Is The Obama Administration Walking Back Its Commitment To Reinstating The Assault Weapons Ban?
Is The Obama Administration Walking Back Its Commitment To Reinstating The Assault Weapons Ban?
In light of last week’s high-profile shooting sprees in which 16 people were killed, reporter Helen Thomas asked White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs whether the Obama administration would push to reinstate the Assault Weapons Ban that Republicans allowed to expire in 2004. Gibbs refused to endorse the ban, saying only that Obama would focus on enforcing existing laws:
THOMAS: Is the president concerned about the epidemic of killings by guns and is he willing to move towards reinstating the ban on assault weapons?
GIBBS: Obviously, we, while we were overseas last week, were surprised and shocked at the news at what had happened in New York. … That’s one of the reasons that increased money to hire more police officers as in the Recovery Act. I was asked specifically about assault weapons. I think the president would — the president believes there are other strategies we can take to enforce the laws that are already on our books.
Watch it:
The Obama administration seems to be clearly walking back its previous position relating to assault weapons. In an interview with CBS News’ Katie Couric that aired last night, Attorney General Eric Holder refused to endorse the assault weapons ban, saying, “I look forward to working with the NRA to come up with ways in which we can use common sense approaches to reduce the level of violence that we see in our streets.”
Yet just weeks ago, at the end of February, Holder said that one of the “gun-related changes” the administration would pursue “would be to reinstitute the ban on the sale of assault weapons.” And during the presidential campaign, Obama said making the Assault Weapons Ban permanent was part of an integral strategy to defeating urban violence. “From South Central L.A. to Newark, New Jersey, there’s an epidemic of violence that’s sickening the soul of this nation,” Obama said in June 2007. “The violence is unacceptable and it’s got to stop.”
In fact, in the “Urban Policy” section currently on the White House website, the Obama administration affirms its support of reinstating the Assault Weapons Ban:
· Address Gun Violence in Cities: … 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.
In the wake of news-grabbing gun violence, why is the Obama administration now backing off its repeated pledge to ban the most dangerous weapons that Obama previously said “belong on foreign battlefields and not on our streets“?
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
What is the definition of assault weapon being used here?
April 9th, 2009 at 5:18 pmThe definition of ‘assault weapon’ being referred to is probably the extensive list of weapons characteristics that comprise the old AWB. It’s a long list and it’s not particularly consistent – there are a lot of things banned that do nothing to increase the actual lethality of the weapons. Magazine capacity is one component, which makes sense. Things like ‘folding stock’ or ‘heat shield’ maybe don’t make so much sense.
April 9th, 2009 at 5:25 pmProgressives need thier own party.
Obama just sent 22,000 troops to Afganistan.
He will not investigate the previous administration’s war crimes.
He is still spending way too much on defense.
He has yet to get the troops out of Iraq.
He is O.K. with letting telecomm companies off the hook for spying on us.
Is Obama another Fascist leader like Bush?
Time will tell.
April 9th, 2009 at 5:26 pmJust legalize drugs, they’ll be too high to find the trigger.
April 9th, 2009 at 5:28 pmAsk John Podesta, he can get an answer.
April 9th, 2009 at 5:31 pmFNBOYCOTT,
You only have to post it once, thank you.
April 9th, 2009 at 5:33 pmHere’s a good article on why Obama may be going back on his platform to reinstate the assault weapons ban.
April 9th, 2009 at 5:34 pmIn an interview with CBS News’ Katie Couric that aired last night, Attorney General Eric Holder refused to endorse the assault weapons ban, saying, “I look forward to working with the NRA to come up with ways in which we can use common sense approaches to reduce the level of violence that we see in our streets.”
With all due respect, General Holder, you’ll do no such thing. No one elected the people of the NRA to set our nation’s policies towards guns. It is wrong to presume that their interests are in line with the best interests of the nation as a whole. If you really plan on “working with the NRA” on this issue, are you also going to work with gun-control advocates to hear what they have to say? Don’t listen to just the NRA, listen to people who can tell you why they are wrong.
April 9th, 2009 at 5:37 pmFNBOYCOTT
Same vile troll who flooded a few threads this past Sunday with vile posts targeting Amanda.
April 9th, 2009 at 5:38 pmThere may be a couple of things going on here.
First — just the very THOUGHT that President Obama MAY restrict firearms in any way has been enough to put all the gun nuts into a buying frenzy. Obama may not want to give them any more ammunition (so to speak).
Second — do we know which of the recent shooting sprees were committed with legally-obtained weapons and which ones were not? If somebody who has no business possessing a gun manages to get one legally, THEN we need to enact a new law. But if that person gets his guns illegally, all the new laws in the world won’t help — we have to enforce the laws we have. And that might be where Obama is coming from at the moment.
April 9th, 2009 at 5:38 pmHiring more police officers, while in itself a sound idea, doesn’t address the gun issue itself. Three police officers with guns were killed because a nut had his sights set on using his own weapon to take them out from afar.
April 9th, 2009 at 5:45 pmNo one freaks out because you can’t yell ‘fire’ in a crowded theater. Why is the 2nd Amendment the one that is supposed ‘unlimited’?
April 9th, 2009 at 5:46 pmHi Alejandro. At the very least the Clinton ban on assault weapon should reapply here.
April 9th, 2009 at 5:47 pmI haven’t studied up on this subject and may have the wrong idea.
April 9th, 2009 at 5:49 pmIf I’m not mistaken, these type of weapons are designed to kill people, correct ?
So doesn’t it stand to reason that the only people who want to own these type of weapons want them because they want to kill people ?
misscoleopteramolly
I have seen reports that the shooter in New York, the first one in Alabama, and the one in Pittsburgh, acquired their weapons legally. I have not seen anything one way or another on the rest.
And I agree on both other points. Increasing the paranoid fears of some unbalanced gun owners through unscripted remarks by Obama’s subordinates might increase the bloodshed. And, when people are using legally acquired weapons to commit mass murder, it’s time to have a rational debate about changing the laws.
April 9th, 2009 at 5:51 pmHow about we enforce the SPB?
