Transcript: Obama tasks Biden, team with gun violence recommendations
December 19th, 2012
01:59 PM ET
1 year ago

Transcript: Obama tasks Biden, team with gun violence recommendations

Washington (CNN) – The nation will have a set of recommendations to address widespread gun violence within weeks, President Barack Obama announced Wednesday at a White House news conference.

A transcript of his full remarks, including comments on the fiscal cliff and Republicans' Plan B proposal, are below.

OBAMA: Good morning, everybody.

It's now been five days since the heartbreaking tragedy in Newtown, Connecticut; three days since we gathered as a nation to pray for the victims, and today a few more of the 20 small children and six educators who were taken from us will be laid to rest. We may never know all the reasons why this tragedy happened. We do know that every day since, more Americans have died of gun
violence. We know such violence has terrible consequences for our society. And if there is even one thing that we can do to prevent any of these events, we have a deep obligation, all of us, to try.

Over these past five days, the discussion has re-emerged as to what we might do not only to deter mass shootings in the future, but to reduce the epidemic of gun violence that plagues this country every single day. And it's encouraging that people of all different backgrounds and beliefs and political persuasions have been willing to challenge some old assumptions and change some long-standing positions.

That conversation has to continue, but this time the words need to lead to action. We know this is a complex issue that stirs deeply held passions and political divides. And as I said on Sunday night, there's no law or set of laws that can prevent every senseless act of violence in our society.

We're going to need on making access to mental health at least as easy as access to a gun. We're going to need to look more closely at a culture that, all too often, glorifies guns and violence. And any actions we must take must begin inside the home and inside our hearts.

But the fact that this problem is complex, can no longer be an excuse for doing nothing. The fact that we can't prevent every act of violence, doesn't mean that we can't steadily reduce the violence and president to lead an effort to include members of my cabinet and outside organizations to come up with a set of concrete proposals no later than January, proposals that I then intend to push without delay.

This is not some Washington commission. This is not something where folks are going to be studying the issue for six months and publishing a report that gets read and then pushed aside.

This is a team that has a very specific task, to pull together real reforms right now. I asked Joe to lead this effort in part because he wrote the 1994 Crime Bill that helped law enforcement bring down the rate of violent crime in this country. That plan - that bill also included the assault weapons ban that was publicly supported at the time by former Presidents including Ronald Reagan.

The good news is there's already a growing consensus for us to build from. A majority of Americans support banning the sale of military-style assault weapons. A majority of Americans support banning the sale of high-capacity ammunition clips. A majority of Americans support laws requiring background checks before all gun purchases so that criminals can't take advantage of legal loopholes to buy a gun from somebody who won't take the responsibility of doing a background check at all.

I urge the new Congress to hold votes on these measures next year in a timely manner.

And considering Congress hasn't confirmed a director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms in six years - the agency that works most closely with state and local law enforcement to keep illegal guns out of the hands of criminals - I'd suggest that they make this a priority early in the year.

Look, like the majority of Americans, I believe that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual a right to bear arms. This country has a strong tradition of gun ownership that's been handed down from generation to generation.

Obviously, across the country there are regional differences. There are differences between how people feel in urban areas and rural areas. And the fact is, the vast majority of gun owners in America are responsible. They buy their guns legally and they use them safely, whether for hunting or sports shooting, collection or protection.

But you know what? I am also betting that the majority - the vast majority of responsible law-abiding gun owners would be some of the first to say that we should be able to keep an irresponsible, law-breaking few from buying a weapon of war.

I'm willing to bet that they don't think that using a gun and using common sense are incompatible ideas; that an unbalanced man shouldn't be able it to get his hands on a military-style assault rifle so easily; that in this age of technology we should be able to check someone's criminal records before he or she can check out at a gun show.

That if he we work harder to keep guns out of the hands of dangerous people there would be fewer atrocities like the ones in Newtown or any of the lesser known tragedies that visit small towns and big cities all across America every day.

Since Friday morning, a police officer was gunned down in Memphis, leaving four children without their mother. Two officers were killed outside a grocery store in Topeka. A woman was shot and killed inside a Las Vegas casino. Three people were shot inside an Alabama hospital. A four-year-old was caught in a drive-by in Missouri and taken off life support just yesterday.

Each one of these Americans was a victim of the everyday gun violence that takes the lives of more than 10,000 Americans every year - violence that we cannot accept as routine.

So I will use all the powers of this office to help advance efforts aimed the at preventing more tragedies like this. We won't prevent them all, but that can't be an excuse not to try. It won't be easy, but that can't be an excuse not to try.

And I'm not going to be able to do it by myself. Ultimately, if this effort is to succeed, it's going to require the help of the American people. It's gonna require all of you. If we're going to change things, it's going to take a wave of Americans - mothers and fathers, daughters and sons, pastors, law enforcement, mental health professionals, and, yes, gun owners - standing up and saying, enough on behalf of our kids.

It will take commitment and compromise, and most of all it will take courage.

But if those of us who were sent here to serve the public trust can summon even one tiny iota of the courage of those teachers, that principal in Newtown summoned on Friday, if cooperation and common sense prevail, then I'm convinced we can make a sensible, intelligent way to make the United States of America a safer, stronger place for our children to learn and to grow.

Thank you.

And now I'm gonna let the vice president go, and I'm gonna take a few questions.

And I will start with Ben Phillips.

QUESTION: Thank you, Mr. President.

I'd like to ask you about the other serious issue [consuming] this town right now, fiscal cliff.

OBAMA: Correct.

QUESTION: Haven't you betrayed some of the voters who supported you in the election by changing your positions on who should get a tax increase and then by - by including Social Security benefits now into this mix?

And more broadly, there seems to be a deepening sense that negotiations aren't going very well right now. Can you give us a candid update, are we likely to go over the cliff?

OBAMA: Well, first of all, there's no reason why we should. Remember what I said during the campaign, I thought that it was important for us to reduce our deficit in a balanced and responsible way. I said it was important for us to make sure that millionaires and billionaires paid their fair share. I said that we were going to have to make some tough cuts, some tough decisions on the spending side, but what I wouldn't do was hurt vulnerable families only to pay for a tax cut for somebody like me.

And what I said was that the ultimate package would involve a balance of spending cuts and tax increases. That's exactly what I've put forward. What I've said is that in order to arrive at a
compromise, I am prepared to do some very tough things, some things that some Democrats don't want to see and probably there are a few Republicans who don't want to see either.

But the only way that we're going to be able to stabilize the economy, make sure we've got a platform for long-term economic growth, that we get our deficits under control, and we make sure that middle- class families are protected, is if we come up with something that members of both parties in Congress can support. And that's the plan that I've put forward.

I have gone at least halfway in meeting some of the Republicans' concerns, recognizing that even though we campaigned on these issues, even though the majority of Americans agree with me that we should be raising taxes on the wealthiest few as a means of reducing the deficit. I have also said that I'm willing to identify some spending cuts that make sense.

And, you know, frankly up until about a couple of days ago, if you looked at it, the Republicans in the House and Speaker Boehner I think were in a position to say: "We've gotten a fair deal." The fact that they haven't taken it yet is puzzling, and I think, you know, a question that you're going to have to address to them.

I remain optimistic, because if you look at what the speaker has proposed, he's conceded that income tax rates should go up, except right now he only wants to have them go up for millionaires. If you're making $900,000, somehow he thinks that you can't afford to pay a little more in taxes. But the principle that rates are going to need to go up, he's conceded.

I've said I'm willing to make some cuts. What separates us is probably a few hundred billion dollars. The idea that we would put our economy at risk because you can't bridge that cap doesn't make a lot of sense.

So, I'm going to continue to talk to the speaker and the other leaders up in Congress, but ultimately they've got to do their job. Right now, their job is to make sure that middle-class taxes do not go up and that we have a balanced, responsible package of deficit reduction. It is there for all to see. It is a deal that can get done, but it is not going to be - it cannot be done if every side wants 100 percent. And part of what voters were looking for is some compromise up here. That's what - that's what folks want.

They understand that they're not going to get 100 percent of what they want. And for some reason, that message has not yet taken up on Capitol Hill. And when you think about what we've gone
through over the last couple of months - a devastating hurricane, and now one of the worst tragedies in our memory, the country deserves folks to be willing to compromise on behalf of the greater good and not tangle themselves up in a whole bunch of ideological positions that don't make much sense. So I remain, not only open to conversations, but I remain eager to get something done. I'd like to get it done before Christmas. There's been a lot of posturing up on Capitol Hill instead of just going ahead and getting stuff done. We've been wasting a lot of time. It is the right thing to do. I'm prepared to get it done, but they're going to have to go ahead and make - make some adjustments.

And - and I'll just give you one other example. The speaker is now proposing what he calls Plan B. So he says, "Well, this would raise taxes only on folks making $1 million or more." What that means is, an average of a $50,000 tax break for every millionaire out there. At the same time as we're not providing unemployment insurance for 2 million people who are still out there looking for work. It actually means a tax increase for millions of working families across the country, at the same time as folks like me would be getting a tax break. That violates the core principles that were debated during the course of this election and that the American people determined was - was the wrong way to go.

And so my hope is, is that the speaker and his caucus, in conjunction with the other legislative leaders out there, can find away to make sure that middle-class families don't see their taxes go up on January 1st, that we make sure that those things that middle-class families count on like tax credits for college or making sure that they're getting some help when it comes to raising their kids, through things like the Child Tax Credit, that that gets done, and that we have a balanced package for deficit reduction, which is exactly what I've put forward.

QUESTION: Will you give more ground if you need to or (inaudible).

OBAMA: The if - if you look at the package that I've put forward, it is a balanced package by any definition. And the - we have put forward real cuts in spending that are hard to do in every category. And by any measure, by any traditional calculation, by the measures that Republicans themselves have used in the past, this would be a - as large a piece of deficit reduction as we've seen in the last 20 years. And if you combine that with the increased revenue from the wealthy paying a little bit more, then you actually have something that would stabilize our deficit and debt for a decade, for 10 years.

Now, the notion that we would not do that, but instead the speaker would run a play that cut - keeps tax cuts for folksmaking $500,000 or $700,000 or $800,000 or $900,000 a year and gives
more tax breaks to millionaires and billionaires and raises taxes on middle-class families and then has no cuts in it, which is what he says he wants, doesn't make much sense.

OBAMA: Let's - let's just think about the logic for a second. The - the thinking about voting for raising taxes, at least on folks over a million, which they say they don't want to do, but they're going to reject spending cuts that they say they do want to do. That defies logic. There's no explanation for that.

I think that any objective person out there looking would say that, you know, we put forward a very balanced plan, and it's time for us to go ahead and get it done. That's what the country needs right now. Because I think folks have been through some - some wrenching times. We're still recovering from a very tough recession. And what they're hoping for is a sense of stability, focus, compromise, common sense over the next - next couple of years. And I think that we can provide it, but this is a good test for it, OK.

Carol Lee? (inaudible)

QUESTION: Thank you. Just a follow on Ben's question. What is your next move? Are we in a position now where you're just waiting for the speaker to make a move...

OBAMA: I'm going to reach out to all the leaders involved over the next couple of days and - and find out what is it that's holding this thing up. What is holding it up? If - if the argument from Republicans is we haven't done enough spending cuts, that argument is not going to fly because we've got close to a trillion dollars of spending cuts. And when you add interest then it's more than a trillion dollars in spending cuts.

If the argument is that they can't do - they can't increase tax rates on folks making $700,000 or $800,000 a year, that's not a persuasive argument to me and it's certainly not a persuasive argument to the American people.

You know, it may be that members of their caucus haven't looked at exactly what we've proposed. It may be that if we provide more information or there's greater specificity, or we've worked through some of their concerns that we can get some movement there.

But, you know, the fact of the matter is, is that - what would violate my commitment to voters is if I ended up agreeing to a plan that put more of the burden on the middle-class families and less of a burden on the wealthy in an effort to reduce our deficit. That's not something I'm going to do. What would violate my commitment to voters would be to put forward a plan that makes it harder for young people to go to college, that makes it harder for a family with a disabled kid to care for that kid. And there's a threshold where - that you reach where the balance tips even in making compromises that are required to get something done in this town where you are hurting people in order to give another advantage to folks who don't need help.

And we had an extensive debate about this for a year. And not only does the majority of the American people agree with me, about half of Republican voters agree with me on it this.

So, you know, at some point there's got to be I think a recognition on the part of my Republican friends that, you know, take the deal. You know, they will be able to claim that they have worked with me over the last two years to reduce the deficit more than any other deficit reduction package; that we will have stabilized it for 10 years. That is a significant achievement for them. They should be proud of it. But they keep on finding ways to say no as opposed to finding ways to say yes.

OBAMA: And I don't know how much of that just has to do with, you know, it is very hard for them to say yes to me.

But, you know, at some point, you know, they've got to take me out of it and think about their voters and think about what's best for the country.

And - and if they do that - if they're not worried about who's winning and who's losing; you know, did they score a point on the president; did they extract that last little concession; did they, you know, you know, force him to do something he really doesn't want to do just for the heck of it; and they focus on actually what's good for the country, I actually think we can get this done.

QUESTION: You mentioned the $700,000, $800,000 - are you willing to move on income level? And are there specific things that you would do...

OBAMA: You know, I'm not going to get into specific negotiations here. My point is simply, Carol, that if you look at Speaker Boehner's proposal and you look at my proposal, they're actually
pretty close. They keep on saying that somehow we haven't put forward real spending cuts. Actually, you know, there was I think a graph in the New York Times today that showed. They're the same categories, right? There's a little bit of tweaks here and there. There are a few differences, but, you know, we're right there.

And on the revenue side, there's a difference in terms of them wanting to preserve tax breaks for folks between $250,000 and $1 million that we just can't afford. I mean, keep in mind, I'm in that income category. I'd love to, you know, not - not pay as much in taxes, but I also think it's the right thing to do for us to make sure that people who have less, people who are working, people who are striving, people who, you know, are hoping for their kids, that they have opportunity.

That's what we campaigned about. It's what we talked about. And this is not a situation where I'm, you know - I'm willing to compromise. This is not a situation where I'm trying to, you know, rub their face in anything. And I think anybody who looks at this objectively would say that coming off my election, I have met them at least halfway in order to get something done for the country.

And so, I noticed that there were a couple of headlines out there saying, you know, "Oh, you know, we're now in the land of political posturing." And, you know, it's the usual he said/he said atmosphere. But look at the facts. Look at where we started. Look at where they started. My proposal is right there in the middle. We should be able to get this done. Let's get it done. We don't have a lot of time.

Carrie? Where's - there you are.

QUESTION: Thank you, Mr. President.

OBAMA: Yeah.

QUESTION: What is your level of confidence that if you are able to reach a comprehensive deal with the speaker, that he will be able to bring his members on board to get it passed? Essentially, do you still trust Speaker Boehner in this process?

OBAMA: There is no doubt that, you know, the speaker has challenges in his caucus, and I recognize that. I'm often reminded when I speak to the Republican leadership that the majority of their caucus's membership come from districts that I lost. And so, sometimes they may not see an incentive in cooperating with me in part because they're more concerned about challenges from a tea party candidate or challenges from the right. And, you know, cooperating with me may make them vulnerable.

You know, I recognize that. But, goodness, if - if this past week has done anything, it should just give us some perspective. If there's one thing we should have after this week, it should be a sense of perspective about what's important.

And, you know, I would like to think that members of that - that caucus would say to themselves, "You know what? We disagree with the president on a whole bunch of things. We wish the other guy had won. We're going to fight him on a whole range of issues over the next four years. We think his philosophy is all screwed up."

But, right now what the country needs is for us to compromise, get a deficit reduction deal in place, make sure middle class taxes don't go up, make sure that we're laying the foundations for growth, give certainty to businesses large and small, not put ourselves through some sort of self-inflicted crisis every six months. Allow ourselves time to focus on things like preventing the tragedy in Newtown from happening again. Focus on issues like energy, and immigration reform and, you know, all the things that will really make a determination as to whether or not our country grows over - over the next four years, 10 years, 40 years.

And - and, if you just pull back from the immediate, you know, political battles, if you kind of peel off the partisan war paint,then we should be able to get something done.

And - and, you know, I think - I think the Speaker would like to get that done. I think an environment needs to be created within not just the House Republican caucus but also among Senate Republicans that say the campaign is over, and let's see if we can do what's right for the country. At least for the next month. And then, you know, we can reengage in all the other battles that they'll want to fight.

QUESTION: If you don't get it done, Republicans say they would try to use the debt limit as the next pressure point. Will you negotiate with them in that context?

OBAMA: No. And, I've been very clear about this.

This is the United States of America. The greatest country on Earth, the world's economic superpower. And, the idea that we lurch from crisis to crisis, and every six months, or every nine months that we threaten not to pay our bills on stuff we've already bought, and default and ruin the full faith and credit of the United States of America, that's not how you run a great country.

So I've put forward a very clear principle. I will not negotiate around the debt ceiling. You know, we're not going to play the same game that we saw happen - saw happen in 2011, which was
hugely destructive. It hurt our economy. It provided moreuncertainty to the business community than anything else that happened. And, you know, I'm not alone in this. You know, if you go
to Wall Street, including talking to a whole bunch of folks who spent a lot of money trying to beat me, they would say it would be disastrous for us to use the debt ceiling as a cudgel to try to win political points on Capitol Hill.

So we're not going to do that. And - and - which is why I think that, you know, part of what I hope over the next couple of days we see is a recognition that there is a way to go ahead and get what it is you've been fighting for, these guys have been fighting for spending cuts. They can get some very meaningful spending cuts. This would amount to $2 trillion, $2 trillion spending cuts over the last couple of years.

And in exchange, they're getting a little over a trillion dollars in revenue. And that meets the pledge that I made during the campaign, which was two to - two dollars and fifty cents of spending cuts for every revenue increase. And that's an approach that I think most Americans think is appropriate. But I will not negotiate around the debt ceiling. We're not going to do that again.

QUESTION: (inaudible)

OBAMA: Yes, I've got David Jackson.

QUESTION: Thank you, Mr. President.

Getting back to the gun issue.

OBAMA: Yeah.

QUESTION: You alluded to the fact that Washington commission doesn't have the greatest reputation in the world.

OBAMA: Right.

QUESTION: What makes you think this was going to be the difference given the passage of time and the political power of gun rights movements like the National Rifle Association?

OBAMA: Well, this is not - this is not going to be a commission. Joe is going to gather up some key Cabinet members who have an interest in this issue. We're going to reach out to a bunch
of stakeholders. We're going to be reaching out to members of Congress who have an interest in this issue. It's not as if we have to start from scratch. There are a whole bunch of proposals that have been thought about, debated, but, hopefully, also some new ideas in terms of how we deal with this issue.

But their task is gonna be to sift through every good idea that's out there and even take a look at some bad ideas before disposing of them, and come up with a concrete set of recommendations in about a month.

And I would hope that our memories aren't so short that what we saw in Newtown isn't lingering with us, that we don't remain passionate about it only a month later.

And as soon as we get that, those recommendations, I will be putting forward very specific proposals. I will be talking about them in my State of the Union, and we will be working with interested members of Congress to try to get something done.

And - the idea that we should say, "This is terrible. This is a tragedy. Never again," and we don't have the sustained attention span to be able to get this done over the next several months doesn't make sense.

I - I have more confidence in the American people than that. I have more confidence in the parents, the mothers and fathers that I've been meeting over the last several days all across the country from all political persuasions, including a lot of gun owners who say, "You know what, this time we've got to do things differently."

QUESTION: What about the NRA?

OBAMA: Well, the NRA is - is an organization who has members who are mothers and fathers, and I would expect that they've been impacted by this, as well. And, hopefully, they'll do some self-reflection.

And - and here's what we know, that any single gun law can't solve all these problems. We're gonna have to look at mental health issues. We're gonna have to look at schools. There're gonna be a whole range of things that Joe's group looks at. We know that issues of gun safety will be an element of it, and, you know, what we've seen over the last 20 years, 15 years is the sense that anything related to guns is somehow an encroachment on the Second Amendment. What we're looking for here is a thoughtful approach that says we can preserve our Second Amendment, we can make
sure that responsible gun owners are able to carry out their activities, but that we're gonna actually be serious about the safety side of this, that we're gonna be serious about making sure that
something like Newtown or Aurora doesn't happen again.

And there is a big chunk of space between what, you know, the Second Amendment means and having no rules at all. And that space is what Joe's gonna be working on to try to identify where we can find some common ground.

So I've got...

(UNKNOWN): (OFF-MIKE)

OBAMA: I'm gonna take one last question.

OBAMA: Go ahead. Jake?

QUESTION: It seems to a lot of political observers that you made the political calculation in 2008, in your first term, and in 2012 not to talk about gun violence. You had your position on renewing the ban on semi-automatic rifles that then-Senator Biden put into place. But you didn't do much about it. This is not the first issue - the first incident of horrific gun violence of your four years.

Where have you been?

OBAMA: Well, here's where I've been, Jake.

I've been president of the United States dealing with the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression, an auto industry on the verge of collapse, two wars. I don't think I've been on vacation. And - So, you know, I think all of us have to do some reflection on how we prioritize what we do here in Washington.

And, as I said on Sunday, you know, this should be a wake-up call for all of us. To say that if we are not getting right the need to keep our children safe, then nothing else matters. And, it's my commitment on to make sure we do everything we can to keep our children safe. A lot of things going - are involved in that, Jake, so making sure they have decent health care and a good education, making sure that their parents have jobs. Those are all relevant as well.

Those aren't just sort of side issues. But, there's no doubt that this has to be a central issue. And, that's exactly why I'm confident that Joe is going to take this so seriously over the next couple months.

All right? Thank you, everybody.


Filed under: Fiscal Cliff • Gun rights
soundoff (53 Responses)
  1. Claudia, Houston, Tx

    Thank God we don't have a Rick Perry for President because everybody would be shooting and lying about it later.

    December 19, 2012 02:04 pm at 2:04 pm |
  2. Law Abiding Citizen

    Game on. I will be renewing my NRA membership and buying several assault rifles before you loons have a chance to ban them. I doubt this was the result the far left was expecting.

    December 19, 2012 02:08 pm at 2:08 pm |
  3. Rudy NYC

    Want to know why stuff like this from Republican administrations and meetings never gets published? Because such a transcript would be chocked full of skullduggery, scandal, and scathihng remarks about their opponents.

    December 19, 2012 02:09 pm at 2:09 pm |
  4. Rudy NYC

    Law Abiding Citizen wrote:

    Game on. I will be renewing my NRA membership and buying several assault rifles before you loons have a chance to ban them. I doubt this was the result the far left was expecting.
    -----------------------------–
    Do you know why there are more firearms than people in this country? Because most all of them were purchased by law abiding, gun totin', freedumb lovin' citizens. Those guns were not purchased by the anti-gun establishment. Don't blame them because gun owners are reckless with their second hand purchases, and choose to ignore the criminal element within their ranks pretending to be law abiding, gun totin', freedumb lovin' citizens for the express purpose of making a quick buck on the black market for guns.

    December 19, 2012 02:14 pm at 2:14 pm |
  5. JD

    Claudia, we had president Obama for the last four years and he did nothing on this issue. Spare us you Obama obsession blinders in this issue.

    December 19, 2012 02:18 pm at 2:18 pm |
  6. Anonymous

    @Law Abiding Citizen

    Game on. I will be renewing my NRA membership and buying several assault rifles before you loons have a chance to ban them. I doubt this was the result the far left was expecting.
    ================================================================================================
    Of course you will... I thought you didn't call them "assault rifles"? I remember in 2009 when this same moronic response drove ammo, pistol, and rifle prices up. The industry got fat, the Bubbas got poorer, and nothing happened. If the "assault rifle" crowd doesn't come to the negotiation table with something other than foolish threats they will be beaten at the polls. America has a lot more reasonable people than fat guys with goatees and ARs/AKs looking to join a militia. Use your brain rather than N.R.A. sound bites and people will accept your experience and logic as an asset. Be a dumb hick and you'll get ignored.

    December 19, 2012 02:20 pm at 2:20 pm |
  7. Law Abiding Citizen

    Rudy NYC
    Don't blame them because gun owners are reckless with their second hand purchases, and choose to ignore the criminal element within their ranks pretending to be law abiding, gun totin', freedumb lovin' citizens for the express purpose of making a quick buck on the black market for guns.
    -------
    So you are now accusing law abiding gun owners of selling guns on the black market to make money??? That would NOT be "law abiding" now would it?!! You need to take a few deep breaths in between incoherent rants in here and think a little bit about what you say.

    December 19, 2012 02:22 pm at 2:22 pm |
  8. GuestAgain

    Rudy, Claudia – you are both free to leave as you have no appreciation for the sacrifices of those who came before us nor the ability to comprehend the signifigance of our constitutional rights.

    December 19, 2012 02:24 pm at 2:24 pm |
  9. Sniffit

    "Its sad very few realize that this was already decided yrs ago..they needed an event or events...to happen..kinda makes you wonder about the events...i know that's impossible to imagine to most people."

    Your suggestion that this was a "false flag" type of conspiracy is disgusting, delusional and depraved. Take off the tinfoil hat and go see a psychologist fora full evaluation.

    December 19, 2012 02:29 pm at 2:29 pm |
  10. Claudia, Houston, Tx

    @JD – he's still Mr. President, get over it and stop your obsession of denial. Now there, leave me alone and don't have time for your kind.

    December 19, 2012 02:30 pm at 2:30 pm |
  11. Sniffit

    "Game on. I will be renewing my NRA membership and buying several assault rifles before you loons have a chance to ban them. I doubt this was the result the far left was expecting."

    Wrong again, Cletus. We expect it. We'll also come take your assault rifles away because there will be, for the most part, a record of who, what, when and where the purchases were made. You want us to pry them out of your cold dead hands? That can be arranged.

    December 19, 2012 02:32 pm at 2:32 pm |
  12. Rudy NYC

    Law Abiding Citizen asked:

    So you are now accusing law abiding gun owners of selling guns on the black market to make money??? That would NOT be "law abiding" now would it?!! You need to take a few deep breaths in between incoherent rants in here and think a little bit about what you say.
    -----------------
    Don't be fecetious. Read what I wrote. I wrote that there are profiteers out there that take advantage of the ease with which gun laws allow you to purchase weapons. They take advantage of the fact that nothing is traceable, and how YOU LAW ABIDING CITIZENS fight to keep everything off the books. Most of your most vocal pro-gun voices are actually doing it for their own profit, and really don't give a hoot about your freedom.

    Since you cannot figure that out for yourselves, then it will be legislated for you. "Gun Onwer Controls"

    December 19, 2012 02:36 pm at 2:36 pm |
  13. Rudy NYC

    JD wrote:

    Claudia, we had president Obama for the last four years and he did nothing on this issue. Spare us you Obama obsession blinders in this issue.
    -------------------
    Really? You sure could of fooled me. All that I've heard from the right is how he's been trying to take away guns.

    December 19, 2012 02:39 pm at 2:39 pm |
  14. nothing new here

    I do concur that the excessive violence in our society is a complex problem.
    A lot of this starts in the home. Many people no longer want to parent their kids, or make an effort to keep tabs on their activities. Parents need to be mindful of what their kids are watching on t.v. and observing oh the Internet.
    Adults in this society need to start setting some better examples for our youth. We have a culture that glories violence, but excessive immaturity, esp. in the entertainment industry. I also believe that we need to be more mindful of who all is buying guns. There are too many ways for hardened criminals to buck the system – but of course, our legal system is a joke. It is more important to lock up potsmokers, than it is to deal with hardened criminals roaming the streets.

    December 19, 2012 02:42 pm at 2:42 pm |
  15. Wilson

    This country can survive an Obama. What worries me is, can it survive a population that voted for him for a second term?

    December 19, 2012 02:42 pm at 2:42 pm |
  16. Fair is Fair

    "Wrong again, Cletus. We expect it. We'll also come take your assault rifles away because there will be, for the most part, a record of who, what, when and where the purchases were made. You want us to pry them out of your cold dead hands? That can be arranged."
    ----------
    Well, at least you admit your motives.

