world

Obama: New gun control laws not on the agenda

39 Comments

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© Copyright 2012 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

©2020 GPlusMedia Inc.

39 Comments
Login to comment

We need to get a true liberal in the White House who will get new gun control laws on the agenda!

0 ( +4 / -4 )

No of course it isn't. It is election time and Obama doesn't want to rock the boat. CLEARLY something needs to be done but no one has the balls to do it.

6 ( +9 / -3 )

Not on the agenda?

Why on Earth is it necessary for people to possess firearms?

I was shocked to read on the internet that US citizens have 90 guns per 100 people!

The U.S.A. NEEDS gun control.

-1 ( +4 / -5 )

tmarie:

That's the key phrase - election time.

Disappointed but not surprised. There'll be more shootings - it won't end.

-3 ( +2 / -5 )

Al Gore lost the presidential election in 2000 by not being able to carry his home state of Tennessee. If he had won there, the ballot SNAFU in Florida wouldn't have mattered. The reason Gore lost his home state was due to a campaign of scare tactics by the NRA to convince voters that if Gore were elected he would take away their guns. Except perhaps in California and Hawaii, no politician in the a US state west of the Mississippi or south of the Mason-Dixon Line dare be associated with, let alone advocate, gun control and expect to get elected. Whatever thoughts Obama may entertain on the issue privately, he knows he dare not be seen as opposing the NRA's "arm-the-nation-to-the-teeth" agenda. That said, in recent years US presidents have been pretty irrelevant, their main function shifting from getting legislation passed to swaying the Supreme Court by appointing new justices who will support their own party's platform. Since the US is now governed by judicial fiat, it's no wonder its citizens are so frustrated.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

Personally, Obama would bring back that ban, but since being elected he won't do anything about it. When Romny was governor in Massachusetts, he presided over a ban on assault weapons. There is a ban on these weapons in Massachusetts brought in under Romney. Obama and Romny do support a ban on assault weapons, but somehow because they're caught up in the presidential election, neither one of them has said a word about it and they won't. The reason they won't is because the Congress itself, the congressional election which is on at the same time as the presidential election, is where the gun lobby will bring its power to bear to try to defeat, particularly Democrats and try to stack up the Congress with pro-gun-type Republicans. It's politics as usual.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

One would naturally assume that there should at least be discussions over whether stricter gun control is needed or not and for clear reasons to be provided to the public if it is concluded that such measures are not required. Surprised to learn that the gun lobby may even influence the political stance of a guy like Obama. Or am I naive.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

"Surprised to learn that the gun lobby may even influence the political stance of a guy like Obama. Or am I naive."

He has to consider how his gun control position could hurt Democrats in rural districts. It's unfortunate, but that's politics.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

One of those cases where doing the right thing is trumped by wanting to get elected. That's politics. Unfortunately, Obama has veered so far off his ideals and promises on healthcare, foreign policy, and social issues that it is hard to define what he really stands for anymore (besides raising taxes on the rich, which almost any reasonable person can support). Much of Obama's repositioning is a result of constantly having to defend himself against the hysterical rightwing fear mongering that has taken center stage in American politics. I think Obama is a decent man and capable president, but unable to really do anything in the current environment.

And semi automatic assault rifles continue to have their way. That's freedom for ya.

0 ( +4 / -4 )

Gun Control does not stop crime..not even the crime of murder..How often do you read in JT about a person murdeing someone?? Well,I see iy quite often and a gun is seldom involved. bottom line...people with the intent to kill will find a a way to get the job done...An lawfully armed citizen is a safe citizen,it is very rare for an legally armed person to be murdered and in the US many armed citizens have saved lives and stopped crimes!

-2 ( +3 / -5 )

Sad that no one takes a stand either way on the issue. Obama and his clone - Romney - have no interest in changing anything let alone opening the discussion about what is truly wrong in America.

