Welcome to SECTalk.com
|Welcome to SECTalk.com -- The Home of 6 Straight National Titles!
You are currently accessing our site as a guest which means you can't access all of our features such as social groups, sports betting, and many more. By joining our free community you will have access to all of these great features as well as to participating in our forums, contacting other members, and much more. Registration only takes a minute and SECTalk.com is absolutely free, so please join today!
If you have any problems registering or signing in, please contact us.
Posted 18 December 2012 - 02:27 PM
Obama's push on gun violence begins to take shape
By Michael O’Brien , NBC News
President Barack Obama would actively support an impending proposal next year to reinstate a ban on assault weapons as part of the wide-ranging effort the president promised to initiate in response to mass shooting incidents this year.
The contours of Obama’s plan to address mounting gun violence begun to take shape in the nation’s capital as the White House started to outline some of the specific measures the administration would favor as part of its new initiative.
White House press secretary Jay Carney said that President Barack Obama supports the thrust of California Sen. Dianne Feinstein's forthcoming legislation to reinstate a ban on assault weapons, which expired in 2004. Carney said that the president was additionally willing to consider limiting the capacity of ammunition magazines and closing a loophole allowing individuals to purchase firearms at gun shows without a background check.
The press secretary's comments offered the first glance into what policy specifics might make up the president's vow to initiate an effort to address gun violence, which he made during a vigil for victims of last week's elementary school shooting in Newtown, Conn.
A steady trickle of pro-gun Democrats have begun to express their willingness to consider reinstating the assault weapons ban, which expired in 2004 without any serious efforts for renewal. West Virginia Sen. Joe Manchin -- whom Obama called Tuesday -- appeared in a 2010 campaign ad shooting a copy of the environmental cap-and-trade bill; now, Manchin said every option should be "on the table."
The shooting in Newtown, according to House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., served as a "tipping point" in a long-dormant debate over gun control in the nation's capital. While Obama has voiced support for reinstating the assault weapons ban in the past, his administration might throw its weight behind such an effort.
But Carney emphasized that new gun rules would only compose a portion of a more comprehensive effort to adress mass casualty events. The press secretary emphasized, for instance, that improved mental health services were an important element in any effort.
That component has been one which Republicans, who are generally loath to support efforts to rein in gun rights, have emphasized in the aftermath of the Newtown shooting.
"I think we need to look at school safety. Mental health, obviously, seems to be a big part of what happened here," Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell, R, said Tuesday on MSNBC. "And once we have the facts, make prudent, reasonable decisions."
He said limits on firearms might make sense, but only if evidence would demonstrate those tighter rules would be effective. On that count, McDonnell said all the facts had yet to be gathered.
Georgia Rep. Jack Kingston, R, made a similar point in a separate interview on MSNBC.
"Yes, put more gun control on the table, but don't forget the mental health element," he said.
But no senior Republican had yet emerged to endorse -- or really, even address -- the prospects for any legislation to restrict access to assault weapons or high-capacity magazines. Because the House will remain in Republican control for at least the next two years, bringing any such proposal to a vote without the blessing of the GOP leadership would be difficult, if not impossible.
Posted 18 December 2012 - 02:29 PM
Posted 18 December 2012 - 02:29 PM
Posted 18 December 2012 - 02:31 PM
"I've a suggestion to keep you all occupied.....Learn to swim"
Posted 18 December 2012 - 02:32 PM
Posted 18 December 2012 - 02:38 PM
MARK RICHT MAKES GOOD HIRE, HELL HAS FROZEN OVER
Posted 18 December 2012 - 02:42 PM
Assault crow bars! Assault pepper spray! Assault machetes!
Posted 18 December 2012 - 02:44 PM
And they only abide to law-abiding people. Get it?
Posted 18 December 2012 - 02:46 PM
Posted 18 December 2012 - 02:57 PM
That said, the assault gun ban will go nowhere, as has been mentioned. A cynic might say that Obama is simply going through the motions to appease the base. More likely he is supporting them in hopes of generating a legitimate discussion on the relevant issues.
I don't see a big issue w/ high capacity magazines, though I'm certain that it is an affront to many of you, either because you're preparing for the zombie apocalypse or just because you're a :lanekiffin:ing lousy shot.
ETA: Personally, I'd prefer a review of our mental health system, as well as a look at how that system interfaces with background checks. For instance, we know the guy applied to purchase a gun but was rejected. Was he rejected because of a history of mental illness? If so, should such an application trigger some sort of alert?
Edited by jthomas666, 19 December 2012 - 09:32 AM.
"very fair, very funny, very condemnatory" -- Harlan Ellison
"That dumbass with the Kermit avatar" -- razorhead
Posted 18 December 2012 - 03:05 PM
Posted 18 December 2012 - 03:17 PM
As long as the same restrictions are levied on police I'm fine with it as well.
Probability says that if I'm in a self-defense situation, it will be all alone. Generally when the police interact with criminals, it's in groups of at least two. Therefore if a magazine restriction doesn't interfere with my self defense whilst all alone, then logically it can't interfere with the police operating in packs.
Same goes for any AWBs. If those weapons are so dangerous and only useful for slaughtering large gropus of people, then that's the last weapon that should be in the arsenal of those who's purpose is to serve and protect.
That whole system needs review. It's all predicated on the only way someone is truly "mentally ill" is if they've been involuntarily committed. At the same time it completely rules out any possibility for treatment and recovery, once deranged always deranged if you will. There have been a couple cases where family members had people committed for severe eating disorders and they've since been unable to purchase firearms. I'm sorry but the recovered anorexic is not a threat to society. The guy wandering the street talking the voices in his head just might be even though he's never been committed...
Edited by nova, 18 December 2012 - 03:18 PM.
Posted 18 December 2012 - 03:33 PM
All of the cases need to be reviewed extensively and all parties must come to the table and attack this from every angle to put an end to it. This has become absolutely as big of a safety concern in my mind as an Al Quaida terrorist attack. R's need to be willing to go to the table with D's and THE MAGNIFICENT ONE and actually all sides must be willing to compromise for once.
The commonality in these shootings is assault weapons, therefore a ban on assault weapons should absolutely be explored. There are several other (and I think better) avenues to begin to go down though than a knee-jerk ban on guns after something like this. Review, discuss, compromise, and when advantages and disadvantages of several options have been weighed, then go down the path you think is best. If after careful review and discussion, people believe a ban on assault weapons should be pursued, then go for it. I am just against a knee-jerk reaction of what everyone thinks is the magic solution for a problem that I believe lies much deeper than guns or no guns.
SECTalk Hater's Club Inspiration
Posted 18 December 2012 - 03:37 PM
|Topic||Started By||Stats||Last Post Info|
- 25 replies
- 202 views
- Hot 35 replies
- 355 views
- 8 replies
- 93 views
- 1 reply
- 37 views
- 2 replies
- 74 views