Anyone want to guess what he specifically has in mind as "common-sense reforms"? I'd be willing to wager that whatever they are, that there is no evidence that will stand up to critical scrutiny that said "reforms" will have any measurable effect upon improving "public safety", and likely the opposite.

September 16, 2014

Statement by the President

One year ago, our dedicated military and civilian personnel at the Washington Navy Yard were targeted in an unspeakable act of violence that took the lives of 12 American patriots. As we remember men and women taken from us so senselessly, we keep close their family and friends, stand with the survivors who continue to heal and pay tribute to the first responders who acted with skill and bravery. At the same time, we continue to improve security at our country’s bases and installations to protect our military and civilian personnel who help keep us safe. One year ago, 12 Americans went to work to protect and strengthen the country they loved. Today, we must do the same – rejecting atrocities like these as the new normal and renewing our call for common-sense reforms that respect our traditions while reducing the gun violence that shatters too many American families every day.

They say common sense when they either don't want to detail their plan or have no idea what they are really going to try to do. "Common sense answers" is just a feel good sound good answer that will make enough people not question the plan.

The 2nd amendment is not a "tradition" Mr. Oblabber. It's the "Law of The Land", please get that through your thick skull.

Nobody that I know accepts murder of ANY KIND as "normal". The only thing we have begun to except as the "norm" is that our judicial system will put these violent offenders back on the streets of our neighborhoods as quickly as they can, and then wonder "why" they haven't learned their lesson after they commit the same, or an even more heinous crime once released.

In short sir, the only thing we except as the "norm" is our government failing to do its job, and costing us more money every year to do it.

Idiot.

I can see how it might be hard to see the real facts...

He's a moron, blinded by his own ambitions, whose perspective is further muddled by the thick fog of idiocy and contempt that shrouds his administration.

Looks like some long wait times at HPD!   

I don't see this as a black and white issue, I do not believe that it is all or non in terms of what firearms are legal, thus I think there is a gray area and courts have upheld there being a gray area (some types of arms are illegal).  So when we discuss gun control we need to acknowledge a certain amount of power to regulate firearms. The problem with Obama's statement is that common sense is a very vague statement that could mean a lot of different things to different people. Common sense firearm control is different depending on who you ask.

Realistically all we are doing is deciding on where to draw the line in the grey zone. Most don't want all arms legal and most don't want all arms illegal so we are stuck pushing a line back and forth. I don't think we will ever find a perfectly happy medium.

F*ck happy medium. I and every one else that is a responsible citizen should be able to own whatever we want.

Gun control laws do not prevent one iota of crime. There is no "Pre-crime" department, it's BS from a movie. They can't extrapolate from the type of weapon that someone owns what they will do with it.

Criminals will get guns because they ignore the law, the only people affected will be the law abiding.

If I use my M1A1 tank or my RPG responsibly, nobody need be alarmed. If I use it with illegal and malicious intent, I should go to jail or be put to death.

This should be a "black and white" issue. The insistence of our lawmakers and puling do gooders that there be "grey areas" is a huge part of the problem.

There are no restrictions put forth in the Second Amendment.

All the scared pussies that don't like it should move to Europe.

He's a jackass who is being controlled by rich fools who think they can play god.  They also want to control the world Dr Evil style.

I don't see this as a black and white issue, I do not believe that it is all or non in terms of what firearms are legal, thus I think there is a gray area and courts have upheld there being a gray area (some types of arms are illegal).  So when we discuss gun control we need to acknowledge a certain amount of power to regulate firearms. The problem with Obama's statement is that common sense is a very vague statement that could mean a lot of different things to different people. Common sense firearm control is different depending on who you ask.

Realistically all we are doing is deciding on where to draw the line in the grey zone. Most don't want all arms legal and most don't want all arms illegal so we are stuck pushing a line back and forth. I don't think we will ever find a perfectly happy medium.

That's the whole problem with your thinking.  You somehow think the gun control side of the equation has a basis in reality.  They are not about common sense, or happy mediums, or even drawing a line.  They are all about an agenda.  Think about that word:  AGENDA.  What, exactly, does that mean?

