Here it comes.

[Milsurp]

Saw this and thought I'd share it.

http://www.rr.com/news/topic/article/rr/10374903/33290364/The_White_Houses_Coming_Gun_Control_Push



The White House's Coming Gun Control Push

Published - Jan 26 2011 09:42PM EST


http://hercules.rr.com/media/jpeg/2011/01/27/33290366/192xX.jpg
Obama intentionally left the issue out of his State of the Union (http://features.rr.com/topic/State_of_the_Union) address, but aides say that in the next two weeks the administration will unveil a campaign to get Congress to toughen existing laws.
At the beginning of his State of the Union (http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2011-01-26/obamas-2011-state-of-the-union-address-watch-the-best-moments/) address, President Obama (http://features.rr.com/topic/Obama) tipped his hat to Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (http://www.newsweek.com/2011/01/08/the-gabrielle-giffords-i-know.html), who's now recuperating in a Houston medical facility. But throughout the hour-long speech, he never addressed the issue at the core of the Giffords tragedy, gun control (http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2011-01-24/why-obama-wont-call-for-gun-control-in-his-state-of-the-union-speech/), and what lawmakers would, or should, do to reform American firearm-access laws.
Related story on The Daily Beast (http://features.rr.com/topic/The_Daily_Beast): Nice Rhetoric, but Need Real Results (http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2011-01-25/state-of-the-union-meghan-mccains-response/)
That was intentional, according to the White House (http://features.rr.com/topic/White_House). An administration official said Obama (http://features.rr.com/topic/Obama) didn't mention guns in his speech because of the omnipresent controversy surrounding the Second Amendment (http://features.rr.com/topic/gun_control) and gun control (http://features.rr.com/topic/gun_control). Tuesday's speech was designed to be more about the economy and how, as Obama repeated nine times, the U.S. could "win the future."
But in the next two weeks, the White House will unveil a new gun-control effort in which it will urge Congress (http://features.rr.com/topic/Congress) to strengthen current laws, which now allow some mentally unstable people, such as alleged Arizona (http://features.rr.com/topic/Arizona) shooter Jared Loughner (http://www.newsweek.com/blogs/the-gaggle/2011/01/13/is-gun-violence-the-cost-of-freedom.html), to obtain certain assault weapons, in some cases without even a background check.
Tuesday night after the speech, Obama's newest adviser, David Plouffe (http://features.rr.com/topic/David_Plouffe), said on NBC News (http://features.rr.com/topic/NBC_News) that the president would not let the moment after the Arizona shootings pass without pushing for some change in the law, to prevent another similar incident. "It's a very important issue and one I know there's going to be debate on the Hill."
The White House said that to avoid being accused of capitalizing on the Arizona shootings for political gain, Obama will address the gun issue in a separate speech, likely early next month. He's also expected to use Arizona as a starting point, but make the case that America's gun laws (http://features.rr.com/topic/gun_control) have been too loose for much longer than just the past few weeks.
As the White House prepares its strategy, several gun-policy groups are saying they were burned by the lack of any mention of guns in the president's highest-profile speech of the year. "President Obama tonight failed to challenge old assumptions on the need for, and political possibilities of, reducing the gun violence-which he suggested should be done two weeks ago in Tucson (http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2011-01-13/the-obama-of-old-returns-with-arizona-speech/)," said Paul Helmke, president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, the nation's largest gun-safety group. No group said it had been consulted by the White House regarding legislative suggestions.
Meanwhile, the National Rifle Association (http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2011-01-11/arizona-shooting-will-the-gun-lobby-win-again/), the powerful gun lobby group, has stayed largely silent following the Arizona shootings. Asked about a specialized White House effort on guns, a spokesman declined to comment.
Like The Daily Beast on Facebook (http://www.facebook.com/thedailybeast%20) and follow us on Twitter (http://www.rr.com/news/topic/article/rr/10374903/33290364/The_White_Houses_Coming_Gun_Control_Push/full/follow) for updates all day long.
For inquiries, please contact The Daily Beast at editorial@thedailybeast.com (http://www.rr.com/news/topic/article/rr/10374903/33290364/The_White_Houses_Coming_Gun_Control_Push/full/editorial@thedailybeast.commailto:editorial@thedai lybeast.com).

[7.62guy]

i guess there's not much to do but wait and see how they try to attack.

[pigpen]

I saw this comming a mile away. Liberals never change thier stripes-never will. It is all about controlling the people.

[Norton]

It won't work anymore. The cat's out of the bag. The averge American knows Gun Control won't work as advertised. I think the Democratic party will not support this on a party line vote. They know their districts won't go for it.
They no longer have total control of the media as before.

[Schmitty]

Why, oh why, oh WHY are they bringing up gun control now that they lost the majority of congress to the Republicans? Don't they know that it's not going to pass? Or is that the plan... a 'tragedy' happens, the Dems try to pass gun control legislation and is shot down by the Repubs. Are they just loading up on political ammunition or what?

[RicePaddyDaddy]

It won't work anymore. The cat's out of the bag. The averge American knows Gun Control won't work as advertised. I think the Democratic party will not support this on a party line vote. They know their districts won't go for it.
They no longer have total control of the media as before.

I agree.Besides I'll be keeping mine.

[yellowhand]

He's running for a second term and knows that nothing will come out of the House of Repre-s as long as it's controled by Repubs. He may come out for something, but even the Dems know if they want a another term, they will keep their mouths shut unless from up north, NY/MA.
It's playing to his left wing base and also puts him into a position to say, "see, I tried, but those nasty Repubs won't address the issue!"
Even Nancy Pelosi knew not to bring up the gun control BS and she had a complete Dem controled House and Senate with OBAMA for two of the four years.
HOWEVER, everyone needs to keep two eyes on our local AZ RINO John McCain, this guy might try to broker some deal as he's been known to do in the past.
And just in case, if you want it, might be time to buy it, one never knows!!!

[Arkane]

It does have to do with running for a second term, but it's more about not letting a good crisis go to waste (remember that one?). + this is an opportunity to show that he is "doing something" without apparently driving the debt up. Problem with it is that it's an attack on one of the few industries in this country that has expanded despite the crappy economy and had employment growth. Any kind of ban or regulation is going to end up hurting the economy in the long run by reducing tax revenue at both the Federal and State levels.

Dumb politicians. :nonono:

[Planning]

this is going to be easy for them. the czars will and can make it happen. just watch.

the congress has been nutralized. the courts don't want to mess with it, so that leaves the beuracrats to just rewrite the regs or just do it by decree.

they can do this without any help from congress or the courts.

its will be quick, no one gets blamed in congress, not even BO will get blamed for this.

ron

[ctdemolay0405]

what planning said. they don't need to pass a single law. I firmly believe the number one priority of the government right now should be shrinking it vastly - get ride of HUD, HHS, BATFE, DOE, etc. Everything but State, War (Defense), and a minority of other agencies. the vast majority of agencies are useless and these things should be left to the individual states.

[kagans]

What's that old adage? You give them an inch and they'll take a mile. Everything Obama has been doing is a political stunt. Even the state of the union address was a campaign message... It's all a big act, just like everything else in politics. I can see it now "son before you can buy this fire arm you must sit in front of this shrink and tell them how you feel.

[rpmfly2]

Just like all politicians and the liberal news media! Couldn't get the terminology right if it was in correct print to read to the media and the media would screw it up anyway!

So, what I understand so far is those pesky large mags! Those are killing people ya know! And PIS ant losi was on a Fox network playing some liberal news dog interviewing her stating the problem is high capacity clips! :rolleyes:

[RandyCOG3]

I halfway fear that Planning is right, and B.O. will simply somehow make an end-run around the Constitution, just appoint a Gun Czar or Preventable Injury Czar or some other B.S., just like allowing the EPA to control "carbon" after proclaiming it a health issue. Maybe a Child Czar will proclaim that it's illegal to have a gun or ammo within 5 miles of a child, ever, since that will make it harder for a criminal to shoot a child.

The other half of me thinks he knows that he's already beginning to circle the drain, and is continuing to do what he's done since entering office: Shovel so many things at us all at once that we lose concentration, and some of it slips through. At the least, he'll make some foolish attempt that's doomed to failure, and when the next, inevitable rampage occurs, he can point at the (R)'s and say "see, I TRIED to prevent this..".

If the Health Care fiasco fails to get repealed at some point, the (D)'s will simply try to have guns regulated on the basis of the fact that they cause injuries, and injuries drive up health care costs.

RandyCOG3

[Bad Monkey]

Planning is on to something. I could see them trying to bypass congress. Its sad how so many elected officials don't care for the legal limits paced of them. Just look for a way around them.

unfortunately even if they banned all guns and we had to turn them in, I couldn't. Lost them all in a fishing accident.:walkdoor:

[rpmfly2]

Planning is on to something. I could see them trying to bypass congress. Its sad how so many elected officials don't care for the legal limits paced of them. Just look for a way around them.

unfortunately even if they banned all guns and we had to turn them in, I couldn't. Lost them all in a fishing accident.:walkdoor:

If you listen to Borack, Peelosi and Reid speeches they will do whatever they have to to pass their will on US! You see, the laws do not apply to THEM!

[franks71vw]

If they do try and pass anythign knowing they just lost congress essentially, they might try and do this so they lose the presidence and just blame and pass the buck on the GOP the will be taking over... Either way the political climate being the way it is, this would be a suicide run for them...

[ctdemolay0405]

there is a pamphlet floating around, something like 20-40 ways gun control can be achieved without passing a single law. It was put out by Bloomberg and the Mayors Against Illegal Guns. All it is is a bunch of regulatory changes.


my question is, even if these regulatory changes were passed, what would the general populous do. i highly doubt any revolt - numbers might be high for those opposed to gun control, but there are too many of us not willing to be the first one to fall for this cause. I am NOT advocating a violent overthrow or anything of the sort - but what in gods name would we, as LAW-ABIDING CITIZENS do.

[kagans]

there is a pamphlet floating around, something like 20-40 ways gun control can be achieved without passing a single law. It was put out by Bloomberg and the Mayors Against Illegal Guns. All it is is a bunch of regulatory changes.


my question is, even if these regulatory changes were passed, what would the general populous do. i highly doubt any revolt - numbers might be high for those opposed to gun control, but there are too many of us not willing to be the first one to fall for this cause. I am NOT advocating a violent overthrow or anything of the sort - but what in gods name would we, as LAW-ABIDING CITIZENS do.

We do what John Locke and our constitution tells us to do. The point of Government is to insure the well being of EVERYONE. If said government fails to do that, then they in essence cease to be a proper government and we have the right to change it as needed. I am not advocating violence, but change through a peaceful process.

[jdowney]

All you can do at this point is write to your Congressional reps and tell them what you think about it. Keep it organized, logical, and polite, don't make it easy to write your letter or email off as another of those "right wing whackos". Remind them that you don't support this at all.

I honestly think it could go either way, depending on how bad the administration wants it and whether they're willing to commit political suicide to get it. If it gets done outside of Congress, BO's going to be a one term Prez and he knows it. Part of the reason it's never been done that way is that the gun grabber's have known all along how politically dangerous it is. I think they could have snuck it through this way at various times, but not now. Frankly the average elected official is too narcissistic to do it this way in any case - they want to make political hay when they can, and those are the same times when it could get snuck in relatively un-noticed. If the subject weren't so serious, I'd think it a hilarious catch 22.

On the other hand, if they guy is practical, he'll make a push that will get shot down by Congress. Then he can say "See, I tried" to his base of 20% of the population that actually is dumb enough to want this. If it doesn't actually go anywhere, I don't think he's really risking alienating the huge block of moderates who he needs in 2 years. All those non-gun owners who ran out and bought guns when the guy was elected 2 years ago - even a liberal would have a hard time forgetting that when running for re-election.

[pigpen]

"0" and his buddies plan to use this as a bartering chip. "0" still holds the veto pen so, if conservatives want any of thier laws passed, they will have to be "bi-partisan" and go along with some of the crap that the liberals want.

Conservatives have made such a stink about the economy, rightly so, so the libs will want to add gun control to some bill the conservatives want passed.

If conservatives won't play ball then they will look like dumbasses and be made a mockary of and liberals will say the right does not care about the economy or they care about these awful guns more than they do about the country.

[Buddymack]

I halfway fear that Planning is right, and B.O. will simply somehow make an end-run around the Constitution, just appoint a Gun Czar or Preventable Injury Czar or some other B.S., just like allowing the EPA to control "carbon" after proclaiming it a health issue. Maybe a Child Czar will proclaim that it's illegal to have a gun or ammo within 5 miles of a child, ever, since that will make it harder for a criminal to shoot a child.

The other half of me thinks he knows that he's already beginning to circle the drain, and is continuing to do what he's done since entering office: Shovel so many things at us all at once that we lose concentration, and some of it slips through. At the least, he'll make some foolish attempt that's doomed to failure, and when the next, inevitable rampage occurs, he can point at the (R)'s and say "see, I TRIED to prevent this..".

If the Health Care fiasco fails to get repealed at some point, the (D)'s will simply try to have guns regulated on the basis of the fact that they cause injuries, and injuries drive up health care costs.

RandyCOG3

I remember another admin that banned guns that used that same MO, I believe you are correct.

[slim]

again...I point out the fallacy of believing that taking away certain tools of murder would prevent murder. The thinking being folks are only willing to commit a more serious crime like murder as long as they can lawfully buy or aquire the tools to commit a more serious crime.Obviously not true.

I`ll bet they think if they make it more serious to possess money obtained from illegal activities like drug dealing (ahem.....RICO) then drug dealers will stop illegally dealing drugs for fear of breaking the lesser "illegal possession of money" law

idiocy