Are You In Favor of President Obama's Proposed Gun Laws?

President Obama said the laws, including universal background checks and a renewed ban on assault rifles, would lead to "fewer atrocities like the one that happened in Newtown."

Alongside Vice President Joe Biden and a group of children who had written in support, President Barack Obama signed a proposal to Congress on Wednesday to strengthen United States gun laws.

These included universal background checks, limiting the number of bullets in a clip and renewing a ban on military-grade assault rifles.

"If America worked harder to keep guns out of the hands of dangerous people, there would be fewer atrocities like the one that occurred in Newtown," the president said.

Obama listed some specific measures, including a 10-round limit on magazines for firearms, and asked Congress to confirm Todd Jones to fill the long-dormant role of chief for the Bureau of Alchol, Tobacco and Firearms — and briefly mentioned other measures, including helping schools hire more resource officers and making sure mental health professionals have the tools they need. He suggested Congress should fund research into the link between gun violence and violent video games.

Assault rifle bans and universal background checks made up the core of his proposal. A full list of the proposals was published by CNN and can be viewed here.

The advocacy group Sandy Hook Promise issued a statement applauding the president's approach. As it has said before, though, including at its press conference Monday, change can't stop at new legislation. The statement came from one of the group's co-founder, Tim Makris, a Sandy Hook Elementary School parent.

However, not everybody was supportive of the measures, with the conservative group FreedomWatch announcing it is suing the White House task force that led to the gun control proposals offered by the president.

The suit alleges the White House group conducted illegal meetings with lobbyists without the required public notice. The suit was filed in Florida federal court seeking to eliminate the task force and prevent any of its proposals from becoming law, The Hill reports.

Others were critical of the president using children as "props," drawing comparisons to the children Hitler surrounded himself with when attempting to sway public opinion.

Although the National Rifle Association released a controversial ad asking why the president's children should get armed security while others had to be schooled in "gun free" zones, the organization took a softer tone in a statement released following the president's press conference. The full statement by the NRA released Wednesday reads:

Throughout its history, the National Rifle Association has led efforts to promote safety and responsible gun ownership.  Keeping our children and society safe remains our top priority.
The NRA will continue to focus on keeping our children safe and securing our schools, fixing our broken mental health system, and prosecuting violent criminals to the fullest extent of the law.  We look forward to working with Congress on a bi-partisan basis to find real solutions to protecting America’s most valuable asset – our children.
Attacking firearms and ignoring children is not a solution to the crisis we face as a nation.  Only honest, law-abiding gun owners will be affected and our children will remain vulnerable to the inevitability of more tragedy.

What is your opinion of the president's proposals? A step in the right direction to fix the problems of gun violence in our country? Or way too far — an overstep of his authority?

