fbpx

Type to search

Obama, Frustrated By Congress, Plans Unilateral Gun Control Steps

Featured Post Headlines National News Politics Reuters

Obama, Frustrated By Congress, Plans Unilateral Gun Control Steps

Share

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – President Barack Obama, frustrated by Congress’ inaction on gun control, will meet with U.S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch on Monday to discuss ways of reducing gun violence unilaterally through measures that do not require congressional approval.

Obama, in his weekly recorded address, said on Friday he has received “too many letters from parents, and teachers, and kids, to sit around and do nothing.”

He has repeatedly urged Congress to tighten gun laws. His calls grew louder following the 2012 massacre at an elementary school in Newtown, Connecticut, and again after mass shootings in Colorado Springs, Colorado, and San Bernardino, California in recent months.

“A few months ago, I directed my team at the White House to look into any new actions I can take to help reduce gun violence,” Obama said in the address. “And on Monday, I’ll meet with our attorney general, Loretta Lynch, to discuss our options.”

The Washington Post, citing several individuals briefed on the matter, said Obama and Lynch would finalize executive actions, which do not require congressional approval, that he will unveil next week.

Frustrated by Congress, Obama has vowed to use “whatever power this office holds” to put in place gun control measures.

“We know that we can’t stop every act of violence,” Obama said. “But what if we tried to stop even one? What if Congress did something – anything – to protect our kids from gun violence?”

Obama’s address came as a Texas law allowing licensed firearms owners to carry handguns openly in public places took effect.

Republican Texas Governor Greg Abbott echoed its backers’ slogan in a Twitter comment: “Obama wants to impose more gun control. My response? COME & TAKE IT.”

The Post said Obama would use executive authority in several areas, including expanding background-check requirements for buyers who purchase weapons from high-volume dealers.

Ted Alcorn, research director for gun control advocacy group Everytown, said Everytown officials met with Obama in December to make recommendations for executive action.

Top among them was a regulation to clarify when gun sellers need a federal firearms license, he said.

Thousands of guns are sold yearly by dealers who fall between licensed dealers and occasional sellers who do not need a license. Clarification could define which sellers need to meet rules and do background checks. Alcorn said.

On Thursday, White House spokesman Eric Schultz said Obama was aware Congress was unlikely to act on gun reform.

(Reporting by Sandra Maler and Ian Simpson; Additional reporting by Megan Cassella in Washington and Jeff Mason in Honolulu; Editing by Bill Trott and Cynthia Osterman)

Posters of the 14 people killed are displayed on stage during a vigil for San Bernardino County employees after last week’s shooting in San Bernardino, California December 7, 2015. REUTERS/Patrick T. Fallon

Tags:

68 Comments

  1. joe schmo January 1, 2016

    This….will get overturned and overturned and overturned. In the end, the Democrats will lose.

    ‘It’s now clear that progressives, lecturing the rest of us on how we
    ought to live from their bully pulpits in the media, academia and the
    entertainment industry, are terrified of the internet and don’t want to know what we have to say. Well,
    tough. In 2016, it’s time for the counterculture to go to war. Over the
    past year, I’ve seen people from all over the world stand up and fight
    back against the authoritarian, censorious world being built around us.’

    Reply
    1. Daniel Jones January 1, 2016

      You murderous, bloodthirsty…

      You’re devolving into “it only takes one”, have you forgotten that that is a terrorist slogan?

      Reply
  2. C K Johnson January 2, 2016

    When Obama says he will discuss gun control with Loretta Lynch. He means he will tell her what to do ! Everyone knows she is a stuffed scare crow Yes person. Obamas plan to remove guns from We The People. The real Patriots will not give up what the Constitution protects. I hate to think that it would cause a Revolution like never seen before !!!!!!!!!!!

    Reply
    1. itsfun January 2, 2016

      Obama doesn’t discuss anything. He gives discussing and compromise lip service, but nothing more than that. He has a huge ego and actually believes he is smarter than anyone else in the world. His policies keep failing and he keeps blaming others for his failures. Him being a Socialist, I am surprised he isn’t supporting Bernie Sanders.

      Reply
      1. charleo1 January 2, 2016

        Perhaps Obama is not anything you, “think,” he is. More like a bunch of code based name calling, truth be told. Uppity. To say Obama has a “huge ego.’ is very much like saying he’s uppity. And, you know what they say? Give a Black man a little authority… and he begins to think he’s the smartest guy in the World! Then,when they fail, and they always do, because their brains are smaller Look it up in a medical journal. Then, being natural liars, and cowards, they never take responsibility for anything, but try to blame others. That’s the good reason until the Country’s huge mistake of electing Barack-Huuuusain-Obama, we never elected one before, and should never-ever again!!!

