(video removed because defective)
President Obama on Wednesday formally proposed the most expansive gun-control policies in generations and initiated 23 separate executive actions aimed at curbing the nation’s gun violence.
Obama signed executive orders and paperwork initiating immediate administrative actions, including steps to strengthen the existing background-check system to keep guns out of the hands of potentially dangerous people as well as to improve mental health and school safety programs.
No one has to pry your gun out of your “cold dead hands.” This was a long time coming and I believe it is the beginning of a comprehensive approach to a societal crisis.
The president also called on Congress to swiftly pass legislation to ban assault weapons and high-capacity ammunition magazines for civilian use and to require universal background checks for all gun buyers. Obama’s proposals include mental health and school safety measures, as well as a tough new crackdown on gun trafficking.
As a middle school counselor in the most diverse school in Fairfax County, and maybe the state, I was often the only access to a mental health professional that children and their parents could utilize. Let me say, it wasn’t enough, not even close. I would actually like to see a school psychologist included in schools, not for testing purposes, but for the health and well being of kids.
Obama’s plan also includes reinstating and strengthening the assault weapons ban, restoring a 10-round limit on ammunition magazines, getting rid of armor-piercing bullets, ending a freeze on research into gun violence and providing additional tools to prevent and prosecute gun crime. It calls on Congress to pass a $4 billion proposal to help communities keep 15,000 police officers on the streets, as well as new gun trafficking legislation that would “impose serious penalties on those who help get guns into the hands of criminals,” according to the White House fact sheet.
I don’t see these measures as being overly intrusive by President Obama. The second amendment still holds strong. Let us remember, there is no unfettered right when public safety is impacted. We will never know what could have altered the events at Sandy Hook, if anything, but enough is enough. To honor the memory of these massacred children, we must at least make a good faith effort.
Elena,
I have no issues with adding police to the schools, stricter enforcement of existing laws, especially those regarding “straw purchases”. However, we are going to have to agree to disagree with regards to the power of the state to restrict constitutional rights. I see much to be concerned about, and much that I flat-out object to, especially banning certain classes of firearms based solely on cosmetic features that have absolutely nothing to do with the operation of the firearm. I also object to the arbitrary limitations on magazine capacity, and anything that makes illegal (possession of) that which is perfectly legal today.
I would like to hear more about this ban on assault rifles before I buy into it.
So people understand my viewpoint better, I would like to describe myself. With that, I hope people who look at things from a different perspective might weigh in because I do not have a firm position.
First, I was raised around guns and occasionally go target shooting for fun using a pistol, shotgun and rifle. I made sure my own kids were exposed to guns and gun safety so they understood the destructive power guns had and that they were not toys. My kids would tell you something universal in my preaching–if I am not there, they are to leave a place if a friend or parent takes out a gun. (sorry to those who believe in conceal or open carry but I know of too many accidents and if I don’t know one’s training record, I don’t want my kids anywhere around).
Now, my concerns. What are people’s definition of “assault weapons”? The previous law was something of a joke since it attacked a gun’s cosmetic features. There are plenty of semi-auto 22 rifles out there that look like uzi’s and AK-47 yet they do no more than a traditional 22. The last time around, ATF and other groups I think said that crimes using these “cosmetic” “assault rifles” amounted to something like 1-2% of crime. If the ban covers something more than cosmetic, then one may be treading on 2nd amendment grounds.
So my specific questions at this point are (1) what real benefit is an “assault weapon ban” going to do or is it purely cosmetic and “feel good” and (2) why would someone need to have a magazine that is capable of more than 10 rounds at a time?
I know for myself, even if I had a clip that held more, I would be unlikely to load all of them. I have also seen of people who have been injured by the proverbial “empty gun.” I probably should expect some comments about making sure that we can repel invaders or even to keep the government honest but beyond that, why does one need to have one. I guess I am looking for a common, everyday reason for having a large clip.
I plan to take some time to actually read the legislation and refuse to be swayed by descriptions of the legislation by soundbite. I urge everyone to do the harder work of education rather than forming opinions by accepting carte blanche the self-serving descriptions by advocates of one position or another. It is really that important.
Clinton, thanks for sharing your personal point of view. You have asked some really valid questions. May I throw in one? Why must guns look like tommy guns if they don’t have that function?
Excellent advice to give your children, by the way. Excellent. You never know. I have 3 different friends who must have had angels watching over their kids.
By the way, I am especially hopeful that there is some ways that are included that will actually attack the problem of giving guns to deranged people but I am not sure how that can be accomplished without directly affecting privacy rights for all of us. In other words, I hope the focus on guns does not distract us from the real issue, which is that some people are going to harm others “senselessly” using any tool they can.
Does anyone remember the occasions when trucks or buses or just cars have been used to mow down people? We simply must find a constitutional way to keep some people in check as we can’t restrict every tool that can be used for violence and death. And I have no answers for that.
“I guess I am looking for a common, everyday reason for having a large clip.”
