President Obama announces executive action on gun safety

The Republic‘s E.J. Montini today compared President Obama to Sheriff Will Kane (Gary Cooper) in the iconic western movie classic High Noon (1952), in which Sheriff Kane must confront a gang alone because he has been abandoned by the cowardly townspeople. Obama to go ‘High Noon’ on NRA and gun lobby:

High-noon-movie-poster_1373053844In the movie, Kane is retiring and could safely leave town before a recently freed bad guy he sent to prison comes back to seek revenge.

Instead, Kane stays, trying to get the townspeople of fictional Hadleyville to step up and take on the villain and his gang.

But they don’t, and he has to go it alone.

That’s what Obama’s doing with the National Rifle Association and the powerful gun lobby.

He has tried and tried to get some form of sensible gun legislation through Congress.

But, like the cowards of Hadleyville, the politicians in Washington refuse to do anything, most appallingly after the massacre of 20 first-graders in Newtown, Conn.

Obama, like the sheriff in “High Noon,” could retire and go quietly into the sunset.

But he’s not.

Montini leaves out the climax of the movie: Sheriff Kane gets in a gunfight with the gang and is wounded, but he manages to shoot all of the gang members, with the intervention of his wife Amy. As the gunsmoke clears, the cowardly townspeople emerge from hiding. Sheriff Kane glares at them with contempt, throws his marshal’s star in the dirt, and departs with his wife Amy.

This violent imagery is probably not the best choice for addressing gun violence in America, but Montini’s larger point remains valid: we have a Congress that cowers before the merchants of death (gun lobby), and Sheriff Obama has to do what he can as the chief law enforcement officer of the land to protect the townspeople.

In a ceremony at the White House today, President Obama announced his long anticipated executive action on gun safety. He was introduced by Mark Kelly, husband of former Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords, who was one of the victims of a mass shooting in Tucson five years ago this week. Mark and Gabby now lead the Americans for Responsible Solutions PAC. Remarks by the President on Common-Sense Gun Safety Reform (excerpts):

Five years ago this week, a sitting member of Congress and 18 others were shot at, at a supermarket in Tucson, Arizona. It wasn’t the first time I had to talk to the nation in response to a mass shooting, nor would it be the last. Fort Hood. Binghamton. Aurora. Oak Creek. Newtown. The Navy Yard. Santa Barbara. Charleston. San Bernardino. Too many.

* * *

Thanks to a great medical team and the love of her husband, Mark, my dear friend and colleague, Gabby Giffords, survived. She’s here with us today, with her wonderful mom.

* * *

I was there with Gabby when she was still in the hospital, and we didn’t think necessarily at that point that she was going to survive. And that visit right before a memorial — about an hour later Gabby first opened her eyes. And I remember talking to mom about that. But I know the pain that she and her family have endured these past five years, and the rehabilitation and the work and the effort to recover from shattering injuries.

And then I think of all the Americans who aren’t as fortunate. Every single year, more than 30,000 Americans have their lives cut short by guns — 30,000. Suicides. Domestic violence. Gang shootouts. Accidents. Hundreds of thousands of Americans have lost brothers and sisters, or buried their own children. Many have had to learn to live with a disability, or learned to live without the love of their life.

* * *

The United States of America is not the only country on Earth with violent or dangerous people. We are not inherently more prone to violence. But we are the only advanced country on Earth that sees this kind of mass violence erupt with this kind of frequency. It doesn’t happen in other advanced countries. It’s not even close. And as I’ve said before, somehow we’ve become numb to it and we start thinking that this is normal.

And instead of thinking about how to solve the problem, this has become one of our most polarized, partisan debates — despite the fact that there’s a general consensus in America about what needs to be done. That’s part of the reason why, on Thursday, I’m going to hold a town hall meeting in Virginia on gun violence. Because my goal here is to bring good people on both sides of this issue together for an open discussion.

