Delaware Concealed Carry Forum
State News & Gun News => NRA & National Gun News => Topic started by: CorBon on March 13, 2011, 10:08:21 PM
-
Gentlemen (and Moosie!!!), it looks like the next anti-gun-run is about to get underway.
We must seek agreement on gun reforms
President Barack Obama Special To The Arizona Daily Star Arizona Daily Star | Posted: Sunday, March 13, 2011 12:00 am
It's been more than two months since the tragedy in Tucson stunned the nation. It was a moment when we came together as one people to mourn and to pray for those we lost. And in the attack's turbulent wake, Americans by and large rightly refrained from finger-pointing, assigning blame or playing politics with other people's pain.
But one clear and terrible fact remains. A man our Army rejected as unfit for service; a man one of our colleges deemed too unstable for studies; a man apparently bent on violence, was able to walk into a store and buy a gun.
He used it to murder six people and wound 13 others. And if not for the heroism of bystanders and a brilliant surgical team, it would have been far worse.
But since that day, we have lost perhaps another 2,000 members of our American family to gun violence. Thousands more have been wounded. We lose the same number of young people to guns every day and a half as we did at Columbine, and every four days as we did at Virginia Tech.
Every single day, America is robbed of more futures. It has awful consequences for our society. And as a society, we have a responsibility to do everything we can to put a stop to it.
Now, like the majority of Americans, I believe that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to bear arms. And the courts have settled that as the law of the land. In this country, we have a strong tradition of gun ownership that's handed from generation to generation. Hunting and shooting are part of our national heritage. And, in fact, my administration has not curtailed the rights of gun owners - it has expanded them, including allowing people to carry their guns in national parks and wildlife refuges.
The fact is, almost all gun owners in America are highly responsible. They're our friends and neighbors. They buy their guns legally and use them safely, whether for hunting or target shooting, collection or protection. And that's something that gun-safety advocates need to accept. Likewise, advocates for gun owners should accept the awful reality that gun violence affects Americans everywhere, whether on the streets of Chicago or at a supermarket in Tucson.
I know that every time we try to talk about guns, it can reinforce stark divides. People shout at one another, which makes it impossible to listen. We mire ourselves in stalemate, which makes it impossible to get to where we need to go as a country.
However, I believe that if common sense prevails, we can get beyond wedge issues and stale political debates to find a sensible, intelligent way to make the United States of America a safer, stronger place.
I'm willing to bet that responsible, law-abiding gun owners agree that we should be able to keep an irresponsible, law-breaking few - dangerous criminals and fugitives, for example - from getting their hands on a gun in the first place.
I'm willing to bet they don't think that using a gun and using common sense are incompatible ideas - that we should check someone's criminal record before he can check out at a gun seller; that an unbalanced man shouldn't be able to buy a gun so easily; that there's room for us to have reasonable laws that uphold liberty, ensure citizen safety and are fully compatible with a robust Second Amendment.
That's why our focus right now should be on sound and effective steps that will actually keep those irresponsible, law-breaking few from getting their hands on a gun in the first place.
• First, we should begin by enforcing laws that are already on the books. The National Instant Criminal Background Check System is the filter that's supposed to stop the wrong people from getting their hands on a gun. Bipartisan legislation four years ago was supposed to strengthen this system, but it hasn't been properly implemented. It relies on data supplied by states - but that data is often incomplete and inadequate. We must do better.
• Second, we should in fact reward the states that provide the best data - and therefore do the most to protect our citizens.
• Third, we should make the system faster and nimbler. We should provide an instant, accurate, comprehensive and consistent system for background checks to sellers who want to do the right thing, and make sure that criminals can't escape it.
Porous background checks are bad for police officers, for law-abiding citizens and for the sellers themselves. If we're serious about keeping guns away from someone who's made up his mind to kill, then we can't allow a situation where a responsible seller denies him a weapon at one store, but he effortlessly buys the same gun someplace else.
Clearly, there's more we can do to prevent gun violence. But I want this to at least be the beginning of a new discussion on how we can keep America safe for all our people.
I know some aren't interested in participating. Some will say that anything short of the most sweeping anti-gun legislation is a capitulation to the gun lobby. Others will predictably cast any discussion as the opening salvo in a wild-eyed scheme to take away everybody's guns. And such hyperbole will become the fodder for overheated fundraising letters.
