Sound Off: President to Propose New Gun Laws Today

President Barack Obama is expected to announce a proposal to ban certain guns and increase background checks on gun buyers.

In the wake of a series of mass murders that have plagued the country recently, President Barack Obama today is expected to propose an assault weapons ban, a ban on high-capacity magazines, and increased background checks on gun buyers.

Following the Newtown Massacre in which a lone gunman shot 20 children and six adults before turning the gun on himself, the president vowed to curb gun violence with tougher restrictions. The Newtown shooting came just months after the Aurora movie theater massacre, in which 12 people were killed and 58 wounded and a year after the Tucson shooting in which U.S. Representative Gabrielle Giffords was shot along with 18 others, including six who died. Each of those massacres were committed with the kind of high-capacity magazines targeted by the president, according to The New York Times.

According to the newspaper:

Some of the proposals that Mr. Obama is expected to make at the White House on Wednesday, which are likely to include a call for expanded background checks, a ban on assault weapons and limits on high-capacity clips, will be intended not only to prevent high-profile mass shootings, but also to curb the more commonplace gun violence that claims many thousands more lives every year.

“The president has made clear that he intends to take a comprehensive approach,” Jay Carney, the White House press secretary, said Tuesday. Mr. Carney said the proposals were aimed, broadly, at what he called “the scourge of gun violence in this country.”

In 2011, 6,220 people were killed by handguns, and 323 by rifles, according to the Federal Bureau of Investigation. So while the administration is expected to try to restrict some types of assault weapons, it is also focusing on ways to keep more commonly used firearms out of the hands of dangerous criminals and people with mental illness.

Orange County’s deadliest mass murder, the Salon Meritage shooting in Seal Beach that killed eight people, was committed with a 9 mm handgun and a .44 magnum revolver, neither of which are the kind of high-capacity weapons used in the Newtown massacre. However, attorneys for the alleged salon gunman, have alluded to his mental illness, hinting that it will play a role in his upcoming death penalty trial.

Has your attitude toward gun control changed in light of the recent massacres? Would you support or oppose the kind of bans and restrictions the president is expected to propose today?

