Skip to main content

President Obama Sunday night at the prayer vigil for the victims of Friday's mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut:

Although the president didn't directly mention gun control or guns themselves, his speech (full transcript) last night was not merely a eulogy or an expression of grief—it also represented a commitment to do something to stop the senseless violence of deadly shootings in America.
Since I've been President, this is the fourth time we have come together to comfort a grieving community torn apart by a mass shooting. The fourth time we've hugged survivors. The fourth time we've consoled the families of victims. And in between, there have been an endless series of deadly shootings across the country, almost daily reports of victims, many of them children, in small towns and big cities all across America -- victims whose -- much of the time, their only fault was being in the wrong place at the wrong time.

We can't tolerate this anymore. These tragedies must end. And to end them, we must change. We will be told that the causes of such violence are complex, and that is true. No single law -- no set of laws can eliminate evil from the world, or prevent every senseless act of violence in our society.

But that can't be an excuse for inaction. Surely, we can do better than this. If there is even one step we can take to save another child, or another parent, or another town, from the grief that has visited Tucson, and Aurora, and Oak Creek, and Newtown, and communities from Columbine to Blacksburg before that -- then surely we have an obligation to try.

In the coming weeks, I will use whatever power this office holds to engage my fellow citizens -- from law enforcement to mental health professionals to parents and educators -- in an effort aimed at preventing more tragedies like this. Because what choice do we have? We can't accept events like this as routine. Are we really prepared to say that we're powerless in the face of such carnage, that the politics are too hard? Are we prepared to say that such violence visited on our children year after year after year is somehow the price of our freedom?

As the president said, this is the fourth time he has had to deliver a speech such as this after a mass shooting. And every day, innocent children and victims are killed throughout this country. But this is the first time he has been so forceful in calling for change in response to such violence.

"For those of who remain," the president said, "let us find the strength to carry on, and make our country worthy of their memory." As a nation, that is a conversation that we must have.


Please sign the petition asking President Obama to help start a national conversation about gun control.


Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  There are signs that this is a tipping point: (15+ / 0-)

    - President Obama's much more determined language about action/change (vs what he has said in the wakes of past shootings)

    - NRA's protracted silence/hiding

    - Pro-NRA Reps and Senators' protracted silence/hiding

    - Protest at the NRA headquarters itself

    - Newspaper Op Eds calling for gun law reform, nationwide (and  worldwide, Op Ed incredulity that the US keeps letting these tragedies happen and happen again and again)

    I am hopeful that some gun-control law has a good chance of passing in response.  Just hoping it doesn't end up too watered down and toothless.  If it couldn't have prevented Sandy Hook or at least strongly dented the probability, then it is not a strong law.

  •  Let's see if this conversation continues beyond (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Rikon Snow, delver rootnose, Paolo, eps62

    the current news cycle. Chances are, it probably won't.

    •  what the hell are you? (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      MKDAWUSS, bluegrass50

      A member of the reality-based community or something?

      My father and I were despairing over the latest tragedy yesterday but we agreed we are equally sick of all the platitudes and commitments to change each time these episodes happen. Obama is as guilty as the rest.

      If the MSM e.g. CNN spent 1/100th the time truly investigating gun crimes and the industry behind them as they do broadcasting victims' tears 24/7/3 after the event we might get somewhere.

      If we had a true leader as president he would say to the Repubs and NRA-beholden, 'NOT A PENNY MORE FOR ANY OF YOUR PROGRAMS' until there is a real ban on assault weapons and ammo.

      Not holding my breath.

      She said that she was working for the ABC News
      It was as much of the alphabet as she knew how to use

      by Paolo on Mon Dec 17, 2012 at 07:07:25 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Get real. The President can't do this alone... (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        eps62, Mistral Wind

        Unless millions of us do something more than complaining or predicting nothing will change, then little will. Start by writing letters to newspaper editors and voting out politicians who support the NRA by donating to their opponents. Start somewhere. There are dozen of anti-assault weapons groups. Find one and support them. Just a suggestion.

  •  Here's what I think we should do (6+ / 0-)

    ...about rampage killers (and other suiciders):

    1. Drastically increase the availability of mental health services to all as part of free preventative care.

    2. Require both a background check and an in-depth psychiatric evaluation for a gun license that would be required to purchase any guns.

