Widgetized Section
Go to Admin » Appearance » Widgets » and move Gabfire Widget: Social into that MastheadOverlay zone
Obama Smacks Down the NRA on Background Checks and High Capacity Magazines
President Obama delivered another blow to the NRA by zeroing in on background checks and banning high capacity magazines during a speech in Minneapolis today.
Here are some clips from CNN:
The president began by discussing why law enforcement has to have a seat at the table on gun control. Obama said if there is one life to save, we have an obligation to try. He talked about the steps taken in Minneapolis to reduce gun violence. Obama said, “We don’t have to agree on everything to agree that it is time to do something.” Obama discussed his own executive actions taken to reduce gun violence. The president turned up the heat on Congress, and said they need to act soon. Obama said the vast majority of gun owners and NRA members support federal background checks. The president talked about preventing gun sales to criminals.
The president made his position clear when he said, “Weapons of war have no place on our streets.”
Obama called for a restored ban on assault weapons and a 10 round magazine limit. The President said that weapons of war have no place in schools or on the streets. Obama called on Congress to confirm an ATF director for the first time in six years. The president pointed out that there has been a lot talk in Washington, but nothing has been done yet. Obama said the gunman in Tuscon might never have been able to get 33 rounds off in 15 seconds if we had a magazine limit.
The president said it is important to engage with people who don’t agree with us on everything in order to find areas of common agreement. Obama called out the NRA by saying lobbyists in Washington are saying something different than the polling. The President called on the American people to push back against the NRA’s propaganda by telling Congress that his plan doesn’t limit the Second Amendment, and there is no plan to take away guns. The president said there won’t be perfect solutions that will save every life, but that we have to act.
The president’s focus on background checks and banning high capacity magazines suggested where the White House thinks their best chances for legislative success are. It was significant that the president only devoted one sentence of his speech to the assault weapons ban. The lack of emphasis on banning assault weapons is a strong hint that the White House knows that the odds of getting such a ban through Congress are slim.
Obama’s focus on banning high capacity magazines was almost a direct reply to Wayne LaPierre’s comments on Fox News Sunday that, “If someone’s invading your house, I mean you shouldn’t say you only have fix or six shots. You ought to have what you need to protect yourself, not what some politician thinks is reasonable.”
President Obama is smacking around the NRA on a daily basis. The gun lobby seems powerless to stop public opinion from moving against them, and this president from driving the country towards real reform. Right now, Obama is winning both the PR battle and the political war. Beneath all of their bluster and mythical power, Obama is exposing the NRA as just another right wing fringe group that is out of step with rest of the country.
Related Posts :
Paul Krugman completely gutted the NRA, and in the process became the the latest example of the left's a ...
The announcement by Sens. Joe Manchin (D-WV) and Pat Toomey (R-PA) that the Senate has reached a biparti ...
When asked today during his daily briefing if President Obama would reinstate the assault weapons ban, White ...
Obama has countered and isolated the insanity of the right on guns by calling for rational policies that ...
Today as President Obama and his family toured Yellowstone National Park, gun control advocates criticized t ...
39 Responses to Obama Smacks Down the NRA on Background Checks and High Capacity Magazines
Public Service Advertisements
C.
Feb. 4th, 2013 at 4:05 pm
Ted Nugent will be on Peirs Morgan tonight, that should help the NRA, LOLOLOL. NOT
C.
Feb. 4th, 2013 at 4:07 pm
Did anyone catch the name of the Minnesotan President Obama named as his choice to head ATF?
RMuse
Feb. 4th, 2013 at 6:19 pm
President Obama owns the NRA because the people are solidly behind him on gun control, even NRA members which, by the way, are bailing faster than the NRA can offer special prizes and discounts to tempt new members. Let La Pierre, Nugent, and the rest of the maniacs keep spewing, because they are the best argument for gun control, and the President’s agenda.
Denis
Feb. 4th, 2013 at 8:11 pm
By rejecting background checks the NRA has destroyed what little credibility it had.