JustUs January 17, 2013 at 04:28 PM
Robert, I was not commenting on Adam Lanza. I was commenting about your comment about "fully automatic assault rifles". You seemed to believe those are somehow legal. They are NOT legal now and haven't been for decades. I was referring to the AZ shooting that involved Congresswoman Giffords, not Sandy Hill and Adam Lanza. Let's stay on the same topic of discussion here. But let's make ONE THING CLEAR. Rifles with 'fully automatic' capabilities are NOT LEGAL in the United States of America for civilian use and haven't been for decades.
fact checker January 17, 2013 at 04:31 PM
What about those machine guns JustUs. Or don't stop there, Drones would take out your enemies before they ever got the chance to leave their crime ridden neighborhoods and venture into yours.
LeAna Bui January 17, 2013 at 05:47 PM
JustUs: There is the small little consideration of a Supreme court case that does not allow for the involuntary incarceration of mentally ill people. Before you tell me to THINK, you need to read up on the history. I'm not blaming anyone about our current situation. I am merely pointing out that the current mental health situation was not created by President Obama. Maybe you should THINK before you post.
JustUs January 17, 2013 at 05:55 PM
LeAna, NY just passed laws making it easier to hold the mentally ill. Obama could easily use his 'executive powers' ordained by God to hold severely mentally ill paranoid schizophrenics who are all over our streets. One of them shot Congresswomen Giffords and 18 others in AZ, murdering 6. So we have to allow those freaks to hurt and murder our fellow citizens? Hogwash, LeAna. Your POTUS just chooses NOT TO - because it would be expensive. There is not MONEY in helping the severely mentally ill. There is only MONEY is making bombs and promoting a 'war on drugs'. heh. You strike me as someone is deep, deep denial, LeAna.
LeAna Bui January 17, 2013 at 06:19 PM
Then JustUs my first request of President Obama is that he place you in a mental facility...........
ROBERT E. FISHBACK January 17, 2013 at 06:38 PM
JustUs Good and valid point. Sometimes I address two posts in same post and sometimes one those posts was not on subject..Good advice. b
John B. Greet January 17, 2013 at 06:51 PM
"But your own 'political whim of the day' doesn't count?" The individual right to keep and bear arms is not a political whim. It has long pre-dated our own nation's constitution, which simpy codified that right to protect it against government infringement. "...your blog speaks the only truth there is, right?" Nope. nor did I ever say such a silly thing. "Do you need an assault rifle?" What I may or may not need is not your concern, any more than what you may or may not need is mine. Because the right to legally own a firearm is, indeed, an individual one, what sort of legal firearm one may choose is an entirely personal decision. I do not sit in judgment of the personal choices of others in this area and I would prefer that they not presume to sit in judgement of mine. "If one mentally ill person had not had access to his mother's weapons, those innocent children and their teachers would be going about the daily business of first grade." I strongly agree that states should impose severe penalties upon legal gun owners who do not properly secure their weapons and ammo. If Mrs. Lanza's weapons had been properly secured, it really wouldn't have mattered what *type* of weapons they were. They would still not have been available for misuse. "Why wouldn't we take the simple step of banning unneeded fire power? Wy shouldn't we do that among other things?" Because I think we should focus more on the criminal, and less on the instrumentality of the crime.
John B. Greet January 17, 2013 at 07:08 PM
Yes and SCOTUS has now interpreted the 2nd amendment to be an individual right that is *not* to any degree contingent upon the existence of a militia. So what option is left for the gun-ban proponents? To remain constitutionally compliant they must amend the constitution to re-write it to say what *they* prefer. If enough folks truly want to change the constitution in this regard, then let them change it!
Shripathi Kamath January 17, 2013 at 07:16 PM
If it helps in your delusion, yes. If not, think of another reason.
fact checker January 18, 2013 at 01:25 AM
Where do you draw the line? Are there any weapons you would want to ban?
fact checker January 18, 2013 at 01:29 AM
In the meantime you seem content to make no changes at all to gun laws federally. And you seem comfortable with any kind of guns carried by anyone who wants to carry them. I am not comfortable with that. The idea of guns in schools terrifies me on so many levels.
ROBERT E. FISHBACK January 18, 2013 at 02:03 AM
I wish too respond to several posts of late; I think that there will be token attempts to ban asault rifles, but ho change at all. I believe many people who do not exhibit mental illnes are mentally ill. Mental illnes or not, it is the inability to think straight that worries me the most. .Most comments cover a few bases, but not all. Example: I just read today that guns should not be the target but the lack of a good home life that teaches values. But that is not the case now and it never will be. So, how long will we keep this idealistic argument going that it is not guns, but every thing else in society. Gun control is the only thing left. But, that won't happen either. Every nation that ever exhisted left behind a story....The Fall of the Roman Empire by Gibbon.as an example. The U,S will be just another story in a history book and it will read much like Rome Debauchery, the exclusion of God, Materialism, greed, homo-sexuality, "They fell with their stomachs filled with their own devices. This will be an interesting commentery on what a free nation did to to itself. .
