Xtra News Community 2
March 30, 2024, 12:27:57 am
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Welcome to Xtra News Community 2 — please also join our XNC2-BACKUP-GROUP.
 
  Home Help Arcade Gallery Links BITEBACK! XNC2-BACKUP-GROUP Staff List Login Register  

New US gun controls

Pages: [1]   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: New US gun controls  (Read 270 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Lovelee
XNC2 GOD
*
Posts: 19338



« on: January 17, 2013, 05:24:28 am »

Some of these appear that they should have already been in ........



He signed the orders. ban on assault rifles and any mag over 10 rounds. unless repealed, it will be law in 30 days.

here are the orders.

1. Issue a Presidential Memorandum to require federal agencies to make relevant data available to the federal background check system.

2. Address unnecessary legal barriers, particularly relating to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, that may prevent states from making information available to the background check system.

3. Improve incentives for states to share information with the background check system.

4. Direct the Attorney General to review categories of individuals prohibited from having a gun to make sure dangerous people are not slipping through the cracks.

5. Propose rulemaking to give law enforcement the ability to run a full background check on an individual before returning a seized gun.

6. Publish a letter from ATF to federally licensed gun dealers providing guidance on how to run background checks for private sellers.

7. Launch a national safe and responsible gun ownership campaign.

8. Review safety standards for gun locks and gun safes (Consumer Product Safety Commission).

9. Issue a Presidential Memorandum to require federal law enforcement to trace guns recovered in criminal investigations.

10. Release a DOJ report analyzing information on lost and stolen guns and make it widely available to law enforcement.

11. Nominate an ATF director.

12. Provide law enforcement, first responders, and school officials with proper training for active shooter situations.

13. Maximize enforcement efforts to prevent gun violence and prosecute gun crime.

14. Issue a Presidential Memorandum directing the Centers for Disease Control to research the causes and prevention of gun violence.

15. Direct the Attorney General to issue a report on the availability and most effective use of new gun safety technologies and challenge the private sector to develop innovative technologies.

16. Clarify that the Affordable Care Act does not prohibit doctors asking their patients about guns in their homes.

17. Release a letter to health care providers clarifying that no federal law prohibits them from reporting threats of violence to law enforcement authorities.

18. Provide incentives for schools to hire school resource officers.

19. Develop model emergency response plans for schools, houses of worship and institutions of higher education.

20. Release a letter to state health officials clarifying the scope of mental health services that Medicaid plans must cover.

21. Finalize regulations clarifying essential health benefits and parity requirements within ACA exchanges.

22. Commit to finalizing mental health parity regulations.

23. Launch a national dialogue led by Secretaries Sebelius and Duncan on mental health


Report Spam   Logged

Laughter is the best medicine, unless you've got a really nasty case of syphilis, in which case penicillin is your best bet.

Share on Facebook Share on Twitter

Lovelee
XNC2 GOD
*
Posts: 19338



« Reply #1 on: January 17, 2013, 05:26:22 am »

State officials in Oregon and Texas are vowing to fight back against any attempt by the federal government to impose new gun control laws.
The warnings come as President Obama prepares to unveil a "comprehensive" plan to address gun violence, based on the recommendations from the Vice President Biden-led task force. The plan is expected to include a call for legislation to ban assault weapons as well as a variety of executive actions.
But in Oregon, Linn County Sheriff Tim Mueller wrote a letter to Biden Monday saying his department will not enforce any new gun laws it considers unconstitutional.
Mueller said politicians are "attempting to exploit the deaths of innocent victims" by supporting laws that would harm law-abiding Americans. The sheriff said he took an oath to support the Constitution, and laws preventing citizens from owning certain semi-automatic firearms and ammunition magazines would violate their rights.
"We are Americans," Mueller wrote. "We must not allow, nor shall we tolerate, the actions of criminals, no matter how heinous the crimes, to prompt politicians to enact laws that will infringe upon the liberties of responsible citizens who have broken no laws."
Meanwhile, 1200 WOAI reports that in Texas, Republican state Rep. Steve Toth plans to introduce a bill that would make it illegal to enforce in the state any federal laws restricting semi-automatic firearms or the size of gun magazines.
Toth told 1200 WOAI that the bill would also call for felony charges to be brought against federal officials who attempt to enforce any such rules.
"If a federal official comes into the state of Texas to enforce the federal executive order, that person is subject to criminal prosecution," Toth told 1200 WOAI.
The warnings could be the first wave of state officials pushing back against Congress and the White House as they take up new gun control measures in the wake of the Connecticut mass shooting. Obama and others say new rules to at least limit the size of high-capacity magazines are overdue and could save lives.
Mueller, though, told The Associated Press in a phone interview from Albany, Ore., that he felt compelled to make his views known because sheriffs have not had much of a say on the vice president's anti-gun violence task force. Mueller said his constituents have been repeatedly asking his deputies about what will happen if new gun restrictions are adopted.
"We're restricted and prohibited from enforcing all types of federal laws, including immigration laws," he said Tuesday. "It would be unreasonable for anyone to think that I would enforce a federal firearms law."
Mueller said some other sheriffs expressed support for his stance, but he does not know of any who have pledged to take similar action in regard to potential gun laws.
Linn County is largely rural and politically conservative. Fewer than 40 percent of its registered voters supported President Barack Obama in November. Mueller said most households in the county have guns.
Though the letter might add fuel to an already hot topic, Mueller said he wishes people could have a civilized discussion about the issue, rather than resort to threats and name-calling. He said he doesn't think the vice president is a bad person; he just doesn't like the path he appears to be on regarding gun laws.
"We don't have to be jerks to each other over it," he said. "If old Joe wants to come out here to Linn County, we'd have a good conversation."


Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/01/15/ore-sheriff-says-wont-enforce-new-gun-laws/#ixzz2IAFiX8eU
Report Spam   Logged

Laughter is the best medicine, unless you've got a really nasty case of syphilis, in which case penicillin is your best bet.
Lovelee
XNC2 GOD
*
Posts: 19338



« Reply #2 on: January 17, 2013, 05:40:39 am »



This is a client of the Bank of America asking why she cannot purchase what she wants to, ie a gun using the BoA card.
Report Spam   Logged

Laughter is the best medicine, unless you've got a really nasty case of syphilis, in which case penicillin is your best bet.
Newtown-Fella
Guest
« Reply #3 on: January 17, 2013, 01:34:14 pm »

5 Things You Need To Know About Biden’s Gun Control Plan

Gun control.

It’s an issue that has seen little action by the White House in a long time, mostly because of the supreme influence of the National Rifle Association (NRA) over almost all Republican members of Congress, as well as a fair number of Democratic Congresspeople.

The massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School on December 14 has changed that: President Obama has charged Vice President Joe Biden with the task of developing specific proposals for stemming gun violence. A group led by Biden has been working hard to talk to all interested parties and come up with measures backed by key law enforcement leaders.

From The Washington Post:

Vice President Biden said Thursday he sees an emerging consensus around “universal background checks” for all gun buyers and a ban on high-capacity ammunition magazines as he completes the Obama administration’s broad study of ways to curb the nation’s gun violence.

But the National Rifle Association, a participant in an afternoon meeting with Biden, strongly rejected what it called “an agenda to attack the Second Amendment” and indicated it would have nothing more to do with the vice president’s task force on gun laws.

Well, no surprises there.

Biden has announced that he will present President Obama with a package of recommendations by Tuesday, January 15. What will the VP include in his proposals? Here’s an inside look at the five issues most likely to be up for debate.

1.  Assault Weapons

The most high-profile issue on the gun issue is the question of whether of reinstate a ban on assault weapons, which was initially passed in 1994, but was allowed to expire in 2004.

If you are 21 or older, it is legal to acquire a handgun from a dealer federally licensed to sell firearms. At age 18, you can buy a rifle or a shotgun from such a dealer. In most states, you must be 21 to buy an assault weapon. However, the law varies widely from state to state, which is why a federal law is necessary.

When Adam Lanza (age 20) blasted into Sandy Hook Elementary School, he was carrying a Bushmaster AR-15 assault rifle and several high-capacity magazines. Although it is unclear where the AR-15 used by Lanza (and registered to his mother) was purchased, Walmart shoppers are very familiar with it, since it’s on sale at about 1,700 Walmart stores nationwide.

In fact, Walmart is the biggest seller of firearms and ammunition in America.

Here’s one anecdotal story of how easy it was to buy an assault weapon in Westchester, NY:

I said, “Fine, ring me up” and handed over my driver’s license so the salesperson could make a copy. Then I sat down in front of a computer, and filled out a form, answering a few basic questions: Have you ever been convicted of a crime? Do you have a substance abuse problem? About two minutes later the salesperson said, “You’re good to go.” and handed me an AR-15. It cost about $900 and it took less than five minutes. (The Daily News)

Surely Biden will suggest reinstating the ban on these weapons, whose only purpose is to murder.

2.  Limits On High-Capacity Ammunition Magazines

Along with assault weapons come high-capacity ammunition magazines, another item likely to be high on Biden’s list.

It is ridiculously easy to get a hold of these. Magazines are currently available with capacities of 100 and more, and high-capacity magazines have been used in every recent mass shooting.

Proponents of the ban say high-capacity magazines play a prominent role in mass shootings, and restricting access to them will eliminate the power of killers to slaughter as Lanza did at Sandy Hook. According to them, mass shooters usually acquire their weapons legally, so limiting access to such magazines would prevent such tragedies in the future.

Democratic Representatives Carolyn McCarthy of New York and Diana DeGette of Colorado have already reintroduced legislation to ban the sale or transfer of ammunition magazines that hold more than 10 rounds.

Will Biden take a lesson from Australia, where, after the Port Arthur massacre in Tasmania in 1996, governments across Australia resolved for all jurisdictions to introduce laws to restrict the sale of ammunition to licensed gun owners and to place limits on the quantity of ammunition that could be purchased in a given period?

I hope so.

3.  Universal Background Checks For Gun Buyers

The Washington Post reports that the White House is likely to push for universal background checks for gun buyers. Proponents suggest that although this is not a cure-all, it is probably the gun-control policy most likely to make a difference.

Background checks began in the 1990s.

Under current law, licensed firearms dealers are required to run instant background checks on all buyers. But once an individual person owns a gun, he doesn’t have to do this when he sells it. So the police can trace a crime gun to its original buyer — dealers are required to keep sales records for 20 years — but if that person says he sold it to a stranger through a classified ad, the trail goes dead.

Universal background checks would help to hold people accountable for giving guns to criminals. When the police traced a gun to the original buyer, that person could no longer simply say he didn’t have it anymore, or he could be accused of making an illegal transaction.

Another issue is that there is incomplete data in the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, or NICS, which is intended to prevent those ineligible, including felons and people who have been committed to a mental institution, from acquiring firearms. However, only 12 states regularly provide data to NICS, with another 28 doing so occasionally.

Almost everyone (except the National Rifle Association, of course) agrees on the importance of universal background checks, which are likely to be near the top of Biden’s list.

4.  Mental Health Reporting

Keeping track of those who should not own a firearm owing to their mental state is challenging. President Obama has stated that he will not simply seek new restrictions on guns and ammunition, but also that he will also look for proposals to address concerns about mental health reporting.

As noted above, NICS data is woefully incomplete. It’s also true that the nine most recent mass shootings were carried out by assailants with mental health issues, but they had not actually been committed to an institution. So there are two issues: one is to make sure that NCIS is a useful and complete database; the second one is to broaden the scope of those classified as having mental health issues.

Since 1968, federal law has prohibited the sale of guns to anyone declared mentally unfit. But first, a court has to decide someone is unfit—a very high standard.

In addition, a mentally ill person who has been banned from buying a weapon can circumvent the system by using an unlicensed dealer at a gun show, in his neighborhood or through classified ads, because no background check is required for such transactions.

5.  Impact Of Violent Images In American Culture

Just how to measure this impact is a controversial issue, but Biden is taking it seriously and on Friday Biden consulted with some leaders in the video game industry.

From Huffington Post:

Mark Fisher, the interim president of the Electronic Merchants Association, a Silicon Valley trade group, dismissed the idea that video games contribute to violent behavior and questioned whether anything could be done to regulate violent video games anyway.

Fisher noted that video games already carry voluntary age advisories in the form of ratings including “Mature” (M), which suggests that the games are “suitable for person age 17 and over,” and “Adult Only,” which signifies that the games have content that “should only be played by person 18 or over.” And he cited a recent Federal Trade Commission report asserting that video game retailers enforce the ratings “most vigorously.”

This will be a tricky one to resolve: there are many varying opinions of the influence of violent games on children, and in any case, the Supreme Court in 2011 struck down California’s ban on the sale of violent video games to minors, determining that
violent video game restrictions violated free speech rights guaranteed by the First Amendment.

Let’s hope the country is finally ready to make some changes on this crucial issue.

http://www.care2.com/causes/5-things-you-need-to-know-about-bidens-gun-control-plan.html


Report Spam   Logged
Kiwithrottlejockey
Admin Staff
XNC2 GOD
*
Posts: 32233


Having fun in the hills!


