Yahoo "News" Article on radical 2A Limit Proposals - with a glimmer of hope...

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

mugsy

Sharpshooter
Supporting Member
Special Hen Supporter
Joined
May 20, 2011
Messages
4,538
Reaction score
1,112
Location
South West, OK
I found this lead article on Yahoo's (laughable) News:

http://news.yahoo.com/white-house-mulls-broader-gun-control-washington-post-154313906--finance.html

Here is the text version (bold added by me):

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The White House is weighing a far broader approach to curbing U.S. gun violence than just reinstating a ban on assault weapons and high-capacity magazines, the Washington Post reported on Sunday.
A working group led by Vice President Joseph Biden is seriously considering measures that would require universal background checks for gun buyers and track the movement and sale of weapons through a national database, the newspaper said.
The measures would also strengthen mental health checks and stiffen penalties for carrying guns near schools or giving them to minors, the Post said. The approach is backed by law enforcement leaders, it said.
President Barack Obama assigned Biden the job of designing the strategy after the massacre at a Newtown, Connecticut, elementary school last month that killed 20 children and six adults.
To sell such changes, the White House is developing strategies to work around the National Rifle Association (NRA), the powerful gun lobby.
They include rallying support from Wal-Mart Stores Inc and other gun retailers for measures that would benefit their businesses, the Post said.
NEW YORK MAYOR
The White House has been in contact with advisers to New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, a gun control advocate who could emerge as a surrogate for the administration's agenda, the paper said.
The Post cited several people involved in the administration's talks on gun control for its story. They included Dan Gross, president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, and Chuck Wexler, executive director of the Police Executive Research Forum.
The White House had no immediate comment on the Post story. A White House spokesman told the newspaper that Biden's group was in the middle of its review and had not decided on its final recommendations.
The NRA has successfully lobbied federal lawmakers to stop major new gun restrictions since a 1994 assault weapons ban, which expired in 2004. The ban also prohibited ammunition magazines holding more than 10 rounds.
When asked if Congress will entertain new gun regulation, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell said on NBC's "Meet the Press" that lawmakers needed to see Biden's recommendations.
"There will be plenty of time to take a look at their recommendations once they come forward," he said.
McConnell, a Kentucky Republican, said that for the next three months Washington's debates would center on federal spending and the rising debt.
Democratic Senator Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota, an NRA member, said on ABC's "This Week with George Stephanopolous" that the reported proposals were "way in extreme" and would not pass.
(Reporting by Ian Simpson and Roberta Rampton; Editing by Sandra Maler)


I found Sen Heitkamp's comment the most uplifting part of this article about an article.
 
Joined
Aug 16, 2012
Messages
8,007
Reaction score
6,434
Location
Shawnee, OK
Biden is an embarrassment. That part about stiffer penalties for people carrying near schools just shows how stupid he really is. I guess he thinks that enacting tougher penalties criminals will just say "well, I better not do that". Criminals don't use rational thought. They operate on impulse. Look what happened on CT, and that was a gun free zone. That really stopped that shooting from happening. Morons.
 

mugsy

Sharpshooter
Supporting Member
Special Hen Supporter
Joined
May 20, 2011
Messages
4,538
Reaction score
1,112
Location
South West, OK
I completely agree - the logic of "Gun Free" Zones escapes me. How are they expected to actually produce safer schools?
If I were to, for example, accidentally walk my dog, while I am armed, past/through a "Gun Free" zone and an officer were to notice my gun then arrest me - who will have been made safer? The only real purpose seems to be able to pile on charges after the fact of some other crime being committed.

Now, I seem to recall that when I lived in Georgia there was a law on the books that said carrying a weapon anywhere with intent to commit a crime or harm to another was a crime in and of itself. I can at least understand the reasoning behind that law - even if I don't see how it can be ascertained in advance, in most cases, what someone "intends".
 

abajaj11

Sharpshooter
Special Hen
Joined
Mar 26, 2008
Messages
1,035
Reaction score
31
Location
Tulsa
They are throwing distractions like this article, our way to confuse and scare.
Their overall goal is registration which will lead to confiscation.
Check out:
http://gunwatch.blogspot.com/2012/12/gun-registration-is-gun-confiscation.html
They will ultimately "compromise" and agree for now only to mandate "background checks for ALL sales". This will have been their goal all along because this will inevitably lead to gun registration and then confiscation. Read the link above to understand why. They are looking at a 4 year plan to disarm America.
Just my guess.
:)
 

Latest posts

Top Bottom