Skip to main content

pistol with extended magazine
Extended magazines like the one
 in this pistol would be banned if
the president's proposal is approved
 by the Senate and House.
As expected, the two key recommendations on gun violence announced by President Obama today—in a feisty appearance in which he called out opponents to sensible reform—were universal background checks on anybody buying a gun from any source and a renewed ban on semi-automatic assault weapons together with a maximum limit of 10 rounds in the capacity of magazines for semi-automatic firearms—rifles, pistols and shotguns.

But those require legislative action, which, the president acknowledged, will be no easy matter to accomplish. He therefore called on Americans across the country, especially in districts where gun rights advocates are strong, to ask their representatives if they support new gun restrictions, and if not, why not. This call to action, combined with the use of the "bully pulpit" that the president is obviously preparing for in this certain-to-be-ferocious battle, marks an important change, a kind of merger between campaigning Obama and governing Obama. Huzzah to that.

But the president isn't waiting for Congress. He also took immediate action on a list of 23 items, executive orders and other matters under his purview, before he left the South Court Auditorium where the anti-gun violence measures were announced. Unlike what extremists have been saying, none of these have anything to do with the right-wing claim of "gun-grabbing." Indeed, they are extremely modest. The leading examples:

• Directing Attorney General Eric Holder to review the categories of people who are now barred from owning firearms. Currently, felons, people who have been adjudicated a danger to themselves and others because they are mentally ill and users of illegal drugs (including marijuana) cannot legally buy or possess firearms.

• Nominating B. Todd Jones, the part-time "interim acting director" of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives to be permanent director. That post has been vacant because of gun advocates' opposition to filling it since 2006.

• Directing the Centers for Disease Control to research the causes and prevention of gun violence. Since 1996, the CDC has been specifically barred from such studies.

• Launching a national safe and responsible gun ownership campaign.

Below the fold is the entire list of executive actions the president took today.

Please send an email to your member of the House of Representatives demanding s/he support President Obama's proposals for improving gun safety.

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.

Originally posted to Meteor Blades on Wed Jan 16, 2013 at 10:00 AM PST.

Also republished by Shut Down the NRA, Repeal or Amend the Second Amendment (RASA), and Daily Kos.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  typo - on on (4+ / 0-)


    you're repeating yourself in your headline.

    "Kossacks are held to a higher standard. Like Hebrew National hot dogs." - blueaardvark

    by louisev on Wed Jan 16, 2013 at 10:10:39 AM PST

  •  Its a start I guess . (7+ / 0-)

    "Drop the name-calling." Meteor Blades 2/4/11

    by indycam on Wed Jan 16, 2013 at 10:11:50 AM PST

    •  It's the start of-- (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Bensdad, walkshills, BroadBlogs, wlkx

      something else for the GOP to whine about.

      I wonder why they have been relatively quiet so far.  To date they've let the NRA carry the fight.  Surely the GOP aren't being circumspect about something important.

      I'm not sixty-two—I'm fifty-twelve!

      by Pragmatus on Wed Jan 16, 2013 at 10:19:40 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Also, violent video games for children (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        BroadBlogs, msmacgyver, greengemini

        serve the same purpose Fox News does for their parents--applying shocks to increasingly stupefying minds.

        I'm not sixty-two—I'm fifty-twelve!

        by Pragmatus on Wed Jan 16, 2013 at 10:22:53 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Violent video games aren't made for children. (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Subversive, BroadBlogs, mkoz
        •  Yeah. Here's the thing: (11+ / 0-)

          My best friend used to be the manager of a GameStop. He was adamant about not selling M-rated games to anyone under 17 without a parent there to approve, and even then he would describe in vivid detail what they were buying. The parent would usually just shrug and say "well that's what he wants" or "whatever". I don't ever recall an "I don't think so, Billy".

          The game ratings are there for a reason and some parental units couldn't care less. I think you'd have to start there. I could write a diary on this, and I probably will. Just thought I'd put it out there.

          "I chose to change facts, reality, and the meaning of words, in order to make a much larger point." - Paul Ryan John Oliver

          by SC Lib on Wed Jan 16, 2013 at 10:58:37 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  This is all irrelevant to the topic. (4+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            BroadBlogs, mkoz, nicolemm, WheninRome

            Video games and media in general have little if any influence on the level of violence in a society. Exactly the same video games and media are current in Canada as in the United States, but the Canadian murder rate and gun crime rates are a fraction of what they are to the south. And have you ever seen Japanese video games?

            Unless you can explain this anomaly, you have no business suggesting that violent video games have anything to do with this topic. That they do may be a "gut feeling," but remember, the gut is full of sh*t.

            "They smash your face in, and say you were always ugly." (Solzhenitsyn)

            by sagesource on Wed Jan 16, 2013 at 11:12:25 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  maybe, and maybe not (3+ / 0-)

              but certainly they must be one of the components in this very violent society. Fact is, almost every aspects of American society and entertainment trade on violence, from the language used by broadcasters to describe things like daily financial activity to the viciousness of professional football.

              One place to start making the society more civil is to watch what you (generic, general, not you sagesource) say and how you say it.

              Listen to yourselves for a while, then do some self-retraining. Comments on this board would be a good place to start.

              We are often so identified with whatever thoughts we may be having that we don’t realize the thoughts are a commentary on reality, and not reality itself. -- Gangaji

              by Mnemosyne on Wed Jan 16, 2013 at 11:16:59 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

            •  They made it part of the topic (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              nicolemm, greengemini

              Do I believe violent games are the problem? Hell no. If that was the case I'd probably be a multiple-murderer who runs over people and slaps prostitutes around on a daily basis.

              It's more symptom than cause. I don't think we'd have the super-violent games without the gun culture in this country. Or at least not the same super-violent games. I think Mortal Kombat would have happened regardless.

              And yes, I have seen some of the Japanese games. They're fucked up in an entirely different way.

              "I chose to change facts, reality, and the meaning of words, in order to make a much larger point." - Paul Ryan John Oliver

              by SC Lib on Wed Jan 16, 2013 at 11:29:39 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

          •  A diary on this would be a good idea. n/t (0+ / 0-)

            Don't tell me what you believe, show me what you do and I will tell you what you believe.

            by Meteor Blades on Wed Jan 16, 2013 at 03:29:03 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

        •  Other countries have the same video games yet (0+ / 0-)

          with proper gun regulation they don't have a fraction of the deaths. As for the video games while I am appalled at the level of violence and deadening of reaction it does indicate any connection because these minds seek out what feeds thier own thinking processes.In a similar manner being sexually abused DOES NOT indicate that the abused will go out and commit the same crime despite the stigma against them. The %ages are the same in the abused population and the unabused population. FOX news hypes up the true believers  who would believe regardless of whether they added thier idiotic story lines... they are selling what they want to buy.

          Fear is the Mind Killer...

          by boophus on Wed Jan 16, 2013 at 11:54:36 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  Much ado (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      annecros

      List of non-actions this White House will take to again sweep the issue under the rug:

      Release the memo's!
      Review (non)actions!
      Publish a letter!
      Appoint someone to a post I left vacant thru my entire first term!

      That'll show'em!