(Stupid People Ban)
April 9th, 2009 at 5:55 pmWow, this is insane…ban the assault weapons, take the ones out there away from the nut cases that bought them, and institute a mental exam for gun owners ever 2 years.
A mental exam would eliminate 90% of the NRA nutjobs from being allowed to own firearms.
April 9th, 2009 at 5:57 pmDr. Moth Matt Says: I agree 100%. The only part of the ban that made any sense was the 30 round clip. Except for cosmetics all semi auto rifles are pretty much the same.
April 9th, 2009 at 5:58 pmI’m no fan of the previous “assault weapon ban”. However, it did deal with the size of clips and, as a piece of legislation that already existed, it might find more support.
Personally, I would like to see more stringent registration than an outright ban. It just seems prudent that, when someone is buying cases of ammo or a dozen high capacity clips, someone in law enforcement looks into their motives and legal standing.
April 9th, 2009 at 5:59 pmI for one don’t want to get shot at because some wingnut is freaking out, and I don’t want anyone doing anything to freak them out more than they already are.
As with liquor, guns, and drugs, as soon as something is banished, a black market develops to fill the void. At least with the system we have, we’ve got some kind of idea of who has what and where.
The mentality of the shooters, and of the Country at large, has everything to do with this problem, and like many other of our problems, it would far less severe if more of the people from the bottom to the middle of the ladder didn’t have to live in perpetual fear of being able to pay next month’s bills.
Put more money into more pockets, and there will be not only fewer shootings like these, there will also be fewer Wingnuts.
April 9th, 2009 at 6:02 pmNow why do you need an assault weapon to hunt? Are bullet riddled swiss cheese deer some new kind of delicacy?
April 9th, 2009 at 6:04 pmThere really isn’t any good reason for 30 round banana clips. There no good for target shooting or hunting. A ban on them wouldn’t bother me much.
April 9th, 2009 at 6:04 pmDr. Moth Matt Says:
“Believe me, my fellow progressives, please be careful with your generalizations towards gun owners.”
Although, I’d generally like to consider myself a “pacifist” and hope that I never have to be in a situation where I have to choose to take someone’s life to save mine, I recently went shooting at a range to learn how to handle/load/fire/ different weapons.
I figured that it was better to know how to use a gun than to have to learn on the fly.
My personal stance comes down to that I think that NO ONE should be able to have a gun, but since people/governments do, any law-abiding citizen should have the right to own one as well.
April 9th, 2009 at 6:06 pmTime to put the heat on the Administration to remind them of the promises that got them elected. The assault weapon ban is a needed control in the war on violence (malaprop of the week award?)
April 9th, 2009 at 6:06 pmEnough troll FNBOYCOTT. You’ve been flagged.
April 9th, 2009 at 6:06 pmOops! Here’s the link.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/04/08/jiverly-wong-fired-98-sho_n_184950.html
April 9th, 2009 at 6:07 pmFNBOYCOTT,
No one hates spam more than I do.
(One more and you’re flagged, sorry)
April 9th, 2009 at 6:07 pmAh ha! Here’s the story I was looking for. Police are estimating that the New York shooter fired 98 rounds in about a minute and a half. He used a permit issued in 1997 to purchase his weapons. I think it’s fair to say that, had he been limited to a single smaller clip per weapon, the carnage would have been reduces.
And, had he been required to renew his permit? He may not have had any weapons at all.
April 9th, 2009 at 6:07 pmFNBOYCOTT
Please shut the hell up. Thank you.
April 9th, 2009 at 6:07 pmIf I assault someone with a weed whacker, does that make a weed whacker an assault weapon?
April 9th, 2009 at 6:07 pmRUCeriousDragonfly Says: An assault weapon ban will do nothing to control gun violence. Most gun violence in this country is done with hand guns, not assault rifles.
April 9th, 2009 at 6:10 pmThe spammer is the same vile POS who amused itself with insane crap over the weekend. Flag soon, flag often.
April 9th, 2009 at 6:10 pmI heard Katie Couric’s interview of Eric Holder regarding gun control..and it reinforces other News reports I’ve read that Obama has Dropped his efforts to reinstate the Assault Weapons Ban FOR NOW.
Obama is, I believe, in favor of Common Sense Gun Control…and some of what was in the previous Clinton Ban is Cosmetic, and Not Common Sense.
I favor a Nuanced Approach that Obama can Sell to the Nation.
Obama NOW has much support in the Midwest Swing States, but a Ham Handed Gun Policy could derail this support.
Obama is doing the right thing by LISTENING to the NRA and other Gun ADvocates. That doesn’t mean he will do what they say…but where common ground can be reached…he should go for it.
April 9th, 2009 at 6:15 pmHi Dr. Matt. I’m mindful that banning all guns is a position that’s too easy & too simple to take. Like abortion and drugs, a ban would create a black market. I recall a poster mentioned that Canada has no shortage of guns, yet they have a miniscule homicide rate. Regulation is pretty tough when it comes to drawing a fine line between law-abiding owners & criminals/potential criminals. Canada’s approach of dealing with social ills probably accounts for the low homicide rate.
When the right wing owns the issue of guns and uses it in conjunction with their hands-off ideology on other issues, real annihilation occurs.
April 9th, 2009 at 6:16 pmangels81 Says:
An assault weapon ban will do nothing to control gun violence. Most gun violence in this country is done with hand guns, not assault rifles.
That’s true. However, a limit on the size and number of clips for all weapons would reduce the body count in individual incidents. And two of the recent incidents did use semi-automatic versions of military rifles. The other big one used military handguns.
April 9th, 2009 at 6:17 pmFNBOYCOTT Says:
“why the hell are you guys against me?”
Because you’re soliciting for money and you’re not adding anything to the discussion. It’s obnoxious, if not outright fraud.
April 9th, 2009 at 6:17 pmpete, you are right about clip size like I said earlier, there’s no good reason for 30 round clips. I’m not sure what you mean by a military hand gun.
April 9th, 2009 at 6:22 pmBobby Joe: Shoot dat deer Billy Bob!
Billy Bob: *rat a tat tat tat rat a tat tat tat* Wooooooo!!
Bobby Joe: dat deer aint dead enof yet, Billy Bob.
