President Barack Obama announced his plan to
deal with gun violence (read implement gun control). In his remarks he said that he would sign 23 executive orders (which accomplish nothing) and called on Congress to pass universal background checks, a ban on “military style” assault weapons, and restriction on high-capacity magazines carrying more than 10 rounds.
I wanted to provide a little analysis into his remarks.
President Obama said:
more than 900 of our fellow Americans have reportedly died at the end of a gun — 900 in the past month. And every day we wait, that number will keep growing.
How many of these have been in cities and states with strict gun control already?
…if there is even one thing we can do to reduce this violence, if there is even one life that can be saved, then we’ve got an obligation to try.
How about banning abortion? That will save far more lives than the actions he took today.
First: It’s time for Congress to require a universal background check for anyone trying to buy a gun. (Applause.) The law already requires licensed gun dealers to run background checks, and over the last 14 years that’s kept 1.5 million of the wrong people from getting their hands on a gun. But it’s hard to enforce that law when as many as 40 percent of all gun purchases are conducted without a background check. That’s not safe. That’s not smart. It’s not fair to responsible gun buyers or sellers.
Do you think for a second that somebody who thinks they will be flagged will purchase a gun this way? No! All this does is give law abiding citizens more paperwork and hoops to jump through.
Congress should restore a ban on military-style assault weapons, and a 10-round limit for magazines. The type of assault rifle used in Aurora, for example, when paired with high-capacity magazines, has one purpose — to pump out as many bullets as possible, as quickly as possible; to do as much damage, using bullets often designed to inflict maximum damage.
And that’s what allowed the gunman in Aurora to shoot 70 people — 70 people — killing 12 in a matter of minutes. Weapons designed for the theater of war have no place in a movie theater. A majority of Americans agree with us on this.
“Military-style” so he’s basically banning weapons based on cosmetic features. See the picture below:
Cosmetic features… as far as the amount of rounds in the magazine, I’ve said before that somebody who knows what they are doing can change those out quickly. Regarding the theater shooting in Colorado. That weapon was already banned there – it was a gun free zone! Perhaps if a law-abiding citizen had been carrying there would have been fewer causalities. In a situation when you only have seconds, the police arrive in minutes.
Columbine happened during the assault weapons ban. Sweden has very strict gun laws and that didn’t prevent a mass shooting. This ban was scraped because it was ineffective.
Now how many Mexicans were killed as a result of Fast & Furious? That’s something I’d like to know.
here will be pundits and politicians and special interest lobbyists publicly warning of a tyrannical, all-out assault on liberty — not because that’s true, but because they want to gin up fear or higher ratings or revenue for themselves. And behind the scenes, they’ll do everything they can to block any common-sense reform and make sure nothing changes whatsoever.
What does he think he’s doing? He’s ginning up fear. He’s trying to gin up ratings. Look at the scene he set, surrounded by children! They are publicly warning about this because it is an assault on liberty. This right to keep and bear arms is fundamental to all of the other rights. It helps us protect those other rights. Don’t believe me? Again, let history be our guide.
I believe the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to bear arms. I respect our strong tradition of gun ownership and the rights of hunters and sportsmen. There are millions of responsible, law-abiding gun owners in America who cherish their right to bear arms for hunting, or sport, or protection, or collection.
How about to prevent tyranny? The Second Amendment wasn’t written for hunting or for just personal protection. Most liberals don’t get this. If you take away everyone’s weapons where only the government has them – well, historically, that never seems to go well for citizens.
I believe most of them agree that if America worked harder to keep guns out of the hands of dangerous people, there would be fewer atrocities like the one that occurred in Newtown.
I believe most do agree that violent felons and those who have been properly diagnosed as mentally ill should not be allowed to have weapons. Again, these laws will only keep law-abiding citizens from having weapons, not those who seek to have them for nefarious purposes. His administration’s explanation of his executive order to strengthen the background check system is some what chilling… “But we must do a better job ensuring the background check system has access to complete data about potentially dangerous individuals, (emphasis mine).” Who could end up being defined as potentially dangerous? That needs to be strictly defined.. . based on the reports coming out of the Department of Justice and Department of Homeland Security under this administration I’m leery.
Going on President Obama said:
As Americans, we are endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights that no man or government can take away from us. But we’ve also long recognized, as our Founders recognized, that with rights come responsibilities. Along with our freedom to live our lives as we will comes an obligation to allow others to do the same. We don’t live in isolation. We live in a society, a government of, and by, and for the people. We are responsible for each other.
Regarding our responsibility – here is our responsibility – not to murder or use our weapons for criminal purposes. To teach our children responsible gun ownership and safety. Getting rid of weapons isn’t exercising responsibility, it is giving up a right no matter how President Obama frames it.