President Barack Obama and Vice President Joe Biden announced 23 executive actions they assert will reduce gun violence. President Obama also re-affirmed his support for a reinstated assault weapons ban and a national “high capacity” magazine ban. They were joined on stage by several schoolchildren who had sent in letters in the aftermath of the Newtown shooting.

“Like most Americans, I believe the Second Amendment guarantees an individual the right to bear arms. I respect our strong tradition of gun ownership and the rights of hunters and sportsmen,” the President said in the address.

“Let’s do the right thing … for [the shooting victims] and for the country that we love so much,” President Obama concluded as he sat down to sign the 23 executive orders. He urged congress and proponents of the firearm industry to make steps against gun violence, which includes reinstating the assault weapons ban that expired in 2004. Obama stressed the need to keep firearms out of the wrong hands with improving background checks.

The president promised to “use whatever weight this office holds” to support Vice President Biden’s task force on reducing gun violence. President Obama also spoke briefly about providing incentives for schools to hire resource officers, and funding research for the effects of violent video games. These are two hotly debated subjects that were brought up by the National Rifle Association’s Wayne LaPeirre in the NRA Press Conference late last month.

The NRA recently posted a video online criticizing Obama’s stance on gun-free zones for public schools, and plans to fight against the new wave of gun restrictions with a large media campaign.

The following is a list of the president’s executive actions provided by the White House:

  1. Issue a Presidential Memorandum to require federal agencies to make relevant data available to the federal background check system.
  2. Address unnecessary legal barriers, particularly relating to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, that may prevent states from making information available to the background check system.
  3. Improve incentives for states to share information with the background check system.
  4. Direct the Attorney General to review categories of individuals prohibited from having a gun to make sure dangerous people are not slipping through the cracks.
  5. Propose rulemaking to give law enforcement the ability to run a full background check on an individual before returning a seized gun.
  6. Publish a letter from ATF to federally licensed gun dealers providing guidance on how to run background checks for private sellers.
  7. Launch a national safe and responsible gun ownership campaign.
  8. Review safety standards for gun locks and gun safes (Consumer Product Safety Commission).
  9. Issue a Presidential Memorandum to require federal law enforcement to trace guns recovered in criminal investigations.
  10. Release a DOJ report analyzing information on lost and stolen guns and make it widely available to law enforcement.
  11. Nominate an ATF director.
  12. Provide law enforcement, first responders, and school officials with proper training for active shooter situations.
  13. Maximize enforcement efforts to prevent gun violence and prosecute gun crime.
  14. Issue a Presidential Memorandum directing the Centers for Disease Control to research the causes and prevention of gun violence.
  15. Direct the Attorney General to issue a report on the availability and most effective use of new gun safety technologies and challenge the private sector to develop innovative technologies.
  16. Clarify that the Affordable Care Act does not prohibit doctors asking their patients about guns in their homes.
  17. Release a letter to health care providers clarifying that no federal law prohibits them from reporting threats of violence to law enforcement authorities.
  18. Provide incentives for schools to hire school resource officers.
  19. Develop model emergency response plans for schools, houses of worship and institutions of higher education.
  20. Release a letter to state health officials clarifying the scope of mental health services that Medicaid plans must cover.
  21. Finalize regulations clarifying essential health benefits and parity requirements within ACA exchanges.
  22. Commit to finalizing mental health parity regulations.
  23. Launch a national dialogue led by Secretaries Sebelius and Duncan on mental health.

Image screenshot of livestream video on www.whitehouse.gov

What's Your Reaction?

Like
Like Love Haha Wow Sad Angry
  • mr bill

    Great Picture of Two of (Amerika’s) Dumbest,wannabe’s.

  • Chris

    you mean the want-a-be-king and babblehead, it is amazing that most of his stuff is directed at the Mental Health…..hey dude, the kid didn’tt buy the guns….mom did. so now does that give them the right to go through your whole family….huuuuuummmmm. i still say what he is trying to do, or di for TV is against the LAW, and i hope someone hangs him out to dry for this one. “WE THE PEOPLE” need to stand up for OUR RIGHTS, if that means ALL Dem. leave, then so be it.

  • Lumpydick

    From our cold, dead hands, as our dear friend Mr Charleston Heston so clearly stated. There is a wonderful letter making the rounds from a Marine vet to Sen. Feinstein, that should be the cornerstone of how we will fight and win this battle with those that wish to turn us from citizens into subjects.

  • mammonista

    I’m all in favor of the president’s proposals. get rid of clip-fed semi-automatic rifles and pistols that accept more than a 7-round clip. Let me keep my revolver, shotgun, and bolt-action rifle. I’ll be happy. The deer (and home intruder) will be just as dead (if I’m lucky) and the potential for another Sandy Hook will be lessened. REGISTER ALL GUN SALES. End all gun show sales. Limit gun purchases to one a month. If all this stuff doesn’t make sense then you probably are paranoid, delusional, and think you should have the right to own an RPG, flame thrower, or anti-aircraft gun. Get over it. The second amendment doesn’t give you the right to own anything other than a gun. It’s up the government to decide what kind of gun.

    • notsospecial1

      It is none of the Governments business or anyone else what you or me have. Gun sale registrations, gun purchasing limits, and closing the so called “gun show loophole” would not have stopped any of these tragedy’s from occurring. Lanza committed murder and theft to get his guns. James Holmes and Loughner purchased there’s “legally” i.e, they passed a 4473. If you think these laws would, please elaborate how. The Gov does decide what we can/can’t have which is why we have Class 3 firearms and that’s far enough. A semi-auto AR-15 is NOT a “Weapon of War” as the gun grabbers like to call it. Just because YOU feel that 7 round MAGAZINES (not clips) is enough does not mean I should be limited to that. Should such a draconian ban be passed, do you really think criminals will turn in their high cap mags?

      • mammonista

        If an AR or an AK is not a ‘weapon of war’ what the heck is it? The last time I went hunting not one person in our group had one of those things! And you’re right about what I feel should have no bearing on the issue. It’s what a ‘majority’ of Americans feel that should matter. And we’ll find that out soon enough. But will you be able to live with that?

      • viper77

        Although I use bolt action rifles and shotguns for deer hunting I have also used my AR15 and SKS rifles to take deer. Who are you to decide what I can and can not use to hunt or shoot with!

      • notsospecial1

        It’s a semi-auto rifle. No different than a Browning BAR, Benelli R1, or any of the other wooden stocked semi-auto hunting rifles. “Weapons of War” are selective fire (full auto) like the M16. You don’t see our soldiers running around with semi-auto AR’s do you? And AR’s are used for hunting a lot! Just because you and your hunting party are not using them does not mean people are not. Heck, the AR platform was the #1 selling rifle in the US even before all of this crap happened. And you are wrong with what the “majority” wants. We are not a democracy, we are a republic. The Bill of Rights was put in place to protect the minority should a majority decide to trample their rights. If one is a law abiding citizen, there is absolutely no reason he/she should not be able to own an AR/AK variant. Mental health, psychoactive drugs and lack of parenting are the real issues. Lastly, the 2A was not written so we can all dress up in plaid and stalk deer with a slide action rifle.

      • mammonista

        No difference between an AR / AK and a BAR or an R1?

        Please Don’t Insult My F’ing Intelligence. Or did I miss some variant of the Browning and Benelli that allowed placement of the 20-round magazine. I guess I just didn’t see all the guys out there with AR’s on opening day this year.

        ARs are used for hunting a lot?

        Once again Don’t Insult my F’ing Intelligence. People buy ARs and AKs because those things make them feel like a man (I guess I don’t have a performance problem in the bedroom. Sorry if you do.)

        And lastly don’t attempt to cloud the issue with ‘rights’ and what, or what not the 2nd amendment was put there to accomplish. Sure the SCOTUS said the 2A was there to protect an individual’s right to own a gun as opposed to state’s rights to keep a militia, but this is the same SCOTUS that said corporations are people!

      • notsospecial1

        Piers, is that you? Am I debating the great Piers Morgan? Because you sure sound like him. And whether you like it or not, agree with them or not, that’s why the Constitution and SCOTUS is put in place to protect people from what the so called “majority” thinks/wants.

        Obviously you are thin skinned and have low self esteem issues since I so easily insulted your intelligence and you instantly chose the compensating route to insult people who purchase AR’s and AK’s.

        And is it really “insulting your intelligence” or lack thereof when you don’t know what the difference is between a magazine or a clip? Your ignorance of the AR platform shows for if you take away that evil 20 round mag and insert a 5 round mag into an AR15, it is the SAME thing as a BAR or an R1 That is fact! Though the 1A protects your right to free speech, quit watching CNN and MSNBC for your talking points on guns.

      • mammonista

        Your ignorance of the BAR and R1 platform is pretty obvious in that you don’t realize either one of them doesn’t accept a clip of greater than what, five rounds? On the other hand you can insert a 30-round magazine in a AR or AK and it becomes a whole new ball game.