Billy Bob: [Loads another clip] *rat a tat tat tat rat a tat tat tat rat a tat tat tat rat a tat tat tat* Yeeeeee Hahhhh! Dat deer bee daid know fer shure!
Bobby Joe: Yeh, dat deer daid daid daid daid. Dat deer gotz moor hoes dan Doans gotz pills.
Billy Bob: I still gots rounds lef. *Rat a tat tat tat rat a tat tat tat* Wheeeee Hawwwww!! Sea dat deer jump! Rambo huntin!
Bobby Joe: Yeh, Once ah put two hunred rounds en ah liddle skewhirl. Sexshul rebolooshun ad me derpressed. Eet wuz ahhsome eetin aftah ah gotz awl dat lead owt.
April 9th, 2009 at 6:22 pmDr. Matt,
I’ll agree that the NRA has become a Right Wing Political Group….that they are unduly Influenced by the Arms industry…and they are WAY TOO PARANOID….
BUT They ARE Influential with a lot of people….and We’re Talking about LISTENING.
If Obama can Listen to North Korea…he can Listen to the NRA.
Besides, he needs to know their Arguments (some of which make sense) so he can Counter their Propaganda.
April 9th, 2009 at 6:27 pmA military handgun is a semi-auto in a military caliber, 9mm and .45 ACP, with multiple large clips.
April 9th, 2009 at 6:27 pmpete Says: So your saying any semi auto handgun larger then a 22 cal is a military handgun?
April 9th, 2009 at 6:32 pmI think the Obama Administration must address this issue, but there are other crucial issues that cannot be forgotten. The U.S. should be doing way more to address the Millennium Development Goals. The plan to end world hunger has been getting seriously ignored.
$30 billion: Annual shortfall to end world hunger.
$550 billion: U.S. Defense budget.
(source: borgenproject.org.)
April 9th, 2009 at 6:32 pmFNBOYCOTT, what you are doing is spam and BS. If you want to help TP, contact TP and ask them how you go about it. What you are doing is wrong and you will be flagged.
April 9th, 2009 at 6:39 pmangels81 Says:
pete Says: So your saying any semi auto handgun larger then a 22 cal is a military handgun?
Not exactly.
Let’s use “high capacity” instead and keep in mind that these are arbitrary numbers for the sake of discussion. A Colt 1911 with a single 7 round clip will be my upper limit for “low capacity”. A Browning Hi-Power with it’s 15 round clip would be “high capacity” while I would call it low capacity if the clip were plugged at 7 rounds. Any “auto” with multiple clips would be high capacity.
I also see some merit in the system that some countries use where they limit military calibers. These tend to be overkill for target shooting with little application for hunting. Plus, are the most likely to be used in weapons that are optimized for military use.
April 9th, 2009 at 6:48 pmPlease just flag, and ignore, FNBOYCOTT. It’s the same creature who was joking about rape all weekend.
April 9th, 2009 at 6:49 pmMaybe the wing nuts will bring their weapons to their Tea Party and will be rounded up for conspiracy…that will take a lot of assault weapons out of the hands of nuts.
April 9th, 2009 at 6:51 pmDr. Moth Matt Says:
I can understand that and I believe I’m pretty careful with generalizations, in general.
I own military style weapons too, a couple of rifles and one is semi-automatic. I grew up around guns and everyone in my family hunted. This of course isn’t about a ban on weapons but a ban on ‘assault weapons’ as opposed to ‘military style’ weapons. As I said, I may have had the wrong idea and didn’t intend to come across with a very dangerous generalization. My guess was that the term ‘assault weapon’ meant a fully automatic weapon that can cut down a 12″ diameter fir tree, that being an exaggeration. Below should be a link to the definition of ‘assault weapon’ as described under the Federal Assault Weapons Ban that Clinton signed into law in 1994.
Definition of assault weapon
April 9th, 2009 at 7:00 pmIgnore Proud- check
April 9th, 2009 at 7:01 pmStay in Iraq- not extended
Surge in Afghanistan- fulfilling a campaign promise
FISA- no surprise
Gitmo- still scheduled to close
Assault weapons- under consideration
Listen to NRA- consent of the governed
That about covers it.
Though I will say that President Obama is responding to real-world events in real time while taking input from all available sources. That’s why I voted for him.
April 9th, 2009 at 7:04 pmBut even if she [Feinstein] pursued the renewal, the votes may not be there today in either the Senate or the House. Both Houses of Congress gained pro-gun Democrats this past election, some of whom won the support of the National Rifle Association. “I am not going to disagree with that at all,” says Feinstein. “The National Rifle Association essentially has a stranglehold on the Congress.”
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/04/09/60minutes/main4931769.shtml
April 9th, 2009 at 7:05 pmAs far as mass killings go, the media plays a role in it.
April 9th, 2009 at 7:14 pm@60 Proud Says:
Does this make you happy or dissapointed?
April 9th, 2009 at 7:28 pmThe NRA and the RepubliCon gun nuts are a big part of the problem. RepubliCons are not just ignorant and stupid, many of them are just plain crazy. The Criminal Bush was a big problem; but the RepubliCon stooges are still here and still part of the problem. rather then part of the solution.
April 9th, 2009 at 7:30 pmExtend stay in Iraq- i’m neutral – keep the peace, leave slow
April 9th, 2009 at 7:34 pmSurge in Afghanistan- yes, to get BL out of the pictureWiretapping protected- NO, time to encrypt everything
Gitmo still open- not for long. and no more torture [we hope]
No assault weapons ban- fine, but gun laws need big overhaul
Consult with the NRA- Check, as long as they share it with the public, and they consult with the public first.
LOL, did you really think Obama wants to take on the NRA right now? Please, I know the vast majority don’t know the difference between a hunting rifle and an assault rifle and I am not even going to try to explain it as it would be futile. I will say this, in the hands of a sick individual, they both will kill with equal effectiveness. You could take an assault rifle and restrict the magazine size and it would be no more dangerous than a M-1. An AR-15 looks scary so you think you are doing something by banning it but in reality, it does nothing to make people safe from evil people bent on doing harm.
April 9th, 2009 at 7:36 pmLOL, did you really think Obama wants to take on the NRA right now?
Why not? Would they try to kill him?