    3. Limit certain military weapons and ammunition away from residences and public spaces to specially licensed firing and hunting ranges.

    4. Confirm chain-of-custody civil liabilities exist to seller and owner for improperly sold or secured weapons used in crimes and acts of violence.

    5. Develop voluntary news media guidelines that reduce glorification of the perpetrators and copycats by keeping the focus on the victims and presenting details in a less sensationalistic manner.

    Reforms consisting only of narrow conceptions of what "gun control" means are nothing but cheap political games, and if we only do that then we are no better than the gun nuts--and such reforms will not be at all as effective.

    Are you a Green who has difficulty telling Democrats and Republicans apart? Well, I have difficulty telling Greens and Maoists apart.

    by Subversive on Mon Dec 17, 2012 at 06:43:48 AM PST

    •  This might be a sensible final stage (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      cocinero, judyms9

      for this process..  but raising the specter of "we're comin' for your guns" moves the Overton window.  Not to mention provides a lot of personal satisfaction at seeing the dismay of the formerly smug right-wingers.

      In the pre-Newtown political climate, your proposal was on the "extreme left".  Soon, it will be "centrist", and that's how it or something like it will be adopted.

      Conservatives need to realize that their Silent Moral Majority is neither silent, nor moral, nor a majority.

      by nominalize on Mon Dec 17, 2012 at 06:48:50 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  I would add..... (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Subversive, Pithy Cherub, lirtydies

      make serial numbers nearly impossible to erase.

      Require every new gun owner to be certified in gun safety before they get their gun.

      Only allow a set number of guns that are operational to be purchased over a set period of time (may help in the reduction of gun trafficking.)  Possible exception to antique guns that lack ability to operate or are single shot.

      Stop the ease of purchasing guns privately and through gun shows.  When I privately sell a car I have to pay a sales tax and file documentation.  

    •  And how to achieve this? (0+ / 0-)

      I agree with everything that you have said.  And there is more we can do.  The big question is:  how do we achieve it?

      I think we ought to let Republicans do the right thing--I'm prepared to be shocked--but absent that, we should create a Simpson-Bowles type commission that creates a list of things that must be done to reduce gun violence.

      Religious conservatives, who profess to love Jesus as much as they love guns (go figure), are a large part of this country.  Mike Huckabee spoke for them when he said that gun violence increased as God was shut out of our schools.

      I am an atheist, so I don't share his views.  However, if we could get your list of five reforms in exchange for a moment of silence in schools, is it worth it?

      I'm willing to take some measure of what offends me in order to reduce gun violence.  

      •  I'm afraid that if we let Republicans run reform (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        lirtydies, eps62

        ...their "reform" will consist of little more than trying to ban violent video games and bringing Jesus back into public schools.

        As for how to achieve it, well, I think this is an opportunity for President Obama shine.  The ACA already provides for free preventative care--he should push for vastly greater access to free mental health care under the ACA.  That is where I think we should start.

        Are you a Green who has difficulty telling Democrats and Republicans apart? Well, I have difficulty telling Greens and Maoists apart.

        by Subversive on Mon Dec 17, 2012 at 07:06:34 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  as I have said pefore.... (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    BOHICA, Paolo, eps62

    ...The lamentations, prayers, and condolences of politicians who did nothing to prevent this tragedy given the number of times similar incidents have happened are a hollow and meaningless insult

    We Glory in war, in the shedding of human blood. What fools we are.

    by delver rootnose on Mon Dec 17, 2012 at 06:44:55 AM PST

    •  not if they change. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Blicero, eps62

      This President has shown, with regards to LGBT rights and marriage equality, for example, the ability to change his stance and policies.  It was his friends that moved him.  With his change, the country has moved every day in the correct direction.  

      Now, with the weapons issue, he signals once again that he is open to change.  It is his children--and these children--who have moved him.

      If he strikes now, while the gun lobby and their bought lawmakers are hiding away trying to coalesce around new talking points, it's possible that some real steps can happen.  If that happens, I will forgive him his inaction in the past.

      If not, I'll revisit your viewpoint.

      “If we, citizens, do not support our artists, then we sacrifice our imagination on the altar of crude reality and we end up believing in nothing and having worthless dreams.” ~ Yann Martel

      by SottoVoce on Mon Dec 17, 2012 at 07:04:51 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  hopefully he won't have to ask.... (0+ / 0-)

        ...forgivness from to many families of victims before this change can come about.

        We Glory in war, in the shedding of human blood. What fools we are.

        by delver rootnose on Mon Dec 17, 2012 at 07:12:31 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  ok, I get that you've written him off. (0+ / 0-)

          What are your ideas for progress, besides that?

          “If we, citizens, do not support our artists, then we sacrifice our imagination on the altar of crude reality and we end up believing in nothing and having worthless dreams.” ~ Yann Martel

          by SottoVoce on Mon Dec 17, 2012 at 07:15:15 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  ban any gun with a ... (0+ / 0-)

            ....barrel length of less than 30 inches.  Bann any gun that can shoot more that 3 rounds before reloading or has a capacity to shoot more than X amount of rounds per minute.

            We Glory in war, in the shedding of human blood. What fools we are.

            by delver rootnose on Mon Dec 17, 2012 at 07:22:49 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

  •  Conversations are for rational people (0+ / 0-)

    That right there excludes, oh what, 47% of the people, maybe more?

    Recommended by:

    No.  No petitions, no hugfests, no baby kissing, no we gotta do somethng.  Abolish the antique, useless, poisonous second amendment to the constitution.  When that starts getting talked about, you'll know that they're finally getting serious.  Till then, and duck and cover.

    •  I agree, but (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      the Second Amendment does not preclude meaningful reform. The Heller and McDonald decisions still allow restrictions on the different kinds of weapons and who and where people can possess them.

    •  It might sound nice, but I think you could find (0+ / 0-)

      enough states to veto such an idea than states to ratify.

    •  Hunt guns down door to door! (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:


      We can eliminate ALL the guns!

      f you ban the Second Amendment then YOU CAN hunt them down, door to door.

      Just declare the War on GUns and all the successful antics of drug war cowboys can be had by war on gun cowboys.

      We can have Red Ribbon Campaigns - just say no to guns!

      I am certain you will tolerate the regular house to house searches we will need to do to enforce this outstanding new law. After all, you have nothing to hide.

      I think roadblocks where we swab people's hands for gunpowder residue would be another thing we can all agree on helps keep us safe.

      This just seems so do-able, doesn't it?

      Works beautifully for the war on drugs.

      I am sure you support that as well.

      The path of the righteous man is beset on all sides by the inequities of the selfish and the tyranny of evil men.

      by xxdr zombiexx on Mon Dec 17, 2012 at 07:16:40 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Second amendent is fine - well regulated militia (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Blicero, eps62, Mistral Wind

      There is no need to abolish the admendment.  The interpretation has been completely co-opted by the gun industry.

      Playing on "frontier spirit" etc., the gun lobbying has been very effective in creating the perception that the 2nd Admendment grants indivudals complete rights to bear any type of arms.

      In reality, the admendment is very specific about "a well regulated militia" this is known as the state National Guard.

      Regulating individual access to firearms is completely compatible with the 2nd Admendment.   Banning combat weapons, limiting the number of weapons and ammunition an individual can posess, requiring liability insurance for all firearms and ammunition,  all are valid and constitutional regulations.  

      Add background checks.  

      Stir and reevaluate in a year.

      •  Yep, my thoughts exactly (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        A strict textual approach to thee 2nd Amendment would allow substantial leeway in regulating the f**k out of guns.

      •  The Supreme Court... (0+ / 0-)

        ...has completely, crisply, and specifically disagreed with your seeming interpretation that the Second Amendment is about the "National Guard". They have clearly ruled that it reflects an individual right and includes the possession of firearms for the purpose of self defense (as opposed, perhaps, just for the purpose of overthrowing an unconstitutional dictator installed via a military coup).

        You obviously disagree with the Supreme Court, but it is rare that the court reevaluates issues of enumerated rights (Heller) that they have found to be incorporated into the 14th Amendment (McDonald) and reverses their fundamental decisions (actually, I can't think of a single such case in modern times, but I certainly don't have an encyclopedic knowledge of all Supreme Court rulings!). Indeed, the trend for decades has been in the opposite direction -- identifying new (and not specifically enumerated) rights rather than eliminating previously recognized rights - see, for example, Roe v. Wade.

        We are in the infancy of determining what level of scrutiny the courts will hold firearms laws to as Heller, IIRC, provided little guidance except to say the Washington D.C. laws/regulations they struck down failed all levels of scrutiny the Court applies to laws restricting enumerated rights. They simply had no need to go further to conclude the case before them, so they did not (typically, the Supreme Court tailors their rulings as narrowly as possible). They did note that their ruling was not to be interpreted as prohibiting all long standing restrictions on guns (such as prohibiting possession by felons) but nor did they find that any such restrictions are constitutional - they just warned that they were not, in the Heller ruling, issuing an opinion on such matters.

        Anyone who believes that other important enumerated rights (such as the rights to assemble, exercise religion, enjoy a free press, and not be subject to unreasonable searches or cruel and unusual punishment) should be subject to a high level of scrutiny should be very wary of the court applying a low level of scrutiny to firearm possession. Such an interpretation potentially opens the door, for example, to finding more warrantless searches or exorbitant insurance requirements for public assemblies (such as OWS) constitutional.

        The courts have a delicate balancing act here. I suspect that one reason that supporters of the right to keep and bear arms have been fairly quiet in the past week are that they have little reason to engage now that the question of the Second Amendment has been decided. It is fairly clear from Heller that any law that substantially interferes with the ability of a private citizen to posses firearms that are suitable and readily available for self protection in their home will be struck down. Some of the proposals elsewhere in this thread, such as prohibiting possession of guns that can fire no more than three rounds before reloading, would almost certainly fail such a test as the remaining "allowed" weapons would be nearly useless in protecting oneself against a home invasion robbery.

        The sort of gun control that many dreamed of in the 1970's and that some still do today clearly requires a repeal of the Second Amendment and that is the battle that supporters of such policies would be well served to begin. Perhaps, if that battle is started today, in fifty to seventy-five years it could happen. Statistically insignificant, but widely publicized, abuses of firearms will not result in the repeal of the Second Amendment soon. (For those who bristle at my "statistically insignificant" comment, about every 7 hours, more people die in avoidable automobile accidents in the US than died at Sandy Hook last week -- how many of those did you hear about?)

        •  Which decision, exactly? (0+ / 0-)

          I admit that I am not an expert - which Supreme Court decision rejected the idea that the second admendment defines a "well regulated militia" as the entitled right?

          As far as it goes, it can always be challenged again and the Court reach a different conclusion.  This has happened before - voting rights, etc.

          To your point about "opening the door" to warrantless searches - we are already there with "Patriot Act", Bush violations of FISA, TSAhole activities, etc.  

          and "public assembly"  - forget about it.  "Free Speech Zones" to corral citizens for easy pepper spraying etc.

          Finally, comparing automobile accidental deaths to mass murder is inane.  If you don't see the difference, then I can explain that to 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."

          Plenty of room to regulate firearms for individuals there while still allowing "the people" to maintain a well regulated militia without repealing anything.

  •  Obama Derangement Syndrome meets Sandy Hook. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    I'm guessing the conservatives are gonna blow this one also.

    •  Don'cha'no, this was all orchestrated by (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      Obama, Soros, and Van Jones so they could pass gun control legislation and take your guns away. They needed something to emotionally rile the masses and nothing is more effective than using children to accomplish that goal. I'm sure if we dug deeper in the shooter, you'd find he has ties to the Democrat Party.

      ...or something like that. I'm not exactly up to speed on the latest conspiracy theory talking points from these people.

  •  The fourth time (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    delver rootnose

    If a single piece of legislation to either reduce arms sales or increase regulation of arms sales has been passed by the time the fifth gets here, I'll be very surprised indeed.

    •  its not going to prevent the fifth. (0+ / 0-)

      it will prevent some who would have been the fifth, but not all of them because mental illness and delusional thinking plays into these events.

      s why I usually use the tern 'gun ban' because, in the end, that IS what the majority of people here are seeking, whether they come out and say it or not.

      the idea that adding a litany of rules - even 'common sense rules' - is going to stop people like Loghner, Lanza, the Sikh temple killer, the Clackmas shooting, is erroneous.

      We can slow the pace without much doubt but seciring gns better at homes, in transport, waiting periods, background checks - all that is only going to do so much.

      People can't predict or control the outbursts of the mentally ill so it is likely just natural to want to 'control guns sufficiently to prevent these incidents".

      there will be a fifth

      And a sixth.

      We might be able to put a longer and longer space between the,, but I think people should not approach this so emotionally that they let themselves think they can totally prevent such event.

      The path of the righteous man is beset on all sides by the inequities of the selfish and the tyranny of evil men.

      by xxdr zombiexx on Mon Dec 17, 2012 at 07:10:59 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  How about this? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    How about we make everyone living in a house with a gun undergo a yearly psychiatric and criminal check, at their expense.

    Mental breaks can be very sudden and people with a lot of guns should be checked frequently, and should their loved ones, and anyone in their house that has access to the guns, at the owners expense.

    •  How about this (5+ / 0-)

      everyone anticipating having a child or having children already should undergo a yearly psychiatric and criminal check, at their expense to make sure they aren't potential child abusers.

      I live in a house with weapons -- I'm not going to have a psych exam to assuage your concerns.  I already go through criminal checks -- first when I applied for my permit and then any time I want to purchase a gun in my State.

      Change the laws on types of weapons, magazines and national requirements for permitting.  Close the loopholes at gun shows but don't effing demand that law abiding citizens have an annual psych exam.  I'm getting tired of some of the rhetoric which is as extreme as the NRA.

      " My faith in the Constitution is whole; it is complete; it is total." Barbara Jordan, 1974

      by gchaucer2 on Mon Dec 17, 2012 at 07:05:05 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I agree that annual psych exams are too much (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        But I was required to meet with a psychiatrist repeatedly in order to get approved for bariatric surgery (despite being an obvious and ideal candidate).  There is no reason that this couldn't be required of people who want to purchase guns.  And for that matter, I think requiring a renewal is reasonable for people who want to purchase more guns after a reasonable time period has passed.

        Such a measure doesn't have to be perfect--but we can do a lot more here to reduce the number of crazy people obtaining and stockpiling weapons without imposing an undo burden on everyone else.

        Are you a Green who has difficulty telling Democrats and Republicans apart? Well, I have difficulty telling Greens and Maoists apart.

        by Subversive on Mon Dec 17, 2012 at 07:13:24 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  Pretty much... (0+ / 0-)

      ...for the same reason that we don't have similar requirements for assembling in a public space or for any of the other rights enumerated in the Constitution.

      The courts have routinely found that excessive barriers to exercising such rights - and especially those barriers whose primary intent is to specifically interfere with such rights - are unconstitutional. On the other hand, requiring a permit and/or registration of firearms is likely constitutional as long as such permits and registration are easily available to everyone who meets objective and reasonable requirements - much like requiring people to register to vote is constitutional. The burden imposed by voter id laws are, in reality, fairly small and pale in comparison to your suggestions -- yet some members of the Supreme Court (albeit, a small minority) believed that Indiana's voter id law was unconstitutionally burdensome (see Crawford v. Marion County Election Board).

      Heller and McDonald recognized the Second Amendment as an individual right, found that excessive restrictions on that right in Washington D.C. were unconstitutional, and that the Second Amendment is, like most (now, finally, I perhaps all of significance) other enumerated rights, incorporated into the Fourteenth Amendment and therefore bind state and local governments as well.

      Repeal of the Second Amendment is the only viable way to achieve what you suggest. All the decades gun control proponents made arguing without justification that the Second Amendment somehow didn't mean what its text said or history suggested were wasted decades for the gun control movement.

  •  May be time to turn attention toward Congress (0+ / 0-)

    now. Whether or not Obama is willing to use his 'bully pulpit' on this issue, it matters not if Congress holds up well-written legislation or waters it down to the point of impotency.

    •  a movement of parents must rise (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      hooper, eps62

      with unwavering power.  "I'm NRA and I vote" needs to be counteracted and swamped by "I'm a parent and I vote."  Those dinosaurs in Congress who won't budge need to be removed from their seats by the power of the people.

