Obama is changing gun laws, what do you think?

1. 67

   Michele Travisposted 12 years ago

   The White House had said Mr. Obama would in the coming weeks seek stricter gun-control measures but hadn't provided details until today. Mr. Carney said the president would consider limits on high capacity magazines and would support efforts to prevent people from buying guns through unlicensed dealers without a background check. He said the president also actively supports Sen. Dianne Feinstein's (D., Calif.) proposal to ban assault weapons.
   
   Mr. Manchin said in a statement that he and Mr. Obama "agree that as Americans and parents, all of our children belong to all of us and we must work together to keep our precious children safe."
   
   He said he knows "my friends at the NRA and those who support our Second Amendment rights will participate because I know that their hearts are aching for the families in Newtown, just like all Americans."
   
   Mr. Obama's approach won't focus solely on the nation's gun laws, Mr. Carney said. He also wants to consider changes to mental-health laws to prevent the mentally instable from getting weapons.
   
   Mr. Manchin said he, too, wants to address the country's mental-health laws

   replyreport
   1. 61

      Michael-Milecposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      IS ever again anything to be " changed " for better in this formerly " The Land  of the free ?"

      replyreport
2. 61

   knolyourselfposted 12 years ago

   "the mentally instable from getting weapons." Then he will have to ban psychiatry.

   replyreport
   1. 67

      Michele Travisposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      The one that committed that horrible crime  was never diagnosed.

      replyreport
3. 66

   psycheskinnerposted 12 years ago

   I imagine the main move will be to return the ban on assault rifles.

   replyreport
4. 61

   knolyourselfposted 12 years ago

   The question is not diagnosed, and neighbors on Sixty-Minutes said he had Aspergers definitely, the question is if, or what, or which meds was he on?

   replyreport
   1. 66

      psycheskinnerposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      The question is definitely whether he was diagnosed by an qualified professional.
      
      I suspect only his unqualified mother made the "diagnosis" and his main problem was that he was not on any meds at all.

      replyreport
5. 67

   Michele Travisposted 12 years ago

   He is moving on a lot more now
   
   Mr. Obama, speaking at a vigil over the weekend, said that he "will use whatever power this office holds to engage my fellow citizens—from law enforcement to mental health professionals to parents and educators—in an effort aimed at preventing more tragedies like this."
   
   The president has previously said he would take steps to tighten gun laws but hasn't taken significant action.
   
   This time may be different, as lawmakers with credibility in the gun-rights community have said they too want to look at the nation's weapon laws. Mr. Manchin, who kept his distance from Mr. Obama during the fall election, has an "A" rating from the National Rifle Association and aired a campaign ad in 2010 showing himself firing a rifle.
   
   What ever power this office holds.   I wonder what he means by that?

   replyreport
6. 61

   knolyourselfposted 12 years ago

   He means how many kids did he drone today in Afghanistan and elsewheres.

   replyreport
   1. 67

      Michele Travisposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      A lot.

      replyreport
   2. 0

      EmpressFelicityposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      :snort:

      replyreport
7. 67

   Michele Travisposted 12 years ago

   Does anyone know if is really going to change  gun laws, or try to eliminate guns?

   replyreport
   1. 0

      HowardBThinameposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Just my two cents but I think we're going to see a ban on the sale of assault-type rifles and high capacity magazines. Not a ban on the guns, which would violate the 4th Amendment, but a ban on the sales. Since this will be a rushed bill - it will contain an expiration clause, just as B. Clinton's bill did. by putting in an expiration clause, they can sooth ruffled feathers by saying they're going to look at the issue in-depth during that time.
      
      I don't think the ban on sales will help, because anyone who's intent on killing like this kid was, or like the Batman shooter was, will find a way to accomplish their goals.
      
      But tragedies of this magnitude assail our senses and we demand that "something" be done. I think the real answer, like one officer said, is to have armed guards in the schools. Not regular security guards who take a firearms class, but perhaps our returning military personnel who know how to react in a combat situation. When innocent lives are at stake - we can't afford mistakes.
      
      I also think we need to look into Big Pharma's role in this. We've known for decades that some psychotropic meds cause homicidal and suicidal behaviors. I read somewhere that 60% of the shooters have been on these types of mind-altering drugs. That has to stop. We need more control in that area.
      
      And lastly, maybe we need to tell the media to cool its jets. The level of notoriety they afford someone who does this, just lures in more deranged individuals.

      replyreport
      1. 88

         Don Wposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         But surely the very least we can do is make it as difficult as possible to accomplish that goal. Have you considered that one of the determining factors in tragedies like this might be the ease at which they can be perpetrated.

         replyreport
         1. 76

            wildernessposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            You're absolutely right.  It's too easy to toss in a pipe bomb.  To set the school on fire.  To drive a car through the wall into an occupied classroom or into the crowd of kids waiting for the bus.
            
            Making it more difficult is a tiny part of the puzzle and will never do much good.  The bottom line is that our schools are nearly indefensible against a determined attack by someone wanting to die.
            
            We need to figure out how to stop the attack from ever happening at all, not try to minimize the damage it does.

            replyreport
            1. 54

               whoisitposted 12 years agoin reply to this

               We could start with eliminating glass doors that remain unlocked all day.

               replyreport
            2. 88

               Don Wposted 12 years agoin reply to this

               Realistically, we need to do both. The difficulty is doing so in ways that are acceptable to society.

               replyreport
   2. 0

      Sarra Garrettposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Gun control won't work.  He is going to ban assult weapons.  There is no way to stop the sale of guns altogether.  If he decides, and won't, to go door to door to confiscate weapons there will be a civil war.  For one, if someone was going to take my weapons away they will have to do so out of my cold dead hands. 
      
      The shooter in CT had his assult well planned out and it was not just a 'spur of the moment thing.' The weapons he had were from his mother and were purchased legally.  His mother, knowing her son had mental issues, should have had trigger locks and had the weapons in a locked safe.  I'm not totally blaming his mother, however........when you have other people in the household you are to be a responsible weapon owner and have them secured from others, family or not.

      replyreport
      1. 54

         whoisitposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         I would hate to predict a civil war but I do agree the risk of armed resistance would be high.

         replyreport
   3. 71

      Ralph Deedsposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      He's definitely not going to "eliminate guns." I hope he'll sign a bill banning assault weapons, big magazines, close the gun show loophole and put some money into more effective enforcement.

      replyreport
8. 67

   Michele Travisposted 12 years ago

   I agree with you,   why do we need  assault-type rifles and high capacity magazines?   We don't.    And the media is reporting it over and over and over again.  Everybody knows about it.  So, yes it can be  done again by someone who is mentally ill, or someone who want's to be a copy cat.  Or another deranged person.  But, Obama also want's to change how people with mental illness are treated.  I am not sure how that is going to happen.
   
   There are a lot of drugs that effect a person's mind.  One of the new ones is not even legal.  The "bath salts"  Not a lot of people take those.  There even is a show about that one,  well I think it is about that one, but the show on TV is called something like "Zombies"
   
   Which ones are the psychotropic meds?

   replyreport
   1. 76

      wildernessposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Even though I might support a ban on assault rifles, high capacity magazines and high power ammunition (depending on the definition of each) it isn't going to help IMHO.  It is nothing more than a "feel good" reaction to a public problem without real substance.
      
      The problem won't be solved, or even helped much, by attacking the tool used.  The problem is social, not mechanical, and removing one particular tool will only result in the use of a different one - a car perhaps or a pipe bomb - and could well result in worse tragedies.
      
      Even the pharma industry isn't the real problem.  Some questions I haven't an answer for, but seem germane to me:
      
      People generally know before hand that something is wrong with individuals that commit these kinds of acts.  Why are they walking through society without immediate supervision?  We sympathize, we care and we want them to live as full a life as possible - right now the price we pay is Sandy Elementary for that caring.
      
      Young lawbreakers, both violent and not, are typically given a small slap on the wrist and turned loose.  We are "teaching" them there is no real consequence for inappropriate actions - will coming down hard on gang membership, violence in general as well as other "crimes" stop it early?
      
      People on meds for mental problems often don't take them as required.  Should any such prescription be followed by notification to a "parole" board that will do weekly drug tests to verify they are being taken, maybe with a "second strike and you're out" policy?  How else could we verify that they are being taken and "working"?  A monthly mental exam?  Making the caretaker responsible?  Massive, 5,000 inmate "lockdowns" for patients?
      
      What is it in the US culture that produces these individuals and leaves them free to do as they wish?  Stress?  Higher competition to keep up with the Jones?  A tendency to look down on mental illness as evil or terrible?  An unwillingness to acknowledge the problem? 
      
      Other countries don't seem to have the problem, and it isn't from limiting one particular tool of death.  What is the difference?  Or is it just the relative size of the US and the media coverage? 
      
      Just some thoughts...

      replyreport
      1. 67

         Michele Travisposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         The massive lock down won't work.  In the past, the people who shot a mass of people in a school, or a theater, it was the first time they did it.  How could they have been in a massive lock down work  , if they had not shown a horrible criminal mental illness, before they tried to kill all those innocent people?

         replyreport
         1. 76

            wildernessposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            Perhaps Obamacare should require a mental exam once a year, with any abnormalities locked away.
            