April 9th, 2009 at 7:40 pmIn 69 comments I’ve seen one in favor of an “assault weapon ban” and two maybes. So, stupid troll, who are you talkin’ about?
April 9th, 2009 at 7:41 pmAt the risk of sounding optimistic or something….maybe they are just waiting until the nut jobs forget about the whole gun thing and move onto something else? He’s got four years…simply distract the (fill in the blank here) and slip it in when they aren’t looking.
April 9th, 2009 at 7:51 pmNote to trolls: You don’t need to begin your post with “LOL”. You can attempt to creat that nuance in your post. Otherwise, we think you are on dope. Or are a dope, better yet.
April 9th, 2009 at 8:00 pmBTW, Guns frighten me. I have known a few people, some close, some through stories, who have accidentally hurt or killed themselves with guns. And probably for the same reason they frighten me: not experienced with them.
Is there required training with purchasing legally obtained weapons?
(Disclaimer: I am not against guns at all, just in the hands of the angry. Diane Rehm did a good interview w/ the staff of VA Tech today)
April 9th, 2009 at 8:11 pmShadowBoxer Says: “You don’t need to begin your post with “LOL”” … “Otherwise, we think you are on dope. Or are a dope, better yet.”
Or have your tongue hanging out the side of your mouth…
April 9th, 2009 at 8:15 pmHow come you have to have a license and insurance to drive a car, which could kill people, and often does, but you don’t to own a gun, which could kill people, and often does?
I know you are supposed to have a gun licesne in most states, but there’s a lot of ways around it.
And yes, I actually enjoy shooting sometimes, but I am always surprised that we don’t try to control the dangerous crazies that can get their hands on lethal weapons.
April 9th, 2009 at 8:17 pmThat’s what I find so frustrating, SKdeAnt. It is so logical to have people jump through a few hoops to purchase/posses deadly weapons but, whenever anyone suggests such a thing, the Reichwhiners start screaming about “them taking away our guns”.
Part of that is the black and white thinking of authoritarians. But some, I think, is because they know deep down that they are not suitable for such a responsibility.
April 9th, 2009 at 8:25 pmIlliteracy has a cure, stupid troll. Take the cure.
April 9th, 2009 at 8:26 pmWayne Ant Schneider Says:
——————————————————————————–
LOL, did you really think Obama wants to take on the NRA right now?
Why not? Would they try to kill him?
OMG, why would you even say something like that?
April 9th, 2009 at 8:28 pmCrymeariver Says: LOL, did you really think Obama wants to take on the NRA right now?
Wayne Ant Schneider Says: Why not? Would they try to kill him?
Crymeariver Says: OMG, why would you even say something like that?
I say that because if they are not going to try to kill him, then he has nothing to fear, does he? So why wouldn’t he want to “take on the NRA right now”?
April 9th, 2009 at 8:31 pmIt’s weird…there are so many “spokespeople” on the right. Chuck Norris, for instance. His characters are fictional, but are taken as this bad ass model for man-ness. Or bad-ass-ness.
Those on the right want to live vicariously through something that is bigger than them, and it’s a ok if it’s made up. Just like every thing else they believe.
April 9th, 2009 at 8:47 pmShadowBoxer Says:
Glenn Beck thinks Tom Cruise is a real secret agent or, “mission impossible guy”. Of course, they think Orwell and Ayn Rand were philosophers too.
April 9th, 2009 at 8:51 pmOn the other hand. I wonder what Chuck Norris would do if he were in a crowd and someone yelled, “he’s got a gun“. I would be willing to bet he would crap his pants and faint.
April 9th, 2009 at 8:53 pmCan automatic weapons get loose from your hands and rip through a number of people if you’re not properly trained? Or does that apply only to more deadly guns?
April 9th, 2009 at 8:57 pmSad thing is, Pete, Orwell WAS a philosopher. I wonder if he had any clue that 1984 would be as prescient as it is. Maybe he was more of a soothsayer.
Either way, these guys would make ingsoc proud.
April 9th, 2009 at 8:57 pmJust a few points…
I’m a fiscal conservative, social progressive… if that even makes any sense.
I support equal rights, gay rights, straight rights and just about anything else under the sun. I don’t support big-government handing out my tax dollars to people as a “stimulus”. I believe that the government needs to spend money on progressive programs to stimulate the economy – what’s more – I support tax breaks for the poorest AND equal taxes for the rich and middle-class.
But after all of that I have to say: Historically speaking big-bad-badguys rarely procure their weapons through the legal channels that you and I would. He goes to the back of a van in the middle of Camden and gets what he can afford. Making a law that suppresses my right to safely own the possessions I chose to own does NOTHING to save you from the unscrupulous characters you’re trying to protect yourself against.
I don’t own an assault rifle – I wouldn’t hunt with an assault rifle… But if I believed it was the best protection I could afford my family, I’d own one and I’d pray that it’d never have to be used…
NOW – what you need to ban is “hunting with assault rifles”… An AK isn’t meant for taking down deer. It’s meant to kill people – it’s a tool with a job – that job has a time and a place and there is nothing wrong with preparation.
April 9th, 2009 at 8:59 pmBTW – Tom Cruise has deep seated inferiority issues. I wonder if that plays somehow into the scientology thing…
April 9th, 2009 at 9:00 pmHe would probably roundhouse kick everyone in the crowd on his furious way to get under his mommy’s dress.
(No offense to mommies who don’t wear dresses)
April 9th, 2009 at 9:03 pmI’m as left as they come, but the issue with the AWB is that it doesn’t work – so reinstating it isn’t going to do anything. Instead, Obama should use this as an opportunity to close the gun show loophole which is where many illegal weapons are purchased. It’s a cliche to say “if you ban weapons only criminals will have weapons” but it is also somewhat true – meaning that I’m not as concerned about my friend Rick owning a pistol as I am about the flow of guns to Mexico or my local drug gang.
As for me, I have no issue with people owning guns provided they are licensed and, in my dreams, were required to do some form of training. I’ve shot many weapons, and while down in South Carolina I was able to go to a gun range and get a weapon without even showing ID. And then my brother was able to purchase a gun by just showing his license. Done. No real check.
