McCormick reports: "President Barack Obama and Republican challenger Mitt Romney have spoken little about gun control in their campaigns for the White House and showed no sign of shifting course."
President Obama returns to the Oval Office after hearing of the shootings in Aurora, 07/20/12. (photo: Getty Images)
Obama Joins Romney in Gun-Control Silence After Shootings
22 July 12
resident Barack Obama and Republican challenger Mitt Romney have spoken little about gun control in their campaigns for the White House and showed no sign of shifting course after one of the deadliest shootings in recent U.S. history.
"It's not one of the issues that either candidate has shown much inclination to discuss," Don Kettl, dean of the school of public policy at the University of Maryland, said. "There are more downside risks than upside gains in talking about it."
At least 12 people were killed and 59 were injured when a gunman in a gas mask opened fire early yesterday in a movie theater in Aurora, Colorado, according to a federal official who asked for anonymity. A suspect, James Holmes, 24, was taken into custody after the 12:30 a.m. attack in the Denver suburb.
Speaking yesterday in Fort Myers, Florida, Obama made no mention of gun control as he called for a moment of silence for the victims. The president canceled later campaign events, returned to Washington and ordered U.S. flags flown at half- staff at federal facilities. Romney, who as Massachusetts governor in 2004 signed legislation banning assault-style weapons, also sidestepped the gun issue in a speech in Bow, New Hampshire, calling the killings a "hateful act."
Arizona Shooting
Obama called on Americans to choose compassion over conflict following a January 2011 shooting rampage in Arizona that killed six, including a 9-year-old girl, and critically wounded U.S. Representative Gabrielle Giffords, who later stepped down from her House seat. He didn't push for any additional gun measures in the wake of that shooting.
Democrats became cautious about pushing gun control measures after Al Gore's defeat in the 2000 presidential election, which many in the party blamed in part on the issue. The then-head of the Democratic Party, Terry McAuliffe, encouraged candidates to avoid the gun issue because of its "devastating impact on elections."
Gun-control advocates have expressed disappointment in Obama's administration and said they hope he will be more aggressive on the issue should he win re-election. New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg yesterday called on Obama and Romney to tell Americans "specifically what are they going to do about guns?"
'Soothing Words'
"Soothing words are nice, but maybe it's time that the two people who want to be president of the United States stand up and tell us what they are going to do about it, because this is obviously a problem across the country," Bloomberg said in an interview on WOR Radio.
In an interview taped for broadcast tomorrow on CBS News's "Face the Nation," Bloomberg said it's time for Romney and Obama "to be called, held accountable," according to excerpts released by the network.
The mayor is founder and majority owner of Bloomberg News parent Bloomberg LP.
"The president believes that we need to take common-sense measures that protect Second Amendment rights of Americans, while ensuring that those who should not have guns under existing law do not get them," White House press secretary Jay Carney told reporters aboard Air Force One yesterday. "There has been progress in that regard in terms of improving the volume and quality of information in background checks."
Ads Halted
Andrea Saul, a Romney spokeswoman, said in a statement that the campaign planned to pull all ads in Colorado, a battleground state, "until further notice." Jen Psaki, a spokeswoman for Obama's re-election campaign, told reporters it temporarily won't run ads in Colorado that contrast the president with Romney.
In an April speech, Romney said he didn't want to see any new gun laws.
"We need a president who will enforce current laws, not create new ones that only serve to burden lawful gun owners," the presumptive Republican nominee said in an April 13 speech to a National Rifle Association convention in St. Louis.
"We need a president who will stand up for the rights of hunters, sportsmen and those who seek to protect their homes and their families," he said. "President Obama has not; I will."
Massachusetts Law
The legislation Romney signed into law in 2004 was passed by Massachusetts lawmakers to ban assault-style semiautomatic weapons as a federal prohibition was about to expire. Congress hasn't renewed that ban.
