Obama Outlines Gun Control Policy
The presidential campaign of Barack Obama was largely viewed as grounds for hope from gun control activists and cause for concern from gun rights advocates. Several news outlets even reported that guns sales had increased sharply in anticipation of firearm restrictions once Obama took office, with CNN saying that gun sales had more than doubled in some states.Until now President Obama's plans for gun control were conjecture, but his administration took a relatively small but significant step towards declaring their firearm policy by releasing a list of priorities on the official Web site of the president, whitehouse.gov. This policy outline addressed gun policy in two areas:
"End the Dangerous Cycle of Youth Violence: Obama and Biden support innovative local programs, like the CeaseFire program in Chicago, which implement a community-based strategy to prevent youth violence and have been proven effective.
"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."
Gun violence prevention groups like the Freedom States Alliance have praised President Obama's proposed measures, writing that he "gives Americans a renewed sense of optimism about our future, and that we, as a nation, can come together to solve big challenges, including the epidemic of gun violence that continues to devastate our country."
On the other hand, prominent gun rights organizations like the Gun Owners of America are busy raising the alarm over President Obama's directives, particularly his nomination of Eric Holder to be the next Attorney General.
"Holder supported policies -- during his tenure in the
It's still far to early to tell what the newly minted Obama administration's policies will mean for gun owners and gun violence in America, but this first official policy list can certainly be seen as a sign of things to come.
POST YOUR COMMENTS BELOW
Obama Outlines Gun Control Policy
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Obama's Gun Control Policy
Chicago is one of the most gun problematic cities in the country even though, not only the State, but the city has strict gun control measures (only those with lots of contribution money or are politically connected can have a gun legally). It will take much more that the Cease Fire program to stop gun violence. It will take a much more serious attempt to arrest and convict, then put away the people at the root of the violence which are the gang leaders and their members.
Taking away the ability for individuals to purchase and sell firearms at gun shows will do nothing to repair this situation. Gun shows have law enforcement and lots of surveillance. Not many known criminals use these media to purchase guns. They have way more hidden and safe sources to obtain their wears. Closing gun show purchases is simply taking away an individuals right to sell a firearm to another without government intervention. This is not the intent of the second amendment which IS an individual right as recently stated by the highest court in the land. Taking away the right to buy and sell as individuals is the largest step to total control, not so much gun control.
It has already been proven that the government will in fact take away a persons right to self defense in New Orleans. This is unacceptable and full firearm registration is an invitation to have it done again on a massive scale.
The best way to childproof a gun is for the owner to make it not appear as a piece of candy and the best way to do that is to educate the child to the dangers of this tool at an early age. That is what was done to me and if I ever had the urge to look at a gun, dad would show it to me under his strict supervision. When I was old enough, he taught me to first further respect the gun and then how to safely shoot it. Never did I want to "play" with the gun simply because it was not a novelty. I was educated.
The assault weapons ban is a feel good measure to appease those who do not know anything about firearms but shrink back in horror when they see that terrible looking black rifle.
In reality it is a low power rifle, as compared to other hunting firearms, that does not continue to fire when the trigger is held back. It is basically a standard semi-automatic that only fires once when the trigger is pulled. It is usually set in a 223 format which is a higher powered 22 caliber bullet. It is much less powerful than standard hunting calibers. The problem areas, to those that would ban it, is that it has a collapsible stock, bayonet mount, a flash compensator at the end of the barrel, and it may hold more rounds than most hunting guns. Oh, I forgot to mention, it looks nasty.
In reality, it is a wonderful gun to shoot for sport, target and small game. I got mine as a result of what Mr,O. promised during his campaign. It will be banned not because it is more dangerous than other guns, but because it is imperative that "something" must be done to show those, not in the know, that something is being done. So get rid of the one that looks the most dangerous even though about .5% (that is point 5 percent as in 1/2 of one percent) of crime takes place with this rifle.
As an American citizen, I can honestly not understand why anyone would want to give up such a precious right to protect ones self or the lives of loved ones. To do that, a cell phone call to the police will not cut it. The damage will have already been done by the time they arrive. This is not a slander on law enforcement but a fact of life because they can not be all places at once. Have we reached a point where the trust in our population is so low that that a right given to us in our Constitution is that much in danger that millions of us have made a move in the last few months to protect it by purchasing a firearm while the getting is good. Do more laws that do nothing to stop criminals, have to be passed against law abiding people. Is it because the government feels that we, as a whole, can't be trusted or that any one of us individually, is potentially a threat and that threat must be controlled. I feel so.
