President Obama announced Wednesday he will ask Congress to pass legislation requiring universal background checks for anyone attempting to buy a gun, restore a ban on military-style assault weapons, and limit magazines to 10 bullets.
Obama also said he will sign 23 executive orders to enhance background checks, give mental health professionals more options for reporting threats of violence, and providing additional funds to schools to hire resource officers.
Repeatedly mentioning mass shootings in Newtown, CT; Clackamas, OR; and Aurora, CO, Obama said significant enhancements in gun control will come only if people from all parts of the country—including current gun owners—support the changes.
"We have to examine ourselves and our hearts, and ask ourselves, what is important?" he said. "This will not happen unless the American people demand it.”
More details on Obama's proposals can be found in the attached PDF or on a new White House website dedicated to the topic.
What do you think of the president's proposals? Tell us in the comments section.
The point is to discredit him and demonstrate the foolishness in having faith in the State composed of such men (or any men for that matter). There is such a worship of the state that it is important to demonstrate that it is a grand illusion.
BTW, the original "background check" legislation tried to bar appeals - which is a pretty clear indicator of the real purpose of the legislation - banning firearms, not keeping them out of the hands of dangerous individuals.
There were database errors, individuals with the same name and birthdate (not that rare with common names), and even identity theft related problems. The original background check law did not allow appeals of erroneous denials which provides evidence that the purpose of background checks wasn't to keep firearms out of the hands of dangerous individuals but rather to keep firearms out of the hands of as many people as possible.
A national database of those who do both would also be useful.
> I think people should have to have photo ID to vote - or write a letter to the editor or a web posting. They say that the pen is mightier than the sword and Nietzsche said that a philosopher is an explosion waiting to happen, so you may have something there. It is better to disarm as many as possible. ;-)
I had always assumed that Christian Dispensationalist Millenialists were involved, not Jews. The Dispensationalists believe that for the Messiah to return the Jews must first rebuild the Temple in Jerusalem. Extremist groups include Christian Guardians, Aggresive Christianity, Christian Phalange, Media for Christ and Stop Islamicization of America. You might find it useful to study them a bit before you get all of your exercise leaping to conclusions. I also find your assumptions about my ethnicity to be very revealing; perhaps you need to take a diversity training course. Bigotry is not conducive to living in a diverse society.
This is what needs taking aim at regardless of party.
But liberals of your type look at the world through very small hole of their flawed ideology which is the cover of their antisemitism.As the real liberal you feel very nervous about any critic of Islamist Nazi ,but see real statistics Incidents of anti-Islamic hate crime in 2010 accounted for only 12.1% of those motivated by religion and just 2.4% overall. Jews remain the faith group most likely to be targeted in hate crimes. There were 887 anti-Jewish incidents in 2010, comprising 67.1% of those linked to religion. This is 5.5 times the number of anti-Islamic incidents. People like you prefer to ignore this data.When your friends ,700 of the UC Berkeley students,elite of one community,as one person make a standing ovation to the open anti-Semite and Nazi Mr.Farrakhan,and you call people who believes that this is the clear way to Nazism,you call this people bigots.No comments..Your type of diversity in action...It had been already once...And the party had called itself socialist too...
The fact that a hate crime occurs against one group more frequently than another does not negate the fact that a hate crime happened to a member of the other group. Mr. Farrakhan is a raving bigot; you and he should get along. He even has an entire organization of raving bigots following him.
no parole". what do they do next? Many crimenals being released for lack of money to keep them incarcerated. Police being layed off . Police can only respond AFTER a crime is committed and the response times can vary from locale to locale. A person has to take some responsibility for their family or own safety till help arrives. This may include reinforced doors, windows and yes a weapon to fend off those that want to harm or rob you. To assume they will not injure to get what they want is niave and to assume the police can be available ahead of time by reading the felons minds is a Hollywood movie. They do a good job but can't be everywhere. These are scary times and our government appears to lack direction and out of step. It is divided more then I have ever seen it in the past and I have seen a lot of the past. Many fear the past will repeat itself as we are forgetting it and not teaching the young the real History only edited versions by a few groups.
The CDC funded public health research was actually stopped several years after it was first reported - because it had become a bad joke as other scholars tore apart the study designs, the statistical methods used, etc. The money was redirected to research on traumatic brain injury treatment.
"White House Gun Policy: Like Ignorant Emotional Appeals From 8-Year-olds It really has come to this: The president and vice president of the United States are trotting out the emotional appeals of ill-informed elementary school children in order to sell the administration's emotional, ill-informed policy response to the Sandy Hook school shooting. Is there a word that combines embarrassing, grotesque, unseemly, and kind of cute? Well, that would describe this campaign. Lil' Hinna, for example, opines that "if there are no guns on the street, no one could get hurt" (just like in England!), and concludes her White House-posted video address with the plaintive, elementary school-style plea for "No guns, no guns, no guns, no guns": http://reason.com/blog/2013/01/18/white-house-gun-policy-like-ignorant-emo
None of the proposals would stop this - indeed, there was a big hullabaloo some months back about allegedly "lax gun laws" in Nevada after a spree killer shot up a restaurant in Carson City. It turns out he was a legally barred Californian who had obtained an illegal fully automatic weapon from criminals in California. Obviously, he knew he would fail a background check, and he also wanted a firearm that has been banned since the machine gun acts in the 1930s.