President Obama To Announce New Gun Control Initiative

There are a lot of rumors floating around this morning about what President Obama will say during his mid-day speech to announce his new initiative on gun control. We know he will have some of the children who wrote him about gun violence as a backdrop to his speech. We also know he is weighing 19 different actions he can take, via Executive Order, to push for stricter gun control. Speculation on those actions is rampant and according to what I have read, they will include things such as the following items.

(Fox News) Sources say he’s weighing as many as 19 possible actions he could take through executive order. Those options could include more aggressively enforcing existing gun laws, beefing up national research on guns and ordering stricter action against people who lie on gun sale background checks. They could include ordering tougher penalties for gun-trafficking offenses and ordering federal agencies to make data on gun crimes more readily available.

Gun ControlLet me state right here that I have no problem with more aggressive enforcement of existing gun laws and the actions taken against those who lie on background checks. I am not sure what good “beefing” up national research on guns will do, except cost us more money. I would also humbly suggest that if the President is serious about enforcing existing gun laws, he should start at his own Attorney General and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms, better known as Fast and Furious.

I will save further speculation about any possible Executive Orders him may or may not issue until we know what those are. One thing we do know is what he will be pushing to happen in Congress. He will almost certainly ask for a new assault weapons ban, as well as a ban on high-capacity magazines. I disagree with both bans, for a couple of very simple reasons.

First, had either ban been in place when the shootings in Newtown, CN, or Aurora, CO happened, the outcomes would have been the same. Let me say it another way. Banning the AR-15 and the magazines used in both shootings would not have saved a single life. People would still have died.

Second, the above mentioned bans do restrict the 2nd Amendment rights of law-abiding American citizens. I am not talking about the right to self-defense, although that is important. I am talking about the part of the 2nd Amendment that says our right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. The purpose of the 2nd Amendment is to protect us from a tyrannical government and infringing upon our rights removes a bit of that protection.

It is important to note one thing. Banning so-called assault weapons and magazines that hold over 10 rounds is futile. If either ban is enshrined by Congressional action and is signed into law by President Obama, the only thing that will be accomplished is the infringement of our 2nd Amendment rights. Make no mistake, anyone who really wants a banned weapon or magazine will still be able to buy them. In other words, when you outlaw guns, the only people who will have guns are the outlaws.

So, before any of us jump on the bandwagon of assault weapons and high-capacity magazine bans, just because it is the “right thing to do”, let us consider the consequences and where these bans will lead. I do not believe the end result will be anything like we have imagined. If we allow emotion to rule the day, we will also rue the day we allowed our 2nd Amendment rights to disappear, one by one.

About LD Jackson

LD Jackson has written 2032 posts in this blog.

Founder and author of the political and news commentary blog Political Realities. I have always loved to write, but never have I felt my writing was more important than in this present day. If I have changed one mind or impressed one American about the direction our country is headed, then I will consider my endeavors a success. I take the tag line on this blog very seriously. Above all else, in search of the truth.

In Case You Missed It...

19 comments to President Obama To Announce New Gun Control Initiative

  • Mike

    We’ll have to agree to disagree. I don’t see ANY element of infringing on your 2nd Amendment rights here. The gun rights argument for high-capacity magazines has always been “it only takes 2 seconds to change out a clip so banning them will do nothing to prevent these massacres.” I don’t buy that argument at all but why isn’t the other side of that perspective valid — if it only takes you 2 seconds to change a clip then what harm is done to your 2nd Amendment rights by banning larger magazines?

    “When you outlaw guns, the only people who will have guns are the outlaws.” Nobody is outlawing guns — this is about a single type of weapon. It’s about where the line gets drawn on what’s okay for citizens to possess and what is not. The last time I asked you why people need to have semiautomatic weapons your answer was that they’re fun to shoot. OK, let’s make them legal at all licensed gun ranges where members can target shoot but cannot take them off the grounds.

    How about smart technology? That would have prevented the shootings in Newtown if only the mom could fire those weapons. A step that actually would have worked. What do you think?

