White House makes clear: No push for new gun laws

WASHINGTON (AP) - President Barack Obama will not push for stricter gun laws this election year, the White House said Thursday, one day after his impassioned remarks about the need to keep assault weapons off the streets suggested he may plunge into that political fight and challenge Congress to act.
Instead, Obama's stand on the government's role ended up right where it was after the mass shooting in Colorado last week: Enforce existing law better.
That is same view held by his Republican opponent, Mitt Romney, as both reach for broader and more politically appealing ways to keep guns away from killers.
Obama still wants Congress to reinstitute a federal ban on military-style assault weapons that lapsed years ago, his spokesman Jay Carney said. But the president is not and has not been pushing for that ban, a nod to the politics of gun control.
There is no interest among many lawmakers of both parties to take on the divisive matter. Especially not with an election in just over 100 days.
Sealing the matter, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said Thursday the Senate's schedule is too packed to even have a debate on gun control.
Asked if the Senate might debate the issue next year, Reid said, "Nice try."
Public opinion has shifted away from tighter gun control. Twenty years ago, polls showed that a substantial majority supported stricter limits on guns. Now Americans appear evenly divided. Nearly every statement on the matter from Romney and Obama includes reminders that they stand by the Second Amendment.
From the White House, Carney said: "There are things that we can do short of legislation and short of gun laws."
The lack of legislation reflects that reality, too: Police say laws and background checks are often futile in keeping someone with horrifying intent from executing a massacre. Authorities say the suspect in the Aurora, Colo., shootings broke no laws when he purchased the guns he is accused of using, and he passed the required background checks.
Obama and his team "gain nothing politically, and they just don't have the horsepower to pass anything," said William Vizzard, professor emeritus of criminal justice at California State University, Sacramento, and an author on gun control politics. "And then the problem is trying to craft a law that would really do something."
Yet at least one prominent gun control group sought Thursday to pressure Obama and Romney to offer voters concrete plans. The group's president, Dan Gross, said words alone were not enough in a nation in which 32 people are killed by guns each day. He specifically challenged Obama to move beyond the rhetoric.
"The president said very similar things in his last campaign," said Gross, head of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence. "A speech is not a plan. An endorsement of a measure is not a solution."
It was Obama who stirred the issue in speaking Wednesday night to the National Urban League, a civil rights organization whose mission is to help black Americans secure economic opportunity and power.
In his most extensive remarks on guns since the Colorado shooting left 12 dead and dozens wounded, Obama said steps to reduce violence have been opposed by Congress and "we should leave no stone unturned" in the national imperative of keeping young people safe.
And he got specific on assault-style weapons. "A lot of gun owners would agree that AK-47s belong in the hands of soldiers, not in the hands of criminals - that they belong on the battlefield of war, not on the streets of our cities," he said.
Obama's message was comprehensive, but he ultimately did not promise anything specific. He spoke of community policing strategies and mental health centers, or programs that steer people away into safe activities instead of gang violence, of ensuring that parents and teachers step in to fill a hole in a child's heart "that government alone cannot fill."
Romney, in an interview Thursday with CNN, said new laws won't help. He cited the case of Timothy McVeigh, who was convicted and put to death for the 1995 bombing of a federal building in Oklahoma City, which killed 168 people. McVeigh used fertilizer in constructing his bomb.
"I think that the effort to continue to look for some law to somehow make violence go away is missing the point," Romney said. "The real point has to relate to individuals that are deranged and distressed, and to find them and help them and to keep them from carrying out terrible acts."
The ban on assault weapons that became law in 1994, during President Bill Clinton's first term, contributed to the Democrats' loss of Congress that year. It expired during George W. Bush's presidency in 2004.
The ban would have prevented the Colorado shooting suspect, James Holmes, from legally buying one of the four firearms police found on him and in his car, an assault rifle. It also would have prevented him from buying new high-capacity ammunition magazines.
Vizzard, the gun control scholar, said there are legislative ways to reduce gun violence, particularly over a longer term of 20 to 30 years. But with an estimated 300 million guns in the United States, he said, Obama is right that "the things that have the most impact are cultural" and that shape the behavior of young people.