      But when we had the chance to renew the Brady Bill -- let it expire!

      •  As noted, it is a start (8+ / 0-)

        and a push to the topic to maybe get it unfrozen.

        Put it this way, if action were to happen, this is what the beginning of it would look like.

        Pretty pleased to see something, personally.

        Hay hombres que luchan un dia, y son buenos Hay otros que luchan un año, y son mejores Hay quienes luchan muchos años, y son muy buenos. Pero hay los que luchan toda la vida. Esos son los imprescendibles.

        by Mindful Nature on Wed Jan 16, 2013 at 10:45:18 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  This is pretty much the limit of what (11+ / 0-)

        the President can do without new laws. Would you prefer him to be the Constitution-shredding tyrant God emperor that the Rabid Right pretends he is?

        America—We built that!

        by Mokurai on Wed Jan 16, 2013 at 10:54:11 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  How does the president pass a bill? (4+ / 0-)

        President: executive branch.
        House, Senate: legislative branch.

        Ever heard of the separation of powers?

        "They smash your face in, and say you were always ugly." (Solzhenitsyn)

        by sagesource on Wed Jan 16, 2013 at 11:13:35 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Yours is exactly the attitude making meaningful (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        greengemini, wlkx

        gains so difficult.  "Yeah, yeah yeah...nothing's gonna happen."

        What has to happen now is for the public - that includes you and me and millions of others - to get off our cynical lazy asses and support our President long and loud...for as long as it takes... to get this outrageous gun violence situation under control.

        Now is a golden opportunity.  IF we take it and own it.

        To expect "this White House" to do all the work and fix what is OUR problem is ludicrous.  It's beyond the Executive Power. President Obama is providing leadership right now; it requires millions of us to step up, work together and see that these things get done in the face of fierce opposition.

        No excuses.  It is our job now.

        "Evil is a lack of empathy, a total incapacity to feel with their fellow man." - Capt. Gilbert,Psychiatrist, at the end of Nuremberg trials.

        by 417els on Wed Jan 16, 2013 at 11:54:51 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Nothings gonna happen when (0+ / 0-)

          you support meaningless efforts from powerless puppets who are only interested in sweeping things under the rug ,,

          but you go ahead and bet on the guy who overturned RONALD REAGAN on guns in national parks & rolled over on LETTING THE BRADY GUN BILL expire

          Facts won't matter to the Obama-sycophants any more than they do with the teabaggers

          •  So, do you have a solution? (0+ / 0-)

            What do you think will make things happen?

            I'm not betting on President Obama.  I am betting on the power of the American people - IF we/they are FINALLY fed up enough to put in whatever MASSIVE EFFORT it takes, for however long it takes, to gain the upper hand on this country's insane acceptance of gun violence.

            I am not an Obama-sycophant.  I, like you, am disgusted with guns in national parks and expiration of the Brady Bill...along with many other things that I consider to be failures on his part.  But to allow these disappointments to negate all successes, both past and potential future victories...to cynically dismiss acts of leadership when they do arise?  Well, I see that as defeatist and playing right into the hands of repulsive individuals whose intent is to remake our entire society into their own repulsive, ignorant and repressive image.

            If you have constructive ideas on how to go about dealing with the creeps trying to force their destructive, violent will on us all, please put them out here. I'm not being glib nor confrontational, Chi Xpat.  This issue needs all the civilized discussion it can get.

            "Evil is a lack of empathy, a total incapacity to feel with their fellow man." - Capt. Gilbert,Psychiatrist, at the end of Nuremberg trials.

            by 417els on Wed Jan 16, 2013 at 07:25:27 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

    •  Why don't people get that NRA only cares about $ (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      dannyinla

      Gun sales is their job. They don't care about people's well-being, protecting their homes and family, hunters. Just gun sales.

      And they will use any tragedy to boost those sales.

  •  I believe the NRA response is "NOOOOOOOO" (8+ / 0-)

    And for them, I have a nice, concise response:

    I don't blame Christians. I blame Stupid. Which sadly is a much more popular religion these days.

    by detroitmechworks on Wed Jan 16, 2013 at 10:15:48 AM PST

  •  Can we drug test everyone seeking to purchase guns (4+ / 0-)

    "If the past sits in judgment on the present, the future will be lost." Winston Churchill

    by Kvetchnrelease on Wed Jan 16, 2013 at 10:17:21 AM PST

  •  Those suggestions will never work. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    DefendOurConstitution

    They make too much sense.  Therefore, they will be opposed even the more forcefully.
    Actually, though, - no sarcasm-

    14. Issue a Presidential Memorandum directing the Centers for Disease Control to research the causes and prevention of gun violence.
    Wasn't the CDC already barred by Congress from doing something similar not too long ago?  And, a lot of these items include the requirement for that dirty of all words "expenditures".  The Repugs wouldn't even pay for Sandy relief.  To expect anything but agressive obstructionism on many of these line items is unrealistic.  
    Positive side: It will be very costly for the Repugs, in purple and blue states, to continue defending the NRA on this one.  Is that part of the strategy?

    The third-rate mind is only happy when it is thinking with the majority. The second-rate mind is only happy when it is thinking with the minority. The first-rate mind is only happy when it is thinking. A. A. Milne

    by Memory Corrupted on Wed Jan 16, 2013 at 10:18:21 AM PST

    •  No. CDC grantees were prohibited from (6+ / 0-)

      lobbying on the gun issue. Not at all the same thing as prohibiting research.

      Non enim propter gloriam, diuicias aut honores pugnamus set propter libertatem solummodo quam Nemo bonus nisi simul cum vita amittit. -Declaration of Arbroath

      by Robobagpiper on Wed Jan 16, 2013 at 10:22:53 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I heard it diffently (8+ / 0-)

        on NPR. That the CDC was prohibited from spending funds on research that might lead to gun control. It was nuanced but pretty much if any of the research identified issues that might lead to legislation then it couldn't be funded - which pretty much banned CDC research on injuries from guns. Just because the facts lead to safety laws doesn't mean it's lobbying.  
        It is twisted thinking.

        I'm pretty tired of being told what I care about.

        by hulibow on Wed Jan 16, 2013 at 10:31:13 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  the "No" in your comment is simply incorrect... (6+ / 0-)

        ...and "lobbying" is a poor word choice.

        Congress prohibited federal funds from being used to promote or advocate for gun control.

        and...

        CDC was specifically prohibited from conducting research on the issues involving guns.

        Both prohibitions were effected.

        Cheers.

        •  Not true, no matter how much you repeat it. (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          dewley notid, rockhound

          In 1996, to express its displeasure with politically motivated, scientifically sloppy studies by Arthur Kellerman and others, Congress stripped the amount of the budget the CDC spent on gun research the previous year, and reallocated it to traumatic brain research. Language was also passed, stating: "None of the funds made available for injury prevention and control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention may be used to advocate or promote gun control."

          No ban on funding research ever occurred. CDC did reduce funding for such. Whether you want to call that "a chilling effect" or "the message that political junk science is unacceptable" is up to you.

          The claim that the CDC (whose grantees are as unqualified to study gun violence as it is global warming - the former is a job for criminologists).

