Obama's Gun-Law Proposals: Yay or Nay?

Categories: Morning Poll
obama-smoking.jpg
Yesterday, President Obama released his plan to curb gun violence, a plan that consists of both executive orders and recommendations for Congress.

As the "Colt Single Action Army Revolver" state, Arizona's probably got a lot of folks who are concerned about changing gun laws.

All of the details can be found on the White House website, but Obama's press office released some more concise explanations of what's being proposed:

  • Require criminal background checks for all gun sales.
  • Take four executive actions to ensure information on dangerous individuals is available to the background check system.
  • Reinstate and strengthen the assault weapons ban.
  • Restore the 10-round limit on ammunition magazines.
  • Protect police by finishing the job of getting rid of armor-piercing bullets.
  • Give law enforcement additional tools to prevent and prosecute gun crime.
  • End the freeze on gun violence research.
  • Make our schools safer with more school resource officers and school counselors, safer climates, and better emergency response plans.
  • Help ensure that young people get the mental health treatment they need.
  • Ensure health insurance plans cover mental health benefits.
As you can imagine, those final five points rely on extra funding, in one way or another.

In general, do Obama's gun-control proposals sound good to you?

Cast your vote below:



My Voice Nation Help
68 comments
sarum
sarum

Citizens Against Senseless Violence: “Join Us! Tell Everyone Your House Is Completely Unprotected!”

Peter Fullmer
Peter Fullmer

It is already illegal to possess an automatic weapon without a very special permit, called an AOW, that is almost impossible to obtain. Anyone who has an automatic weapon has most likely made illegal modifications to a semi-automatic weapons. Anyone who does not even know this particular fact has no business commenting on changing gun laws. Either way, Obama's executive action will not be banning any type of firearms, and executive action is not unconstitutional, as it is a presidential right and duty defined in the Articles of the Constitution. If there is to be more "control" in the matter, it should not be what you can and cannot purchase. I have no problem with more extensive background checks or requiring basic safety courses. However, banning "assault" weapons is just stupid. How do you define "assault" weapon? An AR-15 or XM-15 is merely a semi-automatic rifle with a synthetic, collapsible stock. No matter what type of firearm you have, they are all capable of setting off high speed projectiles, capable of severe damage to life and property. If we're going to curb violence, it must be across the board. No matter what limits you place on things, those with bad intentions will still get their hands on destructive tools. If you can't get a gun, you can still get a big truck, or you can make explosive devices. Let's not ban a type of firearm and/or magazine capacity to please the ignorant; how about a real solution to violence? Do I have one? No. But it's not my job.

Avery Marx
Avery Marx

funny how its an "assualt rifle" in the hands of a civilian but just a rifle in the hands of cops and military. we the people should be able to combat our government and military with the same weapons they use. enjoy your tyranny. ..

Shawn Olson
Shawn Olson

people keep saying "they were killed by this gun, or by that gun". NO! They were killed by the people behind the gun. Huge difference.

jonnyquest
jonnyquest topcommenter

Anybody else notice that several Sheriffs across the country are vowing to ignore any new Federal gun laws? And yet Joe Arpaio is not among them. Is Joe now a supporter of the President? Will he now enforce Federal gun laws like he insists on enforcing Federal immigration laws?

ReggieVV
ReggieVV

People need to call the NRA what they are, a terrorist organization. They oppose even reasonable discussion, and essentially call for the nuclear option on simple things. The NRA lies, and for the last 25 years have cried wolf for so long they have no credibility. Anyone sending them money deserve to have it taken from them. For all this fearmongering there are more guns in private hands than any nation in the history of the world.

eric.nelson745
eric.nelson745 topcommenter

60/40 on NT's morning poll. Considering the demographic of NT readers, that may indicate that despite all the recent gun mayhem, there really isn't solid support for reforming gun laws.

JohnQ.Public
JohnQ.Public

The government can ban all the weapons and ammo it wants, but nothing will change until we change the way that people conduct themselves and the culture and other issues that produces that conduct.  Until we reinstate a comprehensive mental health system that was systematically destroyed by the Reagan administration, moderate general cultural influences by no longer rewarding violence with our consumer dollars and generally raise the bar on our expectations of the way we treat each other, no amount of banning weapons or ammo will make a significant difference in the violence we are currently experiencing.

