Obama Will 'Evaluate' Bill Limiting Online Ammunition Sales, White House Says

[onehandle]

Source: Huffington Post

WASHINGTON -- White House Deputy Press Secretary Josh Earnest said Monday that President Barack Obama will "evaluate" new legislation that effectively bans online sales of gun ammunition, but he wouldn't say whether the president could support it.

During the daily White House briefing, Earnest told The Huffington Post that he didn't know if Obama had seen the bill filed Monday by Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.) and Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D-N.Y.). The measure would significantly curb the ability of people to anonymously buy unlimited amounts of ammunition via the Internet or other types of mail orders. It would also require ammunition dealers to report bulk sales of bullets to law enforcement.

Their proposal comes just weeks after the shooting massacre in Aurora, Colo. that left 12 dead and dozens more injured. The gunman had purchased more than 6,000 rounds of ammunition anonymously on the Internet shortly before going on his killing spree. The incident has revived calls for some kind of action on gun control, particularly given that nothing changed after the January 2011 shootings that killed six and injured former Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-Ariz.), but neither Congress nor Obama has signaled a willingness to advance new gun safety legislation.

"The president's views that have been relayed quite frequently over the last few days, he said that he believes in the Second Amendment of the Constitution and the right to bear arms," Earnest said. "But he also believes we should take robust steps within existing law to ensure that guns don't fall into the hands of criminals or others who shouldn't have them."

Read more: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/30/obama-gun-laws-online-ammunition_n_1720122.html

[Mojorabbit]

1. Why do we want to shave off much needed votes. Amazing.

on edit
latest poll\
A new poll by the Pew Research Center shows 47% of Americans say it is more important to control gun ownership,
while 46% say it is more important to protect the rights of Americans to own guns.
http://content.usatoday.com/communities/onpolitics/post/2012/07/gun-control-colorado-theater-shooting-pew-poll-/1#.UBbw8mHDfM0

[kctim]

2. Apparently we have more votes than we need

[onehandle]

3. How many people who need 6,000 rounds of ammunition are going to vote Democratic.

Here's the math:

Zero.

[Mojorabbit]

4. I know a boatload of them. nt

[JDPriestly]

17. 6,000 rounds of ammunition to a real Democrat?

I don't think there are any Democrats that gun-happy.

Unless you are a dealer, and I assume they would not be covered by this law, what in the world would one person do with that much ammunition?

I don't think that the kind of people who vote Democratic would know what to do with that many rounds of ammunition.

[petronius]

22. They'll do exactly the same thing as they'd do with 1 bullet, 6000 times over

Except they'll have saved some money in the process.

Seriously, what do you find odd or unsafe or non-Democratic about a person buying ammunition in bulk?

[NickB79]

40. Aye, he is not a TRUE Scotsman! nt

[Remmah2]

59. Stop peeking up the kilt! nt

nt

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

97. 'Tis a grand bit of lyric...

...The Scotaman: http://www.lyricsmania.com/the_scotsman_lyrics_brian_bowers.html

[Remmah2]

98. I was thinking of the same lyrics.

Celtic music fan here.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

100. I just can't help smiling...

...when I listen to that one.
Have a great day.

[calmeco702]

54. I'm a real Democrat

and I'll buy that much in bulk. It's cheaper and I don't have to wait for the store to get it in stock.

[Remmah2]

58. What is a "real" Democrat?

My dad and my uncles would think nothing of ordering 10,000 rounds of .22lr ammo or 5,000 rounds of trap shells.

Then again my dad grew up as a kid with Roosevelt and my uncles were WPA off the farm kids. Bunch of union guys, steel plant workers and UAW workers.

I'd like to add that one of my uncles was at Pearl Harbor and another fought in the Philippines (Army). Both have passed and they were Democrats till death.

[Paladin]

32. I Doubt It. (nt)

[Mojorabbit]

45. 40 percent of Dems are armed

My hubby and I buy in bulk as it is cheaper as do most Dems we know. It is true.