When he sought the Republican nomination before the 2008 election Romney defended that law, saying it also "provided for a relaxation of licensing requirements for gun owners in Massachusetts." He told NBC's "Meet the Press" on Dec. 16, 2007, that he favored laws to "keep weapons of unusual lethality from being on the street."
During that appearance, Romney said he also favored a background check for prospective gun purchases "to make sure that the crazies don't buy guns."
During his NRA speech this year, Romney suggested defeating Obama would help ensure the U.S. Supreme Court would continue to protect gun rights under the Constitution's Second Amendment.
"In his first term, we've seen this president try to browbeat the Supreme Court," Romney said. "In a second term, he would remake it. Our freedoms would be in the hands of an Obama court, not just for four years, but for the next 40. And we must not let that happen."
Key Constituency
The NRA represents a key constituency for Republicans, who are more likely to have guns in their homes than Democrats, 55 percent to 40 percent, according to a Gallup poll taken in October. The survey showed 47 percent of American adults have a firearm at home.
The NRA has approximately 4 million members, according to Stephanie Samford, a spokeswoman. Many are located in such election swing states as Florida and Ohio.
Kettl said the gun issue is "trickier" for Obama than Romney because "he is more likely to have a hard time appealing to working-class voters" who are more likely to own guns.
"He has to tiptoe that very fine line between expressing outrage" and not "derailing the themes he wants to get across," Kettl said.
During his failed bid for the 2008 Republican presidential nomination, Romney also discussed his hunting habits.
'Very Clear'
"I'm not a big-game hunter," he said in 2007. "I've made it very clear, I've always been a, if you will, a rodent and rabbit hunter, all right? Small, small varmints, if you will. And I began when I was, oh, 15 or so, and have hunted those kinds of varmints since then -- more than two times. I also hunted quail in Georgia, so I've -- it's not really big-game hunting, if you will, however. It's not deer and large animals. But I've hunted a number of times of various types of small rodents."
Saul said in April that Romney owns two shotguns.
Romney supported the so-called Brady Bill of 1993 that required licensed gun dealers to perform criminal background checks on buyers. He also backed a ban on certain assault weapons in a 1994 federal anti-crime bill.
As Massachusetts governor from 2003-2007, he also signed legislation that raised gun license fees from $25 to $100 to help close a state budget deficit, while also extending license durations to mitigate the increased cost, according to a Boston Globe report.
Romney, in his remarks yesterday, said "there will be justice for those responsible" for the Colorado shootings. "That's another matter for another day. Today is a moment to grieve."
|
THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community. |
 20 May 2013
|
 21 May 2013
|
 21 May 2013
|
 20 May 2013
|
 20 May 2013
|
 20 May 2013
|
 21 May 2013
|
 22 May 2013
|
 21 May 2013
|
Comments
We are concerned about a recent drift towards vitriol in the RSN Reader comments section. There is a fine line between moderation and censorship. No one likes a harsh or confrontational forum atmosphere. At the same time everyone wants to be able to express themselves freely. We'll start by encouraging good judgment. If that doesn't work we'll have to ramp up the moderation.
General guidelines: Avoid personal attacks on other forum members; Avoid remarks that are ethnically derogatory; Do not advocate violence, or any illegal activity.
Remember that making the world better begins with responsible action.
- The RSN Team
It is all about the magazines and I’m not talking about Playboy magazine.
Obama the Wimp would not renew the Assault Weapons law. Who – Who – Who - needs a magazine that holds 20, 30, 50 or 100 shells? It is the Idiots, Terrorists, Stupid People, Republicans, and the NRA who is making Millions from the stupid people. The NRA has bought all the Republicans and most of the Cowardly Democrats. It is not about having guns, and the 2nd amendment, it is all about the large magazines.
The NRA has done a fantastic job of scaring the Stupid People that their 2nd Amendment Rights are being taken away just because they can’t have magazines with 20, 30, 50 or 100 shells.
A stand is clearly called for.....a return to the clinton era laws allowed to expire in 04..