          Just as recently as 2009, CDC scientists released a "sweeping" study showing there was no correlation between gun control and reducing violence. Where, again, is the ban on funding and research?

          Non enim propter gloriam, diuicias aut honores pugnamus set propter libertatem solummodo quam Nemo bonus nisi simul cum vita amittit. -Declaration of Arbroath

          by Robobagpiper on Wed Jan 16, 2013 at 12:00:12 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  you're on the wrong side o' parsing with this... (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            wlkx

            ...as this fresh link explains well.

            As far as this part of your comment:

            The claim that the CDC (whose grantees are as unqualified to study gun violence as it is global warming - the former is a job for criminologists).
            That doesn't make a whole lotta sense as written. Tho' if you're just trying to say that epidemiologists are less qualified to study population morbidity and mortality than are criminologists, well, that would seem to be an
            uninformed opinion.

            Cheers.

            •  Just speaks to my need for an editor. (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              KenBee, dewley notid, rockhound

              I abandoned that paragraph to look up a hunch about studies conducted by the CDC during the period of the alleged ban, and wrote the final paragraph and hit "post" before either finishing or deleting the prior one.

              Epidemiologists are poorly qualified, however, to study criminal behavior, and account for false negatives about such in survey responses as regards criminal conduct. If you're conducting studies on the supposed risks of gun ownership, and you don't know correctly measure gun ownership rates in control groups, you're not qualified to do the study.

              Just as biologists, while not qualified to study global warming itself, may provide useful information in its impacts on biological systems; epidemiologists and medical professionals may provide useful studies on the effects of violence, or the relationship between mental health and criminal proclivity, but they are working well outside their field when it comes to broader issues of criminal conduct.

              Scientists who insist on working outside their fields should immediately be suspect of either political motivation or whackadoodlery. People encouraging scientists to make pronouncements outside their field should be similarly suspect. This sort of thing is a job for the DOJ's Bureau of Crime Statistics. That it needs to be stated that criminal violence is not a disease shows how deeply political the motivation to get doctors into the mix is.

              Non enim propter gloriam, diuicias aut honores pugnamus set propter libertatem solummodo quam Nemo bonus nisi simul cum vita amittit. -Declaration of Arbroath

              by Robobagpiper on Wed Jan 16, 2013 at 12:28:37 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  much of your above comment is kinda... (0+ / 0-)

                ...diversionary, isn't it?

                Epidemiologists generally don't study criminal behavior or criminal conduct. They are statistics folks with a focus on studying epidemics - and more generally morbidity and mortality in populations.

                Gun injuries somehow don't qualify as morbidity and mortality?

                Note - it's not all about disease. For instance, the gun study money was shifted to traumatic injuries, another non-disease source of morbidity and mortality that the CDC studies itself and through partner research entities - the CDC also funds traumatic injury -related implementation programs in state health departments.

                I'm glad that Obama has stepped into this situation, 'cause we're more likely to see that sorta support structure evolve with studies and implementation programs concerning the effects of guns.

                Whackadoodlery is a great word, and could be applied to your proposition that epidemiologists are unqualified to study the health effects of anything that creates a health effect.

                Cheers.

    •  It will be very costly also... (3+ / 0-)

      for Dems to continue defending the now certifiably insane NRA...even red-state Dems.

      "Show up. Pay attention. Tell the truth. And don't be attached to the results." -- Angeles Arrien

      by Sybil Liberty on Wed Jan 16, 2013 at 10:24:33 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I sure hope so. n/t (0+ / 0-)

        "The most potent weapon in the hands of the oppressor is the mind of the oppressed." ~ Steven Biko

        by Marjmar on Wed Jan 16, 2013 at 10:39:54 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  I don't think so, which is why I called out (0+ / 0-)

        purple and blue states.  There are a lot of people who really believe the heinous immoral biliousness that spews from the maws of the NRA, their sycophants and their surrogates.  It would be politically costly for representatives in concentrations of those people (i.e. red states) to oppose them.

        The third-rate mind is only happy when it is thinking with the majority. The second-rate mind is only happy when it is thinking with the minority. The first-rate mind is only happy when it is thinking. A. A. Milne

        by Memory Corrupted on Wed Jan 16, 2013 at 11:01:33 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  I personally know two people who have (0+ / 0-)

          cancelled their NRA memberships since LaPierre "answered" the massacre of those wee small children in CT. (granted, I live in a blue state)

          But I believe Biden was right when he said the Newtown massacres 'changed everything'. It starts with us demanding gun control in this country, and there are 20 sets of grieving parents who aren't likely to let us forget.  

          "Show up. Pay attention. Tell the truth. And don't be attached to the results." -- Angeles Arrien

          by Sybil Liberty on Wed Jan 16, 2013 at 11:13:54 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Fingers crossed. Although permanent change (0+ / 0-)

            is rare, it usually rises from some seminal moment.  Unfortunately evil never dies, it just rises to try again.

            The third-rate mind is only happy when it is thinking with the majority. The second-rate mind is only happy when it is thinking with the minority. The first-rate mind is only happy when it is thinking. A. A. Milne

            by Memory Corrupted on Wed Jan 16, 2013 at 11:44:12 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

  •  There Must Be a Mistake (24+ / 0-)

    According to my Facebook, Obama was going to take away everyone's gun today? Did he just forget to mention that, because it was like a sure thing...according to my Facebook friends...

    And he still failed to talk about the video game scourge ravaging our nation....

  •  Will do and the NRA can go to hell as now (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Vetwife, DefendOurConstitution

    it's personal considering I often go to a place (called the Crack Fox) less than 4 square blocks away (and the only other place I go down in St Louis is less than 2 miles away)  to see live shows/performances.  Even worse, both Carrie (a bartender at the Crack Fox) and Ashley (another bartender and also performs under the sage name Priscilla Pincushion) were probably both there at the Crack Fox when it happened and I can only imagine how they must have felt.

    You have watched Faux News, now lose 2d10 SAN.

    by Throw The Bums Out on Wed Jan 16, 2013 at 10:21:34 AM PST

  •  In Waynes Wurld, guns and the mentally impaired... (4+ / 0-)

    I'm glad the NRA thinks the issue is not to sell guns the mentally unbalanced...
    unfortunately, the NRA thinks the only indicator you are unbalanced is if you don't want to buy a gun... so of course it is OK to sell to anyone who wants a gun.  
    QED

    Most others see it the other way around.

