Supporters of tighter gun control laws were pleased to hear President Barack Obama make some references to legislation that would change current firearms laws in his recent speeches regarding the Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre. But if there is an actual plan in place, the Obama Administration is keeping it a secret for now.
It actually makes sense for the President to keep his plan a secret if he does have one. Even though the issue is very hot button right now, there are still opponents of any further gun control legislation, and until President Obama has worked out a plan that is both going to be effective and will get passed, there is no reason to lay it out for everyone to poke holes in it. After all, look at what happened to The Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) before it was even fully finished.
During the White House daily briefing on Monday, press secretary Jay Carney repeated basically what the President said in his speeches that, "No single piece of legislation, no single action will fully address the problem." He told reporters who asked how Obama will turn his words into action, "I don't have a specific agenda to announce to you today."
However, it does appear that there is something in the works, because when the media pressed Carney for an answer as whether President Obama viewed gun control as the key solution to eliminating or reducing gun violence, Carney said that gun control is part of the solution, but is "far from all of it."
"I'm not going to engage in specific policy points and prescriptions," Carney finished. While this issue has come up before, never in the nation's past has a massacre touched the hearts of so many. Even Harry Reid, a longtime supporter of guns, has now announced that something has to be done. While the Obama Administration hashes out their plan for gun control and tries to come up with a robust solution that will not only solve the problem, but not take away citizens' rights to carry guns (and therefore be shot down by lawmakers), everyone else will just have to wait and see what Obama has up his sleeve. Hopefully, it's not just a magic trick.
Photo: Joe Shlabotnik on Flickr
Gabriel Legend covers current events for Gather News, and writes horror fiction. If you like an article from Gabriel please share it using the social media links below. Follow Gabriel Legend on Twitter (@GabeLegend).
recommend
Facebook
Twitter
bookmark 
print
Comments: 74
It demonstrates a sad, deplorable, primitive, ridiculous take on the man who occupies the White House.
Many on the right are so anti-government that they prefer it that way, would rather have a government that is capable of doing nothing than one that tries to accomplish anything. They have convinced themselves that any law is an infringement on their freedom. By adopting that point of view they have also abandoned the concept of the rule of law, an important element of freedom. If we are not all ruled by laws then the weak will be ruled by the strong, which in our world means the rich will rule over everybody. This recreates the aristocracy America was founded as an alternative to.
And the only ones calling Obama "the chosen one" are those who also call him "Kenyan born", "communist", "fascist" (completely unaware of the contradiction contained in those two epithets), "Muslim" and everything but what they really want to call him but are afraid that they will be exposed for what they truly are if they do.
I have never heard anyone on the left refer to Obama as "the chosen one" or by any other title that would infer that.
I may not have agreed with Bush on some things, but I can say one thing, at least he gave the impression he cared about America. And I KNOW he cared about our military, and the fallen soldiers family......that's more than I can say about the current administration who thinks image is so important, and can scream gun control after having some rapper at the white house that rapped the most anti American song in history! Double standard hypocrite!
Guarantee it.
Even if he has to use Executive Order.
THIS time, it's gonna happen.
But there's a tipping point to this tragedy--and the country knows it.
What if the NRA-backed GOP becomes as recalcitrant as the Norquist-backed GOP?
What if the NRA-backed GOP becomes as recalcitrant as the Norquist-backed GOP
Grover Norquist {IS} on the Board of Directors of the NRA.
The small minded liberals refuse to think logically and that the people who commit crimes with guns, don't get guns legally. All they can scream is more regulations, not stopping once to realize that Adam Lanza was DENIED buying a gun legally, so how did he get his guns, shot his own mother and stole hers. If he didn't get them that way, then he would have gotten them some other means illegally. Never once do they stop to think that people, citizens who want guns, own guns, are law abiding citizens, and no law or regulation that they place is going to stop people hell bent on destruction, will do it via any means they can, and that means a club, bat, fertilizer, sword, whatever......
You can't debate these idiots, for they only see things one way, the administrations way......Not the constitution's way, and certainly not logically.
The small minded liberals refuse to think logically
Logically speaking, 20 children 6 adults and 1 mentally distrubed person are all dead with an additional 3 people also being hospitalized. That fact being the direct result of an assault on a grade school full of innocent people by an assailant who was well armed with 2 simi automatic pistols and 1 assault rifle.
For me, that's enough logic to call for better and more reliable gun regulations in America. How much more logic do you require to reach the adult conclusion, that lackadaisical firearm laws and the rise in gun violence in our society are synonyomus ???
Scotter,
What good is regulation going to do, because you seem to omit, how the shooter got his guns in the first place. ILLEGALLY!