-4 ( +1 / -5 )

If many armed citizens have saved lives and stopped crime, then America surely has a big problem. Is that country even on our planet? All these lunatics and their guns have stopped me years ago going there on my vacation. This country is just too scary for me..

0 ( +3 / -3 )

it is very rare for a legally armed person to be murdered

I assume you have a source that compares armed and unarmed murder victims. I'd like to see it.

And it's even rarer for an unarmed person to kill themselves accidentally with a gun, or to turn it on themselves deliberately. In fact I can safely say it's never happened.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

I agree with a majority of posts here. We only have 100 days to go for the election, so both candidates are not putting this issue on table But there is no doubt in my mind that the comprehensive gun control policy will be introduced after the election.

However, I am pleased to tell you there are many grass roots gun control petitions are going around in USA right now. I live in Colorado. I have witnessed 3 massacres: Columbine HS shooting in Littleton, New Life Church shooting in Colorado Springs, Batman shooting in Aurora in the past 13 years here. In addition to that, I sat in Denver District Court room witnessed Timothy Mcveigh's Oklahoma bombing trial. You can understand why I am STRONGLY against Automatic Assualt Weapons and violence. Upon completion of Timothy Mcveigh's trial, I have been very convinced how easy it is for someone cold blooded and crazy individual ( possibly a suicide bomber) to make a bomb and blow up innocent Americans.

The problem of gun control today is a MILITIA group that is strongly tied to NRA and possibly with Tea Party (S. Palin). They are often maintaining a low profile and unseen, but they are everywhere in US, especially in Idaho, Utah, Arizona, Wyoming and Colorado. Their ideology is very dangerous. Be aware. Guard your hearts against them. They use all tricks in books to make you yield for them.

We need to stay vigilent and alarmed. Again, I assure you that the grass root campaign against Automatic Assualt Weapona and Violence will continue for my children, for my grand children and for all of us to make this country as a better place to live. According to public survey as of today (after the Aurora shooting), more than 65% of Americans want to ban Assualt Weapons and end violence. At least a majority of Americans has common sense to recognize that giving a gun to psycopath is a bad cacktail. We are making a progress; one inch at time and we will overcome!

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

Global, I agree. I really do think the situation will change when the President becomes "lame duck". At least I sincerely hope so anyway!

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

Off course there is no debate it is an Election year, he is not going to shoot himself in the foot.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

We need to stay vigilent and alarmed. Again, I assure you that the grass root campaign against Automatic Assualt Weapona and Violence will continue for my children,

Selective fire automatic weapons are already illegal except for collectors and licensed professionals. The term Assault weapon is not the same as an actual assault rifle which has the selective fire option. Most 'assault weapons' in the US are just semi-automatic rifles with stock and body modifications to look like assault rifles and accept accessories, they lack an automatic function.

Even when the assault weapons ban doesn't even do what people think it does. The assault weapons ban didn't prohibit the sale of the guns, it just forced sellers to take away some of the body mods such as flash supressors, bayonet lugs, and pistol grips. It was more like an accessories ban.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

FoxieJul. 27, 2012 - 10:46AM JST

If many armed citizens have saved lives and stopped crime, then America surely has a big problem. Is that country even on our planet? All these lunatics and their guns have stopped me years ago going there on my vacation. This country is just too scary for me..

Foxie, US has many problems like you have stated. It is unspoken rules among us to call friends in advance notifying that you are coming before knocking on their doors. There is a law "Made My Day" in my state. If I find someone trying to break into my home and property, it is okay to kill intruders. So there is no such thing saying, "oh, I just stop by and see ya" , and it is considered as a very rude behavior. It is very sad to say that we have to be very vigilent to see what's going on in front of us and behind us. You should consider yourself lucky, Foxie,because you can still go to 7-eleven store at night to get Bento. That's my favorite thing to do when I go to Japan.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Mr Obama has no guts to piss off the NRA(national rifle association) voters, if he ban guns or implying restrictions to gun ownerships will made him losing supports and resulted to be a one term president like Jimmy carter! From he we can he the so called world greatest democracies has NO consciences, ignoring innocence lives and bowing topressure of selfish groups! Both parties were the same and they were the crooks lead the nation to chaos and despair! Many more lives will lose in the coming future, thanks to the two parties appeasing the NRA!