It means that, no matter what the perceived problem is, they already have the "solution."  For example, after Sandy Hook, they wanted to once again ban AR-15s.  Why?  The 1994 ban proved there was NO impact on crime, which is why there was little resistance to allow it to expire in 2004.  The CDC report Obama directed proved that the ban did nothing for reducing crime, just as not having a ban does not increase crime. 

So, don't think for one minute the politicians and supporters of gun control want to fix anything EXCEPT the so-called "epidemic" of "gun violence."  Facts show the rates of gun crimes are lower over the last 2 decades.  What epidemic??

They use the tragedies of mass shootings (also not at a higher rate than the last 40 years) to push an agenda.  These are not solutions, nor are they "compromises."  The anti's lose NOTHING by this "compromise." 

If the gun control side could actually articulate a SPECIFIC and FOCUSED problem and how a SPECIFIC and TARGETED solution would actually address the problem, I'd be all for it.  Unfortunately for everyone, it's all emotional and ignorant.  The so called "experts" in the legislatures are clueless about guns.  There is plenty of evidence to support that statement.

Let's put this in perspective.  If you have a belief that everyone would benefit from cutting out video games from our lives, then every time someone suffered from obesity, eye problems, bad grades, poor personal hygiene, etc, you'd create massive ad campaigns about how the video games are to blame.  You'd be lobbying for laws against gaming, pushing for common sense time limits on how long games run before a mandatory "cooling off" period, addiction programs, and taxes for game manufacturers. 

None of these acts will fix anything.  They are merely incremental changes until one day, you've made gaming so vilified and feared, people choose to no longer play them. 

The only solution that will satisfy the people against something is a 100% ban on private ownership.  That's the ONLY solution they will finally accept.  Unfortunately, once the solution arrives, and we find out it was wrong, it'll be impossible to reverse.

F*ck happy medium. I and every one else that is a responsible citizen should be able to own whatever we want.

Ok, one question then just to clear up my understanding of your stance.

Take an individual who has serious mental disorders, any combination you can think of from basic mental retardation to disorders like paranoid schizophrenia or being psychotic but that person has not broken a single law and has never threatened to use violence. Should the government be able to restrict that person from possessing a firearm?

I ask because it seems to be that this is an issue where I see both parties agreeing on the gun control, that something needs to be done to keep the guns out of the hands of the crazy people. Problem is though that a paranoid schizophrenic is still a legal person with legal rights guaranteed by the constitution so if the 2nd amendment is black and white then we cannot prevent them from owning firearms, especially if they have committed no crime.

That's the whole problem with your thinking.  You somehow think the gun control side of the equation has a basis in reality.  They are not about common sense, or happy mediums, or even drawing a line.  They are all about an agenda.  Think about that word:  AGENDA.  What, exactly, does that mean?

It means that, no matter what the perceived problem is, they already have the "solution."  For example, after Sandy Hook, they wanted to once again ban AR-15s.  Why?  The 1994 ban proved there was NO impact on crime, which is why there was little resistance to allow it to expire in 2004.  The CDC report Obama directed proved that the ban did nothing for reducing crime, just as not having a ban does not increase crime. 

So, don't think for one minute the politicians and supporters of gun control want to fix anything EXCEPT the so-called "epidemic" of "gun violence."  Facts show the rates of gun crimes are lower over the last 2 decades.  What epidemic??

They use the tragedies of mass shootings (also not at a higher rate than the last 40 years) to push an agenda.  These are not solutions, nor are they "compromises."  The anti's lose NOTHING by this "compromise." 

If the gun control side could actually articulate a SPECIFIC and FOCUSED problem and how a SPECIFIC and TARGETED solution would actually address the problem, I'd be all for it.  Unfortunately for both sides, it's all emotional and ignorant.  The so called "experts" in the legislatures are clueless about guns.  There is plenty of evidence to support that statement.

Let's put this in perspective.  If you have a belief that everyone would benefit from cutting out video games from our lives, then every time someone suffered from obesity, eye problems, bad grades, poor personal hygiene, etc, you'd create massive ad campaigns about how the video games are to blame.  Youd be lobbying for laws against gaming, pushing for common sense time limits on how long games run before a mandatory "cooling off" period, addiction programs, and taxes for game manufacturers. 

