President Obama Calls for Universal Background Checks—Your Thoughts?

In an address Wednesday morning, Obama also announced he would sign 23 executive orders related to gun control, public safety and mental health.

President Obama announced Wednesday he will ask Congress to pass legislation requiring universal background checks for anyone attempting to buy a gun, restore a ban on military-style assault weapons, and limit magazines to seven bullets. 

What do you think of the president's proposals? Tell us in the comments section.

Obama also said he will sign 23 executive orders to enhance background checks, give mental health professionals more options for reporting threats of violence, and providing additional funds to schools to hire resource officers.

Repeatedly mentioning mass shootings in Newtown, CT; Clackamas, OR; and Aurora, CO, Obama said significant enhancements in gun control will come only if people from all parts of the country—including current gun owners—support the changes.

"We have to examine ourselves and our hearts, and ask ourselves, what is important?" he said. "This will not happen unless the American people demand it.”

More details on Obama's proposals can be found in the attached PDF or on a new White House website dedicated to the topic.

Stay Patched in! Follow Rohnert Park-Cotati Patch on Twitter | Like us on Facebook | Sign up for the daily email with links to the latest news.

Jeffrey Wright January 19, 2013 at 07:47 PM
Don't have problem with background checks , it's something we have to do anyways here in Ca. .. Last year there were 17.8 million requests for background checks . This year that number is going to be a lot higher . Now when it comes to banning high capacity magazines the ban will only affect the sale of new ones to the public and will have nothing to do with the millions already in the hands of gun owners . This has to do with the fact that congress is prohibited from passing ex post facto laws by clause three of article one,section nine of the constitution ....
Belle (Orchid Lady) January 19, 2013 at 08:02 PM
I agree with having universal background checks. I don't agree with the assault style weapons ban. I think limiting the bullet capacity of magazines to 7 is far too restrictive. Maybe universally 20 is better. There should be exceptions for firing ranges, so if people want to target shoot and use a larger magazine, they rent it from the range, a controlled and safe environment, away from criminals. I think we need longer sentences for criminals caught with weapons or committing crimes with them. The same for those trafficking guns and ammo. Better mental health 'tools' for care givers and providers. But what else did the President sign? Making some things universally applied, can help reduce guns getting in the wrong hands, but is there anything in there addressing how we are going to reduce violence by getting the guns from the criminals?
Jeffrey Wright January 19, 2013 at 08:12 PM
As of right now Ca. state law limits magazine capacity to 10 rounds ......
MICHAEL P WILSON "Independent Kid" January 19, 2013 at 08:20 PM
Jeffery that is true but I and many others have pre ban Magazines. Also thanks for calling it a Magazine and not a clip big difference, My SKS uses a clip. I legaly purchased my SKS. In the Marin county SO parking lot in the mid 90s
Jeffrey Wright January 20, 2013 at 03:25 AM
True , but these are facts that anyone with the slightest amount of knowledge about firearms should know ... I would hope ......
Jeff Mensch January 20, 2013 at 04:11 AM
Although i think background checks should be run, I also think that such checks should be destroyed after approval... call me a paranoid antigovernment citizen but you don't need inform everyone that you own guns and what they are!!!!!...
Jeffrey Wright January 21, 2013 at 01:27 AM
Paranoia is such a harsh word , let's just call it being ultra vigilant ......
Belle (Orchid Lady) January 21, 2013 at 11:02 PM
Jeffrey Wright-I ama aware of California laws. When I said I thought 20 rounds was big enough, I was referring to the Federal gov banning high capacity magazines. I think 10 is fine if you want 10, but for those who want a larger amount I really don't see 20 as a problem. If they are going to limit the amount a magazine can have, the lowest level I think should be 20. I also think though that if people want to use larger capacity magazines, then make sure there are ways for people to get permits for them, or waivers from the laws if it's a business such as a target shooting range. Why are some people having a hard time understanding that the topic is what can/should the Federal gov do, to make guns harder for the bad guys to get, reduce gun violence yet not limit citizens rights to bear? It's not about current state law, because there are more than one state, and they ALL have different laws. BTW, when I said 7 rounds is to few, I was referring to the new laws NY put in place.
Jeffrey Wright January 22, 2013 at 12:56 AM
Wrong again !! If you read the article the topic posed was as stated in paragraph one ''universal background checks'' ''restoring the ban on assault style weapons'' ''limit magazine capacity to 7 rounds'' And your thoughts on those topics !! What part of that can't you wrap your head around ? But if it makes you feel better you can dream up your own topic !! Dream away ............................
Belle (Orchid Lady) January 22, 2013 at 07:31 PM
Take a pill. Obama is NOT the Governor of California, so what he is proposing would be FEDERAL LAWS, so when I gave my thoughts on what I thought were good ideas and bad ideas, you respond to me about California law? This is about creating or changing laws across the country, not just California. That's why it's called a "national debate". =) You are not the only person who strangely refers to California when people have been talking in this and other forums, about pro's and cons. I'm having a hard time understanding why if I say 7 rounds are to few, and 20 should be the max, IF the are going to restrict magazine capacity, you tell me how we already have a law in California limiting current magazines to 10 rounds?
Jeffrey Wright January 22, 2013 at 08:25 PM