    December 19, 2012 02:44 pm at 2:44 pm |
  17. Wilson

    The key fallacy of so-called gun control laws is that such laws do not in fact control guns. They simply disarm law-abiding citizens, while people bent on violence find firearms readily available. If gun control zealots had any respect for facts, they would have discovered this long ago, because there have been too many factual studies over the years to leave any serious doubt about gun control laws being not merely futile but counterproductive.

    December 19, 2012 02:45 pm at 2:45 pm |
  18. Name lynn

    stop pointing fingers at obama point fingers at you people none of you cant say nothing good about this black president who ask you all to vote or not thats your opinion please people what you all need to do is stop texing them long comments about nothing let it be about somethig

    December 19, 2012 02:46 pm at 2:46 pm |
  19. Brody

    Wrong again, Cletus. We expect it. We'll also come take your assault rifles away because there will be, for the most part, a record of who, what, when and where the purchases were made. You want us to pry them out of your cold dead hands? That can be arranged.
    _____________
    What a bunch a cr@p. No way is anyone coming into people's homes to take legally purchased firearms from good citizens. Same old threats of violence and ugliness from the libs. I am fine with moderations to gun laws if the libs want them. Personally I have enough guns to last a lifetime but crazy talk like that is only going to make things worse. New legislation may take effect but its not going to effect what you own just what you might purchase – another words nothing. Happy hunting. Off to God's grocery store for some meat.

    December 19, 2012 02:48 pm at 2:48 pm |
  20. Jim A

    "The Second Amendment: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

    When I read this and read the comments, it is grossly apparent of the multiple of interpretations. I do not think people want to remove every single gun from citizens' hands (i.e., how often do mass killings occur with a Winchester 30.30?), but there is room in the amendment to successfully interpret a ban on semi-automatic weapons and ban on excessive magazines.

    If people want to interpret the Second Amendment as absolute then where was the outcry with the Health and Human Services mandate that is forcing religious services, such as hospitals and schools, to comply with policies that are morally opposite of theri beliefs?

    First Amendment: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

    Seems we care more about guns than religious freedom.

    December 19, 2012 02:50 pm at 2:50 pm |
  21. Sniffit

    ""Wrong again, Cletus. We expect it. We'll also come take your assault rifles away because there will be, for the most part, a record of who, what, when and where the purchases were made. You want us to pry them out of your cold dead hands? That can be arranged."
    ----
    Well, at least you admit your motives."
    ===

    You have a reading comprehension problem. I said nothing about motives. I alluded to the extent I believe we should be willing to go to fix the problem. If asault weapons are banned and ordered turned-in, and you refuse to do so, yes, they should be confiscated...and if you think to defend your ownership of them by using them, then it shoudl turn out really poorly for you. Don't like it? Somalia. Cry more. Oh, and...Somalia.

    In fact, I suggest that be the new one-word response to these gun-loving whackjobs: just give them "the hand" to talk to, and say "Somalia."

    December 19, 2012 02:55 pm at 2:55 pm |
  22. Wilson

    If you believe the availability of guns is the problem, then you must be ENRAGED at Obama over Operation Fast & Furious.

    December 19, 2012 02:58 pm at 2:58 pm |
  23. Annie, Atlanta

    Honestly, isn't this a no brainer. If you can shoot dozens of bullets with one press of the trigger, maybe a gun like that isn't appropriate outside of a military theater, no? And since when did right to bear arms mean an AK47? Seriously? For all those who want the right, I think you should have a musket, personally, but that's just me. In the meantime isn't a responsibility of our elected representatives to keep us the hell safe from military or paramilitary weaponry?

    December 19, 2012 02:58 pm at 2:58 pm |
  24. Lars

    A quality firearm is a great investment. Feel free to frequent your local gun dealer. I have bought, sold, traded, and had a great time through it all.

    December 19, 2012 03:01 pm at 3:01 pm |
  25. Wilson

    House Republicans and Democrats stayed deadlocked over whether to cut spending or raise taxes to save the economy. If they send us over the fiscal cliff, they will still get paid. Their salaries are guaranteed under the Americans with No Abilities Act.

    December 19, 2012 03:02 pm at 3:02 pm |
1 2 3