Aleks ARmandp
Aleks ARmandp

Assault weapons ban? This is something the government has wanted to do for a long time. They finally got their wish. By executive order. The US constitution no longer holds any power. After this it will be a fast roller coaster down to tyranny and a police state. It seems an executive order is all that is needed for the president to overstep the boundary created by the constitution in order to keep the executive branch at bay for exactly this reason. There is no more justice for all. There is no more liberty for all. When a young man chooses to commit suicide because of the enormous pressure and threat of a 35 year sentence for downloading files, yet the biggest banks are laundering drug money, extorting billions from the public and almost sending the whole world into a financial apocalypse but all they get is a "fine" or a slap on the wrist, then the lie of "justice for all" is out there in plain sight for all to see. That this goverent cares less for our individual rights and liberties. But enacts laws and declares wars on the behalf of special interests and multi-national corporations. They embrace banks and financial institutions. Putting the when of American taxpayers at risk by loaning them billions if not trillions of dollars. They react with tears and shock when Americans are killed in acts of violence with assault weapons, but if children and innocent civilians are torn to shreds by predator drones they just turn a cold shoulder and call that "collateral damage". What hypocrites. I believe in our "form" of government. I believe in the structure. The blue print if you will. That's called the constitution. It is the actual people that inhabit the halls of congress and that White House I no longer have any faith in. They are corrupt. From the top all the way down. If there is a voice of reason in this multitude of puppets and liars, it is drowned by billions of dollars from corporate interests and big banks. If there is a voice of opposition, they are called dissidents and conspiracy theorists. They are marganized and ridiculed. It is no longer patriotic to have a different point of view than that of the mainstream media. It is a sad day when what is right is called wrong. When what is wrong is justified for the benefit of a few. The lies are so obvious now. Those that don't see simply refuse to see for fear of being singles out. For fear of facing the truth. That we are living in a tyrannical police state not unlike that portrayed by Wells in his book 1984. Our rights are being stripped daily. And people are actually being conditioned to accept this perversion of the constitution. "Take our guns!!! Take the one symbol of our freedom that has endured for generations!! Take our right to privacy!! Take our right to warrantless searches and seizures!!! Take our right to be safe in our persons and property!!! Take our right of having a court with a jury of our peers!! Take it all!! JUST MAKE US SAFE!!!".... And little by little. Line by line. Our rights erode. And our government tightens its grip on a defenseless, powerless, and clueless nation. Who says our government is perfect? Who woke up one morning and suddenly decided that our elected officials will never turn against its own people? Did we finally find a perfect set of leaders who wil NEVER turn against the people? Who will never lie? Steal? Cheat? Seriously? We truly believe. That our government and elected officials. Will never. Ever. Turn against us? Or that they will keep law and order and insure no breakdown of society for a thousand years? That's the reason we need guns. That's the reason we need assault rifles. It is sad and painful that these recent tragedies occurred and they are hard and serious issues we have to come to terms with. But take our one symbol of liberty and our one tool of choice to defend against tyranny and oppression? To defend against a breakdown of our civil fabric or government? We have millions die due to car accidents every year. We have millions die due to medications. Should we assault the pharma companies with siliar restrictions and laws?? Should we outlaw cars and only allow bikes? This is an overreaction on the side of the people. And an opportunity to take guns away on the side of our government. It is something they have been wanting to do for years. And isn't it grand? That the majority of people, are ASKING the government to take away the guns? How perfect for them. It is exactly how they like it. Make it seems it is a movement from the people. Not from within government. I was just going to write a few words on the subject. But my mind took over. I leave you with this quote from one of the founding fathers. Ben Franklin: Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.

Joe Kennedy
Joe Kennedy

It's funny how some people head "assault weapons" and others hear what is actually said most of the time which is assault STYLE weapons. I do have to ask, what good is a semi automatic rifle against a drone with bombs on it? So much for that militia part of the second amendment. Also, the word "Amendment " can mean to AMEND as is Amend with the times, which the second amendment needs to be along with others. The constitution is old and antiquated and its to time to refurbish it to fit this century.