    I prefer Groucho's rule -- "I would not join a club that would have me as a member..." (clearly he's a Marxist)

    "Post-hoc ergo proctor hoc" a logical fallacy, but to conservatives a philosophy

    by learn on Wed Jan 16, 2013 at 10:24:59 AM PST

    •  Perfect sig line !!! (0+ / 0-)

      I think that Republicanism is revealing itself as a personality disorder, not so much an ideology." -- Naomi Klein

      by AllanTBG on Wed Jan 16, 2013 at 10:36:38 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  If you like that, and your own sig line (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Naranjadia, AllanTBG, bewild

        how about

        The modern Conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness.
        John Kenneth Galbraith

        or

        Everything for ourselves, and nothing for other people, seems in every age of the world, to be the vile maxim of the masters of mankind.
        Adam Smith, Wealth of Nations (Note, not Wealth of Individuals)

        or

        It is very difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on his not understanding it.
        Sinclair Lewis, I, Candidate for Governor, and How I Got Licked

        America—We built that!

        by Mokurai on Wed Jan 16, 2013 at 11:05:46 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Those are each in the list ! (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          bewild

          As are:

          Conservatives: "Ravenous predators masquerading as a political party of small government, fiscal restraint and moral piety." –Bill Moyers
          Newt's not a conservative. It's just that conservatives assume that someone so mean and hateful has to be one of their true believers and not just an awful person. (Inland on Kos)
          Modern Conservatism isn't simply about them owning as much as possible; it's also about breaking anything they can't own. - ontheleftcoast
          "Liberals feel unworthy of their possessions. Conservatives feel they deserve everything they've stolen." Mort Sahl
          "Liberalism is trust of the people tempered by prudence; Conservatism is distrust of the people, tempered by fear." Wm. Gladstone
          "Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid, it is true that most stupid people are conservative." John Stuart Mill

          I think that Republicanism is revealing itself as a personality disorder, not so much an ideology." -- Naomi Klein

          by AllanTBG on Wed Jan 16, 2013 at 12:21:40 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  I'd like to see mandatory psych evaluations (0+ / 0-)

      as part of the background check, say three half-hour visits at least a week apart.  That was required of me (as standard practice by health insurance companies) to get my bariatric surgery, so I don't see why that would be an issue for someone getting a gun permit.  Making this mandatory would help to remove the stigma of receiving psychiatric help, so that people don't refuse to get counseling because they want to be able to buy guns.  And the shrink visits really ought to be covered under Obamacare.

      Are you a Green who has difficulty telling Democrats and Republicans apart? Well, I have difficulty telling Greens and Maoists apart.

      by Subversive on Thu Jan 17, 2013 at 06:45:38 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Yessir, Mr. President! (2+ / 0-)

    "Show up. Pay attention. Tell the truth. And don't be attached to the results." -- Angeles Arrien

    by Sybil Liberty on Wed Jan 16, 2013 at 10:25:02 AM PST

  •  All seems reasonable and I support it (7+ / 0-)
    ...dangerous people are not slipping through the cracks
    But defining "dangerous" is a problem.

    But what are "school resource officers"?

    Daily Kos an oasis of truth. Truth that leads to action.

    by Shockwave on Wed Jan 16, 2013 at 10:25:06 AM PST

  •  No consensus, even here (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    mrblifil, sagesource

    I just took a spin through the 300 comments on the press conference thread below.

    Even here in this nest of godless liberal tyrants, we had gun defenders.  And then the other extreme: 'More cops?  We don't need no stinking more cops!  They are an occupying force attacking Occupy and protecting corporate slave-holders! And have you seen THEIR weaponry???'

    It's like the NRA argument stood on its sort-of head.

    They arm against imaginary Hitler and his cop-military minions ... we (many) would arm against ... what again?  

    •  A worthy point in discussing gun violence... (5+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      ranger995, rivercard, LinSea, 417els, bewild

      Reduce the legal amount of force for policing. Non-violent protests should not be countered with violent police policies.

      Much of the police firepower comes from "homeland security" funds due to the terrorist attacks of 2001. There simply is no reason the police need to protect the homeland from democracy and free speech.

      This better be good. Because it is not going away.

      by DerAmi on Wed Jan 16, 2013 at 10:33:14 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  The number of cops would not have any effect (8+ / 0-)

      on what happened at Occupy, that is a behavioral issue. It certainly needs to be addressed. The police should view the citizenry as the people they are serving, not their enemies.

      More police would, however, have a positive effect on things like response time, and the backlog of crime investigation.

      "If you don't sin, then Jesus died for nothing!" (on a sign at a Mardi Gras parade in New Orleans)

      by ranger995 on Wed Jan 16, 2013 at 10:33:31 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  One of the big reasons I love Tucson is the cops (5+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        ranger995, 417els, wlkx, KenBee, rockhound

        for the most part they are great people.  Polite, easygoing though I have met a couple exceptions....

        And the polar opposite of Maricopa County just a few miles away....

        It really does come from the top.

        Vaya con Dios Don Alejo
        I want to die a slave to principles. Not to men.
        Emiliano Zapata

        by buddabelly on Wed Jan 16, 2013 at 10:49:39 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  Repeal the 2nd Amendment! (3+ / 0-)

    Or put the idea on the table, anyway.

    Don't go negotiating with a carrot... instead bring a bucket of manure.

    This better be good. Because it is not going away.

    by DerAmi on Wed Jan 16, 2013 at 10:25:18 AM PST

  •  If you've got a minute, call or write to your (4+ / 0-)

    elected representatives. I read or heard something earlier this week saying that the ratio of both donations and representative contacts is something like 4:1 gun rights:gun control. FWIW...

    Conservatives seem to believe that the rich will work harder if we give them more, and the poor will work harder if we give them less. E.J. Dionne

    by blueyescryinintherain on Wed Jan 16, 2013 at 10:26:02 AM PST

    •  Link in post above for House member, I sent to my (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      blueyescryinintherain

      Rep (perhaps soon to be Senator) Ed Markey.  He will support this anyway (as will my other Senators Kerry & Warren), but the key is to keep bombarding (pun intended) all of our Congresscritters (even the ones that agree with us) so that they can hopefully keep/have sufficient intestinal fortitude when it comes to watering down everything that was proposed.

      Then they came for me - and by that time there was nobody left to speak up.

      by DefendOurConstitution on Wed Jan 16, 2013 at 10:31:53 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Yes, write your elected employees (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      blueyescryinintherain

      and let them know what you expect of them in the performance of their job duties.  

      Give them a performance review, too.

      All knowledge is worth having. Check out OctopodiCon to support steampunk learning and fun. Also, on DKos, check out the Itzl Alert Network.

      by Noddy on Wed Jan 16, 2013 at 10:38:02 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Thanks for the (great as usual) post Meteor Blades (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Hey338Too

    Then they came for me - and by that time there was nobody left to speak up.

    by DefendOurConstitution on Wed Jan 16, 2013 at 10:26:24 AM PST

  •  The list is very reasonable. (3+ / 0-)

    The picture you show--of the extended magazine--illustrates the overkill available.
    One handgun I own has a 10-round magazine that extends the grip to a length that works for a slightly broader hand like my own. But the same thing could be accomplished in a 7-round magazine with a 3-round plug in place.

    "There is just one way to save yourself, and that's to get together and work and fight for everybody." ---Woody Guthrie (quoted by Jim Hightower in The Progressive Populist April 1, 2012, p3)

    by CitizenJoe on Wed Jan 16, 2013 at 10:26:38 AM PST

    •  The picture is misleading (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      buddabelly

      Many pistols (like the gun in the photo) have standard magazines (i.e., non-extended magazines) that hold more than ten rounds. Those standard magazines would be banned, too.

      •  and that is where I have the problem, truly (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Alexandre

        oversize magazines as pictured I would be fine with banning if standard size magazines were not altered.  the arbitrary 10 is silly imo.  I might even agree to 20 as that would cover almost all handguns and 20 could be a reasonable compromise.

        Vaya con Dios Don Alejo
        I want to die a slave to principles. Not to men.
        Emiliano Zapata

        by buddabelly on Wed Jan 16, 2013 at 10:58:41 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Magazines are the cheapest part of the gun. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Vote4Obamain2012

          Stamped metal and a spring.

          It shouldn't be a huge burden for people to purchase ones that hold fewer than 10 rounds.

          Any chosen number is going to be arbitrary.

          •  handguns have magazines ranging from 7-17 (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            dewley notid, bewild

            and no one at all says that a magazine as pictured is normal for the gun.

            Most often they are range toys as they tend to malfunction,jam and stovepipe.....

            That is why I think that 20, also arbitrary as you point out, but a number that covers almost every handgun on the market, would be much easier to pass and maybe not hurt us as much electorally ......... 10 round max capacity hits a whole lot of people who dont own Modern Sporting Rifles......

            ..... Plus, it is much less of a restriction for rifles that are very rarely used in crimes anyway.....

            Vaya con Dios Don Alejo
            I want to die a slave to principles. Not to men.
            Emiliano Zapata

            by buddabelly on Wed Jan 16, 2013 at 02:25:35 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

  •  It was... (0+ / 0-)

    ..my understanding the NRA always made sure anybody on a terrorist watch list could still buy a gun.

    Has this idiocy been addressed?  Or am I dealing in faulty information?

    I'm worse at what I do best/ And for this gift I feel blessed. - Kurt Cobain

    by wyvern on Wed Jan 16, 2013 at 10:27:13 AM PST

    •  I have read similar (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      MPociask

      that being on the "terrorist watch list" (whatever that is, whoever keeps it, and whoever is on it) does not block you from owning a gun or buying ammo. In other words, you may not be able to fly from New York to Chicago in a commercial airliner because you're flagged on the "Do Not Fly" list, but you can buy an AR-15 and 1000s of rounds of ammunition.

      I don't know whether the NRA had any direct involvement in designing that -- or whether the "terrorist watch list" was invented after 9/11, and was designed to deal with airplane hijackings, and no one thought to try to amend the gun-buying statute because Muslim Terrrists weren't showing much interest in buying guns.

      •  I would.. (0+ / 0-)

        ..assume Homeland Security is responsible for any terrorist watch list.

        I remember Jon Stewart once being up in arms because people on the terrorist watch list are not forbade the purchase of guns.

         I am just saying surely this insanity has been addressed.  If not today, then in the recent past.

        I'm worse at what I do best/ And for this gift I feel blessed. - Kurt Cobain

        by wyvern on Wed Jan 16, 2013 at 10:42:39 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  Terminology and framing (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ranger995, AllanTBG, MPociask, Noddy

    In your post above you use the terms "gun rights" and "gun rights advocates" in referring to the opposition. It is also common to talk about "gun restrictions." The discussion basically gets framed in terms of

    gun rights vs. gun restrictions.

    People like their rights and people don't like to be restricted. Those of us that believe is sane, reasonable, responsbile regulation of dangerous weaponry are already a couple points down when it is framed like that.

    Most of us have no desire to restrict anyones right to own a gun. What we do want to do is save lives and we want to do that by creating reasonable, responsible regulations of dangerous weapons.

    This battle is not about gun rights. It is about dangerous weapons or weaponry (to broaden the category to include things like high capacity magazines).

    The opposition are gun advocates. Most gun advocates agree with us on most of these reasonable, responsible regulations being proposed.

    The opposition are the fanatics at the NRA and GOA and want to either take no action to save lives or advocate actions that would further endanger people by enlarging and expanding the proliferation of dangerous weaponry in our nation.

    We are not fighting gun rights adovcates nor are we working against peoples gun rights.

    We are tring to regulate dangerous weaponry and fighting against fanatics who want weapons to proliferate in our communities.

    "Do what you can with what you have where you are." - Teddy Roosevelt

    by Andrew C White on Wed Jan 16, 2013 at 10:28:51 AM PST

  •  Off Election Courage is Needed (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    MKDAWUSS, tytalus, 417els

    This is where Republicans tend to clean up.   With an election under our belt, many democrats will wait until the next election to make their voices heard.

    Now is the time to rattle your sabres.   Tell congressman who are with you that your donations are dependant upon how they act.

    Let waivering politicians know that you'll only back them or work for them if they back this kind of policy.

    Send email.  Speak on the phone.  Go to offices.  Post on your facebook or their facebook.  

    This is every bit of a campaign that an election cycle is.    And if you want it, you better fight for it.

    Gandhi's Seven Sins: Wealth without work; Pleasure without conscience; Knowledge without character; Commerce without morality; Science without humanity; Worship without sacrifice; Politics without principle

    by Chris Reeves on Wed Jan 16, 2013 at 10:29:21 AM PST

  •  The executive actions relating (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ranger995, mrblifil, Glen The Plumber

    to authorizing research on gun violence should actually do something to undercut one of the NRA's initiatives. At the very least it will give them indigestion.

  •  it was an excellent speech ! (6+ / 0-)

    very proud today of Obama and Biden. This is the America I am fighting for. They also made clear that "This will not happen unless the American people demand it."

  •  Users of Marijuana? (6+ / 0-)

    I did not know that.

    I'm more worried about Big Pharma's molecules popping people's brains than cannabinoids, but Reefer Madness has quite the shelf-life.

    The Aggressively Ignorant Caucus is getting aggressively ignorant again.

    by Anthony Page aka SecondComing on Wed Jan 16, 2013 at 10:34:23 AM PST

  •  Armed Guards needed at schools (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    MKDAWUSS

    1) For the sake of the children, people need to look at the full problem.

    2) The pump shotgun used by hunters is more deadly than the assault rifles at ranges of 25 yards or less --- and is highly concealable if the barrel and stock are sawed off.

    3) The schools have been vulnerable to massacres for over 100 years --but it is only recently that those massacres have been occurring.  I don't know all the reasons why but the schools need better defense.

    4) Even if all guns were banned, the schools are vulnerable to firebombs from gasoline.  Instructions for making improvised explosives are available on the internet.  If someone is willing to die he can kill a lot of people.

    5) Plus the government is not banning the est 15 million assault rifles already out there.Because it would have to pay for them, per the Fifth Amendment taking clause.

    6) A recent GAO report noted that the Federal Protective Service employs 15,000 armed guards under contract from private security firms to protect 2000+ federal offices at a cost of $1 billion per year.   With about $1 Trillion per year being spent on "Defense", Homeland Security, and federal law enforcement, why can't the schools be protected?

    http://media.washingtonpost.com/...

    •  Fine - let gun owner pay for it (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Hey338Too, pistolSO, S F Hippie

      We're apparently so broke that our Social Security benefits are going to be reduced.  

      I'm not a gun nut and I don't support the NRA.  I don't think my tax dollars should pay for guards in schools so gun fetishists can run around with huge clips and assault weapons.  Tax the hell out of the guns and ammo and put that revenue into school guards (which didn't stop Columbine or VA Tech).  