But I have more faith in the American people than that. Most gun-control advocates know that most gun owners are responsible citizens. Most gun owners know that the word "commonsense" isn't a code word for "confiscation." And none of us should be willing to remain passive in the face of violence or resigned to watching helplessly as another rampage unfolds on television.
As long as those whose lives are shattered by gun violence don't get to look away and move on, neither can we.
We owe the victims of the tragedy in Tucson and the countless unheralded tragedies each year nothing less than our best efforts - to seek consensus, to prevent future bloodshed, to forge a nation worthy of our children's futures.
http://azstarnet.com/article_011e7118-8951-5206-a878-39bfbc9dc89d.html
-
WOW! Does he even have a clue how things work? I have been to my share of gun shops and I know some of the owners fairly well. I feel confident that a store is not going to sell a person that fails the backround check a gun just to make a few dollars. The store owners know that they would get their lic stripped from them within hours of the authorities finding out. If their wasnt another gun store left in this country , guess what.. the bad guys will still have guns! He needs to concentrate on the bad guys and stop letting them go with a slap on the wrist and start locking them up ! Heck as far as im concerned an eye for an eye suits me. Ugh.... If America cant find someone descent I think im going to run for office . I think I have more comonsense than alot of these morons in office! >:( OK im done.
-
Admittedly, I'm looking at this from a different direction (i.e., politically about a hundred miles to your left, and about sixty miles left of Obama), but let's look at what he proposed... and what he did not propose.
His specific recommendations:
1. Improve the NICS system (mandate information collection from the states)
2. Reward states for contributing data to the NICS system (fund the mandate)
3. Speed up the NICS system (make it easier & quicker to complete a background check)
Do we seriously object to any of that?
What he didn't propose? Any of the worthless "gun control" measures that the grabbers have been pushing since long before Tucson, and have been screaming for ever since.
I fail to see what is wrong here.
I realize that many of the folks on this forum hate Obama and all he stands for, but many of us over here on the Loony Left are just as disgusted with him for our own reasons.
Today's statements provide more reason for the Huffington Post crowd to be disappointed than for the right to be apprehensive.
-
Oldgraygeek, I am with you. I think what he is proposing is great, it will not stop a bad guy from getting a gun but it will make it more difficult while still making it easy for law abiding citizen. I am in favor of background checking on all firearm transactions - gunshow, face to face...it is not right that a person prohibited by law from owning a firearm legally through an FFL can go to a gunshow, or a private citizen, and purchase a gun without background checks.
-
oldgray, your right. I do hate all he stands for :D, BUT I will still treat him with a lever of respect because he is the president of the USA. I see what your saying about what he is proposing and I guess its the way we all look at things differently. I am all for making things better and safer but he is saying that a criminal can be turned down at a gunstore and go to somewhere else and buy the same gun because ( in his words) a porus system BS. I dont care which store calls in your br check they all get the same results. The criminals dont care what laws we have because they dont follow them anyhow. Thats why I say they need to work on catching criminals, actually I think its a society problem especially in the inner cities. They can outlaw guns all togeather ( just like other countries) and then the crime rate skyrockets . The politicians know this but seem to ignore the facts and keep pushing law after law to keep us " safe". I say BS.
What will making the br check faster do? You cant get the gun till the results come back nomater if its fast or slow.= not stopping criminals.
He wants to reward the states that have the best data?? Is their states that are allowing people to buy guns after the feds say denied??
-
Muleman88, I don't think the problem in hand is with stores or ffls in general or with the speed of the background check process, the problem is with the Loophole - a person can go to a store, fail the background check and is denied the purchase by the store, this same person walks down the street into a gunshow or meets someone on the parking lot and buys the same gun from a private seller who is not required to run a background check on face to face transaction. The only thing a private seller is required to do is to ask for ID to ensure the buyer is of legal age and the transaction is not across state lines - no background check is currently required.