[friendly_iconoclast]

88. And I'm sure everyone that you know who was old enough voted for McGovern, too.

[lunatica]

92. Can you define "boatload"?

Obviously you will vote for the other guy who wants to take us to war so badly that he'll even declare it on Great Britain in order to make himself richer, but do tell how many others you know who'll make a difference so vast that Obama will be defeated by gun owners who feel any restriction is sacrilegious.

[hack89]

6. I buy in those amounts.

there are four shooters in my family and we shoot most weekends. It is a lot cheaper to buy a bunch of ammo twice a year instead of every couple of weeks.

[JDPriestly]

18. I should imagine that you could get an exemption.

The majority will want this law.

[hack89]

30. To what end?

this shooter planned for months - he would have simply spread his purchases out.

Obama will talk but do nothing - he wants to win the election. You will not see any gun control legislation before November.

[lunatica]

93. Yet you could still buy as much as you do now

Just in lesser quantities. So do you think your rights are really being curbed?

[hack89]

94. It would cost me hundreds of dollars.

that is why I buy in bulk. I am not willing to pay that for a feel good law that has no impact on public safety.

And you just point out why such a law would have no impact on mass killings - what difference does it make if I acquire 6000 round in one purchase or in ten? I still have 6000 rounds.

[lunatica]

99. First off I'm not for banning guns

But if someone goes on a one time buying spree for a total of 6,000 rounds why not check them out? Someone like you who does it all the time would be no problem because of the fact that you do it all the time. Maybe a permit could be issue for people to buy in bulk like that. But in the Aurora terrorist murders it could have raised a red flag for the authorities. Perhaps being questioned about his intentions would have made him change his mind.

From what I gather he wasn't a regular gun purchaser.

What's wrong with caution and vigilance? I can see where it would have an impact on public safety.

[hack89]

101. Because such a system would cost billions to set up and run

I think there are better places to spend that money that will save even more lives.

[lunatica]

102. Billions? Really?

The lives taken weighed against cost effectiveness? That's cold.

[hack89]

105. Spend the money on mental health care, smoking cessation, cancer research, etc

and you will save tens of thousands if not millions of lives . Spend it on a national systems to track bulk ammo purchases and you will save a handful of lives. Given the choice where would you spend the money?

The states can't even come up with the money to fully comply with existing Federal law - many states have not put the names of felons, people with mental issues and other people ineligible to own firearms. Why don't we fully fund existing reporting mandates first before coming up with new ones?

It would be extremely expensive - perhaps billions is over the top but it would cost in the hundreds of millions. Canada spend a billion on a failed and useless firearms registry.

[lunatica]

106. I would spend the money doing both

And there is money. It's a myth that there isn't enough money. Tax corporations and the wealthy and stop spending so much on defense and voila. There's money.

[hack89]

107. It would be at the bottom of my list

because we also have to fund education, infrastructure and social services.

It is security theater - no different from the money we spend on the TSA. It will not make you safer - mass killers don't need thousands of rounds to kill a lot of people.

[X_Digger]

108. We've already tried it, it didn't work.

The Gun Control Act of 1968 required licensing of ammunition dealers, and the tracking of all sales.

http://harrislawoffice.com/content/areas_of_practice/federal_firearms/legislative_history/FOPA%20House%20Report%2099-495.pdf

In 1986, the head of the ATF had this to say:

"The Bureau and the Treasury Department have recognized that recordkeeping requirements for ammunition have no substantial law enforcement value."

[lunatica]

109. Thanks for the pdf file

[mbperrin]

10. Yes, and those are people who "need" 6,000 rounds and "need" to so anonymously.

I'm tired of violent paranoid people always having the upper hand.

Truth is, if this election is even close, I need to quit being involved in politics at all.

[ManiacJoe]

42. There is no "anonymously".

And 6000 rounds is not that big a number. That is just 6 cases. A case is the second smallest purchase size available.

