outside influences there might have been as well. People learn from mistakes.
The question is, how many loopholes did Lanza fall through? How many loopholes can be closed off. What up-to-date laws are needed.
He came through a school window, but the window that was shot wide open, is the window to people, any age, whether employed or not, at any location, at any size gathering, which could include lists equally horrendous – who can be shot by a dangerous person with an available gun.
And as far as ‘dangerous people’ go, aren’t republicans just lying again. Who is dumb enough to think gun owners are ‘all’ such law abiding, competent citizens?
The victims of gun violence in that case were the parent, the kids, the school employees and even himself. 1) dangerous people plus 2) weaponry have to be equaled by 3) laws to see that the 1), 2) combination doesn’t come together. The subject may shine some light on people who are/or are becoming dangerous to others and themselves. The light also shines on guns – in reach of such persons. Limiting the discussion to schools, is like knowing – there is an armed terrorist getting on board the plane and announcing, “All school children and teachers, please leave the airport.” All other passengers, please board the flight. The truth is – everyone is at risk.
A weapon is mobile and concealable. Just as no one knows the location of the next climate catastrophe, it will nonetheless, take place. The next gunman with weapons, ( the unknown X) can’t be pin pointed. Ways to reduce the (risk) damages, are 1) reducing the amount of potentially dangerous gunmen and 2) reducing rapid and damaging weaponry and ammo. If a gun owner thinks having a small clip slows him down, he is correct – it does. There has to be a point when too much power and speed of execution and damage are overkill, or every shoot out, every home invasion, every police encounter, could become a war zone military battle.
A good analogy, is comparing two WMDs, (CO2 and guns.) Reducing CO2 is the only known method of reducing climate change, yet there are special interests who want more. We now need to ‘adapt’ (adjust to conditions,) of CC but we need to face reality and reduce the real threat to our environment. Similarly, gun special interests say – guns don’t kill, more and better guns, more gunmen is the answer. Both are financially motivated and not in our best interests. The reality is, both CO2 and weaponry need sensible limits, with ‘adaptation’ measures taken in the present time, as reduction steps are taken to get both under control for a safer, livable environment.
Just a short generation ago… (info from mass shootings timeline – not mine)
California State University 12 July 1976
Edward Charles Allaway, 37, bought a semi-automatic rifle at a Kmart store and used it to kill seven people in the library where he worked as a custodian. He was subsequently found not guilty by reason of insanity and committed to a mental hospital.
University of Texas 1 August 1966
After murdering his wife and mother, Charles Whitman killed 14 people and wounded nearly three dozen from the 28th floor of the university clock tower, before being killed by police.
The former marine entered the university’s mechanical engineering programme after leaving the army, where he had earned a badge for sharpshooting.
——————
There is no suggestion that this is the new normal – hopefully that is spelled out by What the president offered in the XO’s that he signed.
More gunmen? I haven’t heard that argument – rather if the targets of mentally unbalanced gun toters are going to be gun free zones and places like schools – lets protect them with those that are already trained and have guns. Jeez – we protect our banks with armed gaurds,money as it floats in secure vehicles, our passengers on plans (armed marshals), jewelry stores and many other high valuable “targets”.
The FBI stats are in stark contrast to the idea that eliminating a tremendously small portion of “Assault Weapons” is the answer. The numbers dont bear it out. Rather something more comprehensive needs to be done.
Unfortunately you are correct that there will be bad people with legal guns – very true. I dont believe that anything should be said that all gun owners are incapable. But just as it didn’t take a gun for the coward Tim McVeigh – do we outlaw Ryder trucks because it carried his bomb to the location?
There is no silver bullet ( no pun) it is a collective set of responses that is the solution.
If your going to compare CO2 and guns – lets compare DUI and Guns…
“Meatball – I hope you werent seriously injured.”
Thanks, I just broke a couple of fingers.
Whitman was found to have a tumor on his brain. He was not mentally unstable
And after the Murragh Building bomb, ammonium nitrate, which McVeigh used to build his bomb was then regulated. Large sales are reported to the FBI
Amonium nitrate is a agricultural ingredient commonly used a fertilizer and is also used mixed with other ingrediants as a “stump puller”. A way to decimate stumps from cut down trees to make removal easier
There are many normal uses for AN in daily life, but McVeigh misused it and now it’s regulated
As is SUDAFED….
No one is picking on guns…..they are just misused by some sick and some evil people in society, So, now they r going to be regulated…….again
So, what exactly is the problem? Does everyone forget these words in the second amendment- A WELL REGULATED MILITIA
why do folks only focus on the right to bear arms and for get the well- regulated part
Clearly the Second Amendment was written ambiguously as a huge practical joke by the Founding Fathers. “A well regulated militia…” is a total non-sequitur, as the sentence is constructed. I’m sure it was left for us to puzzle over.
Actually puck, that makes a lot of sense. If the militia is in existence to act as a power check on the entire government, then the government shouldn’t regulate it at all. It should be allowed to have better weapons than the government and actually constantly threaten it……. wait…
puck-
Truer words have never been spoken.
Aoine-
The 2nd Amendment is clear that the MILITIA should be well regulated. It says nothing about regulating “arms”. As puck said (indirectly), it’s a poorly worded amendment.
I suspect alcohol was involved.
Aoine – The comparisons usingSudafed and Ammonium Nitrate – dont seem to match up to my understanding.
For each of those cases – anyone can purchase both. They are not banned.
In particular – the AN requirement to purchase substantial quantites requires little different than every legal gun purchase in the nation. Supply indentification and be checked against a database.
I read that homeland Security has proposed additional regulations that would require the reporting of theft or loss of AN. Perhaps this where the idea of reporting stolen guns requirement comes in – seems like a good addition to the rules on both counts.
Do I misunderstand?
Correctly pointing out his hypocrisy is not “vile” it is truth. He runs around claiming that guns endanger children, that guns make us less safe, yet he sends his kids to a school with numerous armed guards, and is himself defended by a bunch of men carrying guns.
“Direct the Attorney General to review categories of individuals prohibited from having a gun to make sure dangerous people are not slipping through the cracks.”
Huh? What makes Obama think the AG has the authority to do this? The only legal way to do this would be to Amend the GCA of 68, which has to be done by Congress.
This means that those “prohibited persons” could get a gun because the federal BG check didnt yet have the infromation to stop it. I read that this provision will develop some mechanism for ensuring there is a deeper check – perhaps with awaiting period.
The entire point of the National INSTANT Check System (NICS) is to eliminate a wait.
If Delaware was not providing the required information regarding felons, those adjudicated mentally ill, and other prohibited persons to the Feds for inclusion into NICS then why the heck did they do away with the state level background check? Why not make sure you’re complying with the Feds before scrapping it? And if you are reporting that information to the Feds, then why have the State level check at all, since it’s merely redundant and a waste of time, money and paper at that point?