As a side part of the issue – the mental health database is causing real problems for states that issue gun permits. There is the question of patient’s privacy rights, and there is also the issue of what would classify someone as not having the right to own a gun. For instance, if I went to a therapist for a session, would I then not be allowed to buy a gun? As a result, many states are not contributing their databases of people with mental health issues to the federal gun license database. I believe this is part of what happened with the Virginia Tech case – maybe someone can clarify.
But in order to have a useful conversation about this, you need to have the ability to compromise. From everything I’ve seen, the NRA is unwilling to compromise on anything because they fear the slippery slope. As long as they continue to behave that way, there will be no good compromise on the issue.
This is a real shame – the NRA could completely reposition themselves by being about legal gun ownership, and perhaps push for a national standard (with provisions for specific parts of states where, for instance, you might need a high-powered rifle to keep animals off your land) – because one of the causes for all the illegal guns is differences in state laws that allow people to, for instance, buy those guns in South Carolina and then bring them up to Boston for resale illegally.
I’m with other here that hope he does walk this back – he’s spending political capital on an issue that he does not need to address right now, and it makes him look like he’s not keeping his campaign promise to stay out of the gun debate. Maybe Holder spoke out of turn, or maybe Obama has realized that this wasn’t worth the fight. Or maybe he’s decided that he can pivot on the issue to propose something that might actually work. One can always hope! Comments welcome.
April 9th, 2009 at 9:03 pm“Philosopher” was a poor choice of word, ShadowBoxer. Historian would be closer to what I meant.
Either way, the Reichwhiners can’t seem to be able to tell fact from fiction.
April 9th, 2009 at 9:04 pmChuck that is.
Hell, probably Cruise too…
April 9th, 2009 at 9:05 pmYou’ll get no argument from me, fromthevalleyofdeath.
The thing that’s held us back from effective gun laws, as I see it, is that the rabid gun rights crowd refuses to bargain. All gun controls that we have have been imposed on them and that generates resentment.
I’m a life-long shooting enthusiast who would welcome a national standard, whatever that may be, on guns. I would like to see a registration system that conforms to a typical “conceal/carry” permit. No permit? No guns, no clips, no accessories, and no ammo. And no private sales.
If one has committed a violent crime? You’re out of luck. Mental health issues are more difficult but, my personal feeling is that if one has been hospitalized as a danger to oneself, or others, you’re out of luck. Privacy be damned. The only people who will see the private information are those charged with public safety.
April 9th, 2009 at 9:23 pm——————————————————————————–
fromthevalleyofdeath Says:
I’m with other here that hope he does walk this back – he’s spending political capital on an issue that he does not need to address right now, and it makes him look like he’s not keeping his campaign promise to stay out of the gun debate. Maybe Holder spoke out of turn, or maybe Obama has realized that this wasn’t worth the fight.
Thank you for making my point in a very rational way. With the economy, health care and two wars in progress, I would rather see him focus on that. My guess is Obama will revisit the issue towards the end of his first term, particularly if he is behind in the polls.
April 9th, 2009 at 9:26 pm@86 F. Joseph Mattia Says:
Sort of like – if they’re not gonna stop making the weapons, why should we be deprived of them. As long as they keep flying out of the trunks on back roads, why should we be deprived of them. Well sure, i see the problem. So it looks like a better approach is to stop making these assault weapons in the first place. I know it’s more complicated than that of coarse.
The real solution is to take the guns away from killers first, then maybe the populace will feal better about disarming. We need to go Obama on it, work the problem – like start by putting serial numbers on bullets. Any hunter would be proud to display the serial number beside the bullet that took out his trophy moose. There’s probably lots we can do beyond serial numbers on bullets and shells too…
April 9th, 2009 at 9:27 pmReading the words of these members of the Obama administration, backtracking on the pledge to reinstitute the assault weapons ban, on the same day that the City of Pittsburgh buried three police officers killed by assault weapons, is not only disappointing but upsetting. The law enforcement community supports such a ban. What happened to Obama’s platform?
April 9th, 2009 at 9:27 pmShadowBoxer:
Chuck might fight his way through a crowd but Cruise? Nah. There’s something about him that just screams COWARD at me. If Katie were not close enough to use as a human shield he would just drop to his knees and beg. Or, as I opined, he would crap his pants and faint.
April 9th, 2009 at 9:31 pmIt’s amazing – I’ve talked to a lot of gun enthusiasts and most agree with this basic set of ideas – yet the NRA continues to do a disservice to their own members by arguing against it at all costs (to your earlier point which I also agree with). I think mainly the gun enthusiasts are shocked to find someone on the left that actually can see their point of view. :)
Agreed completely – I think the issue the states are worried about is being sued for stigmatizing people with mental health issues or for releasing personal information. Seems to be that it could be solved with a fairly clear appeals process.
I’m afraid states-rights issues, however, will get in the way of meaningful legislation, along with the NRA issue mentioned above.
April 9th, 2009 at 9:31 pmpete Says:
——————————————————————————–
You’ll get no argument from me, fromthevalleyofdeath.
The thing that’s held us back from effective gun laws, as I see it, is that the rabid gun rights crowd refuses to bargain. All gun controls that we have have been imposed on them and that generates resentment.
I’m a life-long shooting enthusiast who would welcome a national standard, whatever that may be, on guns. I would like to see a registration system that conforms to a typical “conceal/carry” permit. No permit? No guns, no clips, no accessories, and no ammo. And no private sales.
If one has committed a violent crime? You’re out of luck. Mental health issues are more difficult but, my personal feeling is that if one has been hospitalized as a danger to oneself, or others, you’re out of luck. Privacy be damned. The only people who will see the private information are those charged with public safety.
This may be the only time I agree with you. I dont have a single problem with every position you have taken as a requirement for gun ownership.
April 9th, 2009 at 9:32 pmI’m just double checking here:
Did Obama in fact pledge to reinstitute the assault weapons ban?
If so then it may be on a back plate, or they may have a new angle on it…
April 9th, 2009 at 9:35 pmPete,
You just made me pee a river….