[mbperrin]

49. Yes, and a box of 100 is the smallest. Please

don't make it look like the evil manufacturers force you to take a thousand....

http://www.cheaperthandirt.com/product/63206

Ammo .22 Long, CB Long, CCI, 29 Grain 710 fps 100 Round Box
8 Customer Reviews
More Buying Choices
Warehouse for $7.38 Show Me
Warehouse for $7.60 Show Me
Warehouse for $7.60 Show Me


6000 rounds is a huge number. Even at one second per wildly unaimed shot, that's 100 minutes or nearly two hours of continuous firing at one round per second.

Please. I grew up around guns. Mostly they're there for burglars to steal, apparently, or for family members to shoot each other. That's my experience, as valid as any.

[ManiacJoe]

57. You must have misread where I said that a case is the SECOND smallest

size available for sale. Yes, the individual box is the smallest. A case is just 20 boxes.

6000 rounds is a reasonable start. That might be a years worth for a slow year. Ammo is cheaper in bulk, just like everything else, and does not expire.

We both know that no one is going to go through 6000 rounds in one session short of using a minigun.

"Mostly they're there for burglars..."
While some may fall into those categories, that is a very broad brush you are painting with.

[mbperrin]

68. I had 23 guns stolen in 9 different burglaries from 1983-1986.

My experience has no validity at all?

[ManiacJoe]

69. Some validity, absolutely.

Used as a model for everyone, not so much.

Would I be correct in assuming the guns were not stored in a gun safe?

[mbperrin]

70. They were stored in the five different gun safes that they were inherited in.

Three from my dad, two from my granddad.

The last break-in, before giving up and moving to town, involved using a heavy vehicle to ram through the garage door, the use of sledgehammers to break through the garage/living room wall, and the loss of every major appliance, my dad's large coin collection stored in a floor safe, as well as electronics and the last of the guns.

[ManiacJoe]

71. Damn. Those guys were serious!

Not much you can do in passive defense against that level of determination.

[mbperrin]

76. No. We're at ground zero here for oilfield theft. $20 million last year

including millions of dollars worth of copper wire.

http://www.oaoa.com/news/oilfield-17058-fbi-force.html

Multi-billion-dollar corporations and local businesses lucky enough to cash in on the Basin's latest oil boom aren't the only ones getting rich these days.

Thieves are plaguing the oil patch, making off with enough equipment and crude to catch the FBI's attention.

...Ector County Sheriff Mark Donaldson said he's seen as much as $5 million in copper wire stripped from a rig.

"With this task force, we can hopefully cut down and make some headway against oilfield theft in Ector County," Donaldson said.

Espenshade said the Texas Railroad Commission reported more than 5,000 barrels of stolen crude last year. That represents, at a conservative estimate of $80 a barrel, a $5 million loss to the industry in Texas. And that's not counting equipment theft.

It's true that when they can steal millions of pounds of oil and equipment that we don't have much of a chance living in the country. Living in town has been much better - nothing missing since then.

I do miss having some acreage, though.

[hack89]

62. What's wrong with saving money?

I buy six months of ammo at a time and save hundreds of dollars.

[calmeco702]

55. Need really has nothing to do with it

but I "need" that much because I frequently go to the range to shoot.

Anonymously? I think not.
When I buy online, I have to present my name, address, telephone #, certify that I'm over 18 yoa, credit card #.
Not very anonymous is it?

[Peepsite]

16. .22 ammo comes in 5000 round cases,other

Calibers in 1000 round cases. For those of us who don't live in some densely populated
concrete jungle/hellhole, 6k rounds may last 2-3 months of just having fun.and idbet half of us vote democrat. Buyi g ammo in bulk is no different than buying toilet tissue. Or anything else in bulk.

[NickB79]

20. I have twice that in my closet, and I voted for Obama. nt

[X_Digger]

28. If I count up all my calibers, I probably have close to 10k.

I pick up bulk packs when I run across a deal.