-
Muleman, you seem to get my point:
Obama's not listening to, or pandering to, all the HuffPo d-bags screaming for magazine restrictions, bans on so-called "assault weapons," owner licensing, individual firearm registration, etc. He hasn't even uttered the oxymoronic "close the gun show Loophole" myth, which even he understands as an attempt to ban all private gun transfers. (Condition 1, I oppose such a ban as unworkable).
Instead, he is proposing strengthening (as in funding) enforcement of law that is already on the books.
Isn't that what we, and the NRA, say when confronted by proposals for new & brilliant gun laws? "Enforce the laws already on the books."
Sure, he's implying that the current system is inadequate. It is. When Jared Loughner was expelled from Pima County College for being a raving lunatic -- to the point where cops had to go to his home and tell his parents he was too crazy to be allowed back on campus -- the Arizona NICS check system should have had his name added, and they should have passed it on to the Feds.
Keep in mind that I have a very common name, and about half my gun purchases are "held" while the NICS figures out that I'm not the guy with the same name who was born exactly ten years before me with an extensive criminal record. Improving the system might help me, or it might mean a three-day wait for everything I buy.
Either way, we need to do it. I'm actually impressed, given Obama's tendency to take bad advice, that this time he is ignoring so much bad advice...
-
No matter what you may think, Obama -- historically -- is very anti-gun. It took various members of the NRA years and years and years to understand that anti-gunners hate all guns, not just some of them. I see that some members of this board still suffer from this misconception.
What's that saying about a leopard and his spots?
-
Hey all, Here's a broader picture rant from a VERY tired Pete D.--- take it or leave it:
I see this all as a result of Government, and our TOO POWERFUL media, OVER-REACHING- plain and simple. Yes, everyone here is making excellent points that are spot-on target, we all know that if dumb-@@@ "Jarod" (or any other number of crazy folks out there) was turned down at the local gun shop, or even the local gun show, guess what... he WOULD have found a gun down on the shady-side of town (prolly cheaper, @@@@ it!), and he WOULD have still carried out his delusional idea of hurting people.
The issue is governments, both local, state, and federal, are WAY over their heads in both mandate and budget, and we are ALL heading for a fall! This is seen clearly in the recent demonstrations in Madison by State workers- everyone one of us has something to lose if our current way of functioning is hindered. We have all become used to the status quo which is WAY overdue for a check.
The media was so quick to jump to the Arizona shooting as "a message to government to stop all the negative rhetoric and play nice". WHF!!! Where did that come from and why the heck did it take root so firmly in our minds? It was just their “incident of the day” for "them" to take off toward “their’ bent- OVER-REACHING. They report it as such and we as a nation take it in and change the real issue to something that has nothing to do with what happened. Now the issue is "magazine capacity" and “maybe we should bring back the assault weapon ban”- they will make the issue whatever they want to make it- we NEED to step around all the propaganda and do something real.
So, yes, enforce the rules. Can we do better? Sure. But, why lump all of the law abiding people into the criminal/crazy crap? It's only for media-hype and more government. HELLO!- that only leads to further OVER-REACHING and budget shortfalls in the Billions- wake up folks- this WILL break us because once a program/law starts, many people have a financial issue with its ending because it affects them directly.
We need to do what families (mine included) do in times of crisis- tighten up the budge, focus on real needs, forget all the "that would be nice to have"'s, and be realistic. No one, no government, not even their momma is going to stop a person hell-bent on destruction, so let’s stop focusing on that.
Government is not the answer- the good people in the Arizona crowd were the ONLY answer that day- they stopped a crazy dumb-@@@ from killing many more people than he did- encourage THAT spirit- give THEM the change to do the right things, and our country WILL be back on track. OK- Now, it's bed-time… I feel better… Thanks! Pete D.---
-
oldgraygeek, I think the President did touch on the Loophole subject - see quote below from OP. I guess this is the only part we disagree about his proposal. I am sure we will not convince each other otherwise, but I am curious to know why you say such ban is unworkable?
"Porous background checks are bad for police officers, for law-abiding citizens and for the sellers themselves. If we're serious about keeping guns away from someone who's made up his mind to kill, then we can't allow a situation where a responsible seller denies him a weapon at one store, but he effortlessly buys the same gun someplace else."