steve January 18, 2013 at 11:11 AM
The idea that we do nothing and that will somehow magically fix the problem is flatly irresponsible. We have stop paying attention to the idiots screaming with their hair on fire about black helicopter's and such nonsense and take some adult concrete measures to address a logical form of gun control. If the starting point is background checks on all gun sales then do it.This congress has done nothing for this country on its own in 4 years! If I was obstructive or did not perform in my job I'd get fired in a a day! Do your damm jobs and protect this country from at least the extreams.
Ron Myers January 18, 2013 at 11:11 AM
As our Gov. Rick Perry said, our right to keep and bear arms CANNOT and WILL Not BE ABRIDGED. Obama is president not king or dictator. There is a reason our founding fathers provided for the second amendment. He continues in his efforts to overstep his authority just as he usually does. Disarming the population has long been a tactic of the left wingers. It has long been a tactic in past dictatotships, such as Nazi Germany for example. IT"S GONNA WORK!
Platini cardoso January 18, 2013 at 11:11 AM
Obama iam with you
Mike McSwain January 18, 2013 at 11:11 AM
Laws against speeding, do not stop people from speeding...So should we do away with them too?? Is that your logic??
Platini cardoso January 18, 2013 at 11:12 AM
Those people dont kno wat they r saying
Hallaluya January 18, 2013 at 11:13 AM
Would any of these proposals have stopped the mass killings they are intended to stop without stopping potential victims of similar killings the ability to defend themselves?
Joe Maldonado January 18, 2013 at 11:13 AM
Founding Fathers had muskets when they drew up the 2nd amendment. Why not sell cannons, bazookas, hand grenades, surface to air missiles from every gun shop in America? - after all they are arms as well, not available during the signing of the constitution? You sound like just another Fear Mongering NRA Puppet.
Rick Kugler January 18, 2013 at 11:15 AM
Yes of course we need control on these weapons. People who think otherwise are either ignorant of the situation or too crazy to be allowed to handle dangerous things. Rather than 'foot' the expensive plan floated by NRA (putting 100s of millions into adding yet more guns to our schools and day care centers) why not limit the guns? A good guy with a gun may be helpful,but they are too few to be effective.
Joe Maldonado January 18, 2013 at 11:16 AM
Let me guess, a FOX NEWS Devotee?
Jay January 18, 2013 at 11:23 AM
Of coarse. The day I put myself before the welfare of all the children in the nation is the day I check out... the actual chances I am actually going to NEED an assault weapon to defend my house against an intruder are slim and none. I can just as easily defend and protect my house with a pistol. And this argument that some nutbags are saying they need it becuase they might have to use it on American soldiers if the Government turns on them is insane. These people wrap themselves in the flag on one hand and then say they need an assault rifle to defend against our government if they come after them is not only deeply flawed is not only dangerous, but it's NUTS. And I hope they arrest every last one of those southern sheriffs that say they won't enforce the law if passed... and if there is a mass shoot in their town THEY need to be held responsible. Putting your sick twisted view on the 2nd amendment is going to get more people killed. If Ronald Reagan, their hero can ban these weapons and write a letter giving his reasons why he wanted them banned, that should be good enough for them.
Donald Matthews January 18, 2013 at 11:26 AM
Yes, we must do something about all the killing that is going on in our Country. Don
Ron Myers January 18, 2013 at 11:31 AM
The total and willful blindness of so many people is shocking. When we lose our rights such as the second amendment, we'll just like the communist countries where you are a slave of the state, all your money is taxed away, and you can't do anything about it because you don't have any guns. This just the life that people in Red China have, and all other communist countries. Only a fool would want to give up his rights voluntarily. There's a reason all the people of the world have always dreamed of coming to the USA!
Tim271 January 18, 2013 at 11:35 AM
Obama's gun control plan if guns were cars: "Don't worry. I don't want to ban all cars; just the ones with tires, engines, and steering wheels." Obama should be ashamed for how he has been misrepresenting the "assault weapons" ban to the public. Neither the 1994 Clinton ban nor Feinstein's newly introduced - and greatly expanded - version have anything to do with real assault rifles, military weapons, AK47's, UZI's, M16's, or any of the other stuff that he other Democrats have kept talking about. All of those are REAL assault rifles; they're machine guns - and they're ALREADY BANNED. They have been for decades (via the 1934 National Firearms Act and 1968 Gun Control Act). Obama's current "assault weapon" ban just targets ordinary guns that millions of us peacefully own and use on a weekly basis. Disgusting. (And not made any better by the media's shameless complicity - showing pictures of banned machine guns as the supposed guns being targeted by this ban; failing to report on how expansive the ban actually is, etc).
marvinlzinn January 18, 2013 at 11:43 AM