- Sheepdog
January 22, 2009 8:19PM
Reply to this Recommend
(1)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
. . . making the expired federal Assault Weapons Ban permanent
The so called rumors are true. People looked at the new President's record on gun legislation, and they saw the record of a politician who never saw a gun law, reasonable or not, that he didn't embrace. Including a law attempting to make a criminal out of a family man who saved his family with a gun he possessed despite an unconstitutional gun ban. This isn't just anti-gun, this is anti self-defense.
Now, only one day in office and our new president has has announced, on his website, an intention to ban military STYLE rifles. These are the most popular sporting and defensive rifles in the country, that are NOT prevalently used in gun crime, (FBI Uniform Crime Report) because they are simply not concealable weapons. Rifles of ALL types are statistically insignificant in terms of criminal use.
The very WORD assault weapon was not even in common use until gun control fanatics foisted the phrase to demonize weapons, which due to their menacing APPEARANCE, are excellent targets of misguided and disingenuous legislation. Indeed the term, assault weapon is not in use by any military to describe any SEMI-automatic rifle or carbine.
So, one can hardly disparage folks for the cynicism they may have for the President on this issue. The cloak of Intellectual dishonesty, is not a garment that even President Obama wears well.
Anti gun folks will tell you: "these guns have only one purpose, to kill people". Millions of target shooters, competitors, collectors, and just plain old gun owners prove that notion to be absurd.
But that statement does beg the question: What primary purpose would a gun have that was designed to protect the security of a free state?
- Maestro Pistolero
January 23, 2009 1:46AM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
What Gun Show Loophole?
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=4835
- F2XL
January 23, 2009 1:24PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
What gun show loop hole?
What is a Gun Show loop hole? Most of the sellers of Guns at the shows I have attended are dealers from stores that set up booths specifically for the show & sell at slightly discounted prices. All of these people follow the law, fill out the proper forms and do the required background checks prior to selling anything! Private sales are few & far between. WHat Gun Show Loop hole.
- Badco6354
January 23, 2009 2:37PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Assalt Weapons Ban.
An "Assault Weapon" is a gun with selective fire capable of firing fully automatic. Most of the guns banned in the previous AWB became "Assalt Weapons" because they were named that by the law. Machine guns (fully automatic) have been aginst the law for a long time. The new proposed AWB adds several new guns that were not Assault Weapons in 1994 to 2004 AWB, but suddenly will be in 2009 if the new law is passed. Gun bans only affect law abiding citizens, not criminals. It is illeagal for criminals to have guns already! Enforce the existing laws and leave the " Law abiding" citizens alone!
Thank You!
- Badco6354
January 23, 2009 2:52PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Leave the law abiding folks alone.
Anyone wanting to ban so-called assault weapons IS against the 2nd amendment, even if unwittingly. There was no such term in common use until anti-2A groups created it.
The Term is now misused to identify common semi-automatic rifles, which although military in appearance, are only semi-automatic, not capable of fully automatic fire of which military weapons are capable. Because these rifles have a menacing appearance, they are excellent target of proposed gun bans, which fact anti-gun folks use to create laws which are cynical, incremental, and disingenuous infringements on our right to keep and bear arms.
This point leaves aside the fact that one of the many reasons our founders saw fit to include the Second Amendment in our Bill of Rights, was as a safeguard against future tyranny, both foreign and domestic.
As Justice Scalia put it recently n the recent Heller vs. D.C. decision: "It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks. But the fact that modern developments have lim ited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right. "
This writer further believes that the although the government has shown that it is likely, over time, to develop a greater willingness to infringe on 1st (Speech), 2nd (Bearing Arms) and 4th (Search and Seizure), that it may be a long time before our government may have the stomach to infringe on these rights, when doing so requires them to turn their arms against a law abiding, armed populace.
In short, so-called assault weapons in the hands of law abiding folks (and yes, there are millions of them) are the final gatekeeper which secures and protects the rest of the guarantees enumerated in the Bill of Right for our great grandchildren.