-
I just love how he takes all the credit for allowing guns in national parks. I dont have any problems with what he is proposing but Im not gonna buy in that he dosent want to expand gun control. His administration is smart enough to know that it wont get broad control passed after the election. He is also smart enough to know that some of what he wants can be had simply by having the BATFE reclass types of weapons. Heck, he even used the NRA keywords of enforcing laws already on the books and common sense laws.....he is no dummy and dont think that it will end with these proposals.
-
Obama makes a great speech, but don't fall for the trap of listening to what he says. Instead, watch what he tries to do. The purpose of this speech wasn't to suggest reasonable gun laws, it was to set the stage to brand anyone who disagrees with him as extremeists. This is right out of the Alinsky play book. Let's wait to see what he really tries to do. It won't be merely improving the background check system.
-
I don't agree that Obama is on a campaign to take our guns. Sure, as leader of the country, he has to respond in some way to recent tragedies that point out flaws in the system. Wouldn't it be irresponsible to do otherwise? So it seems to me more than a little paranoid to see every attempt to massage gun regs so that that they are more effective, as if it were a domino inevitably leading to mass confiscation. Look, as responsible citizens, we surely realize that there must be common-sense regulation of deadly devices and their users, whatever they are; automobiles drivers, crane operators, nuclear plant technicians, or gun owners. If we as gun owners, resist every gun regulation that comes down the pike without examining them case by case for their worthiness, we further the image of gunowners as too rigid and ideological to trust, as people a little crazed with their own views. What Obama has so far presented in this last writing seems sensible.
We live in a complex society. Even among gun owners, don't you know some who you would not particulary trust with your life? At Ommelanden, I watch the other guys, who through ignorance or carelessness wave the barrel around, walk into the shooting booth while the range is cold, etc. I am darn glad there is a range officer (if that is what you call them), to keep an eye on things. Does the range officer annoy me with his insistance that all the minute rules be followed? Sure I do, because I know them by heart because I've been there enough times. But I am still glad there is a little regulation. After all, one major accident would have the county reconsidering the safety of its citizens.
So we must be aware that our society has criminals and vegetarians, mental cases and saints, close-minded people and air-heads, and we have to find a way of living together but, mind you, without giving up our basic rights....
-
And I'll say it again... how can you tell if a politician is lying? His lips are moving.
Moosie
-
These proposals dont bother me but lets see how the bills are written. I wouldnt be surprised to see them expanded once in writing to include more than what he said in his speech. Dont forget this is a man who while in state legislature voted against protecting homeowners who used firearms to protect themselves in their house. He has consistently supported gun control, both state and federal levels and campaigned using gun control as part of his platform.
-
NRAs letter to Obama
http://www.NRAILA.org/Legislation/Federal/Read.aspx?id=6421 (http://www.NRAILA.org/Legislation/Federal/Read.aspx?id=6421)
-
The Obamasiah is trying to pander to both sides. He is once again voting "present." The one glaring fact that his "common sense" ideas is overlooking is that the bad guys have no intention of obeying any gun laws whatsoever. The BG's will ALWAYS find a way to get a gun. If he, or anybody for that matter, can tell me how to make the BG's actually obey a gun law then I will gladly listen.
Don't forget that all the while he is preaching "common sense" his ATF bullied and coerced gun store owners in border states to allow questionable sales to go through so that they could follow the guns into Mexico. One of those guns was used in the killing of an Border Patrol agent. Is that the common sense you are looking for?
http://deccw.com/index.php?topic=1050.0
-
I wish there was a "LIKE" button on here, Hawkeye... :)
Moosie
-
I wish there was a "LIKE" button on here, Hawkeye... :)
Moosie
There is, you just used it ;)
-
Reply from Senator Carper's office regarding President Obama's choice to head the BATFE:
Thank you for contacting me to express your concern about the nomination of Andrew Traver as director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives. I appreciate hearing your thoughts on this important matter.
As you know, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) is a federal law enforcement organization that regulates firearm commerce and explosives in the United States as well as investigates and prevents illegal drug and alcohol trafficking. On November 15, 2010, President Barack Obama nominated Andrew Traver to be the director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives. Mr. Traver would replace the current Acting Director, Kenneth Melson, who started his appointment on April 12, 2002. If confirmed by the Senate, Mr. Traver would oversee all investigations of illegal use and trafficking of explosives, firearms, drugs, and alcohol for the ATF.