      Cigarettes are already heavily taxed to pay for an array of health measures.  Let the gun owners pay for this.

      you don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows

      by Dem Beans on Wed Jan 16, 2013 at 10:51:19 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  You can't tax a Constitutional right....same (0+ / 0-)

        principle applies to charging people for Voter IDs.

        •  You pay sales taxes on guns. (0+ / 0-)

          A gun and ammo are objects, they aren't in and of themselves 'constitutional rights'.  

          you don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows

          by Dem Beans on Wed Jan 16, 2013 at 12:14:52 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Sales tax is not applied because it's a gun. It (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            rockhound, dewley notid

            is applied to anything the gun shop sells and is collected by the seller to later pay his own taxes.  

            The government can't specifically put a price on a constitutional right that would hinder even one law abiding citizen from using that right because of that cost.  The government doesn't have to buy the gun for you or give you one....but they can't charge you to own one either.

            Just the same in Voter ID.  The government don't have to pay for your ride to go vote, nor pay your salary if you have to take off of work...but they can't charge you for an ID to vote or charge you at the door to get in.  Same principle....it would be dismissed on Constitutional grounds.

    •  "For the sake of the children," (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      ranger995

      Who will protect the children from the armed guards?  The idea needs to be about keeping the guns from getting anywhere near the schools, and not about signing over more of America to the ideological idiocy of the NRA's "Cardinal  Duc de Richelieu."

      Proponents of gun violence own guns. Opponents of gun violence do not own guns. What part of this do you not understand?

      by Liberal Panzer on Wed Jan 16, 2013 at 11:17:15 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  There have been armed police officers in grades (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        KenBee

        6-12 since I started teaching.   I don't recall a time in which a school officer opened fire on the kids.

        This idea is to just simply extend it to include elementary with funding available.  Honestly, if the funding had been available before, there would have been officers already  in elementary in a whole lot of places....believe me.  

  •  I think it's a relatively bold, important step on (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ranger995, mrblifil

    a truly substantive issue, considering the history of the past few decades since the NRA wrested control from... the entire rest of the country.

    Not that there aren't plenty of unanswered questions and potential/real stumbling blocks. At least he is in this case starting with recommending a strong set of what we need to have.

    The Class, Terror and Climate Wars are indivisible and the short-term outcome will affect the planet for centuries. -WiA "When you triangulate everything, you can't even roll downhill..." - PhilJD

    by Words In Action on Wed Jan 16, 2013 at 10:39:08 AM PST

  •  Any word from Harry Reid on (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ranger995, mrblifil

    pushing the Jones nomination to head ATF to an up-or-down vote?

  •  The right wing goes nut and the threats and out (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ranger995, DRo

    right violence begins in 4, 3, 2,  . . . . because this is now the "war" they've been spoon fed and sold on for so long.

    Bumper sticker seen on I-95; "Stop Socialism" my response: "Don't like socialism? GET OFF the Interstate highway!"

    by Clytemnestra on Wed Jan 16, 2013 at 10:39:58 AM PST

    •  They're all talkie, no walkie. (0+ / 0-)

      The bulk of the crazies are going to be pathetically afraid of publicity.  You do something stupid, and your name/face/place-of-residence gets smeared all over the papers.  Now, everyone who wants to boycott doing business with a gun-addict has your name.  Groups like Anonymous post your emails, your phone number, and where you work.  Everything about you suddenly becomes very, very public data.

      EVERYTHING.

      ...and that's how we're going to win this war against the gun-addicts:  Strip them of their privacy.

      Proponents of gun violence own guns. Opponents of gun violence do not own guns. What part of this do you not understand?

      by Liberal Panzer on Wed Jan 16, 2013 at 10:52:04 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I dunno if all of them are "no walkie" (0+ / 0-)

        they've been bathed in "Ruby Ridge" and the Hutaree were "walkies."

        as far as Annon goes ... that's why many worked to "get off the grid."

        my crazy uncle was one, before he was murdered with his own rifle

        Bumper sticker seen on I-95; "Stop Socialism" my response: "Don't like socialism? GET OFF the Interstate highway!"

        by Clytemnestra on Wed Jan 16, 2013 at 11:49:59 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  No problem with any of the executive orders, but (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    KenBee, rockhound

    it would be useful for the FBI to make the stolen gun registry available to FFL's.  Used firearms are often trade-ins.  It would be useful to know if such firearms are listed as stolen by the FBI PRIOR TO trade-ins.  

    I'm not sure if FFL's would be willing to do more than report such information to local law enforcement officials, but it might help curtail stolen property in circulation.

  •  I am particularly enamored of (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    JML9999

    #7, 8, 12, 16,and 19.

    Especially #19.

    It was one of my job duties to write an emergency response plan for my workplace, and I included gun safety responses in the plan a decade ago. I think every workplace, not just schools and churches, should have such a plan.

    All knowledge is worth having. Check out OctopodiCon to support steampunk learning and fun. Also, on DKos, check out the Itzl Alert Network.

    by Noddy on Wed Jan 16, 2013 at 10:43:02 AM PST

  •  Thanks for the diary (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    417els, Vote4Obamain2012

    and for the email link.  I used it! I'll see who else I can email/phone.

  •  Safe and Responsible (3+ / 0-)

    The Musical Version

    As the Elites Come Together to Rise Above to Find a Third Way to do Rude things to the 99%

    by JML9999 on Wed Jan 16, 2013 at 10:51:18 AM PST

  •  23 exec. orders on guns-- how about on jobs? (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    meagert, WheninRome

    I'm glad if people are happy about the guns issue getting some attention, but there are still millions of us who have been hung out to dry by the economy, and could really use some executive action on the jobs issue too, please!

  •  I went (0+ / 0-)

    to high school with armed guards because we had a major gang problem; so I was used to it. But I can also say, I would not like to see armed guards in schools, but in some schools they're just going to be there no matter what.  I just don't think teachers should have to be armed; it's not their job.

  •  "users of illegal drugs cannot...buy...firearms" (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Alexandre, Kvetchnrelease

    So directing attorney General Eric Holder to "review the categories of people who are now barred from owning firearms" means what?  Add some here, remove some there.  Because Eric Holder does not exactly have the best record of treating medicinal marijuana users fairly.  There is no reason that sensible reforms should include penalizing felons who have served their time, let alone people who smoke pot.  Now if we were just talking about people who were convicted of gun crimes or of domestic violence, well, that would be very different.

    Are you a Green who has difficulty telling Democrats and Republicans apart? Well, I have difficulty telling Greens and Maoists apart.

    by Subversive on Wed Jan 16, 2013 at 11:04:02 AM PST

    •  Probably just wants to find a way to add (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Subversive

      random political protesters or journalists or people the administration just doesn't like to the list, like they do with the no-fly list.  I predict they come up with all kinds of recommendations for "new" categories of people who should not be allowed to own guns.

    •  What, you can't conceive why pot users don't need (0+ / 0-)

      Guns? They should include drug testing as requirement for firearm background check. Hell,  I would poly them. We re trying to tighten up the regs on gun ownership, so just ENFORCING the law prohibiting illicit drug users from possessing guns should meet little resistance by versifying whether drug users have guns.

