And so it begins …

“President Obama to push assault weapons ban in second term” – headline, The Hill (today).

Not exactly a surprise, as President Obama has a clear record (particularly as an Illinois legislator) supporting extreme gun control measures including a ban on the manufacturing, sales, and possession of handguns, and a ban on the sale or transfer of all forms of semi-automatic weapons.

I believe we can expect “without Congressional approval” to be a major factor in whatever the President ends up doing.

I also believe that whatever the President comes up with would not have stopped the Sandy Hook elementary shooting, if it had already been in force.  What it will do, guaranteed, is place more burdens on law abiding citizens, firearms enthusiasts, and gun dealers.

Readers, what do you think the President will end up ordering as a response to the Sandy Hook elementary shooting?

 

Shortlink:

Posted by on December 18, 2012.
Filed under Barack Obama, Gun control.
Tagged with: .


You can leave a response or trackback to this entry
  • jim_m

    The headline overstates what obama has actually promised. He has said that he would be in favor of the legislation and has given Feinstein the green light to go ahead.

    My guess is that he will not likely put a great deal of weight behind this since he did not do much of the heavy lifting for obamacare and was absent during the fiscal cliff negotiations last summer. obama is the kind to let others do the work and to take the credit when it is finished.

  • Vagabond661

    And the left mocked the NRA when they said Obama would come after our guns in his second term. Elections have consequences.

    • Carl

      And the NRA claimed when he was elected the first time that he’d come after their guns – and he didn’t — proving that the NR lies in order to increase donations from gullible rubes.

      • Vagabond661

        So your only point is they got the timing wrong?
        Oh burn, Carl!

      • http://www.shockandblog.com/ Jay McHue

        And once again, Carl drops a fat, steaming load of stupid. Hey, Carl — you do realize that the fact that Obama is now going after our guns means that the NRA was right, don’t you?

      • 914

        A.) Feindstein and Husband make money off of assault weapons.

        B.) What happens if Obama’s fast and furious assault make there way to a mall in America and murder dozens or more?

        Care to comment?

  • Carl

    Yeah, come on conservatives – let’s have this debate in public. Let America hear why you need assault rifles with 30 round clips.

    A rifle with a 30 round clip is a gun for deer hunting. It’s a gun for people hunting.

    • retired.military

      Carl
      I would love to have that debate. You refuse to answer the questions I asked in order for the discussion to begin.

      • Carl

        Feel free to give your homework to someone else, RM. Obviously I”m not interested. Surely you’ve figured that out by now – you’re not mentally ill, are you?

        • retired.military

          Well Carl. Maybe I am, since I was actually expecting you to have a decent conversation about a subject you seem to feel so strongly about. I see you flailing away at posts but not making much sense at all.

          • herddog505

            You tried.

      • jim_m

        Carl apparently believes that debate consists of throwing insults at his opponents and not in presenting an argument and facts to support that argument. He’s a coward and does not have the confidence that his beliefs can stand up to scrutiny. Otherwise, why else would he refuse a very civil request for a public debate?

        • Carl

          Choice, coming from the guy who says FUCK YOU in response to comments he doesn’t like.

          You wouldn’t know “civil” if it hit you in the face.

          Oh by the way, in response to your repeated use of FUCK YOU in comments directed at me I have two words for you — “Anger Management”. Get a grip before you have a heart attack, pal.

          • jim_m

            Was I addressing you?

          • retired.military

            Carl
            Your response comes from someone who refuses to have a decent conversation where you can express your opinion on things which someone actually asked you in a civil tongue.

          • Sky__Captain

            Carl is accusing someone of not being civil?

            NOOOOOO!!

            This is the same little sonofabitch that throws out accusations of racism, while posting many, many racist, vile, and immature posts himself.

            Carl (Wizbang’s official racist little troll), I’m still wanting for your retraction and apology for accusing me of being racist.

    • Evil Otto

      Yeah, come on conservatives – let’s have this debate in public. Let America hear why you need assault rifles with 30 round clips.

      Have you not been paying attention the last… well, forever? Has this “debate” not been happening? Do you somehow think there’s anything new in this post that hasn’t been said?

      Now, look, I won’t rag on your ignorance for using either “assault rifle” or “clip,” since it’s clear you don’t know the meaning of either. Wait, I think I just ragged on you for it. Sorry.

      Why have a 30 round (sigh) “clip”? How’s this for an answer… because I want one and it’s none of your damned business, control freak. Because it doesn’t matter, because it takes a few seconds at most to change a “clip.” So go ahead and try and pass laws banning such “clips.” (OK, I can’t keep using that incorrect word) You’ll inconvenience future mass murderers. Slightly.