Lanza was denied the right to buy a gun, so he shot his own mother and killed her to steal her guns.
And if that hadn't worked he would have gotten them some other illegal means. So all the regulations in the world aren't going to do squat diddly do because those hell bent on carrying out a crime, or going to get a gun one way or another, usually in the means of another way, illegally, black market, or steal them.
And in the end it does no good for law abiding citizens who own guns, or want to own a gun...
Small minded liberal logic.....create gun regulations when most crimes committed with guns are using guns gotten illegally....You proved my point.
The logic being, that had the proper regulation of fireams been in place, Ms. Lanza would not have had an assault rifle for her son to conficate in the first place.
Admittedly, he would still have been able to use his mothers' pistols, but I believe with far less tragic results. It would be my opinion, that there would be a larger number of children alive today had he not had the AR-15 with a magazine that held 30 round of 223 cal high velosity ammunition.
An assault weapon like a bomb, has the potential to kill many people at one time. Therefore, it should not be in the hands of American citizens, regardless of the Second Amendment indicating otherwise. However, making such analogies will never answer the serious question presently facing our nation, i.e. gun violence in America.
You can defend the freedom of unlimited gun ownership all you want. But, if you ever served in the military, you well know, that assault type weapons have no place in an open society.
Personally, I support gun ownership for all Americans who pass an FBI background check and qualify as sane, honest and law abiding people. I do not support totally unfettered access and ownership of firearms by any American without restrictions and regulations.
BTW: I did not mean to mis spell your avatar name, I simply wrote what I thought I had read. I should have double checked before I posted my comment. You have my apology.
The second amendment makes reference to a "well regulated militia", which implies that regulation is not only permitted but advisable. It also says "the rights of citizens to bear arms shall not be infringed". Is regulation an infringement?
The first amendment guarantees free speech, but not all speech is free. Laws prevent people from inciting criminal activity and violence through speech, prevent people from yelling "fire" in a crowded theatre and prohibit slander and misrepresentation. Those are all common sense restrictions on a constitutionally guaranteed right.
Restricting gun ownership by requiring training, passing a test, getting a license, registering your guns and by banning firearms deemed too dangerous to the public good. These too are common sense restrictions on a constitutionally guaranteed right.
BTW: The government of Jean Chretien in Canada back in the early 1990s enacted the Canadian Firearms Registry. Though the implementation of the program was a financial boondoggle (actually costing 1000% more than they claimed it would) the program was set up across the country and ran for many years. Earlier this year the Conservative government of Stephen Harper changed the registry to eliminate "long guns" from it, cutting the registry down to only handguns. The province of Quebec asked the federal government to turn over the Quebec portion of the long gun registry to the province to maintain and run, but Harper refused and had the data destroyed.
But neither Chretien nor Harper were Hitler and no one who bought a gun legally and obeyed the law had their guns confiscated.
robert: Unless the constitution specifically prohibits something then it is possible for the government to make a law about it. Nowhere in the constitution does in mention registering your car either, this does not prohibit the government from requiring that of you.
To make the statement that my argument is pointless is either being less than honest or just deceptive. It is common sense. Increasing the amount of laws to control those who will ignore those laws is what is pointless. It will not resolve the problem, but it will impact those of us with our rights, who were sitting at home that day with our gun safely locked away from everyone. The shooting had nothing to do with me or my gun, and there do not need to be laws added that will impact me, not those who will ignore those laws. I cannot believe people think that criminals are going to suddenly obey new laws. It is a ridiculous suggestion.
The mass shootings that plague America are not normally the act of gangs but lone actors, mostly suburban or small town white males. Some 75% of the guns used were acquired legally. The possibility exists that well crafted gun control regulations could eliminate three quarters of the incidents, albeit that is a best case scenario.
"Some 75% of the guns used were acquired legally." This shows that 25% of those people are showing you that the laws will not stop them. It could have been 100% if needed. They will get a gun. I would have more respect for those who do not wish for common citizens to have this right to simply tell us so. There is no logic to justify this path of action. It literally makes no sense.
Same applies to guns.
Vic, here's the problem with your argument. You're saying that new laws wouldn't prevent the lawbreakers from committing their crimes. You are right that lawbreakers will still continue to break whatever laws they choose to, but if assault rifles were not sold to anyone, then they would have an awfully hard time obtaining one. Right now, they can A) buy one or B) steal one from millions who own one. If they weren't sold then both of those options would be off the table, and in the case of Sandy Hook, it might have prevented half of those kids from dying. And as I said at the very bottom of the comments - there is no reason on earth why a private citizen would need an assault rifle.
In fact, there is no parallel that can be drawn between Obama's term of service to date and Hitler's rise to power or early (i.e pre-war) administration.
