What do you think of Obama’s actions to reduce gun violence?

Saying that America faces a “gun violence epidemic,” President Obama is taking “a series of common-sense executive actions” to reduce gun violence Tuesday, the White House says. First among the measures: tighter rules on background checks for gun buyers.

The president’s plan rests on four main points:

• Background Checks: Require all gun sellers — including online and at gun shows — to have a license and perform background checks. Have the FBI overhaul the existing background-check system.
• Enforcement: Improve the use of America’s existing gun laws, and add 200 new agents to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.
• Mental Health: Remove barriers that can keep states from reporting and sharing information about people barred from owning guns for mental health reasons, and spend $500 million to increase access to mental health care.
• Technology: Push for research in gun safety technology, such as “smart guns” that can only be fired by authorized users. The research would be done by the Departments of Defense, Justice, and Homeland Security. The White House notes the federal government is “the single largest purchaser of firearms in the country.”

Today’s Question: What do you think of Obama’s actions to reduce gun violence?

Are you passionate about guns or gun violence? Help inform MPR’s coverage on this issue by joining the Public Insight Network.

  • kevins

    The four points seem reasonable to me.

  • krisbrowne42

    Pretty much common sense. Meaning the GOP and NRA are going to paint this as the sky falling.

    I’d like to see much more, akin to the various countries where 100k people don’t die a year to guns, but as a first step, and without having to trust congress to do their jobs, what else can he do.

  • Laura

    8000 gun deaths last year was compared to traffic fatalities. Really? Between January and June 2015 – not the whole year – there were 19,000 traffic deaths plus “Nearly 2.3 million “serious injuries,” which the NSC defines as those requiring medical consultation, were sustained during the six-month period, up 30 percent when compared with the first half of 2014.” Gun violence is visceral while traffic death and serious injury has become acceptable?

  • JJ

    Yet obesity, heart disease, diabetes run keep killing, and mental health continues to be ignored. How many of these shootings are due to mental health problems. In a drunk driving death does the car kill or the drunk driver?

    • “mental health continues to be ignored”

      Did you not see the 4th bullet as listed above?

      • JJ

        Thank you but yes I did. As an individual that responds to emergency needs I can tell you that mental health is an issue that continues to haunt us and throwing 500 million at it is a drop in the bucket. The training received by healthcare and EMS is dismal.

        • Moira Heffron

          And, apparently, by many police departments.

        • I agree that 500 million is a drop in the bucket but why write off a small step in the right direction? Perhaps the 500 million will be used to raise awareness for Mental Health so that additional funding can be secured in the future?

          We should strive to focus on what is most important and that is the health and safety of our society while maintaining realistic expectations.

        • LookAtMe -I-am-ur-captain

          at the least this $$ can help raise awareness and remove the stigma on this. Any money for this effort is better than zero.

    • Dave

      Did you hear about the fat guy who killed 13 people with his fat?

  • Flex Kay

    You can create thousands of laws trying to solve the so-called “gun
    problems” but, until we finally admit to the real reason we as a society
    have these issues. Yes, WE are the problem, raising a generation
    without compassion, without regard for life of any kind, without soul.
    We have always blamed something other than ourselves for the problems we
    create and this is just one more example of that.

    • Dave

      It has nothing to do with any of that. That’s all a distraction.

      The problem is guns and only guns.

      • Flex Kay

        BULL

      • Gary F

        So take them all away from us?

    • PaulJ

      I don’t know if our generations are any different from any other. But that’s no reason for politicians not to tinker with solutions, as hopeless as it is.

    • JJ

      I agree with you. Is this a “gun problem” or a societal problem? First we blamed handguns now it is assault styled guns. There are fewer households with guns than when President Johnson tried to implement gun control in 1969. I think we have a people problem! Will gun legislation make us “feel safe” or will it actually make us safer?

      • Moira Heffron

        It’s both-and. BTW, JJ, you may indeed be right, but where is that statistic about households with guns from?

        • JJ

          Moira, It is from a US News and world report from Seth Cline from 2013. I have a print out…Let me see if I can find an online link.

  • Gary F

    Nothing he did today is going to reduce gun violence. That’s the problem.

