Obama Unveils Gun Control Plan

From CNN:

President Barack Obama on Wednesday proposed background checks on all gun sales and bans on military style assault weapons and high-capacity magazines as part of a package of steps to reduce gun violence in the wake of the Newtown school massacre last month…

…President Barack Obama on Wednesday proposed background checks on all gun sales and bans on military style assault weapons and high-capacity magazines as part of a package of steps to reduce gun violence in the wake of the Newtown school massacre last month.

And how did Republicans respond?


Republicans immediately rejected the Obama proposals as an attack on the constitutional right to bear arms.

“Nothing the president is proposing would have stopped the massacre at Sandy Hook,” said a statement by Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Florida, considered an up-and-coming GOP leader. “President Obama is targeting the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens instead of seriously addressing the real underlying causes of such violence.”

Taking a step back at the larger picture on the gun debate in the U.S., both Democrats and Republicans are placing a giant pile of their chips on the table. The outcome may depend on where each Party has placed its bet. Was Sandy Hook a true and permanent tipping point that will propel change forward? Or is the gun control debate still primarily about words in the Second Amendment?

What is clear from Rubio’s comments is that Republicans are pushing the same talking points today that they have rolled out after every gun-related tragedy. Republicans and pro-gun groups have successfully labeled events like the Aurora shooting as “unpreventable tragedies” that are more about society in general than guns and bullets specifically. They are trying to do the same with Sandy Hook, but (to continue the poker analogy), are they calling bluff one too many times?

From where we’re seated, Sandy Hook marked a true turning point in the gun debate, an event that Americans are no longer willing to add to the pile of “unpreventable tragedy.” We’ll find out soon enough if that’s true, or if the country is still not ready to think outside the wording of the Second Amendment.


27 Community Comments, Facebook Comments

  1. ArapaGOPArapaGOP says:

    “The country is still not ready to think outside the Second Amendment.”

    If there is any justice, it NEVER WILL BE. Hands off my constitutional rights!

    • harrydobyharrydoby says:

      … it says nothing about having any gun.

    • (or maybe not, but bear with me…)

      Earlier in the diary, the Guvs use a similar phrase: “is the […] debate still primarily about words in the Second Amendment”. I can’t tell you how much of the debate on social networks is about the words in the Second Amendment, and not about the real functioning system of government that implements those words.

      We have freedom of speech: we can’t yell ‘fire’ in a theater, or direct someone to kill someone else, or slander someone.

      We have freedom of religion: we can’t use religion to justify killing someone, or imprisoning them, or discriminating against them.

      So what are the limits of our gun rights? Even some or most of the conservatives on the current Supreme Court acknowledge that the government has the legal justification to restrict gun ownership in certain ways.

      So, for just a second, think outside of the words of the Second Amendment and look at where the law may be applied to balance gun ownership vs. the general welfare.

    • BlueCat says:

      Actually, according to polls most of what the President proposes isn’t over-reach at all. Universal background checks, closing the loophole that allows 40% of  weapons sales to go through without background checks, limiting the the number of bullets in clips, more attention to mental health and study of possible media contributors to our culture of violence, the last two actually called for by NRA spokespersons, are wildly popular including among gun owners and many NRA members.

      As far as any charges of tyranny are concerned, as long as the president’s executive orders pass legal muster which his lawyers have ascertained they do, then issuing them is not an act of tyranny. If any of the 23 are deemed to cross that line, that would only be tyrannical if the President refused to withdraw them in the face of court decisions which seems highly unlikely.

      The NRA’s ad about his own children having security is ludicrous in light of the fact that all Presidents and their families have the same security.  There is nothing elitist about it.  Nor has the President, in his recommendations neglected to endorse exploring guards for schools.

      The right has chosen to studiously ignore every aspect of the President’s proposed plan that is exactly the same as what the NRA has called for, clearly signalling that they are completely opposed to recognizing so much as an inch of common ground, no matter what.  

      In completely ignoring the expressed will of majorities of American gun owners they have demonstrated once and for all what they really are.  What they are not is an organization representing ordinary American gun owners.  What they are is the lobbying arm of the fire arms industry whose only goal is to maximize profit by selling as many guns, especially the most expensive ones, and as much ammo as possible with as little scrutiny as possible.

      If they really were concerned about the mentally ill and violent movies and video games they would be to applauding those aspects of the President’s proposals while opposing others. Instead they simply have chosen to turn up the irrational hysteria and to bring people like you, who have been conspicuously silent since the  election, out from under their rocks.

    • raymond1 says:

      I missed nuggets like this from you:

      I predict confidently that Mitt Romney will carry our state in 2012 by at least five points. My track record is very good….

      I normally don’t gloat when folks are wrong — I’m wrong a lot myself — but check out the above quote; you were just such an arrogant shit that I’m entitled to enjoy noting so.

    • rocco says:

      Where some of us view the Newtown massacre as the final straw, the stool samples of your ilk over reach yourselves.

      Not one of the 23 EO’s would affect you, unless you’re not well, on the terrorist watch list, or a felon.

      The Congressional action he’s calling for is more than reasonable to anyone that doesn’t need an AR15 with armor piercing rounds as defense against “guvbmint”.

      Be specific, where is the President over reaching?

      Do it now.

      As with all right wing fucks, you turn 20 elementary school kids being murdered with a semi automatic weapon into a “poor me, I’m going to lose my 2nd Amendment rights”.

      You people disgust me.


    • Willard Smitten says:

      to post this?

  2. Gray in Mountains says:

    is back from helping Rmoney with his inauguration planning. He is a fraud, a liar. Who is paying him now? Paid by keystroke, word, post…?

  3. BlueCat says:

    Look at all the ArapG insults. Eliot is really going to scold us now!


  4. Gorky PulviczekG Pulviczek says:

    From http://www.coloradoan.com/arti

    Smith posted on his Facebook page that in his capacity as sheriff he will not “enforce unconstitutional federal laws,” “obey unconstitutional laws” or allow the Constitutional rights of citizens in Larimer County to be violated. Smith contends that universal background checks on gun sales would likely violate citizens’ Second Amendment rights.

    If you read the comments, Larimer county residents are hopping mad.  How do you spell “recall”?

  5. notaskinnycooknotaskinnycook says:

    There go the GOP once again. The only thing that comforts me when they’re in control is that they can always be counted on to go just THAT much too far. There are no absolute rights in the Constitution. If the First Amendment can be constrained by time, place and manner, then surely the Second amendment can be constrained to prevent civilians from obtaining weapons of war.

Leave a Reply

Comment from your Facebook account

You may comment with your Colorado Pols account above (click here to register), or via Facebook below.