As a former governor, I respect the right, in most instances, of our current Chief Executive, and his predecessors, to surround themselves with cabinet members that they believe will best serve their administrations and our country. When I was privileged to serve for eight years as Delaware's chief executive, I nominated numerous individuals to cabinet positions. During those years, I consistently asked the Senate to give me the benefit of the doubt on nominations so that I could surround myself with the leadership team that I felt would best enable me to keep my commitments to the people of Delaware who elected me. Now, as a United States Senator, it is my responsibility to carefully consider each nomination by our Chief Executive and to decide whether or not I should consent to those appointments.
Having said that, I take seriously my obligation to provide advice and consent on the president's cabinet-level appointments. In considering these appointments, I use criteria that I developed as governor. I look for the nominee to have the following attributes:
o a sound moral character
o a strong work ethic
o be a consensus builder
o a complete knowledge of the law
o knowledge and experience in the area of appointment
o the ability to make difficult decisions with sound reasoning
With that said, I have heard from a number of people, like you, who have concerns about Mr. Traver's nomination. Those in opposition to his nomination believe that his views on gun control could chip away at their Second Amendment right to bear arms. They also believe that someone with such strong anti-gun views should not be the head of an enforcement agency that has control over firearms. On the other hand, supporters of Mr. Traver's nomination believe that he is well qualified for this position because he has extensive experience directing ATF law enforcement programs. As you may know, he has been the Special Agent in Charge of the Chicago, Illinois Field Division of the ATF since 2004. Prior to that appointment, he served as Assistant Special Agent in Charge for the San Francisco, California Field Division of the ATF as well as the Assistant Special Agent in Charge for the New Orleans, Louisiana Field Division of ATF.
I have been a supporter of the Second Amendment and the rights of law-abiding citizens to buy and own guns. My father was a gun collector for much of his life and I am a gun owner myself. Please be assured that should I have the chance to consider his confirmation before the full Senate, I will certainly keep your views in mind. Please do not hesitate to contact me in the future about other matters of importance to you.
With best personal regards, I am
Sincerely,
Tom Carper
United States Senator
-
Is it just me or......huh!?! ???
-
Wow let me get my hip wader's cause the shits getting deep.
-
Im with moosie. If their lips are moving their full of s%!t! All politicians give bs answers , and broad speeches that way they cant be pinned to something they say. Even the ones I like ( kinda) do the same thing.
-
I'm very encouraged by this thread. I haven't read any of the normal liberal vs. conservative debate that is so silly to me. So far, this has been a reasonable discussion between reasonable people with well thought out views. This is a nice break from the threads that I've read on other forums and from the anonymous comments that I read regarding online articles. These are the kinds of discussion that we should be having. As soon as I read something like "all liberals are vegetarians who won't fight" or "all conservatives are racist religious freaks" I walk away. Thank you deccw.com!
-
All liberals are vegetarians who won't fight!
LOL, just kidding. Ellington, I agree. We don't always agree, but a discussion about the different points of view are refreshing. :)
I'm wondering if Carper's aide's wrote that letter while they were high? I've read it a few times trying to follow it and it seems to be a standard BS letter. Wow, imagine that. A politician attempting to BS the public. :-\
GunEnvy, I have to say that you said what I was thinking but failed to type. I don't think Obama has any intention of HELPING gun owners keep or improve their 2nd Ammendment rights. I saw nothing on the surface of these proposed bills, but why would he change horses in mid stream and support the 2nd Ammendment?
If any of you are not members of the NRA, I encourage you to join if for no other reason than to read their publication 1st Freedom. It routinely covers what politicians are attempting to pull on citizens and exposes the bait and switch that is so often written into legislation.
Moosie
-
I truly thought we would be facing this battle a lot sooner. I think the NRA and gun owners came out swinging and the Obama Administration was NOT prepared for the backlash, with that being said right now gun owners all over the US have a very big black eye and Obama has all the ammo he needs (No pun intended) When the shootings in Arizona happened it could have been a better perfect storm for the Obama Administration. First Arizona as we all know is a very pro gun state, Second the shoot had mental issues and third of all @@@@ people to shoot but a US Senator. Like I said perfect anti gun scenario
-
This is a peaceful, intelligent discussion.