    • Nate21

      What I don’t hear from ‘gun people’ are possible solutions that could reduce gun violence. How do we get there? I have little problem with gun ownership if it comes with a much smaller cost to society. The President isn’t a fool he knows full well his EO will have little impact but what’s his alternative? Sit on his hands while the violence continues.

      • Gary F

        1. Get rid of gun free zones. Thats a joke.

        2. Improve reporting to the NICS system.

        http://www.fixnics.org/staterankings.cfm

        3. Actually prosecute gun crime.

        http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/washington-whispers/2013/03/28/chicago-los-angeles-new-york-prosecuted-fewest-federal-gun-crimes

        There is a start,

        • Jeff

          I would advocate for a list of mentally unstable people to be added to the list of people who are not allowed to purchase guns. You can only get on or off the list with a court order or 2+ doctors that deem a person to be mentally unstable (or stable again with treatment).

          • Gary F

            This is a touchy subject. What we do know is that after many run ins with the law and doctors, some people probably need to added to the list. Putting every kid who ever took Adderol or Riddilen, or seen a doctor because they need to figure some things out, no.

          • LookAtMe -I-am-ur-captain

            Suicide from guns is also the bigger problem too…the issue is people who have problems snap and easy reach of a gun either kills them or kills many others. I think allowing mental health workers to alert if they see serious danger is a good thing but not sure if this addresses that.

          • Jeff

            Sure, but the specifics of the case could be analyzed and logic applied…the doctors and court would have to determine that the person is a danger to themselves or others…which would obviously not apply in the case of ADD.

          • kevins

            Jeff..devil would be in the details on that proposal, not the least of which is how to define who is “mentally unstable”. Sounds analogous to the death panel hysteria foisted by notable Repubs. several years ago. Two or more doctors or a court making that decision…would a fellow hoarding guns because he believes the government is coming to get the firearms be eligible for the list?

          • Jeff

            Mentally unstable would mean a danger to themselves or others.

        • Nate21

          That is a start but I don’t know that it would have prevented many of the mass shootings. Are there ways to at least reduce the damage of motivated destructive individuals. Reduce fire rate/capacity? Smart Technologies? Limit the amount of ammunition you can possess? I can only purchase 2 boxes of sudafed with ID because we are worried about meth. I need to provide ID to sell scrap metal because we are worried about theft. Why not under the ‘well regulated’ provision can we not place some limits on firearms.

          One more point. To improve points 2 and 3 we will have to be ok with the government spending money on those programs.

          • Craig Mueller

            All the above and Obama’s action’s only create more market for organzied crime, Prohibition proves that. Keep the criiminals in jail, identify people with mental health / terror threats – that will take immediate effect. Any gun law changes does nothing about the gzillion guns already, except create more oppurtunities for organized crime.. Also – how does any gun law address other methods of mass violence??

          • Nate21

            Yes, there are too many guns in circulation to realistically make major changes to ownership rules. That’s why I think we could focus on ammunition possession and improving future weapons safety features. I’m most interested in ways to reduce the damage someone can inflict. A violent person can choose many methods for violence. They prefer guns, for their ease of use and maximum destructive force. It is much harder to stab 20 people than to shoot them. Guns are also the preferred method of suicide attempts and unfortunately successes. I just think as a culture we should be okay with making it harder for gun violence to happen, and still retain our rights.

      • LookAtMe -I-am-ur-captain

        Thats the problem – we have a do-nothing congress that has the lowest rating. Interestingly many of these GOP (Paul Ryan for ex)) were ok with plugging holes or more help for mental health UNTIL Obama brings it up…they just dont care as long its a political fight.

      • DrunkSpock

        Arm everyone.

      • jim

        we could do better in the courts. we should be asking why this guy gets 3 years instead of 30. this is one of many examples. http://www.twincities.com/localnews/ci_29308500/minneapolis-ex-boyfriend-who-shot-at-car-baby

  • Jeff

    I think Obama has set a horrible precedent by making this change in the law unilaterally. If he had the power to do this all along why did he wait until he was a lame duck and I would like liberals to imagine the same thing being done with abortion, using an executive order to make partial birth abortion illegal…would that be fine with everyone to just bypass congress with such a decree?

    • Jeff

      This reminds me of when Harry Reid changed the rules in the Senate to only require a majority when making judicial appointments instead of the previous rule of a filibuster. If that rule can be broken for lower court appointments then I see no problem for breaking the rule for the Supreme Court in the future.

