Obama on gun control


March 13, 2011, 06:38 PM

With all the things going on today, the most useful thing he can think of to do is write articles and rehash something from two months ago for political gain.

If you enjoyed reading about "Obama on gun control" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
March 13, 2011, 06:49 PM
"But since that day, we have lost perhaps another 2,000 members of our American family to gun violence. Thousands more have been wounded. We lose the same number of young people to guns every day and a half as we did at Columbine, and every four days as we did at Virginia Tech."

How many others do we lose to drunk driving accidents and or stabbings? I'd also like to see where these supposed 2000 victims lived and the crime rate of those areas. And then on top of that... how many were due to illegal gun owners that these magical laws somehow didn't stop.

Funny he didn't mention the ATF Gunrunner scandal.

March 13, 2011, 06:59 PM
What no one wants to add is two things.

1) Death by gunshot is dropping dramatically over the past few years

2) A missused Child murders stats are very highly tilted toward gang
shootings (almost all 100% illegal guns)

An "amazing" trend

Its seems the more legal gun ownership, the less crime occurs.......................

Certain folks wish to hide these facts

March 13, 2011, 07:18 PM
Words of a politician, but are they actually from POTUS or just a poseur? I'm skeptical that the President of the United States would spontaneously put this out in a state news paper this way.

Ignoring the source for a moment and personal opinions of the individual, how do we respond to the presented piece if someone asks, "What reasonable things can be done to keep people like the two deeply disturbed young men who perpetrated these mass murders in VA and AZ from purchasing firearms?".

What's the response?

March 13, 2011, 07:19 PM
I think Obama's three points were good. The problem is that I don't trust him or anyone in his administration to implement them without adding more than what he just said.

March 13, 2011, 07:22 PM
to implement them without adding more than what he just said

It's all in the execution. It would be nice if the ATF didn't make the rules, and merely enforced them. Let Congress make the rules. My two cents

March 13, 2011, 07:23 PM
hso - my response: absolutely nothing!

We can make gun laws as restrictive as you like, these disturbed individuals will always find a way to obtain and misuse firearms...IMHO!

March 13, 2011, 07:28 PM
+1 Peter S if they cant get guns they will use something else you cant fix crazy.

March 13, 2011, 07:38 PM
Amazing! Obama proposes - get this - enforcing laws already on the books!! finally, some one gets it- there are more than enough gun laws, too many im sure most here would agree- Simple enforcement of existing laws is what is needed, not more restrictions!! article link (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2011/03/13/state/n154257D48.DTL&tsp=1)

I know , i know- most here are unable to speak anything but extreme ill against O, but when you look at what has happened towards guns during his time in office, (removal of restrictions, some put in place by W, not adding more restrictions) he's nothing he was made out to be, and has done more for guns than against. With the typical knee-jerk response to most of the recent maniac-shooters, this is a very positive step./ He mentions seeking to find common ground with gun owners, it is not unreasonable to try and find reasonable solutions to unstable maniacs who should probably be in a mental hospital making the rest of the gun owners look bad
(ironically, look into why mental illness is so poorly cared for in the US)

March 13, 2011, 07:40 PM
hogshead - after I posted I remembered that crazy at the China olympics who stabbed a bunch of people. Yep, you don't need guns to cause mayhem, but an armed citizenry seems to create such anxiety among some politicians...one wonders why.

March 13, 2011, 07:49 PM
OK folks here's the thing. Politics is an off topic subject here at THR, but gun control and Activism is not. That sometimes seems like a conflict but it really isn't.

Let's discuss the content of the op-ed piece by the President in terms of what gun control measures might be proposed here and what we might do about them.

Party politics or anything remotely resembling that will be gone. Please, this is important to discuss, he is the President and what he says matters. Don't get this closed by making it about party politics.


March 13, 2011, 07:50 PM
Lock up criminals.


Get help for the mentally ill.

This ain't a gun problem.
It's a crime problem.
And a health problem.

For the sake of love and humanity, they need to stop thinking that the gun caused it all.

March 13, 2011, 07:52 PM
TX Rifleman, my friend, I thoroughly appreciate your call to respond to the Gun Control question.
But I really believe that this isn't a gun control issue.

The president references mental illness.
And he references crime.
Those are the issues.

Not 'Reasonable Gun Control'.

March 13, 2011, 07:54 PM
I thought it was rather lacking in actual content. A whole lot of smooth talking, without saying specifically what he's getting at. That said, I can't find anything he said that stands out to me as objectionable. It's what was left unsaid. HOW are you going to go about keeping guns out of the hands of those that would use them inappropriately. It's tough to argue about what was left unsaid, and I suspect that's why he didn't say it.

