Connecticut Reaction to Obama Gun Control Proposals

The president unveiled a sweeping number of proposals Wednesday designed to curb gun violence. What's your take?

President Obama on Wednesday unveiled what is being called the most ambitious gun control agenda in decades, initiating 23 separate executive actions aimed at curbing what he called “the epidemic of gun violence in this country,” according to The Washington Post.

According to the White House fact sheet, Obama’s plan includes:

  • reinstating and strengthening the assault weapons ban,
  • restoring a 10-round limit on ammunition magazines,
  • getting rid of armor-piercing bullets,
  • ending a freeze on research into gun violence,
  • providing additional tools to prevent and prosecute gun crime
  • calling on Congress to pass a $4 billion proposal to help communities keep 15,000 police officers on the streets, as well as new gun trafficking legislation that would “impose serious penalties on those who help get guns into the hands of criminals".
  • Making schools safer by giving communities the opportunity to hire up to 1,000 school resource officers and school counselors.

Connecticut political reaction came quickly:

Governor Dannel P. Malloy released the following statement:

“In the hours after the worst of our fears were confirmed, in the midst of the grief and sorrow over the loss of 20 innocent children and six dedicated educators at Sandy Hook Elementary School, there was one question on the minds of people across Connecticut and around the nation: How do we make sure this never happens again? 

“Today the President took the critical first step toward answering that question.  The common sense measures he proposed today are something that we should all be able to agree on, and I want to commend him and the Vice President for their work on this issue.

“I have no doubt that, state by state, we will deal with the issue of gun violence.  Over the coming months, I will do everything in my power to make sure that Connecticut is a national leader in preventing gun violence.  We will take steps to make sure that our gun laws are as tight as they are reasonable, that our mental health system is accessible to those that need it, and that our law enforcement personnel have all the tools they need to protect public safety, particularly in our schools.

“But we can’t go it alone.  We need leadership at the federal level, and for the first time in a long time, we have it. 

“We will not be able to stop gun violence completely, but we can make our country and our children safer.  We owe it to them, and to all those lost in Sandy Hook, Aurora and every other city that has lost someone to gun violence, to try.”

U.S. Senator Chris Murphy (D-Conn) released the following statement:

These are strong recommendations, and Congress should act on them now—before another mass tragedy occurs. If assault weapons and high capacity magazines were not so readily available, I am convinced there would be more little boys and girls alive in Newtown today. If background checks were universal, our city streets would be safer. There are no longer any excuses for inaction. If the horror of Sandy Hook doesn't move Congress to act on common sense gun laws, I have no idea what will. I’m so appreciative of the leadership of President Obama and Vice President Biden on this issue, especially their willingness to involve the Sandy Hook parents and families in this effort. Now, it’s time to get to work.