[X_Digger]

27. A ton of them, including me.

You do realize that 22lr ammunition comes in boxes of 500? Weighs about 2lbs if I recall, and is about 4" x 4" x 5".

It's nothing for me to go through 300-400 rounds at the range on a weekend afternoon.

Absolute statements make one look absolutely foolish.

[slackmaster]

48. I buy most of my ammunition in full cases

It's not unusual to go through 2,000 rounds on a trip to the range with several first-time shooters.

[friendly_iconoclast]

87. "Ignore the gun psychos, onehandle. Let them fear their own shadows"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=178803

Do you have any other advice for yourself?

[nadinbrzezinski]

78. Tell you what, go down to the store

and buy that MUCH AMMO... next inform the fire department so they can have their response plan accordingly, if you do not keep it in a safe.

After that, I am happy for you. The problem is... buying it anonymously on line.

[X_Digger]

80. "anonymously" online.. *snort*

As opposed to anonymously when I walk into a sporting goods store? Hell, I can pay cash and never have to even pull out my driver's license.

Exactly what is the danger in buying that much ammo?

[nadinbrzezinski]

81. Ask your fire dept.

If you keep it in a safe next to nil, if you don't, don't tell your insurance company.

[X_Digger]

82. And this fire hazard has exactly what to do with "anonymous" sales?

By the way, when we recently moved, we had an insurance adjuster out to inventory our belongings for supplemental coverage (we have a lot of specialized networking equipment we wanted covered). Not a peep about the ammo, nor the reloading equipment, including pounds of powder.

What, you think ammo purchases should trigger a call to a person's insurance company? I mean, if your problem with it is 'anonymous', as you siad..

The problem is... buying it anonymously on line.

(Never mind that it's actually less 'anonymous' than walking into a store and paying cash.)

[nadinbrzezinski]

83. I hope you do not have one

but if you have a fire, you will quickly learn how fast fire departments shall we say.. .MODIFY their response in the presence of hazardous materials and explosives.

Having all that crap in a gun safe rated for ammo IS A GOOD IDEA for precisely that reason.

But hey, whatever, I just did that for ten years... and have talked a-plenty even with my local smoke eaters.

Have it your way. I just hope you NEVER, EVER find out.

And as they say, have a good day...

[virginia mountainman]

5. But he only used about 100 rnds in the shooting....

Another pointless law, that will only, prove what the NRA has been saying as true...

[4th law of robotics]

8. Ah but imagine if he'd only been able to buy small amounts

so instead of 6000 he only had say 100 rounds on hand. Then the outcome would have been . . . . exactly the same.

Yeah, its' a pointless feel-good law.

[JDPriestly]

19. Frankly, I don't want my mail carrier or my UPS guy carrying

that much ammunition at once. It's ridiculous.

[4th law of robotics]

23. What is a non-ridiculous amount for a mail carrier to carry?

[NickB79]

26. Why not? What harm is there?

And don't tell me it will be a horrible danger if the truck gets into an accident. Ammo doesn't explode or shoot off like you see in the movies when it gets hit or thrown in a fire.

[AtheistCrusader]

35. Please do educate us in the science behind that statement.

Because UPS has a procedure for doing just that, and funny, I don't see any reports in the news of it having EVER been a problem.

[slackmaster]

37. My UPS carrier delivered 88 pounds of ammunition to me once

Fortunately for her it was in two separate crates.

[Dr_Scholl]

51. Just like the Assault Weapons Ban.

It makes people who are clueless on the subject feel like the government is actually doing something productive.

[4th law of robotics]

60. Bingo

we may as well ban guns from having a black finish.

Makes as much sense.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

96. Pssst....

...I kinda think it makes the government feel like their doing something productive as well.
Civilians don't have a monopoly on cluelessness.

[mbperrin]

11. Does the NRA now recommend that mass murderers limit themselves to 100 rounds now?

Gosh, how moderate of Wayne the Peter.

[nadinbrzezinski]

79. While we are at it, let's get rid of the pointless 1934 law

what other laws should we get rid off since they are pointless? I know, traffic laws.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

84. Exactly...

...why do you think we have laws?