I’m not on the ballot again. I’m not looking to score some points. I think we can disagree without impugning other people’s motives or without being disagreeable. We don’t need to be talking past one another. But we do have to feel a sense of urgency about it. In Dr. King’s words, we need to feel the “fierce urgency of now.” Because people are dying. And the constant excuses for inaction no longer do, no longer suffice.

That’s why we’re here today. Not to debate the last mass shooting, but to do something to try to prevent the next one. (Applause.) To prove that the vast majority of Americans, even if our voices aren’t always the loudest or most extreme, care enough about a little boy like Daniel to come together and take common-sense steps to save lives and protect more of our children.

Now, I want to be absolutely clear at the start — and I’ve said this over and over again, this also becomes routine, there is a ritual about this whole thing that I have to do — I believe in the Second Amendment. It’s there written on the paper. It guarantees a right to bear arms. No matter how many times people try to twist my words around — I taught constitutional law, I know a little about this — (applause) — I get it. But I also believe that we can find ways to reduce gun violence consistent with the Second Amendment.

I mean, think about it. We all believe in the First Amendment, the guarantee of free speech, but we accept that you can’t yell “fire” in a theater. We understand there are some constraints on our freedom in order to protect innocent people. We cherish our right to privacy, but we accept that you have to go through metal detectors before being allowed to board a plane. It’s not because people like doing that, but we understand that that’s part of the price of living in a civilized society.

And what’s often ignored in this debate is that a majority of gun owners actually agree. A majority of gun owners agree that we can respect the Second Amendment while keeping an irresponsible, law-breaking feud from inflicting harm on a massive scale.

Today, background checks are required at gun stores. If a father wants to teach his daughter how to hunt, he can walk into a gun store, get a background check, purchase his weapon safely and responsibly. This is not seen as an infringement on the Second Amendment. Contrary to the claims of what some gun rights proponents have suggested, this hasn’t been the first step in some slippery slope to mass confiscation. Contrary to claims of some presidential candidates, apparently, before this meeting, this is not a plot to take away everybody’s guns. You pass a background check; you purchase a firearm.

The problem is some gun sellers have been operating under a different set of rules. A violent felon can buy the exact same weapon over the Internet with no background check, no questions asked. A recent study found that about one in 30 people looking to buy guns on one website had criminal records — one out of 30 had a criminal record. We’re talking about individuals convicted of serious crimes — aggravated assault, domestic violence, robbery, illegal gun possession. People with lengthy criminal histories buying deadly weapons all too easily. And this was just one website within the span of a few months.

So we’ve created a system in which dangerous people are allowed to play by a different set of rules than a responsible gun owner who buys his or her gun the right way and subjects themselves to a background check. That doesn’t make sense. Everybody should have to abide by the same rules. Most Americans and gun owners agree. And that’s what we tried to change three years ago, after 26 Americans -– including 20 children -– were murdered at Sandy Hook Elementary.

Two United States Senators -– Joe Manchin, a Democrat from West Virginia, and Pat Toomey, a Republican from Pennsylvania, both gun owners, both strong defenders of our Second Amendment rights, both with “A” grades from the NRA –- that’s hard to get — worked together in good faith, consulting with folks like our Vice President, who has been a champion on this for a long time, to write a common-sense compromise bill that would have required virtually everyone who buys a gun to get a background check. That was it. Pretty common-sense stuff. Ninety percent of Americans supported that idea. Ninety percent of Democrats in the Senate voted for that idea. But it failed because 90 percent of Republicans in the Senate voted against that idea.

How did this become such a partisan issue? Republican President George W. Bush once said, “I believe in background checks at gun shows or anywhere to make sure that guns don’t get into the hands of people that shouldn’t have them.” Senator John McCain introduced a bipartisan measure to address the gun show loophole, saying, “We need this amendment because criminals and terrorists have exploited and are exploiting this very obvious loophole in our gun safety laws.” Even the NRA used to support expanded background checks. And by the way, most of its members still do. Most Republican voters still do.

How did we get here? How did we get to the place where people think requiring a comprehensive background check means taking away people’s guns?