    • LookAtMe -I-am-ur-captain

      you are getting your panties in a wad!! relax most gun owners want this but the gun lobby got its tight grip on the GOP’s nuts all along and didnt allow the toomey/mancin bill to pass.

      • Jeff

        So let me get this straight that the “ends justify the means”, correct?

        • LookAtMe -I-am-ur-captain

          What is wrong with having common sense laws that plug loopholes? This really should not be a liberal vs conservative issue – not sure how we got here in the last decade or so. But these actions have many provisions – I dont say its some perfect law but will help. Another issue I have is congress prevented even study of gun violence!! whats with that?

          • Jeff

            So let me get this straight a grandfather handing a family gun down to a grandchild should have to go through a full background check on his own grandchild he’s known since birth because you feel it’s a loophole?

          • LookAtMe -I-am-ur-captain

            You will be surprised – many american parents (forget grand fathers) dont know what their child is unto…today when you give a car to your child one goes thru a process to transfer via the local traffic authority..why cant we do this for a dangerous (lets be honest a gun is not a toy) weapon ? Esp if the process can be simplified….why do you object to more gun safety – making guns to easily triggered.

          • Jeff

            Hey if that’s what you’re advocating for that’s fine but just get politicians to go out there and clearly explain that’s what they’re going to do…hiding behind the terminology of “universal background checks” without getting specific about how individuals might be affected is dishonest.

          • DrunkSpock

            Stupid ‘Constitution’ loop hole! Ruins all Obama’s big plans…

      • DrunkSpock

        No most gun owners don’t want this and you don’t get to speak for us.

  • jphan

    Absolutely needed; long overdue! This is the only major country in the world that has gun violence at this level and all the research shows that when you take such steps, gun violence significantly decreases. Its not just the ease of getting guns; its the culture and the odd belief (never borne out) that arming more people makes us safer. All the responsible people can keep their weapons so stop with that ridiculous argument! Even the majority of conservatives and gun owners back expanded background checks! This is an epidemic – innocent people and kids are being killed and I applaud the President’s actions as well as his sentiments!

    • DrunkSpock

      funny how you have to qualify your statements with ‘major’ country. Obviously if you look at all the countries and not just ‘major’ ones, the picture gun prohibition paints is much, much bleaker.

      How will you prevent criminals from stealing guns from legal gun owners? Disarm everyone? And when criminals make guns,since it is a fairly lowtech enterprise? Or import them? Cocaine is illegal, afaik its not producable in America because our climate is not appropriate, yet it’s everywhere.

  • Moira Heffron

    Surely these things will help. Desperately need to turn the tide on this.

    • DrunkSpock

      Objectively, nothing he mentioned would have stopped or hindered any mass shooting that I am aware of. It will certainly create new fatalities though, when unarmed people are left to the whim of well armed criminals. No compassion for them though eh.

  • Jeff

    Apparently this is a thing, people who receive Social Security benefits and have someone else handle their finances won’t be able to buy a gun as per Obama’s new law changes:

    http://goo.gl/AQEIuX

    • LookAtMe -I-am-ur-captain

      as long there is mental health issue – sorry!…this is like those hypothetical death panels when Obamacare was rolled out!! F.U.D – but failed here.

      • DrunkSpock

        There is not necessarily any ‘mental health issue’, whatever the hell that is.

        Crazy people can choke people to death too, are you going to outlaw hands next? Regulate usage, not ownership.

  • Gary F

    But Obama cried, so it has to be the right thing to do.

    • Jeff

      The parallels to abortion are so clear, just imagine if a president truly believed fetuses were children and wrote an executive order to stop their deaths in late term abortions…the president could cry and enact his law but would liberals defend that president’s power? Nope, liberal double standard.

      BTW, I’m pro-choice but I have the ability to see things from a different perspective…something that liberals appear to be lacking these days.

      • LookAtMe -I-am-ur-captain

        thats totally weird and disingenuous argument…you know there is much debate about when a fetus is really a human person? not so for the dead child – shot to death violently by a crazy person.

        • Jeff

          So you don’t think there’s much debate about whether these gun laws would prevent any the previous mass shootings?