        Reply
        1. itsfun January 2, 2016

          If you want to make his failed policies a racial issue, thats up to you. I think it is a issue of a Socialist trying to force Socialism on us. I think it is a issue of a person wanting to be a dictator, instead of being a President. I think he is a very arrogant person that won’t listen to his own advisers because he thinks he knows it all.

          Reply
          1. charleo1 January 2, 2016

            First of all, it seems not to have occurred to you in your critique the job of a president is not to listen to advisors, as advisors are just that, advisors. Advisors, every one of them, serve at the pleasure of the President. A president by comparison is duly appointed to that office by the people, in the only nationwide election provided under the Constitution. So let’s get some perspective on exactly what, the POTUS is. If Kennedy had listened to his advisors, we might not be here today. If Bush hadn’t, who can argue the Country, and the World wouldn’t be better off today? So, a president may keep his own council, or delegate the tough decisions out to others. The fact you, and others may disagree with this or any president, indeed the entire Nation may disagree. But the Country has historically allowed wide latitude to the person in fulfilling the duties of the office as he sees fit. Secondly, if his actions as President rose to the level necessary for impeachment, and removal, have no doubt in your Republican’s zeal for carrying out their duties in this.
            Also , if you check your history books you’d find almost all of our presidents have been accused of wanting to be a king, or a being a dictator. Starting with Washington, as he sent Federal troops to put down a tax rebellion in S. Carolina. Or Lincoln, as he declared Marshall law, and suspended habeas corpus for the duration of the war, by executive order. Or, Theodor Roosevelt as he broke up Standard Oil, or ordered a navel brigade half way around the World, despite the disapproval of an angry Congress. “I’m the Commander N’ Chief Roosevelt insisted. Arrogant? You tell me, how does a humble wallflower make it into the oval office anyway?

            Reply
          2. HerrBaggs January 3, 2016

            Was the constitution violated?

            Reply
          3. charleo1 January 4, 2016

            I think you need to look at your question this way. To determine if the Constitution was violated, is a matter of litigation. The Constitution is violated millions of times a day in one way or another, in someone’s opinion. For some politician, or pundit in the public forum to say, “The President has violated his oath, violated the Constitution!” is both dramatic, and meaningless. Indeed, the Constitution itself outlines the procedure for answering that question in a court of law. Or, in the case of a sitting President, a trial of impeachment. You know this right?

            Reply
        2. HerrBaggs January 3, 2016

          Black is not the problem. Political corruption is the growing problem. Both parties. The people in charge are experts at manipulating the public and they do it 24/ 7.

          Reply
          1. charleo1 January 4, 2016

            I totally disagree. There have been many on the Right, where their number one problem with this President begins, and ends with his race. The parts in the middle they call his policies are just fluff.
            Now, if we want a more honest, less corruptible gov. that serves the people, and not the special interests with the money to buy them, that’s another subject.

            Reply
          2. HerrBaggs January 4, 2016

            If you want a president that does not bow and scrape to the special interest, lobbyist and political bosses you be sure and vote for Hilary. I don’t know how many people you have personally interviewed The problem with Obama being half white is not the color of his skin its his political agenda. With me it is how he talks down to the American people like they are 5 th graders.

            Reply
    2. charleo1 January 2, 2016

      If we’re relying on our personal firearms to keep our freedoms, we’re kidding ourselves, and may just pay a terrible price one day for our cartoonish beliefs.
      Most democracies today are not won or lost by the sword, but lost by the propagandist’s pen. By people being led to distrust, and dismantle the democracy they’ve created. By being convinced by the the same propagandist’s pen to distrust, and dismantle their public institutions. And to destroy the trust and faith in their fellow Countrymen. Democracies such as ours can never be ended by force. More likely then, if there is an end, it will be because democracy was simply cast aside. To be traded for shiny objects, like so many strings of shiny beads and bobbles, without nary a shot fired in defense.

      Reply
      1. DEFENDER88 January 2, 2016

        Not so sure about that.
        “Our Democracy”(or Desired Democracy at the time) was 1st defended(or fought for) by Militias then a Standing Army + the Militias. But started by Militias.
        Democracies in Europe were overcome by Hitler and his “Arms” were they not?
        Our “Arms” are what kept(and still keeps) Russia, N Korea, etc “at bay”.
        So we need “arms” to defend our Democracy.
        Standing Army and Militia(The people).

        Reply
        1. HerrBaggs January 3, 2016

          Give it up. These people are afraid of everything. All anti gun people are fearful of anything that goes bump in the night. They are cowards but won’t fess up to it. I don’t care what they think they are not going to run my life.