« Reply #4 on: January 17, 2013, 08:44:13 pm »


From the Los Angeles Times....

In right-wing delusions, Obama's gun control plan is monarchy

By DAVID HORSEY | 5:00AM - Wednesday, January 17, 2013



EVEN BEFORE President Obama announced his proposed gun control measures, right-wing paranoids and Republican members of Congress were raving about impeachment, incipient monarchy and civil war.

Obama’s proposal is expected to include a call for banning military-style assault weapons and high-capacity magazines, as well as strengthening the background check system for gun buyers. While Congress would have to approve those major steps, he may also lay out 19 actions he can take by executive order, such as mandating that federal agencies gather data on gun safety.

In the wake of the schoolroom massacre in Newtown, Connecticut, and many other brutal gun-related tragedies in recent months, ideas for dealing with school safety and mental illness are also said to be on Obama’s list. But most of the attention will be directed at his gun control plan, and much of it will be hotheaded and shrill.

The usual gun rights lunatics are preemptively saying it may be necessary to take up arms to stop the government from confiscating everyone’s guns. Rabid rocker Ted Nugent has declared Obama’s proposals “psychotic” and said putting Vice President Joe Biden and Attorney General Eric Holder in charge of the task force to come up with gun legislation is comparable to “hiring Jeffrey Dahmer to tell us how to take care of our children.”

Although assault weapons have been banned in the past without a loss of liberty, and no regulation Obama is considering comes close to negating the right to keep and bear arms, one congressman from Texas said he would push impeachment of the president for trying to nullify the 2nd Amendment.

Tea party hero Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky equated Obama’s proposed administrative actions with the monarchy of King George III and pledged to fight the president “tooth and nail” as if 2013 were 1776.

Clearly, the debate about guns is not going to be a reasoned discussion about how to better regulate the hundreds of millions of guns in America and keep them out of the hands of criminals and crazy people. At least on the right, it will be an exercise in paranoia and fear-mongering.

Meanwhile, in the sane state of New York, Republican and Democratic legislators have joined together to pass new gun restrictions that will ban high-capacity magazines, strictly limit ownership of assault weapons and ban their sale online. They did it quickly in a bipartisan fashion and Governor Andrew Cuomo signed the measure into law on Tuesday. So far, the Empire State shows no sign of turning into a Stalinist nightmare. Other than the significant exceptions of Illinois and Michigan, gun deaths are generally lower in states, such as California, that have strict guns laws. New York was on that list even before this newest law was passed.

Of the annual 30,000 gun deaths in the U.S., only 200 are homicides resulting from acts of self-defense, according to the FBI. Still, no one is talking about stripping away the right of anyone to own a gun to scare off a prowler or hold off a rapist (even though most people shot by guns in homes are relatives and friends). The only types of gun anyone is talking about restricting are the assault rifles that former Generals Colin Powell and Stanley McChrystal say should only be in the hands of soldiers — the kind of weapon used by a mentally unstable young man to murder first-graders in Newtown.

But folks on the right disagree with the generals. Apparently, that is the kind of weapon they think they may desperately need in the event of civil war against the would-be monarch in the White House.


http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/topoftheticket/la-na-tt-obamas-gun-control-20130115,0,6816836.story
Report Spam   Logged

If you aren't living life on the edge, you're taking up too much space! 
reality
Guest
« Reply #5 on: January 17, 2013, 08:59:46 pm »

.......heard a report that claimed there are enough guns there for every 9 out of 10 people to own one.....if they vote the same way....guns are staying Wink...

... great when the majority decides..... democracy in action....beautiful to watch Grin
Report Spam   Logged
Kiwithrottlejockey
Admin Staff
XNC2 GOD
*
Posts: 32233


Having fun in the hills!


« Reply #6 on: January 17, 2013, 10:49:44 pm »


Mark Morford

Why won’t you ever change?

By Mark Morford, SF Gate Columnist | 6:22PM - Tuesday, January 14, 2013

CONSERVATIVES? Resent change. Despise and hiss and begrudge. This is the basic definition, no? The common understanding, attitude, posture?

Sad but true: Most on the retro-conformist side of the human experiment stake their lives, careers, ideologies, religions and very genitals on the fact that Americans — nay all humans — prefer stasis, sameness, moral viscosity, the counterfeit stability of the establishment over anything resembling wild and unknowable and new.

Are they right? Sadly, they’re sort of right. Conservatives are repulsively well trained to play on a common American fear, so widespread, so easily transmitted it’s less like an idea and more like a virus: Change freaks us out. Change is the demon that makes us panic and clench and worry. Thus, the only change favored by conservatives is a change back to an old way that never really worked and no one really liked in the first place, but hey, at least we know.


You know you need to.
You know you need to.

It is a tragic condition, this fear, made all the uglier because, while millions say they do not love change, change certainly loves us. It is, famously, the only constant. The universe is in continuous flux. The planet is shifting and evolving by the second, a breathing, pulsing, living organism moving at the speed of consciousness; the human body is remaking itself by the breath and the blink, your very skin sloughing off a billion cells in the time it took you to read this paragraph. Change is not what we do; it is who we are.

Is this why we grip and cling? Because, deep down, we know it’s a quick, gorgeous, terrifying ride into the Void and it’s all we can do to pretend there’s a stable framework, a shared understanding of how it’s supposed to work?

Is this why so many attach so desperately to bogus, spiritually hollow ideologies that choke the very life out of life? Corporations, Wall Street, nationalism, sports fanaticism, traditional marriage, Bibles, hoary religions that promise salvation if we just give our thrumming souls over to angry old men who never have sex and know nothing of the feral and orgiastic divine?

It all comes to mind as I’m reading about how the NRA is right now sneering like furious, changeless trolls at the Obama administration, given how the latter is daring to propose stricter background checks on gun sales and a complete ban on all assault weapons.

Is it not amazing? Gun fanatics are furious that gun fanatics are being blamed for America’s gun fanatics problem. So cute.

The NRA, like any conservative group, reviles change. The NRA exists solely to enflame fear of the unknown, fear of Other, championing only ignorance and childish anxiety about the world. Their membership depends entirely on a lousy educational system and a visceral hatred of nuance. After all, the less intelligent and informed you are, the more dangerous the world appears, and the more you will desire a deadly weapon to compensate for what you lack in compassion and perspective. What, you calling me stupid? You calling me ignorant and racist and violent? Say it to my Glock.