      “If we, citizens, do not support our artists, then we sacrifice our imagination on the altar of crude reality and we end up believing in nothing and having worthless dreams.” ~ Yann Martel

      by SottoVoce on Mon Dec 17, 2012 at 07:07:38 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  For all those wanting increased security at our (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    judyms9, Subversive, eps62

    schools, tell me more about how offended you are when you and your kids receive body scans, strip searches and pat downs by security forces at every government building you enter...

  •  What about the SSRIs the shooters take? (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Paolo, hooper

    I haven't heard anyone mention mention that connection.

  •  "Arm the teachers" (0+ / 0-)

    I actually heard that from a couple of co-workers, this morning. I didn't join in. I can't fix stupid.

  •  Rubber bullets instead of lethal bullets (0+ / 0-)

    Until we get sane House majorities and Justices we should ban lethal bullet sales.  Rubber bullets are just as deterrent as lethal bullets and do not infringe on Second Amendment rights.

    "Now, people ask me all the time how we got four surplus budgets in a row. What new ideas did we bring to Washington? I always give a one-word answer: Arithmetic. " Bill Clinton

    by Amayupta yo on Mon Dec 17, 2012 at 06:56:07 AM PST

  •  "everything in my power to engage"? (0+ / 0-)

    How about using everything in your power to take action?

    The President has enormous power to order immediate action - through executive order and by directing the Justice department.

    There are many laws and regulations on the books right now for background checks, etc.

    Why isn't the President saying "I am directing the DoJ and ATF today to undertaken a comprehensive audit of ALL gun dealers and sales.  Any dealer that does not have up-to-date and complete records on firearms sales will be fined and shut down".

    Naturally, the NRA would go ballistic.  and the tea-bag fringe would exclaim government take over.  But they are going to do that anyway - even when "engaged in a discussion".

    Democrats really need to take a cue from the right wing - they do not wait or discuss or engage - they take action, force laws through, etc.

    Stop waiting around.   DO SOMETHING NOW.

    Recommended by:

    Since the only safe gun, is no gun, a ban on all civilian possession of semi-automatic weapons of any type.  Waivers may be considered under certain, extremely tightly regulated circumstances.

    Mental health screenings and background checks for all gun owners and possibly household members. Longer waiting periods and extensive background checks upon purchase of new guns.

    A limit on the number of firearms one person can own. We can discuss what what would be a reasonable limit.

    New taxes, fees, licenses on guns, ammo and accessories to pay for it.

    We can discuss lengths of grace periods for turning in illegal weapons and those in excess of mandated limits as well as compliance with mental health screenins. We can also discuss nature of penalties for non-compliance and enforcement entities.

    What else?

    This post is dedicated to myself, without whom, I'd be somebody else. Though I'd still be an asshole. My Music: []

    by Beetwasher on Mon Dec 17, 2012 at 07:18:44 AM PST

    •  Insurance Riders (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      lirtydies, Beetwasher

      on Homeowners/Renters insurance.  Require $2M personal liability riders for each gun in the home.  

      End ALL online ammo sales.

      Require all ammo sales be registered then reported to local law enforcement.

      QUADRUPLE the Mental Health Budgets and pay for it by licenses, fees, taxes on gun sales.

      Why do Republicans Hate Americans?

      by Caniac41 on Mon Dec 17, 2012 at 07:48:45 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Where are our priorities? (0+ / 0-)

    My heart goes out to the families, who lost the loved ones.

    I wounder if the President would do the same or this is just noise

    "As many as 168 ~ 174 children have been killed in drone strikes in Pakistan during the past seven years as the CIA has intensified its secret programme against militants along the Afghan border."

  •  I Don't Care What SCOTUS Says (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Caniac41, lirtydies

    The second amendment is one amendment, not two:

    "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."
    I don't care what SCOTUS says, you can't separate the first part of this amendment from its second part.  And if you go back to the time of our Founding Fathers (as conservatives often like to do, but not in this case), the reason for the linkage of these parts into a single amendment is clear (IMHO).  They wanted a well regulated Militia to have guns so that they would be ready to supplement the regular army in the Country's defense as they had done during the then recent Revolutionary War.  This is further supported by the fact that the amendment states that the Militia is necessary for the security of the free State, which was definitely true during our Founding Fathers time.  If they simply wanted the amendment to allow people in general to have guns, there is no logical reason why they would have mentioned the part about the Militia at all.