Robert Souza
Robert Souza

NAY. Carolann.. please educate yourself on what you're talking about. No one is getting automatic weapons. There are no machine guns for sale. This is all about SEMI-automatic weapons, which might as well be called semi-manual weapons. You cannot spray bullets with a semi-auto.. you do not hold the trigger down and bullets fly out til you lift your finger. This is what the media always implies to scare everyone. The term "assault rifle" is misused constantly. It's ALL cosmetic. The only difference between a semi-auto "assault rifle" and a semi-auto "hunting rifle" is a bunch of plastic and cool stuff to make it look (repeat LOOK) like a military weapon. It is NOT a military weapon. Anyway.. First, who are YOU to tell ME what I require for defense? Sure, if one guy is breaking into my house with a crowbar, then a handgun is probably sufficient. If four guys with handguns are performing a home invasion on my house, then I want a semi-auto with a large magazine. And yes, you can practice shooting and become proficient, but in a CRISIS everything goes out the window. I want as many opportunities to take out an aggressor and not have that freedom limited by someone who desires feel-good legislation that does nothing worthwhile. Second.. the founding fathers were not stupid. They had the whole of history to look back on to see the progression of weaponry over the years. Do you really believe they thought muskets was as far as things would go??? And third, the second amendment says "The right to bear arms shall not be infringed.".. Period. Go read up on what the founding fathers had to say about this. It's pretty clear. And four.. soooo you're in favor of protecting the rights of the possibly insane cuz you don't want to hurt their feelings, buuuuut you're all in favor of trampling on the rights of the other 99 percent of us law-abiding people, eh?

Justin Yentes
Justin Yentes

Just for the record, the proposals don't have ANYTHING to do with automatic weapons....at all. Those are in a completely different category, and extremely well regulated.

Jason Roberts
Jason Roberts

YAY! there is nothing wrong with trying to curb gun violence.

jonnyquest
jonnyquest topcommenter

All you "I'm a gun owner but I support an assault weapons ban" people need to read the part about banning armor piercing ammo very closely. All need to understand that any rifle capable of killing a deer will pierce police body armor. Grandpa's deer rifle? This proposal will make it illegal to own ammo for it. Yeah they ARE after your guns!

Cactusforehead
Cactusforehead

@jonnyquest why bother? The plan is for the state to reject it.

JohnQ.Public
JohnQ.Public

@jonnyquest Joe siimply hasn't figured out which position will get him more TV face time yet.  Once he figures that out he will announce his "deeply held philosophical position" to the nearest bank of TV cameras he can find.

jonnyquest
jonnyquest topcommenter

@ReggieVV Four million Americans think the NRA has plenty of credibility. That's as grass roots as you can get. You're buying the bullshit the media is selling. I'm not a Tea Party person. They are racist, ignorant fucks. But there is a full court press to vilify the NRA and get more gun control passed.

jonnyquest
jonnyquest topcommenter

@JohnQ.Public When I go to a public event I am very happy to see a police officer present. It is a tangible, immediate security presence. Our school kids would be safe NOW, TODAY, if there were School Resource Officers in all schools. Raise taxes, do what we need, to make that happen.

sarum
sarum

@Alejandro Arredondo I am laughing at this time of year when I see all the Liberty statues bobbing on street corners symbolizing our "liberty" to pay excessive taxes.  

ReggieVV
ReggieVV

@Alejandro Arredondo. Non sequitur. Cars and the drug industry are regulated far beyond what the gun industry is. Fine, using your lack of logic, we should register all guns, require insurance on all guns, require extensive training to use guns, and allow extensive research on the public health effect of all guns, and prohibit with extensive enforcement the owning of guns by the lunatics and crazy.

Connie120
Connie120

@Joe Kennedy Yeah, freedom and limited government are antiquated. Let's replace them with a dictatorship, so we can fit in with all the other modern dictatorships arount the world.

JohnQ.Public
JohnQ.Public

@Joe Kennedy Kinda.  The Constitution can be amended but not by judicial fiat or executive order.  Any amendment must be approved by a vote of two-thirds of both the House of Representatives and the Senate followed by a ratification of three-fourths (38) of the states. 