        • BWMorlan

          As an argument about an issue, perhaps linking abortion to gun control is disingenuous, but as a question of whether a strongly emotional argument can be used to lead to bad decisions, Jeff raises an extremely good point. Lawyers will tell you that hard cases (emotionally charged examples) make bad law. The President is trying to move the question from the Constitutional issues over to the emotional issues as if emotion trumps the Constitutional. It only changes the Overton window, in a manner similar to raising the Nazis (Godwin’s Law), an attempt to make being for or against a moral rather than rational issue.

          • LookAtMe -I-am-ur-captain

            What is the constitutional issue here? No body is repealing 2nd. This just makes background checks uniform. I agree with the idea that its not where you sell a gun that dictates check but the fact you sell it. Nobody is confiscating guns. People are getting rallied by emotions.

          • BWMorlan

            The Constitutional issue is whether the President can change laws or is that role reserved for Congress. The fact that he blames a “do-nothing” Congress is pretty strong evidence that even the President is aware that his actions are rightly those of the Congress. The Constitutional issue, as you note, is NOT about repealing the 2nd amendment.

          • LookAtMe -I-am-ur-captain

            He is not changing the law – he is really tinkering with existing law so people arent treated differently based on how they get the gun. Period.
            Tell me one product that needs safety – you have to seek some type of approval, that you can get by using loop holes like the internet or gun show…hell if I want to even donate my car – I have to go to the local traffic authority to transfer ownership…or try buying contact lens online without a prescription impossible.

      • kevins

        Hey Jeff, welcome back! But if abortion, late term or not, could be stopped by executive order, why have none of the Repub. admins. done that? Also, if the parallel continues, a person who used a firearm to kill someone could be a murderer…are you saying that a woman who chooses abortion could be a murderer? And if so, would that be because of the executive order, or the existing law? BTW, would the Repub. Pres. cry when proposing any executive order? Just curious about your thoughts.

        • Jeff

          If Obama had this power all along why did he wait until 8 years into his administration, same question is completely relevant to our current situation…thanks for bringing it up and making my point for me.

      • DrunkSpock

        Fake liberals you mean. I’m a liberal and I hate Obama. Real liberals do not try to take your rights away or silence dissent with threats of ‘hate crime investigations by the DOJ’.

    • Thomas Dixon

      Sociopaths are talented at that.

  • Pearly

    • Background Checks: Require all gun sellers — including online and at gun shows — to have a license and perform background checks. Have the FBI overhaul the existing background-check system.

    .

    Does this mean I can or cant buy a gun in a north Minneapolis alley any more

    • Sir Real

      You might have to try a little harder. Sorry ’bout that.

    • DrunkSpock

      Sure you can but it won’t be legal. That hasn’t stopped anyone yet though. And actually it is probably still legal, if you’re only buying one gun and the seller doesn’t make a business of selling guns.

  • The President is a good man. It is unfortunate when he could use more support, the Congress with the lowest approval rating in US history (for the longest amount of time too) sits on their hands and ‘waits’ for America to fix it’s self. .

    • Thomas Dixon

      The president is a vile scumbag traitor who’s sole purpose is to destroy America. There will be no justice until he is led away in handcuffs.

      • DrunkSpock

        Well said. Arrest that SOB immediately.

  • Mark in Ohio

    I have three thoughts I’d like to add to the discussion.

    1. I wonder about the discussion about preventing those on the TSA watch list from buying firearms. I have wondered how this could work, as the administration refuses to acknowledge how one gets added to the list, or if someone is on the list, and there is no method listed for someone to dispute their being on the list. I would say that is a very problematic proposal, and one ripe for abuse.

    2. I’m tired of everyone talking about the “Gun Show Loophole”. I’ve been to many gun shows and most of the vendors are dealers who run background checks on all of their customers, as required by law. This is the same thing you will find with Internet sales, as shipping firearms requires that they go to a licensed dealer, who will do the background check. The only “loophole” that exists is for private sale between two parties, as in you selling a gun you own to your neighbor. You will find one or two people at these shows doing just that, selling off their collection. There are huge logistical challenges to trying to stop this.