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

Yes, it is an election year, and the House and Senate have elections on alternating two year cycles, so even after this election, gun legislation won't be introduced unless the dems are willing to lose seats. The NRA is a force and can mobilize voters easily. Personally, if someone is breaking into my house threatening me (most crimes are drug related by the way) then I want the right to protect myself and my family to the best of my ability. The focus should be on drugs and gangs, and the guns will go back to hunters.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Obama said: “I also believe ... an AK-47 belongs in the hands of soldiers ... that they belong on the battlefield of war ...”

Apparently, the smartest U.S. president eveah doesn't know the weapon used in Colorado was an AR-15.

Also, he does realize that AK's are the weapon of America's enemies doesn't he? Bin Laden was often shown firing one. Or, is he saying he's OK with them on the battlefield because when they are there they're pointed at American troops?

RR

-2 ( +4 / -6 )

Apparently, the smartest U.S. president eveah doesn't know the weapon used in Colorado was an AR-15.

Apparently, you have not heard that Obama was here on Monday already consulted with Chief DA, Chief Denver Police, medical professionals, and Govenor after comforting all injured victims being treated at various hospitals in Denver and Aurora. He has been fully exposed to all facts. For the rest of your comment, I am having a trouble understanding your point. What are you saying and what's your point, RomeroR? Thanks.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

When the Cambrian measures were forming, They promised perpetual peace. They swore, if we gave them our weapons, that the wars of the tribes would cease. But when we disarmed They sold us and delivered us bound to our foe, And the Gods of the Copybook Headings said: "Stick to the Devil you know."

1 ( +2 / -1 )

SerranoJul. 27, 2012 - 08:08AM JST

We need to get a true liberal in the White House who will get new gun control laws on the agenda

Wow, I am surprised to hear this from you, my dear.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Selective fire automatic weapons are already illegal except for collectors and licensed professionals.

That is not true. A machine gun made before May 19, 1986 is considered "transferable". All you have to do is pay a one time $200 tax and pass a background check to own one (assuming that your State allows it - some do, some don't). Of course, the price is extremely high. Any machine gun manufactured or imported after May 19. 1986 can only be transferred to law enforcement agencies or the military.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Citizens do not need guns. The world is a very, very safe place. Countries do not get invaded, governments are not corrupt and there is no crime. The United States is the only place in the world that people get killed and it is all because of guns.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Whatever thoughts Obama may entertain on the issue privately, he knows he dare not be seen as opposing the NRA's "arm-the-nation-to-the-teeth" agenda.

Many more lives will lose in the coming future, thanks to the two parties appeasing the NRA!

The NRA is a force and can mobilize voters easily.

According to ThinkProgress a very left website consisting of very intelligent Liberal thinkers:

To determine just how powerful the NRA really is on election day, in recent months I assembled a database covering the last four federal elections: 2004, 2006, 2008, and 2010. These years cover two presidential and non-presidential years, as well as two significant Democratic victories and two significant Republican victories. I gathered data on the outcome of every House and Senate election, including the margins of victory, the money spent by each candidate, the partisan character of each district, and whether the NRA made an endorsement in the race and how much money they spent.

The conclusion to be drawn from these data will be surprising to many: The NRA has virtually no impact on congressional elections. The NRA endorsement, so coveted by so many politicians, is almost meaningless. Nor does the money the organization spends have any demonstrable impact on the outcome of races. In short, when it comes to elections, the NRA is a paper tiger.