          Reply
          1. Bluesman1950 January 5, 2016

            “All anti gun people are fearful of anything that goes bump in the night. They are cowards but won’t fess up to it”.

            So that’s why they don’t feel the need to have guns, but you heroes do? Care to explain the logic of that?

            Reply
          2. HerrBaggs January 5, 2016

            I have seen people just see a gun laying on a table or hung on the wall [ Antique rifle] and get hysterical with fear. A lot of these people think that if there were no guns

            there would be no violence. I have heard so much weird logic out of them that I wonder how they make through the day. I own a special gun that I keep in case I run into a criminal or mentally unbalanced person who wants to harm me. That is what a guns is for. The only real gun control comes from another gun. My life is to busy to worry about guns I just want it to be there if I need it. I also hope I will never need it again.

            Reply
          3. Bluesman1950 January 6, 2016

            “I have seen people just see a gun laying on a table or hung on the wall [ Antique rifle] and get hysterical with fear.”
            You obviously mix with some very hysterical people. I would however, be uneasy with an active weapon left lying around uncontrolled, as appears to have happened on 29/12/15 when a Bethel Alaska state trooper’s 4 year-old son managed to obtain his father’s weapon and shoot himself dead. Maybe that concern is not quite hysterical.

            Surprising though it may seem, the UK also has criminals and the mentally unbalanced. So why is our murder rate about 1/4 of yours? Could it be that, like most UK citizens, the criminals and mentally unbalanced don’t generally have guns either?

            Reply
          4. HerrBaggs January 6, 2016

            On the average 26000 people die from falls each year. We need to ban gravity. 500 are killed on bicycles, ban bicycles. Have you ever wondered how many people avoid being violently attacked because they are armed? I know this is not important because it does not serve your agenda. I do not care what goes on in England or anywhere else for that matter. By 2050 or sooner it has been estimated that Muslims will be the majority population in England. To bad I won’t be alive to watch the carnage. Why don’t you check out Mexico’s homicide rate. Guns are banned there with severe penalties. Your so called facts are what your gov tells you and they are fabricated to fit their agenda just like they are here. I repeat I don’t care a bit about your Muslim infested Island.

            Reply
          5. HerrBaggs January 7, 2016

            Yes I do have some hysterical acquaintances and occasionally allow them in my home . I am not a bigot I associate with liberal democrats.

            Reply
      2. HerrBaggs January 4, 2016

        And propaganda you are spreading.

        Reply
    3. oldtack January 2, 2016

      CK
      You and your ilk are itching for a Revolution. I feel that this is the year you realize your dream -and brother you are in for a big shock when you initiate it. We’ll’ see you on the streets.

      Reply
    4. latebloomingrandma January 2, 2016

      Sounds like anarchy to me.

      Reply
      1. HerrBaggs January 3, 2016

        You will need to arm yourself. You would never do that, you sound like you are afraid of your own shadow.

        Reply
        1. latebloomingrandma January 4, 2016

          Nope. I go wherever and whenever I want and do not own a gun. I love my freedom and don’t feel like cowering in fear at everyone or everything. If you want to treat everyone with suspicion, I’m sorry you’re so scared that you feel the need to prepare for the shoot out at the OK corral.

          Reply
          1. HerrBaggs January 4, 2016

            I thought you said you were afraid to go out of your house for fear of being shot???????????? I do treat everyone with caution until I get to know them. Isn’t that normal?

            Reply
  3. itsfun January 2, 2016

    This will just show again how much Obama thinks he is a dictator, not a president of a country with three branches of government. Our government was designed with checks and balances, Obama is ignoring Congress. He call the courts names when they don’t agree with him and ignores them too. This person is a real threat to our form of government and its time Americans realized that. He wants to stick potential terrorists in our neighborhoods, then take away our means of protecting our-self’s from them.

    Reply
    1. Frank January 2, 2016

      Every gun purchase should require a background check. An overwhelming majority of the American public is for this, yet our Congress isn’t “representing” the people. Obama ignoring Congress?? More like Congress ignoring the people.

      Reply
      1. HerrBaggs January 3, 2016

        No they are not.

        Reply
    2. charleo1 January 2, 2016

      Your post demonstrates the extent to which you’ve been programmed to see any common sense regulation on firearms as unconstitutional. And any proponents of such regulation as freedom grabbing authoritarians to be burned at the alter of liberty. And you have also by the same token, been blinded to the huge numbers of others just as freedom loving, just as equally dedicated to the Constitution, who witness the unabated gun slaughter in our schools, on our streets, and in our homes, and demand some action from our President, and our elected representatives. Minus the capacity of a money grubbing, tin eared Congress on the subject, we ask, and have been repeatedly asking the President to act within the power of his office to instill some control. And so finally he promises some measures. And your response is already baked into that cake.