            I don't have an answer, just questions (like this one) that have only unacceptable answers.  We are paying a very high price for allowing the mentally ill to live free - are we willing to continue to do so?  How can we limit this kind of thing without destroying our self respect and the lives of thousands of others that would never harm a fly in the process?
            
            We'll end up taking more freedom from innocent people (gun control) in an effort to assuage our conscience ("Well, we tried") while knowing that it won't do much good.  That's not the answer, and neither is trying to stop the unstoppable by providing guards and security.  The answer is to stop the problem at it's roots, or at least try, and we aren't willing or able to do that.  We won't be able to until the time that we truly recognize the problem and attack it.  Rather than trying to put out the fire we need to eliminate the fuel that burns.

            replyreport
            1. 0

               Sarra Garrettposted 12 years agoin reply to this

               If more people took anti-anxiety or anti-depressants it would be a better world. But if Obamacare does require a mental health exam maybe that would put the world on pills.   
               
               Or, just legalize pot and everyone would have a better day. Just sayin.    But then there would be a lot of lazy people.  Just sayin.

               replyreport
               1. 76

                  wildernessposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                  You might be onto something there - a country of pot heads doped up with serotonin should be about as non-violent as it could get.  Not sure how much work would get done, but there wouldn't be much violence!

                  replyreport
         2. 0

            EmpressFelicityposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            +1
            
            The sad fact is that in order to be anywhere near 100% certain of preventing this kind of thing from happening again, you would have to get really, really draconian about locking away people who even *looked* as though they might have a mental illness. Basically what you'd end up with is a police state, full of busybodies with grudges reporting their neighbours/colleagues for being "a bit weird", so that the men in white coats could come and take them away.
            
            No thanks. The shooting in Connecticut was a tragedy... it would be just as much of a tragedy if your government used it to create a dictatorship.

            replyreport
            1. 76

               wildernessposted 12 years agoin reply to this

               I agree, and would fight tooth and nail to prevent such a thing. 
               
               So what then IS the answer?  Should we require that every adult be trained and carry a weapon at all times?  Every citizen is a policeman?  That's nearly as bad although it would certainly have prevented the shooting at Sandy.

               replyreport
               1. 0

                  EmpressFelicityposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                  I actually don't think there IS a hard and fast answer. Or put it this way: sometimes the solutions are as bad, or worse than, the problem.

                  replyreport
                  1. 76

                     wildernessposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                     Unacceptable.  I agree with you, but that answer is unacceptable.
                     
                     Last night I attended a school choir function, with four of my grandchildren in attendance.  Watching those young elementary children singing in the school brought the thought that they could be next. 
                     
                     The mental picture is absolutely unacceptable.  We must find a solution, at nearly any cost.

                     replyreport
                     1. 0

                        EmpressFelicityposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                        Thousands of well-meaning, concerned people are no doubt saying the same thing.
                        
                        That worries me. ("Be careful what you wish for.")

                        replyreport
                        1. 76

                           wildernessposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                           It is worrisome.  It's all too easy to jump on anything that we think even might work without consideration of the consequences.  It was all too predictable that a hue and outcry would be raised to further control guns but it isn't going to help.  All it will do is give us a feeling of security until we lose another classroom of children, whereupon it will be repeated all over again.
                           
                           We need another choice, another road to follow.  One that at least stands a chance of working.

                           replyreport
9. 66

   psycheskinnerposted 12 years ago

   The answer is to decide how many or which precautions we are willing to take to make massacres harder to carry out.  It is always a trade off when you take everything into account.  But some strategies, like the best possible access to psychiatric services, are a win:win.

   replyreport
   1. 67

      Michele Travisposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      I agree with you.  My daughter has Asperger's Syndrome.  We took her to a place where she got therapy horseback riding lessons.  It really does work for children Autism or Aspergers.

      replyreport
10. 74

    Mighty Momposted 12 years ago

    So let me understand the draconian (love that word!) options here.
    We either lock our children down in erstwhile prisons with no glass doors, no unlocked doors, and armed military guards. Let's not forget the college campuses, too. They have been the scenes of a few of these rampages.
    
    Or we lock up all the mentally ill people so that they cannot get access to firearms -- legal or illegal -- and wreak murderous havoc on innocent citizens.
    
    I can't speak to the practicality of the former.
    I can, however, speak to the practicality of the latter. The trend of late has been to do the OPPOSITE. To close down facilities and cut treatment for the mentally ill. The result is more unmedicated (and undiagnosed) people wandering around the streets. Many homeless. But many more just wack and there's nothing they can do to get help because they have no access to mental health services.
    Heck. Even with insurance, getting seen in the mental health system is like getting into Fort Knox!

    replyreport
    1. 67

       Michele Travisposted 12 years agoin reply to this

       Yes.  I am a nurse.  My first job was at a Psychiatric Hospital.  It closed.  My second Job, was at a regular hospital, but I worked on the floor that helped people with Psychiatric problems.  Then insurance did not want to pay for treatment.  So, the floor had to close down.  So, the next job was for geriatrics.  Well, they have a lot of problems.
       But, for people with mental health issues,  they get no help at all.
       It is almost like refusing to treat people with diabetes.

       replyreport
       1. 71

          Ralph Deedsposted 12 years agoin reply to this

          True. Our ex-GOP governor in Michigan, John Engler, shut down every state inpatient psychiatric hospital. Now the severely mentally ill end up in prison or roaming the streets.

          replyreport
11. 0

    PrettyPantherposted 12 years ago

    

    replyreport
12. 58

    Oscarlitesposted 12 years ago

    Well, I need perhaps to keep my right to protect myself, not to mention the kids.  especially that the law can't do it as the present status and I hate to think if they completely take over...     I think we SHOULD all work together and try harder to keep the firearms away from kids, from criminals, and from medically unstable.    I don't know if that is possible to do however..   everyone working together?   I HOPE we can work together and still protect individual rights..            I am SAD about wht has happened.  and how many police were already on duty in that town that day? and yet they want more?  how about them being more vigilant to watch out for the kiddos.. whithout us changing every law in the books..    that being said.. things can still happen.   
    
    I just hope we all listen well, and understand where we are taking it.. not find out later we gave the farm away..

    replyreport
13. 71

    Ralph Deedsposted 12 years ago

    "The Yawning Loophole in the Gun Laws"  NY Times Editorial 12-19-12
    
    http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/19/opini … s.html?hpw

    replyreport
14. 0

    ahorsebackposted 12 years ago

    Okay people , here's the thing about the simple answer ....."gun control"....Imagine this ...it won't make any difference to the weapons of  mass killings ,......
    
    
    If I were a nut , somewhat like the usual anti -gun people , I might make a bomb out of this , will you  then make this illegal ?

    replyreport
15. 0

    ahorsebackposted 12 years ago

    The problem is mental illness ! .......Wake up !

    replyreport
    1. 54

       whoisitposted 12 years agoin reply to this

       I'm afraid that a lot of people will allow a dismantling of their rights to ensure safety that will never be.

       replyreport
       1. 67

          Michele Travisposted 12 years agoin reply to this

          People are not going to let go of their guns.  Here in Ohio, a person over 18 can buy a gun in a store in about 5 minutes
          In the state of Ohio, you can buy rifles, handguns, and shotguns from any gun dealership without being required to obtain a Permit to Purchase. Residents in the neighboring states of West Virginia, Kentucky, Indiana, Pennsylvania, and Michigan can also visit Ohio to buy a gun without a permit. To buy a handgun, you must be at least 21 years of age; however, you can buy a firearm if you are at least 18 years of age. Although you are not required to have a Permit to Purchase to buy a gun in Ohio, you must still meet certain lawful criteria.
          Bring a form of photograph identification that displays your name and age; such as your drivers license. The dealer will need to verify your age and identity when you buy the gun.
          If you visit a gun dealership that is federally licensed, you will be subject to a background check; however, if you buy a gun from a private seller or unlicensed dealership, the dealer is not required to perform a background check.
          If a background check is required, it will be performed with the Federal Bureau of Investigation's (FBI) National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) database to determine whether or not you meet the lawful criteria.
          Take your gun home on the day of purchase. In the state of Ohio, a mandatory waiting period does not exist that requires you to come back at a later date to retrieve your gun from the dealership.
          The state of Ohio does not require you to register any handguns or firearms you purchase with any governing bureau, such as the police department.
          You can buy any number of guns at any one time in Ohio; as there is no state limitation on multiple gun purchases.
          You may also openly carry your firearm in the state of Ohio. You will need to visit your local sherrifs department (unarmed) and grab an open carry pamphlet which outlines the same laws as concealed carry.

          replyreport
16. 0

    ahorsebackposted 12 years ago

    Michele Hi sweety ! Perhaps  Pres. Obama will buy back all of our guns including my primitive  single  shot muzzle loader weapons and then give them to the Mexicans .....for ahhh, ........a drug sting ?!?

    replyreport
    1. 54

       whoisitposted 12 years agoin reply to this

       I haven't seen Eric Holder lately he must have made a fast and furious escape.

       replyreport