Obama wants gun violence measures passed in 2013
By The Associated Press
This article was published December 30, 2012 at 10:19 a.m.
- Comments (52)
- aAFont Size
WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama is voicing skepticism about proposals to place armed guards at schools in the aftermath of the mass shooting in Newtown, Conn., that killed 20 first graders. He says he wants legislation aimed at containing gun violence passed next year.
In his most specific remarks about gun violence since the deadly assault at Sandy Hook Elementary School, Obama said he still supports increased background checks and bans on assault weapons and high capacity bullet magazines.
Obama made his remarks on NBC’s “Meet the Press.”
Six adults also died at the school. Authorities say the shooter killed himself and his mother at their home.
Obama said the Dec. 14 shooting was the worst day of his presidency. He vowed to put his “full weight” behind a legislative package.
Comments on: Obama wants gun violence measures passed in 2013
To report abuse or misuse of this area please hit the "Suggest Removal" link in the comment to alert our online managers. Read our Terms of Use policy.
You must login to make comments.
billg3112091102 says... December 30, 2012 at 1:18 p.m.
Let's see. We have armed guards at football games, hospitals, malls, and they have been in many schools for years. I just bet that if the President were to go to some high school to make a speech there would be several in the crowd armed to protect him. Why would we not want to protect children if we could? Most of the people who kill people in mass wouldn't give a rat's behind about gun laws. Rules are made for people who don't know how to think. I bet the citizens feel a lot better knowing an off duty policewoman stopped a potential mass murderer from killing several in the theater in Texas.
( permalink | suggest removal )
BarichMilhusseinObamaNixonPOTUS says... December 30, 2012 at 2:59 p.m.
Don't worry; if we pass more laws it will cause all criminals to obey those laws! Haven't you seen that work already?
( permalink | suggest removal )
DontDrinkDatKoolAid says... December 30, 2012 at 4:40 p.m.
How many Secret Service agents are protect his children?
( permalink | suggest removal )
RonalFos says... December 30, 2012 at 5 p.m.
Obama needs Secret Service because of people like the writers above. Republicans and their henchmen have incited hatred for Obama and have stirred up a lot of fools who would kill him if they thought they had a chance. Laws don't stop people from doing bad things but it does slow them down. People run red lights often even with laws but there would be many more doing it and many more deaths if the laws weren't on the books. Just because a solution isn't perfect doesn't mean it shouldn't be tried.
( permalink | suggest removal )
DontDrinkDatKoolAid says... December 30, 2012 at 5:15 p.m.
How many Secret Service agents are protecting his children?
( permalink | suggest removal )
inquire says... December 30, 2012 at 5:20 p.m.
The armed persons at football games are professionally trained off duty police officers who sign up for the assignments. My father did that a lot. This is not the same as a bunch of volunteer gun nuts encouraged by the NRA.
( permalink | suggest removal )
Packman says... December 30, 2012 at 6:05 p.m.
All these anti-gun nuts are a bunch of spineless chickenspits. If they had any gnuts whatsoever instead of mealy-mouthing a meaningless ban on military platform guns and high capacity mags they would fight for a total ban of all firearms except for police and the military and confiscation of all existing privately owned firearms. Otherwise, the blood of the 20,000 or so young people killed by gun violence next year in America will be on their hands. Either put up or shut up, you lowlife cowards. C'mon, give it your best shot.
( permalink | suggest removal )
DontDrinkDatKoolAid says... December 30, 2012 at 6:36 p.m.
www*youtube*com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=n9ZvwPmjJu4 careful of which you challenge Packman.
~
“The armed persons at football games are professionally trained off duty police officers who sign up for the assignments.” So what.
~
“My father did that a lot.” BFD.
~
“This is not the same as a bunch of volunteer gun nuts encouraged by the NRA.” Careful stupid, some of those members are are combat veterans that have taken out multiple and very hostile targets.
~
Keep in mind, that any, any run of the mill police officer is just another uniformed civilian.
( permalink | suggest removal )
PaulRevere says... December 30, 2012 at 7:14 p.m.
Many of these "volunteer gun nuts" are former police officers, military and firemen. Often, the same people that are called "heroes" by news media and real Americans are proud NRA members, and lawfully carry a weapon to protect themself and others from the wolves in society. Some of the posters on this page are starting to sound like they have a Brooklyn accent.
( permalink | suggest removal )
BillSmith says... December 30, 2012 at 7:23 p.m.
Packman .....is pissing upwind now with his blather about a ban and confiscation, of which no one is suggesting. He hopes to make moderates and liberals radicals like himself. If he and his ilk can scare and intimidate enough by thinking the worst is comming through legislation in the way of gun control that no gun control of any kind will pass. He and his FOX crowd "Give me liberty or give death" flag flying groups with their AR-15's slung over there shoulders at their tea party rallies will start becomming the empty chair Clint Eastwood was talking too at their convention. And we know what a hit that was.
( permalink | suggest removal )
inquire says... December 30, 2012 at 9:36 p.m.
Yes, Bill, we are reasonable enough to stop short of supporting a total ban, knowing that the average person will never agree to not being allowed any guns at all for hunting or protection. We are being goaded for being the ones who are reasonable and know how to compromise. Not taking the bait.
Oui, you are being very rude. When handling a gun in a public capacity, I don't care what a person USED to be. I care what he is currently trained and certified as, what entity has given him permission to use a gun and for what purpose, NOW. Have you considered the very real possibility of some hot dog vets suffering from PTSD volunteering, then doing more harm that good?
( permalink | suggest removal )
DontDrinkDatKoolAid says... December 31, 2012 at 12:24 p.m.
Rude yes, stupid no. Now STFU and pay attention.
~
Every day somewhere in a city no matter how small or large, a first responder (Police, Fire and EMT) are receiving counseling of some sort due to seeing so much human carnage. This can be accumulative or mass as Sandy Hook. Most counsellings are conducted in house and off the record. And I bet half or so, are PTSD related, and they still do the job, and very well at it by the way. I say this from my experience from being a Auxiliary Deputy Sheriff at one time.
~
Having just read the Second Amendment again to insure that nothing has changed, and it has not. I found no “permission”, “ trained and certified as” nor “and for what purpose” clause as such.
( permalink | suggest removal )
Pobucker says... December 31, 2012 at 12:50 p.m.
BANS WORK!!!
But the government must be SERIOUS about them!
~
Hunting rifles must be stored in a police armory and checked in and out for the hunt. Ban and confiscate all handguns. Ban and confiscate all large capacity magazines and the weapons they fit, not just the scary looking ones. Strictly controll access to and limit the types of ammunition available to the public. These measures WILL REDUCE gun-related violence, there is no doubt. Just ask the Syrians or the Bosnians.
~
Once we have confiscated all non-hunting firearms and locked down hunting rifles, we can all breath a big sigh of relief that no more mass baby killings will take place. I am not sure what we will do when the home invaders kick down our doors and start raping our wives and daughters at knife point. Not sure at all...maybe Plelosi knows - her being so damned smart and all. Maybe BS or RF or TT or Inquire or Aimee knows what to do - them being fully as bright as Pelosi.
~
To reiterate for the slower ones - half measures DO NOT WORK (former U.S. AW and LCM ban). Full measures DO work (Euro and Australian bans). To save our precious babies, we must go beyond Europe and confiscate all semi-automatic rifles, all big magazines and all pistols, lock up all hunting weapons in police armories and strictly control all ammunition. Look to Nancy Pelosi for answers on home defense.
( permalink | suggest removal )
Pobucker says... December 31, 2012 at 1:01 p.m.
The half measures proposed by the libers, so devious and clever until revealed by Inquire, WILL NOT WORK! Only a FULL BAN will save our precious babies. I guess the libers think we will take their medicine a half teaspoon at a time until we swallow it all (typical libber tactic).
IF WE ARE SERIOUS, if we really love our defenseless, precious little babies, we will ban all personally owned firearms except for a few allowances for hunting, and those weapons under public lock and key.
~
Kinetic weaponry is sooo last millenium. Energy-beam weapons! Wow! Can't wait. High power green laser to the head - WOO HOO, blind rapist! High volume subsonic blast to the thorax - BAM, dead robber.
( permalink | suggest removal )
inquire says... December 31, 2012 at 1:32 p.m.
I don't know which of you two is the crazier, but Oui is surely the ruder. Maybe other people want to talk to people who use vile abbreviations in place of civilized conversation; I don't, and won't.
( permalink | suggest removal )
Pobucker says... December 31, 2012 at 1:47 p.m.
Whaaat?!? I said you were fully as bright as Pelosi.
( permalink | suggest removal )
BarichMilhusseinObamaNixonPOTUS says... December 31, 2012 at 2:23 p.m.
Pobucker thanks for giving me a laugh! That was classic; keep it up! Be careful though, you might make inquire's head explode.
( permalink | suggest removal )
MATYCHY says... December 31, 2012 at 2:54 p.m.
All Presidents have had secret service and so have their families, including their children.He wants to slow down gun violence not ban guns. There is a difference. He knows there is no way the gun violence will end. Do you yourselves not believe there is too much gun violence?
( permalink | suggest removal )
HotSpringsLawyer says... December 31, 2012 at 3:10 p.m.
Secret Service is guarding the Bush's too. Armed guards are fine but military training is very different from police training. Just ask Jack Reacher.
( permalink | suggest removal )
lazybar says... December 31, 2012 at 4:34 p.m.
inquire never listens to reason and when someone smacks her in the head trying to get her to listen its being rude.the antigun nuts are looking for any excuse to ban guns,a attack on assualt type guns just gets thier foot in the door so its easier to ban a few more next go around.
bs you can laugh all you want about mr eastwood but for the americans who have thier eyes open and not drinking koolaid its easy to see the chair is empty and you are praising a lowlife scum sucking leach who hates america but then again bs i`m pretty sure you hate everything about america except for the gov benefits.
( permalink | suggest removal )
RonalFos says... December 31, 2012 at 4:52 p.m.
Pobuck's head has already exploded! Reasonable discussion seems to do that to him.
( permalink | suggest removal )
DontDrinkDatKoolAid says... December 31, 2012 at 6:50 p.m.
@ MATYCHY ... you lost your hall pass for failing to do your homework.
~
www*secretservice*gov/history.shtml
( permalink | suggest removal )
inquire says... January 1, 2013 at 1:05 a.m.
If we returned to the 1865 level of "security", the way our country is awash in guns today, just how long do you think any president, or close relative or staffer, would live? We need the secret service, although it might be debatable whether the same level of protection is needed for life.
( permalink | suggest removal )
BillSmith says... January 1, 2013 at 1:32 a.m.
How many don't think this church should be labeled a hate group?
Westboro Baptist Church, the tiny independent fundamentalist Christian church based in Topeka, Kan., announced on Twitter that, once again, they are planning to stomp over our nation’s heartache by protesting at the funerals of the victims of the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting and declaring “God sent the shooter.”
*
And some of you people that post here , think that organized and school pray being taken out of schools causes nutcases to be shooters. Why don't you go to Topeka Kansas and talk to this group?
( permalink | suggest removal )
BillSmith says... January 1, 2013 at 1:38 a.m.
A fine bunch of conservative Christains exercising their first amendment rights. When will this group start exercising their 2nd amendment rights, with their Bushmasters?*
( permalink | suggest removal )
BillSmith says... January 1, 2013 at 1:49 a.m.
GOP supporters like these two is why they lost the election.
*
Dr. James Dobson commented while speaking to listeners of his Dr. James Dobson’s Family Talk program: I think we have turned our back on the scripture and on God almighty and I think he has allowed [this Newtown massacre] judgment to fall upon us. I think that’s what’s going on.”
Bryan Fischer of the American family Association said the victims at Sandy Hook had lost God’s protection because prayer has been prohibited from schools.
( permalink | suggest removal )
T6 says... January 1, 2013 at 8:47 a.m.
God allowed worse things than this to befall his people to get them to return to him?
( permalink | suggest removal )
Packman says... January 1, 2013 at 10:31 a.m.
Hey BillSmith and NancyPelosi (inquire) - Are you serious about stopping gun violence in America or not? Obviously, the answer is NOT. Banning military platform rifles and high capacity mags and even closing the gun show loophole will not make a measurable difference in gun crime according to independent studies from the DOJ. Short of a total or near total ban of handguns and automatic action long guns, you are the ones pissing upwind. Stop being a dishonest chickenspit and put your efforts where they will make a difference by trying to repeal the 2nd Amendment. I'm not trying to scare or intimidate anybody. I'm trying to get liberals to do something against their nature, which is support substance over symbolism. More than the NRA, the blood if the innocents will be on your hands for your chickenspit ways. You good with that?
Hey Oui - I know. But remember, public opinion polls even after Newtown are still on the side of the good guys when it comes to the 2nd Amendment.
( permalink | suggest removal )
DontDrinkDatKoolAid says... January 1, 2013 at 11:12 a.m.
Thanks Packman.
~
In the book of Deuteronomy, God left us to our own devices. Thus removing his hand of direct influence.
( permalink | suggest removal )
RonalFos says... January 1, 2013 at 2:26 p.m.
Laws don't stop drunk driving, speeding or red light running and all of those things cause death. But laws reduce deaths and injuries from these activities. To say it's all or nothing with guns is just as stupid as it would be to say all or nothing with highway laws. Packman, you are a admitted tax cheater and should no say on anything in this country.
( permalink | suggest removal )
BillSmith says... January 1, 2013 at 2:28 p.m.
Qui..........How would you have felt about this if you were the husband of the maidservant and it was your firstborn. Just asking?
King James Bible (Cambridge Ed.)
And all the firstborn in the land of Egypt shall die, from the firstborn of Pharaoh that sitteth upon his throne, even unto the firstborn of the maidservant that is behind the mill; and all the firstborn of beasts.
By his hand of direct influence.
( permalink | suggest removal )
inquire says... January 1, 2013 at 4:16 p.m.
Thank you, Ronal. It is just a tactic of theirs, to continually run down the compromises suggested because they aren't perfect. That's because they want no change, and, as their party demonstrates constantly, they don't believe in compromise.
( permalink | suggest removal )
Packman says... January 1, 2013 at 6:30 p.m.
Hey Ronal - "Packman, you are a admitted tax cheater and should no say on anything in this country." WTF! I admit to doing whateve it takes to pay as little in income taxes as legal. As do the other 99.9% of people who have to pay federal or state income tax. Legal tax evasion is just that, legal.
( permalink | suggest removal )
DontDrinkDatKoolAid says... January 1, 2013 at 6:56 p.m.
Was that scripture before or after the book of Deuteronomy?
~
My bet is that it was before, and of the scripture you have posted, sounds to be from Exodus, which is before the book of Deuteronomy.
( permalink | suggest removal )
BillSmith says... January 1, 2013 at 7:08 p.m.
Qui.T6...........It does not matter whether it was before or not. What would have been your response if it was your firstborn? Why would a loving GOD do this rather than just changing Pharaoh's mind and heart to let the Israelites go?
( permalink | suggest removal )
DontDrinkDatKoolAid says... January 1, 2013 at 7:38 p.m.
Three things BS;
Sequence does matter, in the matters of history, learning and living.
~
My feelings do not matter except between God and I. Inasmuch, you have not choked up any of your heartfelt feelings of such. But never no mind, I don't give a damn about your feelings.
~
God did give Pharaoh numerous reasons and cause to change his mind, but Pharaoh being Pharaoh was hardheaded. And then again, God could have … just struck him dead and done away with all this drama. No?
( permalink | suggest removal )
T6 says... January 1, 2013 at 8:35 p.m.
Pharaoh's Pride killed all the Egyptian firstborn.
( permalink | suggest removal )
DontDrinkDatKoolAid says... January 2, 2013 at 12:31 a.m.
RonalFos Talk about being stupid yourself. The volume of transportation use compared to gun use is way different. Thus the laws of averages. Now if we start to park our forms of wheeled transportation and started riding our firearms to work, then those averages would change.
Packman, you are a admitted tax cheater (for following the tax code(s)) and should have no say on anything in this country. Thus the 47 percent should not have a vote, seeing they don't even pay any taxes.
( permalink | suggest removal )
RonalFos says... January 2, 2013 at 8:01 a.m.
Packman has said on these comment pages that after Obama was elected he was going to get help setting up a offshore tax haven so he can hide his money from taxes. That doesn't sound legal to me. In fact, when he posted it I called him a traitor and I'm sticking with it if that is his plan.
( permalink | suggest removal )
Packman says... January 2, 2013 at 1:46 p.m.
Hey Ronal - Perhaps you need to find a different tax accountant. There is NO LAW that probibits chartering a corporation on foreign soil and doing business thereof. Nevertheless, you will be happy to know my tax guy has figured other ways for me to LEGALLY pay as little in income tax as possibe, with changing residence to a no income tax state as an unlikely possibility due to my businesses needing hands-on attention from time to time, like last week when most of my workers couldn't make it in due to the snowpocolips. Thank God for 4 x 4 pickup trucks, chainsaws, and generators. If I'm a traitor, that puts me in the same boat as 99.9% of other taxpayers and several rungs above the 47% that pay no income tax.
( permalink | suggest removal )
Pobucker says... January 2, 2013 at 2:33 p.m.
Why do the 47% get to vote, I forget.
Seems like the poor suckers supporting them should recieve their proxy. Only fair I think.
( permalink | suggest removal )
Pobucker says... January 2, 2013 at 2:38 p.m.
humm... doing a little thought lingering...
yep. Seems like the major function in life for the 47% (besides breeding, eating and spending other people's money) is voting for the people who gave them the other people's money. Really not much use, are they? Unless you are a liberal politician living off those votes. Hold it! Are we talking about the same 47%?
( permalink | suggest removal )
inquire says... January 2, 2013 at 3:08 p.m.
You forget that that 47% includes retired people who paid taxes of every kind all their working lives, and still at least pay sales and property tax. It includes the disabled, who paid every kind of tax when they were able to work, and still pay sales tax and property tax. It includes active duty military who have paid taxes before and will again, probably for many years. It includes people who have fallen through the insurance cracks, and as a result have such a high medical deduction that it wipes out their federal tax. They, also, pay sales and property tax, and will probably pay federal tax again.
These people have helped build and fund this country the same as any of you hateful conservatives. They are just as good as you. They are part of this country. Shame on you and your kind.
( permalink | suggest removal )
Packman says... January 2, 2013 at 3:49 p.m.
Hey - Lighten up. On a purely intellectual basis, pobucker is spot on - "yep. Seems like the major function in life for the 47% (besides breeding, eating and spending other people's money) is voting for the people who gave them the other people's money..... Unless you are a liberal politician living off those votes." Yes, some of the 47% earned their government check and will have the backbone to vote for what's best for the country instead of the politician most willing to buy their vote with other people's money. The rest are just voting whores. Please feel free to quote me on that.
( permalink | suggest removal )
Pobucker says... January 2, 2013 at 3:50 p.m.
OK, we're not talking about the same 47%
( permalink | suggest removal )
Pobucker says... January 2, 2013 at 3:58 p.m.
lol, vote whore.
Sounds like a band name.
Make a nice protest sign, too. heh
( permalink | suggest removal )
Pobucker says... January 2, 2013 at 4:11 p.m.
my 47% includes the 107 million (that's right, folks) on welfare which does not include SS and MCare recipients. SS and MCare get theirs fair and square. SSI and MCaide, not so much - boatloads of abuse there. oh, there's my other 17%, at least.
~
So, no voting for welfare, SSI and Medicaid recipients. Their votes should be distributed evenly to the upstanding citizens paying the bills. That's my 47%, Inquire.
~
heh, kill off the vote whore motivation and I bet the libber dems wouldn't be near so "compassionate". HAHAHAH, the milk of human kindness would curdle in their veins, if there were no votes to be traded.
~
Fair and balanced. Kill off the kickbacks and earmarks and the conservative repubs would not be so kind to the pentegon, either. Both sides are evil like that. And here we are in the middle trying to support a welfare state and build an empire. What a cluster!
( permalink | suggest removal )
DontDrinkDatKoolAid says... January 2, 2013 at 7:13 p.m.
Let go of my Obama phone.
( permalink | suggest removal )
inquire says... January 2, 2013 at 8:54 p.m.
You have been told over and over and over that the phone program was started under Reagan, you know, one of your Republican icons. After the break up of AT&T, there were so few pay phones available that it was seen as a safety measure.
It is nothing but snide hatefulness that you people keep sneering "Obama phone" all the time about a program instituted by a REPUBLICAN, just because you like to insinuate that all blacks are on some kind of welfare, which you know is not true. You insinuate that all Democrats are getting free phones and such. That also is a lie and you know it very well.
I and all my family have paid for phone service as long as there have been phones easily available in Arkansas. I don't even know anyone that has one of those phones. Stop with the damn stupid lies just to hear your heads rattle.
( permalink | suggest removal )
DontDrinkDatKoolAid says... January 3, 2013 at 9:12 a.m.
During the election a woman was record saying to the word to the effect of, "If your on SS, Food stamps you get an Obama Phone."
( permalink | suggest removal )
BillSmith says... January 3, 2013 at 4:20 p.m.
1934cartoon.......It is also a Reagan phone and a Bush phone sincce reagan started it with land lines and Bush II extended it to Cell phones. But, as a Fox News Troll, you have learned the Hanity spin machine, leave out most facts. Your party is close to being defunct and irrelevant. His children probable have the same number as the Bush II girls had.
( permalink | suggest removal )
DontDrinkDatKoolAid says... January 3, 2013 at 5:39 p.m.
I have never support the D's nor R's nor claimed either DA. But that has escaped ever since I've posted on the ADG.
( permalink | suggest removal )
To report abuse or misuse of this area please hit the "Suggest Removal" link in the comment to alert our online managers. Read our Terms of Use policy.