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2012/02/09/421893/the-myth-of-nra-dominance-part-i-the-nras-ineffective-spending/?mobile=nc

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Also, he does realize that AK's are the weapon of America's enemies doesn't he? Bin Laden was often shown firing one. Or, is he saying he's OK with them on the battlefield because when they are there they're pointed at American troops?

Yeah, that's probably what he's saying..... Yup, makes total sense, not at all fringey looney.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Its largely an american culture to posses firearms. Its the militant culture, fire arms and big armies.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Thank God common sense wins, being a country based on Christian values and Jesus's teachings, that being arm yourself and shoot anyone who threatens your financial well-being it makes complete sense. One nation under god. Protected by high powered weapons made by those that pay lobbyists.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

I was told today that the 2nd amendment was there just in case Britten tried to retake the USA, an understandable concern in this topsy turby world.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

.>>CrickyJul. 27, 2012 - 08:11PM JST

Thank God common sense wins, being a country based on Christian values and Jesus's teachings, that being arm yourself and shoot anyone who threatens your financial well-being it makes complete sense

Sounds like you belong to Assembly of God Church teachings. Good luck..

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Obama has proven many times that he can't or doesn't know how to twist arms in congress to get legislation passed. He's a noob when it comes to DC politics and it shows. All the flowery speeches in the world add up to nada inside the beltway. And, outside the beltway, Obama is being seen as so far left of center by one side and not far enough left by the other side that he's got a real problem with the election. So he's not going to touch gun control. That is the one issue that would probably cost him a lot of the blue collar (union) and rural voters and he isn't going there. He could carry the NY and CA and still lose the election.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Machiavelli, in The Prince, noted the link between firearms ownership and freedom hundreds of years ago when he noted that the Swiss were free and the Germans were really free. Some of those Germans brought their technology to the Colonies and we've been carrying rifles ever since, also pistols and shotguns.

No new laws? OK, then what is the UN Arms Trade Treaty all about and why is the USA participating in it?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

51 Senators, so far, have indicated that they will not vote to ratify the UN ATT which could be used to impair the Second Amendment. While there may be "no new laws", there could be new Regulations (two already promulgated) and Executive Orders to effectively implement the Treaty, even if not ratified.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I dare Obama to bring the guns issue into the election. As weak as Romney 's support is, it would likely ensure Obama 's defeat. But don't underestimate Obama. He's slicker than Slick Willy.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

If you need to carry a firearm just to get through a typical day, REALLY, you ought to think about moving to somewhere safer.

I CANNOT understand why ANYONE would need to carry a firearm.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

in this here little outskirt the number of police officers has been increasing gradually over the past years. There have been massive campaigns to have people turn in their hardware (weaponry) and to prevent any firearm from being sold without a license. Thing is, just like the number of cops increases, so does the number of armed robberies and assaults, homejackings and the like. Despite the fact that the number of people who own a weapon at home has decreased. Few years ago five cops nearly all got killed trying to arrest a 78 year old man wielding a knife, the last one had to shoot him while she was already stabbed. This year one officer gets his gun taken and gets shot in the leg by the guy he's trying to arrest. I'd say it's not the guns that kill people, it's the people that kill people and the stress of the times makes more people snap, and has more inland and outland organized gangs commiting armed crimes. I don't see how a ban on guns could help anything, not here, and not in the u.s.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Blaming guns for violence is like blaming ice cream spoons for making people fat.

Yes, tragic accidents do happen, but at an absolute minuscule percentage of gun-related injuries, or of guns and their owners. Increased gun laws will also do very little to take guns out of criminals' hands, because they are criminals. They are already breaking the law.

"Moving to a safer neighborhood" sounds simple enough, but is in reality only ignoring the real problem of violent crime. For one, many people who live in the worst so-called "gang turf" neighborhoods don't have the money available to move anywhere else, let alone a better street. That's still beside the fact that moving away only gives gangs a deeper foothold and control of the area and expand their territory.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites