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.

Dan DePass January 17, 2013 at 03:58 AM
Is this debate myopic? There's more than one tree in a burning forest. And there's a social demographic of mental health--the impact of violent media. Lobbyists with vested interests object to including this in the debate. Unrestrained media violence is another tree. I reject claims that it has no relationship to actual violence. The right to bear arms faces a "This isn't King George's government, it can't happen here" naivete and an "If it did, small arms won't do you any good," mindset. The Ruth Bader Ginsburg ideology declares the Constitution irrelevant. Decommission it and replace it with a document better adapted to post-Modern (i.e.,permissive) America is her mantra. This corpus of thought would dismantle the Constitution on one hand, yet shelters in it to protect its permissive agenda, one plank of which is to protect "free speech" which in turn shelters media violence. Curing a disease is preferable to merely responding to its symptoms. As a retired peace officer; I know the strengths and limitations of government's ability to protect us from violence. Criminal and unstable persons access the means to inflict violence, regardless of law or regulation. We must act, yes, and do the best we can to limit that access, but lets include consideration of the license granted media depictions of violence in the debate. Rewording an old adage, our right to view violent entertainment stops where the interests of a safer society begin. Thank you.
jliriza January 17, 2013 at 01:57 PM
Extremely well said, Dan!!
JHS January 18, 2013 at 01:40 AM
Dan - good post. Here is more food for thought- http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2013/01/17/gun_controls_potemkin_village_116701.html
Dan DePass January 18, 2013 at 02:44 AM
Thank you, Jackie, glad you're weighing in, as we all should do. Dan
Dan DePass January 18, 2013 at 03:42 AM
JHS - you've alerted me to a good read, as billed. The Chapman piece is a concise assessment of the President's initiatives through a pragmatic eye. His facts were on point, verifiable, and valuable, absolutely germane to the debate. Thank you for the suggestion. Dan


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