        I’ve owned probably 30 guns in my lifetime: several revolvers, several semi-auto pistols, a Mini-14 and a Sako bolt action, riot gun, cap ‘n balls, and a really nice Kawaguchia (sp?) bird gun.
        And checking my pocket edition of the U.S. Constitution I must have missed the part where the minority is protected from the majority when it comes to passing and enforcing laws.

        I worked for a Class 1 railroad for about 10 years back in the 70’s and 80s and carried a concealed weapon almost ever day. Was that legal? No. Did I care? No. Did I think that I had some ‘right’ to carry it? No. But if myself and the others like me had started causing mahem I would have expected the situation to change. Large capacity magazines and the rifles and pistols that use them are causing mahem like never before in this country. The situation that allows them in the hands of civilians will change.

      • notsospecial1

        Duh, that’s one of my points. If high cap mags are banned, then an AR with a 5 round mag is the same damn thing as a BAR or R1. Do you know what the gun grabbers next move will be? Banning the BAR or R1 because it’s “high power” and “accepts a mag” and “you don’t need that because it’s unsporting”

        So you mentioned you illegally carried a handgun while working on the railroad. What makes you think a ban on high cap mags will change anything? They’ll never get taken off the streets.

        Interesting that you brought up your “pocket edition” of the Constitution and where you missed the part where a minority is protected from the majority when passing and enforcing laws. Let me give a very recent case example of a SCOTUS decision where a minority group was protected against a majority groups opinion.

        Ready for it?

        Wait for it? You mentioned it in one of your earlier posts.

        Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission

      • Name it

        You used “Don’t Insult my F’ing Intelligence.” twice in your post. There is zero chance of anyone being able to do that to you……

    • John

      I’ll get over it when I’m dead. Its my right just like its the governments right. We the people, not we the government. I’ll make my own decisions just like the criminals will.

      • mammonista

        It is not your ‘right’ to own a fully automatic weapon. And in this form of government, i.e. democratic republic, we elect representatives to govern on behalf of the majority. And….(I know this is hard for some of you to swallow) the majority of U.S. citizens want stiffer gun laws. If you disagree you only have a couple of options here: elect politicians who share your beliefs, disregard the law (and become a criminal) or move. Since moving is out of the question for most of us, and politicians who hold opinions that favor limiting firearm laws LOST big in the last election, that really leaves gun lovers with just one option should tougher restrictions be placed on gun ownership…join the ranks of the ‘criminal’.

        My advice? Accept your new status SILENTLY! 🙂

      • Name it

        And mammonista where does it stop? All magazine fed guns? Then all guns over single shot capability? Then ALL guns? Socialism, Marxism and Communism, in the extreme they are the
        one in the same and that is where we here in the USA are heading. Ask the Russian people from the early 19th century who thought “Our government would never do that to us” after all their guns were taken from them. Oh, sorry, you can’t ask them, Over 56 million of them were killed by their government as they had no way of defending themselves. Oh, and you want everyone to “Accept your new status SILENTLY!” like the German Jews did as they marched to the gas chambers. The opinions bleeding heart liberal Dems. is that no citizen needs a weapon of war with the firepower equal to our army. Here’s what the 2nd Amendment is about ….YES WE DO!
        You have no idea what the 2nd Amendment is all about!

      • mammonista

        You are going to stand up to the government? You and all your AR15 toting, tax hating, regulation despising patriots? That’s rich! And you say that while you drive your 10 mpg Cadillac Escalade on government subsidized gasoline, on government built roads, with government mandated safety standards. That’s the government you’re worried about?
        Lemme tell you something. When, and if the government wants to remove you and all your marginally patriotic friends from the picture there won’t be a thing you can do about it. Because they have tanks, and jet fighters, and helicopters, and cruise missiles, and predator drones and all sorts of fun shit you and I couldn’t even dream of.
        But back in the real world the Adam Lanzas and the people on the bad side of town are a much bigger threat because they have guns they shouldn’t have, and wouldn’t have if not for the total and complete lack of sensible gun legislation.
        But you go to bed at night with your precious AR-15 nearby if that makes you feel any better.
        Ha!

        Oh, here’s the 2nd amendment for you…. “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.”

        No where in there did I read anything about what type of arms.