    • No one is trying to outlaw all guns, but they certainly want to outlaw certain types of guns, as well as high-capacity magazines. I contend they have no legal right to do so. There is no basis in logic for such a ban, none whatsoever. As I stated in my post, banning a particular type of weapon or magazine will result in one thing. Law-abiding citizens of this country will become law-breakers, if they choose to defy the law and keep the weapons they have legally purchased. In the meantime, the criminals who use such weapons will go merrily on their way, unperturbed by the sudden banning of their weapons.

      As for your question why we need semi-automatic weapons, I would ask, why not? It is the weapon of choice for a lot of people. People who have broken no laws and are mentally capable of making good and proper decisions. Why should their rights be infringed because some lunatic stole his mother’s weapons and went on a shooting rampage? That is a very dangerous and slippery slope to be on, in my opinion.

      I am not familiar with the smart technology for guns, but that may be an option, if it can be incorporated into the design of the gun, and if it can be bypassed to allow others to shoot the weapon, at the discretion of the owner.

      • Mike

        If I interpret you correctly then you’re basically saying that anything law abiding citizens want they’re entitled to have and the government has no legal right to ban anything. Do you think fully automatic weapons would be okay to sell openly to the public? I doubt it — I’ve certainly never heard you advocate for that. The line, as I said earlier, is what’s at issue here. You believe the line should lie between fully automatic and semiautomatic weapons. Gun control folks who aren’t all the way to the left on this think the line lies on the other side of semiautomatic rifles. The issue is not nearly as draconian as you and others make it out to be.

        • No, that’s not what I am saying at all. My point is simple. Far too many gun control advocates have made villains out of AR-15-type weapons and high capacity magazines, all because some crazy person went on a shooting rampage. Because of these shootings, they have decided the millions of law-abiding citizens who have legally purchased their weapons and magazines should not be allowed to purchase more of the same. Many of them would like to confiscate those weapons, if they could get their way. Why should law-abiding citizens be punished for the actions of these shooters? What gives any politician or gun control advocate the right to ban these weapons? I say they have no right. The bans they seek will do absolutely no good to keep these weapons out of the hands of the people who would abuse them.

  • Gary Jackson

    The line in sand needs to be drawn right here. The end goal of the gun control crowd is a total ban and confiscation of all firearms. This would just be the first step toward that goal.

  • All guns are assault weapons; that would seem to be the point of guns in the first place. So while Obama wants to ban assault weapons, he and his family are protected by men and women who carry machineguns. I have to say that I am as much deserving of that kind of protection as is Obama and Biden (and the National Security Advisor). More to the point, however, is that government can ban all they want; it will do nothing to keep those same kinds of weapons out of the hands of thoroughly bad people. Gun control works best at the state level, IMO. We’re doing it right in FL … they’re doing it wrong in NY and IL. As to weapons with high capacity magazines … does Mike refer to the guns illegally sold to Mexican gangsters by Eric Holder and the AFT and then used against Americans?

    • You raise a point that I have heard before, but haven’t addressed. It seems more than a little ironic that so many of the people who are in favor of stricter gun control, ie. gun-free schools or gun-free zones, are sending their children to private schools with the protection of armed guards and security. The same protection that was not afforded to the children in Newtown and the same protection they would deny others. Actually, hypocritical is a better description than ironic.

    • Mike

      “Gun control works best at the state level.” I agree with that 100%. I wish Obama had left this alone and just allowed the states to do what they want to do. You can like what FL has done and dislike what NY and IL have done but I hope you respect the right of those states to act as they see fit. But that also requires individuals to respect state borders and state law. No, you cannot carry concealed in NY even if you have a VT license to do so. Is that okay with you?

  • Mike, when has banning ever worked? We banned alcohol once and there was a black market for alcohol. We banned drugs and there is a black market for drugs. Here in Venezuela they banned the dollar and there is a huge black market in dollars. All your ban would do is ban law abiding people from buying them, but there would be a black market for those willing to break the law.

    • Mike

      I hear what you’re saying but I think you’d have to admit that the ban on fully automatic weapons seems to be quite effective. Drugs and liquor can be made at home or in your bathtub. Dollars are easy to bring into a country and even “honest” tourists are happy to exchange dollars at a better rate with the hotel doorman if they can get a much better rate. It’s quite different with arms. If manufacturers can’t produce them legally in the US and Walmart cant sell them doesn’t it change the dynamic completely? It seems to work for the fully automatic weapons.