March 13, 2011, 07:55 PM
posted similar in legal ,(thought this was more legal)
Amazing the different take you all got- enforce existing laws was the main theme of what i saw. NOT "we need more laws, more restrictions, less guns" Simply - enforce what we have. ALSO O quoted along the lines of "finding common ground" not "get rid of all the guns"
You can be paranoid, be absolutely certain everything not REpublican is aimed at taking your guns, but better to look at the reality here- in the face of a large incident, O calls for basically - nothing!
You want to be angry, figure out who flushed all America's funding for mental illness some years ago and increased the crazies that cause all these problems...(clue, it wasnt a Dem)

March 13, 2011, 07:55 PM
TX Rifleman, my friend, I thoroughly appreciate your call to respond to the Gun Control question.
But I really believe that this isn't a gun control issue.

I completely agree but this will be discussed whether we think it's a gun control issue or not. We know the anti's want to make EVERYTHING a gun control issue.

They would blame the Tsunami in Japan on the 100th birthday of the 1911 if they could figure out a decent story.

March 13, 2011, 07:56 PM
"What reasonable things can be done to keep people like the two deeply disturbed young men who perpetrated these mass murders in VA and AZ from purchasing firearms?".

What's the response?

If they have violated no laws prior to purchase to become disqualified under current statutes, the answer is - nothing. With liberty is inherent risk, and I chose to accept the risk. Curbing or eliminating liberties will not reduce the risk by the same level. If this was true, prisons would be the safest places on earth.

March 13, 2011, 08:08 PM
We can make gun laws as restrictive as you like, these disturbed individuals will always find a way to obtain and misuse firearms...IMHO!

That's not quite correct. If the judge for Cho had met his responsibility and committed him instead of insisting that he voluntarily commit himself Cho wouldn't have passed the background check at the shop. Also, if VA had a reporting system equal to most other states, and that they now have, Cho would have failed the background check. We know that the state of VA failed us and the students of Va Tech by stacking the deck to favor a deeply disturbed violent young man's privacy over our safety.

March 13, 2011, 08:16 PM
He talks about common ground - that is political speak for "we gun owners give in and they take" as usual. There's a hidden agenda in everything he does. If you buy a gun legally and turn out to be an unstable person later, you still bought it legally under our current guvmint system. No one can stop that.

Just remember the old saying about the leopard and his spots.

Black Knight
March 13, 2011, 08:24 PM
I'm going to try to keep this from going political and getting tossed out. You say there has been a removal of some restrictions since he has been in office. What restrictions is he responsible for removing? The ban in DC? That was the Supreme Court. The ban in Chicago? That was based on the DC case. I can't think of one restriction that has been removed because of him. Please educate me, maybe I missed something. I do agree enforcing existing laws is a step in the right direction but his actions speak louder than his words.

March 13, 2011, 08:30 PM
Yea I bet if you were from Ill. you would'nt belive anything he said,he voted for handgun ban, wanted semiauto rifles banned, on and on. I think he speaks with forked tongue.

March 13, 2011, 08:41 PM
hso - surely you aren't suggesting mass involuntary committment of people that MIGHT pose a threat to your safety. I think our (privacy) rights have enough problems being defended from the continuous onslaught of politicians. But maybe that's just me. (Oh, and Ben Franklin.)

March 13, 2011, 08:41 PM
If the judge for Cho had met his responsibility and committed him instead of insisting that he voluntarily commit himself Chow wouldn't have passed the background check at the shop.

I respectfully submit that that's a dangerous line of thinking. It's rational and that's the problem. The other side is not. "He could have easily taken advantage of the gun show loophole or made a private sale after his release" is the response from the other side.

"Clearly those things need to be illegal in order to prevent the mentally ill from getting guns right? You've already agreed with us that more controls are needed, it's just common sense"

It's always a slippery slope and creeping incrementalism. The Cho situation is difficult of course. The only answer that works is allowing citizens to fight back and defend themselves. It's a dangerous world and you can't legislate it safe.

There have always been crazy people who want to harm others. Cain and Able couldn't even get along...

March 13, 2011, 08:42 PM
Canada's "fiasco-Long-Gun-Registry",, 20 years and over a BILLION $$$,,,,,

gangbangers and druggies using UNLAWFULLY Acquired PROHIBITED Weapons in alarming numbers, Police Forces out-gunned,

for criminals using firearms in commission of crime ??,the Courts dispense minimal and un-punishing sentences,

BUT on the side of "The Law Abiding" shooter/hunter/firearms collector ? Government background checks,ridiculous storage and transportation laws,search and seizure without formal charges, destruction of lawfully owned property without compensation, the list is TOO long to type !

more STRINGENT GUN LAWS have done NOTHING to curb GUN crime in this (CANADA) experiment !, with more unenforceable GUN laws aimed at criminals, BUT doing a LOT to disarm the law abiding citizens,

March 13, 2011, 09:05 PM
So tell us of these reasonable solutions to prevent people from murdering each other.
HSO put it pretty well. I see nothing further than existing laws other than possibly when an obviously unstable person is before a judge, commit them. It's good to start a flame war rather than offer something productive, but the inference was we HAVE more than enough laws that would keep guns from inherently dangerous people IF we enforced them, and properly funded care for mentally ill people. judges unfortunately on occasion take into account how many beds are available in the nuthouse before committing people, or simply decide to give people a break they shouldn't because the tax dollars for a 5150 don't seem worth it. I'm not sure i agree with the idea that one episode denys you arms for life, BUT getting mentally ill people into some kind of treatment and in some cases off the street would solve most of the rampage problems.

I see you are from Berkley. yeah, and? i also THOUGHT i was on thehighroad. Im actually in berkelEy, not berkely but anyway, IRRELEVANT.

I see for added confusion my other thread was merged with this. good, but id have been fine with deletion of mine, this one was first after all// oh well

March 13, 2011, 09:11 PM
anyway a better way to make my point-
lip service to antis that's what Obama did. A tragedy occurred, he had to say something, he said "let's use what we have". This is not The Brady Bill. Hey what side was running things then?
if people looked at this from a purely gun onwer viewpoint, this is a win,. Because people choose to make it political, "the other side said something about guns, this is all bad"./
The guy was elected by group that is largely antis, but he knows he needs both sides AND -a huge number of gun owners voted for him believe it, hate it whatever Bottom line he was obligated to speak out in some fashion, and NO NEW LEGISLATION was proposed

March 13, 2011, 09:36 PM
Thorn, I disagree. The entire piece was lip service to try and pacify pro-gunners. Enforce current laws... right. Are you honestly going to ignore his record? Are you going to forget about all the things he has lied about over the course of the last 2+ years because he is saying what you want to hear?

The President, like many politicians on both sides of the aisle, is a snake. His record is the only thing we can judge him by and his record speaks anti-gun truths. His record is the only thing we can judge him by and his record speaks LIES and Deceit. I wish I could agree with you that he has no ill feelings towards the 2nd Amendment.

While you and I may disagree on his goals by writing the piece, there is one thing we can agree on. He's not going to get new legislation through congress. That is only true however, if pro-gunners stay alert...

Question: How do you know that a "large number" of gun owners voted for him? It would surprise me if it were true...

I will stipulate that if what he says here is true, and IF he can somehow manage to keep his word unlike so many times in the last two years, gun owners and pro-gunners can take a deep breath.

However, I don't trust him and the fact is: THERE IS NO REASON TO TRUST HIM.

Larry E
March 13, 2011, 09:46 PM
A person who is intent on committing murder or suicide will find a means to do what they are intent on doing. Can't get a gun, I'll make a bomb, I'll use a knife, drive a car into the person or just a crowd if I'm not particular about who gets killed or injured. There are lots of options for someone sufficiently driven and intent on doing what they want.

The ONLY purpose for gun control laws is to control people.

I can't believe that Obama believes that the 2A guarantees the individual right to keep and bear arms. He's never done anything to show that he does, and plenty to show that he doesn't.

March 13, 2011, 09:48 PM
How do you stop criminals by enacting more laws? By definition, a criminal is someone who ignores the law.

double bogey
March 13, 2011, 10:02 PM
Did't I read that Loughner had previous legal issues that were swept under the rug by family that would have commited him? And if he had been commited he wouldn't have been able to purchase the weapon he used to shoot the rep and others.

March 13, 2011, 10:04 PM
Thorn, I disagree. The entire piece was lip service to try and pacify pro-gunners. Enforce current laws... right. Are you honestly going to ignore his record? Are you going to forget about all the things he has lied about over the course of the last 2+ years because he is saying what you want to hear?

The thread is supposed to not just wallow in politics, I thought, but whatever :rolleyes:

For those who think this is all just an elaborate trap -- are you "honestly going to ignore" the self-serving, self-aggrandizing ego trip universal to all politicians, not just His Annointedness, which drives them all to set principal aside so they can get elected? You think O-and-Co. are interested in risking the White House and further losses in Congress just so they can slap themselves on the back about a gun control bill their Republican replacements will kick off the books?

