Transcript of Obama's Gun ban speech

[Malsua 1,422]

The narrative has changed.

 

Instead of "Renewing the ban on assault weapons" it's "renewing the ban on semi-automatic rifles"

------------

Below is the transcipt of todays press conference. The stuff in red was about guns, second amendment, etc. The rest was "fiscal cliff".

 

 

Here’s a complete transcript of President Obama’s remarks on his administration’s plans for gun control, and his views on the impending fiscal cliff, as delivered on Dec. 19, 2012. Transcript was updated as the remarks unfolded.

 

PRESIDENT OBAMA: Good morning, everybody.

 

 

 

It’s now been five days since the heartbreaking tragedy in Newtown, Connecticut; three days since we gathered as a nation to pray for the victims, and today a few more of the 20 small children and six educators who were taken from us will be laid to rest. We may never know all the reasons why this tragedy happened. We do know that every day since, more Americans have died of gun violence. We know such violence has terrible consequences for our society. And if there is even one thing that we can do to prevent any of these events, we have a deep obligation, all of us, to try.

 

OBAMA: Over these past five days, the discussion has re-emerged as to what we might do not only to deter mass shootings in the future, but to reduce the epidemic of gun violence that plagues this country every single day. And it’s encouraging that people of all different backgrounds and beliefs and political persuasions have been willing to challenge some old assumptions and change some long-standing positions.

 

That conversation has to continue, but this time the words need to lead to action. We know this is a complex issue that stirs deeply held (ph) passions and political divides. And as I said on Sunday night, there’s no law or set of laws that can prevent every senseless act of violence in our society.

 

We’re going to need on making access to mental health at least as easy as access to a gun. We’re going to need to look more closely at a culture that, all too often, glorifies guns and violence. And any actions we must take must begin inside the home and inside our hearts.

 

But the fact that this problem is complex, can no longer be an excuse for doing nothing. The fact that we can’t prevent every act of violence, doesn’t mean that we can’t steadily reduce the violence and prevent the very worst violence. That’s why I asked the vice president to lead an effort to include members of my Cabinet and outside organizations to come up with a set of concrete proposals no later than January, proposals that I then intend to push without delay.

 

OBAMA: This is not some Washington commission. This is not something where folks are going to be studying the issue for six months and publishing a report that gets read and then pushed aside.

 

This is a team that has a very specific task to pull together real reforms right now.

 

I asked Joe to lead this effort in part because he wrote the 1994 crime bill that helped law enforcement bring down the rate of violent crime in this country. That plan -- that bill also included the assault weapons ban that was publicly supported at the time by former presidents, including Ronald Reagan.

 

The good news is there’s already a growing consensus for us to build from. A majority of Americans support banning the sale of military-style assault weapons. A majority of Americans support banning the sale of high-capacity ammunition clips. A majority of Americans support laws requiring background checks before all gun purchases so that criminals can’t take advantage of legal loopholes to buy a gun from somebody who won’t take the responsibility of doing a background check at all.

 

I urge the new Congress to hold votes on these measures next year in a timely manner.

 

And considering Congress hasn’t confirmed a director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms in six years -- the agency that works most closely with state and local law enforcement to keep illegal guns out of the hands of criminals -- I’d suggest that they make this a priority early in the year.

 

 

 

Look, like the majority of Americans, I believe that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual a right to bear arms. This country has a strong tradition of gun ownership that’s been handed down from generation to generation.

 

Obviously, across the country there are regional differences. There are differences between how people feel in urban areas and rural areas. And the fact is, the vast majority of gun owners in America are responsible. They buy their guns legally and they use them safely, whether for hunting or sports shooting, collection or protection.

 

OBAMA: But you know what? I am also betting that the majority -- the vast majority of responsible law-abiding gun owners would be some of the first to say that we should be able to keep an irresponsible, law-breaking few from buying a weapon of war.

 

I’m willing to bet that they don’t think that using a gun and using common sense are incompatible ideas; that an unbalanced man shouldn’t be able it to get his hands on a military-style assault rifle so easily; that in this age of technology we should be able to check someone’s criminal records before he or she can check out at a gun show.

 

That if he we work harder to keep guns out of the hands of dangerous people there would be fewer atrocities like the ones in Newtown or any of the lesser known tragedies that visit (ph) small towns and big cities all across America every day.

 

Since Friday morning, a police officer was gunned down in Memphis, leaving four children without their mother. Two officers were killed outside a grocery store in Topeka. A woman was shot and killed inside a Las Vegas casino. Three people were shot inside an Alabama hospital. A four-year-old was caught in a drive-by in Missouri and taken off life support just yesterday.

 

Each one of these Americans was a victim of the everyday gun violence that takes the lives of more than 10,000 Americans every year -- violence that we cannot accept as routine.

 

So I will use all the powers of this office to help advance efforts aimed the at preventing more tragedies like this. We won’t prevent them all, but that can’t be an excuse not to try. It won’t be easy, but that can’t be an excuse not to try.

 

And I’m not going to be able to do it by myself. Ultimately, if this effort is to succeed, it’s going to require the help of the American people. It’s gonna require all of you. If we’re going to change things, it’s going to take a wave of Americans -- mothers and fathers, daughters and sons, pastors, law enforcement, mental health professionals, and, yes, gun owners -- standing up and saying, enough on behalf of our kids.

 

 

It will take commitment and compromise, and most of all it will take courage.

 

OBAMA: But if those of us who were sent here to serve the public trust can summon even one tiny iota of the courage of those teachers, that principal in Newtown summoned on Friday, if cooperation and common sense prevail, then I’m convinced we can make a sensible, intelligent way to make the United States of America a safer, stronger place for our children to learn and to grow.

 

Thank you.

 

And now I’m gonna let the vice president go, and I’m gonna take a few questions.

 

And I will start with Ben Phillips (ph).

 

QUESTION: Thank you, Mr. President.

 

I’d like to ask you about the other serious issue ensuing (ph) this town right now, fiscal cliff.

 

OBAMA: Correct.

 

QUESTION: Haven’t you betrayed some of the voters who supported you in the election by changing your positions on who should get a tax increase and then by -- by including Social Security benefits now into this mix?

 

And more broadly, there seems to be a deepening sense that negotiations aren’t going very well right now. Can you give us a candid update, are we likely to go over the cliff?

 

OBAMA: Well, first of all, there’s no reason why we should. Remember what I said during the campaign, I thought that it was important for us to reduce our deficit in a balanced and responsible way. I said it was important for us to make sure that millionaires and billionaires paid their fair share. I said that we were going to have to make some tough cuts, some tough decisions on the spending side, but what I wouldn’t do was hurt vulnerable families only to pay for a tax cut for somebody like me.

 

And what I said was that the ultimate package would involve a balance of spending cuts and tax increases. That’s exactly what I’ve put forward. What I’ve said is that in order to arrive at a compromise, I am prepared to do some very tough things, some things that some Democrats don’t want to see and probably there are a few Republicans who don’t want to see either.

 

But the only way that we’re going to be able to stabilize the economy, make sure we’ve got a platform for long-term economic growth, that we get our deficits under control, and we make sure that middle- class families are protected, is if we come up with something that members of both parties in Congress can support. And that’s the plan that I’ve put forward.

 

I have gone at least halfway in meeting some of the Republicans’ concerns, recognizing that even though we campaigned on these issues, even though the majority of Americans agree with me that we should be raising taxes on the wealthiest few as a means of reducing the deficit. I have also said that I’m willing to identify some spending cuts that make sense.

 

And, you know, frankly up until about a couple of days ago, if you looked at it, the Republicans in the House and Speaker Boehner I think were in a position to say: “We’ve gotten a fair deal.” The fact that they haven’t taken it yet is puzzling, and I think, you know, a question that you’re going to have to address to them.

 

I remain optimistic, because if you look at what the speaker has proposed, he’s conceded that income tax rates should go up, except right now he only wants to have them go up for millionaires. If you’re making $900,000, somehow he thinks that you can’t afford to pay a little more in taxes. But the principle that rates are going to need to go up, he’s conceded.

 

I’ve said I’m willing to make some cuts. What separates us is probably a few hundred billion dollars. The idea that we would put our economy at risk because you can’t bridge that cap doesn’t make a lot of sense.

 

 

 

So, I’m going to continue to talk to the speaker and the other leaders up in Congress, but ultimately they’ve got to do their job. Right now, their job is to make sure that middle-class taxes do not go up and that we have a balanced, responsible package of deficit reduction. It is there for all to see. It is a deal that can get done, but it is not going to be -- it cannot be done if every side wants 100 percent. And part of what voters were looking for is some compromise up here. That’s what -- that’s what folks want.

 

OBAMA: They understand that they’re not going to get 100 percent of what they want. And for some reason, that message has not yet taken up on Capitol Hill. And when you think about what we’ve gone through over the last couple of months -- a devastating hurricane, and now one of the worst tragedies in our memory, the country deserves folks to be willing to compromise on behalf of the greater good and not tangle themselves up in a whole bunch of ideological positions that don’t make much sense. So I remain, not only open to conversations, but I remain eager to get something done. I’d like to get it done before Christmas. There’s been a lot of posturing up on Capitol Hill instead of just going ahead and getting stuff done. We’ve been wasting a lot of time. It is the right thing to do. I’m prepared to get it done, but they’re going to have to go ahead and make -- make some adjustments.

 

And -- and I’ll just give you one other example. The speaker is now proposing what he calls Plan B. So he says, “Well, this would raise taxes only on folks making $1 million or more.” What that means is, an average of a $50,000 tax break for every millionaire out there. At the same time as we’re not providing unemployment insurance for 2 million people who are still out there looking for work. It actually means a tax increase for millions of working families across the country, at the same time as folks like me would be getting a tax break. That violates the core principles that were debated during the course of this election and that the American people determined was -- was the wrong way to go.

 

And so my hope is, is that the speaker and his caucus, in conjunction with the other legislative leaders out there, can find a way to make sure that middle-class families don’t see their taxes go up on January 1st, that we make sure that those things that middle- class families count on like tax credits for college or making sure that they’re getting some help when it comes to raising their kids, through things like the Child Tax Credit, that that gets done, and that we have a balanced package for deficit reduction, which is exactly what I’ve put forward.

 

 

QUESTION: Will you give more ground if you need to or (inaudible)

 

OBAMA: The if -- if you look at the package that I’ve put forward, it is a balanced package by any definition. And the -- we have put forward real cuts in spending that are hard to do in every category. And by any measure, by any traditional calculation, by the measures that Republicans themselves have used in the past, this would be a -- as large a piece of deficit reduction as we’ve seen in the last 20 years. And if you combine that with the increased revenue from the wealthy paying a little bit more, then you actually have something that would stabilize our deficit and debt for a decade, for 10 years.

 

 

 

Now, the notion that we would not do that, but instead the speaker would run a play (ph) that cut -- keeps tax cuts for folks making $500,000 or $700,000 or $800,000 or $900,000 a year and gives more tax breaks to millionaires and billionaires and raises taxes on middle-class families and then has no cuts in it, which is what he says he wants, doesn’t make much sense.

 

OBAMA: Let’s -- let’s just think about the logic for a second. The -- the thinking about voting for raising taxes, at least on folks over a million, which they say they don’t want to do, but they’re going to reject spending cuts that they say they do want to do. That defies logic. There’s no explanation for that.

 

I think that any objective person out there looking would say that, you know, we put forward a very balanced plan, and it’s time for us to go ahead and get it done. That’s what the country needs right now. Because I think folks have been through some -- some wrenching times. We’re still recovering from a very tough recession. And what they’re hoping for is a sense of stability, focus, compromise, common sense over the next -- next couple of years. And I think that we can provide it, but this is a good test for it, OK.

 

Carol Lee (ph)? (inaudible)

 

QUESTION: Thank you. Just a follow on Ben’s question. What is your next move? Are we in a position now where you’re just waiting for the speaker to make a move...

 

(CROSSTALK)

 

OBAMA: I’m going to reach out to all the leaders involved over the next couple of days and -- and find out what is it that’s holding this thing up. What is holding it up? If -- if the argument from Republicans is we haven’t done enough spending cuts, that argument is not going to fly because we’ve got close to a trillion dollars of spending cuts. And when you add interest then it’s more than a trillion dollars in spending cuts.

 

If the argument is that they can’t do -- they can’t increase tax rates on folks making $700,000 or $800,000 a year, that’s not a persuasive argument to me and it’s certainly not a persuasive argument to the American people.

 

You know, it may be that members of their caucus haven’t looked at exactly what we’ve proposed. It may be that if we provide more information or there’s greater specificity, or we’ve worked through some of their concerns that we can get some movement there.

 

But, you know, the fact of the matter is, is that -- what would violate my commitment to voters is if I ended up agreeing to a plan that put more of the burden on the middle-class families and less of a burden on the wealthy in an effort to reduce our deficit. That’s not something I’m going to do. What would violate my commitment to voters would be to put forward a plan that makes it harder for young people to go to college, that makes it harder for a family with a disabled kid to care for that kid. And there’s a threshold where -- that you reach where the balance tips even in making compromises that are required to get something done in this town where you are hurting people in order to give another advantage to folks who don’t need help.

 

And we had an extensive debate about this for a year. And not only does the majority of the American people agree with me, about half of Republican voters agree with me on it this.

 

So, you know, at some point there’s got to be I think a recognition on the part of my Republican friends that, you know, take the deal. You know, they will be able to claim that they have worked with me over the last two years to reduce the deficit more than any other deficit reduction package; that we will have stabilized it for 10 years. That is a significant achievement for them. They should be proud of it. But they keep on finding ways to say no as opposed to finding ways to say yes.

 

OBAMA: And I don’t know how much of that just has to do with, you know, it is very hard for them to say yes to me.

 

But, you know, at some point, you know, they’ve got to take me out of it and think about their voters and think about what’s best for the country.

 

And -- and if they do that -- if they’re not worried about who’s winning and who’s losing; you know, did they score a point on the president; did they extract that last little concession; did they, you know, you know, force him to do something he really doesn’t want to do just for the heck of it; and they focus on actually what’s good for the country, I actually think we can get this done.

 

QUESTION: You mentioned the $700,000, $800,000 -- are you willing to move on income level? And are there specific things that you would do...

 

OBAMA: You know, I’m not going to get into specific negotiations here. My point is simply, Carol (ph), that if you look at Speaker Boehner’s proposal and you look at my proposal, they’re actually pretty close. They keep on saying that somehow we haven’t put forward real spending cuts. Actually, you know, there was I think a graph in the New York Times today that showed. They’re the same categories, right? There’s a little bit of tweaks here and there. There are a few differences, but, you know, we’re right there.

 

And on the revenue side, there’s a difference in terms of them wanting to preserve tax breaks for folks between $250,000 and $1 million that we just can’t afford. I mean, keep in mind, I’m in that income category. I’d love to, you know, not -- not pay as much in taxes, but I also think it’s the right thing to do for us to make sure that people who have less, people who are working, people who are striving, people who, you know, are hoping for their kids, that they have opportunity.

 

That’s what we campaigned about. It’s what we talked about. And this is not a situation where I’m, you know -- I’m willing to compromise. This is not a situation where I’m trying to, you know, rub their face in anything. And I think anybody who looks at this objectively would say that coming off my election, I have met them at least halfway in order to get something done for the country.

 

And so, I noticed that there were a couple of headlines out there saying, you know, “Oh, you know, we’re now in the land of political posturing.” And, you know, it’s the usual he said/he said atmosphere. But look at the facts. Look at where we started. Look at where they started. My proposal is right there in the middle. We should be able to get this done. Let’s get it done. We don’t have a lot of time.

 

Carrie (ph)? Where’s -- there you are.

 

QUESTION: Thank you, Mr. President.

 

OBAMA: Yeah.

 

QUESTION: What is your level of confidence that if you are able to reach a comprehensive deal with the speaker, that he will be able to bring his members on board to get it passed? Essentially, do you still trust Speaker Boehner in this process?

 

OBAMA: There is no doubt that, you know, the speaker has challenges in his caucus, and I recognize that. I’m often reminded when I speak to the Republican leadership that the majority of their caucus’s membership come from districts that I lost. And so, sometimes they may not see an incentive in cooperating with me in part because they’re more concerned about challenges from a tea party candidate or challenges from the right. And, you know, cooperating with me may make them vulnerable.

 

You know, I recognize that. But, goodness, if -- if this past week has done anything, it should just give us some perspective. If there’s one thing we should have after this week, it should be a sense of perspective about what’s important.

 

And, you know, I would like to think that members of that -- that caucus would say to themselves, “You know what? We disagree with the president on a whole bunch of things. We wish the other guy had won. We’re going to fight him on a whole range of issues over the next four years. We think his philosophy is all screwed up.”

 

But, right now what the country needs is for us to compromise, get a deficit reduction deal in place, make sure middle class taxes don’t go up, make sure that we’re laying the foundations for growth, give certainty to businesses large and small, not put ourselves through some sort of self-inflicted crisis every six months. Allow ourselves time to focus on things like preventing the tragedy in Newtown from happening again. Focus on issues like energy, and immigration reform and, you know, all the things that will really make a determination as to whether or not our country grows over -- over the next four years, 10 years, 40 years.

 

And -- and, if you just pull back from the immediate, you know, political battles, if you kind of peel off the partisan war paint, then we should be able to get something done.

 

And -- and, you know, I think -- I think the Speaker would like to get that done. I think an environment needs to be created within not just the House Republican caucus but also among Senate Republicans that say the campaign is over, and let’s see if we can do what’s right for the country. At least for the next month. And then, you know, we can reengage in all the other battles that they’ll want to fight.

 

QUESTION: If you don’t get it done, Republicans say they would try to use the debt limit as the next pressure point. Will you negotiate with them in that context?

 

OBAMA: No. And, I’ve been very clear about this.

 

This is the United States of America. The greatest country on Earth, the world’s economic superpower. And, the idea that we lurch from crisis to crisis, and every six months, or every nine months that we threaten not to pay our bills on stuff we’ve already bought, and default and ruin the full faith and credit of the United States of America, that’s not how you run a great country.

 

OBAMA: So I’ve put forward a very clear principle. I will not negotiate around the debt ceiling. You know, we’re not going to play the same game that we saw happen -- saw happen in 2011, which was hugely destructive. It hurt our economy. It provided more uncertainty to the business community than anything else that happened. And, you know, I’m not alone in this. You know, if you go to Wall Street, including talking to a whole bunch of folks who spent a lot of money trying to beat me, they would say it would be disastrous for us to use the debt ceiling as a cudgel to try to win political points on Capitol Hill.

 

So we’re not going to do that. And -- and -- which is why I think that, you know, part of what I hope over the next couple of days we see is a recognition that there is a way to go ahead and get what it is you’ve been fighting for, these guys have been fighting for spending cuts. They can get some very meaningful spending cuts. This would amount to $2 trillion, $2 trillion spending cuts over the last couple of years.

 

And in exchange, they’re getting a little over a trillion dollars in revenue. And that meets the pledge that I made during the campaign, which was two to -- two dollars and fifty cents of spending cuts for every revenue increase. And that’s an approach that I think most Americans think is appropriate. But I will not negotiate around the debt ceiling. We’re not going to do that again.

 

QUESTION: (inaudible)

 

OBAMA: Yes, I’ve got David Jackson (ph).

 

QUESTION: Thank you, Mr. President.

 

Getting back to the gun issue.

 

OBAMA: Yeah.

 

QUESTION: You alluded to the fact that Washington commission (ph) doesn’t have the greatest reputation in the world.

 

OBAMA: Right.

 

QUESTION: What makes you think this was going to be the difference given the passage of time and the political power of gun rights movements like the National Rifle Association?

 

OBAMA: Well, this is not -- this is not going to be a commission. Joe is going to gather up some key Cabinet members who have an interest in this issue. We’re going to reach out to a bunch of stakeholders. We’re going to be reaching out to members of Congress who have an interest in this issue. It’s not as if we have to start from scratch. There are a whole bunch of proposals that have been thought about, debated, but, hopefully, also some new ideas in terms of how we deal with this issue.

 

But their task is gonna be to sift through every good idea that’s out there and even take a look at some bad ideas before disposing of them, and come up with a concrete set of recommendations in about a month.

 

And I would hope that our memories aren’t so short that what we saw in Newtown isn’t lingering with us, that we don’t remain passionate about it only a month later.

 

And as soon as we get that, those recommendations, I will be putting forward very specific proposals. I will be talking about them in my State of the Union, and we will be working with interested members of Congress to try to get something done.

 

And -- the idea that we should say, “This is terrible. This is a tragedy. Never again,” and we don’t have the sustained attention span to be able to get this done over the next several months doesn’t make sense.

 

I -- I have more confidence in the American people than that. I have more confidence in the parents, the mothers and fathers that I’ve been meeting over the last several days all across the country from all political persuasions, including a lot of gun owners who say, “You know what, this time we’ve got to do things differently.”

 

QUESTION: What about the NRA?

 

OBAMA: Well, the NRA is -- is an organization who has members who are mothers and fathers, and I would expect that they’ve been impacted by this, as well. And, hopefully, they’ll do some self- reflection.

 

And -- and here’s what we know, that any single gun law can’t solve all these problems. We’re gonna have to look at mental health issues. We’re gonna have to look at schools. There’re gonna be a whole range of things that Joe’s group looks at. We know that issues of gun safety will be an element of it, and, you know, what we’ve seen over the last 20 years, 15 years is the sense that anything related to guns is somehow an encroachment on the Second Amendment. What we’re looking for here is a thoughtful approach that says we can preserve our Second Amendment, we can make sure that responsible gun owners are able to carry out their activities, but that we’re gonna actually be serious about the safety side of this, that we’re gonna be serious about making sure that something like Newtown or Aurora doesn’t happen again.

 

And there is a big chunk of space between what, you know, the Second Amendment means and having no rules at all. And that space is what Joe’s gonna be working on to try to identify where we can find some common ground.

 

So I’ve got...

 

(UNKNOWN): (OFF-MIKE)

 

OBAMA: I’m gonna take one last question.

 

OBAMA: Go ahead. Jake (ph)?

 

QUESTION: It seems to a lot of political observers that you made the political calculation in 2008, in your first term, and in 2012 not to talk about gun violence. You had your position on renewing the ban on semi-automatic rifles that then-Senator Biden put into place. But you didn’t do much about it. This is not the first issue -- the first incident of horrific gun violence of your four years.

 

Where have you been?

 

OBAMA: Well, here’s where I’ve been, Jake.

 

I’ve been president of the United States dealing with the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression, an auto industry on the verge of collapse, two wars. I don’t think I’ve been on vacation. And -- So, you know, I think all of us have to do some reflection on how we prioritize what we do here in Washington.

 

And, as I said on Sunday, you know, this should be a wake-up call for all of us. To say that if we are not getting right the need to keep our children safe, then nothing else matters. And, it’s my commitment on to make sure we do everything we can to keep our children safe. A lot of things going -- are involved in that, Jake, so making sure they have decent health care and a good education, making sure that their parents have jobs. Those are all relevant as well.

 

Those aren’t just sort of side issues. But, there’s no doubt that this has to be a central issue. And, that’s exactly why I’m confident that Joe is going to take this so seriously over the next couple months.

 

All right? Thank you, everybody.

 

END

[vladtepes 1,060]

I may be optimistic here.. but I do not hear

"I want to ban all guns"

 

I instead hear

"I want to use this to push more health care reform (mental health access.. etc..)"

"I want to end private sales"

 

granted I just skimmed it.. but am I missing something?

[Spartiati 63]

I may be optimistic here.. but I do not hear

"I want to ban all guns"

 

I instead hear

"I want to use this to push more health care reform (mental health access.. etc..)"

"I want to end private sales"

 

granted I just skimmed it.. but am I missing something?

 

I agree the words "ban semi-auto rifles" did not come out of his mouth in his speach, on that he was unclear. My worry is they are in a big hurry to do something on this and we wi just do a bunch of stuff to say we did something. Wil be interesting to see the bill....

[BlueLineFish 615]

What worries me is that because of time constraints they will just look at the old awb and use that and try to make it stricter

[autoxnyc 4]

Excuse my ignorance here. What is a required to have an AWB passed? majority of the house/senate to agree on it?

[BigHayden 77]

No, Diane Fienstein was very proud on Sunday to say that she's been crafting this bill for a year. This isn't going to be a re-hash of the '93 bill, it will be a whole different animal.

 

On a related note, the fact that DiFi has been working on this bill and NOW she will introduce it suggests that she was merely waiting for a big enough pool of blood to stand in to drum up support. She's a f'ing disgrace.

[vladtepes 1,060]

Excuse my ignorance here. What is a required to have an AWB passed? majority of the house/senate to agree on it?

 

a ballpoint pen and a piece of notebook paper..

 

we take a LOT for granted.. part of what we take for granted is that our government will follow the rules.. they could decide tonight at midnight that every gun you own is criminal... what would happen next is anyone's guess....

[BigHayden 77]

Excuse my ignorance here. What is a required to have an AWB passed? majority of the house/senate to agree on it?

 

Yup, just like any other bill.

[BlueLineFish 615]

She is a ghoul pushing her agenda. Nobody will call her on that though

 

[Malsua 1,422]

The NRA has already conceded.

 

I think it will boil down to this:

 

Magazines are going to 10 rounds. Yes, this blows. This however is an easy one for the NRA to give away.

I suspect that 20 and 30 round rifle mags will be grandfathered, all 30+ mags will be banned completely. You will be required to destroy them or turn them in.

for handguns, no new mags greater than 10 rounds. 15 or fewer round mags will be grandfathered, anything 16+ will be banned. Sorry Glock 17, you're screwed.

All modern AR platform rifles will be gone. Anything scary looking is banned.

All AK47 and their clones, like Saigas and whatnot are gone.

Any semi-automatic rifle or shotgun with a pistol grip will be grandfathered but no new production. They have a big hard on for pistol grips.

All FTF transfers are done. Every transfer must go through an FFL. "gun show loophole" closed.

All items on the banned list may not be transferred after a certain date, probably 18 months after the ban is in place.

All mental health records will wind up in NICS. Taking anti-depressants? Forget about a proceed.

 

As far as NJ goes, there will be no grandfathering. Banned is banned. This will go into effect as some point in conjunction with the new federal ban. There will be an assault rifle registry and it will require yearly renewal for a fee.

[Spartiati 63]

Yup, just like any other bill.

 

Senate I think is a forgone conclusion. With the house and two vacant seats not sure if the vote is 217 or 218 but Dems would need all Dem votes and 17 or 18 Rep votes. How realistic is it that they will get those votes??? I am a bit uncertain due to the emotianal charge of this one, which is why it will be in there benefit to act fast.

 

Any thoughts here on gettng the 17 or 18 votes?

[DirtyDigz 1,812]

The NRA has already conceded.

...

 

Based on what do you draw that conclusion?

 

At least wait until their presser on Friday before you write them off.

[RubberBullets 65]

The NRA has already conceded.

 

I think it will boil down to this:

 

Magazines are going to 10 rounds. Yes, this blows. This however is an easy one for the NRA to give away.

I suspect that 20 and 30 round rifle mags will be grandfathered, all 30+ mags will be banned completely. You will be required to destroy them or turn them in.

for handguns, no new mags greater than 10 rounds. 15 or fewer round mags will be grandfathered, anything 16+ will be banned. Sorry Glock 17, you're screwed.

All modern AR platform rifles will be gone. Anything scary looking is banned.

All AK47 and their clones, like Saigas and whatnot are gone.

Any semi-automatic rifle or shotgun with a pistol grip will be grandfathered but no new production. They have a big hard on for pistol grips.

All FTF transfers are done. Every transfer must go through an FFL. "gun show loophole" closed.

All items on the banned list may not be transferred after a certain date, probably 18 months after the ban is in place.

All mental health records will wind up in NICS. Taking anti-depressants? Forget about a proceed.

 

As far as NJ goes, there will be no grandfathering. Banned is banned. This will go into effect as some point in conjunction with the new federal ban. There will be an assault rifle registry and it will require yearly renewal for a fee.

 

This seems like a glass is half empty approach. You would need a repetitive rehashing of emotion due to gun violence to get the public and officials behind it. I see some changes, but the worst case in my opinion would be a reinstatement of the useless awb.. best case being background check reform, and high cap mag limitations.

 

 

 

And although its not the popular opinion, the NRA has chosen to not be baited by emotionally charged witch hunts. While silence isnt the option most wanted to see. I believe their tactic was a sound one and what really matters is how they lay their press conference out friday.

[Malsua 1,422]

Based on what do you draw that conclusion?

 

At least wait until their presser on Friday before you write them off.

 

"prepared to offer meaningful contributions" = Roll over and beg forgiveness. It means they're signaling that they're willing to give something away. Right out of the gate, without asking, they're going to give the gun banners a sign of good faith. I.E. offer up our gun rights as a sacrifice. I predict it will be 10 round mag caps.

[DirtyDigz 1,812]

"prepared to offer meaningful contributions" = Roll over and beg forgiveness. ...

 

That's a pessimistic interpretation IMO. We'll see what they actually say and how they respond to whatever Biden's gang pukes up.

[jrfly3006 42]

Look out for the "Executive Order" play here..hes got the momentum..especially after his grand innauguration in Jan..

[Malsua 1,422]

That's a pessimistic interpretation IMO. We'll see what they actually say and how they respond to whatever Biden's gang pukes up.

 

I have no faith in anyone looking out for my interests.

[Spartiati 63]

Look out for the "Executive Order" play here..hes got the momentum..especially after his grand innauguration in Jan..

 

Call me naive but I don't think that is really probable. What act of Congress would this be attached to?

[jrfly3006 42]

 

 

Call me naive but I don't think that is really probable. What act of Congress would this be attached to?

Doesnt have to be attached to anything congressional..just has to say its in the best interest of citizens safety or some other nonsense..Chris Wallace from Fox News said its likely he uses some sort of Executive power here..while all of his mesmerzed folowers applaud and say thank you

[Dan 177]

IMO, What will come of this is legislation crafted around keeping guns out of the hands of bad guys. To me this means no more FTF transfers, needing to go through a FFL, aka "gun show loophole" to the antis.

[RubberBullets 65]

IMO, What will come of this is legislation crafted around keeping guns out of the hands of bad guys. To me this means no more FTF transfers, needing to go through a FFL, aka "gun show loophole" to the antis.

 

Just think of all that local tax revenue on sales. They want their cut.

[Spartiati 63]

Doesnt have to be attached to anything congressional..just has to say its in the best interest of citizens safety or some other nonsense..Chris Wallace from Fox News said its likely he uses some sort of Executive power here..while all of his mesmerzed folowers applaud and say thank you

Historically though my understanding is executive orders are not used to create a law in and of it's sef but rather to manipulate an existing law. He woud be taking a big eap of faith here that he wouldn't be impeached in my view. I may be wrong but I just don't see it.

[incinerator950 0]

I may be optimistic here.. but I do not hear

"I want to ban all guns"

 

I instead hear

"I want to use this to push more health care reform (mental health access.. etc..)"

"I want to end private sales"

 

granted I just skimmed it.. but am I missing something?

 

Yeah, that's what I got after my first full reading after the first skim.

 

I skimmed it and saw reduced cuts to something and stress. Didn't really see anything about throwing bans around until after initial reviews.

This seems like a glass is half empty approach. You would need a repetitive rehashing of emotion due to gun violence to get the public and officials behind it. I see some changes, but the worst case in my opinion would be a reinstatement of the useless awb.. best case being background check reform, and high cap mag limitations.

 

 

 

And although its not the popular opinion, the NRA has chosen to not be baited by emotionally charged witch hunts. While silence isnt the option most wanted to see. I believe their tactic was a sound one and what really matters is how they lay their press conference out friday.

I normally have no confidence in politics, its the reason I refuse to vote. However, I am agreeing with you here.

 

I need more information, a lot of information.

[CMJeepster 2,780]

Anything scary looking is banned.

Does that mean that we can say goodbye to Hilary? Ha, ha, ha!!!

[Malsua 1,422]

Does that mean that we can say goodbye to Hilary? Ha, ha, ha!!!

 

You mean the next president?

[njpilot 671]

Did anyone catch the Douche in Chief try to exploit the CT tragedy to get the Republicans to cave in on the fiscal cliff? Twice he mentioned the shooting and also mentioned hurricane Sandy. This a**hole would exploit the death of his own kids if it got him what he wants.

[jrfly3006 42]

 

Historically though my understanding is executive orders are not used to create a law in and of it's sef but rather to manipulate an existing law. He woud be taking a big eap of faith here that he wouldn't be impeached in my view. I may be wrong but I just don't see it.

I hope so..if there ever was a time for checks and balances to work in govt. its now..only real thread of hope is Republican controlled house

[PeteF 1,044]

We’re going to need on making access to mental health at least as easy as access to a gun.

 

I find the above very scary. So if you want to see a shrink make an appointment from 1 to 9 months early and they prove you have a justifiable need to see one.

[SgtToadette 59]

I find it funny that we don't even know what we're specifically up against but a lot have already given up. We don't even know what's on the table yet! Lets reserve our feeling of defeat for when we actually get defeated (should that be the case).

[woodentoe 14]

I find it funny that we don't even know what we're specifically up against but a lot have already given up. We don't even know what's on the table yet! Lets reserve our feeling of defeat for when we actually get defeated (should that be the case).

 

I find it further amusing that the three or four folks who are regular posters here who typically buck the echo chamber culture are NOT ceding and have not seemed to cede defeat. Or rather, I find it tragic.