FB Share
Email This Page
add comment
Print

The Washington Post reports: "President Obama will unveil a sweeping set of gun-control proposals at midday Wednesday, including an assault weapons ban, universal background checks and limits on the number of bullets that ammunition clips can hold, according to sources familiar with the plans."

Vice President Joe Biden's gun violence task force has delivered its recommendations. (photo: Doug Mills/NYT)
Vice President Joe Biden's gun violence task force has delivered its recommendations. (photo: Doug Mills/NYT)


Obama to Unveil Broad Gun Control Plans Wednesday

By Philip Rucker and Sari Horwitz, The Washington Post

15 January 13

 

resident Obama will unveil a sweeping set of gun-control proposals at midday Wednesday, including an assault weapons ban, universal background checks and limits on the number of bullets that ammunition clips can hold, according to sources familiar with the plans.

The announcement, which press secretary Jay Carney said is scheduled for about 11:45 a.m. at the White House, is also expected to include a slate of up to 19 executive actions that the Obama administration can take on its own to attempt to limit gun violence.

The White House has invited key lawmakers as well as gun-control advocates to appear at Wednesday's policy rollout, according to two officials who have been invited to the event.

Joining Obama and Vice President Biden for the announcement will be children from across the country who wrote Obama letters after last month's elementary school shooting in Newtown, Conn., Carney said.

Carney declined to provide details on the administration's gun proposals, and he acknowledged that there are "limits" to what Obama can achieve through executive action alone.

"I will not get ahead of the president in terms of what his package of proposals will include," he told reporters Tuesday. "I will simply note that the president has made clear that he intends to take a comprehensive approach."

Regarding executive action, Carney said, "It is a simple fact that there are limits to what can be done within existing law, and Congress has to act on the kinds of measures we've already mentioned, because the power to do that is reserved by Congress."

Obama said at a news conference Monday that he would present his gun proposals later in the week.

The moves signal that Obama intends to push ahead with an ambitious and controversial gun-safety agenda in the wake of the Dec. 14 massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, which killed 26 people, including 20 small children. The shootings, carried out by a lone gunman who also killed himself, have prompted a wave of demands for stricter gun-control laws at the state and federal levels.

"The issue is: Are there some sensible steps that we can take to make sure that somebody like the individual in Newtown can't walk into a school and gun down a bunch of children in a - in a shockingly rapid fashion?" Obama said at Monday's news conference. "And surely we can do something about that."

The emerging set of White House proposals stem from a month-long review led by Biden, who has been meeting with advocates on both sides before making the recommendations that were delivered to Obama this week.

The recommendations - many of which Obama has endorsed - are expected to include a tougher version of the assault weapons ban that expired in 2004; a limit on the number of bullets that magazines can hold; background checks for gun shows and other "private sales"; better database tracking for weapons sales; and strengthening measures aimed at keeping guns out of the hands of those with severe mental health issues.

A new Washington Post-ABC News poll shows that most Americans support tough new measures to counter gun violence, including an assault weapons ban, mandatory background checks and other policies.

But the efforts will face political head winds on Capitol Hill, where the National Rifle Association and many lawmakers from both parties oppose any significant changes to gun laws.

Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) said in a radio interview this week that an assault weapons ban cannot pass Congress because of opposition from House Republicans.

Obama and his aides have said they are aware of the political challenges but have decided to push ahead with changes that they view as necessary in the wake of Newtown. To put pressure on Congress, the White House is working with its allies on a broad public campaign aimed at shifting public opinion and providing political cover for lawmakers.

Lawmakers who met with Biden on Monday said that the vice president is aware of the steep political obstacles to gun-control measures but that the White House has decided to push ahead.

"I think there's a commitment to do the big things," said Rep. Jackie Speier (D-Calif.). "I also think that they're realists, and in addition to doing the big things, they want to make sure that they do as many of the effective things that we can find some level of consensus on."

Rep. Mike Thompson (D-Calif.) said: "I don't think this is Joe Biden's first rodeo. They are well aware of the high bar."

The administration has also signaled that it intends to move aggressively on gun policy changes that do not require legislative approval. Obama on Monday pointed to federal data "on guns that fall into the hands of criminals and how to track that more effectively."

"There may be some steps that we can take administratively as opposed to through legislation," Obama said.

 

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

 
0 # SMoonz 2013-01-15 13:52
Leave it to the same people who planned and allowed "Fast and Furious" to happen to take gun rights.
 