[nadinbrzezinski]

85. I forgot the sarcasm tag

But that is the logic we are dealing with, by the by.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

86. Hi

You seem to have also forgotten the question.

[MindMover]

7. +++++++++++++++++++

[bossy22]

9. wasnt this tried already?

from 1968 to 1986?

wasn't it found to be of no law enforcement use?

[jody]

12. Obama believes "After my election I have more flexibility" but will he repudiate his earlier promise

"I believe in the Second Amendment. I believe in people's lawful right to bear arms. I will not take your shotgun away. I will not take your rifle away. I won't take your handgun away"?

If he did that, then 60-70% of voters might view that as a major flip-flop.

[Moltisanti]

13. I could see this presidential election slipping away on gun control... be careful Mr. Prez...n/t

[PoliticAverse]

14. More likely to negatively affect congressional makeup. n/t

[cstanleytech]

15. Ya know, now that I think about it the constitution doesnt grant a right to ammo. nt

Arms? Yes. Ammo? No

[NickB79]

24. Actually, it does if the Supreme Court is to be listened to

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minneapolis_Star_Tribune_Company_v._Commissioner

A newspaper sued over a tax on ink and paper on the grounds that this violated their 1st Amendment right to free speech because by making ink and paper expensive it meant they couldn't publish newspapers anymore. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the paper.

Ammo for firearms would fall under this same principle. Any attemps to ban or overly tax ammo sales would violate a person's 2nd Amendment right to bear arms, because those arms would be incapable of functioning without ammo to fire from them.

[cstanleytech]

34. Yes but I am speaking of this current court.

After all they are the court that ruled that corporations have all the rights of full citizens but for some reason I dont believe they would apply the same logic they used in that ruling to the one regarding ammo

[slackmaster]

25. No, the Constitution doesn't grant ANY rights whatsoever

It describes the scope and powers of government, and enumerates certain rights for special protection.

[Missycim]

73. I've always wondered why

some people assume that their rights were granted to them from another human being or a piece of paper?

[slackmaster]

74. It's a very common and IMO very disturbing misunderstanding of the relationship between government

...and the people.

[X_Digger]

31. You're right! The constitution doesn't *grant* any rights.

Rights aren't *granted* at all. Our rights are inherent, we give power to the government to protect them- "That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."

As the court said in US v Cruikshank, "This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence."

[NickB79]

21. Why? I could go to the nearest Walmart and buy this much

My rifle likes the Federal 55-gr bulk packs that Walmart sells. The one near me usually keeps a few dozen boxes of the stuff on hand, and they are 100-rd boxes. They are also usually well-stocked with 20-rd boxes of ammo as well, and a buttload of handgun ammo. If I wanted to, I could clear them out and get 5,000 rd of ammo.

The local Gander Mountain, Cabelas, and Fleet Farm all sell ammo in 1000-rd cases as well.

Restricting ammo sales online will do absolutely nothing to prevent someone from buying thousands of rounds of ammo, unless they live in the middle of absolute nowhere.

[Peepsite]

29. When you clear out the Walmart

Hundreds more of us have no other choice but to order online.

[bongbong]

33. Oh Noes!

I won't be able to buy thousands of rounds! My right to feel safe (because I gotta GUN!) when I show my face in public will be endangered! You wimpy libruls, who don't need guns to feel safe, are so WIMPY!

[-..__...]

36. All this means is more $$$$$ for the online ammo vendors.

Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) made it clear last week that the Senate will not debate gun control before the election and even beyond that

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/07/30/13036595-democrats-announce-bill-to-limit-online-ammunition-sales?lite

Thank you, Harry!

[NickB79]

41. Reid isn't stupid, thank God.

So long as we have a few more Dems with level heads on their shoulders like him, it gives me hope we will survive this next election.

