world

Obama's gun control plans weaken in Senate

38 Comments

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

© (c) Copyright Thomson Reuters 2013.

©2021 GPlusMedia Inc.

38 Comments
Login to comment

Obama's Democrats have a majority in the Senate, yet they can't pass Obama's agenda. What's up with that?

-3 ( +2 / -5 )

The Obama Regime's gun control law is like asking the Telaban to give up arms... never going to happen.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

Good.. it wouldn't have done squat to fix our mentally ill or keep guns out of criminal hands.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

Serrano, because even the democrats know it is a dumb law..

2 ( +4 / -2 )

hmmm... can't agree to ban some high-capacity assault rifles that no-one really needs for anything practical...

but expects to:

securing our schools, reforming our mental health care system

As for prosecuting criminals, that's too little, too late. Once people are dead no amount of prosecutions will bring them back.

... but hand on one second, aren't these the same people who wailed about Obama-care, which provides easier access to mental health care?

Why not just call a referendum on the issue and let the people vote directly?

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Show me any nation in the advanced world where comprehensive and thorough backround checks for assault rifles are NOT conducted and I will show you a society that does not love it's children. Only a short time now before another classroom of american kids is massacred by a licensed gun crazy. So lucky not to be american!

-1 ( +4 / -5 )

And the situation will continue. It will only change when the gun mentality changes. And that will be never, so the massacres will continue. I just find it bizarre that the US doesnt want anymore of its soldiers to die overseas in foreign wars, so they withdraw them back to the US. However, they allow more civilians to die in their own backyard. I dont know the statistics I must admit, but surely over even the last 10 years more Amercians have died from gun violence in the US than in foreign wars or terrorist attacks?

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Watch the death tolls in schools, colleges and shopping malls mount as your average redneck can still tote his M16 of MP5. He needs those assault weapons to hunt squirls and defend himself against the New World Order... or the UN as the rest of us know them.

Come on... seriously. Why on Earth would anyone want an assault weapon? Can one person give me a logical, sensible reason... and no, not because it's in your constitution that you can (even though 18th century chaps knew nothing about magazine fed automatic weapons).

-2 ( +3 / -5 )

Why is the U.S.A. so advanced in some ways and so completely backward in others?

Still using yards, feet, inches!

No national health program!

Lax gun laws, in spite of several mass killings!

I agree with Thunderbird2.

Why on Earth would anyone want an assault weapon?

You don't need it, guys!

Come into the 21st century!

-2 ( +5 / -7 )

Why on Earth would anyone want an assault weapon? Can one person give me a logical, sensible reason

They use advanced technology, they are lightweight, easy to load and fire with minimal kick and lets face it gives a pretty good rush to a gun enthusiast to handle a weapon capable of unloading that much firepower quickly while firing at the bad guy targets on the range. Consider it to be the equivalent to the same rush many folks get when they can get their hands on driving a sports car as opposed trudging along in the dodgy family van. Or to put it pretty bluntly they're fun to shoot just like sports cars are fun to drive.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

Obama's Democrats have a majority in the Senate, yet they can't pass Obama's agenda. What's up with that?

It's called democracy. You see, if a senator judges that a majority of his or her constituency opposes a bill, he or she will vote against it.

Soon, we will see another large-scale massacre committed using a high-power rifle equipped with a large volume magazine, and we will go through this debate again.

After that, we will see another large-scale massacre committed using a high-power rifle equipped with a large volume magazine, and we will go through this debate again.

Following that, we will see another large-scale massacre committed using a high-power rifle equipped with a large volume magazine, and we will go through this debate again.

Eventually, the people will get it, and Congress will act. The sad part is the number of innocents who must die until Americans relinquish their love of such guns.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Knew it wasn't going to pass. The Senate knew they would have to answer to their many of their liberal constituents who themselves carry and support the NRA.

@bertie

Why is the U.S.A. so advanced in some ways and so completely backward in others?

No country is perfect.

Still using yards, feet, inches!

Tried it in the 70's, didn't flopped big time, let the old saying goes, if it ain't broken, why fix it? Worked for us so far. I'm happy with it.

No national health program!

And who is going to pay for it? Sorry, I don't want to be like France, Sweden, Portugal, Greece, Obama wants to take that route, Europe for the most part is bankrupt and now I have to see my country slide down that same abyss?

