.

What Do You Think of Obama's Gun Control Measures?

President Obama spoke of 'consensus' on curbing gun violence. Share your thoughts in the comments field below.

President Obama today, a month after the Sandy Hook shooting, announced 23 executive actions designed to curb gun violence. He outlined steps to strengthen background checks for gun purchases and a campaign to promote responsible gun ownership.

The 23 actions included requiring federal law enforcement to trace guns recovered in criminal investigations, clarifying that the Affordable Care Act does not prohibit doctors from asking patients about guns in the home, and incentives for districts to hire school resource officers.

Obama also called on Congress to back an assault weapons ban and restrictions on high-capacity ammunition magazines.

Following the Connecticut shooting and ensuing public debate, the National Rifle Association pushed back "in defense of gun owners."

Here is a statement released Jan. 16, following Obama's remarks:

"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.

Wayne MacDonald, chairman of the New Hampshire Republican State Committee, released this statement Wednesday afternoon:

"The gun laws the President put forward today are not necessary, especially with thousands of gun laws already on the books. What he should be doing is looking to the laws we already have and enforcing those. Now is not the time to undermine law abiding citizens and their constitutional right to bear arms. President Obama has failed to address the real issues. Instead, he has made a power grab, rather than working for common sense solutions that protect our children, our communities, and our fundamental rights."

U.S. Rep. Carol Shea-Porter (D-NH, 1st District), had this to say about the president's plans:

“I agree with the President’s comprehensive approach to addressing gun violence. I will not and cannot forget the never-ending scenes of families and communities in shock and mourning, and I will not ignore the calls of our citizens to do something to help stop the violence. I support responsible gun ownership because Americans have a right to hunt or defend themselves, and they also have a right to expect to be safe as they go about their daily lives.”

What do you think of President Obama's executive actions and proposed gun control measures? And of the NRA's response? Share your thoughts in the comments field below.