I will vote for him there is really not a choice..but all you supporters of him...like Al Gore supporting the retention of Elian Gonzales in Miami before the election.....th is is what he is....first is getting elected priority one...all else to include necessary moral stance to prevent unnecessary deaths(return to good gun control)....is secondary to that.
A monster....he is a monster become.
The other is a monster as well...so we must vote the lesser of two evils.
Stop being naive...
ALL of his weakkneed missives aimed at the left have be fakeouts and toothless.
Maybe Obama will grow a pair if re-elected.
But his criminal support of Bush's "extraordinary rendition" = exporting suspects to countries where they will be tortured, will forever tarnish hislegacy.
Not to mention his endorsement of spying on Americans in their homes, offices, and on their computers.
Not to mention FBI busting into innocent people's homes in the middle of the night, tossing the place, scaring women and children -- for WHAT????
That has been the way the FBI and the ATF has operated for quite some time prior to Obama being elected.
What nonsense. We are the most heavily armed populace on the planet, by far. If toting guns saved lives, we'd have virtually no gun deaths in the U.S. Instead, we lead the world (not counting Syria, perhaps) in firearm deaths. If you want to argue that an astonishing gun-related death rate is a fair price to pay for the right of every lunatic to carry Uzis, well, have at it. But spare us this suggestion that it's good for me--it isn't.
so help me out here: is wayne lapierre representative of most NRA members, or is he just the loudmouth sociopath who purports to speak for all members? and if you dropped out because of the support of assault weapons in the hands of civilians, why don't more of you ex-members speak out?
Will the current two parties opt for a third or forth anytime soon? I doubt it.
No.. I guess that would just be unacceptable. Far better to wait for "responsible" people to show up with badges to handle the situation.
I don't personally own a gun of any kind, but I'm glad my neighbours do, and hope they'd lend me 1 or 2, come the revolution.
Just imagine a dozen frenetic Glocks going off, in the dark, with no real way to ident the shooter after the first shots from others...
If you've EVER had your life in danger, for REAL, as in you are about to die or could easily die in the next few moments, you would know that panic and indiscriminant action is the rule...ask any TRAINED cop or soldier about being under fire...ya don't think all that clearly...Rambo and John McClane are big screen fantacies.
The figure is equivalent to the size of the US and Japanese economies combined.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-18944097
http://www.infowars.com/tax-havens-super-rich-hiding-at-least-21tn/
Hey, I don't want to hear about it. Let's argue about "gun control," instead!
“It's time we had an adult conversation in this country about guns.”
“...we have not had a real conversation about guns in many, many years. The National Rifle Association (NRA) threatens the career of any politician who so much as opens the conversation.
“...our country has not discussed assault weapons – which have no use except killing large numbers of people...”
“We have not discussed the fact that anyone can buy a gun at a gun show without any background check, even if they have a history of criminal violence.”
“ We have not discussed the expiration of the ban on large clips, which allow shooters to kill more people in a shorter time because they don’t have to reload.”
“ We have not discussed what a sensible, rational approach to regulating guns in our country might be.”
“Enough.”
“It’s time we took steps to stop the mass killings.”
“It’s time we had an adult conversation about guns in this country. The NRA can go to hell.”
Thank you Darcy for telling it like it is.
I am supporting Darcy.
We need people like her in Congress. I hope Obama and Romney take heed of her message.
Send Darcy a campaign contribution.
And to hell with the NRA.
it is a severe political miscalculation. Reagan serves as example of this political fact.....much badly wrongly held others did not agree with..but it was perceived honestly held.
His team as did gores years ago..they do not understand the american psyche. So they suffer.
Obama say this....we must restate the clinton era laws in this regard...say it......
Geeze louise..... the environment of the political the restricted nature of it makes thinking after a while impossible for those in its webs. Surrounded only by adherents to the status quo and the affirmative yes men....they can never ever take a real stand...it becomes impossible....
How frequently would even an experienced gun-user find himself able to quickly have a loaded gun in his hand, ready to shoot it out with an intruder to his home, or even in a crowded theatre? Guns are supposed to be unloaded so that irresponsible people or children cannot access them, right? In a pressing situation, how dependable is this so-called readiness? I'll opt for a non-aggressive response, and if possible, a guick escape.