Lax gun laws, in spite of several mass killings!

I grew up half of my life in Europe, no guns, but knife fights, physical attacks, minority bashing, that's ok, huh?

Why on Earth would anyone want an assault weapon?

Personally, I will agree with you that one point. I would never buy one, don't know why someone would need one, but if they are a law abiding citizen, then that is their personal right.

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

Heh, DiFi can't even get her own party to support her. Hell, even Al Franken supports letting me keep my assault rifles. So much for your crusade, Dianne.

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

Sail,

"lets face it gives a pretty good rush to a gun enthusiast to handle a weapon capable of unloading that much firepower quickly"

Heh, only by those Man Card carrying enthusiasts I guess....

http://www.salon.com/2012/12/17/bushmasters_horrible_ad_campaign/

These people in my opinion clearly aren't having enough sex.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

It's called democracy. You see, if a senator judges that a majority of his or her constituency opposes a bill, he or she will vote against it.

More like senators voting for an assault weapons ban it would mean the end of their fat paychecks and freeloading lifestyles.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

So, sound and fury indicating nothing? For the longer term, maybe not.

Despite what some may think, these proposals are failing not because the NRA is a big scary monster, but because they don't offer any assurance of being real solutions to the problem of violence in the USA; gangs and criminals running amok, crazy people tragically wigging out, folks shooting themselves and/or their loved ones or neighbors in the head - and most in government know this.

What these debates hopefully are doing is forcing Americans to face the fact that this is a profoundly complex issue that needs to be addressed, and they've got to stop trying to fix it with soundbites and political jaw jabbering. All sides can spout rhetoric until they puff up and pass out blue in the face, but unless there's a potential solution with an actual chance of working; it don't mean squat, and nothing will be done.

There must be a non-partisan, well funded, independent and properly vetted, nation-wide academic and scientific focus on violence in the USA run by a collaborative, interdisciplinary body comprising universities, law enforcement, national, regional, local government, and regular citizens. And it must be one people can trust, believe, and accept.

To date, there simply isn't a widely trusted, incontrovertibly good understanding or scoping of the problem. Until that's acquired, Americans won't have any idea if a given set of proposals has a chance for success, because they don't really know what they're trying to fix. I expect that if offered a real possibility of success, most Americans would assent to trying it out.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Why is the U.S.A. so advanced in some ways and so completely backward in others?

Call it a difference of opinion in how we choose to run our lives.

Still using yards, feet, inches!

it's served us well. our brief flirtation with the systems didn't go over very well, so we stopped.

No national health program!

Given what I know of the horror stories coming out of Britain and Canada with their NHS's, I'm failing to see this as a bad thing.

Lax gun laws, in spite of several mass killings!

our gun laws were deliberately designed that way that if the political class turned into abusive tyrants, they could be removed.

Why would I want an assault weapon? I rather don't, to be honest. I'd really prefer not to have to get one. But the option should be there

0 ( +4 / -4 )

Do not take Obama's 'pledges' seriously, he is no more influencial no matter domestic or international ! he has finished his career in his first term! Just nobody from both parties could takeover his post!

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Just nobody from both parties could takeover his post!

You see, Otago1000, what the GOP proposes is that mental facility be a required point for gun ownership. They do not see the easy availability of guns a problem per se; they see those with diminished capacity wielding these guns as the problem. (Or, at least, this they portray.)

As such, your post does not help your cause.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Any bill that goes beyond improvements to the background check system are likely DOA. Most Democrats wouldn't even be caught voting for an assault weapons ban lest they get canned next election cycle. A lot of people in the US don't vote because they are one issue voters and the 2nd Amendment tends to be what a lot of those one issue voters hover towards.

Why on Earth would anyone want an assault weapon?

Sailwind touched on a couple of points but weapons that are considered 'assault weapons' have a number of aesthetic features that separate them from normal weapons. These features have little to do with the actual functionality of the gun and more to do with how it is held and how it looks.

As previously stated assault weapons tend to be made of lighter material, they are easier to clean, and they are more easily adjustable to people of different heights and statures. A number of accessories also give a weapon the term 'assault weapon' without having any impact on its mechanism or round size such as muzzle breaks, recoil reducing stocks, and vertical foregrips. I own all three of these attachments for a number of my weapons because they reduce the impact of recoil on my shoulder.

