Schwartz Releases Statement Following President’s Speech
U.S. Rep. Allyson Schwartz, D-13, released statements following the President’s speech on gun control yesterday; the NRA weighed in on the President's speech as well.
Schwartz supported President Obama’s recommendations in a written statement:
Now is the time for us to take action to end the senseless loss of life that occurs almost daily across our country due to gun violence.
I applaud President Obama and Vice President Biden for reaching out to the many factions in this debate and calling for meaningful action to reduce gun violence. I strongly support the President’s proposal announced today, which represents a comprehensive plan to keep guns out of the wrong hands, increase gun safety, and prevent future acts of gun violence.
While President Obama took executive action today to reduce gun violence, there is still more work to be done to ensure our communities, our children and our schools are safe. I pledge to do all I can to ensure that Congress takes action now, not only for those who tragically lost their lives in Newtown, but for all the victims of gun violence in this country.
The NRA released the following statement:
The NRA will continue to focus on keeping our children safe and securing our schools, fixing our broken mental health system, and prosecuting violent criminals to the fullest extent of the law. We look forward to working with Congress on a bi-partisan basis to find real solutions to protecting America’s most valuable asset – our children.
Attacking firearms and ignoring children is not a solution to the crisis we face as a nation. Only honest, law-abiding gun owners will be affected and our children will remain vulnerable to the inevitability of more tragedy.
Michael Curtis Sr
3:45 pm on Thursday, January 17, 2013
Schwartz is out of touch with the real world just like Obama the fraud. Guns don't kill people, PEOPLE kill people. It takes a person to pick up a gun before it can be used for anything. The federal government can't even " secure " the borders let alone stop the " drug dealers " from bringing in drugs from Mexico and killing Americans that live along the U.S. border with guns. What makes people in Washington or anywhere else think by adding more " gun Laws " is the answer? What part of " Criminals " Law Breakers " don't Obama and other political people understand? Criminals don't care about any laws, no matter how many there are. Obama doesn't care about the United States Constitution, he has broken so many laws it is unreal. We live in a Republic not a Dictatorship. Join the NRA Today !!
FrankieB
4:05 pm on Thursday, January 17, 2013
what is never stated is that NRA members. licensed individuals, individuals with concelled carry permits, or formally trained in firearms individulas are not the one's committing the senseless shootings either in entertainment venues, schools, or ghettos. The liberals want guns removed just as was recently done in Australia. Crimes with guns are up in Australia, not by law abiding citizens that were forced to turn in pistols, rifles and shotguns. Crimes with guns are rampant. So much for the liberal social engineering.
Joseph Finnick
11:31 am on Saturday, January 19, 2013
So false it is sad:
http://www.factcheck.org/2009/05/gun-control-in-australia/
Michael Curtis Sr
7:37 pm on Thursday, January 17, 2013
I agree with you FrankieB 100%
Victor B. Krievins
8:22 pm on Thursday, January 17, 2013
I also agree 100%!
Josephine
3:40 pm on Friday, January 18, 2013
Schwartz is out of touch doesnt she know we kill unborn babies everyday
Michael Curtis Sr
11:01 am on Saturday, January 19, 2013
Anyone hear of " Sheriff Joe Arpaio " of Maricopa County Arizona? He and his Cold Case posse have investigated Obama's " Birth Certificate " and found that it was a " computer generated forgery " don't take my word for it, go to - www.wnd.com - and look for Sheriff Joe Arpaio. The video is there, they show and prove how Obama's birth certificate is a fraud. What part of the " 2 Amendment of the U.S. Constitution " Washington doesn't understand" A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed " when you have Major News media's like ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN with yellow strips down their back this information doesn't get out. Obama will be " Illegally " holding the office again. Sensible gun legilation? Has Washington read all the gun laws on the books. Why don't they go after the " REAL " problem not after the LAW ABIDING CITIZEN. States across the our Nation are telling Washington they will " not " enforce what Obama has done. Pennsylvania's Constitution, Article 1 " Declaration of Right, Section 21 Right to Bear Arms, The right of the Citizens to bear arms in " DEFENSE " of themselfs and the State shall not be questioned.
