Obama Calls For Government Action On Guns In The Wake Of Colorado Shooting

[onehandle]

Source: Talking Points Memo

Five days after a gunman killed 12 people in an Aurora, Colo., movie theater, President Obama spoke at length about the need for government action to reduce gun violence, including hinting at a return to the assault weapons ban and tightening restrictions on gun purchases.

On Capitol Hill, gun control has been a non-starter in the wake of the Colorado shooting. Mitt Romney said in an interview Wednesday that he didn’t see the need for new firearms regulations following the tragedy.

Obama distinguished himself Wednesday in a speech before the National Urban League convention in New Orleans. The president tied Aurora shooting and other high-profile mass shootings in recent years to continuing urban gun violence and said it was time to take greater legislative steps to curb the problem.

“I, like most Americans, believe that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual the right to bear arms,” Obama said. “But I also believe that a lot of gun owners would agree that AK-47s belong in the hands of soldiers, not in the hands of criminals — that they belong on the battlefields of war and not on the streets of our cities.”

Read more: http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/07/obama-calls-for-gun-control-after-colorado.php

---

Eat that, gun nuts!

[Grown2Hate]

1. Holy SHIT. Risky, but again... the right thing. NT

[progressoid]

78. Not all that risky.

He pissed of the right wing, but they ain't gonna vote for him anyway. There might be a few of the left and center gun nuts that will get their undies in a bunch but i doubt it will make much difference since nothing will come of it. There is no way in hell any legislation will get passed in an election year.

[Trunk Monkey]

92. Little history lesson for you

Prior to 1992 the NRA existed primarily as a shooting safety organization the 1994 “Assault Weapons” ban galvanized NRA leadership and turned them into the political juggernaut that they are today.

Bill Clinton is on record as stating that the Democrats lost the 1994 midterm elections (thereby giving control of the entire house to the Republicans for 10 years) as a DIRECT RESULT of his signing the 1994 AWB into law.

It is believed that Al Gore’s strong support for gun control cost him the 2000 election.

Prior to 1992 AR15 were considered a novelty item few serious shooters owned them after the AWB lapsed in ’04 they became the most popular firearm ever produced in America’s history.
According to the DOJ twice as many people are beaten to death w/ hands and feet as are killed w/ any type of rifle in America every year.

George Bush is on record as stating the he would sign a renewal of the AWB if congress put it on his desk in 2004. Had he done so it is very likely it would have cost him the election.

Are you absolutely certain that this is the issue you want Obama pushing in an election year?

[nolabear]

2. Not afraid to take a stand.

[savalez]

82. Yep

He says stuff that other politicians don't have the grapes to say. I admit, I've heard him say things and thought, "oh oh, you shouldn't have said that" and then later realized that it was the right thing to say. He's one of a kind for sure.

[RoccoR5955]

3. Good on our President

That makes him a shoe-in, in my book. The NRA isn't THAT powerful, and people know better.
Obama SHALL BE re-elected!

[still_one]

33. I wish you were right, but I have my doubts from the country that voted bush in twice, and voted

the repukes into the house in 2010

This country has been shifting right since reagan, in spite of every bit of evidence which points to the republican policy of deregulation, wars based on lies, and the destruction of the middle class, yet people still vote against their own interests

[alabama_for_obama]

41. voting against feel good gun control or total gun bans is in many people's interest.

Has nothing to do with economics or war. When are dems going to see that anything past strengthening info sharing of states and municipalities with the NICS system to prevent crazy people from getting guns, and opening it for private sales is a loosing issue? You'd have to take ALL the guns in order to have a real reduction in gun crime, and in order to do that you'd have to turn the US into a police state. Some people find that notion problematic.

we'd have a better time achieving the goal of less violence in society by pushing other standard progressive issues: Economic justice, Universal healthcare, and quality public education for all...

[still_one]

43. Assult weapons are used to kill many people at once. That is their purpose. That some states do

require background checks if you are an unlicensed dealer also is not a good thing

I have no illusion, assault weapons will not be banned, and progressive issues will not be taking hold for some time now. The country has been moving to the right since reagan

If the Democrats lose in 2012, the Supreme court will be changed for the next 20 years, and it won't be a change for economic justice, universal healthcare, and support for public education

I don't disagree with what you say

[alabama_for_obama]

46. there is no such thing as an "unliscenced dealer"

the ATF does not take that stuff lightly, they don't tolerate it, and if you are caught being a dealer without paying your taxes to them and procuring your license, it will be the last bit of business you do except make bargains for cigarettes and a better bunk while sitting in prison.

[still_one]

103. As far as I am aware gun shows get away with that crap all the time. /nt

[alabama_for_obama]

106. wellll... if you are a Dealer, you have to have an FFL

if you don't have an FFL and are caught selling guns as a business, you go to jail for a long time. Private sales are legal both at your house and at a gunshow, in addition to anywhere else that two people can meet. There is no "gun show loophole", there is a private sale loophole which allows people to sell guns without going through a dealer. Some would advocate fixing this by requiring that all sales go through an FFL holder. That would be fine, except that not everyone lives 10 minutes from a gun store or other FFL holder. So a better solution would be to open the NICS system to private sellers. one could maintain a sense of privacy by making the answer from the Feds a simple yes or no.