      Reply
      1. itsfun January 2, 2016

        Any President that ignores the Congress of the US is going completely against our form of government. We have 3 levels of government, none is more equal than the other. Obama wants to be a dictator and is showing that with his “executive orders” It is obvious he doesn’t believe in our freedoms and wants to destroy as many as he can.

        Reply
        1. drdroad January 2, 2016

          Every single President in the past 50 years has issued executive actions. It IS a part of our form of government.

          http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/every-presidents-executive-actions-in-one-chart/

          Reply
          1. HerrBaggs January 3, 2016

            That is not what he is talking about.

            Reply
          2. drdroad January 4, 2016

            Sure it is. If he wasn’t you’d have explained what it is he’s talking about, but you didn’t.

            Reply
          3. HerrBaggs January 4, 2016

            The misinformation office is closed today.

            Reply
          4. Jan123456 January 4, 2016

            Actually with the exception of William Harrison, EVERY president had some Executive Orders. He died shortly after taking office which probably explains the lack of them.

            http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/data/orders.php

            Reply
        2. charleo1 January 6, 2016

          So, let me ask you this: As the “freedom destroying” Obama regime finishes it’s 7th year in power. How much of your freedom would you say they’ve been able to destroy? For example, have you been arrested for exercising your Rights? Can you still vote, own a gun, join a rally, declare your political, and religious affiliation, marry the person you love, call the President of your Country a want to be dictator, or a secret Muslim, or an illegal alien. Or accuse him of helping, and palling around with terrorists, without fear? Okay then, I’m just trying to figure this out. Are there things you had the freedom to do, or places you could go before, under other Presidents, that have now became off limits due to Obama? And finally, do you know what a vacuous charge is?

          Reply
      2. DEFENDER88 January 2, 2016

        Enhanced BackGround Cks, etc we(honest gun owners) can live with maybe even agree with.
        But
        Try restricting our access to equal weapons that the criminals have (Magazine Capacities, Assault Rifles, etc) and you will see the beginning of the Revolt some of us fear and do not want. It is simmering just below the surface. When you deny our right to defend ourselves with equal force the ramifications will be the opposite of what you think. It will not be “Safer”. There is a term for this Well Meaning Ignorance – “Unintended Consequences” like so many other “well intended” Govt Programs. There are dynamics involved here the gun grabbers(pressuring Obama) don’t really understand nor do you want too. Reminds me of the situation “Prohibition” created in the 20’s – the Mob and blood in the streets like not seen before.

        Reply
        1. charleo1 January 2, 2016

          At this point, any movement on gun restriction/regulation of any kind is dead. The conversation itself has been reduced to just another redundant partisan back, and forth. So if I were you, I wouldn’t worry about living with enhanced anything. Background checks, restrictions on size, power capacity, availability, all dead issues going forward. Congress, for it’s part, can’t garner enough votes to bring itself to even check the no fly terrorist list to deny a gun sale, let alone buck up background checks to include the mentally ill. And I wouldn’t be surprised to see the background checks go away before any new restrictions are passed, To the delight of some, and in my opinion what will be the grief, and unnecessary harm of many many others. But no revolution. Celebrate your win. And while you’re at it, rightly please take the responsibility, or credit for the results.

          Reply
          1. DEFENDER88 January 2, 2016

            I will take full responsibility for “Requiring” Armed Security and “Allowing” Certified Concealed Carry(ie Self Defense) in all “Gun Free Zones”. As being “Safer” than what we have now. At least there is a chance to “stop the threat”.
            Clearly, as we have proved, SWAT etc(Good as they are) just cannot get there in time.
            With Exceptions for Govt Buildings where Armed Security is provided and metal detectors are used.

            If you will admit these Gun Free Killing Zones like Sandy Hook, San Bernardino, Chattanooga, Ft Hood, Aurora Theater, etc. likely got more people killed than could have been if only self defense(Concealed Carry) had been allowed there.

            If “Common Sense Reforms” mean more Gun Free Kill Zones than I will be against it.
            Common Sense tells me that Gun Free Zones are only “Gun Free” until some murdering bas*ard shows up with a gun.
            And if that person means harm, you have the perfect condition for a “self made” or at the least what “I would call” “Assisted Massacre”.
            Whereas Gun Free + Armed Security and Permit Carriers are Welcome is way more like actual “Common Sense”.

            If “Common Sense” means limiting me(A Trained Certified Conceal Carrier) to 10 round magazines while the killers will have 20, 30 more rd mags(which they Always Will) than I am against it.

