WASHINGTON — U.S. President Barack Obama said Wednesday he is seeking concrete policy recommendations no later than January aimed at curbing U.S. gun violence.
Obama, in formally announcing an effort to craft such solutions after Friday’s shooting at a Connecticut elementary school, also called on Congress to take up the issue quickly next year.
“If there is even one thing that we can do to prevent any one of these events, we have a deep obligation — all of us — to try,” he told reporters at the White House.
The effort will be led by Vice President Joe Biden and is part of Obama’s call for action after the massacre of 26 people, including 20 children, at the school in Newtown, Connecticut.
Although Biden’s commission is charged with coming up with specific proposals, Obama said people should not be able to get their get hands on assault weapons easily and that loopholes for gun-show sales need to be closed.
Biden is in charge of a gun task force, thats like Andy putting Barney Fife in charge of the ammo closet!
Judging by the picture even Biden’s head hurts listening to Obummer speak.
that speech made my head hurt too
The rules and Laws in place worked, Adam Lanza tried to buy a gun at a Dicks Sporting Goods in Ct. they denied him the sale of the weapon. So he went home and Killed his sleeping mother and stole her Guns. The kid was mentally unstable, we can’t make a law to prevent that. Wake up people its not the Guns doing the killing.
Anyone that understands guns, please use these comment sections to educate those that are not familiar with their features and characteristics, so we can have a well reasoned discussion. Obama and the media are pandering to the fear, and I think the best response is truth and understanding.
Well, I used guns in the military and in 30 years in law enforcement. I have been to scenes of gun related homicides, too many to count.
The safe handling and security of any firearm rests solely with the owner of those firearms.
There is no quick fix for this, but as I have stated previously, guns are not the problem.
A gun is an inanimate object, incapable of hurting or killing anyone without human intervention.
It is up to every one of us to be acutely aware of those around us, and speak up when we have doubts or fears of the stability of another.
But to go off on an anti-gun, anti-high cap magazine, anti semi-automatic rifle bender is certainly not the answer.
And I for one certainly advocate CCF. The number of times an armed citizen has stopped a gun related, violent crime far outnumbers the number of incidents such as Sandy Hook.
Keep your voice heard. Of the last three tragedies two were the result of gun owners not securing their weapons. those being Oregon and Connecticut. Aurora is more complex because he had mental problems that didn’t rise to the level of failing the background check. Millions of us that are responsible with and for our firearms, even when they are left at home, are left to defend ourselves from the spin that has been put on this debate by the politicians and the media.
Well, here is one suggestion Obama, stop selling assault rifles to mexican drug cartels!
People kill people with whatever they have. Firearms of mass destruction make it possible to kill many in no time at all. Most of us hunt or target shoot – maybe even shoot rats at the dump. Firearms of mass destruction are not required to enjoy doing those things.
If you want to curb violence, then legalize drugs, stop enabling the notion of entitlement amongst minorities and herding them into projects, allow more concealed carry and unrestricted gun ownership and stop with the socialism and get on with the capitalism so the country’s economy can flourish and allow for more prosperity and less desperation and violence. Pretty simple, will never happen though.
Since the tragedy in Newtown I have seen one Democrat after another in front of the cameras outraged over the shooting in Ct. My question is where were they with all this outrage after “Fast and Furious” made the headline. An American border agent Nicholas Ivie and hundreds of Mexican citizen and law enforcement officers were kill by assault rifles that the FTA let be illegally bought and illegally shipped to Mexico. At this time the Dems. didn’t want to talk about assault rifles or high capacity clips.
So this is a Dems vs GOP problem? You suggest one party or the other should be finger waiving at the other? Is one party or the other right minded and the other is wrong?
I don’t understand the logic. Our political system seems to be interpreted by some as “who has the better jersey” should win.
No, I just want to know why they all weren’t if front of the cameras after “Fast and Furious” After all is was assault rifles and innocent lives loss.
I think its largely (if not absolutely entirely) due to 20, 6-year-old and 7-year-old children and 6 of their teachers where just murdered in their classes, by a gunman carrying an AR-15 who filled their bodies with 3 to 11 bullets each.
Maybe you think that isn’t cause to reflect on our domestic gun policy. Many of those who are asking for reflection on policy, myself included, had nothing whatsoever to do with “Fast and furious” not that the two are related in any way, other then political mortar to hurl at one another.