      "If the past sits in judgment on the present, the future will be lost." Winston Churchill

      by Kvetchnrelease on Wed Jan 16, 2013 at 08:28:47 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I thought the goal was to stop gun violence (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Kvetchnrelease, bewild

        ...not just to take people's guns away for no reason.  Reefer madness is just nonsense.  Smoking pot is not going to cause people to participate in gun violence any more than it will tempt innocent young white women to listen to the Devil's jazz music and be sodomized by Black men.

        And drug testing, with its false positives, false negatives, and deeply dehumanizing invasion of privacy, is an evil unto itself, which should never be encouraged.

        Are you a Green who has difficulty telling Democrats and Republicans apart? Well, I have difficulty telling Greens and Maoists apart.

        by Subversive on Thu Jan 17, 2013 at 06:37:46 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  Has Steve Stockman (R-Dipshit) filed impeachment (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Vote4Obamain2012

    articles yet?

    http://www.newsy.com/...

    I'm sure it would be the most popular thing his constituents have seen since low met brow.

    Just doing my part to piss off right wing nuts, one smart ass comment at a time.

    by tekno2600 on Wed Jan 16, 2013 at 11:06:32 AM PST

  •  Overall this is a good order - not perfect, but (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Vote4Obamain2012

    certainly good enough to get behind.  The stuff that you worry about is the stuff about tracking people and identifying "problematic" classes of individual.  This needs to be made extremely clear and there needs to be a bona fide, transparent reason for the classification.

    Increasing funding for cops at schools - which may or may not be a sweetener to try to lure the GOP (which of course always works well) - is less of a good idea.  Are some schools, especially high schools, places where it might make sense?  Yes, but as a blanket value - it's not the right lesson to take from Sandy Hook.

  •  Biden had me in tears. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Vote4Obamain2012

    At first I thought President Obama was sounding stale by comparison to Biden, but when he started introducing the kids who had written to him, he began to work his magic.  The spine he showed as he went on was the kind of leadership I have been praying he would show.  CNN reporters immediately showed their own baseless yammer-yammer "I got tweets that said it wouldn't make any difference" crapola.  I had to turn it off, as well as my public radio station's immediate guest.  Right now, there are some decent guests on my public radio station.  Let's see how this plays out over the next week or so.

  •  I am so glad President Obama has made this move. (0+ / 0-)

    I can't begin to imagine what whacked out responses are about to be laid upon us by rabid opponents.  Some of them may turn blue in the face and faint on the spot.

    I do have a question:

    users of illegal drugs (including marijuana) cannot legally buy or possess firearms.
    Does this mean anyone ever - in the past or future - caught using marijuana would be permanently forbidden from buying or possessing any firearm?

    Everything presented by President Obama makes perfect common sense. It will be hard, as always, to overcome the NRA/Nutwing hysteria.  Common sense and critical thinking are among their many enemies.

    It will be a time consuming effort to get all of these changes organized and in place, but they are so long overdue.  I'm on board immediately to make myself known to my elected officials in support of this.

    One of the "forbiddens" that has outraged me is that a pediatrician cannot discuss gun ownership/safety with their young patients and their parents.

    Another is that statistics and studies (by the CDC for instance) relating to gun injuries, deaths etc. have been forbidden.

    The fact that so many blockades to knowledge have been put in place by the gun lobby is a real tell...it SHOUTS OUT they know that the truth and accurate information will prove all of their assertions are false and a danger to the entire US population.

    "Evil is a lack of empathy, a total incapacity to feel with their fellow man." - Capt. Gilbert,Psychiatrist, at the end of Nuremberg trials.

    by 417els on Wed Jan 16, 2013 at 11:19:51 AM PST

    •  I'm ok with research data being released and (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      rockhound

      studies conducted....I am not ok with tax dollars being used to advocate for dismantling of constitutional rights.

      As long as it is non partisan and non bias scientific studies that are being conducted then I don't mind tax payer money funding this. Once the "advocating" comes into play...I don't agree with funding for that.

      Allow the people/voters to fund their own groups for and against the 2A, with their own money, and if they want to use the data collected from the CDC in their own arguments....fine.

      •  Well, to date the CDC has been forbidden to (0+ / 0-)

        collect data and information relating to deaths and injuries caused by firearms. So there is no study, research, nor data to release.  Automobiles?  Yes. Aircraft?  Yes.  Industrial machines?  Yes.  Household furniture?  Yes. Children's toys?  Yes.  Window glass?  Yes.  Watermelons, cranberries and peanut butter?  Yes.

        Can you name anything (other than firearms) that is forbidden to be studied by tax payer funded agencies charged with studying, evaluating and making recommendations on matters relating to safety and well-being of American citizens?  Can you name any reason for this exception?  Other than well-founded fear by the relatively few who wield immense power and enjoy immense wealth gained through unfettered manufacture and sales of ever-increasingly lethal firearms?  A fear that the facts will diminish their powerful influence and incredible wealth?  Fear that their veil of meticulously groomed deception will be lifted, exposing the American public to disturbing realities that demand serious revision?

        Huge amounts of tax payer dollars (in the form of tax exemptions and salaries paid by American taxpayers to name two examples) have long been used in "advocating" for biased and partisan purposes.  Tax payer dollars are used to demonize anyone who believes that the 2nd Amendment is not, and never was, meant to unconditionally and infinitely allow the possession and free use of increasingly sophisticated lethal "arms".

        Consideration of appropriate restrictions and control of modern military weapons is hardly "dismantling" the 2nd Amendment's right for American civilians to bear arms.

        Americans possess the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Without fear of death because of playing music louder than a passerby likes, because of wearing a certain style of sweatshirt, because their skin is too light or too dark, because of their religious affiliation, because of their perceived identity as a conservative or a liberal, because they have angered a spouse or a neighbor, or simply because they are at the wrong place at the wrong time...a theater, a school, a shopping mall, a restaurant, a church, or walking down a familiar street.

        There is a revolver in our home, though I've never touched it.  My one experience with a firearm was shooting a shotgun when I was 7 years old, under the expert supervision of my father.  The deafening noise and the kickback (which left its painful reminder on a skinny little body for two days) made it a "been there, done that, once is enough" activity.  

        My personal choice of weapon would be a flame thrower.  It could be fun to use recreationally. But it's wise I don't have access to one because there may have been times I would have used it.  In fear or anger...frying myself, other people, ruining structures and setting afire who knows how much vegetation.

        "Evil is a lack of empathy, a total incapacity to feel with their fellow man." - Capt. Gilbert,Psychiatrist, at the end of Nuremberg trials.

        by 417els on Wed Jan 16, 2013 at 10:51:57 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  417els - my guess is that if we gave you a flame (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          417els

          thrower you would burn yourself to a crisp. They were a very cumbersome, awkward, dangerous weapon. Some units, primarily Marines, had them in Vietnam and like in WWII were used mostly to clear tunnels. The DoD removed them from the US arms arsenal in 1978 and they have not been used since by US armed forces.

          "let's talk about that"

          by VClib on Thu Jan 17, 2013 at 11:27:57 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Yes, self-crisping is a good guess. (0+ / 0-)

            But, if they were removed from the US arms arsenal in 1978...doesn't that mean there are piles of them sitting somewhere waiting for civilians to make good use of them for fun-profit-protection?

