Harry Reid tried his best to undermine any assault weapons ban proposal before it saw the light of day, but the Washington Post reports that President Obama is going ahead with it. The president will release his proposals for comprehensive gun control tomorrow, including as many as 19 executive orders:
President Obama will unveil a sweeping set of gun-control proposals at midday Wednesday, including an assault weapons ban, universal background checks and limits on the number of bullets magazines can hold, according to sources familiar with the plans.
The announcement, to be delivered at the White House, is also expected to include a slate of up to 19 executive actions that the Obama administration can take on its own to attempt to limit gun violence. The White House has invited key lawmakers as well as gun-control advocates to appear at Wednesday’s policy rollout, according to two officials who have been invited to the event.
It’s clear an assault weapon ban would have a very difficult time getting through the Senate, and no chance at all getting through the House. So why include it at all? Maybe because it’s one of the only proposals that is semi-related to the Sandy Hook shooting, and has major support among the president’s base. It’s also a big, shiny target for the gun lobby to go after, which means less energy will be devoted to opposing the White House’s other proposals.
The real question is what will the courts do — and maybe Obama is intentionally going overboard knowing that an injunction will be obtained and that this mess will be tied up in the courts for years, hence giving him the ability to have done something but not done it. n nThe other question is what will happen to the impeachment proceeding that the Congressman from Texas is threatening to introduce in response. That could get interesting as there are a lot of Dems in pro-gun areas.
Get with the wingnut program, Commentary! This from Andrew Klavan at pjmedia.com: n n'Whenever some anti-gun idiot on television cries out, “Why would a hunter need an automatic rifle?” the correct answer is… well, unprintable. The hunter has a 30-06 in his gun cabinet for hunting. The M-16 he hides in the cellar is for the next American Revolution.' n nThe right is losing its mind over guns.
Well, let me see: we live in a time when we have a president determined to rule by fiat, repeatedly, again and again. Why on Earth would anyone be alarmed about that?
Here is the Second Amendment, HillelA; please read it carefully: n nA well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. n nNotice: n n1) It is NOT about hunting. So stop throwing up that false argument. n n2) The second amendment IS expressly an assurance for the citizenry for a free State. A free state, as opposed to a fascist state, which wants to assume control over its subjects. n nGet with the program! n n
nvkma: don't waste your pixels on "Hillel" (real name Dwayne); he can't read. n nanyway, don't you know that that Constitution is just some old piece of paper written by a bunch of slave-owning white guys? and we certainly don't need THAT kind of thing in Obama's America, now, do we?
If guns are so bad, and if the right is losing its mind over guns, then why can't the Democratic Senate act on the issue? But it's nice to know that liberals are comfortable with presidential rule by fiat. Maybe Obama can suspend Congress before they have the temerity to argue with him over the debt ceiling.
I'm with HillelA. The 2nd Amendment is unlikely to be decisive in deciding the fate of any legislation that is likely to be proposed tomorrow. The Supreme Court very recently affirmed that sweeping bans on gun ownership are not constitutional, but has left no doubt either that a wide range of gun regulations, whether by states or the feds, do not raise constitutional problems. And its recent jurisprudence is fairly consistent with 200 years of experience with such laws. Although it leans toward clarifying that the Amendment does confer an individual right to firearms, there is no doubt that such a right is not absolute anymore than are any other constitutional rights and may be affected by laws and regulations of all kinds as to who can buy or sell or possess this or that type of firearm at what time and under what circumstances. n nThe belief that the 2nd Amendment can or should answer all questions or resolve most of the issues currently being debated is arrant nonsense. If you embrace such a delusion, you are bound eventually to be disappointed. Not only would Obama's reported proposals pass constitutional scrutiny, but the significantly tougher law just signed by New York's Gov. Cuomo will pass as well. n nPro-gun people need to engage the merits or demerits of gun regulation proposals, not just dismiss them all as encroachments on presumed "rights." The latter truly is losing one's mind.
er…did you read the post? it's about why Obama is bothering to ram through an assault weapons ban that has no chance of passing. (the answer, in case you're still not paying attention, is that Obama apparently thinks he was elected king and can do as he pleases.) n nyou may call it "arrant nonsense," but the 2nd Amendment says that our gun rights 'SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.' it doesn't say "shall not be infringed very much," or "infringing is ok, because it's for your own good." n nyou seem to think that this "omg Sandy Hook let's do something fast doesn't matter what!" approach is a sound one. many of us do not. we remember that the previous assault weapons ban didn't really do very much to lessen gun violence. we also know that criminals are by definition people who don't obey the law, so we know that gun-control laws will necessarily have a greater negative impact on lawful gun owners. criminals will have no problem getting guns–they never have and they never will. n nI'm not worried about losing my mind–I'm worried about losing my country. Barack Obama is proving to be much worse than even my pre-election nightmarish image of him. to quote a learned thinker, "I hope he fails."
OK — any problem doing the same thing with Abortion? Abortion which is a "right" that doesn't even appear in the Constitution. n nCan you imagine the outcry if GWB had decided to issue an executive order that any doctor who performed more than six abortions in a year would loose his/her/its medical license? Every feminist would scream like a demented banshee — yet why can Obama limit clips to 6 bullets?
You're a colossal bore.