JustUs January 18, 2013 at 02:12 AM
Robert, I think it's the natural life cycle of a nation that rose to power quickly and developed tremendous prosperity. If you were to graph the rise and fall of such nation the line would go straight up and straight down. We will be the 'flash in the pan' nation. Here today.....gone tomorrow (unfortunately). Great wealth always destroys nations in the end. The moral code gets flushed. We really lived at the perfect time. My parent's generation had it tough. And the kids coming up will have it real tough. You and me were darned lucky, Robert. We were right in the middle and rode high. We have a lot to be thankful for. I just feel very sorry for the children and what we've done to them. Very sad.
JustUs January 18, 2013 at 02:15 AM
LeAna - I think I would find more sanity in a nuthouse than what I am surrounded with in the real day to day world. We have millions of functional nuts in America. Look at Congress and the White House if you question me. Most of them are nuttier than a Christmas fruit cake.
ROBERT E. FISHBACK January 18, 2013 at 02:35 AM
JustUs: You are a paradox; you can write with wisdom and then you do the "Boy Friend Stuff" I am exiting Patch....makes me feel like I've bathed in sewer. I will leave you and all with this: If I preached the Word of God on the streets, I would be arrested> God's Word not welcome. So, God sent another preacher...cause and effect. Every turn of the globe screams..THY WORD IS TRUTH. He says..Remember the days of old when I was not thrown out of your considerations and how I blessed you. Look at yourselves now "Your leaders stagger in their own vomit like drunken men...And note, you do not have enough work to do and you will have even less. " If we forget the Lord our God, shall not God search this out" So, you are stuck with a preacher you cannot silence..cause and effect..
JustUs January 18, 2013 at 03:02 AM
Don't let me fool you, Robert. For in reality I am just as dumb as the next guy. God just puts these crazy thoughts in my mind and I merely write them down. I am sort of like a Priest without the white collar. You would never see me quoted in scripture, my good sir. I think God uses me as a back up hitter when he's in a clutch. You know, down 4-2 in the bottom of the ninth with 2 men on base and it's either me or the pitcher who has a .110 batting average. I get called up cold off the bench. Then the pitcher throws me a spit ball, I swing and miss, and then I get blamed for losing the darn game. Oh well. That's the way it goes. I am a recovering Catholic yet I still attend Catholic church occasionally, Robert. How's that for a paradox, sir? I decided to return to the Catholic church for a trial period when I found out that they started a 'blessing of the pet's day'. You can take your house pet (doesn't matter what it is....a dog, cat, lizard, monkey, kangeroo, gerbil, snake, etc...) to a ceremony and a priest will bless it. Now that's what I call a good marketing strategy and American ingenuity! It sure sold me, Robert! Even though they claim my dog doesn't have a soul and can't go to heaven, they will still bless him. Better than a poke in the eye with a sharp stick, eh? And it makes my dog happy too! A win-win for everyone. Ok. Take good care, Robert. Do some crossword puzzles this week. It's very good for the old brain cells. Auf wiedersehen!
tiny January 18, 2013 at 03:14 AM
The French Revolution should have had an outcome similar to the just previous American one. But it was sabatoged by those same people and we were left isolated as a Republic. We've been picked apart ever since, but we've been fortunate to have had it turned around many times in our past with miraculous leaders.
ms.sc. January 18, 2013 at 03:48 AM
There is nothing wrong with civilians having arms to protect themselves or to hunt wildlife, if they so desire. However, having a military weapon is disturbing. Why? What is the purpose of having a machine that only mutilates? If you are a true sportsperson, why would you want something that obliterates your true talent of a good "shot"? I am against the war as well...so I probably should not be on this post anyways. It is really sick, all of the availability to almost anyone. I truely am for stricter guidelines and oppose guns that only the military should possess.
ROBERT E. FISHBACK January 18, 2013 at 03:55 AM
I am with you, honey. I got the best news tonight on my computer...ten people "unfriended " me.
Johnny Utah January 18, 2013 at 04:03 AM
Just answer the question shrimpath whatever... are you a muslim? if you can't answer it truthfully...than what you say on here is a cheap crockpot
tiny January 18, 2013 at 04:06 AM
Not direct on point: www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Cq7hf4ylvY
ms.sc. January 18, 2013 at 04:17 AM
Robert, you find out whom your true friends are eventually, sadly, sometimes even with family. And, Robert, don't pay too much attention to the ten people. It's a beautiful world out there with more than the ten people. P.S. No offense, but don't call me honey. I know you probably meant well. Take Care.
John B. Greet January 18, 2013 at 04:22 AM
