Alongside Vice President Joe Biden and a group of children who had written in support, President Barack Obama signed a proposal to Congress on Wednesday to strengthen United States gun laws. These included universal background checks, limiting the number of bullets in a clip and renewing a ban on military-grade assault rifles.
"If America worked harder to keep guns out of the hands of dangerous people, there would be fewer atrocities like the one that occurred in Newtown," Obama said.
He listed some specific measures, including a 10-round limit on magazines for firearms, and asked Congress to confirm Todd Jones to fill the long-dormant role of chief for the Bureau of Alchol, Tobacco and Firearms — and briefly mentioned other measures, including helping schools hire more resource officers and making sure mental health professionals have the tools they need. He suggested Congress should fund research into the link between gun violence and violent video games.
Assault rifle bans and universal background checks made up the core of his proposal. A full list of the proposals was published by CNN and can be viewed here.
The advocacy group Sandy Hook Promise issued a statement applauding the president's approach. As it has said before, though, including at its press conference Monday, change can't stop at new legislation. The statement came from one of the group's co-founder, Tim Makris, a Sandy Hook Elementary School parent.
However, not everybody was supportive of the measures, with the conservative group FreedomWatch announcing it is suing the White House task force that led to the gun control proposals offered by the president. The suit alleges the White House group conducted illegal meetings with lobbyists without the required public notice. The suit was filed in Florida federal court seeking to eliminate the task force and prevent any of its proposals from becoming law, The Hill reports.
Others were critical of the president using children as "props," drawing comparisons to the children Hitler surrounded himself with when attempting to sway public opinion. Although the National Rifle Association released a controversial ad asking why the president's children should get armed security while others had to be schooled in "gun free" zones, the organization took a softer tone in a statement released following the president's press conference. The full statement by the NRA released Wednesday reads:
Throughout its history, the National Rifle Association has led efforts to promote safety and responsible gun ownership. Keeping our children and society safe remains our top priority.
The NRA will continue to focus on keeping our children safe and securing our schools, fixing our broken mental health system, and prosecuting violent criminals to the fullest extent of the law. We look forward to working with Congress on a bi-partisan basis to find real solutions to protecting America’s most valuable asset – our children.
Attacking firearms and ignoring children is not a solution to the crisis we face as a nation. Only honest, law-abiding gun owners will be affected and our children will remain vulnerable to the inevitability of more tragedy.
What is your opinion of the president's proposals? A step in the right direction to fix the problems of gun violence in our country? Or way too far — an overstep of his authority?
And if the President's children, spouse, family members are abducted, threatened, killed - that would have a huge, widespread impact on his (eventually her) ability to focus attention that comes with-the-24/7 job on the nation's business and security, which also has global impact. GWB's grown daughters were given extended protection by the SS for an undisclosed period under the directive he signed 4 days before his term ended. Pres. Clinton signed an Executive Order for extended protection for his daughter. President Obama will do the same. That's justified, especially given the danger they will continue to be facing.
If I'm going to be anyone's fodder, rather it be for a just and peaceful cause, not the greedy NRA as you are. The rest of your comment I already answered under your previous post. Though it's worth repeating, I won't, so scroll up, sir or madam.
I know facts dont often matter to you but for the sake of others that are following the discussion some clarification might be a good idea. 1) Hitler didnt disarm the German people. He ascended to power in Germany, not via the use of force but with overwhelming public support 2) The thought of a United States v The American People battle in which civilians with hunting rifles and pistole take on the US Marines ,F 16's , guided missles and tanks and somehow managed to do anything other than die in large piles is ridiculous. 3) The government can and should limit access to various weapons. Surely you arent suggesting that anyone should be able to buy grenades or rocket launchers at Wal Mart are you? I fully support the right of the American people to keep and bear arms Just trying to keep the derp to a minimum
" Am I on to something? " The answer to that would be "no" You'll note the president didnt actually "legislate" anything ...or you would note such if you actually read/ or listened to his speech. He specifically left the "legislating" up to Congress, as it should be .