            If Common Sense means I cannot own a “so called” Assault Rifle for hunting, competition and home defense but the criminals and thugs will still have theirs(which they always will) then I am against it.

            Reply
          2. charleo1 January 4, 2016

            We’ll, this is the issue, isn’t it? The matter of personal security, and the Right to protect oneself, and others from harm. Which by the way, is not in dispute here. Versus a much more heavily armed civilian population that would be able to provide more of this on the spot security, whenever, and wherever danger arises. So I get that. I think everyone gets that. The disagreement lies on the issue of whether what looks good on paper is going to deliver in the real world. Or is putting more guns into the hands of more people to accomplish this, just going to result in more people getting hurt? Will the prospect of several students packing in what is now a gun free zone dissuade a mentally deranged gunman? We don’t know. Will he then turn to some other venue? Again the answers are not clear. Personally, I think the unintended carnage of what could be a very well intentioned solution, is not going to be worth the eventual costs of living in such a sloppily, haphazardly armed society as this more liberal, less regulated public policy on guns as you advocate, will eventually produce

            Reply
          3. DEFENDER88 January 4, 2016

            But I am not advocating arming or allowing arms to untrained people like we do now in many cases. As you say that could be worse than what we have now.
            And “Ideally” I would love to not feel the need to carry a gun in public. It is a burden and frankly a pain in the a*s to do it right.
            And has cost me a good deal of money in time and training. And I REFUSE to be a “helpless” victim. I have been there before but got lucky.
            On the other hand consider the Aurora Colorado Theater shooting, about 100 people were there and some 80 were shot – a group of even untrained people(say just 5-6) shooting back at the killer might have stopped him short and surely would not have yielded a worse result than what he did.
            Just 3-4 shooting back at the San Bernadino killers might have mitigated the killing there.

            If you think about it, the only real way to “Defend” against the killers is either provide Armed Security(With a Rifle) or allow Conceal carriers to carry everywhere. The cops cannot get there in time – San Bernardino, Aurora, Paris, etc. illustrates that well.
            Sure SWAT or Police can kill/stop them, but it is (by nature) “always” too late. They cant be everywhere.
            Not to mention the new Terror Threats we “will” face, the Govt “cannot” “find” them all or even most of them.

            MY PLAN
            PART 1
            By “my” plan – in order to be “Licensed” to Carry a gun “In Public” you would have to go thru a Nation-Wide Standard program on “Defensive” Combat Shooting (Like I have been thru)(Though I have had a lot more – I could teach it but I don’t except to friends). ie Certified to a minimum standard like the National Driver License tests etc so your Permit/License would be good nation wide. The training would be such that Schools etc defense tactics would be covered. If you are not willing to do that and pay for the training then you don’t need to be carrying a gun in public. Plus I would include a mental evaluation or mental health info be included.
            Our State Permitting(TN) already requires FBI Finger Print verification, some defensive training and shooting qualifier to a minimum standard. 8hr Training + 50 rd shooting qualifier. Plus interactions with an instructor – usually a cop or former cop – who can usually spot someone who should not be allowed a permit. I would require somewhat more than even this, like additional above.

            ps in Tn if you have any felony or any domestic abuse charge, even a filed “No Contact” order you cannot get a permit.

            PART 2
            You cannot declare a “Gun Free Zone” unless you either provide sufficient “Armed(With a Pistol & a Rifle minimum) security for the venue or allow Certified Conceal Carry(Certified to my standard above).
            This all “could” be done.
            A national minimum standard could be established – fairly easily.
            There are thousands of competition shooters (like me), & retired cops, etc , and training academies all over this country who can do this training.
            RESULTS
            This would also have the benefit of having a much larger “trained” populace leading to fewer accidental deaths by gun(handling mistakes, kids, storage, etc), and make us a stronger & Safer country overall.

            Reply
          4. HerrBaggs January 3, 2016

            I see! You still have no idea what you are talking about. But talk you will.

            Reply
          5. charleo1 January 4, 2016

            You’re the one who has no idea what I’m talking about, my friend. The true power in this Country, or this World, does not lie in having the biggest gun, but the best ideas. And certainly not in the guns we’re talking about here. It’s folly. Look at countries such as Afghanistan, Syria, Somalia, Yeoman, to name a few, are awash in personal weaponry, and have been for years. And yet, what Rights, and security have they delivered for their holders?Against their governments, or external enemies? It’s like the one fellow I spoke with on this who said, “Without my guns, I am nothing, I have no security.” To which I thought, you live in the greatest democracy, in the richest nation in the world, with the most powerful, capable, and well disciplined military. Well, I hope you get my point here.

