Not that I support Obama in any way, but most of those seem agreeable. But sadly even if I can agree with some of them, none of them would have stopped the CT shooting had they been in place beforehand, so in the end, it's still nothing more than political chest beating. They weren't his guns, and the mother who owned them wasn't convicted or committed and would still have had them.
I do agree with the ones for educating the public on gun violence and keeping guns away from family members who you know to have "issues". That might have struck a nerve with the shooter's mother to keep a tighter watch on her weapons. Provided they don't completely spin any kind of "reeducation" campaign to brainwash people into demonizing guns like Eric Holder's grand plan.
Obama may say he wants a weapons ban but hes going to leave that to congress where he knows it doesn't have a chance in hell at passing.
It's the only reason Bush W "supported" the ban. Not really, but he gets to say he did while knowing it will never get to his desk and play both sides of the fence.
A couple of those 23 though are questionable. Allowing AG Eric Holder to classify new groups of people to who shouldn't have guns and submit them to the check system so "nobody falls through the cracks"... we know how his dumb ass feels about guns, he could arbitrarily say any group of people he wants. Anybody of any religion, state, opposing political party, etc could be considered "dangerous" on a whim and added to the NICS block list.
It's easy to say something easily agreeable on like "only mentally ill people shouldn't have access to guns" until you realize they can just change the criteria of "mentally ill" to fit anyone they want. :sneaky:
It's like how you can call anyone a terrorist and due process goes out the window.