Barack Obama vows to pursue gun measures in wake of latest massacre - Polidicks

[quote]Speaking to a nation raw from its latest mass shooting, US President Barack Obama vowed on Wednesday to pursue "common-sense" measures to make sure mentally unbalanced people cannot get their hands on guns. Barack Obama: “My administration will do everything that we can to support the people of Aurora in this extraordinarily difficult time.” Photo: REUTERS 6:33AM BST 26 Jul 2012 Obama did not mention any specific law or measure but said he would work with both parties in Congress to try to achieve a "consensus around violence reduction" in the wake of last Friday's massacre at a cinema in Colorado. "I, like most Americans, believe that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual the right to bear arms," he told the National Urban League Convention in New Orleans, referring to part of the US Constitution. "I think we recognise the traditions of gun ownership that passed on from generation to generation – that hunting and shooting are part of a cherished national heritage. "But I also believe that a lot of gun owners would agree that AK-47s belong in the hands of soldiers, not in the hands of criminals – that they belong on the battlefield of war, not on the streets of our cities," he said. Calls for a re-examination of America's gun laws mounted in the aftermath of the tragedy in Aurora as it emerged that suspect James Holmes bought four weapons legally. Over eight weeks, Holmes stocked up on the internet on 6,300 rounds of ammunition: 3,000 for his .233 semi-automatic AR-15 rifle, another 3,000 for his two Glock pistols, and 300 cartridges for his pump-action shotgun. Holmes, a 24-year-old graduate student, also bought a special magazine for his AR-15 military-style assault rifle that enabled him to fire up to 50 to 60 rounds per minute. Obama said he had already stepped up background checks on those who buy weapons in the wake of last year's shooting in Tucson, Arizona that left six people dead and Democratic congresswoman Gabby Giffords fighting for her life. "But even though we have taken these actions, they're not enough. Other steps to reduce violence have been met with opposition in Congress. This has been true for some time, particularly when it touches on the issue of guns," he said. "I believe the majority of gun owners would agree we should do everything possible to prevent criminals and fugitives from purchasing weapons. And we should check someone's criminal record before they can check out a gun seller. "A mentally unbalanced individual should not be able to get his hands on a gun so easily. These steps shouldn't be controversial. They should be common-sense." A group of Democratic lawmakers pushed to ban assault weapons and high-capacity gun magazines Tuesday in the wake of the Colorado massacre, but congressional leaders are unwilling to touch the volatile issue. Advocates of stricter gun control measures argue that America is more prone to mass shootings than other countries because the law in many states is too lenient. They have been disappointed by Obama, but political pragmatists see that he could be committing electoral suicide if he took up such an explosive issue at the current time. The gun lobby, led by the National Rifle Association (NRA), is well-funded and a powerful player in Washington. It argues that crazy people do crazy things and says that clamping down on fundamental American liberties will achieve nothing. Several key battlegrounds in November's elections – Ohio, Pennsylvania and Virginia, for example – have gun-friendly populations that remain wedded to their right to bear arms. Source: agencies[/quote] [url]http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/us-politics/9428049/Barack-Obama-vows-to-pursue-gun-measures-in-wake-of-latest-massacre.html#[/url]

The criteria needs to be tightened up. But broad, sweeping strokes may not be the way to go.

Better background checks, yes. Assault weapon bans, no. My two cents.

The Tea Party is going to pick apart about half of what he said here like flies on shit.

[QUOTE] "But I also believe that a lot of gun owners would agree that AK-47s belong in the hands of soldiers, not in the hands of criminals – that they belong on the battlefield of war, not on the streets of our cities," he said.[/QUOTE] He doesn't know American gun owners.

[quote]"But I also believe that a lot of gun owners would agree that AK-47s belong in the hands of soldiers, not in the hands of criminals – that they belong on the battlefield of war, not on the streets of our cities," he said[/quote] What about people who collect guns?