            Reply
          6. HerrBaggs January 4, 2016

            The military did not come to my rescue when I was hit with a home invasion. Neither did the police. Maybe I should have called you.

            Reply
          7. charleo1 January 5, 2016

            Although I understand your point. We’re discussing public policy here, and trying to answer the question of whether the overwhelming majority of homes that are not invaded, and never will be invaded, are safer overall if there are more guns in more homes, and in the hands of more people with fewer, or even no restrictions? Is it really a matter of “Constitutional Carry?” Which is one opinion represented, that the government in accordance to the 2nd amend. is forbidden to regulate the buying, selling, possession, and ownership, type, and number of guns an individual may acquire, period. So, I’m not for dumbing up the conversation with the conspiracy claptrap, about a people needing to be, “well armed, to physically protect themselves from a government they go out and elect top to bottom every 2-4 years. Or protect themselves from soldiers that come from homes as loyal, and patriotic as we have in this Nation. It’s ignorant, enormously disrespectful, and
            and avoids the central question. Are we as a society better off, safer, more polite even, as some claim, the more unrestricted guns we have, and the fewer places we restrict their carry?

            Reply
        2. HerrBaggs January 3, 2016

          Would you explain to these twits what exactly a assault weapon is. Fists and feet are the two major assault weapons used on people. Blunt force weapons are second. The whole issue over gun confiscation has nothing to do with public safety.

          Reply
    3. Independent1 January 2, 2016

      I’ll second what Frank says – It’s not Obama dictating his will to our country, it’s a treasonous GOP Congress refusing to go along with the will of the people!! Any moron can see that’s the case given Congresses 10% approval rating by the American people. But then you’re even dumber than a moron!! You have your head so far in the sand you wouldn’t know what the truth was if it bit you.

      See this from The Hill:

      Poll shows bipartisan support for expanding background checks

      Democrats and Republicans support expanding background checks to private gun sales and sales at gun shows, a Pew Research Center poll released Thursday showed. The July survey of 2,002 adults found that 88 percent of Americans — including 88 percent of Democrats and 79 percent of Republicans ­— favor expanding background checks, up slightly from the 81 percent of Americans who supported the measure in May 2013.

      Pew Research Center said little has changed from the last survey, which was done shortly after the December 2012 school shooting in Newtown, Conn.

      Nearly 8 in 10 Americans, 79 percent, favor laws that prevent people with mental illness from purchasing guns, and 7 percent back the creation of a federal database to track all gun sales, while a smaller majority of 57 percent supports a ban on assault-style weapons.

      The poll found that 85 percent of Democrats favor creation of a database for the federal government to track gun sales, compared with 55 percent of Republicans. While 70 percent of Democrats back an assault weapon ban, only about half of Republicans, 48 percent, favor that proposal.

      Reply
      1. BDC_57 January 3, 2016

        you are right but tea baggers are very uneducated they listen fox fake news and think the government are going to take their guns away

        Reply
        1. HerrBaggs January 3, 2016

          Hilary has said she is.

          Reply
      2. HerrBaggs January 3, 2016

        What is an assault weapon? Can you give me an answer?

        Reply
        1. Independent1 January 3, 2016

          From Wikipedia:

          At the time that the now-defunct Federal Assault Weapons Ban passed in 1994, the U.S. Justice Department said, “In general, assault weapons are semiautomatic firearms with a large magazine of ammunition that were designed and configured for rapid fire and combat use.”[3] The origin of the term is muddled and has been attributed to politicians, gun control groups, the media, and the firearms industry itself.[4][5][6][1] It is sometimes conflated with the term “assault rifle”, which refers to selective-fire military rifles that can fire in automatic and burst mode.[5]

          Reply
          1. HerrBaggs January 4, 2016

            All weapons are for assault. That is why they are called weapons. Knives have killed over five times as many people as rifles [assault or other wise]. So you think disarming all citizens will make America a safer place? An ER doctor told me that serious injuries from fists and feet are more prevalent in the R .Being around gun owners for over 60 years I find fault with your beliefs. After having collected rents in the black ghettos for 8 years I heartedly disagree with you. You can read and study all you want but you have no real experience. All the rhetoric sounds all passionate and euphoric but it has no real meaning in the world of humans. Your statistics are all skewered and don’t really have much meaning in the real world. My wife and I have concealed carriered for over 40 years and we have never shot one another or any one for that matter. But we have avoided being seriously hurt twice because we were armed. I have on over a dozen occasions stopped dogs from biting me without hurting the dog. because I was armed. The so called gun nuts that you refer to are not the danger. The casual low life stupid gun buyers who have little education and the common sense of a 6 year old is what scares me. They could force me to kill them. Do you have any idea what it cost to kill some one in justifiable self defense. But the cost of not having one could be your life. Until Jesus returns and makes the world a perfect place I will be armed. No matter what Obama or Hilary do..Statistics are arranged to fit the cause. If you really want cut down on the body count stop the war on drugs and take the obscene profits and corruption out of it. All the people who want to be druggies are not hampered by the law. The 70 percent of gun deaths that are suicides will continue without guns.The two million or so criminal confrontations that are thwarted by armed citizens each year could have had dire consequences and a higher body count of law abiding citizens if they had not been armed.