Each time this comes up, we are fed the excuse that common-sense reforms like background checks might not have stopped the last massacre, or the one before that, or the one before that, so why bother trying. I reject that thinking. (Applause.) We know we can’t stop every act of violence, every act of evil in the world. But maybe we could try to stop one act of evil, one act of violence.

Some of you may recall, at the same time that Sandy Hook happened, a disturbed person in China took a knife and tried to kill — with a knife — a bunch of children in China. But most of them survived because he didn’t have access to a powerful weapon. We maybe can’t save everybody, but we could save some. Just as we don’t prevent all traffic accidents but we take steps to try to reduce traffic accidents.

As Ronald Reagan once said, if mandatory background checks could save more lives, “it would be well worth making it the law of the land.” The bill before Congress three years ago met that test. Unfortunately, too many senators failed theirs. (Applause.)

In fact, we know that background checks make a difference. After Connecticut passed a law requiring background checks and gun safety courses, gun deaths decreased by 40 percent — 40 percent. (Applause.) Meanwhile, since Missouri repealed a law requiring comprehensive background checks and purchase permits, gun deaths have increased to almost 50 percent higher than the national average. One study found, unsurprisingly, that criminals in Missouri now have easier access to guns.

And the evidence tells us that in states that require background checks, law-abiding Americans don’t find it any harder to purchase guns whatsoever. Their guns have not been confiscated. Their rights have not been infringed.

And that’s just the information we have access to. With more research, we could further improve gun safety. Just as with more research, we’ve reduced traffic fatalities enormously over the last 30 years. We do research when cars, food, medicine, even toys harm people so that we make them safer. And you know what — research, science — those are good things. They work. (Laughter and applause.) They do.

But think about this. When it comes to an inherently deadly weapon — nobody argues that guns are potentially deadly — weapons that kill tens of thousands of Americans every year, Congress actually voted to make it harder for public health experts to conduct research into gun violence; made it harder to collect data and facts and develop strategies to reduce gun violence. Even after San Bernardino, they’ve refused to make it harder for terror suspects who can’t get on a plane to buy semi-automatic weapons. That’s not right. That can’t be right.

So the gun lobby may be holding Congress hostage right now, but they cannot hold America hostage. (Applause.) We do not have to accept this carnage as the price of freedom. (Applause.)

Now, I want to be clear. Congress still needs to act. The folks in this room will not rest until Congress does. (Applause.) Because once Congress gets on board with common-sense gun safety measures we can reduce gun violence a whole lot more. But we also can’t wait. Until we have a Congress that’s in line with the majority of Americans, there are actions within my legal authority that we can take to help reduce gun violence and save more lives -– actions that protect our rights and our kids.

* * *

[T]oday, we want to take it a step further. So let me outline what we’re going to be doing.

Number one, anybody in the business of selling firearms must get a license and conduct background checks, or be subject to criminal prosecutions. (Applause.) It doesn’t matter whether you’re doing it over the Internet or at a gun show. It’s not where you do it, but what you do.

We’re also expanding background checks to cover violent criminals who try to buy some of the most dangerous firearms by hiding behind trusts and corporations and various cutouts.

We’re also taking steps to make the background check system more efficient. Under the guidance of Jim Comey and the FBI, our Deputy Director Tom Brandon at ATF, we’re going to hire more folks to process applications faster, and we’re going to bring an outdated background check system into the 21st century. (Applause.)

And these steps will actually lead to a smoother process for law-abiding gun owners, a smoother process for responsible gun dealers, a stronger process for protecting the people from — the public from dangerous people. So that’s number one.

Number two, we’re going to do everything we can to ensure the smart and effective enforcement of gun safety laws that are already on the books, which means we’re going to add 200 more ATF agents and investigators. We’re going to require firearms dealers to report more lost or stolen guns on a timely basis. We’re working with advocates to protect victims of domestic abuse from gun violence, where too often — (applause) — where too often, people are not getting the protection that they need.