None of these acts will fix anything.  They are merely incremental changes until one day, you've made gaming so vilified and feared, people choose to no longer play them. 

The only solution that will satisfy the people against something is a 100% ban on private ownership.  That's the ONLY solution they will finally accept.  unfortunately, one the solution arrives, and we find out it was wrong, it'll be impossible to reverse.

Maui, I must disagree because I know many individuals who are against firearms similar to an Ak47/AR15 but have absolutely no problem with a hunting rifle or shotgun. You are presenting the other side as a group out to ban any and all firearms which simply isn't true. We can nitpick the arguments of the gun control advocates and find the reasonable to the absurd but it isn't all some conspiracy theory. My grandma, for example, is against people owning a 30rd AR15 but she owns a .22 bolt action. She clearly doesn't fit into the image you paint of them all wanting no one to have any guns. It really is more of a sliding scale where you will find many different levels of what types of firearms should be allowed and to who. I agree about the emotional arguments not based on data but there are a significant number out there who want some gun control without all guns being made illegal.

Maui, I must disagree because I know many individuals who are against firearms similar to an Ak47/AR15 but have absolutely no problem with a hunting rifle or shotgun. You are presenting the other side as a group out to ban any and all firearms which simply isn't true. We can nitpick the arguments of the gun control advocates and find the reasonable to the absurd but it isn't all some conspiracy theory. My grandma, for example, is against people owning a 30rd AR15 but she owns a .22 bolt action. She clearly doesn't fit into the image you paint of them all wanting no one to have any guns. It really is more of a sliding scale where you will find many different levels of what types of firearms should be allowed and to who. I agree about the emotional arguments not based on data but there are a significant number out there who want some gun control without all guns being made illegal.

Since you know these people who  are against some guns and not others, what, exactly, is their reasoning for banning AR15/AK style weapons?  What part of the gun violence problem do they believe this will solve? 

There has to be logic in their opinions, or else my original evaluation stands:  emotion and ignorance.

Since you know these people who  are against some guns and not others, what, exactly, is their reasoning for banning AR15/AK style weapons?  What part of the gun violence problem do they believe this will solve? 

There has to be logic in their opinions, or else my original evaluation stands:  emotion and ignorance.

Well, for my grandmother at least, it appears to me she is against the high rate of fire combined with high capacity of ammo. These are desirable traits in a combat firearm and are not traits needed for hunting/target shooting. Basically when bad guys want to go shooting the high capacity semi auto ability makes it a lot easier to do a lot of damage. That is probably the best I could summarize her argument. She is not one of those "OMG the gun is black colored so its only for assaulting" type people.

Well, for my grandmother at least, it appears to me she is against the high rate of fire combined with high capacity of ammo. These are desirable traits in a combat firearm and are not traits needed for hunting/target shooting. Basically when bad guys want to go shooting the high capacity semi auto ability makes it a lot easier to do a lot of damage. That is probably the best I could summarize her argument. She is not one of those "OMG the gun is black colored so its only for assaulting" type people.

Since when is the 2nd Amendment about hunting and target shooting?

The second amendment is not about hunting/target shooting. It is a means to resist tyranny and personal defense.

Your grandmother's fear is irrational. She is fearing the potential of a weapon. It is an emotional argument which is based on ignorance since less than 2% of all gun crimes use so called "assault rifles".

Standard capacity magazines are desirable traits in a firearm not only for combat use but defensive use. A recent example are shop owners that defended their shops during the Ferguson riots.

Maui, I must disagree because I know many individuals who are against firearms similar to an Ak47/AR15 but have absolutely no problem with a hunting rifle or shotgun. You are presenting the other side as a group out to ban any and all firearms which simply isn't true. We can nitpick the arguments of the gun control advocates and find the reasonable to the absurd but it isn't all some conspiracy theory. My grandma, for example, is against people owning a 30rd AR15 but she owns a .22 bolt action. She clearly doesn't fit into the image you paint of them all wanting no one to have any guns. It really is more of a sliding scale where you will find many different levels of what types of firearms should be allowed and to who. I agree about the emotional arguments not based on data but there are a significant number out there who want some gun control without all guns being made illegal.

My view is that the people you speak of who are NOT for totally banning civilian ownership of firearms, but support banning "only" certain particular firearms are 1. grossly misinformed (uniformed/ignorant?) about the statistics and nature of causality regarding firearms and their use in crimes by criminals, and/or 2. grossly misinformed/uninformed about the true intentions (total civilian disarmament) of the lobbying organizations (Brady, Everytown, MDAFGSIA, ARS, etc) and PACS that are working for "partial bans" (though as pointed out in another thread here they have temporarily backed off their efforts re the "assault weapons" bans). Do these people, including your grandmother, know that the National Coalition to Ban Handguns is now known as The Brady Campaign? Does she know that those rifles she doesn't want anyone to own are used in less than 3% of firearm-related homicides, while handguns are involved in over 80% of firearm-related homicides? What is her logic for banning the one rarely used category, and not the frequently-used firearm category? Inform her of the statistics and ask her what her logical conclusion (and her logic) is about which firearms ought to be removed from the possession of law-abiding citizens.

Misinformed/uninformed people may have "good intentions", which, of course, paves that road to hell. In my view, especially if they give any kind of support to any organization that has the muscle/money to influence legislators (law-making) and elections, they are dupes of the civilian disarmament movement. Their possible votes for politicians (and laws those politicians pass) who will achieve this goal, misinformed or not, is an ignorant capitulation to those who would like to see a strict government monopoly of violence.

Although the current crop of prohibitionists rarely make public statements about their desire for total civilian disarmament due to the unpopularity of such sentiments (that's why Brady became Brady and no longer the National Coalition to Ban Handguns), occasionally they do utter such statements. You can find these quotes from the heads of various organizations. Here is a link to an essay published on the Daily Kos, with an excerpt. Anyone who thinks total civilian disarmament isn't the goal of all these groups is naive at best, a willing dupe and traitor to the Constitution at worst. (The author explains why even .22s must be banned: they kill people. He doesn't mention cars, knives, hammers or swimming pools, each of which kills more people than .22s. Go figure.)

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/12/21/1172661/-How-to-Ban-Guns-A-step-by-step-long-term-process

How to Ban Guns: A step by step, long term process

The only way we can truly be safe and prevent further gun violence is to ban civilian ownership of all guns. That means everything. No pistols, no revolvers, no semiautomatic or automatic rifles. No bolt action. No breaking actions or falling blocks. Nothing. This is the only thing that we can possibly do to keep our children safe from both mass murder and common street violence.
Unfortunately, right now we can't. The political will is there, but the institutions are not. Honestly, this is a good thing. If we passed a law tomorrow banning all firearms, we would have massive noncompliance. What we need to do is establish the regulatory and informational institutions first. This is how we do it: ...

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/12/21/1172661/-How-to-Ban-Guns-A-step-by-step-long-term-process

How to Ban Guns: A step by step, long term process

The only way we can truly be safe and prevent further gun violence is to ban civilian ownership of all guns. That means everything. No pistols, no revolvers, no semiautomatic or automatic rifles. No bolt action. No breaking actions or falling blocks. Nothing. This is the only thing that we can possibly do to keep our children safe from both mass murder and common street violence.
Unfortunately, right now we can't. The political will is there, but the institutions are not. Honestly, this is a good thing. If we passed a law tomorrow banning all firearms, we would have massive noncompliance. What we need to do is establish the regulatory and informational institutions first. This is how we do it: ...

Thank you for finding that.  I was going to point out the terrible naivete or deliberate misinformation of:

" You are presenting the other side as a group out to ban any and all firearms which simply isn't true."

But finding some of the bleating where they have shown their true agenda is invaluable.

Thank you for finding that.  I was going to point out the terrible naivete or deliberate misinformation of:

" You are presenting the other side as a group out to ban any and all firearms which simply isn't true."

But finding some of the bleating where they have shown their true agenda is invaluable.

I believe the OP was claiming that NOT EVERYONE who wants to ban "some" guns, wants to ban ALL guns. That was the point of my post, that those people are naive if they think that the organizations with the money to influence elections, politicians, and legislation (laws) DON'T have the intent to ban all civilian firearm ownership, because they do. Thus the word "dupes".