    3. I’m very tired of hearing people talk about “powerful assault weapons”. The AR-15, the boogieman of many anti-gunners, in most configurations fires a fairly small cartridge. The most common cartridge for it, .223, is too small to legally use for hunting deer in most states. It is more commonly used for hunting prairie dogs and varmints. The typical deer rifle cartridge is much more powerful. The AR-15 is a popular rifle because it’s ergonomic, easy to customize, and comfortable to shoot. It can’t shoot any faster than any other semi-automatic rifle out there, including many non-objectionable deer rifles. The civilian (Semi-automatic) versions can’t fire in fully automatic mode (hold down the trigger and multiple bullets come out), as the military versions can. Most also don’t realize that it’s a 50+ year old design, first released in civilian (semi-automatic) trim in or around 1963.

    • LookAtMe -I-am-ur-captain

      Mark on (1) I can see your point on this – but I would think that most no-fly lists are similar to how banks keep a list of terrorists who cannot send $$ to overseas organizations or people deemed bad to US. I do have a problem that a home grown terrorist cannot get on a plane but go buy tons of weapons using loop holes (no background check) and kill us.

      • DrunkSpock

        No fly list = no due process, you don’t get to know who your accuser is or what you’re accused of, and there’s no realistic process for getting off the list, especially if you’re too poor to afford an expensive lawyer. So it is unconstitutional. Ted Kennedy was on the no fly list and it took him 3 weeks to get off of it, what chance do you or I have?

        No fly list gun prohibition = immediate revolution.

      • Mark in Ohio

        My objection to the no-fly list is that they are opaque lists with no definition to how one gets on or off of the list. The lists of people frozen out of the international banking system for various reasons is public and well defined. You typically hear it announced whenever sanctions are placed against a country and its officials.

        I don’t think that the loopholes that exist would allow anyone to go buy tons of weapons, as it would be very difficult to obtain large quantities of weapons in this country outside of commercial channels generating the mandated legal paperwork. Outside of this country, that may be a different story and I can’t say. As we already have established illegal businesses transporting TONS of illegal drugs into this country, I could see them starting to strap a gun or ammo to every package of drugs they ship, like a prize in a cracker jack box. There is nothing magical about making a firearm. Any machinist that can make a part for a car engine can make a part for a firearm, as the materials, methods, and tolerances are basically the same. As the cartels are already manufacturing submarines, adding firearms manufacturing capability wouldn’t be a stretch.

        • LookAtMe -I-am-ur-captain

          Again I feel much like no fly lists (created after 9/11) now has a clear process for citizens to check – this no-sale list process will evolve. President only hi-lighted and provided overview. Why don’t we wait to see ?

      • Jeff

        Mind explaining how Ted Kennedy got on the terrorist watch list?

    • Johnny Le

      What gun shows did you go to? I was in West Virginia a couple of years ago, and they raffled off rifles. Winners just went up and take them. No one asked a single question.

      • Mark in Ohio

        I’ve gone to several gun shows a year, in four different towns in Ohio over the past 10 years of so, and a few back in North Carolina, when I lived there.

        I won’t dispute that raffles take place. I’ve even had a ticket for a few of them. I’ve also never won any of them. I would say that it’s a highly unreliable way to obtain a firearm for nefarious purposes, and that the total number of raffles in the country is very small.

        One thing really puzzles me about the whole announcement. The biggest point was the announcement about those selling firearms commercially having to register and perform background checks. This was already the law, so there is no change unless they are making a radical change to the definition of those selling firearms commercially. If not, then what was the point of the announcement. If they are making a radical change to the definition, then it seems to me that you are entering the realm of lawyereese, and trying to redefine words to mean something they don’t.

        I would be greatly in favor of them just ramping up enforcement of the laws already on the books. Prosecute those trying to buy a firearm illegally and those posing as straw buyers.

  • Sue de Nim

    First, let’s be clear: in the United States of America it is much too easy for people who should not have guns to get them. Those who disagree with that glaringly obvious premise should not expect to have their opinions on the subject taken seriously. If it’s true that “Guns don’t kill people; people kill people,” then having controls over who is allowed to have guns makes a lot of sense. The president’s action is not much, but it’s the most he can do as long as Congress continues to abdicate its responsibility.

    On the other hand, there’s too much focus on mental illness in discussions of this issue, and I worry that it’s going to further stigmatize people who need help. Yes, there should be some kind of mental health screening, but most people who commit crimes with guns are criminals, plain and simple, not mentally ill in a clinical sense. Moreover, people with mental illness are not more likely to commit gun crimes than others are, but they are more likely to be victims. If this focus on mental illness becomes a disincentive to seek help (“If I ask my doctor for an antidepressant, am I going to be put on a government no-gun list?”), we may wind up doing more harm than good.

    • Thomas Dixon

      Congress is doing it’s job by following the second amendment It is they who make laws not our dictator. Read the constitution and understand the separation of power.

      • Sue de Nim

        You’re the one who needs to better understand the separation of powers. Obama is not making laws. He’s proposing to change the regulations by which the executive branch administers the laws on the books, which is entirely within his constitutional authority. As for Congress, the courts have consistently held that it’s no violation of the 2nd Amendment to restrict ownership of guns by those who cannot be trusted with them. The refusal of Congress to pass universal background checks is an abdication of of its responsibility.

  • I deeply regret that President Obama was not able to do more, but it’s really up to the electorate now. Unfortunately gun advocacy helps finance politicians, so the ideal of our democracy is somewhat short circuited by the few in the dance of democracy and capitalism. I feel better education would put more people on the side of more firearm control, but ignorance to some is bliss.

    • Thomas Dixon

      Ignorance is wishing a president who ignores the constitution has more power to act as a king.

      • DrunkSpock

        You sound mentally ill, surrender your weapons.

      • You assert it, but MY reading of the constitution indicates you’re full of it up to your ears.

  • Ignatius Ibsage

    obama (like all the gun confiscation crowd e,g. bloomberg et all) is simply trying to chip away at the second amendment, knowing he can’t attack it directly. law biding citizens who own and carry guns aren’t the problem; they’re the solution. creeping registration leading to mass government confiscation is the real issue.

    • Johnny Le

      If everyone carries guns without licence or registration, how do we know which ones are law biding citizens and which ones are not? If law biding citizens are not the problem, then don’t blend into one.

      • DrunkSpock

        You can tell which ones are law abiding by observing which ones are following the law. Regulation of ownership is unrealistic and unacceptable, it’s usage that needs regulated (effectively).

  • Gary F

    If Obama is so concerned about gun crime why doesn’t he have someone running the BTAFE? No leadership, that’s Obama’s style.

  • Johnny Le

    Gun violence is a big issue in the US. The first solution is never the best solution. Not even the fourth or the fifth, but doing nothing will never solve anything. So let’s start here and tweak it along the way.

    The gun supporters keep screaming “that’s not the solution.” Everyone knows that, but if you don’t allow anyone to do anything gun related, how are we going to find the solution?

    Nobody wants to kill off the second amendment, and we’re not the only country that allows guns, but we’re the only one with extreme gun violence. So we have to allow the authority to run some experiments to find out what work and what doesn’t work.

    • Thomas Dixon

      Guns don’t do anything. People do. The majority of people who use guns to harm others are black males shooting other black males. The causes of this are a breakdown in the black family. If you want to lessen “gun violence”, start speaking about the breakdown in the black family.

      • DrunkSpock

        Solution to drunk driving: Arrest the car and sue Toyota. Thanks, Obama.

    • DrunkSpock

      Just because you can’t accept the solution does not mean you should keep making the problem worse. The only answer is a broadly armed populace. That’s it. DEAL WITH IT.

    • James Keeler

      The vast majority relates directly to the war on drugs. Stop that, and the majority of gun violence goes away. As for the rare mass shootings, consider that, even with the increased frequency under this administration, public swimming pools alone count for 10 to 20 times the slaughter as those (CDC, Statistics on Mortality and Morbidity). Mr. Obama has publicly stated that he does not believe the people should possess arms, so yes, some do want to kill off the second amendment. Taking away the right of revolution (Federalist Papers, et al), and the commission of treason by the Executive branch, is what will not work for the survival of a Democratic-Republic.

    • jim

      we could get serious about gun crime in the courts. we could all agree that 3 years ain’t enough for this guy. 30 years would be better if we really cared. read all about it. http://www.twincities.com/localnews/ci_29308500/minneapolis-ex-boyfriend-who-shot-at-car-baby

  • patkelly03
  • Daniel

    So long as I have any Rights…I see no reason why I should want to part with any of them. No amount of tears can change that.

  • Gary F

    I sure hope Kathy Griffin is going to be on with Anderson Cooper Thursday night!