I usually avoid online political discussions, because my views are so far to the Left that it's difficult to air them peacefully anywhere to the right of DailyKos.
However, in this forum, I'll spare you my usual "tax the rich, feed the poor, till there are no rich no more" song lyrics, and instead point this out:
If Obama had any plans to pass laws restricting the RKBA, he would have done it while the Democrats still held both houses of Congress.
Besides, my own opinion of the Obama administration -- which many on the left share -- is that they can't pass gas, let alone legislation.
Even if Obama decided to pass magazine capacity restrictions, they would be so watered down that only 33+ round mags manufactured after 2015 by left-handed Albanian women without moustaches would be banned.
(Apologies in advance to any left-handed Albanian women on the forum).
-
This is a peaceful, intelligent discussion.
I usually avoid online political discussions, because my views are so far to the Left that it's difficult to air them peacefully anywhere to the right of DailyKos.
However, in this forum, I'll spare you my usual "tax the rich, feed the poor, till there are no rich no more" song lyrics, and instead point this out:
If Obama had any plans to pass laws restricting the RKBA, he would have done it while the Democrats still held both houses of Congress.
Besides, my own opinion of the Obama administration -- which many on the left share -- is that they can't pass gas, let alone legislation.
Even if Obama decided to pass magazine capacity restrictions, they would be so watered down that only 33+ round mags manufactured after 2015 by left-handed Albanian women without moustaches would be banned.
(Apologies in advance to any left-handed Albanian women on the forum).
EXACTLY!!!
-
If Obama had any plans to pass laws restricting the RKBA, he would have done it while the Democrats still held both houses of Congress.
Here's the deal, it wasn't just hard-line Democrats and far-left-leaning liberals that voted for Obama, there were many in the middle, and maybe some right of the middle. He is going to play this as close to the center as he can -- UNTIL HE GETS A SECOND TERM AND BECOMES A LAME DUCK. He is not pro-second amendment -- this is an established FACT.
Obama knows how to read, and has many advisors that will be glad to tell him that one of Bubba's biggest mistakes was his head-on attack of the second amendment (via the assault rifle ban). The O-man isn't going to make that mistake.
To think that he has any pro-gun thoughts in his head is -- insane, at best.
Opposed bill okaying illegal gun use in home invasions. (Aug 2008)
Ok for states & cities to determine local gun laws. (Apr 2008)
FactCheck: Yes, Obama endorsed Illinois handgun ban. (Apr 2008)
April 2008: "Bittergate" labeled Obama elitist. (Apr 2008)
Respect 2nd Amendment, but local gun bans ok. (Feb 2008)
Provide some common-sense enforcement on gun licensing. (Jan 2008)
2000: cosponsored bill to limit purchases to 1 gun per month. (Oct 2007)
Concealed carry OK for retired police officers. (Aug 2007)
Stop unscrupulous gun dealers dumping guns in cities. (Jul 2007)
Keep guns out of inner cities--but also problem of morality. (Oct 2006)
Bush erred in failing to renew assault weapons ban. (Oct 2004)
Ban semi-automatics, and more possession restrictions. (Jul 1998)
Voted NO on prohibiting lawsuits against gun manufacturers. (Jul 2005)
http://www.ontheissues.org/barack_obama.htm
Obama's gun control votes and statements made before his presidential run also indicate a candidate hostile to the Second Amendment as defined by the Supreme Court in D.C. v. Heller. He has publicly declared:
he was in favor of local law suits against gun manufacturers,
he supports for prohibiting gun shops within five miles of any school,
he is against concealed carry by law abiding citizens,
he favors one gun a month laws,
he favors ‘assault weapons bans’,
he has favored a ban on all semiautomatic firearms,
he favors limits on handgun ammunition,
he favors limits on 'assault weapon' ammunition,
he believes that state and local entities should be able to implement their own gun control,
and last month stated he would not have enough votes to start gun confiscations.
http://www.sportsmenforobama.org/
There's tons of this stuff out there. He may be a nice guy, he may be an eloquent speaker, he may have even thought that fixing our screwed-up country was going to be easy -- but he is no friend of the gun.