Joseph Finnick
11:40 am on Saturday, January 19, 2013
Yes, because a sheriff in Arizona has the ability to prove these things when no when else could. That makes sense. You are also trying to believe someone who is currently being brought to trial for discriminatory practices? If you want to know the man, read this: http://www.rollingstone.com/culture/news/the-long-lawless-ride-of-sheriff-joe-arpaio-20120802
The only part of Obama's plan that would take guns away from people is the assault rifle ban, which would have to be passed by Congress and everyone admits has an absurdly low chance of passing. All of the executive orders and his other recommendations are to ensure that those who have guns are responsible, law abiding, and in a mental state that would allow them to have a gun. The current gun laws don't work because Congress had gutted the ATF's ability to do its job. The ATF checks up on gun sellers once every 14 years due to its small staff and can really only make recommendations to them, such as, "You shouldn't sell guns to drunk people." Not that they can't, just that they shouldn't. If the ATF was able to do its job, then maybe the 1% of gun sellers that operate in an illegitimate fashion could be targeted and shut down and many tragedies could be averted. Instead, any move to strengthen the ATF is met with hostility as trying to take away law abiding citizens' guns, which is just untrue.
Joseph Finnick
11:44 am on Saturday, January 19, 2013
Also, if you are so attached to wanting any type of weapon to defend yourself, why aren't you upset that you cannot have rocket launchers? How about a tank? Maybe you're strictly on guns though, so how about machine guns? Those are restricted (though there are still loopholes to get those as well). Why aren't you upset about those?
Michael Curtis Sr
3:05 pm on Saturday, January 19, 2013
wanting any type of weapon to defend myself, your not getting the point. simi autos have been around for decades with different size mags.. I grew up around firearms, weapons. I was a hunter a long time ago. Responsibility is part of owning a weapon. There are so many that don't take that responsibility. It is not your or my fault that Congress gutted the ATF. I agree with you on responisble people should have weapons to be able to defend themself. I don't want rocket launchers, don't want a tank. I want to be able to defend my self with the abllity as that next person. I hope they catch all the illegitimate sellers and lock them away for decades. Auto's are against the law, as you ponted out, people can get them. That's part of the problem. Putting mag limit for the law abiding citizen against the law breaker is just plain wrong. Yes, what happened was a very bad tragedie. The government needs to take a look at stats and see where the problem seats and not do a blanket law. Every weapons owner I know are very responsible people. Pennsylvania has no uniform training for someone who buys a weapon like other states do. That too is a problem. I understand where your coming from Mr. Finnick. Hope you understand my point of view as well.
Joseph Finnick
5:27 pm on Saturday, January 19, 2013
You are talking a bit more sane, but I see no problem with magazine limits or an assault rifle ban. I don't think the ban will pass, but if they were never legal (as with other types of guns) than presumably you would have no problem now with keeping them illegal. In terms of the magazine limits you can go get the same number of bullets and unless a small army is planning on attacking you, a smaller magazine should be adequate for your defense. In either case, these have to pass Congress, not just the President's request, so I believe neither will actually pass, though I support them. The real point of Obama's speech was his executive orders, which have nothing in them about taking guns out of the hands of responsible people like yourself.
Andy Curshen
12:56 pm on Monday, January 21, 2013
The second amendment as it is written is totally inapplicable to today's world and should be scrapped, every word. Lunatics like wayne lapierre and his ilk hide behind this badly worded and inapplicable ammendment. Guns should be made difficult to get as in civilized countries. Only single shot guns should be available to the general public. There should be a 30 day waiting period and referrals from at least 3 non family members who have known the applicant 3 years or more. I welcome more suggestions as to how to make it even more difficult to own guns.
Curmudgeon
2:40 pm on Monday, January 21, 2013
Thanks Andy for your insight. Freedom of Speech as written in the Consitution applies only to Political Speech. Let's scrap your right to give an opinion on anything that requires intellegence. But you can run for King when Obama decides to leave.
Joseph Finnick
4:21 pm on Monday, January 21, 2013
Not saying I don't agree with you about the 2nd Amendment, but the text of the 1st Amendment:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
This makes no reference to political speech.
Also, Obama has done nothing "Kingly." If you want to talk expansion of presidential power you should check George W. Bush, FDR, and Lincoln. All did much more to expand the office of the president than Obama has during his first term or will during his second.