[QUOTE=slayer20;36939808]What about people who collect guns?[/QUOTE] p sure your little collectors item is a worthy sacrifice for less gun violence

[quote]"But I also believe that a lot of gun owners would agree that AK-47s belong in the hands of soldiers, not in the hands of criminals – that they belong on the battlefield of war, not on the streets of our cities," he said[/quote] No, not really. [editline]26th July 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Kopimi;36939816]p sure your little collectors item is a worthy sacrifice for less gun violence[/QUOTE] Because tight legislation works so well with keeping drugs out of the hands of people that want them, right?

[QUOTE=Mr. Smartass;36939822]No, not really. [editline]26th July 2012[/editline] Because tight legislation works so well with keeping drugs out of the hands of people that want them, right?[/QUOTE] not even remotely close to the point i was making but i appreciate the effort

[quote]Holmes, a 24-year-old graduate student, also bought a special magazine for his AR-15 military-style assault rifle that enabled him to fire up to 50 to 60 rounds per minute.[/quote] Wow! that's 0.83 to 1 round per second! I wish my magazine allowed me to pull the trigger faster!

[QUOTE=Kopimi;36939835]not even remotely close to the point i was making but i appreciate the effort[/QUOTE] Is your point that we should surrender our rights because some people abuse them instead of attempting to identify the abusers?

[QUOTE=Kill001;36939839]Wow! that's 0.83 to 1 round per second! I wish my magazine allowed me to pull the trigger faster![/QUOTE] uh i'm pretty sure they're referring to his high capacity mags which let him fire off more rounds without having to reload

[QUOTE=overpain;36939778]Holmes, a 24-year-old graduate student, also bought a special magazine for his AR-15 military-style assault rifle that enabled him to fire up to 50 to 60 rounds per minute.[/QUOTE] Haha, oh wow. For one thing, how would the magazine possibly affect the rate of fire? For another, it's a semi-automatic rifle, they can fire as fast as you can pull the trigger. 60 rounds per minute means 1 round per second. It definitely doesn't take a whole second to pull the trigger and release it. I love it when journalists know nothing about firearms.

[QUOTE=Kopimi;36939816]p sure your little collectors item is a worthy sacrifice for less gun violence[/QUOTE] Honestly, banning assault weapons will make no difference. Any semi-auto magazine fed gun will and can do the same job that any assault weapon can do.

[QUOTE=Kopimi;36939841]uh i'm pretty sure they're referring to his high capacity mags which let him fire off more rounds without having to reload[/QUOTE] obviously, but the way they worded it seemed funny I somehow imagined an 19th century journalist in a powdered wig writing this as soon as I stumbled upon that statement

[QUOTE=DarkMonkey;36939840]Is your point that we should surrender our rights because some people abuse them instead of attempting to identify the abusers?[/QUOTE] you have a persecution complex if you seriously went from "collectors items aren't worth the risk" to "all guns should be banned fuck you and your rights"

[QUOTE=Kopimi;36939841]uh i'm pretty sure they're referring to his high capacity mags which let him fire off more rounds without having to reload[/QUOTE] Probably, but that's like saying an extra gas tank lets you drive faster [QUOTE=Kopimi;36939849]you have a persecution complex if you seriously went from "collectors items aren't worth the risk" to "all guns should be banned fuck you and your rights"[/QUOTE] And you're paranoid if you consider collectors a risk at all for the mere act of collecting [QUOTE=Kopimi;36939866]that or you dudes are purposefully misinterpreting the obvious meaning of the quote so you can laugh at the media for not being gun savvy[/QUOTE] It's a news source. It's a factually false statement.

[QUOTE=DarkMonkey;36939853]Probably, but that's like saying an extra gas tank lets you drive faster[/QUOTE] that or you dudes are purposefully misinterpreting the obvious meaning of the quote so you can laugh at the media for not being gun savvy

[QUOTE=Kopimi;36939866]that or you dudes are purposefully misinterpreting the obvious meaning of the quote so you can laugh at the media for not being gun savvy[/QUOTE] Whenever I write an essay I generally research what I'm writing about not saying whoever that writes these aren't educated folks but it seems like a simple thing to miss on such a major issue like gun control; obviously people make mistakes but I don't see anything wrong with pointing them out either

[QUOTE=DarkMonkey;36939853]And you're paranoid if you consider collectors a risk at all for the mere act of collecting[/QUOTE] what? sorry if your emotions are fogging up your glasses and preventing you from understanding simple sentence structure but my point was that if a weapon is particularly lethal, the mere fact that it's cool and can be collected isn't a justification for keeping it legal, ie what the whole "ak47 belong on battlefields" quote was all about. if you want to collect them for the mere sake of collecting them have the firing mechanism removed and enjoy the sight of your now-inept ak47 on your mantle

[QUOTE=DarkMonkey;36939792]Better background checks, yes. Assault weapon bans, no. My two cents.[/QUOTE] When people say assault weapons do they mean automatic, or things that look militaristic? because I don't know why people would be against banning automatic guns, those have no hunting usage, and for defending yourself...you don't need that, all I can imagine them being used for is bad things...so...do people mean they want automatic guns to exist?

[QUOTE=Mr. Smartass;36939822]No, not really. [editline]26th July 2012[/editline] Because tight legislation works so well with keeping drugs out of the hands of people that want them, right?[/QUOTE] this argument doesn't make sense because we're not talking about keeping it out of the hands of pure criminals. of course they will always be able to get guns we're talking about keeping it out of the hands of idiots who happen to be competent enough to get a gun licence, but eventually misuse it and cause someone harm

[QUOTE=DarkMonkey;36939853]It's a news source. It's a factually false statement.[/QUOTE] no it's completely correct you're just being a big baby and choosing the interpretation that is incorrect and ignoring the obvious real meaning without the high capacity mag (its assumed) he would have had to reload and would have fired less in a minute. you're interpreting this ambiguous but context-rich message as "haha high capacity mags increase fire rate?? stupid media LOL"

Do people honestly need something more powerful than a handgun for protection and hunting rifle for hunting? No, they really don't. If you disagree with that I'd suggest getting your head looked at.

[QUOTE=Kopimi;36939898]no it's completely correct you're just being a big baby and choosing the interpretation that is incorrect and ignoring the obvious real meaning without the high capacity mag (its assumed) he would have had to reload and would have fired less in a minute. you're interpreting this ambiguous but context-rich message as "haha high capacity mags increase fire rate?? stupid media LOL"[/QUOTE] You are making a hilarious amount of assumptions about how emotional I am, maybe you should step back for a moment. I chose to interpret the words as they were said, since that's how things usually work. You're putting words in their mouth to aid your own cause.

[QUOTE=Clementine;36939887]When people say assault weapons do they mean automatic, or things that look militaristic? because I don't know why people would be against banning automatic guns, those have no hunting usage, and for defending yourself...you don't need that, all I can imagine them being used for is bad things...so...do people mean they want automatic guns to exist?[/QUOTE] stuff like collapsible stocks, high capacity magazines, pistol grips, flash hiders fall under the definition of assault weapon, not just the automatic features again, this ties in with gun collecting because some people like having a gun (externally) in pristine condition (as well as something they can shoot) but they remove so many features that it becomes funny looking and ugly at times

[QUOTE=Clementine;36939887]When people say assault weapons do they mean automatic, or things that look militaristic? because I don't know why people would be against banning automatic guns, those have no hunting usage, and for defending yourself...you don't need that, all I can imagine them being used for is bad things...so...do people mean they want automatic guns to exist?[/QUOTE] Automatic guns are already illegal for the most part, and 'Assault weapon' is really just applied to anything in the same general pattern of an assault rifle.

[QUOTE=DarkMonkey;36939792]Better background checks, yes. Assault weapon bans, no. My two cents.[/QUOTE] Why does any civilian need an assault weapon

Do you really need a computer that can do more then text-based internet browing? No, you really don't.

[QUOTE=vide0bug13;36939948]Do you really need a computer that can do more then text-based browing? No, you really don't.[/QUOTE] please tell me you're not seriously comparing needing a computer to needing a literal killing machine [QUOTE=Zet;36939908]Do people honestly need something more powerful than a handgun for protection and hunting rifle for hunting? No, they really don't. If you disagree with that I'd suggest getting your head looked at.[/QUOTE] but how will i keep my family safe from the fema camps...