      • Name it

        First of all it’s not about me standing up to the government
        or any small group either. It’s about the country as a whole having the ability to ensure liberty. So you think tanks, rockets and friggin flamethrowers can defeat an armed country? If you believe that I’ve got some prime swampland in Arizona to sell you. Russia fought Afghanistan for 15 years before they finally figured out they could never win that war. Now we have the ignorance of our own military trying to do that same thing. It will NEVER happen! Why? They are armed and they want liberty from us and all the other bully nations. No one will ever defeat them. I’m sure you can talk all your BS all day long but you still have no clue what the 2nd Amendment is
        all about. And you never will……….

    • You, sir ,are an absolute moron. First, to actually be so naive to believe that ANY of the POTUS proposals would have ANY effect on crime and/or shootings in the US is simply wrong. It is easy to prove that the areas of the country with the strictest gun control laws have the highest crime levels. The areas of the country with the highest number of concealed handgun permits and law abiding gun owners have the lowest crime rates.In ALL areas that allow concealed handguns, the crime rate DECREASED after the law was implemented.

      Second, it is definitely NOT up to the government to decide what kind of gun I can own! I have the right to decide that for myself. I enjoy target shooting, competing, hunting and plinking as do millions of responsible gun owners. We, as a group are the safest, most responsible people in this country and rarely, if ever, commit crimes of any kind. We help make this country a safer place to live, and if you were ever at the mercy of a criminal, you would be quite grateful for one of us to be there to protect you with our gun.

      I hunt hogs with an AR-15 and shoot targets and compete with one also. I will not accept my rights being infringed because of the actions of a couple of mentally ill people or the opinions of someone like you. Unbiased polls clearly show that the majority of Americans oppose the AWB and magazine limits.

    • You, sir ,are an absolute moron. First, to actually be so naive to believe that ANY of the POTUS proposals would have ANY effect on crime and/or shootings in the US is simply wrong. It is easy to prove that the areas of the country with the strictest gun control laws have the highest crime levels. The areas of the country with the highest number of concealed handgun permits and law abiding gun owners have the lowest crime rates.In ALL areas that allow concealed handguns, the crime rate DECREASED after the law was implemented.

      Second, it is definitely NOT up to the government to decide what kind of gun I can own! I have the right to decide that for myself. I enjoy target shooting, competing, hunting and plinking as do millions of responsible gun owners. We, as a group are the safest, most responsible people in this country and rarely, if ever, commit crimes of any kind. We help make this country a safer place to live, and if you were ever at the mercy of a criminal, you would be quite grateful for one of us to be there to protect you with our gun.

      I hunt hogs with an AR-15 and shoot targets and compete with one also. I will not accept my rights being infringed because of the actions of a couple of mentally ill people or the opinions of someone like you. Unbiased polls clearly show that the majority of Americans oppose the AWB and magazine limits.

  • Howl

    I think a 7-10 bullet mag is ridiculous.

    • viper77

      A couple of interesting points that seem to have been missing in these dialogs need to be brought up. They are; the defacto provision about 7 round magazines in New York’s law is against Constitutional law and the other is that that nut’s action at Sandy Hook that created the magazine issue did not even use the AR15 with the high capacity magazine (it was in the trunk of his car). Also, I have every reason in the world to use or not use any gun magazine that I want in my legal pursuit of hunting and shooting!

  • Razor sharp

    Those two clowns haven’t a clue

  • mammonista

    Pretty ridiculous as far as Jared Loughner, James Holmes, or Adam Lanza is concerned I’m sure. ‘Ridiculous’ is a subjective assessment. Try to be logical here. Legally you can’t go hunting with a 20-round clip. That much firepower only allows the shooter sustained bullet delivery before pausing to reload. Following your logic why not allow civilians access to guns that fire belt ammunition? And while we’re at it allow those guns to be fully automatic!

    • viper77

      In my state I can hunt with a 20-round magazine or use an AR15 or AK47. I must admit that most of the time I use a 10-round magazine to hunt with because the bigger magazines stick out too far and get in the way. But, when I am shooting for fun I will use the 20 or 30 round magazine all the time.

      • mammonista

        If I saw you in the field in my state with a 20-round magazine I’d try not to giggle… Are you that bad of a shot? You’re the kind of hunter that gives real hunters a bad name. Probably do ‘spotlighting’ too.

      • viper77

        Read the post!!! Read the post!! Read the post! Had you read the post (or are you a biased liberal that ignores facts and makes erroneous decisions) you would have noticed that I did not say that I hunt with a 20-round magazine but preferred a 10-round magazine because of the inconvenient size! By the way, I am a good shot with many guns and enjoy using different guns such as the M1 Garand and SKS to take a deer every now and then.