            Reply
          2. Independent1 January 4, 2016

            Say, is the NRA actually going to pay you for that farcical snowjob?? All serious posters here know that the issue here isn’t related to everyday violence. That dealing with everyday violence is a totally separate issue!!

            Fact is that violence happens, and general violence in America is almost exactly the same as general violence in virtually all other similar nations on the planet, including many European countries. The big difference is, that when violence occurs in Europe, people generally end up in the hospital but end up coming out alive. While in the U.S., because of America’s excessive guns, thousands of people in America involved in violence end up dead, rather than in the hospital where they can get fixed. This is one of the reason that longevity in the U.S. has brought America down to about 50th on the planet – worse longevity than for even some 3rd-world nations.

            Your deflection on the gun issue by referencing rifles to knives is nothing more than a huge joke!! Fact is, homicides related to all forms of cutting instruments, including knives, amounted to about 12% of homicides in 2014, while gun-related homicides accounted for about 68% of the 12,665 homicides committed in the U.S.

            So keep on with those farcical snowjobs!! I hope the NRA doesn’t think they’re getting their monies worth from your bouts of rambling nonsense!!

            Reply
          3. HerrBaggs January 4, 2016

            I said rifles. Do you have reading disability? This was an FBI report , you look it up I don’t do free research.

            Reply
  4. docb January 2, 2016

    Thank you Mr. President..The impotent tea gop nra and gun makers congress cretins have done nothing but ignore the people and endorse the slaughter!

    Reply
  5. latebloomingrandma January 2, 2016

    When I leave the house and have to worry about being shot by one of my fellow citizens, then I no longer live in a “free” country. That’s what it’s coming down to. Sounds more like a banana republic. Everyone carrying guns out of fear is not freedom.

    Reply
    1. HerrBaggs January 3, 2016

      My wife and I don’t worry about being shot. We are concerned about being attacked. Go read the FBI stats on recorded criminal attacks. It is in the millions. People on the lookout for some one to attack try real hard to avoid people who are armed. So you remain unarmed and my chances of being attacked go way down.

      Reply
      1. Independent1 January 3, 2016

        What you forgot to note was, that when those criminal attacks take place that you noted, should the people being attacked be armed such as in a home break in, the person with a weapon is 4.46 times more likely to be shot and killed than someone who is unarmed. And only in less that .3% of the time, is someone with a weapon actually able to use that weapon to defend themselves. Being armed during a criminal attack is far more of a probability the gun owner will be killed, than they will be able to self-protect themselves.

        Reply
  6. Kurt CPI January 2, 2016

    Here we go again. As long as a President’s agenda agrees with one’s position, it’s a reasonable thing to make a decree that bypasses the separation of powers. But if it goes against one’s standard it’s condemn-able. Regardless of our stance on gun control, executive orders that seek to change the law, especially one tied so closely to the Bill of Rights, should be condemned. Congressional inaction on furthering gun controls are a perfectly legitimate way of not enacting more legislation. If anyone, including the President, seeks to change the law it must be done according to the processes laid out in the Constitution. Personally, I believe people purchasing firearms should have background checks so long as the particular gun purchase is not tied to the check (I’ve had many background checks – required for my job). But that’s just my opinion. I know lots of people who disagree. Our government is supposed to be representative and no one, not even the President, has the right or authority to undermine the representative process. Let’s enact background checks according to the legal process, always defending the Constitution.

    Reply
    1. scott January 3, 2016

      The present congressional “inaction” is hardly admirable given that 87% of the country wants to rein in gun violence through new legislation. It’s a shame that congress is bullied by the NRA. If ever a statement were made to emphasize the special interest relationships with congress, yours would be it.