Joe Blow January 17, 2013 at 03:20 PM
All feel good politics that will do nothing but penalize law abiding citizens. Wake up folks, they're trampling the U.S. Constitution under false pretense.
Jennifer January 17, 2013 at 10:04 PM
That Constitutional arguement is such BS. No one is calling for a complete and total ban on ALL guns. And back when the 2nd Amendment was written, people carried muskets. You think the founding fathers meant for all law abiding citizens to carry assault weapons/high capacity clips/armor-piercing bullets? You have a problem with ending a freeze on research into gun violence, and providing additional tools to prevent and prosecute gun crime. Why, as a “law abiding citizen,” would that bother you. It should have nothing to do with you other than to make you safer? And if you're a law abiding citizen, why would you have a problem with an effort to maintain our police forces? What issue could you have with legislation that would “impose serious penalties on those who help get guns into the hands of criminals" - unless you were one of those people. And what possible issue could you take with making our schools safer by adding resource officers and school counselors? I can’t stand people who say these efforts won’t help, and offer no solutions. They just claim whatever anyone comes up with will infringe on your rights. Shown me how that is, especially if your’re a “law abiding citizen.” Explain! Give specifics. Don’t hide behind the NRAs generic talking points.
Dave January 17, 2013 at 10:45 PM
Let's see back then there was no such thing a e-mail or 24/7 news. All communication was done will quill pen and parchment. should freedom of the press only be allowed by works printed on an actual press? With out the 2nd no other amendment can be upheld.
Ed Rowland January 18, 2013 at 01:58 AM
Can some one of sound mind explain to me why the average person needs an assault weapon with 30 rounds in the first place.I have no problem with average hunting rifle.And it seems to me if you need and assault weapon for personal protection maybe you should move.
JYD January 18, 2013 at 02:36 AM
Okay, Ed. Here's an example. I live in a nice section of Oxford. Someone broke into my house while I was home a couple of years ago. Words cannot begin to describe the fear you have for your life and family while you're hiding in your home, defenseless, praying to God the cops will get there quickly from your whispered, frantic 911 call. The minutes to respond felt like hours, and I'm am grateful beyond words it was only minutes. Oxford PD is the absolute best! BUT, I swore I would never be in that position again. And for anyone who has gone through that situation... Yes, I want the biggest gun I can get my hands on to protect my family and home. There is no way in hell the government has the right to restrict how I want to protect myself while the "bad guys" are thumbing their noses at the law to begin with.
Ed Rowland January 18, 2013 at 02:44 AM
You have made your point.I'm sorry you and your family had to go through that ordeal.It must have been a very fearful situation.Oxford is very lucky to have the PD that we have.I hope you never have to go through anything like that again.
Paula Antolini January 18, 2013 at 03:15 AM
You both might be interested in reading my interview with a Texan about gun control. http://bethel.patch.com/blog_posts/interview-with-a-texan-about-gun-control-and-the-sandy-hook-tragedy
Jennifer January 18, 2013 at 02:52 PM
JYD - I too am sorry you had to face that horrible ordeal. However, I'm not arguing with your right to carry a firearm. I am wondering why it is necessary to own legally (as the Sandy Hook gunman's family did) a weapon capable of spraying an obscene amount of bullets in a matter of seconds. Are you saying we should all be caring one of those? That they're necessary? While there’s no way we can stop gun violence completely, can’t we work to at least reduce the mass destruction?
Betty January 18, 2013 at 05:19 PM
Sen Ed Meyers is proposing legislation that WOULD BAN ALL GUNS that hold over 1 round. So you are lying , that law would effectively confiscate all guns in this state. There is a rally this Saturday Jan 19 at Noon outside the Hartford Capital for 2nd amend rights. These politicians are shamelslly parading the memories of dead children around to confiscate guns, Act now before its too late.
joan January 18, 2013 at 05:28 PM
As Dr Petit that question.
Betty January 18, 2013 at 05:41 PM
Actually your argument is BS. The Supreme Court recently upheld the 2nd Amendment and actually strenghtened it. I dont believe I read anything about 'muskets " in their written decision so your being ridiculoius and dishonest. Ask Dr Petit if he wish he had a handgun with a 18 round magazine. Armor piercing bullets are ALREADY illegal and have been for years. Why are you lying? Or are you just ill informed?
Ken January 18, 2013 at 06:03 PM
If one assumes that owning a gun makes one "safer", then owning a bigger gun would make them even more safe. It's flawed logic. Going back to that first assumption, well, you know what they say about assumptions...Gun proponents have not met the burden of proof in my opinion.
JYD January 18, 2013 at 06:57 PM
What people decide to carry to defend themselves should be their decision. My point is regarding self defense... not mass destruction except to the extent of doing whatever is necessary to protect my family and my home. I would never wish you to be in the same situation, but I have to wonder if going through it creates a different perspective.
Abe January 26, 2013 at 02:06 AM
Most people are "informed" by network news. Most have no idea what NDAA is and why it is a threat to their freedom. Most have no idea that Pres. Obama has directed the FAA to allow drones to fly in US airspace. Most have no idea who Abdulrahman al-Awlaki was. Search for "U.S. MILITARY CIVIL DISTURBANCE PLANNING: THE WAR AT HOME" on Google. Most people will be shocked at what comes up. If you want democracy to continue in America, then inform yourself.


More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something