[truthisfreedom]

38. I don't understand the "anonymously" part. I've never been able to purchase anything anonymously on

line. I always have to use a credit card or paypal, all clearly traceable to me.

What do they mean?

[slackmaster]

39. It's just a lie, intended to create an emotional reaction

There's nothing to explain.

[NickB79]

43. Every place I've ordered ammo from required a picture ID

Faxed copy of your driver's license usually works.

[Moltisanti]

44. the bill is written that the ID must be shown in person... n/t

[NickB79]

64. For ONLINE purchases? Do people understand how the Internet works anymore?

Or do these politicians still think it's a series of tubes or something?

[Moltisanti]

72. it is written that way to prevent online purchases... n/t

[NickB79]

104. So a defacto ban then.

Written in a very dick way to try to camouflage the true intent of the bill

[wordpix]

53. works great if a thief steals a wallet with driver's license & credit card

If you're not there in person, how would a seller know a thief is using stolen ID?

[NickB79]

65. The same could be said of pretty much anything on Ebay or Amazon.

Identity theft is bad, that we agree on. What does it matter if the thief is purchasing ammo, baseball cards, or a flatscreen TV?

Or would you suggest we do away with online orders of all products altogether because of identity theft?

[Sgent]

46. The only effective gun regulation would be to add semi-auto guns to the list of class II firearms

It would also not be politically possible, but it might be effective in reducing this type of crime (and others).

However, short of doing the above, these type of feel good measures are just that -- feel good measures with no effect on actual crimes.

[Ash_F]

56. Politically impossible yet totally sensible.

Often the best solutions seem out of reach.

[NickB79]

66. Yes, totally sensible to ban the most common rifles in America

Add in the fact that it would have absolutely no effect on crime, since rifles of all types are used in approximately 350 murders per year in the US (out of 9,000 lethal shootings annually), and would probably be overturned by the Supreme Court, and I'm sure THAT would keep the Democrats in power for years to come

[Ash_F]

89. You don't know what title II firearms are, do you?

It would not ~ban~ anything. to you too.

[hack89]

91. A de facto ban is still a ban. nt

[NickB79]

103. Yes, I do actually

Class II firearms generally include machineguns, grenade launchers, short-barreled rifles and shotguns (less than 16" on rifles, 18" on shotguns). It's also used to refer to silencers or rifles with integrated silencers on their barrels.

Saying semi-automatic rifles are now Class II weapons would require 6+ months of paperwork and red tape to go through, a $200 tax stamp for purchase in addition to the usual taxes, and multiple background checks and files on record with local law enforcement. Basically you're putting up so many hoops for a regular shooter to jump through it would feel as though the guns were banned. And since there are many states (such as here in MN) that outright ban such guns and equipment for civilian purchase, it would be a true ban for many shooters.

Beyond that, how exactly would you classify which semi-autos to put on the list and which to exclude? Would you classify a Ruger 10/22 or Marlin 60 semi-auto .22 rimfire squirrel rifle as a Class II weapon? A semi-auto Remington 1100 duck gun? You'd run into the same problem encountered with the previous AWB, and no new guns would actually be put on the list.

And all of that wouldn't matter anyway, because such a move would guarantee we'd lose the Presidency, House and Senate to the GOP and such a classification would be overturned the first week after President Romney took office

[Honeycombe8]

47. This won't pass in an election year, anyway. This is for next year. If he wins. nt

[JoeyT]

50. So we're going to ban something that doesn't happen anyway.

No real problem there.

"The measure would significantly curb the ability of people to anonymously buy unlimited amounts of ammunition via the Internet or other types of mail orders. "

Good thing no one sells ammunition anonymously. You have to fax them a copy or email them a PDF of your license. If for no other reason, they have to make sure you're over 18. You also have to pay with a credit card or a check, so anonymity goes out the window there too.

Can we ban riding unicorns through public fountains yet? It doesn't happen, but the thought of it sure does piss me off.

