Obama: Gun control supporters must listen more

President Obama said gun control proponents "have to do a little more listening" to second-amendment advocates in an interview with The New Republic, noting that he has a "profound respect" for hunting as a tradition and urging those who support stricter gun laws not to dismiss that tradition "out of hand."

Asked if he has ever shot a gun, the president said, "Yes, in fact, up at Camp David, we do skeet shooting all the time. ... Not the girls, but oftentimes guests of mine go up there. And I have a profound respect for the traditions of hunting that trace back in this country for generations. And I think those who dismiss that out of hand make a big mistake."

"Part of being able to move this forward is understanding the reality of guns in urban areas are very different from the realities of guns in rural areas," he said.

"So it's trying to bridge those gaps that I think is going to be part of the biggest task over the next several months," Mr. Obama explained. "And that means that advocates of gun control have to do a little more listening than they do sometimes."

In the wake of the gun massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn., that left 20 children and six school administrators dead, Mr. Obama proposed a raft of new restrictions on firearms, including a ban on military-style semiautomatic weapons and a restriction on the size of ammunition magazines. Gun-rights groups, in turn, have accused the president of trampling the constitutional rights of American gun-owners.

Mr. Obama's comments come amidst a concerted push from the administration to enact the president's agenda to reduce gun violence. On Friday, Vice President Joe Biden, who chaired the task force responsible for generating the policy ideas that Mr. Obama has proposed, traveled to Richmond, Va., to consult with experts and public officials on the way forward.

"We talked about the need to expand mental health capacity across the country. We talked about access and we talked about resources," Biden said. "But most the focus was on, what are the recommendations from these professionals about how we can detect earlier than later those folks who have the propensity" to commit acts of gun violence.

Biden said that the nation "has an obligation to act" after witnessing "What happened up in Newtown - beautiful little babies, six and seven years old, riddled - riddled - with bullets."

And "with the help of our colleagues in the House and Senate, we're going to get something done," he promised.

• Biden brings gun control push to Virginia
• Mark Kelly, NRA's Wayne LaPierre to testify at Senate gun hearing

The first major congressional action on gun violence since the president unveiled his proposals is scheduled for January 30, when advocates on either side of the issue will testify at a hearing of the Senate Judicary Committee entitled "What Should America Do About Gun Violence?"

The hearing promises to be a high-profile affair, with testimony expected from the NRA's Wayne LaPierre, whose call for armed guards in schools sparked a fierce debate with proponents of gun control.

Also scheduled to testify is Mark Kelly, husband of former Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, D-Ariz., who was shot in the head during a mass shooting in Tucson, Ariz., two years ago.

[Bojax39]

"President Obama said gun control proponents "have to do a little more listening" to second-amendment advocates in an interview with The New Republic, noting that he has a "profound respect" for hunting as a tradition and urging those who support stricter gun laws not to dismiss that tradition "out of hand."

If I believed he actually believed this way and was not simply doing lip service so he can slip onerous laws past the 2nd Amendment, I'd say kudos.

[JohnKrats]

Hitler's gun control program in a nutshell:

1. Jews are prohibited from owning guns.

2. Nazi party members are exempt from gun control laws.

3. Everyone else may own guns with some restrictions.

How did the people without guns make out under this scheme?

[Segesser1]

All i hear is newtown in every story,I hear the kid left the rifle in the car.I wonder what the real report will say. Will be interesting to see how many gun laws they can pass before/if they release that imformation.

[MRPAULGE0RGE]

I keep wondering how it changed from 4 handguns to 3 handguns then 2 handguns and a rifle and a shotgun.

Well it wouldn't fit an agenda if it was just 4 handguns.

What about the other person that was arrested?

What about the FBI informant's car that was involved?

I find it hard to believe an anti-social kid who barely weighed 100 pounds could shoot up a school.

Why wear a bullet proof vest if the intention was suicide?

[teebonicus]

ST247 and RustyBear -

"Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment . We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. Ameian Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35-36 (2001), the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding." - DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER (No. 07-290) 478 F. 3d 370, affirmed.

Fixed that for you....

[strawman2012]

The War on Drugs has produced an industry with such disregard for law to be staggering in depth and breadth. The billions that change hands outside the scope of law is such that gangs are better armed than the cops and sometimes the military. Now, we have the War On Guns. I wonder where this will lead?

[strawman2012]

Posted Sunday 27th January 2013 from Twitlonger

You can't make this stuff up...

Democrat on Guns

To the Editor: Republicans and "So Called" conservatives are at it again. They are claiming that the Constitution gives people the right to have guns without the permissions of the government. If that were true, then how could New York and Chicago have laws against it? We Democrats are sick and tired of Republicans consistently using the Constitution to cover up their true plans, which are to make us all afraid of everyone else. Our Great President came from a civilized part of the country where there is strict gun control, and he is only trying to bring the benefits of that more modern way of living to the rest of us. I don't know the exact statistics, but I'm quite certain that Chicago is a lot safer than Morehead City, when it comes to gun violence. But do Republicans and conservatives listen to the voice of reason? No, of course not. All they want to do is whine and complain about how gun control and wealth re-distribution violate the Constitution, as if the Constitution were all that great. There are a lot of things that need to be changed about the Constitution, I'd say, and President Obama needs to change it. The Republicans are just trying to stand in the way, because the President is black. They even dared to question whether he was born in this country. I think all this demonstrates that the Constitution needs to be amended when it concerns a) the qualifications for being President. Right now, it says that the person has to be 35 years old and be a natural born citizen. Well, that is obviously unfair because there are a great many otherwise qualified people who cannot even run for president because their mothers had to have a C-section. But because the Constitution was written a hundred years ago, nobody even thought of the discrimination that would result from a doctor having to deliver a baby in this unnatural way. Now that we Democrats are in control of the government, that's just one more thing we should change in our drive to make life fair. Please withhold my name because I don't want to get crank calls.
PROUD TO BE A DEMOCRAT

[strawman2012]

The federal government makes a lot of dumb decisions, but this one may take the blue ribbon for stupidity. Fox News reports that this week, four state-of-the-art F-16 fighter jets took off from Texas for the Middle East. Not to defend our troops, but as a gift to Egyptian President Mohammed Morsi. That's right: the same Muslim Brotherhood member who tried a massive power grab that includes a new Sharia-based constitution, and who in 2009 denounced Obama as a liar and urged parents to teach their children to hate Jews. Oh, and did I mention that the four fighter jets are just the first installment on a gift of 16 F-16s and 200 Abrams tanks that we plan to give Egypt this year? It is part of a foreign aid deal signed in 2010 with his predecessor, Hosni Mubarak. The argument is that we have to honor the deal, to make sure Egypt remains our ally. All I can say is that if we do honor it, we'd better send Israel twice as many jets and tanks. Because thanks to this deal, they just might need them.
Huckabee Report

[erasmus111]

Is it possible for Obama to change the Constitution? If it is, that is what he should be doing. The nonsense has gone on long enough.

[meme-stryker]

Mr. President, you missed the real point. But I think it's because you grew up where dictators had the power to just act without consideraton for things like a constitution that secured people's rights to limit their government. It's not about our hunting heritage or skeet shooting. It's about our right to keep and bear arms--whatever the modern arms of the day happen to be--to fight off enemies foreign and domestic, and if it comes to that, tyrants. Many Americans felt your announcement for gun control and banning guns was a personal affront, as well as an attack on your constitution. Many felt you had kicked them in the teeth, and right before all the pomp and ceremony of the inauguration. Instead of being able to enjoying being Americans headed into the promise of the future, they felt you had lied to them when you stated publicly that you would not take their handgun, their shotgun, or their rifle. You already stopped the Civilian Marksmanship Program from importing rifles owned by we the people, and now you want to take away guns from an estimated 100 million law-abiding citizens who never committed any crimes. You, sir, are a tyrant.

[Jamesaritchie]

I don't see how there can be any rational argument against a ban. If something has, over the last twenty-five years, averaged killing more than 16,000 people per year while njuring 700,000 others, and is directly responsible for more than 3,000,000 violent crimes each year, how can we not ban it? At the very least, shouldn't those who choose to use it be forced to register that use, just so we can keep track of them? And shouldn't they have to pass a background check before they're allowed to buy and use it?

If you agree, let's bring back the 18th Amendment to the Constitution. We can deal with gun control later, after we get rid of this far more deadly problem.

[MRPAULGE0RGE]

There isn't a single rational argument for banning anything.

That's the problem with Americans - too much governance by emotions and little logic.

[erasmus111]

Over the years all I've heard is "we need more guns to protect ourselves".

Well, how's that workin' for ya? You've been buying more and more guns, but that hasn't seemed to help, has it? The number of people dying has increased with the increase of guns.

[harv823]

NRA= Noxious Rifle Addicts