- Maestro Pistolero
January 23, 2009 7:03PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Fundamental Flaw with Most Gun Control Policies
I still do not understand how so many people overlook this basic flaw. When gun-control advocates give their various reasons and outline their case for why guns should be restricted or banned, they forget one crucial thing: gun crimes tend to be committed by criminals. Criminals do not respect the laws to begin with so what is accomplished by stricter gun-control policies? A criminal, when faced with a new law that says that they can't own or purchase a firearm of some kind, will simply find a way around that law. Breaking another law won't make much of a difference to most criminals and, whether we like it or not, there will always be ways to illegally obtain firearms. In the end the only ones that the gun control policies really affect are the law-abiding citizens. And, ironically, this makes it even easier for criminals in many respects because now, if they were to commit some crime, any law-abiding citizen that might have been in a position to stop them had they been allowed to possess a firearm is now defenseless and is forced to sit and observe form the sidelines. My take on this whole thing is that if someone wants to do anything involving gun-control it would be finding ways to make it harder for criminals to illegally obtain weapons. I agree one hundred percent with "Badco6354" Leave the law-abiding citizens alone!
Thanks
- USofA January 25, 2009 2:00PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Gun Sales
Gun sales are up for a reason. Folks don't trust the government and the actions they are taking such as trying to repeal the 22 Amendment and the creation of things like the Obama Youth and his Homeland Security Force as strong as the army don't help.
I hope the government takes note of the jump in gun sales and the fact that people are not buying hunting rifles. They are buying AK and AR style guns. And I don't think they are buying them just so they can turn them back in "next month" when Obama tries to outlaw them.
We are heading into a very dangerous time in this country if the government continues to try to take away our rights . . . . Folks are almost at the point that some are going to start to push back.
- JDalco
January 26, 2009 8:10AM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
"Assault"
I agree that we do not need more strict laws but more or less just to enforce our existing laws. The only thing this gun ban would do is make the people who COULD be capable of protecting less capable. The criminals would not have any problem attaining the "assault" weapons. And really the term assault weapons is very hypocritical when even a baseball bat can be used as a weapon. Then would they try to ban the sale of "Assault bats"? But anyway does anyone know what will be banned and when? And even then would it only be illegal to purchase or would it also be illegal to own a carbine?
- Tank25
February 23, 2009 12:15PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Second Amendment Trumps Police Deaths?
I'm sure that the families of the seven slain policemen this last week would be comforted that some upheld their second amendment rights by having firearms and using them to kill.
I agree that laws must be strictly enforced. I also would like to see a longer waiting period for purchase and extensive background checks.
Violence does beget violence and anyone who thinks they are safe because they have an arsenal are just fooling themselves. The crazies will kill when they want regardless of what is in your hand.
Regulation can be a good thing. Look at what deregulation did for the financial sector.
- IDGem
April 5, 2009 12:47AM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Self defense, Gun ownership, and the Second Amendment
By nature, law enforcement, at any level, is a dangerous occupation as is Fire/Rescue and the military . It does not matter whether this is a training activity or actual commission of duties. My sympathies have always gone out to the families of the brave men and women who have lost their lives serving and defending us but they do know the dangers involved.
Longer waiting periods serve no real purpose other than to make a prospective purchaser wait. This in many cases can be extremely detrimental to someone in fear of their life, such as a woman who has a violent former spouse or siginificant other who is trying to kill her.
Background checks are simple affairs to see if a prospective purchaser has a specific type of criminal history or has been adjucated by the courts as a danger to themself or others, and need not be complex.
When a person is being attacked he or she does not have time to negotiate or attempt to reason with the predator. Attempting to flee is rarely an option. Especially if the attacker is carrying a firearm, knife, or some other implement that can cause injury or death. In a majority of cases the mere presence of a firearm in the hands of a defender is enough to stem an attack. Yes, crazies will kill when they want but should you have something in your hand, especially if that something is a firearm, then the odds of your survival have increased substantially. Should the "crazy" be removed from the populace the number of people saved from possible future attacks is innumerable. More often than not if a criminal thinks an intended victim can defend themself then they will move on to someone else who obviously appears weak.
When a person is armed, whether they have one gun or many, they don't typically look at themself as being "safe" but better prepared to be able to defend themself, their loved ones, and their neighbors.
It is our RESPONSIBILITY as human beings to defend ourselves, our loved ones, and our neighbors. If you believe that the police will protect you and your property if you are attacked then feel free to call 9-1-1 and wait for them to arrive. When they do, if they do, then they will write their reports after sending your broken body or remains to the hospital or morgue.
I am a military veteran and a survivor of more than one violent attack so I speak from experience as well as knowledge garnered from the press and local/federal police records/statistics.
In closing I would like to state that your usage of the term arsenal was incorrect. By definition it means "a government owned firearms manufacturing facility". You should have used the terms cache or armory.
- jrkmt1
June 28, 2009 4:17PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.