April 9th, 2009 at 9:36 pmPennsylvanianne:
I must quibble, a bit. I think that, on a day a guy killed three cops because he was afraid Obama was going to take his guns, it’s not unreasonable to reassure the cowards he’s NOT going to take their guns. It’s a complex issue and the ones who’s guns need taking are not noted for compromise.
April 9th, 2009 at 9:38 pmThe assumption you’re making there is that the AWB would have affected the outcome in that horrible case – honestly, I don’t know whether it would have or not – but I understand your disappointment in the juxtaposition of the two events. Remember that one of the justifications of the killer in Pittsburgh had to do with the AWB. The killer was convince that Obama was going to take away his ability to own a gun. Now, this guy was clearly insane – which is more reason to not create a platform for him to build his insanity on. As far as Obama’s campaign promise – I think there’s some conflict there – I remember him talking to gun-rights advocates and stating that he would leave the issue alone – I don’t remember his position on the AWB during the campaign. Anyone have the info?
April 9th, 2009 at 9:38 pmThank you, Crymeariver. We might make a proper lefty out of you yet. LOL!
April 9th, 2009 at 9:44 pmI think Gibbs was hinting at better enforcement of the laws as an easy first coarse adjustment.
April 9th, 2009 at 9:48 pm——————————————————————————–
pete Says:
——————————————————————————–
Thank you, Crymeariver. We might make a proper lefty out of you yet. LOL!
Hey I’m here because I don’t learn a thing debating with people that agree with me. You introduced a few of things that I would gladly concede to make everyone feel better about gun laws. I looked at your post and thought If we were at the negotiation table, done deal.
April 9th, 2009 at 9:57 pmWe, as humans, do what is right, if our parents taught us well. My parents used guns to hunt.
My parents were also shot at on a canoe trip in W VA. The holes in the canoe were duct taped so they could get home. My Dad still has the canoe.
They were shot at for no reason but for sport. I didn’t undersnd it then, but I do now. Anything is fair game if its moving. Just ask Cheney.
April 9th, 2009 at 10:12 pmfromthevalleyofdeath Says:
——————————————————————————–
I’m a life-long shooting enthusiast who would welcome a national standard, whatever that may be, on guns. I would like to see a registration system that conforms to a typical “conceal/carry” permit. No permit? No guns, no clips, no accessories, and no ammo. And no private sales.
It’s amazing – I’ve talked to a lot of gun enthusiasts and most agree with this basic set of ideas – yet the NRA continues to do a disservice to their own members by arguing against it at all costs (to your earlier point which I also agree with). I think mainly the gun enthusiasts are shocked to find someone on the left that actually can see their point of view. :)
If one has committed a violent crime? You’re out of luck. Mental health issues are more difficult but, my personal feeling is that if one has been hospitalized as a danger to oneself, or others, you’re out of luck. Privacy be damned. The only people who will see the private information are those charged with public safety.
Agreed completely – I think the issue the states are worried about is being sued for stigmatizing people with mental health issues or for releasing personal information. Seems to be that it could be solved with a fairly clear appeals process.
I’m afraid states-rights issues, however, will get in the way of meaningful legislation, along with the NRA issue mentioned above.
fromthevalleyofdeath,
April 9th, 2009 at 10:14 pmI couldn’t agree with you more especially the observation on the states right issue. If there was a set of equivalent laws in all 50 states, we may not have the problems we have today. If we hold Obama to his word about enforcing existing laws on the books, this may even get the NRA upset. Bottom line we love our guns and we are just going to have to get use to the violence, like it or not.
Question? What do you suppose will occur if the entire US economy were to collapse, the monthly checks stopped being mailed and a depression went on for years? The progressive states with the highest taxes in the country are going backrupt. There aren’t enough police to protect everyone. For those who want to ban all guns, who’s going to protect you and those that you love when all the bad guys have guns? It is my understanding, those states in which you can wear a gun on your hip have the lowest crime rates.
April 9th, 2009 at 10:14 pmCrymeariver Says:
Sorry for the delay. I had to take a couple calls.
I’m all about negotiation and compromise. That’s how social animals, like humans, preserve the species. The problem is overcoming preconceptions and actually paying attention to the other party’s concerns. If either side of a dispute draws a line in the sand? Nothing gets accomplished.
April 9th, 2009 at 10:19 pmWell, you’re mixing a lot together there. Most of the studies I’ve read have a political point of view, so you have to be careful in interpreting the data. I’ve done searches but found nothing comparing levels of gun violence as it relates to poverty and/or the illegal drug industry. My guess, and I fully admit I don’t have the data to back this up, is that when you look at gun violence, you can probably break it down to economic conditions as the first determinant of gun violence, and, by extension, illegal drug activity as the second determinant.
As for your comment about progressive states going bankrupt, I’m pretty certain that first, with the exception of CA, I’m not seeing any state government in danger of declaring bankruptcy, and second, that it has little to do with their progressive status and has more to do with the concentration of jobs in single industries and the percentage of the economy that is/was generated by housing. Arizona isn’t a particularly progressive state, and they fall into that camp.
As for whether I would own a gun to protect my family – I’m very straightforward about this – I would!
April 9th, 2009 at 10:28 pmnuna Says:
1. If we faced another Great Depression? We Americans would pull together like the last one.
2. All the states are going bankrupt because this is a global economic crisis.
3. There have never been enough police to protect everyone.
4. Believe it, or not, most people don’t want to prohibit sane and lawful people from having guns. Most people want mor effective laws to prevent “bad guys” from having guns.
5. Texas has some of the most non-restrictive gun laws in the nation and they are nowhere near the bottom crime rate.
With all due respect, I think you have been fed a bunch of propaganda.
April 9th, 2009 at 10:33 pmThank you for your thoughts. However, I’m from Illinois. We are run by the dirty politics of the Chicago machine – Daley, Obama, Resko, Blago, etc.
Our taxes are going up as much as 50%. All the money goes to Chicago to support their progressive programs. We have one of the highest employment taxes and and personal income taxes. Locally, we pay one of the highest taxes to fund public education due to law suites. Businesses in this state are moving out by the thousands. Thus, the increase in taxing its residents.