RobAZ
RobAZ

@jonnyquestYou are entirely and 100% incorrect.  It never ceases to amaze me - in a day when any person in front of a computer that is connected to the Internet giving them access to the greatest source of information available to humankind in it's history right at their fingertips - when people make claims that a simple search entirely destroys what they claim.  Such is the case with you, jonnyquest, and your over the top hyperbole that is doing exponentially more damage to responsible gun owners than the Brady Campaign or any other anti-gun organization could hope for.

Obama clearly states that the desire with the topic at hand - armor piercing capable rounds - is to follow through with legislation that was previously enacted and let lapse. Now, given that what was proposed has ALREADY been law in the United States, from 1994-2004, would you care to explain to us how all the ammunition you claim is going to be banned was still sold during those years?

The legislation and code are still the same and easily available for you to read.  And, since you seem to be incapable of doing this yourself, I've posted it below.  And, if I may offer a quick synopsis, it does NOTHING near the foolish claims your have repeated ad nauseum.

18 USC § 921 - Definitions

(17)

(A) The term “ammunition” means ammunition or cartridge cases, primers, bullets, or propellent powder designed for use in any firearm. (B) The term “armor piercing ammunition” means— (i) a projectile or projectile core which may be used in a handgun and which is constructed entirely (excluding the presence of traces of other substances) from one or a combination of tungsten alloys, steel, iron, brass, bronze, beryllium copper, or depleted uranium; or (ii) a full jacketed projectile larger than .22 caliber designed and intended for use in a handgun and whose jacket has a weight of more than 25 percent of the total weight of the projectile. (C) The term “armor piercing ammunition” does not include shotgun shot required by Federal or State environmental or game regulations for hunting purposes, a frangible projectile designed for target shooting, a projectile which the Attorney General finds is primarily intended to be used for sporting purposes, or any other projectile or projectile core which the Attorney General finds is intended to be used for industrial purposes, including a charge used in an oil and gas well perforating device. 

@jonnyquest

My advice, johnnyquest?  Lay off the infowars and NRA emails that are flooding your inbox and learn to use Google or any other search engine. 

jonnyquest
jonnyquest topcommenter

To clarify: A .30-30 Winchester lever action rifle using conventional deer hunting ammunition WILL penetrate police body armor. This is a common rifle owned by millions in this country. The President's proposal will make it a crime to own ammo for it.

danzigsdaddy
danzigsdaddy topcommenter

@jonnyquest  you may be right, you may be wrong.  i personally think they are regarding stuff like Black Talon rounds for handguns, but the wording is vague enough that i am not going to contest what you are saying

JohnQ.Public
JohnQ.Public

@jonnyquest Agreed, but that is only part of the solution.  The SROs can provide an immediate counter to violence that occurrs when they are present.  But they also need resources that they can refer troubled students and families to for assistance in order to prevent violence from occurring through early intervention with those who might be prone to commit violence.   Could Columbine have been stopped if a counselor or SRO had referred to the two perpetrators for counseling or had been able to mitigate the perceived bullying that the perpetrators experienced.  Having an SRO on campus is an important step to stop violence as it is occurring, but we also need to provide resources that the SRO to refer to in order to prevent violence from occurring in the first place.

ExpertShot
ExpertShot topcommenter

@RobAZ The Brady Campaign is NOT anti-gun - they are PRO GUN SAFETY.  Using your own advice, lay off the NRA and Infowars emails that are flooding your inbox and use Google.  There is NOT ONE organized and active anti-gun group in the United States!


jonnyquest
jonnyquest topcommenter

@RobAZ So you're going to let Eric Holder, whose ATF ignored Federal law and allowed firearms to illegally cross the border, to decide what kind of ammo I can own? Would you let Joe Arpaio, whose thugs brazenly murder prisoners, decide just what kind of ammo or gun you can own? The founding fathers wanted the people to have weapons as a last resort against corrupt government. I am absolutely against giving any ground on this matter.

