Obama: 'I have not backed off' on assault weapons ban

from thehill.com

Obama: 'I have not backed off' on assault weapons ban
By Sam Youngman Posted: 04/16/09

Political realities make reinstating the assault weapons ban extraordinarily difficult, President Obama said Thursday, but he stressed he is still in favor of the gun control measure.

Obama, joined by Mexican President Felipe Calderon at a press conference in Mexico City, said he and Calderon discussed the ban "extensively" during their meeting earlier in the day.

Mexican officials have said in recent days that they would like to see the ban reinstated, noting that more than 90 percent of guns recovered in Mexico come from the U.S.

The White House was quick to blunt comments Attorney General Eric Holder made earlier this year supportive of pursuing a reinstatement, but Obama said Thursday that he has not changed his position.

"I have not backed off at all from my belief that the assault weapons ban makes sense," Obama said, adding that he is not "under any illusions that reinstating that ban would be easy."

Instead, the president said his administration is focused on enforcing laws that are already on the books, like targeting guns that are illegally smuggled over the border that are "helping to fuel extraordinary violence" as the drug trade soars.

"That's something we can stop," Obama said.

Calderon acknowledged that the assault weapons ban, opposed by many Republicans and some conservative Democrats, is one of the "t***** topics," and he said it has to be approached with a "great deal of sensitivity."

"We know that it is a politically delicate topic," Calderon said, claiming that his government respects the policies and decisions of Congress.

Obama said he would push the Senate to ratify CIFTA, an interhemispheric small arms treaty that was signed during the Clinton's administration but stalled in the upper chamber.

Obama said he is "confident" the two countries can make progress on the epidemic of gun and drug violence along the border, but he acknowledged that it is unrealistic to think the problems can be eliminated altogether. Instead, the president said he would like to see drug-related violence reduced to the point it "becomes a localized criminal problem."

"That's the kind of progress I think can be made," Obama said. "We're going to be very focused on this. It's going to be a top priority."

In addition to guns, Obama and Calderon said they discussed immigration and the global economic crisis, and they announced a bilateral "framework" on energy and climate change."

Watched that. The man must be brain damaged because he can't distinguish truth from falsehood and thinks that pursuing failure eventually leads to success.

The Greeks called it "hubris", outrageous arrogance. The results were inevitably pretty grim.

We are the "last, best place" for freedom. Period.

Does anyone trust anything obambi says? He is a proven liar.

I think we know what the president would like to do. I just don't know if American troops would obey the kind of orders I think he would like to give.

Jim

Yes as a cost saving measure, he would like to eleminate Congress, which would also make things easier to ban.
Bob

Of course Obama would re institute the assault weapons ban, when and if congress thought they could pass a law without too high a political cost.

I should mention that this is EXACTLY the position of George W. Bush who said he would sign an extension of the assault weapons ban should congress pass it.

The whole thing comes down to political cost. Right now the congress thinks the cost would be too high. We have to keep them thinking that way.

Essentially Obamma is still on the campaign trail.

He talks out of both sides of his mouth. Notice how his statements have been construed to say he is "for" a new Semi Auto Assault Weapon Ban, and yet he says he is "against" it.

Like most of you said, IF he thought he could get one passed through congress and it not cost democrats an arm and a leg, he would. Right now they can't.

But, if things ramp up in Mexico, more "slaughters" happen here in America, get more mouth service out of Hitlery, Holder, Biden, et al, then it might be possible.

So far we are holding our own.

I'm sorry guys, but I guess I just don't understand something.

Why is it OUR problem if Mexico can't control their own citizens?

While I think that the US had more than enough laws to "infringe" our second amendment rights, why would we impose even more laws, such as the AWB, for the supposed benefit of our "neighbor", to the detriment of American citizens?

Am I missing something OR is this just another BS pretext to screw the people who don't agree with the all-powerful, all-knowing Leader?

This is not a "problem." It's an "excuse."

were not asking the Mexicans for help in stemming the flow of drugs into our country. They never have gotten off their asses and at best comment on our continuing demand for their vile merchandise.

Now all of a sudden, they claim it's our obligation to help them enforce their laws and reduce the amount of non-American manufactured firearms coming through their sieve-like borders.

Why don't they summon back the 12M and hire them for border guard duties?