Will Obama Push for New Gun Controls?

The topic of gun control was noticeably absent during President Barack Obama’s State of the Union address this week, but according to Newsweek, that’s all part of the administration’s latest scheme:

An administration official says Obama didn’t mention guns in his speech because of the omnipresent controversy surrounding the Second Amendment and gun control. Tuesday’s speech was designed to be more about the economy and how, as Obama repeated nine times, the U.S. could “win the future.”

But in the next two weeks, the White House will unveil a new gun-control effort in which it will urge Congress to strengthen current laws, which now allow some mentally unstable people, such as alleged Arizona shooter Jared Loughner, to obtain certain assault weapons, in some cases without even a background check.

Read the whole story here. Then read Brian Doherty’s explanation for why gun control would not have stopped Loughner.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • ||

    Yes, we can WTF by taking everyone's guns away. It will safer for the thugs who have their boots on our necks.

  • SM||

    Cause you will stop the army with your AR15s if they ever come for you...got it...

  • Warty||

    So then his push to the center lasted, what, a week?

  • fish||

    Hey nice disclaimer!

    Not a chance in hell that anything passes.

  • ||

    They don't give a fuck if gun control would have stopped Loughner. That's not the point. Loughner is simply an opportunity; just a crisis they can't let go to waste.

  • Old Mexican||

    "An administration official says Obama didn't mention guns in his speech because of the omnipresent controversy surrounding the Second Amendment and gun control.


    Well, it is an omnipresent controversy only because government insists on violating the right protected by the 2nd Amendment. Otherwise, there would be NO controversy, omnipresent or not.

    But in the next two weeks, the White House will unveil a new gun-control effort in which it will urge Congress to strengthen current laws, which now allow some mentally unstable people, such as alleged Arizona shooter Jared Loughner, to obtain certain assault weapons, in some cases without even a background check.


    Get prepared for the government to pull a "no-fly-list" on you and suddenly have a license request rejected because "A government database has determined that you happen to suffer a mental disability, precluding you from obtaning firearms."

    The name of the disability? Oh, take your pick: Being a Patriot, Tea partier, Libertarian, Anti-Fed, Constitutionalist, Christian, Mormon... you name it.

  • ||

    Or maybe just going batshit about the fucking LIES!!!

  • LarryA||

    The name of the disability? Oh, take your pick: Being a Patriot, Tea partier, Libertarian, Anti-Fed, Constitutionalist, Christian, Mormon... you name it.

    How about “You want to own a gun? Obviously you’re too crazy to be allowed to.”

  • Zeb||

    What is "assault weapons" doing in there?

    These must be the same people that thought that since Glocks were made of polymer, they would be able to pass through a metal detector without being detected.

  • ||

    They do, because the TSA dipshits are busy looking at people titties and peters.

  • omg||

    Its made of porcelain and costs more than you make in a month!

  • fish||

    Which is made of porcelain...the titty or the pecker?

  • ||

    The Newsweek article actually says (paraphrasing) that the administration will raise legislation that would have stopped Loughner from getting his weapon and ammo. When I hear stuff like that I lose any desire to give the other side any credit for being well-intentioned. Now, understand, I'm pretty fucking old as the crow flies, and have seen a lot of shit, but I struggle against a desire to believe people like this president have bad intentions for America. But this is so over the top bullshit that you have to know that they know that we know that they know. Sorry, I think I just had a flashback.

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: rac,

    Be careful! Remember the Editors' note. Language, young man, language!

  • T||

    Civility in discourse has nothing to do with profanity. One can be profane and civil at the same fucking time.

  • Lexicon||

    A bronze plaque engraved with that second sentence would be sweet.

  • sevo||

    "Will Obama push for X?"
    Yes, so long as it means additional government power.

  • BakedPenguin||

    The Republicans are slavering at the thought the Dems will try to enact more gun controls.

    For once, the political calculus works for freedom: gun owners are organized, motivated, and focused on their Congress critter's votes on the subject to the point where they'll vote for/against them. For those who oppose guns, it usually isn't their primary concern, so it wouldn't change their vote either way.

  • ||

    I won't be surprised to see Rs jump the aisle to make it easier to put more folks on the 'prohibited' persons list by way of allowing mental committments / evaluation without warrant or judicial review. Ditto expansion of listing folks on the word of a doctor, teacher, pastor, boss or local cop,again without judicial review. You have then been committed and good luck getting off the list later. Also note that we've already spent millions 'assisting' states to put their mental records in fedzilla's database. A visit to a marriage counselor may land you on a list.

  • JD||

    They'd get slapped down by the courts on due process grounds so hard their heads would spin.

  • juris imprudent||

    We'd all certainly like to believe that, but I wouldn't bet my life on it.

  • ||

    You can feel the lefties chomping at the bit. The frustration at a crisis going to waste infuriates them to no end.

    Its like on 9/11. I remember thinking - like most people - that the hijackers had a bunch of guns to take the planes. I remember thinking about how the anti-gun-nuts were going to be all over it. Then we all found out about box-cutters. The lesson there - that acting like sheep as authorities want instead of fighting back - was the only good thing to come out of that, and axed all the gun-control sentiment from the halcyon Columbine days.

    Ever since 9/11, gun-control nuts have had a hard time. Oorah.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    You know, they have a seven day waiting period for gun purchases. What's the harm in using that week to stare at ink blots and talk about your mother?

  • Barely Suppressed Rage||

    Who has a seven-day waiting period?

    I can walk into a gun shop and walk out with as many guns as I can carry in as much time as it takes to get them out of the storeroom and fill out the paperwork.

    Provided I pay for them, of course.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    I bet Leno doesn't get questioned on his set up lines.

  • Barely Suppressed Rage||

    I'm here for you, man. Whenever you need someone to piss on you attempts at humor, I'm here.

  • fish||

    What's the harm in using that week to stare at ink blots and talk about your mother?

    That I might have an Emo Phillips moment and in the course of a seemingly innocent discussion scream......DIE HERETIC!

  • ola||

    Peter King will support it as long as his 1000 foot amendment is attached.

  • jtuf||

    which now allow some mentally unstable people, such as alleged Arizona shooter Jared Loughner

    It's noteworthy how the media portrays Loughner as mentally ill even though he never saw a psychologist or psychiatrist. They just can't accept that fact that the vast majority of violent criminals don't have any mental illness.

  • BakedPenguin||

    The guy thought they were trying to control his mind with grammar, jtuf. IANAP, but if the guy wasn't fucking crazy, that's a hard belief to explain.

    Also, good thing he didn't read the Reason blog's new disclaimer.

  • Dan||

    pfffffffffffffff........

  • Almanian||

    My guns, prying, cold dead hands, etc. etc.

  • ||

    It's funny; I was reading an article in the paper at breakfast about "de-listing" wolves from endangered species status. Needless to say, the hardcore liberal "environmentalists" are rabidly(!) opposed.

    I suspect a large percentage of the people saying, "Suck it up, those wolves aren't likely to hurt anybody" are firmly lodged in the "No risk is too small" camp where guns are concerned.

  • ||

    Bullets first, assholes!

  • ||

    stare at ink blots and talk about your mother?

    "My mother? Lemme tell you about my mother...."

  • EscapedWestOfTheBigMuddy||

    He can breath OK...

    ...as long as no one unplugs him.

  • ||

    We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic.

    Some of the absolute best comment threads ever had little or nothing to do with the post to which they were appended.

    NTTAWWT

  • fish||

    Some of the absolute best comment threads ever had little or nothing to do with the post to which they were appended.

    And some of the best did! Warty commenting about the skinny black guy and the fat white woman (statue) springs to mind!

  • Barely Suppressed Rage||

    The White House said that to avoid being accused of capitalizing on the Arizona shootings for political gain

    Although, of course, that is precisely what they are doing.

  • Barely Suppressed Rage||

    For your listening pleasure, Terry Gross on NPR's Fresh Air about the history of the NRA and gun control.

    Be sure to get out the BIG roll of duct tape and wrap ALL of it around your head before listening.

  • juris imprudent||

    While that might stop your head from exploding - it just means all the roiling fury will have to exit your ass.

    So, nope, I am not going to be suckered into listening.

  • cynical||

    When I'm president, I'm going to push to make gun ownership and training mandatory.

    I mean, if the 2nd amendment's first half is prescriptive rather than descriptive (as plenty of gun control advocates maintain), then it means that the Constitution requires that we have a proper militia, to secure the freedom of our States.

    To have a proper militia, all draft-age able-bodied males must be able to grab a gun and go a-killin' when called on by the country, state, or community. Which means they need to have a gun and be able to use it properly.

    It'll be nice to see gun control advocates on the wrong side of state power for once.

  • juris imprudent||

    They might eventually catch on that we shooters actually have a lot of fun - wouldn't you rather deny them that particular pleasure.

  • Almanian||

    You know who else wanted to keep guns out of the hands of citizens...

  • LarryA||

    the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, the nation’s largest gun-safety group.

    Wow. Just wow.

    My take is that the Newsweek article was ghostwritten by the Brady folks in a desperate attempt to put pressure on President Obama.

  • Anonymous Coward||

    Obama repeated nine times, the U.S. could “win the future.”

    Is "The Future" some new variation of "The Game?"

  • thomas sabo bracelets||

    what a saintly article is! Thanks for the beneficent content , I am benefited from it real untold!
    Plan to get statesman assemblage and noesis from you in the time days, I gift always hold you!every time I have your articles,which present change me a surprise! the articles are ever facilitatory for me!I get author and horse collection and popularity from your articles,so that I can stay up with the steps of the elite!
    I am anxious to get more and solon current assemblage from you, outlook that you can percentage with me selflessly in the tense days!Impart you really some!

  • SM||

    Again, why can't i own a tank or a nuclear weapon?

    SLAVERS.

  • Because||

    the mentally ill aren't capable of handling them.

    You continue to be an idiot. Do BETTER, troll.

  • Barely Suppressed Rage||

    Are you using slaver as a verb? What are you slavering for?

  • ||

    """White House will unveil a new gun-control effort in which it will urge Congress to strengthen current laws,""

    Is that what the Rs have argued, strengthening the laws already on the books?

    It that all it will be? Probably not. Even if that's all Obama wants, the anti-gun crowd will try to use it to their advantage. He probably knows that and doesn't have to be the bad guy.

  • ||

    Ooops

    Isn't that what the Rs have argued...

  • ||

    The last time I bought a gun and answered the questions on the form it did ask if I had ever been deemed mentally incompetent. The current laws go as far as they can go. Nothing they add to them will prevent crazies or felons from getting guns, they will only keep everyone else from getting them.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Progressive Puritans: From e-cigs to sex classifieds, the once transgressive left wants to criminalize fun.
  • Port Authoritarians: Chris Christie’s Bridgegate scandal
  • The Menace of Secret Government: Obama’s proposed intelligence reforms don’t safeguard civil liberties

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement