On March 30, the 30th anniversary of the assassination attempt on President Ronald Reagan, Jim Brady, who sustained a debilitating head wound in the attack, and his wife, Sarah, came to Capitol Hill to push for a ban on the controversial “large magazines.” Brady, for whom the law requiring background checks on handgun purchasers is named, then met with White House press secretary Jay Carney. During the meeting, President Obama dropped in and, according to Sarah Brady, brought up the issue of gun control, “to fill us in that it was very much on his agenda,” she said.

 

“I just want you to know that we are working on it,” Brady recalled the president telling them. “We have to go through a few processes, but under the radar.”

 

Link

 

The statement reinforces an article in the Huffington Post describing how the administration is exploring ways to bypass Congress and enact gun control through executive action.

The article also says:

 

"The silence of Steve Croley, the White House’s point man on gun regulation policy, echoes the decision by Democrats to remain mute on guns as a national issue, even in the wake of the Tucson rampage. Croley’s keep-your-head-down approach is in keeping with President Obama’s preference for low-key wonks, but in this case, his reticence has more to do with political reality: Democrats have no plans for serious gun-control initiatives, and the Gabrielle Giffords tragedy, as heart-rending as it was, hasn’t changed their minds."

 

Sounds like there isn't much going on ...

The article also says:

 

"The silence of Steve Croley, the White House’s point man on gun regulation policy, echoes the decision by Democrats to remain mute on guns as a national issue, even in the wake of the Tucson rampage. Croley’s keep-your-head-down approach is in keeping with President Obama’s preference for low-key wonks, but in this case, his reticence has more to do with political reality: Democrats have no plans for serious gun-control initiatives, and the Gabrielle Giffords tragedy, as heart-rending as it was, hasn’t changed their minds."

 

Sounds like there isn't much going on ...

Yet...

 

If re-elected, there will be, of that I have no doubt.

Yet...

 

If re-elected, there will be, of that I have no doubt.

 

I think you are probably right RTS. It would rather stupid of the Pres. to raise this issue prior to the 2012 election. The R's aren't going to nominate anyone that will be advocating gun control, so the Pres. doesn't have to worry about the gun control favoring voters voting for the R. He'll keep quiet on the issue and if he gets re-elected I'd expect him to make it a major initiative in his second term.

 

As most people who have been around guns and are familiar with them know, the banning of large capacity magazines is window dressing and won't solve anything; but it will make the gun control advocates feel better I guess. If people only understood how simple and fast magazines can be replaced they'd understand my position on this matter.

I think you are probably right RTS. It would rather stupid of the Pres. to raise this issue prior to the 2012 election. The R's aren't going to nominate anyone that will be advocating gun control, so the Pres. doesn't have to worry about the gun control favoring voters voting for the R. He'll keep quiet on the issue and if he gets re-elected I'd expect him to make it a major initiative in his second term.

 

As most people who have been around guns and are familiar with them know, the banning of large capacity magazines is window dressing and won't solve anything; but it will make the gun control advocates feel better I guess. If people only understood how simple and fast magazines can be replaced they'd understand my position on this matter.

Totally agree.

I think you are probably right RTS. It would rather stupid of the Pres. to raise this issue prior to the 2012 election. The R's aren't going to nominate anyone that will be advocating gun control, so the Pres. doesn't have to worry about the gun control favoring voters voting for the R. He'll keep quiet on the issue and if he gets re-elected I'd expect him to make it a major initiative in his second term.

 

As most people who have been around guns and are familiar with them know, the banning of large capacity magazines is window dressing and won't solve anything; but it will make the gun control advocates feel better I guess. If people only understood how simple and fast magazines can be replaced they'd understand my position on this matter.

:thumb: Couldn't agree more. Good post!

Brady has been after assault weapons, large magazines and guns that look agressive ever since he was shot.........by a small .22 cal revolver.

Brady has been after assault weapons, large magazines and guns that look agressive ever since he was shot.........by a small .22 cal revolver.

Typical of the left leaning anti-gun people. They never make any sense because it's always knee-jerk reactions with them.

I can remember my family and others riding around town with a gun rack on the back window, does anyone still do that? Is it against the law?

I don't think it against the law, it's just these days you'd just be asking to get your truck broke into.

Typical of the left leaning anti-gun people. They never make any sense because it's always knee-jerk reactions with them.

Quite a generalization there ...

Quite a generalization there ...

Why? Every time something happens gun related, they want new more stringent laws. Every time. Every....stinkin'..... time.

Why? Every time something happens gun related, they want new more stringent laws. Every time. Every....stinkin'..... time.

Some gun-control advocates always want more stringent laws, not just when there is a well-publicized incident. And there some that rail against gun control every chance they get, too.

Some gun-control advocates always want more stringent laws, not just when there is a well-publicized incident. And there some that rail against gun control every chance they get, too.

Which is why it's always knee-jerk reactions with them when something does happen.

 

Those that rail against gun control are usually because they know there are already enough laws on the books. They know what the agenda of the anti-gun side is.

Which is why it's always knee-jerk reactions with them when something does happen.

 

Those that rail against gun control are usually because they know there are already enough laws on the books. They know what the agenda of the anti-gun side is.

Of course, that's your view of how it works ... not much objectivity when you're on one side of the issue.