April 9th, 2009 at 10:45 pmThose that experienced the Great Depression in the 30’s were a different bred. They worked for what they earned Today, there just seems to be a sense of entitlement that I don’t believe was part of the fabric back then as there weren’t all these social give away programs in place. People today don’t necessarily have to work for what they earn. The mind set if a bit different. Because of this, if the checks stop, I believe that the violence will be greatly enhanced. There is also a cultural war, that I believe has never occurred in the past, a resentment towards those that have money.
April 9th, 2009 at 10:58 pmnuna Says:
I’m trying to be patient. I’ve had a couple beers and actually managed a constructive dialogue with Crymeariver. So? Here goes.
If you want to gripe about the Chicago Machine? Find an appropriate thread. It has nothing to due with national gun regulations.
As for Obama; while he came out of the Chicago Machine, I’ve seen nothing in his record to suggest that he participated in criminal activity. In fact, everything that I have read indicates that he held himself to a higher standard than the worst of those around him.
April 9th, 2009 at 10:59 pmSorry, we must read different papers. There has been some issues regarding contracts for campaign contributions to Resko and Resko’s involvement and partial purchase of land/home in Hyde Park.
But, you are right. Let’s stay on the issue.
April 9th, 2009 at 11:08 pm#113 nuna says:
I don’t think you could be more wrong.
The people of the Great Depression gathered together in adversity, even those led by madmen like Hitler. When social animals are stressed? They find a common ground in defeating those stresses.
nuna Says:
There is also a cultural war, that I believe has never occurred in the past, a resentment towards those that have money.
Every society in human history has had a “culture war”. Poor people have always resented those with money.
April 9th, 2009 at 11:09 pmThe way these Right Wingers are acting, perhaps I need to get my own assault weapon to protect my home, my community, my country.
April 9th, 2009 at 11:34 pmWhatever your stance on the ownsership of deadly weapons, can we agree that the bat scat Liddy is spreading doesn’t help anyone?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h4Q1F3cmM48&feature=channel_page
April 10th, 2009 at 1:47 amI think serial numbers on the bullets might help.
And why not? They do the actual killing. They should tell the story. It’s simple to do too, and cheap – just a bar code embossed on each bullet and shell. The same codes that go on record at the point of sale, but tiny.
That could aid police in a variety of shootings that involve domestic disputes or guys gone bad, and yet the good guys [us] get to keep their protection and their sports guns too.
The bullet manufactures and their lobbyists will fear monger over the cost of such a program, but if it helped save one human life a … [fill the blank] … it would be worth the extra $.
April 10th, 2009 at 1:59 am@188 pete Says:
Wowo! Bad liddy! Ya, somebody’s got to say it. Oliver North has his own hour long show on FREAX. I’m glad i won’t be seeing it, but i’m curious what his agenda is…
April 10th, 2009 at 2:11 amBeing that Oliver North is a criminal and all…
April 10th, 2009 at 2:16 amApe-Man:
The real pisser is that, all this time wasted doing nothing, we could have been doing something. Just like pollution, green technology, medical research, science in general, and a host of other problems.
It’s long past time to realize that change is good when it’s directed at a problem. I am so disgusted with those who resist positive change that I can’t help but call the cowards who resist positive change really bad names like, “stupid troll”.
April 10th, 2009 at 2:43 amI regret to say our new President doesn’t seem to have a progressive bone in his body. :(
Xe
April 10th, 2009 at 5:27 amObama is moving hard right on a lot of things. We were duped, folks.
April 10th, 2009 at 5:33 amBernie Sanders just recently tried to block Obama’s appointment of credit default swap de-regulator Gary Gensler to head the Commodities Futures Trading Commission, an obscene case of putting the wolf in charge of the henhouse.
Obama’s Eric Holder is going ahead with the prosecution of Tim deChristopher, a true American hero who stopped the Bush fire sale of public lands late last year. deChristopher is facing 10 years in prison by the Obama admin. for disrupting oil company profits.
Glen Greenwald is reporting in Salon that Obama is now WORSE than Bush in the area of government spying. And the ACLU has already publicly declared Obama to be “more of the same”.
Things look very bad in America.
And can we please stop calling California progressive now? Reagan and Nixon came from California, we have one Democratic governor in what, two decades or longer and he was destroyed by the energy cartel and the Bush Administration’s failure to reign in that cartel. Gay rights reversed recently in California, school funding 47th I believe nationwide, Los Angleles regarded by many as a 3rd world city. California is NOT progressive. Vermont is progressive, even Iowa for cryin’ out loud. But not California.
April 10th, 2009 at 5:43 amnuna Says:
Since you are asking stupid questions let me ask YOU one. What if aliens from Zeta Reticuli invaded enslaved mankind and chopped you up to sell you by the pound for taco meat? Wow isnt it fun to just pull idiotic nonsense like that directly out of your ass and pretend it has some relevance to reality?
April 10th, 2009 at 7:27 amnuna Says:
You are stupid and live in a world of complete delusion.
April 10th, 2009 at 7:28 amAny assault weapon ban should include any firearm, rifle or handgun, that was specifically and originally designed for the high output of firepower in a fully automatic firing mode. What good or useful purpose is there for this kind of weapon in the hands of an ordinary citizen. Any weapon that was designed for military use in an automatic mode should not be made available for sale to the general public. I do not understand why there is such a wide division in the thought process concerning gun control laws, where it is an all or nothing issue. Controlling the sale and distribution of CERTAIN firearms is necessary, but not ALL firearms need to be so tightly controlled. The way I see it, there needs to be some sort of common sense used in the writing of a gun control law that does not diminish the right for citizens to bear ordinary sporting firearms. I don’t have a problemm with we the people to buy firearms, so long as it isn’t an AK47, M16, Uzi, Mac10, Thompson submachine gun or any type of weapon that can be easily altered into the fully automatic firing mode. The only ones who would be directly and adversely affected by this type of gun control will be the gun manufacturers of such assault weapons. Sorry Colt, Smith & Wesson, Interarms and your ilk, but stick to selling your non military weapons to the general public. You’ll just need to settle on making just a few million less in gun sales is all.
April 10th, 2009 at 8:00 amnuna Says:
“I’m trying to be patient. I’ve had a couple beers and actually managed a constructive dialogue with Crymeariver”…
I hope you don’t shoot anyone and than be called a ‘martyr’ for the “tea-beggers” cause from your daddy Limbot’s poisonous anal mouth.