I can tell from your comments that you don't know the first thing about firearms ... People like you who hide in the shadows behind conjured up screen names because you're afraid of your own shadow amuse me . Your comments carry no credibility because no one knows who you really are . Jeffrey Wright is the name on my birth certificate and it's who I've been my entire life ... So scurry scurry hide and worry little cockroach ......
Belle (Orchid Lady) January 22, 2013 at 08:46 PM
My name is Belle. I don't have to use my full name, and I highly doubt your name is real. It's like John Smith. I grew up around guns, my whole family hunts, some are former military, I don't own a gun because I think I have a bad temper. I do enjoy target shooting, and will be taking my husband to a shooting range for his birthday. Do I need to be an expert to have an opinion on what I think the President is doing wrong? Did you read my opinion about what is being proposed, or just decide to argue with me for fun? If you want to talk about the 23 executive actions to "reduce gun violence" I'm game. If you want to make irrelevant points about California law or try to discredit my opinions because I only target shoot (cans usually) there's no point. If perhaps I'm misunderstanding your reason for telling me (originally) what California allows as far as magazine capacity? If so, please clarify, I'll apologize, and we can move on.
Jeffrey Wright January 22, 2013 at 10:08 PM
You highly doubt my screen name is real ? So basically you're calling me a liar.. Would you be willing to back up your doubtfulness with a little wager ? Or is that something you're afraid of also ?
Belle (Orchid Lady) January 22, 2013 at 11:07 PM
What on earth am I supposed to be afraid of? I was making a point to say, anyone can say "blank" is my name on the internet. You are the one who jumped to conclusions about mine, why not show you how it feels? The editor knows who I am, and she has my e-mail, I'm quite real, lived in Napa my entire life, as has most of my family, and only keep my full name private because some of my opinions (especially political) could cause problems for my husband at work, and in my family political views can cause huge fights. Is that enough of my private info for you? Now what is your actual objection to my opinion about limiting the amount of ammunition magazines can hold? I said 7, is too few, and IF they must set a limit on manufacturers, and new sales, 20 is a better number. It holds enough bullets to shoot targets with out having to reload or switch magazines/clips. My saying this is what I would approve of OVER the 7 round limit, would not impede states rights to set it lower, as you pointed out, California says your magazine can only have 10 right?
Belle (Orchid Lady) January 23, 2013 at 02:00 AM
Medication? Wow, your above comment is the exact definition of rhetoric. Not only that, I have only stated things as I know them, or have heard them discussed. You on the other hand refuse to answer any questions, or address the actual issues. Instead you attempt to distract from the conversation by personally attacking me. You have my name, you chose not to believe it, that's not my problem. So, I guess I will declare myself the adult, and winner in this conversation, because you refuse to talk about what the issues are. BTW you haven't shared your opinion. My guess you don't have one because you're just a troll. Have a nice day "Jeffrey".
Justin Tiem January 23, 2013 at 02:28 AM
You two sound like an old married couple. Get some counseling. It's people like you two keeping up the argument that confirms why I choose to remain single. Thanks for reminding me of that.
Belle (Orchid Lady) January 23, 2013 at 02:54 AM
Sorry about that Justin! I was just trying to have an adult conversation, and see what other people thought. I'm done here though, if I wanted to be attacked and insulted if just talk to my brother. :/
BILL BRASKY January 23, 2013 at 03:31 AM
You like to stir up trouble don't you ? Your previous comments say a lot about you even if you don't use your full name .. You stated you don't own guns because you have a bad temper --- ''translation'' = You're prone to uncontrolable fits of anger and it woulde't be safe for a gun to be around you or you've had psyclogical problems in the past that prohibit you from owning guns .. And what are you afraid of = Your comments causing problems for your husband and causing huge fights within your family .. You give the answers to your own questions !! Hmmmmmmmm ?
Belle (Orchid Lady) January 23, 2013 at 06:43 PM
Bill, you are now jumping to the silly assumptions as that other guy. If you read through the comments, I,ME, NOT THE OTHER GUY, was actually trying to share my opinion about Obamas plans and ask others about theirs, and each time this person, either made a comment that was about our state laws (I can't see why it would be a response to anything I said). Then when I answered questions or tried to clarify my positions, he began to use personal attacks, to continue to avoid having an adult debate...how's that MY fault? When he stated "i know nothing about guns" I said I think I have a bad temper and don't wish to own a gun, how does that make me anything other than what I said? My husband and I get along fine, he nor I have any issues I assure you. My comments about things that can be associated with his business could reflect on him, he at times host political groups. Why should my political positions affect him, he could care less about politics, that is why I don't post my political view on Facebook. I use these forums to speak freely, and ask others what they think about things. The comment about fights with my family regarding politics, is not with my husband, but with my father, uncles, cousins etc. Do you have an opinion about what President Obama is proposing, or do you want to play "attack people for defending themselves"?
Belle (Orchid Lady) January 23, 2013 at 06:50 PM
Just so you know I don't 'cause huge fights within my family' my whole family is Republican, the scream at anyone who disagrees with their positions, even each other. I don't like that type of discourse, again, my reason for talking here, as it won't ruin relationships if you and I can't agree or get along.


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