Here's an article with a long list (and it's still relatively short compared to all that's out there) of quotes from prominent people in the TOTAL civilian disarmament camp., with only a few examples.

http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2014/07/daniel-zimmerman/seriously-one-wants-take-guns/#more-329740

U.S. Attorney General Janet Reno
“Waiting periods are only a step. Registration is only a step. The prohibition of private firearms is the goal.”

Senator Dianne Feinstein (D – CA) does [want to ban all guns].
“Banning guns addresses a fundamental right of all Americans to feel safe.” – Associated Press, 18 November, 1993.
“If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them; “Mr. and Mrs. America, turn ‘em all in,” I would have done it.” – 60 Minutes on CBS, 5 February, 1995.
“The National Guard fulfills the militia mentioned in the Second amendment. Citizens no longer need to protect the states or themselves.”

Boston’s police commissioner, William Evans, asked about why police should have control over who is “suitable” to own a shotgun or rifle (low capacity, non semi-auto)
“For the most part, nobody in the city needs a shotgun. Nobody needs a rifle.” July 23, 2014 [That would include your grandmother's .22 bolt action.]

Former Senator John Chafee (R – RI):
“I shortly will introduce legislation banning the sale, manufacture or possession of handguns (with exceptions for law enforcement and licensed target clubs)… . It is time to act. We cannot go on like this. Ban them!” – Minneapolis Star Tribune pg. 31A, 15 June, 1992.

Then-Senator Joe “Buckshot” Biden (D – DE):
“Banning guns is an idea whose time has come.” – Associated Press, 11 November, 1993

Former Representative Major Owens (D – NY):
“We have to start with a ban on the manufacturing and import of handguns. From there we register the guns which are currently owned, and follow that with additional bans and acquisitions of handguns and rifles with no sporting purpose.”

Representative Bobby Rush (D – IL):
“My staff and I right now are working on a comprehensive gun-control bill. We don’t have all the details, but for instance, regulating the sale and purchase of bullets. Ultimately, I would like to see the manufacture and possession of handguns banned except for military and police use. But that’s the endgame. And in the meantime, there are some specific things that we can do with legislation.”

And on and on and on and on...

The Brady Campaign started out with the AGENDA of banning all semi-auto handguns.  They thought most private owners had revolvers and hunting rifles, and that the public equated semi-auto pistols with criminals.  They assumed they could convince people there is no need, and only negative results, for owning semi-auto pistols.

What they discovered was a much larger number of semi-auto pistol owners, and that the public believes in them for personal protection.  Therefore, their agenda failed.

Over time, they decided to shift attention to weapons they can get public support to ban.  People who are ignorant and have no personal "dog in the fight" (i.e don't own "assault style weapons") won't put up much of a fight to prevent a ban.  Demonizing a type of semi-auto rifle with the capability to hold 30 rounds of ammo without reloading is a scare tactic.  There are no studies or statistics which support the premise these weapons are more or less dangerous than any other semi-automatic rifle OR handgun.

Case in point:  the school shooting with the largest body/casualty count was not Columbine.  It was Virginia Tech.  The mentally ill student used a Walther P22 with a 10rd mag, and a Glock 19 with a 15rd mag.  He shot and killed 32 people and wounded 17 others in two separate attacks, approximately two hours apart, before committing suicide (another six people were injured escaping from classroom windows).

Are we talking about banning these 2 pistols?  Why not?  These are important questions to consider.  If the goal is to actually solve a problem, why are we focused on types of firearms not used in the worst massacres?

You can tell whether or not people have genuine knowledge of firearms by the vocabulary they use.  if they say, "Military style weapons", "weapons of war", "high capacity clips", and "nobody needs (fill in the blank)", then they are parroting what the Left and anti-s have fed them.  Banning does one thing:  it forces YOUR choice on EVERYONE ELSE without affording them the same freedom to choose for themselves.

Since when is the 2nd Amendment about hunting and target shooting?

Not my point.
My point is that there are a lot of individuals who want some types of firearms banned but not all firearms banned. This is in contrast to the claim that everyone on the pro gun control side wants to ban any and all firearms.
I think we do ourselves a disservice if we misrepresent our opponents so greatly.