      • Trust me when I say Wal-Mart not selling a particular type of gun will not affect the ownership of the kinds of guns the proposed legislation would ban. There are many places to purchase a gun besides Wal-Mart or other big retailer.

  • I am with you 100% Larry. I do not have a problem with enforcing the laws already on the books or any attempt at keeping people who shouldn’t have firearms from possessing them, I don’t even have a problem with background checks. What he did today does none of this, it was simply a feel good announcement.

    • Mike

      He definitely went over the top. This proposal is never gonna happen. But he certainly did press for universal background checks (which most of you have agreed is the right thing to do) and enforcing the law against those who lie on background check forms. It’s not just feel good stuff.

      I still don’t get the opposition to high-capacity magazines. I’m still waiting for someone to explain to me why a ban on those is a problem for you. The slippery slope argument is too thin. Support for gun rights is ENORMOUS even among those who support some gun control measures. I need someone to argue the merits (or lack thereof) of high capacity magazines and how banning them infringes on your Second Amendment rights in any way. I just don’t see it.

      • Let me give you a hypothetical situation to illustrate my point about high-capacity magazines. Admittedly, the 2nd Amendment has nothing to do with self-defense, but just suppose a woman is in her house with her children and someone breaks in with evil intent. Would it not be better for her to be armed with a pistol with a double-stacked magazine containing 19 rounds, instead of a single magazine with 10 rounds? What happens if there are more than one or two perpetrators?

        My point is, high-capacity magazines do have a legitimate purpose in the hands of a law-abiding citizen. Banning them because a crazy person went on a shooting rampage using a weapon that utilized such a magazine is not the right approach.

        As a side note, if I had my choice of a self-defense weapon for the home, it would be a sawed-off shotgun with a pump action. 12 gauge with a 5-round magazine and several other rounds attached to the butt of the gun. Something about the sound of a shell being racked into the chamber should be enough to make anyone think twice about doing me or my family harm. If that doesn’t work, Mr. Buckshot would make its case even better. ;)

  • One of the executive orders is to make sure the Affordable Care Act, (read obamacare), doesn’t prevent a doctor from asking questions about guns in the home. They already ask questions of children and adults alike if they feel safe in their home or if they feel threatened in their home, things like that. I went to the DR last Friday for the flu and was asked if I felt depressed or threatened or unsafe. I can’t wait until I’m at the DR for myself or my child and they ask if we have guns in the home. I will flat tell them it is none of their business, which it is not. Just another way to intrude in our lives.

    And I will repeat this as I did in another comment.

    The end goal for the gun control people is a total ban and confiscation of all firearms and if they get their foot in the door with some sort of ban on assault weapons or high capacity magazines they won’t stop until they get the rest of them.

    • Mike

      I don’t think that any doctor needed the Affordable Care Act to ask the question about guns in the home and I don’t think the ACA requires anybody to answer that question either. I totally agree it’s a stupid provision of the bill but once again I fail to see how it infringes on your Second Amendment rights. You revert once again to the slippery slope instead of dealing with the merits of the argument or the reality of the vast support for gun rights. You’re happy to call out lefties who would ban all weapons but what about all the right wing nuts who stockpile weaponry sufficient to fight world war three? There are tons of them but they always seem to get a pass from the right.

      • There may be a ton of them but I would wager that 99 percent of those you speak of are decent law abiding citizens who never bother a soul. And there is no law against them stockpiling all the weapons and ammo they want. Just because you don’t agree with it or think they “need” it doesn’t make it wrong or against the law.

        • Mike

          So 99 percent of the guys who (perfectly legally) stockpile enough weaponry to fight a small war are harmless law abiding guys, and every single person who thinks that maybe semiautomatic weapons and high-capacity magazines are a step too far are dangerous threats to our nation and need to be stopped before they destroy it? Seriously? That’s really pretty scary.

          • What makes it wrong for someone to stockpile the weapons and ammo? It could be, and is for the ones I know, that they have the money to indulge in their hobby. I get tired of all the demonizing that goes on just because someone owns a weapon, or God forbid, more than one weapon.

            I hope the House and Senate Republicans fight him every step of the way and not budge an inch when it comes to this matter.


  • Trackbacks: