STAR TRIBUNE
Article by: PAUL WEST, KATHLEEN HENNESSEY and RICHARD SIMON
WASHINGTON -- Pledging to "put everything I've got into this," a somber President Obama unveiled the most sweeping proposals for curbing gun violence in two decades, pressing a reluctant Congress to pass universal background checks and bans on military-style assault weapons and high-capacity ammunition magazines like the ones used in the Newtown, Conn., school shootings.
Surrounded by children who wrote him letters seeking curbs on guns, Obama committed himself to a high-profile and politically volatile campaign behind proposals assembled by Vice President Joe Biden that will test the administration's strength heading into the next four years. The first big push of Obama's second term, then, will come on an issue that was not even on his to-do list on Election Day when voters renewed his lease on the presidency. "I will put everything I've got into this," Obama said, "and so will Joe."
The emotionally charged ceremony, attended by family members of those killed at Sandy Hook Elementary School, reflected a decision by the White House to seize on public outrage to challenge the political power of the National Rifle Association and other forces that have successfully fought new gun laws for decades.
The plan, which includes 23 executive actions, was described as a major initiative by advocates on both sides of the debate. The most important parts of Obama's plan will require congressional approval. They include a federal ban on the sale of military-style assault weapons, with fewer loopholes than the 1994 law that expired in 2004. Several states already have such bans. The president also wants to reinstate an earlier ban on sales of magazines that can hold more than 10 rounds.
Obama also wants to expand the background-check system to encompass all gun purchases, including the nearly 40 percent that are estimated to occur at gun shows and in private sales. Six states require background checks on all firearms sold at gun shows, according to the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence.
Federally licensed gun dealers are already required to run checks to ensure that potential buyers have not been convicted of a felony or domestic violence, or committed to a mental institution. But for years, the National Rifle Association and its allies in Congress have blocked universal background checks.
Obama said his response to that opposition will be to try to mobilize public support. "I tell you, the only way we can change is if the American people demand it," Obama said.
Obama announced numerous initiatives. He said the background-check system would be strengthened by, among other steps, making it easier for states to share information about mentally ill persons who should be prohibited from owning guns. He also proposed spending for increased training in the areas of school safety and metal health.
The price tag of the package is nearly $4.5 billion, the White House said. Most of it -- $4 billion -- would subsidize the cost of keeping 15,000 police on the streets, renewing a portion of an earlier Obama jobs initiative that failed to gain approval in Congress.
Foes of gun control condemned Obama's actions, calling them an infringement of the rights of gun owners and an ineffective response to gun violence. Typical was the response of Sen. Marco Rubio, a potential 2016 Republican presidential candidate, who said Obama "is again abusing his power by imposing his policies via executive fiat instead of allowing them to be debated in Congress."
The NRA echoed its criticisms of Obama. "Attacking firearms and ignoring children is not a solution to the crisis we face as a nation," the group said in a statement. "Only honest, law-abiding gun owners will be affected and our children will remain vulnerable to the inevitability of more tragedy."
For the most part, these regulations sound incredibly sensible. Any reasonable person can tell that the sale of deadly weapons should be carefully regulated. The background check information sharing sounds like something we should have had for years, with the communication technology we have now. The "assault weapon" ban could be good or bad, depending on how it is defined. I do disagree with the "assault weapon" language though- it's overly emotional without actually telling us anything about the weapons.
ReplyDeleteAndrew H. Period 3
I think that they shouldn't take away weapons from the responsible people. Just because some people decide that they want to do things like bring them to school, and start shooting people.
DeleteMatthew Hodek
Pewr. 3
I think that they should not ban assault weapons, but they should ban high capacity magazines. I also agree with andrew about the backround checks. If we had been checking mabe all these school shootings never would have happened.
ReplyDeleteMatthew Hodek
Per. 3
Guns don't kill people. People kill people. If a bad guy REALLY wants to get his hands on an assult rifle he will, and it doesn't matter what laws we have on guns. To be honest all this talk about gun controll is kind of irritating, because I bet half of these crazy psychos running around with guns were convicted felons who didn't have a right to own one in the first place. Also, if theres crazy guys like that out there I sure want a couple guns to help me sleep at night!
ReplyDeleteAlex Pederson
3rd
I think that they should put a tougher laws on guns.People have been using these high powered guns as toys. People that are angry have been shooting innocent people.
ReplyDeleteAshleyotto p2
I think it's dumb how they want to take away guns. It's like 3rd grade the innocents are getting punished for doing nothing. If they really want more people to live then they should make more mental hospitals. Because people will get their hands on guns no matter what. It will also make them angrier.
ReplyDeleteDavid Hoang per 3.
This could be a good, or bad thing. In closer detail, the restrictions DO NOT include most commonly used guns used for protection and hunting. It's not like your going to shoot a deer with an AK-47. The background check is such a good idea. It would be a lot easier for a mentally impaired individual, or thug to obtain a gun without this in place. Even though guns are dangerous, they can be used responsibly, and for great uses like protection. (I agree with Alex) However, until our country (especially the mentally impaired) can handle such dangerous weapons, I believe there should be some sort of restriction present.
ReplyDeleteJonas Fisher, 2nd Period.
I think that some of these regulations sound like a good idea. The background checking should be an given, they should have been doing them before this incident. Not all guns should be banned though, not everyone is using them in a harmful way. I do agree with what the NRA had to say about focusing on the children in our country, too. We need to assess both of these issues in order to fully fix this problem.
ReplyDeleteBridget Erickson p7
I think if you break a majore law, like selling drugs, broken into a house, ETC. You should not have a gun, Yes you can get it from blackmarket but you know, we need aprove in some areas.
ReplyDeleteTappe p7
I think that Obama was very utterly shocked about the Sandy Creek incident, and getting so many letters from children all around the U.S.A., must be a little rough on him. I know that the right to bear arms is our second admendment, but why does someone need an assult rifle that can shoot 100 rounds in a few seconds? I don't understand why someone would need that. I think it's a great idea to put more depth into the backround checks on people, and to let other states know who's mentally unstable. I wish there were more than 6 states who require backround checks. I think that Sandy Creek was a big eye-opener to a lot of people. I know that putting more restrictions on the guns won't stop criminals from finding one illegally, but it'd most likely help a bit.
ReplyDeleteSamantha H. p7
I rather have it where you need a gun license to purchase a weapon. You can't blame it on every one just because a couple of bad apples rotten the bunch.
ReplyDeleteP:7
P. Kevin Bouphasavanh
Well a few things that are wrong with this. This wasn't the first school shooting in Obama's presidency. But it was the first major one after his re-election and Obama never campaigned on gun control. Next doing this because children wrote him letters. How many children would have any thoughts on gun control besides what their parents or teachers had told them and how many would write a letter without prompting. Then these background checks this guy didn't buy the guns he used, he stole them from his mom that he killed. So if this legislation had been in place, would it have stopped this shooting? I don't think it would have.
ReplyDeleteKeegan O'Donnell
3rd hour
Honestly this whole Gun Control thing is dumb because the criminals or whoever already have guns, so, if we ban guns we will be taking away the people's protection against criminals. If anything we should give teachers weapons or have them teach a brief segment of self-defense and show them what to do just in case it happens at their school. I think the gun ban is a bad idea especially because people hate it and won't cooperate with it. The banning of guns is a bad idea and I know it won't get very far before a lot of Americans start to hate Obama for it.
ReplyDeleteAnthony Paradis, 3rd hour
LAST COMMENT!
ReplyDelete