If I am facing a home invasion and the assailants have hi-cap mags, or there are multiple assailants, why should I be limited to 10-rounds or less, when my pistol was designed to hold 15 rds?
Since “military-grade” fully automatic weapons are already illegal to own by anyone without a class 3 license, and “Assault weapons ban” will most certainly be based on certain cosmetic characteristics applied to semi-automatic firearms. What has been proposed so far is “more than one of the following: pistol-grip, flash-supressor, accept detachable magazine of more than 10 rounds, or a fixed box magazine of more than 10 rounds, collapsing or folding stock, bayonet-lug”
I think what you are saying….might be because the other guy might have a bigger one. If we follow that to its logical conclusion then you might as well go over to the city museum and drag in one of those cannons.
That’s also why we have nuclear weapons sitting in various silos all over the world. Gotta have the biggest and the most. At what expense. Geez. Not to sound like Oliver Stone but when is enough enough?
I think we need to do some serious rethinking as a society.
Why do we have 30,000 gun deaths a year? why does a country like Australia not?
Thanks, Steve. I am also wondering if “universal background checks” means that I can give my son a gun as a present without a background check. How would one do it? If you can classify something as a gift, does that also create a loophole?
Will the Federal government pay for accessing the background check database by a private party or will this be another fee?
I am extremely concerned about the impact these measures will have on healthcare professionals. Now that practitioners “can” ask about guns in the home and where they are kept, they also “can” report anyone who they feel may be a danger to the “authorities”. That leaves tons of room for subjectivity. I predict this: Practitioners will be in CYA mode, will ask absolutely everyone these questions, and report them rather than risk a lawsuit should that person become violent. And in response patients will either avoid care or lie to their practitioners. I think there are ways to approach the mental-health issues involved in gun crime without turning healers into agents of government law enforcement.
They might have trouble with this one, as the “Affordable Care Act” specifically prohibits this.
@Steve Thomas
Not according to Obama.
http://phelps.donotremove.net/2013/01/obamas-new-executive-orders/
If these are the complete collection of his ideas, it does not seem that he “overreached.” Perhaps he did have some good advice.
If this guy is ok with it so far, I’m not too upset. He’s more activist than I am.
http://www.saysuncle.com/2013/01/16/barrys-list-of-executive-action/
A majority of Americans support an assault weapons ban, according to latest polls. I say we take a vote on the measure and find out who supports it and who doesn’t, even if the measure is defeated. I don’t think the House republicans have the guts to take a vote.
I just want to share that I appreciate the level of discussion on the blog right now.
Starry, don’t forget that people like Senator Reid also opposed the ban when it was expiring. It isn’t just republicans.
Ms. Elena, I have to say it was talking about the issues until someone had to bring in partisan politics into the equation. Oh well.
@Starry flights
Yes. Lets. So far, the statements coming from the House AND the Senate is that it would die.
And judging by the lack of firearms, but, more specifically, AR’s and other semi-autos, along with magazines, disappearing from inventories, I think that you might be wrong on that support.
Elena, I commend you for your point on expanding the role of the School Psychologist to include the health & welfare of the students. There is a push in the schools for reducing obesity among children, so let’s add their mental health to a concept of total Wellness for the kids.
@Ray
Adding a gym to each school would help with that inititive. We can’t afford it as a nation. That’s a lot of remodeling. At middle school PE classes are huge–40 to 50 srudents and gym time is at a premium.
High school only requires 2 years of PE. That cuts down on sharing the gym and athletic fields.
63% of Fairfax teachers do not want teachers to be armed. 64% do not object to armed guards. The survey is not complete….just under 500 teachers have been surveyed.
I wonder if anyone plans on asking pwc teachers\? Most of the time they aren’t heard anyway…thinking back to how many times they appeared before the school board and the bocs. It was like they never spoke.
Clearly they saw the needs for the school children. The needs got in the way of Clorey Steward’s blind ambition, apparently.
I guess I have to eat some crow. After reading the list of executive actions, I cannot find anything too awfully objectionable. These actions are not what Biden led us to expect and some of them have little to do with preventing future shootings, but at least they did not try to limit weapons, magazines, or ammunition by fiat.
@kelly_3406
He’s going to recommend that to the Congress, though. And use his bully pulpit to advance it. And if they pass it, he’ll sign it.
@Moon-howler
I wonder what the reaction would be in my Education class. I bet…..99% would say no. I predict 3 of us, out of a class of 27 would say yes.
But I might be wrong.
ED classes are unproven. They are mostly virgins. There might be more altruism in that sub-group than with those with classroom experience.
I wouldn’t even want the SRO officers to be the ‘armed guards.’ The SROs are a presence in the building and the community. They are in and out of the building. They could be running a kid home. They could be talking to a parent off campus. They could be down in the cafeteria eating lunch with a group of kids because that officer wants some intel….and that’s a good way to get it.
When they are doing THEIR job, they aren’t being an armed guard. If they have to leave the building, they aren’t being an armed guard.