Grant- I hope you are well. I appreciate the points you made to Karsten, but: "1) Hitler didn't disarm the German people. He ascended to power in Germany, not via the use of force but with overwhelming public support"- Seems to make an even bigger case for the comparison. "2) The thought of a United States v The American People battle in which civilians with hunting rifles and pistole take on the US Marines ,F 16's , guided missles and tanks and somehow managed to do anything other than die in large piles is ridiculous."- I think you over-estimate the military's support of it's Commander in chief. Most military people I know (and I know a lot of them) think Obama is evil, way off base and a jack-ass. "3) The government can and should limit access to various weapons. Surely you aren't suggesting that anyone should be able to buy grenades or rocket launchers at Wal Mart are you?"- Obviously nobody is suggesting that, this one is below you and sounds more like a GGY comment. Besides, we can make grenades and rocket launchers fairly easily if we need to, no need to buy them at Wal-Mart.
Regarding my analogy re "government limitation of weapons" it was posted in response to Karsten's statement where she opined that "any limitation of the American people is unconstitutional" "What part of "shall not be abridged" are you having trouble grasping? Any limitation of the American people is unconstitutional. And I firmly believe any." Karsten Torch Apparently the rational amongst us realize that the average Joe cannot have access to surface to air missiles and that the government is well withing it's constitutional rights to deny access to such , thereby "limiting" access to weapons. Once we realize that these are both Constitutional and a pretty damn good idea then the discussion goes to where we draw the line of what is indeed limited by the government .
Karsten is a dude, Dude, and a pretty good guy, by my reckoning.
I have never called him that or any other name. He's hardly a qualified judge of intelligence, based on his own blogs and the comments he makes on others'. Just my opinion, though :) President Obama is not the destroyer of the Constitution or anything else, but his adversaries are. I do believe I have never seen a more accurate comment from you than this: "Obama is not stupid." The rest of your comment, however, is stupid :D
So...you're OK with limiting the 2nd Amendment based on the concept that at this point we're hopelessly outmanned, thanks to previous intrusions on our 2nd Amendment rights. That makes perfect sense, thanks for playing. "If the US govt. is coming after you, they have a damn good legal reason to do so." Of course they do. Just like every government in history has had a good reason to go after its citizens. But, this statement doesn't really surprise me from somebody that could see no wrong in anything the government does. Ever. And your last paragraph was a waste of time for me to read. Again, because the government outlawed something does not make that decision correct. If you look at the actual purpose and background of the 2nd Amendment, any rules limiting what we're allowed to have is already in violation of the Constitution.
Now, do I agree with that? Kinda.....but the armed forces should not be what they are currently, either, so without that, this argument is kind of academic, anyway....
Alexander Hamilton, 'Federalist No. 29', 1788
I am sad for you that you are so cynical and hate the government so much. I don't think the government does everything right, far from it. It is run by people. Human nature is not perfect. It's why we have laws and a government structure. You may want to live in an ungoverned society or think you do, but you wouldn't for long, if you lived long enough to realize that. Those government people and military you fear so much, distrust so strongly, are Americans. They're sons, brothers, fathers, husbands, daughters, sisters, mothers. Many are Christians or otherwise religious men and women of peace and high moral character. You seriously need some guidance and education on the 2nd Amendment. It doesn't say or mean all you claim it does. Maybe you can find a college course that teaches just the 2nd. You are mangling it.
I never said I hate the government. I believe they have a purpose, but that purpose is outlined in the Constitution, and they have seriously expanded outside that purpose. Oh, and feel free to correct me on the 2nd. Maybe I need to learn from somebody more knowledgable.
Good night, Karsten. You make me weary. And sad.
I don't feel it's the government's job to protect us. Neither do they, according to many court cases. And as such, I don't feel it's the government's job to limit our rights and freedoms, either. Basically, what it comes down to, is my rights end where yours begin. Pretty much that simple....