      And finally, because this isn’t really your goal, Carl. You and the rest of your fellow cookie-cutter leftists don’t want to ban “assault rifles” and “30 round clips.” You want to ban GUNS. You just know you can’t do it all at once, so you try and do it incrementally. When given the opportunity you pass laws banning this ill-defined type of weapon or that. You limit MAGAZINE (that, by the way, is the correct word) sizes to some arbitrary number. You pass requirements for licenses, require fees, and make purchasers jump through ever-increasing hoops, you favor banning ammunition or increasing taxes on it until it becomes prohibitively expensive (thankfully you haven’t succeeded on this yet). And whenever there is a mass shooting, after denying that you want to ban guns you fall all over yourselves calling for ever-stricter gun control laws.

      …And you act like we haven’t been having a debate in this country.

      • jim_m

        Let America hear why you need assault rifles with 30 round clips.

        Because it is my bloody right to do so!

        We reserve the right to use the maximum amount of liberty provided to us under the Constitution and if it offends their sensibilities too freaking bad.

    • http://www.shockandblog.com/ Jay McHue

      Why do people need 30-packs of beer? Why do they need hard liquor? A 30-pack of beer isn’t a pack for sharing. It’s a pack for getting drunk and then driving and killing people.

    • 914

      None of your business what I need or why I may need it. F off you little tyrannical miscreant.

    • LiberalNightmare

      A famous author once wrote “men are not potatoes”.
      You Carl, are not a man, thus you must be a potato.

      I do not debate with potatoes.

    • Constitution First

      There should be a seven day waiting period for stupid comments.

  • Carl

    Yeah, come on conservatives – let’s have this debate in public. Let America hear why you need assault rifles with 30 round clips.

    A rifle with a 30 round clip is a gun for deer hunting. It’s a gun for people hunting.

  • Carl

    Here’s the logic behind the gun lover’s mindset.

    • http://www.shockandblog.com/ Jay McHue

      More like the stupidity behind the “ban all guns” mindset. All Soledad did was display her profound ignorance. No wonder you like her, Carl. Peas in a pod.

  • SteveCrickmore075

    If it takes thirty rounds to kill one deer, I don’t think you are much of a deer hunter. Thought I’d share one conservative libertarian solution to the Sandy Hook elementary school masscre. Maybe some of you think it is better than the Dems’ gun control ideas.

    Leave it to pink Himalayan salt enthusiast Megan McArdle to propose what may be the dumbest fucking solution to keeping our children safe from gun violence that has ever been proposed — I’m talking weapons-grade dumb. The sort of dumb that has the power to bend space and time.

    Megan McArdle-I’d also like us to encourage people to gang rush shooters, rather than following their instincts to hide; if we drilled it into young people that the correct thing to do is for everyone to instantly run at the guy with the gun, these sorts of mass shootings would be less deadly, because even a guy with a very powerful weapon can be brought down by 8-12 unarmed bodies piling on him at once.

    I suppose we should start drilling the Grade Ones’ tomorrow.

    • Carl

      Insanity. Right wing gun nights are certifiably insane.

      • Vagabond661

        Yesterday the government sold assault weapons to the Mexican Cartel. Now they want to ban them.

        Though he has no debating skills, Carl is a useful tool to the libs.

        • jim_m

          With an emphasis on “tool”

          • Vagabond661

            Sorry I meant “fool”.

          • jim_m

            Your Freudian slip is showing.

      • http://twitter.com/jinx_mchue Severe Conservative

        “Citation required. Pony up NOW.”

    • jim_m

      Actually, I recall a school shooting several years ago where a student charged the student with the gun, grabbed the slide and moved the gun out of battery so it would not fire. He saved a bunch of lives.

      I also recall how flight 93 and later how the shoe bomber was taken down: Passengers rushed the terrorist.

      Some people run into the burning building. They’re called heroes. Others wait for someone else to do something, they are called steve and carl.

      • Carl

        “Others wait for someone else to do something, they are called steve and carl.”

        Oh, we’re going to do something, Jim. We’re going to pressure our legislators to take your dangerous toys away. You’re going to lose this one, just like you right wing nutcakes have lost just about every other ‘battle” in the recent past. American are just fed up with your right wing extremism.

        You’re going to have to find some other way to compensate for your small penis, Jim. Maybe you should buy a fast car? or hire hookers to escort you around town? Very impressive – in fact even more impressive than a 30 clip assault human killing machine — really!

        • jim_m

          We’re going to pressure our legislators to take your dangerous toys away.

          On the other thread you asked for proof that leftists are threatening to confiscate guns and you have so conveniently provided it yourself. Thanks.

          • http://www.shockandblog.com/ Jay McHue

            I am honestly not surprised that Carl is too dumb to realize that he just did that.