Teachers have the same problem. You are either an armed guard or you aren’t. This isn’t a job where you can change hats a lot.
So if Teacher X who carries has the flu for 2 weeks–who arm guards the school?
Cargo, it just hit me….those who haven’t kicked around a school for a long time haven’t thought of all the reasons why it really wouldn’t work. Sorta like how the legislators never thought why they couldn’t mandate 150 minutes of PE a week.
@kelly_3406
HI Kelly, its 530 am and I just posted what I think are the points made by executive action. I didn’t see anything I thought was horrible but then again, my standards wouldnt be the same as yours.
I am glad it isn’t just me.
Now that is not to say there won’t be legislation, but one fight at a time, I guess.
I think what people don’t understand is, I HATE the NRA attitude. I don’t know that I will like every law that might be enacted. Effective laws in Washington DC might be very different than laws needed in New Mexico. I will withhold judgement on that. Meanwhile the NRA really has destroyed its brand, in my opinion.
Thanks for your honesty, BTW.
@Cargosquid
Why do you object to a bully pulpit? Isn’t that part of being prez?
@Moon-howler
That wasn’t an objection, just an observation that he is anti-rights no matter what he said here. Once a bill is presented in Congress, he will support it regardless of merit…. which he already did in his support for a new AWB.
Cargo,
You can now join company with Starry in the partisan attack corner 🙁
Kelly,
Have you seen the Sandy Hook Promise group? I wonder if they will be able to support a measured tone about comprehensive change regarding violence. I hope so.
I was telling Moon, I think that there is a black or white perspective by people on both extremes. I had some friends of my son that believed guns were the scurge of a civilized society, really looked down on the fact that we owned them (not from Virginia, think more north). They were even more horrified that my husband did target practice on our property for fun (G-d forbid).
On Thanksgiving day my hubby, son, and neighbors were out shooting. I was a little concerned that my son was going to fire the AR-15 (that is the one weapon I really don’t approve of, period) so I marched down, all dressed for company, looking quite nice if I do say so myself, but with my apron on.
Upon ensuring Eli had not fired the one weapon I take issue with, I was quite surprised when he had fired the 12 gage and it didn’t knock him on his butt. So then, as men who behave like little boys will do sometimes, they “dared” me to fire the 12 gage (little did they know I had experience firing a sawed off 10 gage!).
So, in my cute outfit, hair and make-up done for company, I did a little target practice, and much to the chagrin of those “boys”, not only did I NOT fall on my butt, but hit the target fairly accurately.
I am not anti gun, not by any measure, but I do believe as thinking advanced human beings, we can address an issue that requires change and I am open for real debate.
Kelly – of course the EO actions were limited measures well within the discretion of the Office of the President. But I’ll betcha a nickel that those who were fanning the flames that Obama was going to come confiscate all the guns pursuant to EO pumped up their campaign chests (the politicians) their ratings (the media guys) or their dues-paying members (the NRA). The problem is that, having shamelessly played to the fearful in our society, these folks are betting that the people they conned won’t remember it the next time some fraud needs to be perpetrated. They are counting on us all having short memories.
@Scout
+1 +1 I guess that is a +2.
@Cargosquid
“Not according to Obama”
To the Courts! Looks like the lawyers will be getting in on the action too.
@Elena
Starry gets to sit in that corner?! That’s a first!
Why am I there? Because I said that Obama will sign anti-rights legislation? He said that he would and he supports it. How is that partisan?
@Scout
Um… you are talking about the ENTIRETY of the media/politician class, right? Democrats and Republicans, NRA and VPC…right?
Did you put yourself in the naughty corner, Cargo? I didnt do it.
@Steve Thomas
Heh. Who do you think WROTE that monstrosity? Of course they are getting involved.
Ms. Elena, I am happy that most of the comments have been informative and issued without rancor on this important and sensitive topic. Not just on this series but in others on this blog like the one posted on the more recent one on gun show exemptions. It would be nice if all comments end up to be tempered.
I saw your comments on the 10 gauge. I shoot mainly rifles and 12 gauge. My older brother who is retired military told me a couple of years ago that he shot a 10 gauge with a special load (did not say what) and he said that he could assure me that you didn’t want to fire that setup for fun very often 🙂
10 gauge…meh.
http://smallestminority.blogspot.com/2012/01/thats-not-recoil-this-is-recoil.html
Of course, I’m a recoil wuss….. recoil hurts.
I’d shoot a 10 gauge…. once.
Maybe a few times…..
The .577 can be seen here. This vid is a perfect example of what happens when a non-gun culture meets high powered rifles. Apparently this was at a Mid-Eastern range of some sort.
At 4.24, you can see how it should be done.
http://youtu.be/wrImp-ek3bI
Compare this with the one above and you can see why the first rifle weighs 50 lbs and was increased in later models to 110lbs.
The T-Rex is very light for the caliber because its actually carried for big game.
Either way… I don’t want to shoot them.