JohnQ.Public
JohnQ.Public

@jonnyquest Thank you for your hyper-alarmist post but the President has said it very clearly, and in very small words so everyone can understand, that he has no desire to ban either your grandpa's deer rifle nor the ammo for it..  He has stated very clearly that this not what he intends to try to regulate.  So we appreciate your "sky is falling" approach to the issue, but it only serves to diminish your credibility in this discussion.

RobAZ
RobAZ

@danzigsdaddy @jonnyquest Danzig....just to clear things up...the Black Talon brand of ammunition is a hollow-point round manufactured by Winchester.  Many, many other manufacturers produce hollow-point rounds.  For whatever reasons, Black Talon is thrown in with ammo that has a greater potential to pierce armor.  Just based on my limited knowledge of hollow-points and use of them over the last 20 years, I'd hazard to guess that of all ammo, a hollow-point would be the least likely to pierce armor.  

Hollow-points are designed to mushroom (expand) upon impact and create more damage (gun nut vernacular: stopping power) when entering a body..or a similar type solid substance.  Because of the properties of the round and the damage they create, they are rarely used for any other purpose than self-defense.


And before anyone jumps in...I support everything proposed yesterday.

jonnyquest
jonnyquest topcommenter

@danzigsdaddy @jonnyquest Police body armor will protect the officer against handguns up to and including .44 magnum. It will not stop a rifle bullet. Police officers all know this and, when following protocol, will not rely on their armor to protect them. The President's proposal, as presented on the WH website, will make it illegal to own ANY TYPE of rifle ammunition.

jonnyquest
jonnyquest topcommenter

@JohnQ.Public @jonnyquest Fully agree. I would vote for higher taxes to make that happen.

jonnyquest
jonnyquest topcommenter

@ExpertShot @RobAZ The Brady Campaign used to be called Handgun Control, Inc. I'll bet you're just a kid, right?

Connie120
Connie120

@ExpertShot @RobAZ  That is not true! They have clearly stated more than once that their real aim is to ban all guns, but they don't mind doing it a little at a time to hide their real purposes. I don't have time to look it up now, but I have read it on several different news sites, not related to the NRA or Infowars.

jonnyquest
jonnyquest topcommenter

@Cactusforehead How about more School Resource Officers? That's an real improvement in safety. Gun control decreases safety.

Connie120
Connie120

@jonnyquest Exactly right. Eric holder has already made clear that he wants to ban all guns, so you can be sure he will find every loophole or vague wording to chip away at our rights.

RobAZ
RobAZ

@jonnyquest While there's no love lost for me with Holder, he'd be standing in a hell of a long line of USAG's who turned their noses up at the law and gone off on their own.  Let's also not forget that there were a couple more AG's prior to Holder who were in office when similar programs took place.  Hell, go back to the Reagan era and the Iran/Contra affair...we had no problems sending guns and ammo to Nicaraguans.

I'm lost on on your continual Arpaio references.  He's a nobody county sheriff when it comes to federal issues.

While I do partially believe their intent, in 1785, was to provide for a "citizen check" on the government, that ship sailed  a long time ago, jonny.  If you're under the illusion that the US government fears a bunch of yahoo's with their Glock 9mm's, well I've got some Arizona beachfront property I'd like you to look at.

Cactusforehead
Cactusforehead

@JohnQ.Public @jonnyquest so more armor in our schools?

JohnQ.Public
JohnQ.Public

@jonnyquest The definition of armor piercing ammunition was enacted in 1968 (public law 90-351) so its not a new definition and was totally unrelated to the 1994 ban on assault-style weapons. 

Connie120
Connie120

@JohnQ.Public @jonnyquest  It excludes whatever the Attorney genreal decides is primarily intended for sporting purposes. This is very dangerous language, because there is nothing to prevent the AG from banning anything he wants to, under the guise that it is not for sporting purposes. Thes types of clauses are what really takes away our freedoms, because they give non-elected officials too much power.

JohnQ.Public
JohnQ.Public

@jonnyquest Sorry for posting in chunks but Livefyre won't seem to let me post everything in one post.

So you can see that the definition of armor piercing ammo is very specific to ammo used in a handgun and excludes sporting ammo which would include your grandpa's deer hunting ammo.

