President Obama Calls for Universal Background Checks—Your Thoughts?

In an address Wednesday morning, Obama also announced he would sign 23 executive orders related to gun control, public safety and mental health.

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.

Jeff January 20, 2013 at 05:29 AM
Sandy Hook was done with legally registered guns. So, if they are legally registered then why the push for all these laws? Obviously the kid's mother made a really bad choice and made them available to him. There are so many illegal weapons on the street that new laws are not going to help the innocent, just make it easier for criminals.
Jeff January 20, 2013 at 05:37 AM
It's delusional to think that making more laws will make anyone safer. Typical BS I have come to expect. Politicians want to give the appearance that they are doing something about the problem it's just smoke and mirrors. I don't buy any of the crap.
Albert Rubio January 20, 2013 at 06:11 AM
It does not surprise anyone with a healthy distrust of authority. 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.
Nadja Adolf January 20, 2013 at 07:22 AM
Leah, the "1.5 million figure is erroneous." There were 1.5 million initial rejections; however many were successfully appealed due to erroneous information in databases, people with the same name and birthdate (yes, it does happen if one has a common name), and even identity theft. I dont know the final figures, but they were considerably lower. 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.
Nadja Adolf January 20, 2013 at 07:27 AM
The figure you give of "1.5 million" is wrong. There were 1.5 million initial denials, and many were successfully appealed. 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.
Nadja Adolf January 20, 2013 at 07:29 AM
I'd like to see background checks for voting and for exercise of the First Amendment. I think that an intelligence test and a stability test should be mandatory. Don't you agree Kevin? I think people should have to have photo ID to vote - or write a letter to the editor or a web posting. Don't you think that would be a great idea? A national database of those who do both would also be useful.
Albert Rubio January 20, 2013 at 07:32 AM
"Keep your libraries, your penal institutions, your insane-asylums... give me beer. You think man needs rule, he needs beer. The world does not need morals, it needs beer...The souls of men have been fed with indigestibles, but the soul could make use of beer." - Henry Miller
Albert Rubio January 20, 2013 at 07:33 AM
I like the part, "You think man needs rule, he needs beer."
Albert Rubio January 20, 2013 at 08:06 AM
Nadja, > 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. ;-)
jeffrey olsen January 20, 2013 at 09:17 AM
As usual Adolf accuses Jews the Eternal scapegoats for all Adolfs. "Neither she nor anyone who knows her can think of anything else....." I know thousands people of the same type,who can 't think anything else,open any WhiteStorm..or BlackStorm ... site and you will find the all the same charges,Go,Nadja,GO.......
Nadja Adolf January 20, 2013 at 09:48 AM
Excuse me? 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.
Albert Rubio January 20, 2013 at 05:08 PM
I finally remembered the term I was actually looking for, "The cult of the presidency". This is what needs taking aim at regardless of party.
jeffrey olsen January 20, 2013 at 06:15 PM
Actually liberal leftists anti-Semites like to speak about bigotry.like you or Farrakhan or hordes of other ones.Really seas of blood are on your bigotry and IslamoNazi one. 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...
Nadja Adolf January 20, 2013 at 06:26 PM
Maybe it was because firearms were banned on post except for those assigned sentry duty or in training?
Michael Moore January 20, 2013 at 06:26 PM
Want to make a friend, give him a beer. Want to make many friends, supply the keg. The soul of a man is rebuilt every day from Beer.
Nadja Adolf January 20, 2013 at 06:29 PM
I think it was because firearms were forbidden on post.
Nadja Adolf January 20, 2013 at 06:34 PM
With all due respect, I think you've lost it, Jeffrey. 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.
Nadja Adolf January 20, 2013 at 06:35 PM
FYI - I think all crimes are hate crimes.
hals1 January 20, 2013 at 07:41 PM
Front page today Sunday Times "Three strikers get early release and $200 dollars 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.
BobG January 21, 2013 at 11:00 PM
You can't solve the entire gun problem but "criminals" are not the ones busting into schools, movie theaters, political events, malls and shooting multiple people. Let's just try and agree to take it step by step.
BobG January 21, 2013 at 11:03 PM
"I buy it in the event that someone breaks into my home and may be a harm to my family & property" - Criminals get the majority of their weapons and ammo from people like you. They break in to get weapons. The likelihood of you ever being in a position to successfully use a firearm to protect your property is so slim. Why do you think the NRA continues to block research into that very subject?
Nadja Adolf January 22, 2013 at 05:27 AM
BobG, the NRA has *never* blocked research into that subject. Criminologists have done very detailed research on his matter, and you should consider reading some of their work. 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.
Albert Rubio January 22, 2013 at 05:47 AM
Someone needed to say it: "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
Stephen Carbonaro January 22, 2013 at 07:04 AM
Watching the inauguration....I don't recall ever seeing a production like this. It's like "Barack Obama, Superstar!". Or the last time the Beatles came to town.
Albert Rubio January 22, 2013 at 07:06 AM
then you missed the last episode of the cult of the presidency four years ago. It took a lot of effort to avoid the first episode of the second coming.
Stephen Carbonaro January 22, 2013 at 07:24 AM
But they bragged about there being four times as many marching bands, and a much larger crowd. I could have been watching a coronation or a "Royal Wedding". It had the appearance of a psychological operation, if you will. The media makes it possible.
Tim January 22, 2013 at 07:56 AM
Yea, I skipped the King's coronation... I mean inauguration... didn't want to risk my food coming up.
Robert January 23, 2013 at 02:39 PM
I have a clean record, so I have nothing to fear when it comes to having a background check done on me so I say to the Feds, HAVE AT IT! I don't intend on buying a gun anytime too though, still, bring it on!
William Craun January 23, 2013 at 05:49 PM
Just like Fast & Furious?
Nadja Adolf January 28, 2013 at 10:03 AM
You know what is sad about this entire nonsense? No "assault weapon" was involved in the Newtown shooting; the killer left the "scary rifle" in the trunk of the car - and it was stolen from his mother whom he'd already murdered. 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.


More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something