The NRA, sadly, is far from alone. Did you notice the unmitigated shock and disgust the entire Republican party faced – and is still facing, every day — when it realized the American electorate had finally tipped away from its once-stable, white-male base? The timbre of the nation has permanently shifted, and the GOP is gnawing off its own fingers in panic.

Change never stops, change is delirious and godly and right, change yelps happily at our feet and begs for companionship and love. It’s when we ignore it that things turn ugly, that change becomes less of a shared wonder, and more of an annihilating force. This is the fantastic, terrifying thing about change: It will happen, whether we roll with it or not.


Resent change? Scared of everything? Begrudge the world? You need one of these!
Resent change? Scared of everything? Begrudge the world?
You need one of these!


The battle over global warming is, in sum, a battle over radical change. Conservatives, oil execs, far too many consumers believe there is only one solution to our gluttonous energy needs: we must drill for more oil, frack, puncture, rape the land evermore violently until there’s nothing left. This is the only way.

Why? Because altering our rabid consumerism, our mad consumption is impossible. Because George W. Bush was right: we’re addicted to oil. And what do you do with an uncontrollable addiction that make bloated old men hundreds of billions of dollars in profit? Why, you feed it until the planet recoils so violently that everything dies.

Is it at all true? Are we incapable of large-scale change and wild evolution? Of course not. We do it all the time. After all, it’s the nature of everything. The conservative mindset, perhaps more than any other in America save religious fundamentalism, is at odds with the nature of spirit, love, existence itself.

Does that make you feel righteous and good? Does that do a liberal, change-loving heart proud? Don’t be so sure. Don’t get too cocky. Odds are, you’re not all that different. Neither am I. No one is.

Do you know the single-most destructive, potentially fatal belief you can ever have in a love relationship? The worst thing you can ever do to your partner? No, not take her to Orlando. Not get matching “Twilight” tattoos. Not buy him a slouchy hoodie and a diamond pinky ring.

It’s to presume you know. To presume you have the other person all figured out; their likes, dislikes, responses, emotions, desires and limitations – you got them pegged, all wrapped up and contained in this nice little box.

This way misery lies. This way numbness and resentment and inertia. Thinking you know someone’s entire character is like placing them in an energetic cage; it shuts down all mystery, magic, spontaneous change and surprise. Tell someone exactly who they are, and watch love fail.

“Change or die”, says the cute innovator’s aphorism. Well, sort of. Steve Jobs, for one, famously loathed focus groups. Remember that? He said if you ask a bunch of numbed-out consumers sitting around a conference table what kind of new cell phone they want, they’ll say, “Give me the same thing I had before, but make it smaller, faster, cheaper.”

Most people, tragically, have no conception of the radical new, of true spiritual transformation, of seeing through our endless social constructs to the other side. Change as wild possibility has been drilled out of us by capitalism, gun lobbies, reality TV, Wal-Mart, politicians who have a vested interest in promoting stasis and preventing evolution, even going so far as to deny the latter exists at all.

If focus groups led the world, we’d have no iPhone. When you let numb groupthink rule technology, you get Microsoft. If you let conservativism rule, you get Mitt Romney, the Catholic Church, abstinence education, homophobia, sexism, monster trucks, the Iraq war, corporate groupthink, a sad, low-level hatred of anything that is not exactly like you. It’s not that stability or consistency are wrong. They can be quite wonderful. It’s that they’re just as much an illusion as anything else.

“Don’t ever change,” we write, naively, in our friends’ high school yearbooks. Oh my God. Are you insane? I can think of nothing I’d rather do.


Email: Mark Morford

Mark Morford on Twitter and Facebook.

http://blog.sfgate.com/morford/2013/01/15/why-wont-you-ever-change
Report Spam   Logged

If you aren't living life on the edge, you're taking up too much space! 
Kiwithrottlejockey
Admin Staff
XNC2 GOD
*
Posts: 32233


Having fun in the hills!


« Reply #7 on: March 22, 2013, 12:49:24 am »


From the Los Angeles Times....

Assault weapons ban to be dropped from Senate gun bill

By MICHAEL A. MEMOLI | 11:56AM - Tuesday, March 19, 2013

Pictures of Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting victims are displayed behind assault weapons ban advocate Senator Dianne Feinstein. — Photo: Jewel Samad/AFP/Getty Images/February 27, 2013.
Pictures of Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting victims are displayed behind assault weapons ban advocate Senator Dianne Feinstein.
 — Photo: Jewel Samad/AFP/Getty Images/February 27, 2013.


WASHINGTON — An assault weapons ban will not be included in a package of gun safety legislation that will come to the Senate floor, the measure’s champion, Senator Dianne Feinstein, said Tuesday.

The California Democrat said her party’s leaders told her that her legislation, approved last week in the Senate Judiciary Committee in a party-line vote, could be offered as an amendment to the larger bill.

Feinstein expressed disappointment that her attempt to revive the 1994 ban was dropped to clear the way for other measures. “I very much regret it. I tried my best. But my best, I guess, wasn’t good enough,” Feinstein said before heading into the Senate Democrats’ strategy luncheon.

Feinstein’s bill would prohibit the sale, import and manufacture of more than 150 weapons and ban ammunition magazines that can accept more than 10 rounds.  People who already legally own assault weapons — 3.5 million to 4 million, by one estimate — would be allowed to keep them. Sale of existing weapons would require buyers to undergo background checks.

Spurred by the December massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut, the Senate Judiciary Committee passed four gun bills. In addition to Feinstein’s assault weapons ban, the committee moved bills to expand background checks for gun buyers, crack down on gun trafficking and allocate money to improve school safety. The assault weapons ban was always seen as the most politically challenging of the recommendations produced by the Obama administration.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (Democrat-Nevada) said he was taking a pragmatic view of which measures could attract the 60 votes needed to pass the Senate and move to the House. “Her amendment, using the most optimistic numbers, has 40 votes,” he said.

The other three bills will be rolled into one bill, which could put pressure on Republicans and conservative Democrats to get on board. That bill has not been crafted yet, because senators are waiting on a possible bipartisan compromise on the background check measure.

On the floor, senators would probably have a chance to vote on an amendment that would add both a ban on assault weapons and high-capacity ammunition magazines, and then on another amendment that would add just the limits on magazine size.

Senator John Cornyn (Republican-Texas), who opposes stricter gun control, said he was not surprised Reid would drop the assault weapons ban, saying it was “primarily focused on cosmetics, not on function.”

“I also think as a political matter that Senator Reid’s loath to have a bunch of red-state Democrats running in [2014] have to vote on that. That explains the strategy,” Cornyn, a former chairman of the Senate Republican campaign committee, said.

Feinstein vowed not to give up, even floating — but immediately dismissing — the idea of placing a hold on a broader gun bill that doesn’t include the assault weapons ban. She blamed her bill’s troubles in part on the political and financial power of the main gun lobby, the National Rifle Association.

“America has to stand up,” she said. “I can’t fight the NRA. The NRA spends unlimited sums, backed by the gun manufacturers, who are craven in my view. And I don’t know what else to do other than the best we can in drafting a bill in asking for support and in enabling something to pass in the Senate.”


Staff writers Melanie Mason and Richard Simon contributed to this report.

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-assault-weapons-ban-likely-dropped-20130319,0,3033035.story
Report Spam   Logged

If you aren't living life on the edge, you're taking up too much space! 
Kiwithrottlejockey
Admin Staff
XNC2 GOD
*
Posts: 32233


Having fun in the hills!


« Reply #8 on: March 22, 2013, 12:49:41 am »


From the Los Angeles Times....

Shooters rejoice: Feinstein's assault weapons ban is dumped

By DAVID HORSEY | 5:00AM - Wednesday, March 20, 2013



THIS TIME, we dodged a bullet. Another mass shooting — the sort of bloody event that seems to happen on a weekly basis — was averted Monday when James Oliver Seevakumara chose to shoot himself before he could carry out his plot to shoot a bunch of his fellow students at the University of Central Florida.

He had pulled a gun on his roommate, who hid in a bathroom and called police. When the cops arrived, they discovered a blaring fire alarm and speculated that Seevakumara had set it off in order to lure others in his dorm out of their rooms for easy targeting. For whatever reason — perhaps the quick arrival of police — the 30-year-old business student turned a gun on himself instead of anyone else.

Seevakumara could have created plenty of carnage if he had followed through on the plan outlined in notes he left behind. Through the month of February, he had been busy amassing weapons and ammo, exercising his right to keep and bear arms — lots of arms.

No doubt, some other unhinged citizen somewhere in these great United States is even now gathering guns and pondering the time and place of the next tragedy. Actually, the odds are there are numerous future shooters gearing up for their moment of murder. Among them are the usual quiet loners, depressed students, reclusive old coots and proverbial bad seeds. What they all have in common is easy access to all the firepower they will need.

With Newtown, Connecticut; Aurora, Colorado; and all the other places of slaughter still prominent in the national psyche, Congress continues to debate a variety of bills that would restrain the market for firearms in small ways. The National Rifle Association, the gun manufacturers and most of the Republican Party are standing against almost any attempt at gun control, so it is left to Democrats — backed by public opinion — to push for change in firearms laws.

California Senator Dianne Feinstein has been especially prominent in leading the charge. Feinstein wrote the ban on assault weapons that became law in the 1990s. That law was allowed to lapse during the presidency of George W. Bush, and Feinstein has worked to get it back on the books since December’s slaughter of first-graders at Sandy Hook Elementary School.

Whether or not the assault weapons ban would make any difference is an open question. Even if it were law, it would not affect the 3.5 to 4 million military-type rifles that are already in private hands. Still, Feinstein and numerous military leaders and police chiefs argue it is patently crazy that such powerful weapons are so easily available.

Their argument apparently is going nowhere. On Tuesday, Feinstein announced that her ban would not be part of a package of gun legislation that is heading to the Senate floor. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has told her the votes just are not there and he does not want to scuttle the rest of the bill by anchoring it to assault weapons. Feinstein’s proposal will still get voted on as an amendment, but Reid predicts it will be lucky to attract 40 votes in the 100-member Senate.

Feinstein sounded a bit weary in defeat. “America has to stand up,” she said. “I can't fight the NRA. The NRA spends unlimited sums, backed by the gun manufacturers, who are craven in my view.”

The political reality is that no gun legislation will make it through the Senate and House without the OK of the NRA, and that pretty much guarantees that tomorrow’s mass shooters will continue to have no trouble acquiring the legal means to their evil ends.


http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/topoftheticket/la-na-tt-feinsteins-ban-20130319,0,4762287.story
Report Spam   Logged

If you aren't living life on the edge, you're taking up too much space! 
Kiwithrottlejockey
Admin Staff
XNC2 GOD
*
Posts: 32233


Having fun in the hills!


« Reply #9 on: March 22, 2013, 12:50:00 am »


from The Denver Post....

Three new gun bills on the books in Colorado despite its Wild West image

By LYNN BARTELS and KURTIS LEE | 1:29AM MDT - Thursday, March 21, 2013

Colorado Governor John Hickenlooper, sign three gun bills in his office at the state capitol, March, 20, 2013. — Photo: R. J. Sangosti/The Denver Post.
Colorado Governor John Hickenlooper, sign three gun bills in his office at the state capitol, March, 20, 2013.
 — Photo: R. J. Sangosti/The Denver Post.


GOVERNOR John Hickenlooper signed three gun bills into law Wednesday, eight months to the day after a gunman opened fire in an Aurora movie theater and four months after he said it was time for Colorado to have a discussion about gun control.

The bill-signing took place in his office at the state Capitol, 22 miles east of where frontiersman Buffalo Bill Cody is buried, a tourist attraction in a state noted for its Wild West and independent background.

Later in the morning, as gun-rights advocates and victims' families looked on, Hickenlooper held a news conference in the west foyer to discuss measures he believed can save lives.

One bill limits ammunition magazines to 15 rounds, another requires universal background checks, and the third charges gun customers for the cost of the checks.

Colorado now joins New York as the first states to pass stricter gun laws after the December shooting at an elementary school in Newtown, Connecticut, ignited the national debate over guns.

"This is a fairly significant set of bills that we signed today," Hickenlooper said, adding that none of the measures take anyone's guns away.

But Republicans and Second Amendment activists were livid with the Democratic governor and the Democratic-controlled legislature, saying the bills are unenforceable and unconstitutional.

"The Democrats have just handed me a sledgehammer, and I get to walk through their china shop in the 2014 election," said Dudley Brown, director of Rocky Mountain Gun Owners.

Supporters of the gun bills point to a Denver Post poll from January. Background checks for all gun sales garnered more than 80 percent support from Coloradans, and more than 60 percent said they supported limits to ammunition magazines.

Hickenlooper repudiated Republican sentiment that the bills are some grand plan from the White House or New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who started the group Mayors Against Illegal Guns.

He said he began talking to Coloradans about background checks within a few weeks after James Holmes allegedly killed 12 and injured 58 at the Aurora theater.

"I bet I had close to 100 discussions with Colorado citizens on the Eastern Plains, western mountain towns, and all up and down the Front Range," he said. "I think I can count on both hands the number of people who had a problem with it once we sat down and talked about it."

That consensus is long gone. Hundreds of Second Amendment activists flooded to the Capitol in recent weeks to testify against all seven Democratic gun bills. Two bills are dead and another two are still winding through the legislature.

"We're a libertarian, live-and-let-live kind of state," said Senator Greg Brophy, Republican-Wray. "And these laws, that just ban the common everyday rights of gun owners, go way beyond the bounds of what people in Colorado think is normal."

But others hailed the bills' passage.

Sandy and Lonnie Phillips, whose 24-year-old daughter, Jessica Ghawi, died in the Aurora theater shooting, traveled from San Antonio to see Hickenlooper sign the bills into law.

"It's a good day," Sandy said. "The state of Colorado is making great strides to save lives. Hopefully, other states will follow in this state's footsteps."

Megan Sullivan's older brother, Alex, was killed in the theater while celebrating his 27th birthday.

"My brother was killed by a person with a hundred-round magazine," she said. "He didn't have a chance."

Sullivan also referred to the Tucson mass shooting where Congresswoman Gabby Giffords was seriously injured and the gunman was tackled while switching out a large-capacity magazine.

"If it's three seconds, it's three seconds," Sullivan said. "My brother didn't have three seconds. But now other Coloradans could have that time to intervene if a gunman were shooting."

Hickenlooper made the same point.

"In certain circumstances, someone bent on destruction, even if they're slowed just for a number of seconds, that  allows others to escape," he said.

Hickenlooper said limiting magazines is an "inconvenience" for law-abiding gun owners, adding, "We don't deny that. We regret that."


Tom Sullivan, left, whose son was killed in the Aurora theater shooting, hugs Governor John Hickenlooper after he signed three gun-control bills into law Wednesday. — Photo: R. J. Sangosti/The Denver Post.
Tom Sullivan, left, whose son was killed in the Aurora theater shooting, hugs Governor John Hickenlooper
after he signed three gun-control bills into law Wednesday. — Photo: R. J. Sangosti/The Denver Post.


The owner of Colorado's largest producer of ammunition magazines, Erie-based Magpul, already had plans to leave the state should the bill become law. Magpul officials have said the move will cost hundreds of jobs and upward of $85 million in potential spending this year.

"Our moving efforts are underway. It's going to be a phased approach, and until the move is complete, we're going to continue manufacturing magazines in Colorado," said Doug Smith, Magpul's chief operating officer. "Within the next 30 days, we will manufacture our first magazine outside the state of Colorado."

Smith noted he will meet with economic developers from Nebraska, Texas and Wyoming in the coming weeks and the company is likely to have multiple locations in the future.

"This ordeal has taught us to be more diverse geographically," Smith said.

Hickenlooper also said he has instructed the Colorado Department of Public Safety to consult with the Office of the Attorney General to draft and issue to law enforcement agencies "technical guidance on how the law should be interpreted and enforced."

He said the intent of the magazine bill was never to turn law-abiding citizens into criminals, but questions have arisen, such as on provisions regarding constant possession of magazines.

As for background checks, Hickenlooper pointed out that last year, some 2,000 people who underwent a background check in Colorado were denied the right to buy a firearms, either because of a criminal record, an outstanding warrant, a restraining order or some other reason.

"People would say to me, 'Well, criminals aren't stupid. They're not going to sign up for background checks.' It turns out many criminals are stupid," he said.

Hickenlooper also referred to other bills the Democratic-controlled legislature has passed this session, including civil unions for same-sex couples and in-state tuition for illegal immigrant students.

"Each of these bills is about community in some way," he said. "This is an effort to build a better community in Colorado."


______________________________________

Signed into law

HB 1224: Limits ammunition magazines to 15 rounds.

HB 1228: Charges gun buyers for the cost of the checks.

HB 1229: Expands background checks for gun purchases.


http://www.denverpost.com/breakingnews/ci_22831085/colorado-gov-hickenlooper-signs-key-gun-control-bills
Report Spam   Logged

If you aren't living life on the edge, you're taking up too much space! 
nitpicker1
XNC2 GOD
*
Posts: 11886


Nothing sexceeds like sexcess


« Reply #10 on: March 22, 2013, 08:21:18 am »

 
NRA Poised to Scuttle Gun Legislation Most Americans Want


By Heidi Przybyla on March 21, 2013
 
http://www.businessweek.com/news/2013-03-21/nra-poised-to-scuttle-gun-legislation-most-americans-want

 Cry

too little, too late  seems to me they shoulda started in 1776.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


...Prohibition Measures

From 1845 after the rebellion of Hone Heke, the government enacted a number of laws to attempt to slow or stop the flow of muskets, gunpowder and other warlike stores into New Zealand. The first was the Arms, Gunpowder and other Warlike Stores Act. 13 Dec 1845. On 12 November 1846 the Arms Ordinance was passed. This was followed by the Gunpowder Ordinance Act August 1847. Penalties were severe with fines of 100-200 pounds for selling a musket to a native in 1848. These laws combined to put a stop to gunrunners selling muskets to Maori. To undermine the law the sellers spread rumours that it was a government plot to disarm Maori. Some chiefs however such as Tamati Ngapora of Ngati Mahuta at Mangere wanted the law passed in April 1856, to stop Maori killing each other. In June 1857 the government passed a law allowing people to have guns and powder for sporting purposes. This appears to have opened a flood of firearms into Maori communities. In November 1857, Lt Colonel Wynyard wrote to Governor Brown expressing his concern that this was allowing large quantities of weapons going to Maori, far beyond what was required for sporting purposes. He expressed concern that iwi would use the weapons to settle tribal squabbles with arms. Te Whero whero, the first Maori king, came to see to the governor at the same time and expressed his concern that so many weapons could be sold to volatile Maori. A Maori veteran of the Battle or Orakau 1864, told Members of Parliament that Maori had been collecting large quantities of weapons for years prior to the battle to protect their land against other tribes, not with the intention of fighting Europeans. After the Land Wars the government passed the Firearms Amendments Act 1869 making it illegal for any person to sell weapons to a Maori in rebellion. The only punishment was the death sentence.[18] ...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Musket_Wars#Prohibition_Measures
Report Spam   Logged

"Life might not be the party you were expecting, but you're here now, so you may as well get up and dance"
Kiwithrottlejockey
Admin Staff
XNC2 GOD
*
Posts: 32233


Having fun in the hills!


« Reply #11 on: January 05, 2016, 02:40:39 pm »


from The Washington Post....

Obama details executive action on gun restrictions

By DAVID NAKAMURA and JULIET EILPERI | 7:37PM EST - Monday, January 04, 2015

Attorney General Loretta E. Lynch and President Obama on Monday during a meeting with top law enforcement officials to discuss what executive actions he can take to curb gun violence. — Photograph: Kevin Lamarque/Reuters.
Attorney General Loretta E. Lynch and President Obama on Monday during a meeting with top law enforcement officials to discuss what
executive actions he can take to curb gun violence. — Photograph: Kevin Lamarque/Reuters.


THE Obama administration on Monday unveiled a series of new executive actions aimed at reducing gun violence and making some political headway on one of the most frustrating policy areas of President Obama’s tenure.

The package, which Obama plans to announce Tuesday, includes 10 separate provisions, White House officials said. One key provision would require more gun sellers — especially those who do business on the Internet and at gun shows — to be licensed and would force them to conduct background checks on potential buyers. Obama would devote $500 million more in federal funds to treating mental illness — a move that could require congressional approval — and require that firearms lost in transit between a manufacturer and a seller be reported to federal authorities.

At the president's direction, the FBI will begin hiring more than 230 additional examiners and other personnel to help process new background checks 24 hours a day, seven days a week. Also, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives has established a new investigation center to keep track of illegal gun trafficking online and will devote $4 million and additional personnel to enhance the National Integrated Ballistics Information Network.

“The gun lobby may be holding Congress hostage, but they can't hold America hostage. We can't accept this carnage in our communities,” Obama said in a Twitter message on Monday evening, referring to the National Rifle Association.

The president is scheduled to talk about his new policies in the East Room on Tuesday, and two days later he will participate in a town hall at George Mason University that will be televised on CNN.

Even before Obama's official announcement, however, Republicans in Congress and on the campaign trail blasted the actions, and some gun rights advocates threatened to challenge them in court.

House Speaker Paul D. Ryan (Republican-Wisconsin) issued a statement on Monday saying that even without knowing the plan's details, he thinks “the president is at minimum subverting the legislative branch, and potentially overturning its will…. This is a dangerous level of executive overreach, and the country will not stand for it.”

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Charles E. Grassley (Republican-Iowa) said Monday that he and his colleagues would “be taking a deep look at the president’s proposals, with an eye toward ensuring that the Second Amendment is preserved.”

Although modest compared with any legislation that Congress could adopt, Obama's executive actions will affect areas such as how the federal government might leverage its purchasing power to advance “safe gun” technology as well as what information federal and local law enforcement will share on individuals who are illegally trying to purchase weapons.

The president, who went over the initiatives in the Oval Office on Monday with administration officials including Attorney General Loretta E. Lynch and FBI Director James B. Comey, said inaction by Congress in the wake of several high-profile mass shootings and other gun-related violence justified his decision.

“And although it is my strong belief that for us to get our complete arm around the problem Congress needs to act, what I asked my team to do is to see what more we could do to strengthen our enforcement” to curb illegal gun sales, Obama said in brief remarks to reporters after the meeting. “And the good news is, is that these are not only recommendations that are well within my legal authority and the executive branch, but they're also ones that the overwhelming majority of the American people, including gun owners, support and believe in.”

One of the main provisions is new federal guidance requiring some occasional gun sellers to get licenses from ATF and conduct background checks on potential buyers. Rather than set a single threshold for what triggers this licensing requirement, it will be based on a mix of business activities such as whether the seller processes credit cards, rents tables at gun shows and has formal business cards.

In some cases, officials said, a person who sells a single gun could be required to get a license, though in other cases, sellers who are classified as hobbyists or collectors could still qualify for exemptions.

A recent survey of more than 2,000 gun owners by Harvard University researchers found that of those who purchased their most recent firearm, about a third did not undergo a background check.

In a conference call with reporters, Lynch said the administration could not estimate how many more people would be affected by the new licensing provisions. She said gun sales are increasingly moving online and into largely unregulated areas of the “dark Web” where illicit activities take place in hidden transactions.

“The industry is shifting and growing,” she said. “If it does stop one act of violence, this will be worth it.”

Other aspects of the president's plan aim to bolster the FBI's background-check system, including a push by the U.S. Digital Service to modernize its processing operations and a proposal to add 200 new ATF agents and investigators to bolster enforcement.

Obama will instruct federal agencies, which collectively represent the nation's largest firearms purchaser, to “explore potential ways” to promote technology that would prevent the accidental discharge or unauthorized use of a gun, according to White House officials.

Another measure will require federally licensed gun dealers to report any lost and stolen guns to the National Crime Information Center. Over the past five years, according to the White House, an average of 1,333 guns recovered in criminal investigations each year were traced back to a seller who claimed the weapon was missing but did not report it to authorities.

“This is a broad set of actions that tackles a variety of the issues related to gun violence,” said Arkadi Gerney, a senior fellow at the liberal think tank Center for American Progress, “and in combination it represents a comprehensive effort to strengthen the laws we already have on the books.”

Although the number of mass shootings in the United States has risen in recent years, overall gun violence is at lower levels than in previous decades. Obama, however, emphasized that gun deaths in the United States remain higher than in other developed countries in almost every category, including suicides.

“And although we have to be very clear that this is not going to solve every violent crime in this country, it’s not going to prevent every mass shooting, it's not going to keep every gun out of the hands of a criminal,” he said, “it will potentially save lives and spare families the pain and the extraordinary loss they’ve suffered as a consequence of a firearm getting in the hands of the wrong people.”

Obama's determination to act in his final year in office comes after he pledged last fall to make guns a political issue after a gunman killed 10 and wounded seven others at a community college in Roseburg, Oregon. The president has made public statements after at least 16 mass shootings during his presidency, including the killing of 14 people in San Bernardino, California, last month by a married couple, reportedly inspired by the Islamic State.

His administration failed to persuade lawmakers to approve tighter legislative controls on gun sales in 2013, in the wake of the December 2012 killings of 20 children at an elementary school in Newtown, Connecticut. After that, the president issued a series of 23 executive actions to tighten controls and increase safety preparations, and he added two more in subsequent years.

But the White House was moved to act again after the shootings at Umpqua Community College in Roseburg. Administration lawyers have spent months reviewing various proposals to ensure that the redefinition of what it means to be “engaged in the business” of selling firearms can withstand legal challenges.

“The law has long been fuzzy, and the transition of gun sales away from brick-and-mortar stores to gun shows and the Internet requires the administration to clarify the definition,” said Senator Chris Murphy (Democrat-Connecticut), who met with Obama along with other lawmakers on Monday. “By forcing more dealers at gun shows to run background checks, there will be less criminals that buy guns and less illegal guns sold on the streets of America.”

Dan Gross, president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, said in an interview on Monday that it was “a historic step” that would subject thousands of gun sales each day to stricter scrutiny.

One dilemma for the Obama administration would be that a legal fight could put the executive actions on hold as a court deliberates, potentially dragging out the process until Obama leaves office next January. The president's executive actions to defer the deportations of millions of undocumented immigrants, announced in 2014, have been held up in a legal battle that could head to the Supreme Court this spring.

“I wouldn't be surprised if they try,” White House press secretary Josh Earnest said when asked whether gun rights advocates would mount a legal challenge, “but the arguments we could mobilize in a court of law would be powerful and persuasive.”

Obama's plans already have resonated on the presidential campaign.

Every GOP presidential candidate who has spoken about Obama's potential actions has vowed to reverse the executive order if elected president, underscoring the fragility of any initiative that has not won congressional approval.

Speaking at a Christian bookstore Monday in Boone, Iowa, Senator Ted Cruz (Republican-Texas) called the idea “illegal and unconstitutional,” a theme echoed by several of his colleagues in recent days.

On Sunday, Senator Marco Rubio (Republican-Florida) told an audience in Raymond, New Hampshire, that Obama “has waged war on the Constitution.”

“You can pass all the gun laws in the world that you want,” he said. “It will not stop the criminals.”

But Democratic presidential front-runner Hillary Clinton applauded Obama during a campaign stop in Iowa on Monday, saying she would go even further as president, and White House officials remained confident that public opinion is on their side.

“We are dedicated to doing everything we can to get guns out of the wrong hands,” said senior Obama adviser Valerie Jarrett. “We've talked to so many gun owners who don't believe the NRA represents their views.”


Anne Gearan and Katie Zezima in Iowa contributed to this report.

• David Nakamura covers the White House. He has previously covered sports, education and city government and reported from Afghanistan, Pakistan and Japan.

• Juliet Eilperin is The Washington Post's White House bureau chief, covering domestic and foreign policy as well as the culture of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. She is the author of two books — one on sharks, and another on Congress, not to be confused with each other — and has worked for the Post since 1998.

__________________________________________________________________________

Read more on this topic:

 • Here's what Obama plans to do on gun control

 • Cruz vows to repeal any executive action on guns


https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/obama-to-unveil-new-gun-restrictions-slams-congress-for-inaction/2016/01/04/81d539e8-b2fb-11e5-a842-0feb51d1d124_story.html
Report Spam   Logged

If you aren't living life on the edge, you're taking up too much space! 
reality
Guest
« Reply #12 on: January 05, 2016, 04:48:45 pm »

Excellent...so that's  a good problem sorted...I feel so much better now  Tongue
Report Spam   Logged
Kiwithrottlejockey
Admin Staff
XNC2 GOD
*
Posts: 32233


Having fun in the hills!


« Reply #13 on: January 09, 2016, 12:32:08 pm »


from The Washington Post....

Obama said gun owners would support his new restrictions.
He was right.


By CHRISTOPHER INGRAHAM | 10:47AM EST - Friday, January 08, 2016



PRESIDENT OBAMA rolled out a package of executive actions on guns this week. The changes included clarifying rules meant to broaden the use of background checks by private sellers, allocating money for mental health treatment, and adding more staff at the FBI and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives to help enforce existing regulations.

The changes were modest in scope — experts and even the NRA agreed that their overall impact would be small. That didn't stop Obama's critics from fiercely denouncing the proposals. But the president predicted the public would be on his side. The actions would be supported by an “overwhelming majority of the American people, including gun owners,” he said on Monday.

As it turns out, he was right.

A new CNN-ORC survey of 1,000 Americans finds that the public supports Obama's plan by a 2-to-1 ratio: 67 percent of respondents favored the executive actions, while 32 percent opposed them. Strikingly, a similar share of people in gun-owning households — 63 percent — supported the measures.

Even more striking: 51 percent of Republicans support Obama's executive action on guns. When's the last time 51 percent of Republicans agreed with Obama on anything?

Consider, also, the question wording: “As you may know, this week Barack Obama announced several executive orders that change the nation's gun laws so that background checks are required for more purchases online and at gun shows, and which make it easier for the FBI to complete background checks efficiently. Overall, do you favor or oppose these changes?”

We know that attaching a politician's name to a survey question can greatly influence partisan responses to the question. In a recent YouGov polling experiment, for instance, 16 percent of Republicans agreed with the notion of universal health care when told that Obama agreed with it. When a separate group of Republicans was told instead that Donald Trump agreed with universal health care, support jumped up to 44 percent.

So the fact that 51 percent of Republicans agreed with Obama's gun actions, even when told that Obama was the one proposing them, is pretty significant.

In the end, like so many gun policy proposals — universal background checks, a federal database of gun sales, barring people with mental illness from buying guns, prohibiting gun ownership for domestic abusers, prohibiting gun sales to people on the terrorist watch list — Obama's executive actions are supported by a strong majority of the public and of gun owners.

But there's a small minority of citizens — led by the leadership of the NRA and its allies in Congress — who vehemently oppose any additional restrictions on gun access. This group of people also happens to be very vocal, and they've done a great job of convincing the media and the public that their numbers are larger than they really are.


Christopher Ingraham writes about politics, drug policy and all things data. He previously worked at the Brookings Institution and the Pew Research Center.

__________________________________________________________________________

Read more on this topic:

 • The gun lobby's con game will come to an end

 • Donald Trump's radical new proposal on guns

 • Donald Trump: ‘I will get rid of gun-free zones on schools’

 • Trump backs 2nd Amendment, calls for national concealed carry

 • VIDEO: ‘American Sniper’ widow's strong defense of gun rights

 • As Obama tries to bridge divide on guns, it seems as wide as ever

 • Meet the pro-gun rape survivor who challenged Obama on CNN

 • Why is America so hostile to gun control?


https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/01/08/obama-said-gun-owners-would-support-his-new-restrictions-he-was-right
Report Spam   Logged

If you aren't living life on the edge, you're taking up too much space! 
reality
Guest
« Reply #14 on: January 09, 2016, 12:39:07 pm »

Yes...great news that Obama has cured the gun problem...what a relief  Tongue
Report Spam   Logged

Pages: [1]   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by EzPortal
Open XNC2 Smileys
Bookmark this site! | Upgrade This Forum
SMF For Free - Create your own Forum


Powered by SMF | SMF © 2016, Simple Machines
Privacy Policy
Page created in 0.057 seconds with 13 queries.