        • Sky__Captain

          It’s really too bad then, that the 2nd Amendment says I can have what you call “dangerous toys”. I call them “items of protection”.
          Primarily for protection of a tyrannical government – and racist little trolls like Carl.

        • http://www.shockandblog.com/ Jay McHue

          “We’re going to pressure our legislators to take your dangerous toys away.”

          Translation: liberals are going to try to violate our constitutional rights… as usual.

    • Vagabond661

      I don’t know how many rounds an intruder might have or for that matter how many intruders I might encounter when they break into my home,

      But I would like to think I got more than him.

      Hey. maybe if we pass a law that intruders can only have a 10 round clip, that will cure everything! Ok, great. Let’s hold hand and sing “Kumbaya” because we just saved the world.

      • Frank Derfler

        People who believe that “Gun Free Zones” are effective are encouraged to put a “Gun Free Zone” sign in their front windows. Let me know how that works out for you.

        • Vagabond661

          For me or Carl. I waas being sarcastic.

  • LiberalNightmare

    Obama may have achieved a certain amount of flexibility, but there are still an awful lot of senators and congressman that will have to run for re-election in 2014.

    • MichaelLaprarie

      LN, that’s exactly my point. Congress will debate, but chances are they won’t come up with anything that passes both houses. Then Obama can appoint a “blue ribbon commission” or a “gun czar” that will make recommendations. He can act through executive order, or encourage DHS, DOJ, or BATF (under the Treasury) to enact new regulatory guidelines. Once those are on the books, they’ll be tough to get rid of. And congresscritters can simply throw up their hands and say, “We tried, but agency regulations are out of our hands.”

  • Par4Course

    Actually, many gun makers may secretly be wishing for Congressional action of the type proposed by Sen. Feinstein. Obama’s election and recent reelection were the biggest stimuli to gun sales in American history. If Congress passes a gun ban, you can bet the sale of weapons between the date that law passes and the date it becomes effective will be tremendous. Of course, even confiscation of all firearms (which no sane person or group is currently proposing) would leave an unarmed populace of law abiding citizens to face tens of millions of guns that would remain in the hands of criminals. “Gun control” is a feel-good idea with many dangerous, even if unintended, consequences.

    • kingghidorah

      Yeah, secretly wishing to put themselves out of business. Great strategy.

  • jim_m

    Funny. The left blames guns but is desperate to ignore issues of culture and race. Homicide rate is at least 5 times greater for blacks than it is for whites and more than 10 times greater for black teens. Homicide rates for Blacks are 2-3 times higher than for Hispanics as well. Why?

    Why, when gun access in the major cities is more restricted and the majority of blacks live in urban areas should their homicide rates be so much higher? Why will the left not do anything to address this? Clearly the gun control laws have failed. otherwise we should be seeing the opposite. Then again in mostly white, mostly rural Vermont the homicide rate is very low and gun laws are very lax. Again I wonder why this should be so.

    I firmly believe that this is not about race but about urban culture, gangs and the inability of people to defend themselves against armed criminals. Unfortunately, the national conversation never goes here, it never addresses why we see this stark difference between races and homicide rates.

    • jim_m

      Thinking about what I wrote and realizing that we are really addressing two different things here. 1) mass shootings, which are predominantly from young men with mental illness and how do we identify these individuals and help them. and 2) homicide rate in general and how do we address the sky high murder rate among blacks because if we wanted murder rates like in western Europe all we would need to do is to lower that rate to be equal with whites and we’d have done the job.

      Unfortunately the solution for the political demagogue is to enact legislation that addresses neither of these issues. An assault weapons ban will not do anything because it didn’t do anything before. We should not anticipate a different result.

  • Conservachef

    I’d expect what I’m already seeing- a push for the return of the Clinton gun ban. For all the “right” reasons to the left- it defined “assault weapons” by very cosmetic criteria. This way they can “get rid of the scary military looking guns.”

    For the same reason, I’d say they go after the big-caliber rifles like the .50 cal.

    Large capacity magazines will be vilified, as well. After all, according to several of our own left-leaning commentators, nobody actually needs a 30-round magazine.

    I’d expect some sort of tweaking with purchase regulations- longer waiting periods, hits on multiple purchases during a certain time frame, and perhaps even something regarding private sales.

  • GarandFan

    If the only thing addressed is “guns”, then you can expect such tragedies will occur again. And once again, “guns” will be addressed. You can’t fix stupid. Take our wonderful state Senator from LA, DeLeon. His solution is ‘a background check’ on anyone purchasing ANY caliber of ammunition – said ‘background check’ to be done prior to each purchase. Plus a once-a-year fee of $50 for a permit to buy ammunition. So I need ‘a background’ check and have to ‘pay a fee’ in order to exercise a Constitutional right? Since the Democrats now enjoy a super-majority in our state legislature, how long before it’s decided that if you’re not a registered Democrat, you need to pay ‘a fee’ and undergo ‘a background check’ before you vote?