But let's please stop with the "gun show loophole" nonsense, it seems like it only gets trotted out when gun-control (rather than gun safety) advocates would like to demonize people who attend gun shows and people who have guns. if you want to call it a loophole at all, let's be honest and call it a "private sale loophole".

by the way it has been illegal for many years to sell a gun to a convicted felon (and if i'm not mistaken, anyone else who would be turned down at a licensed dealer. We should make it easier for people selling guns not as part of a business to verify that the purchaser is not prohibited from owning them.

[hack89]

110. If you make a living selling guns you must have a license.

If you sell a gun in a state different from your state of residence, you need a license.

If you sell a gun to a resident of another state you need a license.

You do not need a license to sell an occasional gun to a resident of your state while in your state.

That last one is what you are thinking of - they are referred to as private sales and are not unique to gun shows. I can sell my gun in the parking lot, in my driveway, in my living room. Some gun shows allow private sellers. Many do not.

[PavePusher]

117. Have you been to any gun shows? n/t

[boppers]

105. There are FFL loopholes large enough to drive a truck through.

Get this: You can own a construction business, pay your "employees" a lousy rate, "gift" them firearms, and write it all off as a business loss. No FFL needed.

Legally.

[alabama_for_obama]

107. so an employee is paid in guns? who cares?

as long as the employee is happy with it. what is your point? I suspect that the IRS would still like to have the value of the gun declared as taxable income, just as with any other kind of non monetary compensation that a person might receive.

unless of course the employer is purchasing the guns with the intent to give them to the employees while knowing that they are not able to buy guns themselves. that would be a straw purchase and is greatly frowned upon, like you go to prison if you get caught.

[mountain grammy]

4. The right wing will go balistic

but even mittens signed an assault weapons ban while govenor of Mass. This is the right thing to do..

[AtheistCrusader]

7. That's exactly what's kept a lot of the NRA membership, and conservatives from embracing

Rmoney.

That may change... Make a note. Check the polls in 2 weeks. This will probably represent the start of an uptick on Romney's polling...

[Grown2Hate]

9. Same thing was said about President Obama's gay marriage stance.

And, same as Rmoney is the WORST Repub to go up against the President re: Obamacare/Rmoneycare, he isn't much better in THIS case, since he did the SAME THING in MA as governor. "Mr. Rmoney agrees with me in this case too!". I'm liking it.

[AtheistCrusader]

13. It'll be interesting to see how it shakes out with Romney's history.

I have a bad feeling about this one though. We REALLY need to win this election.

[Trunk Monkey]

98. Gay marriage doesn't actually affect the wingers

They may not like it but it really doesn't impact them.

They day after President Obama was elected an online gun shop called "Bud's Guns" Sold one million dollars worth of AR 15s.

The day as in with in a 24 hour period.

What do you think those folks are gonna do if they think the NRA was right all along and Obama really is coming for their guns?

[tk2kewl]

10. I think it's a good gamble for the middle

and the right thing to do

on edit: I think it may also get out some additional votes on the left

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

14. what will their MOA be I wonder?

[AllyCat]

37. As will those right here on DU who want to protect guns at all costs

including the costs of human life.

[primavera]

88. Beat me to it - n/t

[AtheistCrusader]

5. Bad timing.

Romney is going to have a field day with this shit. So far, the NRA base has been unmotivated, because most members don't believe LaPierre and co. about 'Obama's secret agenda'.

This is going to get them all fired up.

[invader zim]

11. yep, there goes the White House

for the next four years...Thanks alot

[AtheistCrusader]

16. I don't think it's that certain

but it seems like a unnecessary risk to me. This was a subject Rmoney couldn't touch before now... I can hear their fucking spin machine starting up all the way over here on the west coast.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

18. I doubt that. Gun nutters wouldn't be voting for Obama anyway.

Did the AWB hurt Clinton? He served two terms.

[alabama_for_obama]

42. clinton himself admits that the AWB crippled his presidency

HE may have been reelected, but he didn't have any partners in congress to help him push his agenda. Imagine where we would be now if he hadn't fucked up and pushed that farce of a law through congress. Gun rights are very important to many people who otherwise would have gone along with his economic and social agendas. When a socialist leaning type like myself would be considered a gun nut by most (including myself), you know the issue is a loser. I wouldn't vote for a rethug in a presidential election if you PAID me to, but I know plenty of people for whom this is their #1 issue, like gay rights, abortion, and the environments are to various other voters.

Those people for whom this is an issue have enough votes to swing the election. anyone who doesn't realize this is a complete fool. And no, they won't automatically vote republican on all other issues. Gun owners are a ridiculously diverse group of people, despite what many of you think.

I seriously hope we don't fuck this up again. I'm so tired of watching people in my party snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. and as others have noticed, we can't afford to loose this election!

[LanternWaste]

115. I don't think there are very many battle-ground swing voters whose single-issue platform are firearm

The NRA has morphed ion the last twenty years into little more than GOP PAC.