skram bled January 17, 2013 at 02:28 PM
Good point on #16. It will have the effect of making a gun-owner who is experiencing mental health issues from talking to a doctor about his or her issues and getting treatment. Sort of the opposite of what they're going for here.
mike January 17, 2013 at 02:35 PM
He should be impeached... Getting the obamacare passed was illegal... Now he want to take away are rights.... Rule one for starting a dictatorship take away there guns...
Reality Geezer January 17, 2013 at 02:37 PM
I suspect most gun owners do not even belong to the NRA. Their only function is to promote the gun manufacturers and make "profits" for them. There is no reason to punish a hunter with a shotgun, but there is need to get military style weapons off the streets. Gun owners need to be held legally responsible for their deadly weapons. It is about time this happens......
Reality Geezer January 17, 2013 at 02:40 PM
My sign would read---"This home is gun free, except when gun nuts are visiting, guess which day that will be."..
Michael Cole January 17, 2013 at 03:11 PM
I absolutely agree with Bob G.(who by they way is/or was a great Yogi), and would love to hear from mental health providers as to how they feel about those E.O.s. To me, they further blur the line between patient-physician confidentiality and mandated reporting, and may impose liability on those mental health providers if they don't report on their patients. AND LETS BE REAL HERE,regardless of hind-sight speculation that smaller magazines and the elimination of certain "military style" plastic features would have saved lives, the clear agenda is to capitalize on the horrible tragedy at Sandy Hook to take another incremental step in prohibiting private ownership of firearms.
Apljak January 17, 2013 at 04:33 PM
It's funny that the left argues in favor of corrupt unions yet they want to try and make a similar argument about the NRA. The NRA is protecting the 2nd Amendment against the progressive and continued legislation and usurping of our rights. It is a little known fact that the NRA was started to help protect against lynchings and can be credited with helping the blacks protect themselves against the KKK. Gun owners should be, and most are, responsible for all of their guns. What would actually be best would be to enforce the laws on the books instead of these idiot liberal judges not enforcing mandatory sentences for criminals that use guns while committing crimes!
steve forte January 17, 2013 at 05:02 PM
Why is there a need to get " military style weapons off the streets" ? They account for less then 1.5 % of gun deaths. What we need is to keep criminals and fruitloops from getting guns.
Watts January 17, 2013 at 05:09 PM
I ow a gun, but I would never join the NRA. First of all, their agenda is not for gun owners, it is for gun manufacturers. They lobby with one agenda; optimizing the flow for consumption. They love these fights and wave after wave of social paranoia that "government is coming for your guns," which sends most moronic of our society out in hordes to buy more guns. Does anybody really think that the NRA cares about the 2nd amendment? They care about the bottom dollar for manufacturers and keeping the flow to market as obstacle free for them as possible.
Charles McDuffee January 17, 2013 at 05:52 PM
How many guns are owned in the US? http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_many_guns_are_in_the_United_States_of_America Seems like we could get by with fewer.
ken surs January 17, 2013 at 06:34 PM
Lets all look at the problem how many are on death role straining the countrys taxes.Allowing early release of sex offenders and lessor assualt crimes do to over population of prisons.Lesser time for murders and more time for crimes that are not violent.Its time to quite being passive againest violent crimes and become violent upon people commiting crimes.No more appeals for the criminals caught with the smoking gun knife club or what ever used to commit againest a law abiding people.We need to not keep thoses criminals in jail they need to go from courtroom to the deathchamber.Things will not change unless we change in how theses violent criminals are handle.More gun laws wont work we need to put more citizens on the street with many hours of training learning everyone to handle a firearm proficently with deadly accuracey.I belive in more training for anyone owening firearms tto defened our kids our schools and malls are homes and all public places.Criminals dont follow the law neither do crazy people so why disarm law abiding citizens who can protect others.We need not to be handleing violent crimes so lightly ,Criminals have no rights so lets stop giving them rights.We are the only ccountry
ken surs January 17, 2013 at 06:37 PM
WE are the only country that is so lientent on violent crimes its time to take the gloves off and show the violent criminals that the only thing they have forward to look for is fact they go to deathchamber as soon as they are found guilty.
Seamus Carty January 17, 2013 at 07:09 PM
25. Feel really good about yourself despite the fact that this will do little to take guns out of the hands of criminals...
Super Fun Size January 17, 2013 at 08:08 PM
I was going to say the same Jan, Bush did and the left did not over react
Super Fun Size January 17, 2013 at 08:10 PM
Do you consider yourself to be a "fruitloop"?
steve forte January 17, 2013 at 09:19 PM
Mike Healey 3:15 pm on Thursday, January 17, 2013 Do you consider yourself to be a "fruitloop"? No Mike I dont. I dont have fantasies of wasting room fulls of people that I dont know.
sandy burt January 17, 2013 at 11:25 PM
its a no win situation, everyone gets terrified when others are shot like the theater and new tonw as well we should, what if it were one of our kids, brothes, sisters parent that was shot. would we think different and blame the president for doing nothing? i agree people will get guns no matter. but if you have nothing to hide and are not menatally ill why objecy ? ho many more have to die? he isnt taking rifles away from hunters, or guns out of our homes. trying to stop the murders as best he can. feel bad for him either way he cant win. guess its best to do nothing at all and let it continue?
Scott-NH January 17, 2013 at 11:33 PM
When Sandy Hook first happened, my initial thought was, it's time to get rid of these high capacity magazines and limit how many shots they can spew at a time. Then as time went on and the discussions began [the intelligent ones], I found myself leaning more towards the idea we need to address mental health issues in our society. Instead of spending money on unneeded SRO's and bunkering up the schools, maybe having councilors in schools to help those with developmental issues have an avenue for help and support. Seems to me, if your a well balanced individual, you see a gun as a tool for hunting or protection, you see video games and movies as mindless entertainment, but to those who these things seem to influence in an unhealthy manner, it;s bovious there is some kind of unbalance. Do we need guns that can take out an entire room in under 1 minute in the hands of every day people? Or do we need to be looking at our societal influences and how they can trouble those who are susceptible? Both are legitimate parts to the discussion, in my personal opinion.
Dennis Karoleski January 17, 2013 at 11:58 PM
An estimated 500 MILLION for exactly what? A failed so-called "assault rifle ban" (or has it been expanded to "assault weapon") this time of firearms that only look like real assault rifles. Hardly a peep about the real problem of mentally defective people on anti-depressants who actually comment these shootings. Sounded a lot like another useless, knew jerk, feel good propaganda piece aimed squarely between the doe-in-the-headlight eyes of the terminally firearm ignorant liberal gun heaters. Exactly what we would expect from Joe Biden and his panel of gun heaters. To paraphrase Einstein’s definition of insanity: To propose the same dumb law, (that only the law-abiding will obey), over and over but expect a different result each time.
Dennis Karoleski January 18, 2013 at 12:53 AM
The whole “semiautomatic assault rifle” ban foolishness that was and still is being perpetuated on a firearm ignorant and gullible public is based on a ridicules lie. Actual assault rifles are selective fire, class III weapons that can fire fully automatically. I realize the “ignorant and proud of it” claim this doesn’t matter, as they are satisfied with “expert” opinions fed them by politicians and actors. They are happy if it just looks like a scary “assault weapon” and has, like the new NY “assault rifle” ban stipulates, at least one “military weapon” feature. Things like pistol grips, magazines holding more than ten rounds or bayonet lugs. Interestingly enough, the older and expired as ineffective “assault rifle” ban stipulated they have at least two of the hated accessories. That at least prevented the ridicules inclusion of most semiautomatic deer rifles, modern design muzzle loaders, 1880 design lever rifles in pistol calibers and even 1770 era flintlock muskets off the banned lists. I suppose the politicians who came up with this nonsense count on the ignorance of firearms that is epidemic in the city-dwelling general population. After all, a population who could be conditioned to tolerate them passing bills before they have been read is probably dumb enough to believe anything they spew as gospel.
Dennis Karoleski January 18, 2013 at 03:47 AM
Better be careful about # 14. Found this inconvenient tidbit of information: President Jimmy Carter also decided to push through comprehensive federal gun-control legislation. Being good democrats they decided the best way to stack the congressional deck would be to fund a massive scientific study which would undoubtedly proclaim gun-control laws were effective in reducing crime. So they doled out a major gun-control research grant to University of Massachusetts (then) anti-gun sociology professor James D. Wright and his equally biased colleagues Peter Rossi and Kathleen Daly. They spent four years and lots of tax dollars to produce what would be the most comprehensive, critical study of gun control ever undertaken. In 1981, they published the results of their research – an exhaustive, three-volume work titled “Under the Gun.” There was only one problem. Their findings, summarized starkly by co-author Wright, were that “Gun control laws do not reduce crime.” Of course Carter totally ignored it. There’s that definition of insanity again.
Dennis Karoleski January 18, 2013 at 03:54 AM
And I found it pitiful he did nothing to address the problem everyone seems so willing to sweep under the carpet through this "assault rifle" smoke screen. That would be the glaring and inconvenient fact that all shooters, (except for these last three where the toxicology results are STILL being withheld), were on or withdrawing from prescription anti-depressant drugs.
steve forte January 18, 2013 at 12:33 PM
And that right there is the reason it exists. Do people realize someone who puts off road deisel into an on road use truck faces a stiffer penalty then someone who steals a car. Someone who gets caught with 3 or 4 joints will get the same penalty as someone who beats someone else with a baseball bat.
steve forte January 18, 2013 at 01:28 PM
A couple things are good ideas. Problem is when these things dont work what do we do next? For some people the obvious answer would be even more gun control. How about maybe crime control?
steve forte January 18, 2013 at 01:30 PM
Scott you are absoluty correct. Laws are in place to protect us from sane non criminal people. Unfortunatly the only way to protect ourselves from insane criminal people is to fight back.
Dennis Karoleski January 18, 2013 at 05:04 PM
I find it amazing any of us can could still trust anyone in congress to pass intelligent or effective legislation after their "vote and pass before reading" stupidly. Fool me once….
Thomas Landry January 19, 2013 at 05:25 PM
It has already been admitted by VP Biden himself the current gun laws in place meant to keep guns out of the criminals hands have not even upheld by our government due to the lack of funding and manpower to do so. We should give control of gun regulations over to the same federal government who's at fault for the system we have now not working. If they can't handle the simple measures in place now thinking we can trust them to handle an even more complex and costly system is asinine. Not too mention all that extra effort would be for a solution that facts show doesn't make any significant difference. We don't need another fix on paper we need violence control solutions that we can institute now that will be effective, easy, and not infringe on our rights.
Glenn Price January 20, 2013 at 08:33 PM
we need our guns all guns including tanks and fighter jets if necessary. If Obama does not give them all to egypt.
Charles McDuffee January 22, 2013 at 02:31 PM
@ Scott_NH And one of the questions for the certification exam to see if you are capable of getting a gun should be, will you ever need a 30 round magazine? If the answer comes back yes that should count against you!
Charles McDuffee January 22, 2013 at 02:37 PM
@ R. Scott Wright Your point on gun deaths is correct. It's not the NRA membership, or winning an argument, or hurting hunters/sportsmen, it's limiting the numbers of deaths people. Well over 1k since Sandy Hook.
JIM January 26, 2013 at 01:05 PM
obamas ''gun control measures'' like the rest of his pushed through legislation will do nothing to fix the problem of CRIMINAL gun violence while spending billions of the American taxpayers dollars on ''feel good legislation'', its business as usual in WISHington

Boards

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 »