Obama once got into his own firestorm during the 2008 presidential race by saying some bitter small-town residents cling to guns and religion for solace. This time, Vizzard said, the president will not give any material to critics who believe he is out to strip their gun rights.
"He's a cagey guy," Vizzard said. "He's just not going to do it."
__
Associated Press writers Jim Kuhnhenn, Josh Lederman, Laurie Kellman and Alan Fram contributed to this story.
Instead, Obama's stand on the government's role ended up right where it was after the mass shooting in Colorado last week: Enforce existing law better.
That is same view held by his Republican opponent, Mitt Romney, as both reach for broader and more politically appealing ways to keep guns away from killers.
Obama still wants Congress to reinstitute a federal ban on military-style assault weapons that lapsed years ago, his spokesman Jay Carney said. But the president is not and has not been pushing for that ban, a nod to the politics of gun control.
There is no interest among many lawmakers of both parties to take on the divisive matter. Especially not with an election in just over 100 days.
Sealing the matter, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said Thursday the Senate's schedule is too packed to even have a debate on gun control.
Asked if the Senate might debate the issue next year, Reid said, "Nice try."
Public opinion has shifted away from tighter gun control. Twenty years ago, polls showed that a substantial majority supported stricter limits on guns. Now Americans appear evenly divided. Nearly every statement on the matter from Romney and Obama includes reminders that they stand by the Second Amendment.
From the White House, Carney said: "There are things that we can do short of legislation and short of gun laws."
The lack of legislation reflects that reality, too: Police say laws and background checks are often futile in keeping someone with horrifying intent from executing a massacre. Authorities say the suspect in the Aurora, Colo., shootings broke no laws when he purchased the guns he is accused of using, and he passed the required background checks.
Obama and his team "gain nothing politically, and they just don't have the horsepower to pass anything," said William Vizzard, professor emeritus of criminal justice at California State University, Sacramento, and an author on gun control politics. "And then the problem is trying to craft a law that would really do something."
Yet at least one prominent gun control group sought Thursday to pressure Obama and Romney to offer voters concrete plans. The group's president, Dan Gross, said words alone were not enough in a nation in which 32 people are killed by guns each day. He specifically challenged Obama to move beyond the rhetoric.
"The president said very similar things in his last campaign," said Gross, head of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence. "A speech is not a plan. An endorsement of a measure is not a solution."
It was Obama who stirred the issue in speaking Wednesday night to the National Urban League, a civil rights organization whose mission is to help black Americans secure economic opportunity and power.
In his most extensive remarks on guns since the Colorado shooting left 12 dead and dozens wounded, Obama said steps to reduce violence have been opposed by Congress and "we should leave no stone unturned" in the national imperative of keeping young people safe.
And he got specific on assault-style weapons. "A lot of gun owners would agree that AK-47s belong in the hands of soldiers, not in the hands of criminals - that they belong on the battlefield of war, not on the streets of our cities," he said.
Obama's message was comprehensive, but he ultimately did not promise anything specific. He spoke of community policing strategies and mental health centers, or programs that steer people away into safe activities instead of gang violence, of ensuring that parents and teachers step in to fill a hole in a child's heart "that government alone cannot fill."
Romney, in an interview Thursday with CNN, said new laws won't help. He cited the case of Timothy McVeigh, who was convicted and put to death for the 1995 bombing of a federal building in Oklahoma City, which killed 168 people. McVeigh used fertilizer in constructing his bomb.
"I think that the effort to continue to look for some law to somehow make violence go away is missing the point," Romney said. "The real point has to relate to individuals that are deranged and distressed, and to find them and help them and to keep them from carrying out terrible acts."
The ban on assault weapons that became law in 1994, during President Bill Clinton's first term, contributed to the Democrats' loss of Congress that year. It expired during George W. Bush's presidency in 2004.
The ban would have prevented the Colorado shooting suspect, James Holmes, from legally buying one of the four firearms police found on him and in his car, an assault rifle. It also would have prevented him from buying new high-capacity ammunition magazines.