    Flash forward to today and the well regulated Militia, it can be argued is our National Guard and Reserves, meaning that their right to keep and bear arms cannot be infringed.  But for the rest of us, I don't see anything in the second amendment that prevents the Congress from making laws which provide at least some infringement on the sale and possession of guns.

    That's my interpretation, for what its worth.  

    "Some men see things as they are and ask, 'Why?' I dream of things that never were and ask, 'Why not?"

    by Doctor Who on Mon Dec 17, 2012 at 07:26:34 AM PST

  •  Yet an ad on this site glorifies violence (0+ / 0-)

    Just on the top right top corner of the front page is an ad for a kitchen knife holder by Rafaelle Lannelle. It features mannequin of a man with knife slots all over vital parts of his body, housing kitchen knives. And that's supposed to be "cute". Sad.

    "What the cynics fail to understand is that the ground has shifted beneath them." -- Pres. Obama (1/20/2009)

    by zizi on Mon Dec 17, 2012 at 07:30:52 AM PST

  •  A Number of Photo's (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    From last nights Newtown vigil:

    President Obama attends Newtown vigil, offers 'love and prayers of a nation' to families of Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting victims

    Of the President with the families of the shooting victims.

    Vets On FLOTUS and SLOTUS, "Best - Ever": "We haven't had this kind of visibility from the White House—ever." Joyce Raezer - Dec. 30, 2011

    by jimstaro on Mon Dec 17, 2012 at 07:35:05 AM PST

  •  "Assault" weapons are not the problem (0+ / 0-)

    Many of the recent mass shooting have not used assault weapons; in those the shooter relied on pistols with high capacity or even "normal" magazines (the typical full-sized 9mm pistol has a capacity of 15-19 rounds).  Addressing only military-style weapons will not solve the entire problem and simply push it around (i.e., into normal semi-automatic pistols as well as not-quite-military semi-automatic rifles).  

    Probably the most effective and feasible first step is to have a true ban on high capacity magazines.  They were banned nationally for a while, but because pre-ban magazines were allowed to be sold, there was never a shortage of them.  A true ban will need to make possession of high capacity magazines a fairly serious crime.  This needs to be coupled with a government-sponsored buy-back program which will pay a reasonable price for magazines turned in during the grace period.  The advantage to this approach is that no guns are banned and the magazines are bought-back rather than being confiscated.  While not eliminating the potential for large shootings, this measure can reduce the death toll.

    The only other alternative is to eliminate semi-automatic weapons entirely except perhaps for those with modestly-sized built-in magazines.  It's not the rate-of-fire that makes the semi-automatic weapon so dangerous as the ability to quickly reload and thus sustain deadly fire for very long periods of time.  No one outside a war zone needs that much fire power.  Hunters already have severe restrictions on the magazine capacity while hunting.  Self defense does not require the ability to fire huge number of shots and doing so is likely to result in third parties being shot; if people were routinely having to defend themselves in firefights, then we've got problems that should not be solved by having society engage in an small-arms race.

    Something needs to be done and done before this latest outrage fades into the American memory-hole, at least until the next, seemingly inevitable atrocity occurs.  

    My country, right or wrong; if right, to be kept right; and if wrong, to be set right.—Carl Schurz
    Give 'em hell, Barry—Me

    by KingBolete on Mon Dec 17, 2012 at 08:04:01 AM PST

  •  dear mr president (0+ / 0-)

    if you care so much about mass killings then why do you vilify and seek to have extradited the founder of wikileaks who exposed the government murder of innocent civilians?

    more importantly, what kind of mind control do you use to make your [anti-war] supporters forget all about this???

  •  How the president didn't break down sobbing... (0+ / 0-)

    ...when he read off the names of those kids, I will never know.  Just seeing their names in print makes me cry.

    “You will never do anything in this world without courage. It is the greatest quality of the mind next to honor.” - Aristotle

    by Tribble13 on Mon Dec 17, 2012 at 12:29:33 PM PST

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site