Saldy the NRA doesnt realise, that if by some miracle it DOES say something useful, no one will be listening.
[email protected]
Feb. 4th, 2013 at 8:47 pm
I don’t know..i wouldn’t count the nra out…
As you know popular opinion doesn’t equal house votes.
I just sent the nra another $400.
somehow i doubt the 91% of gun owner support Backround checks.
I mean i’ve had 10 backround checks last year.
I don’t think they serve a purpose.
If you haven’t had one you wouldn’t know………
Shiva(Moderator)
Feb. 4th, 2013 at 8:57 pm
And insane wayne laughs at you all the way to the bank
Want me to fix that post at the end where is says “If you have had one you wouldn’t know………” to “If you haven’t had one you wouldn’t know………”
[email protected]
Feb. 4th, 2013 at 9:10 pm
wow your the moderator. well thanks for not just removing my post.
You seem to be acting like i should have an opinion.
and this last comment is just cold.
Do you really think i want kids to die??
i mean honest;y do you?
Shiva(Moderator)
Feb. 4th, 2013 at 9:13 pm
No I dont, but I think you put gun ownership over their lives. Unthinkingly
[email protected]
Feb. 4th, 2013 at 9:18 pm
i have a 16 camerea security system, and an $8,000 gun safe. as well as state and feral licenses.
What else could i do to be safer?? i will take it under advise ment and by the way…..
www.youtube.com/watch?v=3...
Shiva(Moderator)
Feb. 4th, 2013 at 9:22 pm
You are you. The vast multitude of people shove the gun in the closet. Thats how criminals get guns. One way anyways
I wouldnt trust anyone on face book
[email protected]
Feb. 4th, 2013 at 9:28 pm
I think trigger locks should be illegal if they secure the trigger rather than the barrel of the firearm. For some reason people put a trigger-lock on a loaded gun. a Lawyer i know dischaged his weapon through his briefcase in a court room.
Unless there proposing a stupid test in the backround check we will always have problems. i think a lawyer would pass it. also the point of the you tube video was not to prove legality but to demenstrat want any criminal or child could do.
Shiva(Moderator)
Feb. 4th, 2013 at 9:33 pm
without the check you will have bigger problems in time.
I think if you own guns they need to be in a safe.
[email protected]
Feb. 4th, 2013 at 9:38 pm
well we’ve found soemthing we can agree upon.
No law is going to make it happen and punishing the people who don’t will be to late.
Shiva(Moderator)
Feb. 4th, 2013 at 9:51 pm
No one is being punished. in my opinion any ways. The people do not need military style weapons, nor do the police need to be out gunned
[email protected]
Feb. 4th, 2013 at 10:25 pm
I don’t need my penis…does that mean i shouldn’t have one???
Let’s not go to “people with small penis need guns”
while i am sure somone compensates with firearms and fast cars we all know americans pack the meat! and that’s why the world hates us..lol jk
[email protected]
Feb. 4th, 2013 at 8:59 pm
*Edit*
If you have had one you wouldn’t know………
If you haven’t had one you wouldn’t know………
Phrase’s like “common sense” are a joke
Do you guys even realize you can build yourself your own ar-15 with no serial number completly legal with just a hand drill??? Never mind with the neq 3-5 printer you can just download and press print. Good luck un-inventing the gun.
Shiva(Moderator)
Feb. 4th, 2013 at 9:02 pm
And in the meantime best of luck to the innocent you dont care about who die
Guns over life at all costs
Agoraphobic Plumber
Feb. 5th, 2013 at 8:12 pm
Sounds like you want to control people at all costs. Lots of repressive societies have tried this. Some even succeeded. None of them were full of happy people.