 
-2 # Billy Bob 2013-01-15 21:12
Fast and Furious was bush's program. Are you suggesting bush wants to take away your rocket launchers?
 
 
-2 # SMoonz 2013-01-15 22:13
Lol... rocket launchers? That's funny. Let us know when those are commonplace at our local Walmarts.

Well, Bush had "Operation Wide Receiver" while Obama had "Operation Fast & Furious." They were similar but not the same.

"Fast and Furious" flooded Mexican cartels with weapons, mostly Automatic weapons, and were not being tracked.

Univision did a damning investigative piece on it months ago in conjunction with ABC. The officials that spoke on record said that Eric Holder was aware and the White House definitely knew. When Jorge Ramos confronted Obama during the Univision Town Hall meeting which was televised shortly before the debates, Obama would not and did not give a straight answer. Today the death toll in Mexico is estimated at 60,000 which included mostly innocent civilians including children.
 
 
0 # Billy Bob 2013-01-16 11:28
So you're blaming Obama for CONTINUING bush's program...

The whole argument among right-wingers like you seems to be that when the left takes away your right to have extraordinary weapons with the sole purpose of murdering as many people as possible, you won't be able to overthrow the American government. I got news for you. You're NOT able to, no matter what you do.

This isn't really about "fast and furious". That's just a diversionary tactic on your part. But, it's been widely known and publicized what "fast and furious" was about all along. It's just a sting operation. Plain and simple. The trouble is that it happens to be a sting operation that allows the kinds of people who have a use for these kinds of weapons to get them (on their own) while the government stands aside and waits. You right-wingers (don't pretend you're not one) are worried because it shows the link between these weapons and the violence they are used to commit.
 
 
-2 # SMoonz 2013-01-16 14:15
Whoa, I’m surprised to find out I’m a “right winger.” I must be the only “right winger” who’s ever voted for Green Party candidates both in 2008 and 2012. Oops did I also accidentally register as a Democrat 18 years ago? Gasp!

If I recall you have said in the past that you are all for the War on Drugs. That is a “right wing” and conservative stance. Hey look, that makes you a right winger!

I guess in the end anyone who does not adhere to your political belief system is considered a Republican, right winger, or some other label that follows your paradigm.

How can anyone not blame Obama for CONTINUING any Bush type program? The buck has to stop with him. I don’t see how that makes it okay or makes it possible to give him a pass.

And about Fast and Furious, go ahead and do research, read up on the findings Univision found. It was the stupidest, blatantly irresponsible “sting operation” in law enforcement history. Of course, it just so happened to take place in Mexico, a country seen as inferior by American policy makers. Such an operation would have never been practiced in the U.S. or Canada.

Guns by the way, in the hands of law abiding citizens serves as a means to protect oneself and also acts as a deterrent from government abuses. But you don’t mind a heavy handed approach from potential tyranny, after all, you have said in the past that you would “rather live on your knees.”
 
 
0 # Billy Bob 2013-01-16 17:52
1. Your ideas are as right-wing as they get. Your obvious goals on this site are exactly the same as those of a paid troll.

2. You recall wrong.

3. You didn't blame Obama for "continuing" bush's program. You blamed him for STARTING it. That's dishonest.

4. Sting operations like that happen in the U.S. all of the time.

5. Your guns are no deterrent against a government that could do anything it wants to you at will. How many people in Iraq and Afghanistan were walking around unarmed? A few thousand U.S. troops were able to completely destroy those countries with impunity without the full force of the U.S. behind them. It's a delusional fantasy to think you can "defend" yourself against the government. Look up david koresh. I'm guessing he was better armed than even you are. Where is he now?

6. Your intentional misquotes are no replacement for an honest argument.
 
 
0 # SMoonz 2013-01-16 22:01
Thank you so much Billy Boy! I have been needing some comedy relief this week and I finally got it from you. It's funny seeing how you find these very creative labels, "right wing," "paid troll." So creative of you. I know you are not insulting me. Of course not because I know you are much smarter than that. But thanks again for putting a smile on my face.

As far as your views on legalization you said, "After a little consideration, I think I've hit one of the main things that bothers me about the movement to "legalize it": IT MAKES PEOPLE PASSIVE."
This was in an article titled, "Pot Legalization Is Coming," courtesy of RSN.

And yes, let me back track on Fast and Furious. This specific program DID start under Obama. This was not the same program but somewhat similar to Bush's program. Go back do the research, check out the Univision investigative piece. It is clear you haven't.