"Where do you draw the line? Are there any weapons you would want to ban?" There are no firearms currently available to private citizens that I would ban. To do so focuses on the instrumentality, rather than upon the criminal. That said, if the majority of voters in any given state choose fixate on guns, ammo, or magazines and ban them, they certainly should do so for their own state. Here's the inconvenient truth, though: Weapons bans only hamper the law-abiding, who, you may note, are *not* the ones shooting up our schools, movie theaters, and other places of mass gathering. Lawless persons who want a certain type of weapon, will find a way to get it. Just ask the drug cartels in Mexico who still possess hundreds and hundreds of very good weapons that our own government knowingly allowed to be sold and delivered to them. Weapons that have already been used to injure and kill hundreds of Mexican nationals and at least one U.S. Border Patrol Agent. Please review this very basic, well-sourced,10-minute slide show that a private person put together to try to explain to folks the fallacy of most people's understanding of the phrase "assault weapon", the futility of fixating on different types of weapon "furniture" and magazine capacity, and the utter farce that was the so-called Assault Weapons Ban of which so many are now calling for a reinstatement: http://www.assaultweapon.info/
ROBERT E. FISHBACK January 18, 2013 at 04:22 AM
I am not only looking for true friends, but mentally sound ones..Thanks for writng you warm, loquacious sex pot..
ms.sc. January 18, 2013 at 04:35 AM
Robert, patch should remove you. And Shiri, your ego insults your brain.
Jasper Downs III January 18, 2013 at 04:42 AM
Indeed, words do mean things. There are a few more words in the second amendment that you seem to be omitting, "a well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, ...". A bunch of rednecks running around with high powered semi-automatic weapons equipped with 30 round clips sounds like the exact opposite of "well regulated" to me. Can we not apply some meaning to those words? Perhaps the slobbering idiot could speak to that ...
John B. Greet January 18, 2013 at 04:51 AM
"In the meantime you seem content to make no changes at all to gun laws federally." Quite the contrary, I would love to make changes to federal firearms laws. I would make them more compliant with the constitution by seeing that they only had jurisdiction on federal lands and properties and over federal employees, contractors, and vendors. "And you seem comfortable with any kind of guns carried by anyone who wants to carry them." Not true. I favor any law-abiding, adult citizen willing to assume the many responsibilities of gun ownership (including adequate training and acceptable storage when not in use) carrying any concealed weapon of those types commonly available to private persons. "The idea of guns in schools terrifies me on so many levels." The idea of armed criminals wandering our schools and other public areas and massacring innocent people while they cower helplessly because there is no one present to defend them is what terrifies me. You will not remove all of the guns from our society. Because this is so, violent criminals will always find a way to arm themselves and victimize others. Because this is so, the best and only way to stop them once they have commenced their assault is for a good person or good people who are also armed and already present to stop them using whatever force may be necessary. You disagree. I respect your disagreement.
John B. Greet January 18, 2013 at 04:56 AM
"Really John? You want to leave out the mental health screening so that the Lanza's of this world can directly purchase the guns themselves?" I simply believe that we should not focus on mental or emotional health screenings of dubious accuracy and, therefore limited value and effectiveness. Further, if my state decided to mandate such a requirement, I would certainly comply with it, even though I did not support it. My challenge is that the good folks in another state may not want to enact such a requirement and, if so, they should not have to be subject to it while within their own state. "The steps we need to take include screenings for everyone and the banning of unnecessary fire power owned by anyone except police and military." I appreciate that you believe this and I think if the majority of voters in your state agree, then that's what you should do. I do not think the Fed should presume to impose such blanket measures on all states (because I believe them to be unconstitutional). The underlying purpose of the 2nd amendment is to codify the people's right to defend themselves against government tyranny. If only the military and police have access to commonly-used firearms of the day, then the 2nd amendment loses its entire purpose. "We can never prevent every gun tragedy but surely we can take simple steps that may prevent some." Agreed. So take steps that actually have that effect. Disarming law-abiding citizens does not do so.
ms.sc. January 18, 2013 at 04:58 AM
Your compiment is creepy. Seek help Robert,
ROBERT E. FISHBACK January 18, 2013 at 06:27 AM
Better yet, I should remove patch,but they are going to retsructure the operation, so we will see. I bring too much readership to Patch....They know that good writing is a priority. As for Shiri comment....it sounds like you are saying that she has an inferiority complex. If ego insults the brain, it seems the brain deserves more ego.


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 »