            "Evil is a lack of empathy, a total incapacity to feel with their fellow man." - Capt. Gilbert,Psychiatrist, at the end of Nuremberg trials.

            by 417els on Thu Jan 17, 2013 at 08:01:09 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

  •  It's been almost 14 years (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Vote4Obamain2012

    or over 5000 days since Columbine and not much has changed

    The Sandy Hook incident got tons of news coverage, but there have been many which has received little or no national coverage

    There are too many to list here.  Feel free to look and be shocked to see how many incidents have occurred the past three years

    http://en.wikipedia.org/...

    I doubt anyone can say with certainty that these Executive Actions will prevent this from happening again

    Hopefully this is only the first step in addressing this

  •  Sent letter to my (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Vote4Obamain2012

    Texas rep but it won't do a damned bit of good.  He'll ignore it like he does all of my requests.   The Texas delegation is going ape shit over this.

  •  Let them keep their guns (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Vote4Obamain2012

    All we need to do is impose a tax.  If we are to believe the recent reports of a surge in gun sales, lets apply a tax of $5k per weapon tax, existing gun owners will be subject to this too.  Those who currently own a weapon will need to turn it over should they elect not to pay the tax.  Like a license to drive owners will need to renew at cost their license every 4 years. This will raise millions of dollars in revenue.    

    •  anjguy - a $5K tax per weapon would be (0+ / 0-)

      unconstitutional under Heller. You can't tax away a fundamental constitutional right. The SCOTUS has stated that personal gun ownership is a constitutional right. Congress could not then use cost to deprive someone of that right. The historic cases regarding poll taxes make this legal issue clear. What if Congress passed a $5 k tax on every abortion? They couldn't, because it would be denying access on the basis of cost.

      Heller allows local, state, and federal legislatures broad latitude regarding gun control legislation. One thing they cannot do is deny residents the ability to acquire and keep firearms and that is why you will not see any significant taxes, fees, or insurance requirements that would make the cost prohibitive for poor and middle class people to own firearms.

      "let's talk about that"

      by VClib on Thu Jan 17, 2013 at 11:36:00 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  If not a tax (0+ / 0-)

        Than what, what do we need to do to assure that guns are eliminated from the hands of the people.  How many more innocent people need to die before we say enough.  Chicago already has about 9 deaths this year, and it is only the 18th of the month.  We need to make it unaffordable to own guns.  If not a tax on the weapon then on the bullets.  There is no amendment allowing you to own bullets.  So hit them there.  The tax revenue can be used to pay for and assist families harmed by guns.  

        •  aniguy - change the Second Amendment (0+ / 0-)

          To fulfill your goal "to assure that guns are eliminated from the hands of the people" you would likely need to eliminate or amend the Second Amendment. Some different faces on the SCOTUS would likely help, but to reach your goal I think the Constitutional Amendment process is the path ahead of you.

          The bullets idea isn't going to work either. If the Courts feel that placing a very expensive tax on bullets is just a way to make firearms ownership too costly it will be struck down. In addition, a bullet tax hits hunters and target shooters very hard and isn't politically viable.  

          "let's talk about that"

          by VClib on Thu Jan 17, 2013 at 12:39:11 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  DC vrs Heller (0+ / 0-)

        All the SCOTUS stated was the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution protects an individual's right to possess a firearm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home
        Nothing about the cost being restrictive. We have many rights but if I can't afford to exercise that right, well I don't.  So a tax on weapons is the best be short of a total ban.  

        •  anjguy - this is a fundamental constitutional (0+ / 0-)

          concept.  Heller doesn't mention cost because there is no need to. You have the right to vote but there is now a $5K tax. We haven't restricted your right to vote, just pay the tax. As you can see there is no way that we can tax voting, or abortions, or any other constitutional right so that access is denied in practice, if not by law.  

          As I have been reading about gun control this last month it is clear to me that legal scholars think that restrictive taxes, fees, or insurance requirements are not going to be proposed because they won't stand up to constitutional review.

          "let's talk about that"

          by VClib on Thu Jan 17, 2013 at 12:45:23 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  But (0+ / 0-)

            As an adult over the age of 21 I have a right to drink legally and booze is taxed, is that fair, I don't smoke but cigarettes are taxed.  If I have a right to own a gun something I would never dream of doing I would expect a tax of some sort be levied.  Those that want to safely own a gun, an oxymoron I know, but they should be willing to pay for the right.  As a life long liberal I am saddened that more democrats are not looking to follow this path with me.

            •  Drinking booze and smoking are not (0+ / 0-)

              constitutional rights and therefore aren't comparable.

              You should not feel bad that other liberals aren't joining you on the issue of using a tax, or some other cost, to restrict access to firearms. It's a legal dead end so it's not worth investing time and energy. I think there is a great deal of liberal support for stronger gun control and they are welcoming everyone to help with that cause. My view is let's use the moment to get what we can passed now, and work on improving it over time.

              "let's talk about that"

              by VClib on Thu Jan 17, 2013 at 02:00:44 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

  •  It's a start (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Vote4Obamain2012, Alexandre

    The most important executive actions on the list are the two that require law enforcement to follow the guns back through the chain of ownership and release DOJ statistics on lost and stolen guns.  These steps are long overdue.  We must get to the point where the gun becomes illegally-owned and prosecute both sides of that transaction.

    A common sentiment expressed by gun rights enthusiasts is that when guns are outlawed, only criminals will have guns.  Apparently, procuring a gun is easy and no laws can stop a bad guy or girl from getting a gun if he or she wants one.  The question then becomes, if you know how or where bad people get guns, then why don't you do something about preventing it from happening?

    If you are an active member of the gun community and you are aware of individuals and/or entities providing guns and ammunition to criminals then you are part of the problem.  The next time you bleat "Guns don't kill people.  People kill people." remember that one of your fellow enthusiasts is profiting of the sale of a potential murder weapon.  Put simply, the gun lobby is guilty of protecting gun runners and collecting blood money as shills of arms manufacturers.

  •  In response to your picture: (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Alexandre, rockhound

    Not only would extended magazines be banned under the President's proposal, so would almost all standard pistol magazines.

    Most 9mm magazines hold between 15 and 18 rounds, depending on brand. Many .45 magazines hold 11 to 13 rounds.

    The ability of someone to defend themselves in their own home should not be neutered.

  •  Waste of time (0+ / 0-)

    None of these items will do anything to reduce gun violence.

    From NBC Latino:

    Dead minorities aren’t really a problem for this country; otherwise we would be having a much different conversation about gun violence in America. Minorities are more likely to be victims of homicide, and non-whites are also disproportionately more likely to commit homicide, yet that has not reached the level of national discussion evoked by the massacre in Connecticut.

    The president has made a clear distinction between the gun violence that plagues the poor and minorities in this country, and the fear of random events which are rare and singularly violent, but also tend to disrupt those white neighborhoods that are relatively free of gun violence.

    http://nbclatino.com/...

    When are we going to address the City of Chicago black on black gun violence?

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site