In the here and now, I don't think there are very many battle-ground swing voters whose single-issue platform are firearms. For those few swing-voters for whom this is the only deciding factor in their vote, I imagine enough of them are savvy enough in and of themselves to differentiate the obvious political statement from actually engaging new legislation (as per Robert Spitzer's, 'The Politics of Gun Control')

[alabama_for_obama]

119. you base this on your assumptions, but I wouldn't be so sure that you are correct.

You'd be surprised at who all is relatively swayable on other issues, but rock solid in their opinions on guns. A lot of these people stay home unless their one issue is threatened. Better the repugs stay home than to get them riled up with stupid laws that don't do anything positive for society, like actually reduce violence and crime.

[NickB79]

51. And Democrats lost the House and Senate after the AWB was signed into law.

Yeah, it hurt, badly.

[primavera]

90. Out of curiosity...

... do we actually know that the AWB was the, or even a, primary contributor to that result? How do we know that the electoral losses weren't because of other factors and the AWB had nothing to do with it?

[Trunk Monkey]

99. Depends on if you'll accept Bill Clinton's word on it

Although initially heralded as a victory for Clinton and Democrats in congress, it proved costly.[2] The bill energized the NRA and Republican base, and contributed to the Republican takeover of both houses in the 1994 mid-term elections. Many Democrats who had supported Clinton's gun control measures were ousted, including Speaker Tom Foley. Clinton acknowledged that he had hurt Democrats with his victories.[6]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_control_policy_of_the_Clinton_Administration

http://www.gunshopfinder.com/legislativenews/clinton8_1_04.html

8/1/2004--For ten years, it has been conventional political wisdom that the 1994 Assault Weapons ban cost the Democrats control of Congress. In his recently-released book "My Life," President Clinton provides an interesting behind the scenes narrative about what took place, and the political fallout afterwards. Here are some excerpts:

"Just before the House vote (on the crime bill), Speaker Tom Foley and majority leader Dick Gephardt had made a last-ditch appeal to me to remove the assault weapons ban from the bill. They argued that many Democrats who represented closely divided districts had already...defied the NRA once on the Brady bill vote. They said that if we made them walk the plank again on the assault weapons ban, the overall bill might not pass, and that if it did, many Democrats who voted for it would not survive the election in November. Jack Brooks, the House Judiciary Committee chairman from Texas, told me the same thing...Jack was convinced that if we didn't drop the ban, the NRA would beat a lot of Democrats by terrifying gun owners....Foley, Gephardt, and Brooks were right and I was wrong. The price...would be heavy casualties among its defenders." (Pages 611-612)

"On November 8, we got the living daylights beat out of us, losing eight Senate races and fifty-four House seats, the largest defeat for our party since 1946....The NRA had a great night. They beat both Speaker Tom Foley and Jack Brooks, two of the ablest members of Congress, who had warned me this would happen. Foley was the first Speaker to be defeated in more than a century. Jack Brooks had supported the NRA for years and had led the fight against the assault weapons ban in the House, but as chairman of the Judiciary Committee he had voted for the overall crime bill even after the ban was put into it. The NRA was an unforgiving master: one strike and you're out. The gun lobby claimed to have defeated nineteen of the twenty-four members on its hit list. They did at least that much damage...." (Pages 629-630)

[primavera]

100. Sounds pretty convincing to me

Thanks for posting this and answering my question.

[intheflow]

71. Most NRA member believe in some for of gun control.

http://thinkprogress.org/election/2012/07/24/577091/nra-members-agree-regulating-guns-makes-sense/

[alabama_for_obama]

91. most NRA believe in gun safety...

there are very few people who don't want gun safety. on the other hand, gun control, as most people here are calling for, not so much.

[fascisthunter]

80. nope... that talking point was never true

[ProgressiveEconomist]

12. How much more anti-Obama can the NRA be? They "scored"

the quick-count contempt vote against Eric Holder, going FAR beyond their pathetic mission to uphold recent USSC rulings overturning centuries of history and jurisprudence in favor of individual gun rights.

After your opponent takes that strong a stand against you, you no longer have to humor them, and (carefully) can call for bipartisan action against military-style weapons and ammo magazines in the hands of gangs and schizos.

[AtheistCrusader]

15. All the leadership of the NRA needs is a damn soundbite.

One they didn't have till today.

The volume of shit they mail out to the people who may not have had any interest in this election before... staggering.

[ProgressiveEconomist]

26. Obama did not give them that soundbyte. The N.O. speech

was braodcast through most of the Ed Show hour on MSNBC tonight; did you see it? I don't see how Fox could come away with an unedited loop that will excite gun nuts. President Obama went out of his way to praise Second Amendment rights and to cite gun owners themselves as willing to re-think how gangs and schizos are getting access to military weapons. He alluded to "an Aurora every one and a half days" happening quietly in New Orleans, Chicago, Cleveland, and elsewhere, tying schizos with mass-murder guns to youth gangs with mass-murder guns. He was pretty far up the "slippery slope" gun nuts delude themselves about.

[rhett o rick]

20. Great timing. Obama can always show that Rmoney banned assault rifles. nm

[pa28]

22. You have to pick you battlegrounds and your time.

Gun control distracts from the real game being played on the field of tax, trade and economic inequality.

We lose when we talk about gun control and I really wish we could set this one aside for now.