Vizzard, the gun control scholar, said there are legislative ways to reduce gun violence, particularly over a longer term of 20 to 30 years. But with an estimated 300 million guns in the United States, he said, Obama is right that "the things that have the most impact are cultural" and that shape the behavior of young people.
Obama once got into his own firestorm during the 2008 presidential race by saying some bitter small-town residents cling to guns and religion for solace. This time, Vizzard said, the president will not give any material to critics who believe he is out to strip their gun rights.
"He's a cagey guy," Vizzard said. "He's just not going to do it."
__
Associated Press writers Jim Kuhnhenn, Josh Lederman, Laurie Kellman and Alan Fram contributed to this story.
I'm sure that if we put more laws on the books that the criminals will finally start to obey the laws. Geeze, why didn't we think about that earlier?
While Obidiot talks out of one side of his mouth, his Dim cronies in the Senate (Schumer, Feinstein, Lautenberg, Boxer and others that are known anti-gun people) have introduced an amendment to the Cyber Security Bill that would ban magazines with a capacity of more than 10 rounds.
http://thehill.com/video/senate/240657-cybersecurity-bill-includes-gun-control-measure
Â
This is simply a knee-jerk reaction to a horrible crime. It will not stop criminals from murdering innocents.
You can get 50 round drums for a Ruger 10/22 as well. That assault weapons ban from a few years ago was mostly cosmetic; they banned semi-automatic rifles that had two or more of the following: a pistol grip, bayonet, a flash suppressor or a telescoping stock. None of those features really affected the lethality of said firearm. It also drives me nuts when the media calls an AR-15 an assault rifle. The M16/M4 is an assault rifle. The AR-15 is a semi-automatic variant, and as such, can not be an assault rifle.
This is a question for the people here who are asking why people should be allowed to buy a gun with a 100-round magazine. Let's say for the sake of argument, that we did ban automatic weapons that hold 100 rounds. My question is...do you think that would stop criminals from still getting them one way or another? Yes, or no?
@glamdring2012 Nope.Â
Rocket launchers are banned. I do not see criminals using them.
So... yes. I do think so.
Â
And the flip side of your argument.
Murder and rape are banned. People are still commiting murder and rape. So lets not even ban them.
Â
Â
 @>T H I S< FYI - criminals can get rocket launchers and their have been noted cases where police have uncovered these types of weapons. Thugs want to kill people not tanks... hard to carry a rocket launcher down the street or to club versus a smaller lighter weapon...
@>T H I S<
High capacity clips will make no difference as it takes seconds to put another clip in a semi automatic....
The Government could confiscate every gun in America and criminals would still get guns.
The liberals argument is weak and pathetic
 @>T H I S< People don't use rocket launchers for crimes because setting all the money or valuable items on fire is a really lousy way to acquire purloined items.
 @>T H I S< Pot is illegal, yet that doesn't stop anyone from getting their hands on it. When alcoholic beverages were made illegal during prohibition...all it did was create a black market, which increased crime and gang violence...and people still kept finding ways to get their hands on booze regardless of the law. Banning guns will just create another black market in this country, and criminals will keep getting their hands on them, while law abiding citizens are left without any kind of protection. Prove to me how I am wrong. Tell me exactly how criminals will no longer be able to get guns if we ban them.
@OrcasThunder If you will not even tell me what your position is...than I have no choice but to assume what it is.
Â
And no, I don't think people should be allowed to possess any kind of weapon...but I don't think we need tighter gun laws than we already have.
@whoareyou @>T H I S< Automatic weapons are not banned in all states. They are legal in Oregon, for example, with the proper permits.
Â
I wish they were legal in WA too!
 @glamdring2012 You asked me to explain a position I did not state...now you assume I NEED to define that position which I have not taken.
Â
I don't.
Â
On the other hand, I DID ask you "Then is your answer to allow everyone to possess ANY kind of weapon? If you place ANY limit, there will be those who violate it...so should everyone be allowed to keep a Sherman in the bunker/garage?"
Â
And I have yet to see a response from you that contains an answer to that question - only your insistence that I answer your question first...you answer my question first, I may answer yours.
Â
Â
 @>T H I S< It is 100 times more illegal to kill someone than to possess a gun. If someone is unwilling to follow an even worse crime with the possibility of a death penalty or life in prison attached to it, what makes you think they will follow your silly gun restrictions? Automatic weapons are illegal to possess, yet criminals have them. Sawed off shotguns are illegal..yep they have them.Â
 @OrcasThunder Absolutely. If the government gets to have a weapon, its citizens should also. Nice strawman though...you are really stuffing it today!
 @>T H I S< Okay, but please answer my question and explain to me how the government would enforce the banning of all firearms? Tell me how it would work.
 @OrcasThunder Look further down the page. I asked you the question about 3 or 4 hours ago. I asked you whether you wanted to ban all guns, just ban certain guns, or if you just wanted to make it harder to buy guns. You responded to that post, but it wasn't an answer. So yes, I did ask you about your position on gun control.
@glamdring2012 So lets not try because it wont work.
There are tens of thousands of homicides every year, so lets not try to stop it.
Â
That is your argument in a nutshell.
Â
 @glamdring2012Â
"I asked you what your position was"
Â
Actually, that is an untruth. You asked me to explain a statement that I had not made.
 @>T H I S< A lot of those things you listed are only possessed by the military and were never available for regular citizens to buy in the first place. However, there are millions and millions of guns floating around out there. How could the government possibly confiscate them all, and keep them out of the hands of those who don't want to follow the law? Please explain to me how this would work?
Because it is not just "criminals" using pot. There is a very high demand for pot. There is a giant gap in the demand for pot and the demand for 100rnd magazines. Â
There are a lot of things that are illegal or heavily controlled that criminals in the united states are not running around with; rocket launchers, C4, fully automatic guns, hand grenades, and so on.
Â
Â
Â
Â
Â
Â
Â
 @OrcasThunder I asked you what your position was, but you didn't answer.
 @glamdring2012Â
Â
First, why don't you tell me where I stated that position...
 @OrcasThunder You didn't answer my question. Tell me how banning guns will keep them out the hands of criminals.
 @>T H I S< You completely miss my point (maybe you just don't want to get my point)....pot is illegal, but that doesn't stop people from getting it. Explain to me how guns would be any different.
 @glamdring2012 people are using pot to shoot up theaters?
please try again.Â
 @OrcasThunder  @glamdring2012  @>T H I S< the idea is that gun owners dont want any further laws.  the government should be focusing on enforcing current laws and creating harsher punishments for those who break them.
 @glamdring2012  @>T H I S< "Tell me exactly how criminals will no longer be able to get guns if we ban them
Â
Then is your answer to allow everyone to possess ANY kind of weapon? If you place ANY limit, there will be those who violate it...so should everyone be allowed to keep a Sherman in the bunker/garage?
 @>T H I S< never seen criminals with rocket launchers?  ever heard of a place called mexico?  yup, they're banned there, too.
Â
additionally, are you now admitting that laws, like those against murder and rape, do nothing to stop those who are inclined to break the law? Â again, instead of diverting to wild tangents, do you or do you not think laws against 100rd magazines would completely prevent criminals from obtaining them?
@>T H I S< Your logic is flawed. Rocket launchers are not readily available, 100rd magazines are. I'm sure if a criminal was intent on massive destruction he would be able to source one from somewhere. Banning 100rd magazines would do very little if anything to prevent them from being used. Also... those magazines are more for show than go, as proven by it jamming on him shortly after he started using it. I'd be interested in finding out how many rounds he actually fired from his "assault rifle"If guns weren't available (which won't happen in the US) criminals would use other things such as explosives. Look at the crime rate in Chicago, an area with some of the strictest gun laws... How is it working there?Â
 @OrcasThunder Or the more likely scenario is we would be closer to the Soviet Union, China, Cuba, Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy and the other numerous dictatorships that have outlawed citizens owning weapons. Great Britain leaned their lesson thanks to us. Armed citizens mean harder to control citizens. We are the reason that Britain has stricter gun control. The reason the 2nd Amendment was put in was just for that reason.  An armed citizenry keeps their government in check, but of course liberals like yourself don't want citizens foiling your plans!
 @>T H I S< The difference is 100rd mags have been sold for years and are everywhere. Rocket launchers have not and have never been sold to the public. So your argument holds no water. Criminals have ample access to 100rd magazines, they don't have access to rocket launchers. Your argument might stand up if 100rd mags had never been legal to have. Now that they are on the streets, if criminals can get them, law abiding citizens should be able to also.Â
Â
Your argument on murder and rape is nothing but a very lame strawman. Complaining about another strawman (Mexico argument) when you are doing the exact same thing seems a bit hypocritical!
 @Granny_MAC Which ALWAYS revolve around the 2nd Amendment.
Â
Go ahead, make a case against gun laws in the US, without using the 2nd as a foundation for your argument...
Â
If the second did not exist, there would be tight controls on those who were able to obtain firearms legally, and severe punishments for those who get them illegally. It would be much closer to the situation in Great Britain.
 @OrcasThunder The article is about gun laws.
And then you have to chime in with another comment unrelated to the topic. Good one. There isn't anything in the article that talks of a "follow" feature.Â
 @nobelprizeme And yet we were talking about laws in the United States and you ran to Mexico.
Â
Seems you only want everyone to be on track when it is convient for you.
It is too bad there is no "follow" feature with this coment plug in, so we can keep up with the hypocrites.
Please cite, in the United States, all the cases of criminals using rocket launchers.
Â
So yes, banning 100rd magazines would keep them out of the hands of criminals.Â
Â
Â
 @nobelprizeme  @>T H I S< Read the article...and the majority of the comments from the gun nuts about "Obama wants to castrate the 2nd Amendment!".
 @OrcasThunder  @>T H I S< i see no mention of the 2nd amendment in glamdring2012's question.
 @nobelprizeme  @>T H I S<
Â
That's an invalid argument - this discussion is ABOUT the 2nd Amendment.
 @OrcasThunder  @>T H I S< i wasn't discussing the 2nd amendment, i was discussing the ineffectiveness of laws against those who are intent on breaking them, it doesn't matter what country its from.
 @nobelprizeme  @>T H I S< I really doubt that the 2nd Amendment has much meaning outside of the US...so let's try to keep focused...OK
Obama is a liar of the highest order.
Â
Should Obama manage to secure enough vote fraud for a second term, gun control will be at the top of his agenda.
 @BadKarma Obama isn't going to do jack with gun control. You forget that Harry Reid is from Nevada and the NRA is actually thinking about endorsing him because he is a strong supporter of gun rights. As long as Harry Reid and the blue dogs in the South and West are in there, gun legislation will never break out of committee!
 @BadKarma Then you need to get to work on your own fraud, to be sure it doesn't happen.
Â
And please, keep us up to date, with details...I'm writing a book...
@OrcasThunder @BadKarma Better have that book ready soon. Seems that Obama lied in this story.
 @OrcasThunder Obama is writing a book, too. It's called 'Dreams of Larry Sinclair'
New laws is not the answer-I don't think anyone can tell yo an answer eveyone would agree on. I'm tired of hearing how everyone is armed in Switzerland and gun death is low. Well, the contry is the size of a small state and every citizen serves in the military. The are required to travel with thier weapons. They also have a gun training system as well-manatory.
In our country, we just keep adding more guns to household every time there is an incident or a certain person is elected. The peopl buying the guns really won't ever use them may never hunt or go to the range.e have people arming themselves because they can. It is in vogue. Accidental shootings are up. We just sit back and watch the mass shooting and wow and then more people buy a gun-yet, no has taken out a shooter at any of these public shootings
 @snoopy84 "no one has taken out a shooter at any of these public shootings". Incorrect. Look deeper.
 @SeattleJoe Of course, since he was wearing body armor, this shooter would have been very difficult for ANY armed citizen in the theater to take out.
 @SeattleJoe Looking through the reports, you may be right - but, since most that say he wasn't come from FOX or survivalist leaning blogs, I'll wait a bit for some reliable confirmation...
 @OrcasThunder Those initial reports of "Someone dressed head to toe in body armor" were incorrect. He had on an accessory vest for holding things like ammo etc but not body armor. So a person with pretty much any firearm could have dropped him easily.