And it is quite strange that you label a program that killed as many as 60,000 citizens as a mere "sting operation." I call it a deliberate criminal act, negligence and borderline genocidal. Then again, for you I'm assuming it's a matter of semantics?

So basically if troops come at you with force and intent on snuffing you out you're just supposed to sit there, arms crossed and just take it? What a lovely, way to go. But it is pretty consistent with the way you see things, living on your knees.

Feel free to send some more labels my way. I need another laugh.
 
 
+1 # A_Har 2013-01-15 22:49
Obama has continued Bush's policies--the wars, the extraordinary renditions, the plans for a turnkey totalitarian surveilance state (see wired: http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/03/ff_nsadatacenter/all/1 ) and a host of other moves to gut the constitution... .and now one more move to chip away at it. Is there anything of it remaining?

As Rahm Emmanuel said--"You never want a serious crisis to go to waste."

As to the gun debate--both sides are nuts. The liberals who argue for gun bans do not know the slightest thing about weapons or their legitmate use for self defense. They are hysterical. The gun supporters are completely hard core and over the top. You cannot find any reasonable arena for a well considered rational discussion in this kind of climate--NONE.

So I get repeated of pleas in my email so sign this petition to ban guns. I think they forget something important here.

Just remember that the same president who sits with kids in his lap and cried crocodile tears over the school gun slayings is the same guy who has ordered unmanned drones that killed hundreds of kids in Afghanistan and Pakistan. And, these drones may end up being used here to some day.

You never know.
 
 
+2 # cwbystache 2013-01-16 04:38
The background that needs checking is that of all parents in this country, if not the world, to see if they're teaching their children compassion, directly or by example. Oh, I forgot! so many of those parents are the same ones that re-categorize children killed in foreign campaigns we mount as "collateral damage".
 
 
-2 # Billy Bob 2013-01-16 11:29
Nobody is arguing for "banning" weapons. If you want a serious discussion, why not represent both sides of it honestly? Oh that's right. An honest discussion wouldn't work in your favor.
 
 
+1 # DaveM 2013-01-15 21:31
Go visit the nearest sporting good store. Note that all of the semi-automatic rifles are out of stock. They're out there, people, and no Executive Order is going to make them disappear. People have bought up loads of ammunition as well. Do not think that they are doing so for "legitimate sporting purposes".

If matters continue down this terrible slippery slope, there will be bloodshed, and while the civilians killed will be branded as criminals, at least some will merely be ordinary citizens who have realized that Things Have Simply Gone Too Far and fought back when armed men came to their homes.
 
 
0 # Billy Bob 2013-01-16 11:37
You're right. Many lunatics are caught up in a wave of self-delusional fantasies that they are going to overthrow the U.S. government with a collection of phallic symbols they bought at a sporting goods store.

timothy mcveigh has a special room in hell waiting for all of them.
 
 
+2 # Wind in His Hair 2013-01-16 04:28
It is the same old worthless babble. Take the focus off the stealing and get the people all riled up over guns. The guns are not going anywhere, the people have spoken at the checkout counter.
 
 
0 # ABen 2013-01-16 09:08
From the comments posted here so far, I can see that paranoia is alive and well in the US. I have owned guns of various types for 48 of my 63 years on this planet. I have used them for hunting and self-protection when hiking in wilderness areas, and have carried one in service of my country. I have worked in some of the most dangerous areas of major American cities where random violence is all to common. I have NEVER felt the need for an assault rifle or machine pistol. If 6 shots aren't enough, then 10 or 20 more won't help. There is no RATIONAL civilian use for such weapons, and all you would-be Dirty Harrys and Rambos need to grow up!
 
 
-1 # Billy Bob 2013-01-16 11:32
All the rambo wannabes don't realize that those dangerous areas of the U.S. are SO dangerous precisely BECAUSE everyone is armed to the teeth already. The paranoia is because none of the rambo wannabes have ever actually gotten out of their Hummer with a "NO FEAR" bumper sticker and walked the streets of one of those neighborhoods. TV told them not to.
 
 
-1 # Billy Bob 2013-01-16 11:58
The best argument I've seen against the gun nuts on this very site came from the satirical news outlet, "The Onion". Here's a link:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZxlunxSZ-Yc

Check it out at about :35. It refers to the fact that the right won't be happy unless everyone carries a gun at head level pointed at others at all times in public.

It was aired about a year and a half ago. At the time, it seemed like a joke.
 

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.

RSNRSN