That said, the term assault weapon means absolutely nothing in terms of actual functionality of the weapon. I have an AR-15 with a 15 round magazine, under the assault weapons ban that would be illegal for future sale (as I'd be grandfathered in), on the other hand I have a rifle that shoots a 30-06 with a 10 round magazine that would be perfectly legal. The 30-06 is a larger round, it cycles shots faster, and I can reload it quicker than the AR-15. By all accounts the 30-06 is a far more dangerous firearm but because the AR-15 'looks like' a scary gun it would be illegal.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Ah yes the NRA lobbyist... filled with money pockets.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Someone asked why you would want an alleged assault weapon, the reason is to protect yourself from the government which is slowly eroding away your constitutional rights. The US at one time was a great nation, but now it is on the brink of bankruptcy with over 16 trillion dollars in debt and a President who can careless about anything except himself and lies through his teeth about everything. A poll was taken by the AMA and over 40% of the doctors and nurses have threaten or will quit once Obamacare takes effect on 1 Jan 2014. Just look at Zimbabwe, where a loaf of bread cost $50 billion dollars, the US will be like that in 5-10 years.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Come on Obama, don't get discouraged. Watch Lincoln, and learn.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

because the british could come back at any moment...

technically, the 2nd ammendment was put in for the purpose of the people to overthrow a tyranical government and for militia use, but this was written in the 18th century when muzzle loading rifles were all the rage and the land area of the states hadn't even crossed the mississippi yet, land claims from Indians, disagreements with the British, it still made sense for the population to be armed, even if there was a standing army in service.

Rapid firing weapons were in their extreme infancy - the puckle gun (early 1700s and a failure for intents and purposes), for example, could fire 63 shots in 7 minutes when a soldier at the time could fire 3 rounds in 1 minute. Today, even handguns can fire faster than that.. as technology advances, and tomorrow we will all have rail guns and lasers..

I personally don't own a gun and never will, but the constitution of the United States, or is it the bill of rights.. ?? allows people the option to own guns. That being said, it should be looked at as a priviledge not as a right, given the current national situation: The british aren't coming back, no need for a standing militia given the modern army in place, the government can be voted out, USA expansion is over - there isn't any practical need for gun ownership, unless you look at ownership as a deterent/personal protection - if someone knows you have a gun, they are less likely to harm/rob you than someone who doesn't have one. But why one needs an automatic rifle with a 50 clip design than a revolver with 6 is beyond me..

Gun ownership isn't going away but if someone wants to own a gun (any gun) then there needs to be enough checks to ensure that the individual truly knows what they are doing: do they know how to handle it, do they know how to secure it, are they sane, etc etc..

0 ( +1 / -1 )

No national health program!

Given what I know of the horror stories coming out of Britain and Canada with their NHS's, I'm failing to see this as a bad thing

I work for the NHS... and the "horror stories" you mention are rare, and are only in the news because they ARE rare.

Someone asked why you would want an alleged assault weapon, the reason is to protect yourself from the government which is slowly eroding away your constitutional rights.

So you would take up arms against a government which you feel is trying to take away your right to bear arms? To me, coming from a democracy where guns are only permitted to be owned by people who can show good reason, this attitude of the Americans is bonkers. What it sounds like is that, as a nation, you don't trust your own government not to wage war against you.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

In the law Obama regime is trying to pass shotguns and pistols are trying to be outlawed. One of the most common guns in households. If you take away the guns from the American citizens the only ones who have the guns are the criminals and the government/police. Plus the conditions a gun must meet in order to be "legal" is insane. I'm not even sure there is a gun out there that obama wont outlaw.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

In the law Obama regime is trying to pass shotguns and pistols are trying to be outlawed. One of the most common guns in households.

Sounds like a good idea. Here in the UK only farmers, game-shooting loonies and gamekeepers are permitted shotguns, and handguns are not permitted to be owned by private citizens

If you take away the guns from the American citizens the only ones who have the guns are the criminals and the government/police.

What's wrong with the government and police being the only ones allowed guns? Sounds logical to me.

Plus the conditions a gun must meet in order to be "legal" is insane. I'm not even sure there is a gun out there that obama wont outlaw.