      • Name it

        Viper77, give him a break. He has proved from earlier post there is something missing up “there”. We try to be nice to those with that burden……… 🙂

    • Nusmith

      Who would buy a AR/AK with a 7 round magazine?

    • notsospecial1

      That 20 round magazine may mean the difference of you and your family surviving should a home invasion occur with multiple perps. And the home invasion scenario is an unfortunate very real scenario that is happening in America. And no, I never said to allow everyone to have full auto weapons. But lets play the follow your logic game. By following your logic, we need to ban mags that hold more than 10 rounds. New York has decided that 10 is too many and now it’s down to 7. What’s next? Semi-auto is too dangerous so we’re reduced to single action revolvers and single shot rifles? Double action revolvers would lumped in with Semi auto handguns for they have speed loaders and moon clips and those are dangerous too. That is how the gun grabbers do it. Chip away at it little by little and the next thing you know everything is gone. Look at what happened in Australia and Britain. Don’t kid yourself, that’s what they are trying to do here.

      • mammonista

        “…you and your family surviving should a home invasion occur with multiple perps. And the home invasion scenario is an unfortunate very real scenario that is happening in America.”
        Sounds like to me that you have been watching a bit too much “Law and Order: SVU”

        Following my 10 years on the railroad I was a local TV news reporter in a variety of large and small markets around the country for about 25 years. In all that time NOT ONCE did I ever hear of, much less cover, a home invasion with multiple perps. I’m just sayin’

      • notsospecial1

        Obviously you do not or have not lived in Arizona. And I do not watch TV. And it doesn’t just happen there, it’s happened in CO as well other states.

        Variety of markets where? Back east? Again, just because you have not seen it, covered it, used it or feel the need to have it, does not mean someone else needs to give up something based on your opinion. I don’t tell you what to do or what you can have, and frankly, don’t give a rip what you do or have as long as it’s legal.

  • John

    Mammonista your argument is out numbered here. Happy texting.

    • Howl

      I wouldn’t say outnumbered, Id rather have a rational conversation about this than to resort to mindless one-sided internet ranting.

      • mammonista

        Thx Howl…I think. Being a past and present gun owner/shooter/hunter I find the most RATIONAL ARGUMENT FOR MORE GUNS from a somewhat unlikely source. But nobody nails it like Sam Harris. This is a long read but well worth the time: http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/the-riddle-of-the-gun

  • John

    Mammonista, but its OK for your one sided mindless rambling though.

  • Mastiff54

    You will never “get rid” of anything. Too many high capacity magazines are already in existance globally and a buyer that wants one will get them. So your support for a ban will only affect honest law abiding citizens -AGAIN – and turn them into criminals. The lawless are just that – LAWLESS – meaning they don’t care what the law says. The mentally unstable are -UNSTABLE – meaning unable to respect laws or normal societal rules consistantly. When either go over the edge there will be problems that all laws failed to prevent.

    The lawless are easy to find, numerous arrests, many with firearms specifications that were probably dropped or bargained away. If a lawless person is willing to take a gun when they commit a crime they have already decided they are willing to kill or maim, THEIR CHOICE. They are the ones that drive up the “Gun Deaths”, but bleeding hearts blame their mommies and daddies and set them free to maim and kill again which most of them do.

    Mentally ill have been victimized by the bleeding hearts also. Their desperately needed community support and treatments are dismissed as we are told to “accept differences”. Having a parent who has a PhD and counseled families and children for over 25 years was heartbreaking. Insurance companies identified acceptable treatmens and treatment time, not the patients health.

    The problem with Americans is we have lost our zeal to learn. Paying attention to history is school is boring and learning about the real differences between geographic cultures and societies is discriminatory. Is it any wonder that the lessons from the beginning of time are dismissed as ‘stories of old’. The limitation of weaponry ownership by lawful citizens always preceeded the loss of democracy. Should this country resort to confisgating magazines and rifles from citizens, we will know we have reached the point where being armed per the 2nd ammendment is not only justified, it is our right to be able to protect this country from foes foreign and domestic. And it will be those well armed citizens who will be protecting those bleeding hearts again.

  • Ken

    We should trust the gov’t to do the right thing with the second amendment? How about exposing troops to nuclear blast and fallout. How did things work out for native americans and blacks. How about Nancy Pelosi on Obama care bill, “we have to pass it first to find out what’s in it”. The gov’t cannot be trusted with anything.