The steps could include ordering stricter action against people who lie on gun sale background checks, seeking to ensure more complete records in the federal background check database, striking limits on federal research into gun use, ordering tougher penalties against gun trafficking, and giving schools flexibility to use grant money to improve safety.Now, this is the same Obama who promised to close Guantanamo and end the lobbying system in Washington D.C., so excuse me if I'm not unreservedly optimistic. Yet, it sure does seem like the momentum is moving in the right direction.
At the same time Obama is vowing not to back off his support for sweeping gun legislation that would require congressional backing - including banning assault weapons, limiting the capacity of ammunition magazines and instituting universal background checks - despite opposition from the influential gun lobby.
"Will all of them get through this Congress? I don't know," Obama said at a news conference Monday.
"My starting point is not to worry about the politics," he said. "My starting point is to focus on what makes sense, what works."
What do you think? Please leave a comment.
I say fuck him and i wont obey his ridiculous gun laws
ReplyDeleteAntisocial gun-toting freaks like yourself will face the penalty of law if you refuse to submit to the authority of the State, in a feeble attempt to cling to the fetish objects which you use to compensate for your mental inadequacy.
DeleteIt is mostly criminal elements that are drawn to the personal use of weapons. Presumably you seek the use of arms, as either you are too feeble to protect oneself, or you are so impoverished that you cannot afford protection. Neither is a justification for the possession of weapons in violation of law.
Well black cap you assume people like myself are all antisocial but your perception is wrong and what i choose to own is my business and not the governments. As for protecting myself i hope as a police officer i would know how to do so.
DeleteChicakdee, you mock people who aren't experts at martial arts or who can't afford a private security detail, but let's look into those. Martial arts take years of training to master. Most of us have other jobs and lives. A gun allows me to be a writer and to teach English, instead of devoting all my time to being a fighter. And what about people with handicaps or the elderly? Do we just throw them out? On the question of private security, that's expensive--and I'm not talking a few hundred dollars. Do we also through out the poor and the middle class of this country?
DeleteGuns are for cops, soldiers, and servants. Which applies to you?
DeleteIt is reasonable to require that paupers rely on physical strength or State Actors to defend themselves. It would be foolish to endow such with lethal arms.
Black cap im also realistic police dont always get there in time so people should be able to defend themselves against intruders till we arrive.
DeleteIf you are concerned for your personal safety, hire an armed guard.
DeleteNot every citizen can afford and armed guard but buying a gun and learning propper gun safety and plenty of practice they can defend themselves.
Delete"Guns are for cops, soldiers, and servants." Says who? Your own pronouncements aren't proof.
DeleteLet me rephrase my prior statement, due to the repetitive nature of the subject matter. Cops and soldiers are servants. Therefore it is logically concise to simply State that weapons are a tool used on an employment basis by members of the lower classes as a means to enforce the will of their betters.
DeleteChickadee, repeating nonsense doesn't make it true.
DeleteThis isn't the first attempt at gun control by the US government,
ReplyDeletehttp://www.mooseintheyard.com/2013/01/122nd-anniversary-massacre-at-wounded.html
orlin sellers