The statute is 18 USC 921.  Nowhere have I seen in the President's proposal that he he wants to change the already existing defintion of armor piercing ammo

JohnQ.Public
JohnQ.Public

@jonnyquest Hunting ammo is already excluded from the definition of armor piercing ammo in the next section, "C) The term "armor piercing ammunition" does not include shotgun shot required by Federal or State environmental or game regulations for hunting purposes, a frangible projectile designed for target shooting, a projectile which the Attorney General finds is primarily intended to be used for sporting purposes, or any other projectile or projectile core which the Attorney General finds is intended to be used for industrial purposes, including a charge used in an oil and gas well perforating device."

JohnQ.Public
JohnQ.Public

@jonnyquest  Armor piercing ammo is already defined in federal law as: “(B) The term "armor piercing ammunition" means - (i) a projectile or projectile core which may be used in a handgun and which is constructed entirely (excluding the presence of traces of other substances) from one or a combination of tungsten alloys, steel, iron, brass, bronze, beryllium copper, or depleted uranium; or (ii) a full jacketed projectile larger than .22 caliber designed and intended for use in a handgun and whose jacket has a weight of more than 25 percent of the total weight of the projectile.”

JohnQ.Public
JohnQ.Public

@jonnyquest Then lets go straight to the President's proposal.  Federal law already bans the import or manufacture of armor piercing ammo bexcept for police or military use ut does not ban the possession or transfer of the ammo.  The President's proposal is to expand this to include a ban on the possession or transfer of armor piercing ammo.

jonnyquest
jonnyquest topcommenter

@JohnQ.Public @jonnyquest Read the White House website. As written it would include rifle ammo. I have enough experience with lawyers to know they will tell you night is day. Remember Bill Clinton and the meaning of "is"? The proposal as written will ban all rifle ammo.

JohnQ.Public
JohnQ.Public

@jonnyquest Nobody is trying to change the definition of armor piercing ammo so they can take your rifle ammo.  That is not what is going on here despite what Rush, or Glenn or Alex Jones or the NWO alarmists keep tellinig you.

RobAZ
RobAZ

@jonnyquest Well, fortunately, Arpaio and Pearce are local and not dealing with federal issues.

That said, I can't entirely disagree with you about dubious legislators.  At the same time, as contentious as this legislation will be - and I'm under no illusion that any of it will actually become law - I'm inclined to believe that any further restrictions/regulations will come under far more scrutiny and face an even great uphill battle than this.

It was my understanding that that ammunition codes that came out of the 1994 act had dropped off along with the assualt weapon/high-cap magazine ban.  I can't find any information to confirm this so I'll dig a little deeper.

jonnyquest
jonnyquest topcommenter

@RobAZ @danzigsdaddy All this legal stuff is tough reading. But near as I can tell, 18 USC 921 is still in effect. It didn't expire in 2004. What I hear the President saying is that he wants to modify law to prohibit possession of armor piercing ammunition which under a modified law could include any rifle ammo. Make no mistake, there are many government officials who would gladly delete Constitutional protections. Joe Arpaio and Russell Pearce immediately come to mind. I strongly oppose any changes to gun laws because that gives only an illusion of safety. A sworn, well trained police officer is a real increase in safety. Not 100% but more tangible than a vapid gun law.

RobAZ
RobAZ

@danzigsdaddy I can't argue with that, danzig.  However, with this specific topic, well, it's already been law.  It was part of the legislation enacted in 1994 and let lapse in 2004.  Yet, during that time, store shelves were not void of ammunition and all the wild claims jonnyquest is making have been proven to be false.

danzigsdaddy
danzigsdaddy topcommenter

@RobAZi just used Black Talon because its more commonly known as a A/P round. i am extremely pro-gun, and really have no problem with what was proposed also. i do however have a problem with the wording of certain things (as pointed out in the reply to johnnyquest post) just like every other law, the wording is vague and can be applied in many different ways. with the way it is worded, johnnyquest may be right in some courts and completely off-base in another court. the law needs to be worded better so as to avoid confusion

eric.nelson745
eric.nelson745 topcommenter

@jonnyquest JQ, could you tell us what is the purpose of any civilian having armor-piercing bullets?

Now Trending

Phoenix Concert Tickets

From the Vault

 

General

Home

Loading...