  • Hubert H

    The President’s heart is in the right place, but he is abusing the Executive Order. In the last couple of decades Presidents have been doing this more. The President is not the king. I want more gun control, but Congress must decide this, then the Supreme Court must decide if its laws are Constitutional. It’s all about checks and balances and this continues a very bad precedent. The President doesn’t determine our Constitutional Rights. That’s the Supreme Court.

  • Thomas Dixon

    Obama has no interest in reducing violence. His only goal is to weaken American citizens. It cannot be any clearer. Wake up people.

  • DrunkSpock

    Doctors do not get to take away your rights. Obama has gone too far with his executive overreach. I voted for him, twice, but now I say it is time to impeach Obama for failure to uphold the Constitution. If he had limited his attempt to repeal HIPAA to only allow the courts to report their findings to the NICS, I would be fine with that. Involving doctors, therapists, psychologists, psychiatrists, social workers and/or the guy that changes the diapers at the retirement home into the decision of whether or not you get to defend yourself and your family is completely unacceptable.

  • Masacol

    None of those measures would have stopped the blood-sheds President Obama so eloquently cried about. This is just politics with righteousness and emotions tied in. One step in reducing gun violence would be to tread drugs as a medical condition and not legal, as well as elimination the insane drug laws.

  • LOLOMFG

    Sorry, what did he say?
    I lose interest every time some politician turns propagandist and tells me about suicides as a rationale for gun control…

  • Morgan

    Anyone who supports gun control laws and measures is a traitor… plain and simple. Traitors are to be captured, charged and indicted by military tribunal and tried as enemies of the state and people. Upon conviction, they are to be publicly executed by firing squad or hung until dead. Enough is enough.

    • kevins

      Ah…missed civics class in high school eh?

      • LookAtMe -I-am-ur-captain

        and missing some some marbles too 🙂

  • MrE85

    It a small action, but it is action, which is more than Congress has done. I support our President.

  • whitedoggie44

    I have been robbed twice in my life with a gun pointed at my head. Hate guns, always hated guns and if we could eliminate all guns in the country, It would improve the lives of everyone.

    I do support Obama on this measure and I am neither an Obama supporter or a left wing liberal.

    I see guns as creating far more damage to the lives of citizens than any material benefit

    • Sue de Nim

      I’m no right wing reactionary, but I would not apply that sentiment to all guns, only to handguns. I’m guessing that in each case the gun pointed at your head was not a deer rife, a shotgun, or even an AR-15. Long guns are rarely used in committing crimes. It’s the easy availability of concealable handguns that makes it much to easy for people to use guns criminally.

  • Gary F

    Rut row, Associated Press says Obama’s new plan wouldn’t have stopped mass killings. http://hotair.com/archives/2016/01/06/ap-fact-check-obama-gun-control-actions-wouldnt-have-stopped-any-mass-shooting/

    • LookAtMe -I-am-ur-captain

      It may prevent the next one…my question is why have somebody do a background check at a brick/mortar store bit not at the gun show…they are selling the same product. Also why does congress prevent from studying the effect of gun related deaths ?

      • Gary F

        You dont go to many gun shows do you? In Minnesota, every dealer in the show has to put EVERY sale thru a NICS Check. Period. Someone selling a fire arm in a parking lot of a gun show, parking lot of a Cabelas, or out of a trunk in Frogtown, doesn’t need a background check. The “gun show loophole” is a very intentionally deceptive term made to cover all personal firearms transactions. In reality, it hurts the good guys, because the bad guys wont follow the law anyways.

        Government research for gun laws! Sure! Just wait until President Cruz makes sure that research is not biased!

        • LookAtMe -I-am-ur-captain

          What is happening in Minnesota doesnt happen across all gun shows? Have you been to any outside MN? Why should somebody selling out of car trunk not have to follow? what is the logic? the same ‘unsafe product’ is being sold – how do you ensure all such buyers are not on no-fly lists etc…your logic is not very sound…saying bad guys wont follow means we shouldnt have the law… applies to every thing in our life…the bad restaurant that serves food infected with salmonella or the crazy driver who doesn’t follow road traffic killing people..when we can have food or road safety laws why not for guns which is lethal if not handled properly.