Our constitution says “shall not be infringed”. What part of that is so difficult to understand? Changing standard capacity magazines to “high capacity” and making up terms like “assault weapon” out of thin air and conflating fully automatic weapons with semiautomatics, though weak tactics, may win the day. After all, the target audience already reelected the president that brought us trillion-and-a-half dollar deficits and proposed a budget that went down in the senate 97-0. But that doesn’t make it right.
Dark days coming for the republic, I fear.
Shiva(Moderator)
Feb. 5th, 2013 at 8:21 pm
LOL, yes he brought us trillion $ deficits paying for the previous presidents little nightmares. Ohg yes, thats right, Obama was the first president of this little republic. NO one came before. BTW, this year the bill will be below a trillion, around 800 billion according to the GOA. See, Obama is paying it down while you only pay attention to your peni…er…gun
No, I dont want to repress anyone. And at the same time your right to own guns is not being infringed. This is the same silly argument you all have.
Who made up the term assault rifles? My have I heard that a million times. Bud sadly for you and happily fore us, that rotten constitutional boidy the Supreme Court says the gubbermint can control assault rifles. You know those made up guns?
Dark days are coming all right, but thank god its not because of guns and people like you. You are just a sideline almost worth laughing at
Tell me, does someone send you guys an email giving you the exact words to say? I have seen this post a hundred times
Cowgirlup
Feb. 5th, 2013 at 3:11 am
Criminals don’t get most of their guns from closets they get them from other criminals selling them on the street just like drugs are sold no law will stop it.
djchefron(Moderator)
Feb. 5th, 2013 at 1:47 pm
Does any one else see a problem here
9mm & 38 Special vs ZombieIndustries.com Zombie
www.youtube.com/watch?v=e...
Ron
Feb. 5th, 2013 at 7:25 pm
Unfortunately, all of this flies in the face of reality. Any twit with a modicum of practice can change a 10 round mag and thus fire 20 rds almost as fast as 20, esp if everyone else is unarmed. Gun free zones are target rich environments: look at the Major on Ft Hood, as military bases prohibit carriage even in cars of privately owned, legal weapons. We have armed guards in stores and banks, but not schools, unless one can afford a high-zoot private place like “Sidwell Friends.” Gee: I wish I was a friend, too…. Are people precious or not? Man up and admit you want ALL guns and ALL bullets taken away! If 20 are too many, why aren’t 10, 7, 5…?
Shiva(Moderator)
Feb. 5th, 2013 at 7:42 pm
Man, another example of why gun nuts have to have their guns taken away. Its too bad the supreme court says no.
These people are idiots
Ron
Feb. 5th, 2013 at 9:18 pm
Sad that your ad hominem response contains no refutation of facts and arguments presented, nor even a lame attempt at same, yet you impugn me/us as “nuts” and “idiots.” Me think the lady doth protest TOO much…!
Shiva(Moderator)
Feb. 5th, 2013 at 9:39 pm
You gave no facts that are noteworthy to the gun discussion. The same tired old stuff heard daily that doesnt address that assault weapons kill more faster. I am shocked you didnt mention the strict gun laws of Chicago.
Banned Atheist
Feb. 5th, 2013 at 9:23 pm
I’d rather also see the AWB, a nonexistent handgun ban, and strict smart-gun safety requirements on the manufacture of all commercial firearms.
But this is a start.
WhatAnObamanation
Feb. 5th, 2013 at 11:56 pm
So Mr. Moderator –
From a moral standpoint, you’re saying you want a state with gun-haves and have-nots. You believe that Obama, Bloomberg, and Co deserve to have guns but nobody else does. So you want a two-tier society where the “have nots” like you and me are told “You want protection? **** you!” Unless you agree that we need to disarm the military, police, etc, that is what you are saying.
From a realistic perspective, you haven’t addressed disarming the criminals. So you’re really about disarming citizens because they MIGHT become criminals someday. And in a “gunless” society, there’d STILL be guns, because the police and military would have them and therefore somebody would always be willing to sell some under the table. You haven’t addressed why England has such a high violent crime rate compared to the US, even as they want a “knife ban” because the gun ban didn’t actually stop violence.