Number three, we’re going to do more to help those suffering from mental illness get the help that they need. (Applause.) High-profile mass shootings tend to shine a light on those few mentally unstable people who inflict harm on others. But the truth is, is that nearly two in three gun deaths are from suicides. So a lot of our work is to prevent people from hurting themselves.

That’s why we made sure that the Affordable Care Act — also known as Obamacare — (laughter and applause) — that law made sure that treatment for mental health was covered the same as treatment for any other illness. And that’s why we’re going to invest $500 million to expand access to treatment across the country. (Applause.)

It’s also why we’re going to ensure that federal mental health records are submitted to the background check system, and remove barriers that prevent states from reporting relevant information. If we can continue to de-stigmatize mental health issues, get folks proper care, and fill gaps in the background check system, then we can spare more families the pain of losing a loved one to suicide.

And for those in Congress who so often rush to blame mental illness for mass shootings as a way of avoiding action on guns, here’s your chance to support these efforts. Put your money where your mouth is. (Applause.)

Number four, we’re going to boost gun safety technology. Today, many gun injuries and deaths are the result of legal guns that were stolen or misused or discharged accidentally. In 2013 alone, more than 500 people lost their lives to gun accidents –- and that includes 30 children younger than five years old. In the greatest, most technologically advanced nation on Earth, there is no reason for this. We need to develop new technologies that make guns safer. If we can set it up so you can’t unlock your phone unless you’ve got the right fingerprint, why can’t we do the same thing for our guns? (Applause.) If there’s an app that can help us find a missing tablet — which happens to me often the older I get — (laughter) — if we can do it for your iPad, there’s no reason we can’t do it with a stolen gun. If a child can’t open a bottle of aspirin, we should make sure that they can’t pull a trigger on a gun. (Applause.) Right?

So we’re going to advance research. We’re going to work with the private sector to update firearms technology.

And some gun retailers are already stepping up by refusing to finalize a purchase without a complete background check, or by refraining from selling semi-automatic weapons or high-capacity magazines. And I hope that more retailers and more manufacturers join them — because they should care as much as anybody about a product that now kills almost as many Americans as car accidents.

I make this point because none of us can do this alone. I think Mark made that point earlier. All of us should be able to work together to find a balance that declares the rest of our rights are also important — Second Amendment rights are important, but there are other rights that we care about as well. And we have to be able to balance them. Because our right to worship freely and safely –- that right was denied to Christians in Charleston, South Carolina. (Applause.) And that was denied Jews in Kansas City. And that was denied Muslims in Chapel Hill, and Sikhs in Oak Creek. (Applause.) They had rights, too. (Applause.)

Our right to peaceful assembly -– that right was robbed from moviegoers in Aurora and Lafayette. Our unalienable right to life, and liberty, and the pursuit of happiness -– those rights were stripped from college students in Blacksburg and Santa Barbara, and from high schoolers at Columbine, and from first-graders in Newtown. First-graders. And from every family who never imagined that their loved one would be taken from our lives by a bullet from a gun.

Every time I think about those kids it gets me mad. And by the way, it happens on the streets of Chicago every day. (Applause.)

So all of us need to demand a Congress brave enough to stand up to the gun lobby’s lies. All of us need to stand up and protect its citizens. All of us need to demand governors and legislatures and businesses do their part to make our communities safer. We need the wide majority of responsible gun owners who grieve with us every time this happens and feel like your views are not being properly represented to join with us to demand something better. (Applause.)

And we need voters who want safer gun laws, and who are disappointed in leaders who stand in their way, to remember come election time. (Applause.)

I mean, some of this is just simple math. Yes, the gun lobby is loud and it is organized in defense of making it effortless for guns to be available for anybody, any time. Well, you know what, the rest of us, we all have to be just as passionate. We have to be just as organized in defense of our kids. This is not that complicated. The reason Congress blocks laws is because they want to win elections. And if you make it hard for them to win an election if they block those laws, they’ll change course, I promise you. (Applause.)

And, yes, it will be hard, and it won’t happen overnight. It won’t happen during this Congress. It won’t happen during my presidency. But a lot of things don’t happen overnight. A woman’s right to vote didn’t happen overnight. The liberation of African Americans didn’t happen overnight. LGBT rights — that was decades’ worth of work. So just because it’s hard, that’s no excuse not to try.
And if you have any doubt as to why you should feel that “fierce urgency of now,” think about what happened three weeks ago. Zaevion Dobson was a sophomore at Fulton High School in Knoxville, Tennessee. He played football; beloved by his classmates and his teachers. His own mayor called him one of their city’s success stories. The week before Christmas, he headed to a friend’s house to play video games. He wasn’t in the wrong place at the wrong time. He hadn’t made a bad decision. He was exactly where any other kid would be. Your kid. My kids. And then gunmen started firing. And Zaevion — who was in high school, hadn’t even gotten started in life — dove on top of three girls to shield them from the bullets. And he was shot in the head. And the girls were spared. He gave his life to save theirs –- an act of heroism a lot bigger than anything we should ever expect from a 15-year-old. “Greater love hath no man than this that a man lay down his life for his friends.”

We are not asked to do what Zaevion Dobson did. We’re not asked to have shoulders that big; a heart that strong; reactions that quick. I’m not asking people to have that same level of courage, or sacrifice, or love. But if we love our kids and care about their prospects, and if we love this country and care about its future, then we can find the courage to vote. We can find the courage to get mobilized and organized. We can find the courage to cut through all the noise and do what a sensible country would do.

That’s what we’re doing today. And tomorrow, we should do more. And we should do more the day after that. And if we do, we’ll leave behind a nation that’s stronger than the one we inherited and worthy of the sacrifice of a young man like Zaevion. (Applause.)

Thank you very much, everybody. God bless you. Thank you. God bless America. (Applause.)

7 responses to “President Obama announces executive action on gun safety

  1. Background checks were already required for most gun sales. Now they’re required for all gun sales. That’s the only real change in the EO.

    The rest of the EO is about enforcing existing laws and mental health, things that the NRA and GOA folks have been telling us to do for years.

    Turn off Beck/Jones/Limbaugh for a few minutes and actually read the EO.

    The best way to fight a bad guy with a gun isn’t a good guy with a gun, that’s bumper sticker thinking. The best way to fight a bad guy with a gun is not letting the bad guy get a gun to begin with.

    If the Big Evil Gova’mint ever comes for your guns, and they won’t, let me know and I’ll come fight with you, meantime the grown ups are going to try to protect the Right to Life of innocent people.

    • You are really not listening to what I am saying, are you? Most gun sales did go through a background check, now they ALL do. That means there has been a net loss of freedom under the 2nd Amendment. It is a simple concept of encroachment inch by inch.

      “The rest of the EO is about enforcing existing laws and mental health, things that the NRA and GOA folks have been telling us to do for years.”

      This has been promised with every other new gun law and NOTHING has ever resulted from it. This the “spoonful of sugar” that is supposed to make the action more palatable. But the big question is: WHY HAVEN’T THEY ENFORCED THE LAWS BEFORE?!?!?!? What makes this time so special? Why are they suddenly realizing NOW that enforcing the existing laws might be a good idea? Well, they haven’t had a sudden epiphany and they won’t enforce the laws anymore now than they did before. They need to be able to say later that the current laws aren’t working and they need more stringent laws to make America safe. Not enforcing the current laws is a sure fire way to make certain they don’t work.

      And how about increasing emphasis om mental health…we all agree mentally ill people should not have accress to firearms. But what constitutes a “mentally ill person”? How do we assess a paranoid schizophrenic? Yes, I think we would agree. How about a sociopath with no history of violence? Yes? No? With a history of violence? Easier to decide? How about clinical depression? Is that serious enough? So who makes the decision as to who is declared a “Mentally Ill Person”? Set the bar low enough and you deprive millions of American of their rights under the 2nd Amendment.

      How about the “No Fly List”? If a person can’t fly, they shouldn’t be allowed to own a firearm, right? But what does it take to be put on the “No Fly List”? It must be rather serious, right? No. It can be as simple as having a warrant for unpaid traffic tickets. Also, the list has been proven to have a lot of errors on it. But that would be okay, right? It just means more American can’t buy firearms which is a good thing, rught?

      “Turn off Beck/Jones/Limbaugh for a few minutes and actually read the EO.”

      Do you honestly think that I would NOT have read this Executive Order as soon as it was available? Give me a break. And I don’t listen to Back/Jones/Limbaugh. I am not even familiar with who “Jones” is. I really don’t need my opinion formed by someone else, though your suggestion makes me think you might need that.

      And that ISN’T the only other thing mentioned in the Executive Order. Obama has started putting an emphasis on the pipe dream of “smart gun technology”. Thirty years of intensive research has demonstrated that it is unworkable because it created an undependable firearm that is less likely to function at a critical moment. With a firearm, even a relatively low failure rate is likely to get the user killed by someone with a “dumb gun”.

      “The best way to fight a bad guy with a gun is not letting the bad guy get a gun to begin with.”

      Do you seriously think ANYTHING in Obama’s Executive Order is going to impact a criminal obtaining a firearm? If so, you have ignored the FBI’s own statistics as to where criminals get their guns. Even Obama admitted it will have little effect on criminals, which speaks volumes about his actual intent.

      “If the Big Evil Gova’mint ever comes for your guns, and they won’t, let me know and I’ll come fight with you…”

      You are showing the depths of your ignorance on this subject. IT HAS ALREADY HAPPENED! New Jersey, California, and New York had it;s residents register their assault weapons with assurances that the registration rolls would NEVER be used for confiscation. Of course, with five to six years, all three states banned the ownership of assault weapons and, using the registration rolls, went house to house seizing the weapons. They forbid the owners from selling the weapons out of state because they wanted to confiscate and destroy them.

      And the LAST thing I would expect to see is someone like you put forth an effort to defend the 2nd Amendment. What people like you fail to see is the Founders understood that all the other rights guaranteed by the Constitution depended on the 2nd Amendment to defend them. It is no accident it was considered important enough to be the 2nd Amendment, only preceeded by only by speech, religion and assembly.

      “…meantime the grown ups are going to try to protect the Right to Life of innocent people.”

      You really shouldn’t try to be condescending…you don’t do it very well. As to protecting the innocent: You cannot seriously expect this Executive Order will do ANYTHING in that regard. If you do, then you are too easily fooled or you are a charlatan.

      • Hi Steve,

        You’re right, I’m clearly not good at being condescending, I was making a not so subtle dig at your comparing gun rights to abortion and it didn’t land. My bad.

        If you’re upset that some background checks were required, and that now all sales require background checks, it sounds like you’re against background checks at all. Most of the country and even most NRA folks disagree with that.

        Existing gun laws need support to be enforced, the NRA and GOA folks have fought those for years. Let’s wait a few years and see if Obama’s plan helps or if it’s met with resistance from the gun lobby. I’m betting on the latter.

        The NRA even had a law passed back in the 90’s forbidding the federal government from using any federal money to study gun crime.

        The EO does focus on mental health. And then let’s go see what the gun lobby has to say about enforcing mental health laws with regards to gun sales.

        What they say is that now the government can say any soldier with PTSD is mentally unable to own a gun. They say that anyone can be deemed mentally unsound, and their guns taken, and then they scream “they’re coming for your guns!”

        So while Wayne “Million Dollar a Year Salary” claims mental health is the real issue, when the rubber hits the road, he’s lying. I’ve been to right wing websites lighting up because some news story comes out where the police go to someone’s home who is alleged to be unstable and takes their guns.

        I work in IT, I’ve been in IT a long time, and I’ve seen computer tech move from room filling monsters to wearable tech. Obama is asking for gun safety tech to be researched, and trust me, it can be done. Can it be done in a way the NRA will agree with? I doubt it.

        It’s funny, you’re using a computer in your home, and communicating with someone over the internet, and sending your message to me via laser beams (fiber optic cables) and often via satellites in orbit over the planet, but you dismiss tech.

        Tech isn’t always the answer, but why not take a look?

        The supreme court has ruled that you do not have an unlimited right to gun ownership. If New Jersey doesn’t want assault rifles, it’s their State Right to prohibit them, and let SCOTUS decide if it’s legal.

        Why can’t citizen’s decide what they want? And learn from their mistake if that’s the case? Then you can say “told you so”.

        I don’t think the whole well armed militia thing and right to bear arms means what it thinks you mean, it was a political compromise with the southern states related to slave ownership, and the fact that some of the founding fathers didn’t trust a standing army.

        That said, I don’t care if you own a gun. I got my Safe Hunting cert at 10 years old when I was in the Boy Scouts back in a small town in Ohio. Half my friends hunt, some of my family collects guns.

        But I do want a background check and I want you to carry insurance, because even responsible gun owners have accidents, and I want you to be responsible and keep your guns in a safe when you’re out and a trigger lock on if there are children in the home.

        I don’t want to see anymore youtube videos showing some redneck shooting themselves while playing with their toys. There are thousands of them and I don’t hear the NRA speaking out against idiots.

        I don’t see the far right 2nd amendment folks being very responsible with their guns in general. I see Ted Cruz cooking bacon on the muzzle of a semi-auto (claiming it was a “machine gun”). I see people like this whacko Jon Reitzenheimer (sorry for the spelling) who’s sitting in the cold in Oregon fighting the Big Evil Govamint posting youtube videos while he’s out in the desert shooting books and screaming. He’s clearly unstable, maybe well intentioned but out of touch with reality. And he’s driving around armed, making threats against people.

        I know a lot of responsible gun owners who cringe at these guys. I hope you do as well.

        And trust me, you do want me fighting on your side if the government gets out of control, you want everyone on your side, but you need to convince everyone first, and all I’m hearing is recycled NRA lies and mis-direction.

        I think we’ve both tried to make our case, and I know I haven’t swayed your opinion, and you haven’t show cause for me to change my mind either.

        I don’t know if the EO will help or not, but I know we try something and see if it works, and if not we try something else. Let’s see if the NRA/GOA allow the EO to have a chance.

        Thanks for the exchange, strident disagreement is fine, I can argue all day with someone and still buy them a beer at the end of the day. Hope you can as well.

        • Tom, I appreciate your calm and reasoned arguments, especially on a subject about which I bear such passion. I even understand your arguments and there is merit to them. I just fear the day when the 2nd Amendment is deemed irrelevant which I am certain is the future. The funny thing is that I am old enough it will not happen in my lifetime. I guess I shouldn’t worry about it, but I do. It is a character flaw, I guess…

  2. With each new law (or, in this case, Executive Order) rights inder the 2nd Amendment are eroded a little more. Each one moves us closer to the gun controllers ulimate goal: the confiscation of all firearms. It is much like abortion rights, there is no real compromise possible because compromise means surrendering rights. There is no end to number of “common sense gun laws” waiting to be passed that will move us further along the road to confiscation.

    • Steve, please tell us specifically how this specific executive order has eroded your specific 2nd amendment rights?

      Could you but a gun last week? Will you still be able to buy that same gun after the order takes effect?

      Please show your work.

      I got a dollar that says you got nothing.

      • Yes, I will still be able to but the firearm under Obama’s executive order. The difference is I will now be required to get permission from the Government to do so. That is an encroachment on my rights under the 2nd Amendment which was my point. Every time a new gun law or Executive Order goes into effect another little piece of the people’s rights under the 2nd Amendment is taken away. Like abortion, ANY compromise results in a further erosion of those rights. There is only one ultimate goal of the gun control crowd: confiscation. They are quite happy to do it in bits and pieces, all the while claiming confiscation is not their goal. They lie.