Biden is thinking will this guy just quit.This s… sandwich he has built in the u.s has gone to far.The division this crap artist is dishing out in the u.s and the world has everything in chaos.Scary but biden just might be more qualified.How about a politician ban they seem to cause more violence than any gun .
A strict originalist interpretation of the constitution would result in 2nd amendment protections for arms that were available when it was passed.
.
Knives and single load muskets – OK, automatic or semi automatic weapons — not so much.
And 1st Amendment protections only for speeches given in the town square and materials printed on a Gutenburg Press?
Good point. Both need upgrading and can not simply translate from a world view from 200 years ago to now.
And corporations are NOT people my friend!
From Merriam Webster:
Person – (6): one (as a human being, a partnership, or a corporation) that is recognized by law as the subject of rights and duties
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/person
all legal dictionaries have very much the same definition regarding corporations….in legal terms, corporations have always been considered people
bear in mind, however, the founders were no fans of corporations
Dictionaries publish the definition the conservative Supreme Court pushed? Wow, what a surprise.
.
The circular logic of saying something that is published solely because the SCOTUS defined it, is someone proof that the ruling was correct is typical of the “logic” spewed on this nonsense.
How about seeking a proposal to curb violence period.
You can start with some of those blood and guts video games that glorify violence ………………….. like the ones that parents keep buying for their kids.
I will never understand this whole ban thing. Drugs are outright illegal but you can buy them all over even in the heart of downeast. In fact you can find a person to sell you drugs faster then you can a cop. Criminals do NOT care about laws. So what will Stopping law abiding citizens like me from buys gun “a” or gun “b” going to do? Look back to when booze was outlawed and see what took place. Look directly to our south ( mexico ) where guns are almost impossible to get legally but you can buy them all over. When will people stop blaming the tool used instead of the person who used it? Washington DC until a couple years ago has basically a outright ban on firearm but had the highest murder rate in the country for many years.
So it begins already! Everyone was warned before and during the election about Obama’s attitude toward the 2nd amendment. All it took is some nut job to give him an excuse to launch his first attack!
a look at the demographics regarding guns. i think this is pretty much how people line up.
The two sides
The arch-typical gun-control activist lives in a city or suburb, is
reasonably secure, and is politically liberal. She doesn’t need a gun and
doesn’t want any people or animals killed by guns or war. This individual knows
someone who lost someone they know to a gun. This is a large and growing
demographic, Americans have been migrating from the country to the city since
the ’30’s.
The arch-typical pro-gun activist was raised in the country and is
politically conservative. He is from a culture where people take care of their
own problems. While the city police can respond in 5 minutes, the country
sheriff can’t. This individual knows people who rely on their guns to protect
their livestock and property, and may have done so himself. He bristles at the
idea that a government in a city far away that doesn’t understand his problems
might restrict his weapons. This is a politically powerful but shrinking
demographic.
Another interesting demographic is the person who lives in the inner city and
does not feel secure. This individual knows someone who used or needed a gun for
self-defense. He maintains the weapon he feels he needs regardless of its
legality. This is a growing demographic, but has not exercised much political
power outside of Florida.
How simplistically black and white your world view is.
.
I own guns and have hunted and enjoyed target practice sessions with them for over 60 years. Grew up out in the boonies and still live there.
.
I just do not love my guns more than our children.
Of course you do not love your guns more than your children! Any sane person would say the same. However, do you love your children enough to ensure you have the means to protect them if necessary?
I do not need weapons designed for maximum kill rates of large groups of human beings to protect my children. No sane individual person does.
Truth hurts, huh?
Sometimes, but not in this case.
Most gun haters start off their opinions with “I own guns” or “I support the 2nd amendment” then they express an opinion that belies their opening statement. For example; they denigrate other people’s guns by saying something like “all handguns should be banned” or “all semiautomatic guns should be banned.” Often they are speaking of guns about which they know little or nothing which means they are purely expressing a personal (often biased) opinion!
How will you feel when/if Obama comes after YOUR guns?
Gun dealers have been pushing the “Obama is coming after your guns” myth since 2008.
.
They have enjoyed record sales even in a down economy.
.
That speaks more to the gullibility of the rubes they’ve taken for a ride (and cash) than anything else.
.
One can be in favor of responsible gun ownership and also want reasonable restrictions and controls. Pretending otherwise is a sign of desperation.
the constitution allows for guns to protect the people from a Tyrannical Goverment.. Not for hunting.. And for those who say the military would take out people trying to restore the constitution, Well the military is of the people not the Government.
the military has also sworn to uphold the constitution….not a tyrannical executive