          Now Cruz…the cuban/canadian ? got to be kidding me – he has no chance of winning – he barely made it in TX – by moving so far right.. he will appear really stupid trying to appeal to centrist voters esp. the younger like me who really dont care about social issues – like our government out of bedroom!

        • KTN

          “n Minnesota, every dealer in the show has to put EVERY sale thru a NICS Check. Period.”
          Nope, not so much. I was at a show in December with a buddy (I just go for the amusement factor of a bunch of paranoid white guys lurking around afraid of everything), but the one seller we spoke with specifically said when asked about a gun, “no papers for this one”. So much for the law abiding gun dealers, seems like they are more like criminals that not. I’m guess he’s not alone in this criminal thought process of bypassing the law.

          • Pearly

            Was not a dealer (no FFl) but a private seller I would guess. Did you buy?

          • KTN

            No, didn’t buy anything but he had a lot of stuff, kind of like a dealer.
            Your question almost sounds like dealer or private seller should follow the same rules, sort of like what the President suggested.

          • Pearly

            I’m not a dealer. But I will sell one of my guns, IF you have a PTC, or a PTP.

  • LookAtMe -I-am-ur-captain

    I am with Bill Maher on this – we are just pussy-footing on this whole guns issue…why can we look at the 2nd amendment? what is so sacrosanct about it? If you look at all our rights that we call out in our democracy – they all came from judiciary’s interpretations…no conservative can deny that….until 1938 police could still torture somebody to get information – no amendment saved until then.

    • PaulJ

      It seems to be more than one issue. Criminals will find a way to get guns; how can we stop that? Lunatics might be easier to stop from using guns, but they can more easily switch to other methods. Accidental shootings should be stopped too, where are the laws on that. Stopping Joe average from buying guns seems more like a way to demonstrate power than to fix problems.

      • LookAtMe -I-am-ur-captain

        I dont think these laws are going to address many current issues but it provides something to work on…a more perfect one would be what I said – repeal / amend the 2nd amendment like how guns are handled in other EU countries.. just because criminal will get around a law doesn’t mean we should not have some laws. For ex..most morons who get into a car drunk know they will break DWI laws – that has not stopped them. But I see more common sensed people are aware of the danger and try to get a cab or designated driver.

        • Pearly

          I repeal? What about all the millions of guns we already own? I mean the last 7 years our government has driven people to buy guns who would have never bought one. and and some cases they bought two or more for rear if the didn’t own one now they may never. Manufacturing in this state is booming because of this. We are cranking out gun parts in this state like you would not believe! And that is just Minnesota.So repeal? I think not

      • jim

        if we were serious about gun crime there would be serious penalties. i would like to see a 10 year mandatory minimum for the illegal possession, use or sale of a gun. 2nd offense, 30 years, 3rd, life. stealing a gun? 20 years. as it is we tolerate things like this http://www.twincities.com/localnews/ci_29308500/minneapolis-ex-boyfriend-who-shot-at-car-baby

  • Sue de Nim

    “Arm everyone,” say the pro-gun radicals. Well, if you want me to be armed, you’ll have to issue me the gun and the ammo and the holster, and you’ll have to provide me with free training and practice time at the range and cab fare to get there, and maybe even a fair wage for the time I’d have to spend doing that. The gun industry has flooded the market with their dangerous products, and now they want me to buy one to protect myself from the problem they created. I’ll be darned if I’m going to pay one red cent of my hard earned money to the folks who created the problem in the first place. More gun crime means more demand for guns for “self-defense,” which means more profits for the gun industry. Given their financial interest in making the world more dangerous, why on earth should we follow the policy recommendations of their mouthpiece, the NRA?

  • Gary F

    I’m sure glad Obama wants to spend more on the NICS system. Sometimes it takes over an hour to get an approval.

  • Gary F

    Interesting perspective from the Powerline guys………… http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2016/01/democrats-on-guns-its-a-mystery.php

  • Gary F

    Was the whole gun thing last week just a way for the Obama Administration to take America’s eye off the rape problem in Europe with Syrian immigrants and the bimbo eruptions going on in the Clinton campaign? Manipulating the news cycle.

  • Gary F
    • Jeff

      For liberals they would suggest that it’s nice that Germany doesn’t have a 1st or 2nd Amendment to get in the way of passing laws.

  • Gary F

    Bill Clinton or Bill Cosby, who is creepier?