What a shameful system!
We can talk about defending our homes or hunting or the 2nd Amendment but without the big arms manufacturers, there would be no national discourse.
This is bigger than the political parties. A big national effort is needed to counteract all that power. We are going over the waterfall so it is time to grab for some tree roots to save some of us. Better gun laws are supported by the police, by and large. They don't want to go out and get shot, either, and they have bulletproof wear on.
The Fraternal Order of Police say 85% of agencies reported forced reductions while the number of police shot last year spiked to 173. A Republican administration will continue the pinch on local law enforcement through budget cuts.
RSN has cited 58 gun murders in Britain (a country with strong gun control)all of last year, while this country - almost 9000! Do we want to stop the wanton death and untold grief that grips our country or do we want to finally put an end to, or strictly limit, the vast power of the NRA, which has both parties shuddering because of its capital donations & fear-mongering?
And IF we believe that an ordered, civilized nation must enact laws for the "common good" - and if that common good is severely compromised because of the murder of thousand of its' citizens yearly, then it must restrict the weapons that cause the bloodshed. For to yield to the common good and enjoy the projections that a nation like ours bestows, we must give up the destructive "toys" that cripple and maim our society.
The president believes in “improving the volume and quality of information in background checks" but this guy had no history; the guns were obtained legally. Kid’s just another schizophrenic American wondering where he fits in, and you can like it or not, they’re (we’re) all over and growing.
The president versus Romney: What the hell does it matter what they say? When they’re elected they do whatever the money wants anyway.
I’m having a hard time following it: so, do we have to put up with four years of murder for a measure of redemption (in the next four)?
Obama sure is going to be busy “…should he win re-election.”
It’s what the voters (more crazies) want!
God forbid anyone messes with our “right” to kill stuff.
I fully support background checks and screening to ensure that those with criminal records and psychological problems don't have easy access to weapons, but I believe that people a fundamental right to bear arms. I don't think that gun control is the solution.
I used to be pro-gun control until I realized that some people live in communities where the police can't or won't do their jobs. People have a right to protect their own homes.
-that is, until Nixon and Kent State, until I retired to a dead Appalachian town (except for meth labs,) with ONE cop who doesn't even live or spend every day here, and where there are poisonous reptiles and nightly attacks by packs of coyotes; and in an era when even in the cities the police state's NYPD and OPD are violently attacking citizens (using the weapons THEIR taxes bought!) for exercising their OTHER, much more clearly defined constitutional rights of dissent and assembly.
So now I'm a gun-owning Progressive Liberal, doing more than just waiting for the chance to vote for an Elizabeth Warren for President - or the inevitable alternative of a French- or Blair Mountain- style revolution, which I've known was coming since Reagan broke PATCO.
But the NRA, MIC, PIC,Energy Corps, WS Banks, Durable Corporations, and all other corporatist ALEC-style "lobbyists" have to go; no matter what or how.
We desperately need an avowed "ANTI-BUSINESS" government to protect the individual and STOP helping business in its agenda of "PLUNDER"(cf: Bastiat).
Government was formed to protect the individual FROM such power- not to support and protect it. Mussolini coined a term describing that - and though we fought it in the 30's & 40's, it's what we now tolerate in America. Shame.
When the reporter can convince people that letting people buy assault weapons or rapid fire weapons or 6,000 rounds of ammunition is a very bad idea, then get back to Obama. Until then, he needs to ask the American voter how they feel about any limits whatsoever on their ability to blow away anyone they feel like.
To get an idea of what people feel, see what Michael_K and John Locke have said about gun control on this and other occasions.
Let Bloomberg handle the gun problem in his city. If Bloomberg wants to take on the 2nd Amendment, let him do it personally. His statement couldn't be more self serving and politically motivated. He no more needs to be quoted in this issue than Bart Simson.
RSS feed for comments to this post