If the man really believed in anything enough to put himself on the line about it, he wouldn't be in elected office.

March 13, 2011, 10:11 PM
And that's as far as we're gonna go on that line of discussion - OK?

Keep it apolitical and keep it on topic.

March 13, 2011, 10:15 PM
yeah, and? i also THOUGHT i was on thehighroad. Im actually in berkelEy, not berkely but anyway, IRRELEVANT.

I don't think its irrelevant. You are from a hotbed of liberalism and in a very pro-Obama place. You may trust him more than people from elsewhere.

March 13, 2011, 10:22 PM
I don't want to hear that he isn't what he was cracked up to be...he just wised up before he did something stupid.
Your enemy being too afraid to act against you does not make him your friend.

March 13, 2011, 10:28 PM
The president references mental illness.
And he references crime.
Those are the issues.

Not 'Reasonable Gun Control'.

I do think that's a pretty accurate statement there.

We can't stop people killing each other using the tools at hand, but what we can do is help people before they get desperate enough to do it for no good reason. This can range from mental issues, over poverty, up to anything, really. I do think the core issue here isn't guns. It's about some individuals not seeing their chance to become productive members of society.
the more integrated into a society an individual is (which can include rebelling against society, too) the less likely they have a reason to destroy it. Be it a punk kid on the street, a square with his 2.5 children, a rich brat-actress or whatever else, the more a person is vested into being a valuable member of society as a whole, the less likely they are to feel the need to truly destroy society, which really is all a killing is.

.. So yeah, I do believe that treating mental illness and helping people succeed out of poverty is a high priority in reducing "stupid killings" but ultimately we as a society should reconsider both our values and how we deal with the parts of society we don't agree with. We don't have to agree or like each other; but we do have to respect each other's right to exist.

March 13, 2011, 10:44 PM
(listens intently, peeks around corner, stays low, ventures out ....)

Just a few comments, probably not polished or arranged coherently, but carefully crafted to stay, uh, inside the white lines.

Thanks to thorn for 1) reading it (I skimmed it, noticed it was essentially content-free and stylistically up to the standards we've seen from the WH's 20-something-run speech shop) 2) pointing out that in fact the op-ed doesn't actually suggest anything in particular.

As many above have noted, no gaping hole in the law seems to be indicated by the Tucson events, or those at VA Tech. Plenty of tools for law enforcement/society to use already at hand. To the OP's question, this is - however familiar and unexciting - actually the best substantive response from gun owners.

In this regard, sometimes it wouldn't hurt to do a bit of broader education by pointing out that "fixes" to problems that develop - when ample law and regulation already exist - are not just needless but can be quite damaging. An example was Sarbanes-Oxley, an initiative that was obviously unneccessary and ill-advised at the time it was mounted "in response" to the Enron situation, and of course did in fact prove disastrous for the capital markets of the US, while the culprits were naturally quite lavishly prosecuted under old, existing laws.

The timing of this is reassuring, in that it's weird. It was reassuring to see how short-lived the "window" of idiocy opened by the Tucson events turned out to be, and how few DOA gun-control proposals actually emerged in that brief time (Rep. King - er, ***?? OK, whatever). I haven't paid as much attention in past similar circumstances, but perhaps others can confirm my impression that the knee-jerk, mindless "gun control" responses to earlier incidents, and the "window" of public opinion/political opportunity, were much longer in duration.

It kinda makes sense that there would be such a non-reaction to Tucson, if the surveys on "gun control" issues are correct. The broader public seems to be getting much more rational and practical about firearms laws, according to these polling results.

My fervent hope is that the President and members of his party in Congress, prior to November 2012, go beyond the nothing-burger platitudes of the op-ed in question to suggest bolder, more concrete, ground-breaking sorts of new laws and regulations aimed at averting "gun violence". Please. PLEASE.

March 13, 2011, 10:47 PM
I do not think poverty causes crime. I think crime and poor choices in life causes poverty. Would some people out there who commit murder not murder if they were well off? Maybe a few but many well off rich people also murder. Drug addiction is a big problem in crime. That is a choice one makes. It is also a problem that rehab helps just a few. Now as far as mental illness. That is a little easier problem for the legal system to deal with. However, the ACLU has tied the hands of physicians and others to the point that one does not want to get involved. If you do you usually get a 72 hour hold and that is it. They do not pay enough for all the legal hassel to really deal with mental illness. I am not sure that more money spent on visits to "mental health" providers is the key. I think more people in mental health services and better monitoring of the mentally ill would help some. But, there is ALWAYS be those lost in the system. Think of all the child abuse that goes on under the nose of the .gov monitoring programs. Think of all the families put the HECK cause they have been fingured by these same people. It is a problem that has NO easy answers.