[era veteran]

52. A bunch of smoke

It is just one of a bunch of amendments stuffed in the bill. It will die in the House and be buried in conference.
It is a stupid move politically and practically.
You cannot buy ammunition anonymously anyway on line, you think they let you use C.O.D.?

[Odin2005]

61. Political suicide. Have we forgotten 1994???

[Kolesar]

90. A lot of your anti-Clinton friends have died since then, though...eom

[samsingh]

63. i'm a strong supporter of gun control, but we have other pressing issues

Obama should not touch this

[happyslug]

67. Translation, give me time to review the polling numbers

Obama, like Romney, really does not care a bit about this issue, the only issue is the election. Now, Obama knows they are people who will NEVER vote for him, and many people who OPPOSE additional gun control is in this group. Thus if Obama came out for giving every American an M16, these people will still NOT vote for him. On the other hand they are people who will vote for Obama even if he said he supported a law giving the Police the right to do house to house searches to confiscate ALL guns. These two groups are NOT the people Obama (and Romney) want to poll, it is the people in between, people who would vote for Obama if he supported this restriction, but would vote for Romney if Obama opposed this restriction (and people who would vote for Obama if he OPPOSED this restriction instead of voting for Romney).

The most recent shooting would bring the later two groups to the front. Many may change they mind by November, but it is an indication of how they will vote in November. Thus Obama is looking at the poll results to see how these two groups will handle whatever he says on the subject.

Now, if I was Obama (or Romeny) I would come out for a massive increase in spending on Mental Health. The latest two shootings involved a person who was seeing or seeking mental treatment but do to budget restrictions had NOT really received any. I would NOT mention any mental exams who buying a weapon, in fact I would come out in opposition to such a requirement on the grounds it is an excuse many people with mental problems use to avoid seeking Mental help. I would just seek a general increase in money for mental health and force the other side to come out against it. If they come out against it for budget reasons, you point out that the last two shootings could have been avoided IF THE PERSON HAD BEEN ABLE TO GET MENTAL TREATMENT. If the other side come out against it, for it MAY be used as a way to get gun control, you point out that you OPPOSE the use of such volunatary mental health treatment to be tied in with Gun Control on the grounds you do NOT want any barriers to anyone seeking mental health treatment AND such a restriction would be a barrier to some people.

Now, I would also mention that it is already the law that if someone is JUDGED to be mentally unfit, he or she can NOT get a firearm, thus the people already ruled unfit to own a weapon are already banned EXCEPT in those cases where a state see such a ban as a barrier to people seeking mental health. i.e. we want people to seek mental health treatment and NOT have to worry about losing they rights to own a weapon. Such a barrier is known to be an excuse used by people with mental health problems NOT to seek Mental Health treatment.

If Obama would come out with the above, he would be addressing the last two shooting (If not the last three) directly and in a way the NRA can NOT say is a back handed way to obtain gun control.

But Obama seems to be more concerned about voters who may vote on this issue then addressing the need for an increase in Mental Health treatment. The GOP sees it as another opportunity to show how they are "protecting" American gun owners. Don't let the GOP get away with that, switch the argument from Gun Control to Mental Health treatment AND that the GOP wants to CUT mental health treatment dispite how many people gets killed (And that the GOP OPPOSES what would be a better way to avoid these type of killing, increase spending on Mental Health, thus leaving gun control as the only, if poor solution to the problem).

[sarcasmo]

75. Second term, you make a move on gun control. Election year this will cost

the President many Independent votes.

[Kolesar]

77. No it won't

3.5 months before the election
The jerks who hate Obama aren't going to vote twice

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

95. Right, republicans won't vote twice

but I think they consistently vote once, rain or shine.

Democrats will also vote once, if enthusiastic enough to go vote. So a question: will Obama's support of "ammo-control" legislation cause some Democratic or Democratic-leaning voters to lose enthusiasm and stay home? I think this is a risk.

Plus, it's pointless. I doubt if any ammo-control legislation will make it through the Republican House. They are a disciplined bloc of legislators. So why get people "up in arms" about something that won't happen?