April 10th, 2009 at 8:17 amNo, I think you may have been duped, but I never viewed Obama has hard left on anything – he’s basically the same as Clinton – centrist dem with some left tendencies and some right tendencies. Either way, he’s still MILES better than the last 8 years of Bush and I think some progressives need to wake up and realize this. I find it amazing that progressives really thought he was that progressive based on issues such as gay marriage – it’s almost like the left was actually convinced by people on the right that Obama was hard left by Palin shouting “liberal!” over and over.
Will there be areas that he lets us down, and that he should be criticized for – such as state secrecy – yes, absolutely. And he should hear it from the people! I, for one, have been contacting my Senator about the secrecy issue.
April 10th, 2009 at 8:26 amctcadguy Says:
Progressives need thier own party.
Obama just sent 22,000 troops to Afganistan.
He will not investigate the previous administration’s war crimes.
He is still spending way too much on defense.
He has yet to get the troops out of Iraq.
He is O.K. with letting telecomm companies off the hook for spying on us.
Is Obama another Fascist leader like Bush?
Time will tell.
I wouldn’t go so far as comparing President Obama with Bush, but I’m becoming increasingly wary of his agenda and his actions. I’m still struggling to see what kind of “change” we’re getting with his presidency. Thus far, I’m underwhelmed and suspicious.
April 10th, 2009 at 9:01 amNo assault-gun ban – more change that you can’t believe in.
April 10th, 2009 at 9:54 am@131 dickdata42 Says:
I see you’re dissappointed. So you would support an assault-gun ban then? If we have to have them, then how about just enforcing registration? just doing that will save lives.
April 10th, 2009 at 3:15 pmThere are already laws in place that prohibit, and protect both gun owners. Reinstating the AWB doesn’t make sense; it’s simply a ‘list’ of items that make guns more scary.
Bottom line – either take ALL the guns, or lift ALL the restrictions.
April 10th, 2009 at 6:07 pmQuestion….
Why is it that on Saturday (4/4) there was a post on this site that stated: “Right-wing’s false claims that Obama will take away guns ‘has helped fuel the panic buying of firearms.” and yet merely 5 days later this post completely discredits the first? Which is it? Is he or isn’t he? If he is as you like to show with this post, then how are any claims made by any person regardless of their party affiliation “false”? If he isn’t as the post on 4/4 indicates, then isn’t this post publishing false information?
So…which is it?
April 10th, 2009 at 10:10 pmleneeg: Any assault weapon ban should include any firearm, rifle or handgun, that was specifically and originally designed for the high output of firepower in a fully automatic firing mode.
All such firearms are already restricted by the 1934 National Firearms Act. Possession of such firearms requires that the possessor undergo an extensive background check and pay a $200 tax stamp per item, which must be registered in the National Firearms Database. As this database was closed to new entries in 1986, the total supply of fully automatic firearms available to civilians is limited, and thus any existing firearm of that nature is extremely expensive. Only two firearms in the registry have been criminally misused since the registry was first created. There exists no logical justification for further restrictions on such firearms.
I don’t have a problemm with we the people to buy firearms, so long as it isn’t an AK47, M16, Uzi, Mac10, Thompson submachine gun or any type of weapon that can be easily altered into the fully automatic firing mode.
Any firearm that can be easily modified to enable fully automatic firing operation is considered, by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, to be legally equivalent to a fully automatic firearm and is regulated as such. Possession of any unregistered firearm of that nature is a federal offense mandating a minimum ten year prison sentence.
The only ones who would be directly and adversely affected by this type of gun control will be the gun manufacturers of such assault weapons.
“Assault weapons”, as defined by relevant proposed and enacted legislation, addresses only semi-automatic firearms, and never addresses fully automatic firearms. Typically, “assault weapons” are a class of semi-automatic rifles that possess certain entirely cosmetic features which are banned, while functionally identical but cosmetically altered rifles are still legally available. As all rifles combined are less frequently criminally misused than any other class of firearm, or even knives or unarmed attacks in general, there exists no rational justification for a ban on “assault weapons”. Such firearms are often popular hunting and target rifles; while some advocates of a ban claim that such firearms are not suitable for hunting, those individuals either have conducted no research or are lying outright. The AR-15 rifle platform, frequently classified as an “assault weapon”, is the most popular centerfire target rifle in the country, and is also a popular rifle for hunting small game; it was initially introduced in 1958 as a rifle marketed and advertised to ranchers and farmers for use against livestock predators. Semi-automatic rifles based upon the Kalashnikov action have, because of their durability and reliability, proven popular amongst deer hunters in spite of the dishonest claim that such rifles are unsuitable for hunting. Xisithrus’s apparent representation of a hypothetical “hunting” scenario with such a firearm demonstrates only his or her lack of understanding of the semi-automatic operation of such firearms.
Sorry Colt, Smith & Wesson, Interarms and your ilk, but stick to selling your non military weapons to the general public.
“Military weapons” are not being sold to the general public at all, as it is illegal to do so. It would appear that you, like many other advocates of increased and unreasonable firearms restrictions, are currently unaware of existing regulations already imposed upon firearms by federal law. It is, in fact, this ignorance upon which profesional lobbying groups relies as a means of gaining support for their agenda. As you are unaware that fully automatic firearms are already restricted, organizations such as the Violence Policy Center use misleading language and imagery when advocating an “assault weapons ban” to create the illusion that such regulation affects military firarms, when in fact only hunting and recreational target rifles are affected. Firearms prohibitionist Josh Sugarmann openly admitted to engaging in such deception in his book Assault Weapons and Accessories in America when he wrote “Assault weapons—just like armor-piercing bullets, machine guns, and plastic firearms—are a new topic. The weapons’ menacing looks, coupled with the public’s confusion over fully automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons—anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun—can only increase the chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons.” This quote is actually on the Violence Policy Center’s website; they openly acknowledge their use of misleading terminology and outright deception as a means of advancing their agenda. They are willfully dishonest, and they cannot be trusted.
April 11th, 2009 at 4:13 pm