March 13, 2011, 11:00 PM
My position any time I hear "reasonable" regulations is NO, as "reasonable" to the anti-gun crowd doesn't mean simple restrictions, they think "reasonable" means we give up everything, and they get their way.

I might add no relaxing of gun restrictions by this administration was signed as a separate issue, they were added to bills he wanted passed as amendments to the bill. Since there is no "line-item" veto available to the president, had he sought to not allow National park carry, and AMTRAC carry, he'd have had to veto stuff he wanted.

If he were to step in and advocate a "reasonable" change for the people of Chicago in regard to gun rights, I might consider him not a threat to gun owners. That hasn't happened. Had he backed off the State department as it pertained to re-importation of the Garands and Carbines from South Korea, I'd give him points as being respectful of our 2nd amendment rights. That ain't happened either.

When you post on your campaign website, and allow it to follow to your web site after being elected your desire to ban "assault weapons", don't expect gun owners to trust you too much.

March 13, 2011, 11:02 PM
Yep. MSNBC reported that the number one killer of small children was diarrhea,
FBI reported that gun crimes are at the lowest in 30 years and contributes it to the increase of states allowing CC. Which one do you think Rachel Maddow reported on??? Obama can keep his hands off of my guns and keep his hands out of my pockets.....I can stimulate myself.

Guy B. Meredith
March 13, 2011, 11:12 PM
What I read in the article is that Obama lists actually sensible solutions--go after the criminal, not the gun.

We need to give positive feedback for the positive points. I have no problem with background checks or fixing the holes in the background checks.

March 13, 2011, 11:12 PM
At face value, what he is proposing seems reasonable. All he has outlined here is to make the NICS system work like it is supposed to.

But I think that this serves as a way check a box to be able to say that he has addressed the issue. I don't think he plans on making any inflammatory suggestions. He will have his new BATFE staff 'handle the details'. (Starting with your Saiga 12s.)

March 13, 2011, 11:45 PM
Obama is playing you guys like fools, and most are buying it hook, line, and sinker.

March 13, 2011, 11:56 PM
(Starting with your Saiga 12s.)

This has proven false over and over again. The announcement was completely unsourced and appears to be a complete hoax. The only thing even close to "proof" is the ATF report just so happened to have a picture of a S-12 alongside a bunch of other military pattern shotguns. They've been running around like chicken little about their drums on those boards for years now.

The entire thing was probably just another way for the vendors at the S-12 boards to make money. Conveniently, they were all silent on the matter and a few quietly raised their prices. Wouldn't be the first time, considering they IP ban anyone with a negative opinion of the show "Sons of Guns" because Red Jacket pays for ads there.

Remember when MD was the only drum maker and was gouging almost $300 each for a drum for years? Kinda funny how once ProMag came out with a drum the MD dropped to like $90 and the company seems to still be in business just fine....hmm....

Guy B. Meredith
March 13, 2011, 11:59 PM
The only thing I accept is what is on the list. They are valid ideas that gun owners have supported and called for. That is as far as my support goes and I don't play partisan politics and knee jerk reject everything that "the other side" suggests.

March 14, 2011, 12:04 AM
The fact that Obama is on record supporting the AWB and high capacity magazine ban should be ignored. We should only pay attention to what he is saying as he prepares to run for a 2nd term.

March 14, 2011, 12:05 AM
Of course you're right. The new director of BATFE would never start making arbitrary changes to gun regulations just to bypass the legislative process. Putting the crack pipe down now.

March 14, 2011, 12:28 AM
If existing law had been properly enforced Cho wouldn't have gotten a gun from a shop. He'd have had to have gone to additional trouble. Existing, not some not yet proposed draconian Orwellian rule. Simply using the existing laws in the state of VA would have prevented him from purchasing from the shop. That's clear.

Whether he would have then gone on to some guy in an alley or some other source is conjecture.

No new laws on firearms are needed because existing laws are sufficient. Simply enforce them.

March 14, 2011, 01:39 AM
A few selected quotes from Obama's Op-Ed:

I'm willing to bet they don't think that using a gun and using common sense are incompatible ideas - that we should check someone's criminal record before he can check out at a gun seller;

Notice the distinction? "Gun seller?" Not FFL, not firearms dealer, but gun seller? Are you really OK with background checks for any gun sale? I think California's little experiment on requiring any transfer to go though a FFL hasn't made much impact in gun violence, nor has it kept criminals from getting guns.

If we're serious about keeping guns away from someone who's made up his mind to kill, then we can't allow a situation where a responsible seller denies him a weapon at one store, but he effortlessly buys the same gun someplace else.

There's a study from the DOJ that was done a few years back, inquiring about the source of firearms criminals use. According to the study, the only firearms those asked got possession of that actually came from a licensed dealer were from "straw purchases" where they persuaded a relative or friend into buying a gun for them. The majority of the guns they got were either from stealing them, or buying off the black market, in more cases than not, likely stolen guns.

Most gun-control advocates know that most gun owners are responsible citizens.

Funny, that's not the impression I've got from talking to them. The reaction I've gotten was they felt ANY gun owner was lower than Whale dung. That any gun owner clearly was a danger to the public.

Bottom line is this: More people die every year from automobile accidents than do from gun violence in the United States, yet I'm not seeing any calls for "common sense" auto restrictions. More people die yearly from medical malpractice than do from gun violence, yet we're not talking about "common sense" measures to restrict doctors.

Rusty Shackleford
March 14, 2011, 01:54 AM
You fellas aren't stupid. He's referring to "THE Gun Show Loophole."

They want to ban private sales completely, or, at the very least, make us all go through an FFL before we can loan a deer rifle to cousin Benny for the season.

And as has been mentioned already, you can see how gloriously effective similar laws have already been in California. All the gangsters now use kitchen knives, baseball bats, and tire irons on each other since that law went into effect, right?... right?

...and if you are stupid and seriously trust him on this, did anybody read the White House Official Website immediately after he got elected?...

I quote from the White House OFFICIAL Website: "Address Gun Violence in Cities: Obama and Biden would repeal the Tiahrt Amendment, which restricts the ability of local law enforcement to access important gun trace information, and give police officers across the nation the tools they need to solve gun crimes and fight the illegal arms trade. Obama and Biden also favor commonsense measures that respect the Second Amendment rights of gun owners, while keeping guns away from children and from criminals. They support closing the gun show loophole and making guns in this country childproof. They also support making the expired federal Assault Weapons Ban permanent."

March 14, 2011, 02:52 AM
The country doesn't have a problem. We, as gun owners, have a problem with extremists who happen to own guns and whose misconduct gives our opponents fodder to score political points against us.
You sir..... are 100% correct

March 14, 2011, 03:30 AM
"Gun Control"???? It's not about gun control. It's about politics. It's about keeping the majority voters happy to obtain more votes. If the majority of voters in the US happened to be "Pro-gun", gun laws wouldn't be so strict in order to keep the votes. It's all about staying in a "Plush" office with a Title & ridiculous salary.

Do you think the POTUS or anyone else in Office doesn't know that if a ciminal or "Crazy" wants to commit a crime, their going to find a weapon, gun or otherwise, to do it? It's about politics. They don't give a rats behind about gun control!! It's about keeping what they want & keeping the people who got them there happy.

Take away guns, they'll(criminals) use a knife/box cutter(Hello, 9/11!!!???). Take away the knife, they'll use a bat. Take away the bat, they'll use a stick. Take away the stick, they'll use a rock. Take away the rock & we're all screwed!!

Gun control, like locks, are for honest people. Criminals are gonna keep being ciminals no matter what.

We live in a Nation where the MAJORITY vote counts. That's the bottom line.

March 14, 2011, 05:44 AM
I quite simply refuse to accept ANYTHING Obama has to say on the issue of gun control until Operation:Gun Runner is fully investigated, and consequences rendered for those responsible. I cannot put ANY faith in an administration that blames its citizens for the smuggling of so-called assault weapons, then devises a plot where the BATFE itself plays a roll in getting guns across our Southern borders. I see Operation: Gun Runner as a planned whitewash. If there were never any ATF whistle-blowers, I think these 2000+ firearms the ATF knew were going across the border would be usaed as fuel for the assault weapons ban Holder and Obama have been talking about since before the election. Its easy to influence public sentiment when it appears your earlier claims as being validated, and I think thats exactly what the DOJ was trying to do....back up their earlier claims about US straw purchasers supplying the cartels with guns.

When Obama acknowledges Gun Runner, the lives it has been responsible for taking, and the legal ramifications of flooding a violence-filled country with guns, without the country's government in any way being aware, I MIGHT lend him my ear. Until then, its just so many saoundbytes, with no real content to consider

March 14, 2011, 06:39 AM
Let us assume this is him, it sounds like him.
Obama has a silver tongue, even I can enjoy hearing him.

This is a guy that voted for every single piece of gun control legislation until he was elected president. His record is public.
It is also a guy that was on the board of directors for the Joyce foundation, a major funding source of anti gun efforts.
You don't act as a board member and not know the strategy.

He is a very smooth politician. In that article he talks about strengthening the so called veterans disarmament act, the legislation passed 4 years ago he references. No longer relying on states to submit info to arbitrarily deny people that have broken no laws the right to guns. That is considered unacceptable, not enough.
He mentions encouraging and rewarding states that provide info to do so. How does the federal government reward states? That is a financial incentive to provide info on people in order to prohibit them. Remember this only applies to people who are not felons, or they would be prohibited already.

He is also talking about the "gunshow loophole" which has little to do with gunshows and outlaws all private sales.
Government then can keep track of every gun ever legally transferred anywhere.
As long as there is private sales there will always by a thorn in the side of a government that wants to be able to control and monitor the means to arms.

While nobody wants dangerous psychos to have guns, psychology is also very discretionary, and adding significant legal teeth to arbitrary discretionary opinions is a dangerous scenario. It undoes a lot of the intended protections our criminal justice system is designed to give.
It may prevent some problems, but it will also be used to prevent rights far more often when there never would have been any problems.
Every member of society has the symptoms of various mental problems, it is just the opinion of a licensed professional whether those are significant enough to actually be something, or "normal". That discretion can be used to determine whether an individual is banned from ever exercising a protected right or not.

The thing is like he said some of these things are already "passed", he just wants to create new programs and databases and federal regulations and increased funding based on such legislation.

Obama is one of the smoothest talkers I have seen. He knows how to avoid keywords that will polarize one side or the other.
If they can defang the pro-gun side and get them to start thinking "reasonable" the momentum of "reasonable" will begin. It will be what I mentioned above, and it will continue. Another big one they have focused on since the Tucson incident is capacity limits.
That would be coming if they felt they got enough gun owners in a compromise mindset.

Each time the antis get something a new topic is on the front lines of your gun rights and the lost right typically stays lost. The sunset on the AWB was a stroke of fortune, if it had not ended when the congress that was in place was in place it would have been permanently renewed.
Everything is "reasonable" and a sound logical argument can be made to implement almost any new anti-gun restriction if you get a good enough speaker. You have to decide to either deal with freedom and some risk, or let the government take absolute control and turn the exercising of your rights into an extensive bureaucratic process.

Many politicians would love to follow the model of some European states where many places have extensive requirements for gun ownership, tiered licenses, time requirements of belonging to expensive clubs before someone can own X gun, time requirements of owning X gun before someone can own Y type gun, etc etc
The whole system is so cumbersome, all based on "common sense" that the percentage of people that go through the trouble is a small fraction of society. The result is it gets even easier to take future gun rights because the number of gun rights supporters dwindles and grows slowly because it is such a chore to even join the the ranks of gun owners. It becomes a downward spiral, more gun control reduces gun owners over time, which makes it easier to pass even more gun control.

The biggest irony of all is that the founders added the 2nd as a potential check against tyranny from the very government that wants absolute and complete control to grant or deny the right to arms, and complete control ( and resulting documentation created) on the transfer of all arms.

March 14, 2011, 07:50 AM
In the words of old Ross Perot,the devils in the details.
Oddly enough this guy puts this piece in a newspaper in a state his justice department is currently suing.
And as Rusty pointed out what they also want is the end of FTF private sells without it going through a back ground check.
I can only imagine what some FFL's would charge for this.
Well here it comes guys as if any of us didn't know it.

True Grit
March 14, 2011, 08:02 AM
If this is actualy something from Obama then yes I do agree that someone with a past should not be able to buy a gun. It may mean stricter laws but if you have done nothing wrong why worry? When people hear Obama and Gun Laws everyone one freaks and I can understand. What we have to remember is that it's our freak outs that drive the gun market. If you want to react just join the NRA they need all te help they can get.

March 14, 2011, 09:51 AM
Obama is playing you guys like fools, and most are buying it hook, line, and sinker.

And the thread will continue until enough people disagree with you, then it will be closed for being too political.

I'm not gonna worry about it until new laws are proposed by the president. So far he's been mostly ambivalent to new gun control measures. In fact, he's been less interested in gun control than some fairly conservative presidents.

March 14, 2011, 10:12 AM
I do not find anything particularly offensive in the President's remarks, and I cannot say that I actually disagree with the notion of enforcing existing laws. I work as an immigration lawyer. The Obama administration has ramped up enforcement enormously over the past two years. The numbers of undocumented and criminal aliens being detained and deported has dramatically increased. He ran as the pro-immigrant candidate, but DHS has zealously enforced the existing laws on the books - -much more aggressively than the previous administration. (Believe it or not, the immigration laws have not changed in any significant way since 1996, when Congress passed, and Bill Clinton signed two separate, enforcement-oriented bills. In addition, there was a temporary reform measure that passed at the end of 2000).

My point is that we can likely expect higher levels of enforcement of existing laws rather than amendments to current gun laws. I think that I am okay with that.

March 14, 2011, 10:24 AM
Maybe the few posts already were not clear.

NO party politic discussions or commentaries on the current administration that do not directly involve gun control are on topic here.

March 14, 2011, 01:10 PM
I did not mean for my prior entry to be political at all and I apologize if it came across as partisan. I was trying to relate an observation that in another area of law -- immigration law-- this administration has been actively enforcing existing laws rather than introducing new ones. That appears to be what the President is proposing now relating to gun laws, and that may be what we have to brace ourselves for. Personally, I cannot fault any administration for enforcing existing laws (except unconstitutional ones).

March 14, 2011, 01:15 PM
From the article:
If we're serious about keeping guns away from someone who's made up his mind to kill, then we can't allow a situation where a responsible seller denies him a weapon at one store, but he effortlessly buys the same gun someplace else.I think that anyone that reads that article as 'I want the status quo' and not as a continuation of his pre-election positions against private firearm sales is simply not being intellectually rigorous.

March 14, 2011, 02:15 PM
Rusty on post 49 is correct and gets the prize!

March 14, 2011, 02:20 PM
Personally, I would be willing to parley with the President on this issue as long as it was a zero sum game. In other words, if he feels strongly that additional regulation is needed in a particular area, then he's going to have to relax restrictions in another area. For example, I'd be willing to accept increased background check scrutiny in exchange for opening up the machine gun registry.

March 14, 2011, 02:34 PM
I am with Zoogster (http://www.thehighroad.org/showpost.php?p=7166342&postcount=53) on this one. O's anti. It's all smoke and mirrors to gain support for more control of legal guns in the hands of law abiding citizens. They could care less about criminals except for the fodder they give politicians for pushing gun control.

March 14, 2011, 02:42 PM
"Gun Control"???? It's not about gun control. It's about politics. It's about keeping the majority voters happy to obtain more votes. If the majority of voters in the US happened to be "Pro-gun", gun laws wouldn't be so strict in order to keep the votes.

Sadly this what you find when you peel the onion. Politicians react to events and to pressure from constituents in a way to appease their base and ensure future votes for both themselves and their party.

March 14, 2011, 03:51 PM
If any of you people have ever heard of or are familiar with Louis Awerback, he is aften quoted as saying "Every 10 years the .45 ACP(1911) becomes fashionable again". This whole thread reminds me off that quote. For 10 years now there has been little or no rumors of Washington pushing another anti-gun bill through Congress. Now with our Idiot Commander-in-Chief looking to cause more confusion and chaos with us gunowners....look what we got...a thread on The High Road with all parties weighing with varying opinions.on this alleged legislation.!! All seems very silly to me.... This bill will not make it through Congress...without a huge hue and cry from the US gun owning public.... Take it to the Bank...!!!

Hoppes Love Potion
March 14, 2011, 04:06 PM
The game plan is to make gun ownership dependent on passing a psychological evaluation.

At that point, the game is over.

Most psychologists are literally insane. They also trend very liberal. New mental disorders will be invented to condemn anyone who:

Wants to own more than 2 guns

Teaches gun culture to innocent children

Thinks the 2nd Amendment is about resisting tyranny

etc, etc, etc.

In fact, if you can't demonstrate a real NEED for a gun, it will be "unreasonable" for you to want one. Request denied.

March 14, 2011, 04:12 PM
Can't he do something useful like close the 104 nucelar power plants in the USA that are now proven unsafe?

We need to remove him from office ASAP.

March 14, 2011, 04:18 PM
What exactly is the term "a gun safety advocate" that is used in his speach?

Translation: = gun grabber

March 14, 2011, 05:01 PM
You know what?

This one was pretty much a bad idea from the start.

If you enjoyed reading about "Obama on gun control" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!