Again, sounds good to me.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

Assault gun sales are through the roof, maybe now it will calm down.................................? Did Obama do this on purpose to increase guns sale's?......because in fact, that's what has happened.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Just think of all the money the gun shops made -- yet again -- with the "Obama will take our guns" scare. Works every time.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Sadly, the NRA wins again. It sickens me. So many people said after Sandy Hook, "This is it. The mass murder of children is not what we're about. We have to change." Well, I guess our gutless politicians and amoral lobbyists run our government, not the people. There is no need for any private citizen to own an assault weapon. How about a grenade launcher or bazooka? Don't you need those to protect you from the big bad government? What am I saying? Those are probably legal too. Seriously, the government is not coming to your house to kill you, and if they did, no amount of assault weapons could save you.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

There is no need for any private citizen to own an assault weapon. How about a grenade launcher or bazooka? Don't you need those to protect you from the big bad government?

This is a Red Herring. Does anyone need to own bread? Can you not also fulfill your caloric needs through corn? Therefore, we should outlaw bread.

The question is not now, nor has it ever been, about the need for citizens to own particular weapons. The question is this: How can we make Americans safer?

The assault rifle ban does not accomplish this, but, as you have proven, it does make people believe they are safer. Legally bought and owned weapons are not used to commit crimes. Ever. Illegally bought and owned weapons do.

The solution is not to ban firearms. The solution is to drastically increase the punishments for those found to be in possession of illegally owned firearms. This will make Americans safer.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Gun Control law failed, why is this any surprise? I knew it wouldn't pass to begin with. Even if it did, the guns are not the problem, the deranged lunatics and heartless bastards who think they have the right kill over anything is the problem

1 ( +1 / -0 )

I see a lot of posts about the "right" to bear arms, but nothing about the "responsibilities" of bearing arms. I was taught that for every right there's a set of responsibilities. The right to vote is balanced by the responsibility to inform yourself about the issues, go to vote, vote responsibly, etc. The right to freedom of speech is balanced by... well, for lack of a better term, the responsibility not to be a jerk. The right to bear arms is balanced by? ... umm... not getting anything.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

... but hand on one second, aren't these the same people who wailed about Obama-care, which provides easier access to mental health care?

I wasn't aware of any significant provision in ACA that provides easier access to mental health care.

hmmm... can't agree to ban some high-capacity assault rifles that no-one really needs for anything practical...

Well for one they are not assault rifles, assault rifles are machine guns, AR-15s are not machine guns they are semi-automatic meaning they only fire one round each time the trigger is squeezed. Practicality would be target shooting, self defense, hunting(like a flock of waterfowl), to a form a militia...

But why one needs an automatic rifle with a 50 clip design than a revolver with 6 is beyond me..

Revolvers have the same fire rate as a semi-automatic rifle so what is the point? Generally the reason why someone needs larger magazine capacities, they are not clips clips lack a feeding mechanism that magazines have, is because believe it or not but most people will actually take several rounds before being incapacitated. Take for example a mom in the state of Georgia who shot an intruder(Paul Ali Slater) five times in the head and neck and he was still able to run away and get into his car and drive away, she was using a 6 shot revolver, well if she had to reload or if she missed even one more time and or was facing more than one attacker she would be in big trouble. You also have to factor in the possibility of missing, NYPD for example have a hit rate at best of around 30-35% when shooting their guns on the job.

What it sounds like is that, as a nation, you don't trust your own government not to wage war against you.

Have you seen America's foreign policy, especially during the Bush years?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

How about a grenade launcher or bazooka?

Actually you can own a grenade launcher and a bazooka, you need a destructive device permit to get the rounds for it but you can get them. You can also, for example, own and fire a fully automatic anti-aircraft gun and fully functional artillery pieces. You just need the right permits.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

@Thunderbird:

Watch the death tolls in schools, colleges and shopping malls mount as your average redneck can still tote his M16 of MP5.

Racism doesn't contribute to the debate.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

@SuperLib:

Just think of all the money the gun shops made -- yet again -- with the "Obama will take our guns" scare. Works every time.

You would think that Obama would learn to stop talking about guns all of the time so as not to increases sales. Apparently, he is a bit dense whenever reality conflicts with his ideology.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

It is nice to see the Senate realizing that assault weapons are NOT the problem. They account for very few gun deaths compared to their number. Handguns are the problem, yet nobody is willing to tackle them.

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