      Reply
      1. DEFENDER88 January 3, 2016

        Problem is we have absolutely no confidence in the Dems being able to do it right. Hillary will want to ban Assault Rifles since Bill got that done when he was in – problem is data shows it had absolutely no effect on crime nor the rate of violence.
        I tell you now it will make things worse. Don’t believe it – I can explain in detail. It will be counter-intuitive – to “you”.
        Also – the creation of the Gun Free Killing Zones by the Dems has proven to be an absolute murderous failure gone horribly wrong.
        Knee-Jerk emotional reactions, which the Dems have done have actually raised the danger level concerning guns and violence.
        One could argue creation of these Gun Free Zones has actually Assisted the mass killers in providing a choice venue where no one can defend themself, no resistance can be offered. In case you have not noticed – The killers are choosing Gun Free Zones. Sandy Hook, Aurora Theater, Ft Hood, Chattanooga, Santa Barbara – All – Gun Free Zones.

        Reply
        1. HerrBaggs January 3, 2016

          Take away the guns from the crazies and they will get more creative, Gasoline, propane, etc. The causalities will will grow. Boston marathon , anybody remember that one?

          Reply
      2. Kurt CPI January 3, 2016

        86% of statistics are made up on the spot. Take a look at this CNN poll done this month:
        http://www.pollingreport.com/guns.htm

        As yiu can see you’re way off. But seriously, here you are making my point. You want more gun control. So on this issue the end justifies the means. You’re willing to bypass the constitutional process as long as it suits your agenda.

        Reply
      3. HerrBaggs January 3, 2016

        Violence started with Cain and Able and will remain until their is only one person left on the planet. Then there is always suicide. You are a fabricator and a liar on the side. Over 45 percent of the people are gun owners. 45 is what percent of a hundred?

        You must have graduated from Hilary Clintons school of liars.

        Reply
    2. charleo1 January 5, 2016

      Let me ask a stupid question. Perhaps I misunderstood? But if the particular gun purchase is NOT TIED to the background check, what’s the point of running the check? Again, it is not the consensus that the Founders were crazy persons that believed criminals, and the mentally insane’s Constitutional Rights would be violated if they were denied a gun. I think the President’s legitimate question is, why should this person, or these children, or that Police Officer die, because we have a bought out, and spineless Congress, incapable at this point of common sense? And should I as President at least try and do something? I ask my legal council, and they said, perhaps this? That my friend is not a malicious attempt to undermine Congress, or abridge The Constitution.

      Reply
      1. Kurt CPI January 5, 2016

        That’s a fair question and I probably was unclear. Many gun owners fear, rightly or wrongly, that “background check” is code for “registration”. If, when purchasing a firearm, a background check states that you’re getting one expressly for the purpose of buying a gun, you’ll be first to get a knock on your door when the confiscators come around. As ridiculous as that might be, there’s no need to tie a backround check to any particular transaction.I can walk into my local Police Department, pay a small fee, and request a background check, I’ve been required to do that for a variety of job-related reasons. That BG check could easily serve to satisfy many situations that require it, including buying a gun. One of the best ideas I’ve heard is that when you renew your driver’s license you can request a background check. Then when you walk into a gun shop, you hand the dealer your driver’s license. He types-in or scans it, you enter your PIN (to protect your privacy) and he gets a green or red light. No information is entered as to why the BG check status was requested who support keeping guns away from dangerous people as long as it doesn’t force them to provide private information on their purchases to the government.That would get more gun owners onboard for BG checks (for the record, I do not own a gun). Yes, there are the conspiracy nutheads who would still cry foul. But most gun owners that I know are reasonable people.

        As for the founders, I agree that they never intended the 2nd amendment to permit persons who are mentally ill or criminal to have the means to go on killing rampages – certainly the rights of the potential victims trump the rights of a homicidal psychopath. But there’s plenty of evidence that at least some of them did mean (and so stated) that owning firearms was a valid deterrent to tyranny, including government opression (which shouldn’t come as any surprise – it is, after all, one of the chief complaints levied in the Declaration of Independence).

        Reply
        1. charleo1 January 6, 2016

          My understanding of the current situation is, if one is dealing with a licensed gun shop the background check is mandatory, and is done in nearly 100% of all sales. However, if one is dealing with an a private individual, or hobbyist selling part of his private stock, a license, or check is not required as part of that sale. The problem with administering such a reasonable exemption from being gamed, is identifying the true small time hobby sellers from the unlicensed professionals making a living selling firearms to felons, or others who are naturally drawn to them specifically because they know their record could not pass a background check. I understand, determining the difference clearly enough to make a case is very man hour intensive, and there simply aren’t the resources allocated to do it. And as Congress continues to cut funding to ATF. and other regulatory agencies having to do with gathering information on firearms. The result is an entire system leaking like a sieve. For some, they see the situation as a definite win-win. Guns are easily obtainable for all, as they say they believe they should be. And, the Fed Gov. can be whipped again for it’s lack of ability to do anything correctly.

          Reply

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.