Alright, since many times more are killed with cars, let's ban the cars.
Mark January 18, 2013 at 11:49 AM
No I'm Not and here are a couple of quotes from someone that said it much better than I could. "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither safety nor liberty" "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote."
R. C. L. January 18, 2013 at 11:51 AM
NO, Why is it no one is willing to talk about the lack of parenting for our children today. Kids are growing up on their own with no role models in what are more and more broken homes. Let’s fix the "hard" problems of broken families, peer pressure, bullying, over stressed over worked parents first. When the second amendment was written black powder rifles were the assault weapons of the day. This made it even between the militia and private citizens, everyone had the same fire power. Today we are not allowed that same protection. The police and military are carry Fully Automatic weapons when we are only allowed semi automatic versions. Let’s not trash the second amendment any further. Increased background checks, closed loopholes at gun shows, better mental health care: All GOOD things. Assault weapon ban, limited magazine capacity, violating our constructional rights: All BAD things.
Andrew January 18, 2013 at 12:07 PM
Absolutely not. Whether the President likes it or not, law abiding citizens have a Constitutional right to own guns, and his proposal to ban basically all modern guns and normal size magazines would deeply infringe on that right. I'm a target shooter. Every gun that I own would be deemed an "assault weapon" under Obama's / Feinstein's bill; every gun that I want to buy in the future would also be banned as an assault weapon. How is that not infringing on my right to keep and bear arms? Finally, to all of you who seem to think that the Second Amendment isn't violated as long as at least a couple guns remain legal (or as long as a person jumps through 2 dozen administrative hoops first), ask yourselves this: would your right to freedom of association be infringed upon if all but one political party was banned? How about if your right to free assembly was "regulated" such that you couldn't protest anything within one mile of a government building, road, or other public gathering place... ever? What if your freedom of speech was restricted to written pamphlets and yelling from street corners - that was all the founding fathers had, after all.
Katz225 January 18, 2013 at 12:26 PM
No. Really, Obama's plan doesn't seem to have much of anything to do with school security at all. The NRA's plan was reasonable: if you want to increase security at our nation's schools, perhaps you should... well, hire security to protect our schools. Instead, Obama ridiculed the NRA, played it off like they'd suggested handing out guns to first graders, and instead came out with this massive anti-gun wish list. And he presented it in front of a group of schoolchildren no less. Shameless politics, and true to what seems to be the Democratic mantra - never let a tragedy go to waste.
Victoria Dawn Williams January 18, 2013 at 12:44 PM
There is already a ban on "assault" weapons. The background cks, yes! The second amendment needs to stay in tact, the way it was intended. If someone chose's to kill a lot of people, they can get their hands on any weapon they chose. They don't need to get a registered fire arm. Let's not forget the infamous "Fast & Furious"! How legal was that? As far as video games go? Anyone remember the PMRC & Tipper Gore from the '80's? To many parents these days spare the rod & spoil the child. Mental health needs to be addressed at the elementary level. Bullying, abuse, neglect, etc... only exacerbates already underlying problems. POTUS needs to leave the gun laws alone before our second amendment goes the way of "Obama Care".
chris bailey January 18, 2013 at 01:02 PM
OK how about this for perspective. the number of people that die from Cardiac related illness every year dwarfs the number of people shot by guns....something like 100s of thousands vs. less than 15 thousand. My father died of a heart attack...I want everyone to stop eating fatty food and exercise more, but I am not going to force them to eat veggie burgers instead of hamburgers....and if my family were killed in a similar incident I would lay blame on the guy doing the shooting, and would advocate for the death sentence if he did not kill himself all ready. Does the relative if victim killed by a blade advocate the banning of knives?
Steve January 18, 2013 at 01:17 PM
No. Obama's gun control proposals have nothing to do with preventing crime and everything to do with disarming law abiding citizens (and appeasing his anti-gun base). The media coverage on this issue has been terrible - and this article and some of the comments on it are proof. The author says that one of Obama's central proposals is to ban "military-grade assault rifles," but real assault rifles are fully automatic and have been effectively banned since 1986. No military in the world uses the guns that are being targeted by Obama's "assault weapons" ban; they are by definition NOT "military-grade" guns. The assault weapons ban that Obama is pushing right now just bans a huge number of normal guns - rifles, pistols, and shotguns - by calling them something scary. The liberals know that American's wouldn't support it otherwise. Worse still, people seem to be falling for it. Someone above said that he / she can't believe that people are defending the same guns used by the Taliban in Afghanistan. Obama's assault weapons bill has nothing to do with those kind of guns - THEY'RE ALREADY BANNED. Another poster said that he "doesn't need an assault weapon to defend himself" - he's fine with a pistol. - Too bad Obama's assault weapons and magazine ban proposals would almost certainly outlaw his pistol too. For the love of god people, READ THE BILLS AND LEARN THE CURRENT STATE OF THE LAW before taking a position. Shocking revelation here: politicians don't always tell the truth.