[Populist_Prole]

25. My thoughts exactly

Plus it's just giving the GOP a B12 injection

[Evasporque]

70. gun "enthusiasts" :cough:"nuts":cough: hated Obama already...nt

[sarcasmo]

95. +1

[wordpix]

104. let Rmoney explain why everyone should have assault rifles & be able to buy 6000 rounds of ammo on

the internet. I'm waiting to hear his dumbass justifications and perfectly confident O can can shoot holes in each one of them.

[nevergiveup]

6. That was gutsy and perhaps a little risky

but it needed to be said. Kuddos to the president.

[tk2kewl]

8. .

[Tx4obama]

17. Video clip on the link below

http://www.democraticunderground.com/101743944

[petronius]

19. It's a well-crafted speech, and from an RKBA perspective I have no objection to it

The "AK-47" comment that is apparently being interpreted as a a hint of AWB support is artfully vague: he makes sure to mention "criminals", and I'm confident that once he drops by DU and reads up on what an assault weapon actually is and isn't he'll realize the error of an AWB.

Much of the rest is not about guns at all, but refers to things that lots of both gun-rights and gun-control folk agree on. The part that is guns touches on a lot of the stuff that are popular across the board, and/or things the federal government can't do anyway.

I'm not sure what he refers to here:

"The background checks conducted on those looking to purchase firearms are now more thorough and more complete."

Perhaps there have been improvements in NICS recently...

So I give this speech a - it sets a proper tone, encourages collaboration, but doesn't actually threaten anyone...

[ProgressiveEconomist]

27. Exactly.

[-..__...]

69. States are submitting mental health records to the NICS...

"The background checks conducted on those looking to purchase firearms are now more thorough and more complete."

http://www.sys-con.com/node/1694332

However... there is no requirement that they do so (30 states are lagging).

Worth noting... "The NICS Improvement Amendments Act," was a bill put forth by both the NRA and Senator Carolyn Mc Carthy...

"NICS Improvement Amendments Act" Not Gun Control!

Last week, when the U.S. House of Representatives overwhelmingly passed H.R. 2640, "The NICS Improvement Amendments Act," by a voice vote, some gun owners were confused as to the exact scope and effect of this proactive reform bill. Let’s look at the facts.

H.R. 2640 provides federal funds to states to update their mental health records, to ensure that those currently prohibited under federal law from owning a gun because of mental health adjudications are included in the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS). For many years, NRA has supported ensuring that those who have been adjudicated mentally incompetent are screened by the NICS.

Snip 8<-------------------------------------------------

Second, some people simply do not like the NICS. In 1993, Congress passed the Brady Act, including a mandatory five-day waiting period, over strong NRA opposition. Due to NRA’s insistence, that waiting period was allowed to sunset in 1998, once the NICS was up and running nationwide. Now that the NICS is in place, it makes sense to ensure that this system works as instantly, fairly, and accurately as possible.

Also troubling to many is the fact that Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D-N.Y.) is a cosponsor of the bill. Carolyn McCarthy is among the most anti-gun Members of Congress. She has introduced another bill, H.R. 1022, which represents the most sweeping gun ban in history. But Rep. McCarthy is not the only co-sponsor of H.R. 2640. She was joined by some of the most pro-gun members of the House of Representatives in crafting this bill, including John Dingell (D-Mich.), Rick Boucher (D-Va.), and Lamar Smith (R-Tex.). A few years ago, when Congress passed a bill allowing airline pilots to be armed, one of the lead sponsors was anti-gun Senator Barbara Boxer (D-Ca.). Sen. Boxer’s support of that legislation did not cause gun owners to oppose it.

http://www.nraila.org/legislation/federal-legislation/2007/nics-improvement-amendments-act-not-g.aspx?s=%22NICS%22&st=&ps=

[UnrepentantLiberal]

21. Good for him.

[Moltisanti]

23. I wish I owned a gun store...I see an up turn in sales n/t

[DainBramaged]

61. Of course you do you precious little flower....

[JoeInNy]

24. Just a lot of talk. I seriously doubt anything is going to happen.

Maybe just a renewed ban on assault weapons but that's about it.

[alabama_for_obama]

44. which would once against decimate any chance of us pushing a democratic agenda

Other issues are more important:

How many people die daily by gun violence, and how many die because of our woefully fucked up healthcare system? How many die of starvation or homelessness because of our fucked up tax system that allows a small percentage of people to hoard such a huge percentage of our nation's wealth? How many die in workplace injuries or because of environmental degredation because we can't get enough democrats elected to keep corporate malfeasance in check?

gun violence and violence in general is a symptom of our fucked up societal situation, not the cause of it.

Think about what your talk of a renewed assault weapons ban that won't stop a single crime will cost the people of this country before you speak of new "assault weapons" bans.

[Kolesar]

57. So, what kind of activism do you do for hunger, homelessness, or tax policy?

Uh, not much

[Scootaloo]

76. None, except hoping against hope that poor people can't afford guns

Funny how these 2nd amendment motherfuckers seem to have no problem with the fact that the "right" only applies to people with spare change.

[alabama_for_obama]

93. uh, probably more than you. but that is irrelevant and not the topic of discussion.

assault weapons bans and other types of gun control that are not directly related to safety issues, like requiring hunter education and CCW classes for those who partake in those activities are counterproductive to the progressive agenda.

[davepc]

28. Unless he has a plan to overturn Heller and Miller its just talk

The issue is settled constitutional law.

[TouchOfGray]

29. Here is a little case study for you to consider

In Minnesota back in 1998 the ex-mayor of Brooklyn Park, Jesse Ventura, was running as an independent for Governor. He was running against the DFL and Republican candidates who both had high name recognition in the state, Norm Coleman and Hubert H. Humphrey lll.

Also on that ballot was a constitutional amendment to guarantee the right of the citizens of Minnesota to hunt and fish without interference from the "gun grabbers" and environmentalists, even though nobody was even talking about restricting anything.

Well guess what happened, every gun totin' huntin' and fishin' person in the state registered to vote, some for the 1st time in their lives, and when they turned out to vote they pulled the lever for Ventura too because they knew his name from the rasselin' show.

There is a book on the subject somewhere, I'll post it if I can remember it and find it.

Very risky business for Obama.

[truthisfreedom]

30. Shows fortitude. Shows initiative. Shows Presidentiality.

Not afraid to take a stand. Not afraid to buck the media's "not time to talk about this." It's exactly the right time to talk about this.

We don't need assault rifles with 100 rounds (yeah, I know it jammed) in the hands of nutjobs hell-bent on terror, to give themselves some sort of superstar bad-guy status. We don't need assault rifles on the streets of our country at ALL.

[still_one]

36. well gee, I guess the pot vote will go to the repukes, and I know he had the gun vote wrapped up

until he said this. Everyone know the NRA loved Obama before this

So I guess that means that the normal people will need to decide.

I mean people who are on social security and medicare, or those who need healthcare, or women who don't want congress to decide what they can or cannot do with their bodies, or Mexican Americans who don't want to be stopped on the street because of the color of their skin.

Let's just see the country piss itself down the tubes, they have being doing so since reagan. How's that republican deregulation going for you by the way?

[humbled_opinion]

32. Although I applaud him for speaking out..

The right will run him as out of touch because our soldiers do not use AK-47's our enemies do and they will say he just elevated Al-Qaeda terrorists to the rank of Soldier...

Just saying...

[loli phabay]

35. good point and something i didnt even think about.

[still_one]

38. anyone who know anything about rifles knows that the AK-47 is a much more durable weapon than the

M16. However, the real point was that everyone knows what an AK-47 is, and he was using that to encompass all assault rifles

[JoeyT]

34. So he's going to go on record

with statements that might hurt him in an election year. Statements that, if his record is anything to go by, he has no record of doing anything about. Eat that prohibitionists!

Edited to add: I think it would have been smarter to wait until after the election then pushed the AWB. I support most of the AWB anyway, so it's not like it changes my opinion.

[still_one]

39. Actually I think it is about time that people realize what the issues really are. Woman and civil

rights are being threatened by the republican party. There is no doubt that the next president will appoint Supreme Court justices that will determine the direction of the court, and country for the next 20 years.

HealthCare, foreign wars, deregulation which contributed to the loss of jobs.

Let's see how stupid the public is. The issues have never been clearer

[bucolic_frolic]

58. The Most Important Ideological Election since 1932

If Mitt wins and gets his way the drop in government spending will
create The Second Great Depression, deflation, job loss, etc.

The Social Safety Net will be a memory, or only available to those with
incomes above $250,000.

This is IDEOLOGY. If they get power in office, you won't be able to
mollify it.

I'm not sure voters understand this very well.

[still_one]

102. I agree with you. /nt

[Poll_Blind]

40. This is the same thing as Pelosi saying it would be ‘really important’ to take on med. marijuana...

...in congress.

It's not going to happen. It's purely talk and I don't know anyone who actually knows the political makeup of the House and Senate who considers it as anything but that.

It's not a matter of opinion and it's not up for debate. It's simply not going to happen.

PB

[Spitfire of ATJ]

45. "AK-47s belong in the hands of soldiers"....or wizards....

[img][/img]

[Dr_Scholl]

47. I'm glad I bought my AR-15 when I did.

They'll be sold out and back ordered for at least a year by the time November rolls around.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

48. "I'm glad I bought my AR-15 when I did"

You have an Orc problem there?

[loli phabay]

53. no the ak is for orcs, the ar is for goblins and hobbits.

[Dash87]

74. A .223 round will never take down a two-headed ogre.

Best bet is to go .50.

[slackmaster]

67. I bought mine when it became clear that the state of California was going to pass it's own "AW" ban

The year was 1999, right in the middle of the federal "AW" ban which expired in 2004.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

114. Do you get hard just thinking about it?

[Dr_Scholl]

123. Oh yeah.

But the erection went away when I saw the $1,179 plus tax leave my checking account. Wanna see a picture? It's a Colt.

[Moltisanti]

130. Just when AK47s were consistently under $400.... n/t

[virginia mountainman]

49. A warning from the 1990's when Gun Rights groups where MUCH WEAKER....

Excerpts from "My Life" by Bill Clinton:

"Just before the House vote (on the crime bill), Speaker Tom Foley and majority leader Dick Gephardt had made a last-ditch appeal to me to remove the assault weapons ban from the bill. They argued that many Democrats who represented closely divided districts had already...defied the NRA once on the Brady bill vote. They said that if we made them walk the plank again on the assault weapons ban, the overall bill might not pass, and that if it did, many Democrats who voted for it would not survive the election in November. Jack Brooks, the House Judiciary Committee chairman from Texas, told me the same thing...Jack was convinced that if we didn't drop the ban, the NRA would beat a lot of Democrats by terrifying gun owners....Foley, Gephardt, and Brooks were right and I was wrong. The price...would be heavy casualties among its defenders." (Pages 611-612)

"On November 8, we got the living daylights beat out of us, losing eight Senate races and fifty-four House seats, the largest defeat for our party since 1946....The NRA had a great night. They beat both Speaker Tom Foley and Jack Brooks, two of the ablest members of Congress, who had warned me this would happen. Foley was the first Speaker to be defeated in more than a century. Jack Brooks had supported the NRA for years and had led the fight against the assault weapons ban in the House, but as chairman of the Judiciary Committee he had voted for the overall crime bill even after the ban was put into it. The NRA was an unforgiving master: one strike and you're out. The gun lobby claimed to have defeated nineteen of the twenty-four members on its hit list. They did at least that much damage...." (Pages 629-630)

"One Saturday morning, I went to a diner in Manchester full of men who were deer hunters and NRA members. In impromptu remarks, I told them that I knew they had defeated their Democratic congressman, Dick Swett, in 1994 because he voted for the Brady bill and the assault weapons ban. Several of them nodded in agreement." (Page 699)

I wonder what we will loose as a nation, with Romney in charge??

I wonder what will happen with Health Care reform??

I wonder what will happen with Bush's tax cuts for the wealthy???

O well, some really want gun control front and center, they better realize the potential liabilities of having it front and center, they better understand that in the congress, and in the senate, their is ALMOST a veto-proof majority of pro gun folks.

So talk it up, get people stirred up, after all Brady has about 28,000 members (mailing list subscribers)and the NRA ONLY has about 4.5 million dues paying members.

[NickB79]

50. Here that? It's the sound of the GOP collectively cumming in their pants

They've been waiting for this moment for years, priming their supporters for the day Obama would "come take their guns away."

I know severlal coworkers of mine, all Teamsters Union members, that voted for Obama but said they won't again if any mention of gun control comes up.

Fuck, fuck, fuck, fuck, fuck.

[xxenderwigginxx]

52. Our obsessive focus on the fact that Holmes had an assault rifle

Our obsessive focus on the fact that Holmes had an assault rifle will get us nothing. Making arguments based on that fact hands the win to the repubs. #1 As a gun owner and former military I can promise you that in the close confined conditions of a theater, the shotgun and NOT the assault rifle was the most dangerous weapon that he had. Rifles fire 1 round for each pull of the trigger typically hitting 1 target. A shotgun fires 6-20 balls for each pull of the trigger and spreads as it leaves the barrel. Each shotgun blast in that crowded room could hit 3-4 people. (hello high casualty rate) It has already been reported that he emptied the shotgun and then switched to the rifle (which jammed). The amount of people injured had nothing to do with the AR-15. #2 As far as i've seen reported, Holmes had no criminal or mental health history. Exactly what stricter background check would have prevented him from buying firearms?
If we want to prevent future tragedies like this, we need to shift focus from these stereo typical and asinine points that honestly leave most of the gun owning public thinking we don't know what we're talking about (like the DUers who boldly state that assault rifles are full auto) it plays right into conservative hands and gets NOTHING done but to lose elections for us.

[DCBob]

54. Risky but needed to be said.

I think the wording was perfect. Well done.

[polichick]

55. Good for him and nothing to worry about politically...

Irrational gun enthusiasts would never vote for him anyway - and thinking gun owners already support the assault weapons ban.

[SmittynMo]

59. The right will freak out

I wholeheartedly agree with Obama. I said this the day it happened. Tighter rules need to be enforced. Why does anyone need an AK47? When I first suggested this to some of my right wing friends, they disagreed and used hurricane Katrina as an excuse. They think they need AK47's to protect themselves from government tyranny. Are you kidding me? Of course they found Youtube videos of the government forcing people out of their houses, displaying AK47's. So let me try to decipher this. The government comes to your house, with an AK47, indicating it's unsafe to stay on your property? You say no and show your AK47 too, possibly resulting in a confrontation? The right has completely lost their mind. This article should really stir it up. And did you notice gun sales and ammo went up big time the day after this incident? Pretty much like it was when Obama took office, and the right thought he was going to take their guns away. They're all frickin nuts!!!

[JoePhilly]

60. Graded Gun Licenses.

I have a drivers license that allows me to drive any passenger vehicle. But I am not allowed to drive an 18 wheeler or a commercial grade dump truck. To drive those, I need a different level driver's license.

Do the same thing with guns.

Have a set of grades for gun ownership. You want an AK-47, fine ... but you have to demonstrate proficiency and pass a test before you can buy one.

Let shooting ranges provide the classes, and the certifications. Kind of like a gas station can be authorized to conduct a car inspection. As a result, shooting ranges increase their own revenue through the testing and the education they provide.

Holmes would have had to demonstrate proficiency with each weapon he possessed, and obtain the appropriate license.

This might not have stopped him, but it would have made it more difficult for him to obtain the more powerful weapons. He'd have to engage the system more frequently, and the potential that he would be stopped from purchasing one or more of these weapons would increase. Or he'd have decided to go with less powerful, less dangerous weapons.

A process like this would be harder for a mentally ill person to navigate effectively.

[russspeakeasy]

65. Thanks JoePhilly. Makes a lot of sense.

[Missycim]

68. How about we do that for voting?

You know have one for local election,state and federal?


Sorry I am against lic for any Right, its wrong.

[beevul]

126. Which...

"I have a drivers license that allows me to drive any passenger vehicle. But I am not allowed to drive an 18 wheeler or a commercial grade dump truck. To drive those, I need a different level driver's license. "

Those licenses allow you to drive the respective vehicles in PUBLIC. You can drive those , all of the above, on private property, to your hearts content.


Which of those licenses determines what you can own?

Ownership vs usage in public - apples and oranges.

[JoePhilly]

127. BS.

First, if that actually mattered, you could build it into the law. But its still BS.

Its BS because once you have the vehicle, or the gun, you are EASILY able to take it into the public sphere. And so, even if you intend it for private use, it has the potential to become used publicly. And so, it should be regulated based on that simple fact.

But let's pretend that you somehow purchase a dump truck, or an 18 wheeler that you plan to use on your private property. You have probably just violated the property insurance policy that you carry. Especially if you let some one with the wrong license, or no license, drive it. Unless you blow that off too. Now, if you keep your illegal vehicle or weapon inside your private property, no one may ever know.

But regardless, if you dare to take it out into the public world, the penalties should be very harsh.

I'm curious ... do you think you should be able to own a TANK, just so long as you don't take it off your private property? Rocket launchers? A home made Nuke?

[beevul]

131. Fundamental understanding of whats currently allowed is important.

"But let's pretend that you somehow purchase a dump truck, or an 18 wheeler that you plan to use on your private property. You have probably just violated the property insurance policy that you carry. Especially if you let some one with the wrong license, or no license, drive it. Unless you blow that off too. Now, if you keep your illegal vehicle or weapon inside your private property, no one may ever know. "


You really aren't getting it.

Whether you plan to use it in public or not, is not relevant to the fact that simple ownership does not require one to be licensed. You can own planes trains automobiles, and yes, even tanks, without a drivers license.

Thats the point you have not refuted.

That singular point underscores the fact that you are comparing usage in public - drivers licenseses which are not "ownership licenses" and are in fact a "public usage license" , with some sort of "gun ownership license".

License for public use vs license to own = apples vs oranges, all day long.


Next time, leave your nuclear strawman at home.

[Ter]

62. Ok, so the election is over now

2016 should be interesting.

[DainBramaged]

66. Right, now we know gun owners are simply sheep.

[4th law of robotics]

63. Gee, I wonder why there was a rush on guns this past week

“But I also believe that a lot of gun owners would agree that AK-47s belong in the hands of soldiers, not in the hands of criminals — that they belong on the battlefields of war and not on the streets of our cities."

He must be getting his facts from the internet.

You ought to know the laws Mr. President. AK-47s aren't on the streets and aren't being used for crimes here. And you didn't even get the "right" assault rifle in this case (the civilian version Holmes used wasn't based on the AK-47).

[slackmaster]

64. Open up the NICS background check system to non-federal firearms licensees

The system that gun dealers use to ensure that prospective buyers are not known to be prohibited from owning firearms should be available for anyone who is trying to sell a used firearm.

Safeguards would be needed to prevent misuse of the system, i.e. using it for any purpose other than a background check on a gun buyer. But that would not be difficult to implement.

Another thing the federal government could do would be to take measures to improve the reporting of disqualifying events from the states to the federal NICS database. Presently, reporting of adjudications of mental incompetence are not always reported, or are not reported promptly. Congress could certainly do something about that.

[slackmaster]

72. What? I make two practical suggestions that few gun owners disagree with, and NOBODY responds?

Maybe I should have posted something stupid instead.

WHY DID WE LET THE GOP AND CONGRESS LET THE BRADLEY BILL EXPIRE!!!



I"M SERIES!!!!!

I WANT ATTENTION!!!111!!!

[petronius]

81. Please stop trying to shut down the discussion with your rational and

knowledge-based ideas. The problem with gun owners like you is that you never make any helpful contributions that are exactly what control advocates want to hear. Why can't you be reasonable and suggest AWB, registration, handgun bans, psych evals, and warrantless home inspections as a starting point for an honest and open-minded discussion?

[PavePusher]

85. You big bully!!1!11!!! n/t

[CountAllVotes]

73. You just nailed my vote MR. PRESIDENT

ENOUGH ALREADY INDEED SIR!!!

[Tom Ripley]

75. I don't think this will hurt him with the GOP PAC known as the NRA anyway

[Shadowflash]

77. + 1 Bazillion!

[fascisthunter]

79. good! Sanity!

[savalez]

83. I don't see a CALL for anything.

TPM is turning into TMZ more and more each day.

