I'm fine with a more thorough background check for any sale of any weapon. I'm not so sure I'd like to be restricted from owning a certain class of weaponry though...It didn't do very well in the 90s when we had a 'rash' of school shootings but then again people will harm others in any way they can if they are determined enough to do it - sad but true.
To do so is to decide for all the country; not to do so is to remain too softhearted for a politician of his level. There are situations where a man must act correctly and not be afraid of the public opinion that will surely be negative. The question is, for how long will this law last after Obama?
First of all, I don't think anybody on the federal level is trying to restrict guns beyond so-called assault weapons, the title of the post, I humbly believe, is a little misleading.
But for the sake of argument, there is only so much authority that the executive office can exercise to restrict weapons access. The Supreme Court has ruled that outright prohibitions on handguns (Chicago and Washington, DC, cities that ironically have high rates of gun crimes) are unconstitutional, so there are limits to how far you can go with banning weapons.
Beyond that, as someone who carries a firearm, I pay close attention to two trends: the first is that these mass shootings always seem to take place in weapons-free zones (Columbine, Virginia Tech, Ft. Hood, Colorado movie theater shooting, and Sandy Hook shootings), which as far as I'm concerned prove that weapoms-free zones do nothing to protect people from criminals or psychopaths who by nature ignore the law, at best, and at worst have blood on their hands because they made people defenseless when these kinds of things happen. These people may be mentally ill or just plain criminals, but they aren't stupid: they go shoot up places where they know that they will be the only ones armed. Think about that when you go to your local college or elementary school classroom, where you think (hope, really) that no one else has a gun. The second trend is that when something like this happens, it usually takes someone showing up (with a gun) to put a stop to a shooting in progress. Usually, its the police, but there is precident for armed private citizens having stopped robberies and mass murders in progress. Proof that the best defense against an armed criminal is an armed citizen, generally speaking.
I don't think guns should be taken away. They just need to be regulated a lot better. Like, background checks for mental health and exactly what types of guns people should be able to have. In my opinion, I feel like if guns were taken away only criminals would have them. Criminals get drugs illegally, so who says they won't be able to get guns the same way. People are crafty, and if they're desperate enough to own something illegal, they certainly will find their ways to smuggle and obtain them.
I hate it when I hear people talking about gun control and they say something to the effect of "we're not taking the shot guns and the pistols or the hunting riffles" like they're doing us some kind of favor that we should be thanking them for. It's oozing through the t.v. from news castors to letterman, like we should wipe our brow and sigh in relief for them not stepping on our necks and stealing our rights.Even though they are widely ignorant of many of the bills and legislation trying to be crammed through the governmental cogs that would do that very thing. It doesn't matter if guns kill or people kill. It doesn't matter if the founding fathers meant for you to be able to shoot a deer or overthrow a tyrant. What matters is that the people have not authorized the government to limit their right to bear arms.
Forget the fact that he's now lying about yet another thing ( source)
Also they ARE in fact looking to take away handguns and shotguns and hunting riffles. http://www.feinstein.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/assault-weapons
IIt doesn't matter why the 2nd amendment was written.... its there... and it shouldn't be messed with
@TheSutraDude - what about protecting their country? every able-bodied person is expected to come to the defense of their country in time of invasion by outside forces. yes, I know the odds are slim on that, but in light of 9/11, the American people were cut out of the picture by the Patriot Act. if the American people with guns had been told the truth on a number of issues, then the best resource the US Gov had access to for true homeland security would have been properly utilized.