Jimmy January 18, 2013 at 05:11 PM
Joe, the Va Tech shooter had a .22 pistol and a 9mm pistol. The Columbine kids had two sawed off shotguns (already illegal), a rifle with a 10 round magazine and a 9mm pistol. The question now is, does having facts change your perspective?
Bruce Lancaster January 18, 2013 at 06:01 PM
Both NBC and ABC reported on the 15th that the AR15 was never inside sandy hook. Police found four handguns in the school and found the AR15 locked in the shooters car. - There was no rifle at all at Virginia Tech. There was no AR15 at Columbine. Those styles of weapons can not be linked to any of those tragedies. You would be hard pressed to find any incidents besides Aurora that involved such a weapon. What the vast majority of these shootings have in common is the mental health problems of the shooters. If I sound like a fear mongering puppet, you sound like like an uninformed and uneducated liberal dunce believing in every soundbite the liberal media talking heads feed you.
Marvin Mann January 19, 2013 at 04:49 PM
Marvin Recently, the liberal media has compared those in faver of our Second Amendment to Nazis. I would strongly suggest that the shoe is on the wrong foot. If I am not mistaken, it was Hilter that assured the people that thier firearms would not be taken away. And then he took them away. It's always easier to deal with an unarmed populace. Lets face it, we have a fascist ideologue as president with a napoleonic complex who does not understyand capitalism, never read Adam Smith, does not know who Milton Friedman was or Thomas Sowell. He has a distain for America, thinks that poeple have gotten rich by exploiting the downtrodden.
marvinlzinn January 19, 2013 at 05:05 PM
Yes, that fits! President Obama is Muslim no matter what the says. He is proven against Israel just as much as Hitler against Jews, but Obama does not have that much power . . . yet.
marvin mann January 19, 2013 at 08:20 PM
I am looking at two books that were recently issued by ATF entitled ATF State Laws and Published Ordinances - Firearms 2010 - 2011 31st edition and ATF Federal Firearms Regulations Reference Guide 2005, 497 pages and 240 pages respectively. Point is are there not enough laws already on the books? I was a City Councilman in Danbury Ct. I also had a CC permit there. I can tell you that they have some of the strictest gun laws in the country. Background check, safe gun courses, vouchers, fingerprints sent to the FBI, local applications. But if you have a mental issue, there is no place on the application where that question is asked. If you have to deal with a person with a mental issue, their rights are so well protected that until they do something that gets them in trouble you cannot take any protective action. Ergo, the mother of the Sandy Hook mass murderer tried to have him committed for treatment weeks before this tragedy took place.
Wei Li January 20, 2013 at 03:28 AM
Reading the comments reminded me of two things: the sight of cats chasing evasive balls of light, and a quote by Voltaire, whose wisdom rings true to this day. “Many are destined to reason wrongly; others, not to reason at all; and others to persecute those who do reason.” ~ Voltaire
Timothy I Mullins January 20, 2013 at 10:58 AM
When a person is hit and killed by a car, we charge driver with vehicular homicide, but we don't blame the car so why are we blaming the gun when somebody is killed with one. If you look up weapons used in homicide you will find baseball bats, butcher knifes, and your own hands and feet. so far I haven't herd of any one wanting to ban hands, just think if would ban hands no one could pull a trigger or run you down with a car. In Chicago each year some 500 juveniles die most of gun shot wounds and this is in a town with a total ban of all guns inside the city limits. Clinton tried this assault weapon ban from 1994 to 2004 and 3 separate studies were done and they all said the same thing the ban did more harm than good and now Obama wants to repeat Clintons mistake. If they need to do something make it a card like a license to allow a person to buy a gun after a complete back ground check, similar to a concealed weapon permit. Gun owners are for a law that works, but we haven't seen one yet. Gun do a lot of good you never hear of, and no one has said anything about how many would be out of a job. One gripe I have is would somebody look up the definition of a assault weapon, it states selective fire and none of these guns were selective fire, that's for the military. thank you Tim
K Wade January 20, 2013 at 01:00 PM
Impeachment? Spare your family the embarrassment and post with an alias.
Wei Li January 20, 2013 at 10:46 PM
High Crimes and Misdemeanors specialoperationsspeaks dot .com/petition/benghazigate-petition


More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something
See more »