[Atypical Liberal]

84. This is crazy.

“But I also believe that a lot of gun owners would agree that AK-47s belong in the hands of soldiers, not in the hands of criminals — that they belong on the battlefields of war and not on the streets of our cities.”

I'm not sure what to make of this statement. I can't tell if the president doesn't know the difference between civilian AK-47 variants and AR-15s, or if he actually thinks AK-47s are commonly used in America.

Fully-automatic weapons like the AK-47 have been highly regulated since the 1934. Transferrable AK-47s that you can legally own today cost around $16,000.

So it is ridiculous to worry about AK-47s in the hands of criminals, or civilians for that matter - hardly any are in anyone's hands. No one is going to be upset about calls to keep such machine guns out of the hands of criminals because they already are.

If the president is talking about semi-automatic variants of the AK-47, like the SAR-1, then he may have just cost himself the election.

Semi-automatic rifles like the SAR-1 and the AR-15 are incredibly popular firearms. And they are hardly ever used in crime. Every year, all rifles combined, let alone assault rifles, are only used in about 300 homicides annually. This is half as many as are killed by hands and feet.

I suspect that this was a carefully chosen line. He says "AK-47s" which gun owners know are already highly regulated, but non-gun people will think he's talking about civilian firearms.

[PavePusher]

86. No, no, NO!!!!

Why do you insist on trying to inject facts, logic and rationality into the middle of such a fine moral panic?

[onehandle]

87. Nobody. Fucking. Cares. About. Your. Parsing. Of. Minutia.

Take it back to the dark dank hole that it belongs in.

[slackmaster]

89. You go ahead and keep believing that. It's unfortunate you don't grasp the President's nuance.

[virginia mountainman]

109. He can't grasp it, because it is over his head.

Like most anti gun folks,when it comes to guns, they don't have a clue what they are talking about.

[fascisthunter]

96. thank you onehandle

[Atypical Liberal]

101. Talk to the OP about it.

If you are not interested in what I have to say use the ignore button.

[4th law of robotics]

112. Um, this is a pretty huge fucking bit of "minutia"

If you're talking about banning things that are already banned you just sound like an idiot.

[PavePusher]

118. So, you endorse ignorance?

Isn't that supposed to be a Republican trait?

[slackmaster]

129. onehandle is PROUD of his ignorance

It's a badge of courage for trolls who have multiple accounts on DU.

[slackmaster]

128. Nice sock puppet post!

Which hand did you post this one with, onehandle?

onehandle
120. Ignore the gun psychos, onehandle.

View profile
Let them fear their own shadows.

[fascisthunter]

97. Yes, your post suggests you are crazy

[4th law of robotics]

111. It could be a way of sounding like he's making a point

but being able to deny it later.

"No I never said I was going to take away you're guns, I was talking about AK-47s, those are already effectively banned".

No different than saying "I think chemical weapons in the hands of gangs would be a terrible thing!"

True, meaningless, but definitely true.

[Trunk Monkey]

94. I , Walter Mit Romney, solemnly swear that I will

faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.

I sure hope Obama knows what he's messing with

[wordpix]

108. just what do you think he's messing with?

He'd like some workable gun controls and so would I. So would many others.

BTW, I teach in urban schools and most of my students want gun controls, too. They have to live in these neighborhoods where bullets are whistling by, and where they are threatened with guns themselves. One of my law abiding kids was misidentified by a gun toting kid and could have been shot. Luckily he had his school ID card on him.

We don't need more gun toting teenagers and crazy actors. Good for O for standing up!

[Trunk Monkey]

116. He's messing with a huge voting block of gun owners

One of my law abiding kids was misidentified by a gun toting kid and could have been shot. Luckily he had his school ID card on him.

Curious, was the gun toting kid carrying the gun legally?

If not what makes you think another law will stop him?

[wordpix]

121. the issue is the nation is awash in guns

I don't know the answer to your q as I was so stunned when I heard the story I did not question my student much. This was the last day of school and I wish I would have gotten much more info and turned it over to police but as it was, I was just plain stunned. I don't have the student's phone no. or I'd call him to get more info, if he could provide it. I do know my student does not know the gun-toters so it's doubtful they can be tracked down.

So you think it's wise that all students go around toting guns on the odd chance they'll have a gun pulled on them?

They would not be able to get into this school with a gun. The incident occurred off the school grounds.

[Trunk Monkey]

122. At the risk of sounding like a total redneck (which I was)

I grew up in rural Nebraska, across the street from my high school was a huge cornfield. During pheasant season it wasn't uncommon for several of us to run out to our trucks at lunch, grab a shotgun and run across the street to hunt some pheasant. Corn fed Pheasant is good eatin'.

I'd say it isn't the guns that's the problem

[Hell Hath No Fury]

113. Good talk, now help make it happen.

Sane gun regulations are a good way to distinguish the Democratic Party from the GOPers.

[virginia mountainman]

124. Not really..

Their are allot of "gun control" Repukes, and allot of "gun rights" Democrats!

Not to mention, a sizable majority of Independents, and very pro gun.

[backwoodsbob]

125. wow..someone used an ak47 in a crime?

anyone have a link to that?