I want to give you a scenario.
You are sitting at dinner with your closest family and armed men burst in. They tell you that they will execute your family one by one just because you are richer than them and you deserve to die. You are chosen to die last. At this time, time freezes and I appear with a loaded “assault rifle” and ask if you want it. You can save yourself, maybe even most of your family. Do you take the gun?
Deep down, we both know you would take it. You will either not respond to this, try to change this scenario by saying it’s unrealistic somehow when in fact violent home invasions happen all the time in “gun free” countries like Argentina, or admit that you would take the gun.
If you don’t take the gun, either you’re really a saint, or you would not defend your family in the hour of need. If you take the gun, you admit that you understand why people need guns in principle. What are you going to say? I’m curious.
Shiva(Moderator)
Feb. 6th, 2013 at 12:11 am
Pathetic.
Im not sure who you are whining to, but if its me I am not for disarming anyone. Just banning assault rifles which are not needed in a civilized world.
Now, you are crying about the people. There are two ways basically that criminals get guns. From people like you, and by purchasing them in states with very lax gun laws.
Criminals with guns will not disappear because there are always people willing to buy large quantity’s and sell them to criminals for profit. That will be taken care of in the gun reform laws. It will help Mexico at the same time.
As for your senario, go hide under your bed. It is ridiculous. Its as bad as the guy here earlier that did the same thing only he had a whole gang attacking his house.
Bugger off. Your argument is stale.
Britain is not America.
Throwingtomahawk
Feb. 6th, 2013 at 9:41 pm
The first of your reasons does not make sense because, I, for one, do not give guns to criminals. If you’re speaking about them breaking in and stealing them, should we regulate cars? People steal those too, and hurt people with them.
Your second reason is also false. Chicago has extremely strong gun laws, and yet they are known for gangs and violence. New York, both city and state, are known for the same thing, and yet they have the strictest gun laws in America.
Anyone who has actually studied this issue at all knows that guns are guaranteed to Americans by the Second Amendment. The founding fathers expressed their reason for this by saying that firearms are necessary to secure a free government to the people and to prevent a tyrannical government from taking over.
Anyone who knows anything about history also knows that the great dictators in history have all begun with gun registration, then restriction, then confiscation. Hitler, Stalin, Castro, you name them.
You may not have my guns.
djchefron(Moderator)
Feb. 6th, 2013 at 9:49 pm
Hey dummy,your car and the right to drive it, is regulated.Other than that you to shall receive my ultimate diss.
You have to be a special case to recieve it
imageshack.us/a/img201/81...
Ranma
Feb. 6th, 2013 at 3:01 am
Shiva? I just wanted to post here, since Survivalblog.com linked to here earlier, and noticed you had a few anti-gun misunderstandings. First off, you’re operating under a bit of a misconception. According to Federal LAW, every single person between age 18 and age 45 is legally part of the Militia of the United States of America. Legally, we’re unpaid soldiers, not citizens, for every single one of us. Ever heard of the Dick act of 1902(or 1903)? It means that every law since then against guns has been illegal and invalid, and no matter what Obama passes, it’s unconstitutional.
Also, about your argument against more than ten rounds except for police and military? I think you’re right! Every member of the military should be allowed to have them. At the same time, that also accounts for the unorganized militia, which is meant to keep presidents from becoming terrorists, as is the Second Amendment. The Second Amendment isn’t just about Hunting, it’s about keeping dictators like Adolph Hitler from taking power.
And do you want to know something else? Whenever people state that gun control is to keep children safe, they’re indirectly quoting the Nazis, who used the same argument to disarm German Citizens, ESPECIALLY the Jews, before slaughtering them years later. It didn’t happen immediately, they first went with registration, then confiscation, THEN slaughter. That’s a disturbing thought right there. Certainly, we live in the land of the free, but why are people always stating for the children, just like the Nazis did?
I’m not a gun owner. I don’t plan on getting involved on either side, honestly, I just want to be left alone. At the most, I’d like to own a good shotgun, because I plan to live in the woods and don’t want to get eaten by a bear. But legally, we’re all drafted citizens that just haven’t reported for duty or ran and hid like cowards.
fitzy
Feb. 6th, 2013 at 3:08 am
the argument here is will people give up a God given right of self defense, the right to bare arms for security?
you are right Britain is not America- most Americans believe they have a right to defending themselves and their families, under the second amdenment. The way I understand it the white house has 0% chance of a home invasion and they have PDWs (yeah real assault rifles), sub machine guns, to protect the president’s family. I think it’s fair that no politician is above the law. I should have the same right to protect my family. If you choose to never own a firearm that is your business, I respect that but I will never compromise my freedoms for security. I don’t believe the media propaganda on either side, nor will I give in and let my arms be registered or confiscated -because we all know what happens next…crazy gun owners, I can hear you saying it now…but learn about history: in every culture the next step after confiscation is genocide and this has always been done by governments not free people. jpfo.org/filegen-a-m/deat...
the left right paradigm doesn’t matter to me- both sides don’t represent me, because sadly if Obama cared about the children he’d stop the drone attacks over in the ‘stans. ‘if one child can be saved’, no it’s about controlling the armed people. why else would DHS be stocking up on hollow point bullets? people are rushing out to buy arms, because they don’t believe what they are being told and know better…if you don’t, well good luck is all I’m saying…
Catch23
Feb. 7th, 2013 at 4:07 am
The unspoken logical progression for those who wish to see tighter restrictions on guns (like our dear moderator, Shiva the Destroyer) seems to go like this: “I personally don’t see the value in owning firearms. I can’t envision myself owning one, or using one in defense of my own life, or the lives of my loved ones. I’m fine leaving that up to law enforcement, should the need ever arise (although I’m convinced it won’t). I just don’t want to posses something I’m morally opposed to. It must follow that anyone who wants to avail themselves of this right is probably of lower moral character (and definitely of lower intelligence) than me, and so should not be trusted with a firearm anyway. They are, after all, probably just one bad day away from giving in to their blood-lust and shooting up a children’s cancer ward.”
This type of moral elitism is astounding. Somehow, the God-given right to self-defense, as delineated by the Second Amendment, became less important than other rights outlined in the Bill of Rights. But the same “progressive” individuals who advocate gradually eroding that right would be livid if their blog entries were systematically edited by the government, or their homes were routinely searched without warrant.
Unlike our mod in this debate (who has referred to those with sound pro-gun-rights arguments as “insane,” “dummy,” “idiot,” and “pathetic“), I recognize that there are good people on the opposite side of the debate from me. I am certain that some of them truly believe that limiting the capacity of my magazines or removing the pistol grip from my rifle will somehow result in fewer dead people in the next mass shooting.
But to those good people, I offer this word of warning: Just because “We have to do something,” doesn’t mean we should rush head-long into doing the wrong thing. As a nation, we demanded the same thing after 9/11. What we got was the TSA, and our rectums…
Catch23
Feb. 7th, 2013 at 9:16 am
… Will never be the same!
Iamthenra
Feb. 6th, 2013 at 12:50 pm
Does anyone reading this really care what the moderator thinks? In America, we have the right to bear arms. Period.
Shiva(Moderator)
Feb. 6th, 2013 at 12:58 pm
Sorry, the SCOTUS doesnt agree with you.
djchefron(Moderator)
Feb. 6th, 2013 at 1:21 pm
No one is questioning the right to bear arms.We are questioning your mental health as to why you want to play Rambo
Shiva(Moderator)
Feb. 6th, 2013 at 1:29 pm
This discussion on guns is been a good thing. It is brought out a lot of people arguing for guns who should probably never be near guns
NRA4EVER
Feb. 6th, 2013 at 11:51 pm
I question as to why you don’t?