2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumObama responds to gun-control petitions
http://thehill.com/video/administration/274209-obama-responds-to-gun-control-petitionsObama responds to gun-control petitions
By Alicia M. Cohn - 12/21/12 07:49 AM ET
Video @ link~
A week after 20 children lost their lives during a mass shooting at a Connecticut elementary school, President Obama on Friday personally responded to petitions on the White House site calling for the administration to act on gun control.
"We hear you," Obama said in a video, addressing the more than 400,000 people who have signed petitions related to gun violence since last Friday. "You've started something and now I'm asking you to keep at it. I'm asking for your help to make a real, meaningful difference in the lives of our communities and our country, and make sure the United States of America is a safer, stronger place for our children to learn and to grow."
snip//
"This week I called on Congress to take up and pass common-sense legislation that has the support of a majority of American people, including banning the sale of military-style assault weapons and high-capacity ammunition clips, and making sure criminals can't take advantage of legal loopholes to get their hands on a gun," Obama said in the video. "I've asked for these proposals by January, and I will push for them early in the year."
The personal video message is also a sign that the president will use heightened public interest to press the issue if Congress is slow to act. According to polls this week, the majority of Americans typically just over 50 percent support stricter gun-control laws, with larger numbers in favor of specific measures such as a ban on assault weapons and high-capacity magazine clips.
Friday's massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown took the lives of 20 children and six adult school employees, and follows several other mass-shooting incidents this year.
angstlessk
(11,862 posts)Why not more rec's and kicks?
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)MotherPetrie
(3,145 posts)ywcachieve
(365 posts)triplepoint
(431 posts).
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Reference Link:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bushmaster_M4_Type_Carbine
.
.
.
"...We have to save each other because all victims are equal and none is more equal than others. It's everyone's duty to start the avalanche."
--Bartholomew "Barley" Scott Blair, "The Russia House"
.
.
.
.
.
.
tavalon
(27,985 posts)And I'm okay being a ground troop. Let's keep the pressure on.
world wide wally
(21,754 posts)defacto7
(13,485 posts)We must stop these hideous killing devices from being sold. We also have to stop the manufacture of them for public use. Personally, I would like to see the manufacture stop for all purposes but I suppose the military have their agenda which is untouchable.
Is it so impossible for the government to stop the manufacturing of these things immediately until the measures are put to vote? Can't the president put an immediate moratorium on sales and manufacture till further notice? I'm sure the outcry would be deafening but it seems the gun idiots are stockpiling them which means they probably plan to sell them on the black market or just under the wire. I understand it could cause trouble, but we already have the semblance of a war against "assault" weapons. There may be a cost in lives that the president has to consider, but such a moratorium would at least stop the incessant manufacture and sales in it's tracks now, and those who would make trouble would be revealing themselves, and thus can be dealt with.
Dammit people, with the congressional and administration mistakes in the last 20 or so years concerning these weapons, we either have a powerful secret force standing idle in the background in the name of the NRA and others, or we have a war to fight. I have no reservations that it may be a terrible fight. But it's what we have let ourselves get into and we either must do what is needed to stop it or become part of the fear/hate/terror corporate machine and wave a white flag.
Cha
(297,554 posts)jimmy the one
(2,708 posts)The AR15 assault rifle pictured above is more than twice as deadly, more potently lethal, than the two handguns sig & glock pictured, as well as most all handguns in general.
There is approx 2.35 times more kinetic energy in the .223 bullet which the AR15 fires, than in the bullets shot from the sig & glock.
.. the formula for kinetic energy is K.E. = 1/2 x mass x velocity squared.
.. the weight of a glock26 bullet can be about 124 grains, while the weight of the AR15 is lighter at ~55 grains (don't let that difference decieve you). The muzzle velocity of the glock bullet is ~1300 feet per second (fps), that of the AR15 is ~3,000 fps.
K.E.glockbullet= 1/2 x 124 x 1300 x 1300 = 105 (units)
K.E.AR15bullet = 1/2 x 55 x 3000 x 3000 = 248
.. the ratio of kinetic energy is 248 divided by 105 = approx 2.35
.. thus there is approx 2.35 times more kinetic energy in the .223 assault rifle bullet, than in the handgun bullets. This is generally true (abouts) regarding other assault rifles such as the AK47 & AK74, with muzzle velocities high around 3,000 fps.
.. furthermore, handgun bullets can simply leave a wound resembling that of a same caliber pointed metal rod driven thru a body, with little surrounding damage. Dumdum type bullets which internally mushroom, expand, also exist.
Assault rifle bullets cavitate, which means they create surrounding tissue damage thru sort of a 'shock wave' due the high velocity, which can disrupt surrounding vital organs, & create a larger internal wound. This generally extends 1 to 2 inches radially around the actual path of the bullet (adipose tissue, fat, is not affected by cavitation as much, so butt shots not as worrisome, erk).
The assault rifle bullet .223 tends to fragment into 2 parts thus creating two bullet paths thru the body, with more chance to hit vital organs.
.. assault rifle bullets tend to be more dangerous than handgun bullets. The .223 from the AR15 can readily go thru a steel helmet, while the handgun bullet more likely to be deflected.
Bake
(21,977 posts)It implies that "common sense legislation" cannot be argued with. The Repubs have used that term too, and their suggestions have no relation to common sense.
Tell me, sir, what you propose, and I can decide for myself whether or not it's "common sense."
Bake