  • jim_m

    Obama promises anti-gun legislation in next two weeks. Hasn’t delivered a budget that will pass in over 3 years.

  • http://www.rustedsky.net JLawson

    And so… it ends.

    Obama slams brakes on gun control.

    With President Obama’s announcement of a commission to study and
    recommend ways to reduce gun violence, the two most important Democrats
    in government — Obama and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid — have both
    indicated a desire to slow the momentum toward gun control in the wake
    of the Newtown, Connecticut school shootings. The president’s decision
    to appoint a blue-ribbon panel — the classic Washington ploy to defuse
    and delay consideration of an issue — along with Reid’s inaction on the
    gun question will undoubtedly frustrate many in their party who want
    immediate action.

    Obama seemed to anticipate that frustration when he announced the
    creation of the commission, to be headed by Vice President Joe Biden,
    in the White House briefing room Wednesday morning. “This is not some
    Washington commission,” Obama said. “This is not something where folks
    are going to be studying the issue for six months and publishing a
    report that gets read and then pushed aside.” To stress his
    determination, Obama said the Biden Commission must report its findings
    in January. Its task, he said, is “to pull together real reforms right
    now.”

    Obama’s move will likely dissipate the energy behind gun control
    advocacy on Capitol Hill. It’s unlikely that even the most
    pro-gun-control Democrats would want to get out in front of the Biden
    Commission and pass specific measures. And the political world, and the
    emotional intensity behind the gun issue, could be quite different even
    a month from now. So Obama is stopping Democratic momentum, and he
    knows it. Republicans know it, too. “The creation of a commission is
    by definition an effort to freeze in place whatever object it seeks to
    examine,” says one senior Republican Senate aide.

    Reid apparently wants the same thing. Meeting reporters Tuesday, Reid
    made clear that he does not intend to do much of anything on the gun
    issue. Asked “what gun control measures would you support going
    forward?” Reid’s answer was a study in saying nothing:

    REID: I watched the prayers, I watched everything that took place in
    Connecticut Sunday night. No one law can erase evil; that’s what the
    president said, and he’s right. But we need to accept the reality that
    we’re not doing enough to protect our citizens. I’m very happy that the
    president’s going to do everything he can administratively. We must
    engage on a thoughtful debate about how to change laws and culture that
    allow violence not continue to grow. Every idea should be on the table
    as we discuss how best to keep our children safe.

    QUESTION: Can you speak specifically [about any] particular gun control measure?

    REID: No. No, I’ve been very clear here. I think we have to have a full discussion.

    http://washingtonexaminer.com/obama-reid-slam-brakes-on-gun-control/article/2516406#.UNIIrkHXrRZ

    Put it in the hands of a blue-ribbon commission. Then let it languish for a while as other news buries it. And when the time comes… it’ll be downplayed as “We’re going to look at the mental health issues involved.”

    And then – nothing more will be heard, until the next time.

    • jim_m

      It’s not quite over yet. Sheila Jackson Lee said that people should turn in their guns and suggested that people who do not do so are not part of America.

      After all, when you’re not an American they can claim that they are not taking away your rights

      • http://www.rustedsky.net JLawson

        I really wish those clowns inside the Beltway would understand that ‘feel-good’ legislation’s gotten us to this point, and continuing to make more of it is like force-feeding a diabetic pure sugar…

      • http://wizbangblog.com/author/rodney-graves/ Rodney G. Graves

        Sheila Jackson Lee should cut out her own tongue and turn it in.

  • Frank Derfler

    They have the pliers on your nuts already. It’s called OBAMACARE. When you apply for healthcare for your family, there will be a line asking: “Do you have firearms in your house or property?” If you say no and you’re lying, well.. remember Martha Stewart. If you say, “Yes”… it’s “Your case will receive further evaluation”… interviews, higher fees, threats to take your kids… They have the tools already.

    • Vagabond661

      There is a Florida law in effect alredy that does that.

      • http://www.rustedsky.net JLawson

        I’ve been asked that a few times at my son’s doctor visits. I reply “No answer.” the last time, however, the question was notably absent… thought they did ask about seat belt usage.

  • Vagabond661

    Banning guns to prevent these mass murders is about as smart as banning boats to prevent drugs from coming into the US.

  • Constitution First

    Obambi: “I want to make getting mental health as easy as getting a gun”.

    I wonder which 17 states he will limit access mental health to such a degree, it is all but banned?