Boehner: Congress has a "responsibility" to act on gun violence

House Speaker John Boehner has in the past sounded pessimistic about the prospect of gun control legislation passing this year, but today he said that Congress has a "responsibility" to try to reduce gun violence.

"Congress does have a responsibility to look at violence in our society and make responsible decisions on how we can reduce that violence and the incidents of these mass shootings," Boehner told reporters this morning.

• The five key moments in Obama's State of the Union
• Rubio: "Minimum wage laws have never worked"

Play Video

Boehner: "Congress does have the responsibility" to reduce gun violence

Play Video

Gun violence victims to Congress: Act now

Play Video

Ted Nugent: Answer to reducing gun violence "so simple, it's stupid"

For Democratic lawmakers, that primarily means passing gun control legislation. In his State of the Union address last night, President Obama urged Congress to vote on bills that "help to get weapons of war and massive ammunition magazines off our streets." In one of the most moving moments of his speech, he said repeated again and again that the victims of gun violence -- former Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, the families of Newtown, and so on -- "deserve a vote."

Several people whose lives were directly impacted by gun violence attended the State of the Union address as guests of members of Congress. Boehner said, "I was glad those people were there last night."

When asked if those victims do indeed "deserve a vote," the House speaker replied, "The committees in the Congress are beginning to look at how do we address violence in our society -- how do we take meaningful steps to reduce that violence. And as I've made clear for weeks, if the Senate acts, we'll be happy to to take a look at what they do."

It's unclear what specific proposals will be able to move through this Congress. Boehner has expressed skepticism about certain ideas. Last month, for instance, he said that a ban on assault weapons would only give people a "false sense of security."

Boehner today was more critical of the president's call for a higher minimum wage.

"Why would we want to make it harder for small employers to hire people?" he asked. "You raise price of employment, you get less of it."

He also criticized the president on his remarks last night regarding the looming "sequester" cuts that would slash $1.2 trillion from defense and non-defense government spending starting next month.

"We're weeks away from the president's sequester, and the president laid out no plan to eliminate the sequester and the harmful cuts that will come as a result of it," he said. "It's incumbent upon the president and Senate Democrats to show us their plan to stop the sequester from going into effect."

Senate Democrats are laying out a plan this week, but Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., said yesterday that he doesn't expect to see any action in the House.

[lorddolaphine]

You people refuse to get it NEARL451 you obviously no nothing about guns if you think you can kill 100 people in a minute but neither does feinstein. The point is you seek to ban certain types of weapons because they are used by idiots to kill others but dont care about the school buses full of kids that are ran into by people talking or txting on cell phones. are we going to ban cell phones not just from use in a car, of course not same with alcohol related violence. The 2nd amendment is there for a reason and if you dont like it you should go to any other country because this is the land of the free. Now Im sorry you are obviously choking on the sweet air of freedom and need big daddy obama to tell you what to do. If any of these pathetic non american bills pass the fed has infinite power. Disarm the people they cant fight back and dont give me that ******** about you cant fight against drones it was people like you that let are country get this way in the first place acting all scared you need protection over freedom you make me sick. If I have to go out to the garage and lathe and mill my way to a 88mm flack gun I will then lets see your drones stop me I will never be disarmed.

[mark648]

How about a nice interview with Harry Reid asking him when Sen. Feinstein's gun bill will be brought to a vote?

[Jenn222]

Bad people will always be able to get guns--and I won't??! Why are these assault rifles even available. Only police and security and defense people of the owrld should have these. NO ONE else!!!!! Yeah even policeman who hunted down that Dormer creep. He deserved what he got. His victims did not. Guns serve a purpose--just not good in the hands of criminals. Like that's going away!! HA!!

[SbroCali]

Dormer was an ex policeman and ex military man... Chris Kyle was killed at a shooting range by a "25 year old fellow veteran"(wikipedia). What about the police that shot the two innocent women in a pickup truck delivering newspapers while searching for Dormer? Is that "protection?" policemen and military men/women are just humans like us, unfortunately they can be criminals or make bad decisions also. There is absolutely no reason that if they are afforded the right to bear such arms, we should not be able to to protect ourselves by the same means. This right has been found necessary for 222 years.

[JMaccabeus]

Jenn, please define the term "Assault Weapon".

Now, assuming owning any weapon is legal. Why does adding an adjustable stock and a bayonet lug make it illegal.

Notice I said bayonet LUG. Not the actual blade, just a fixture to attach one. A barrel shroud (piece of metal that covers the barrel to protect from burning yourself on hot metal) is also on "THE LIST OF EVIL ACCESORIES".

As for the ability of these rifles to take down planes and blow up trains (Jesse Jackson), that is pure fabrication. A large majority of the banned rifles are less powerful than many common hunting rifles.

[Justin_Rocket]

The Second Amendment is very explicit. It states, "shall not be infringed". It does NOT state, "except where the federal government thinks it should". It states, "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state". It does NOT state, "strictly for use in state militia". Should the US Government vote? They are certainly empowered to vote to repeal the 2nd amendment. They are certainly empowered to vote to over rule Heller (and, so, enshrine the states' rights to regulate firearms). The US Government is not empowered to ignore the 2nd amendment. So, if the vote is over whether the US Federal government should in any way infringe on the right to own guns (which includes voting to pass federal regulations on gun ownership, no matter how 'sensible' you think those regulations might be), the US Government has no power to make such a vote. Come on, all, this is stuff we learn in 6th grade civics class. Why are you confused?

[JMaccabeus]

@Ben

That word didn't mean what you think it means. Regulated was used to mean properly disciplined when used in regards to soldiers.

Besides the amendment does not state that the right is regulated, it is the "well regulated militia."

[Justin_Rocket]

Do the people whose lives have been saved by guns deserve a vote?

[Justin_Rocket]

The Second Amendment is very explicit. It states, "shall not be infringed". It does NOT state, "except where the federal government thinks it should". It states, "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state". It does NOT state, "strictly for use in state militia". Should the US Government vote? They are certainly empowered to vote to repeal the 2nd amendment. They are certainly empowered to vote to over rule Heller (and, so, enshrine the states' rights to regulate firearms). The US Government is not empowered to ignore the 2nd amendment. So, if the vote is over whether the US Federal government should in any way infringe on the right to own guns (which includes voting to pass federal regulations on gun ownership, no matter how 'sensible' you think those regulations might be), the US Government has no power to make such a vote. Come on, all, this is stuff we learn in 6th grade civics class. Why are you confused?

[RickB2400]

BenJordon replies: linkicon reporticon emailicon You explain to everyone why you think it's a great idea that crazy people and felons can purchase guns at gun shows without a background check.
-----
Hey BJ, I didn't say, suggest, or insinuate that crazy people and felons should be allowed to purchase guns at gun shows without a background check. BJ, if you wish to have a serious conversation with someone, respond to their points and what they actually say. Also, the name calling is a tad childish. You really shouldn't do it. But, what can you expect from a man named BJ ?

[highlndr55]

Obama want a vote. He will get his vote. He won't like the result. According to our Constitution, the 2nd Amendment is unalterable. Our Founders wanted a "regulated" militia. They did not want guns "regulated". Congress will not vote for more gun control than we already have. Limiting magazine size and types of guns has not and never will stop gun violence.

[nearl451]

2nd Amendment has nothing to do with these sensible proposals.

You are not likely to win access to Antrhax or thermonuclear devices either.

[Cowmpound]

Great. But at least the people will be heard, sort of....

Why not vote?

[dhouston121]

BenJordon replies:
linkicon reporticon emailicon
Whatever Tbagger.

You explain to everyone why you think it's a great idea that crazy people and felons can purchase guns at gun shows without a background check.
---------------------------------------------------
Hey *******!
Should we ban cars because of drunk drivers? It seems to me that you need a kick in the ass for being an ass BENJORDAN.

Now prove he belives with the Tea Party you ignorant ass

[logictoo]

Drink and drive and someone is killed by accident due to your drinking and driving then it is called vehicular homicide where I live. MADD wasn't very well represented at the State of the Union huh.---It wasn't the gun, I mean the cars fault. I was the drivers fault.

[RickB2400]

RepubliCon_Liar_RobMe .. You say that as if the families of the dead give a damn whether their loved ones were killed by a car moving at 55 MPH or a bullet moving at 6,336 mph. DEAD is DEAD. Since Alcohol is a factor in more deaths per year than guns, why aren't you jumping up and down to ban Alcohol ? No need for you to respond. I'll answer for you. The answer is that you couldn't care less about how many people are getting killed and by what means. You are only behind this gun banning issue because your side of politics sides with it. It's obvious by your insane responses when someone like DHOUSTON121 makes a point.

[logictoo]

I wonder how many die each year from alcohol violence? They outlawed it once but it didn't work out. Turned out only the outlaws were importing it and selling it and violence increased because of the criminal element. Its OK now with a big tax on it so Government gets a chunk of money. Then add in the lobbyist and oh well.

[logictoo]

Yes, alcohol is heavily regulated, but do all the regulations reduce alcohol crime or violence. BENJORDAN--your spelling is terrible as is your language.

[nearl451]

Yes, I wonder how many die of excessive flatulence too.

You people just refuse to get it. Alchohol abuse doesn't have the ability to kill 100 people a minute in a single incident.