And, of course, Obama has not stated wars but ended one.
You brand yourself a fool by saying this.
{"obama is another Hitler"}
If President Obama were the evil person you accuse him of being, society would quickly be rid of asinine people like you. Be greatful that he is not and you are therefore safe and allowed to continue residing in your lonely demented and irrational world of paranioa and conspiracy.
PLEASE !!!, I urge you to take personal offense, when I say that I find you to be one of the most offensive asinine people who's comments I have had the displeasure to read here on GN.
I would suggest that you should be ashamed of himself for comparing the POTUS to the architect of the second world war. A war which cumulated in the mass murder, annihilation and death of more than 70 million people worldwide. However, knowing that I would only be wasting my time in doing so, I will just feel deeply ashamed for you, as a fellow American. Inasmuch, as mentally disturbed people like you, have no self respect nor emotions of personal guilt and therefore, are incapable of feeling shame and remorse for the demonsterously deviate things that you say and/or write.
(i.e.) You are one sick SOB to be pitied by sane people.
Outlawing guns is not the answer- anymore than outlawing forks is the answer to obesity.
Happy Days are here again, the skies above are clear again, happy days are here again !!!
Agree with you wholeheartedly.
The administration is heading this country to socialism at best, if not full blown communism, and the blind refuse to see it, and when they do see it, it will be too late.
The administration in DC is the worst in history, and has no respect for the Founding Fathers of this country, the Declaration of Independence, or the Constitution.
How very short your memory is. It seems you remember no history before January 21st, 2009! You don't have to look back very far in your history to find a worse administration. The Bush administration was by far the worst in living memory.
On the more serious side, the dems will no doubt try to blame the repubs for the approaching dismal fall from grace when our checks start bouncing all over the planet.
Nice. Whacked.
What could you possibly want an assault rifle for? Just so you can look bad ass with it hanging in your gun case? And if someone breaks in your house, steals it, and uses it to shoot up another elementary school, how are you going to feel then?
The only people who require assault rifles are those in the military fighting a war and some law enforcement personnel. There is no reason for a private citizen to own an assault rifle and there is no reason for anyone to need an extended clip with tons of rounds.
And for those of you saying that you should get to own one because it is your right to do so, that's a dumb argument. It is your right to own a rocket launcher too, but you don't see people driving around with rocket launchers in the trunk of their cars. It would be dangerous and stupid.
Sadly, Gabriel, most of this crowd would only be broken hearted over the loss of their gun, not much concerned with the outcome that doesn't involve them.
Home invasions, carjackings, and assaults are more frequent these days. While the LE is busy arresting pot smokers, dealers, pimps, and writing tickets for "seat belt high crimes" I'll be guarding my home, and property with an arsenal of death that I defy any-low life thug to try to overcome.
You can shoot a deer, defend your home from thugs, and anything else that you can think of to do with a firearm with less powerful weapons. No one needs to own an assault rifle to guard their home. Anyone who says otherwise is a moron. Unless of course you are expecting an entire army to attack your home, and that would make you delusional rather than a moron.
It would be my adive that you immediately purchase as many firearms of all types. Buy as many as you not only can afford, but also as many as your credit card(s) will allow you to purchase. That should also include you, begging and borrowing all you can from your family and friends as well as mortgaging all you presently own in order to accumulate as much money as you possibly can to make those gun purchases. I also would advise that you do it as quick as possible, because as you know (even thoght you hate to admit it) President Obama was reelected and therefore time is running out.
There is no doubt whatsoever that it is the old "slippery slope" agenda which the Democrats being led by President Obama, are hellbent on establishing. It's also evident that they will bedoing so with the intent to circumvent the Constitution's Second Amendment Rights guaranteed to American citizens.
{i.e.} We (Democrats) will begin by passing strict gun purchase and ownership laws, then we place e ban on the manufacture and sale of all assault type weapons, then we expand the ban to include all sales of firearms to the public, then we will make it a crime to own any type of firearm, then we send out an armed militia to conficscate all firearms from Americans.
All that will be accomplished while both the Republicans, Libertarians, Independents, Pro Gun Advocates, Pro Gun Lobbiest and the the Godfather of gun ownership, the NRA, will all sit idoly by and do nothing to stop us scheming Democrats and Anti Gun Proponents from successfully completing our slippery slope agenda, to once and for all, disarm the American people.
Albeit, this scenario brings forth the question, what about those who are both Democrats as well as being gun owners, what will they do while their political party is taking away not only the rights of all others, but their rights as well ???
Damn logic, it always gets in the way of the illogic !!!
It's a nightmare world, but they call it home.
Your comment want get any disagreement from me. Sad, but true, is all I can add to your assessment.