Why is this leftist government trying so hard to disarm its people?

It's the first step to controlling everyone. It was one of the first things the nazis and communists did.

I'm not sure if confiscation is in the president's plans. But it doesn't take a whole lot to see that many of of these "sensible gun laws" would make it a hell of a lot easier for the government to target homes for confiscation if it were to ever happen. To prevent further tragedies, people mention gun registration, limiting the ownership of certain types of firearms, limiting the amount of firearms an individual can own, and finally requiring mental health checks of all buyers.

Looking at gun registration, everyone points to car registration as an example as if gun registration would solve the problem of mass shootings. The truth is, it wouldn't change a thing. The reason vehicle registration works is that it allows the government to punish you after you commit a crime. The threat of being tracked down and punished afterwards is a good incentive to not break traffic laws. However, that whole reasoning completely breaks down if you try to apply it to the type of people committing mass shootings. For instance, they're not the type of people to be dissuaded by possible future punishment. Most of these shootings have ended in suicide, or death by cop; it's reasonable to assume that these individuals go into it knowing they're going to die shortly after. Having their gun tracked down after the fact does not dissuade them.

Limiting ownership will likewise not end these shootings either. You can commit a mass atrocity just as easily with a single revolver if no one else is armed. A lot of heat is directed towards the AR-15 platform for its alleged role in these shootings. And there are a lot of myths about what these rifles can do if you were to talk to your typical gun control supporter. I think there is a real fear among gun owners that certain firearms will be unfairly targeted if registration and partial confiscation were ever enacted. The fact is, a single pistol is more dangerous than a rifle simply due to the fact of easy concealment. Limiting the amount or types of firearms an individual can own will not change the fact that a sick individual with any single firearm produced after the advent of the repeating action will be able to inflict horrible casualties against a room of unarmed people.

The only possible act that could possibly reduce the occurrence of these tragedies is screening every individual who buys a gun for mental instability. I'm not going to get into whether such screenings would be a violation of gun owner's 4th Amendment Rights or not. However, this still won't prevent unstable individuals from stealing firearms from relatives, friends, or procuring them in some other illegal way. Further, absence of firearms have not prevented horrible deaths in the past. One only needs to look at the Oklahoma City Bombings to know just dangerous someone can be without a firearm.

The real issue we need to look at is that our homicide rate is absurdly high in certain cities. It has less to do with gun control or lack thereof, and everything to do with poverty and lack of economic mobility. You don't have to look into the FBI database for long to find a correlation between poverty and crime, and between crime, and homicide rates. Most of our homicides in this country are perpetrated by criminals with existing criminal records, against other criminals with existing criminal records. The truth is, if you're a middle class person in the US, you're as safe, if not safer, than anyone in another modern country with strict gun control laws. If we want to reduce that homicide rate, we need to focus on why poverty is so rampant. These shooting tragedies however, are statistically anomalies. Other countries experience them too, sometimes with deaths counts that dwarf what happens here in the US. It doesn't reduce how tragic they are, but it's important to get it straight that mass shootings do not significantly affect the homicide rate in this country.

Because liberals believe in government control and look to intensify its control.

SrA Art Siatkowsky Great question. My opinion is he is an ultra liberal and has forgotten a large reason the United States (CONUS) has never been invaded is the impression that everyone has a firearm. Secondly, he fails to acknowledge that when the laws are enforced stringently people tend to violate the law less. When we have liberal enforcement polices which result in less incarceration and a generalized lack of enforcement, the result is a lawless society. Next, we have a mental health problem. The stigma associated with asking for help is alive and well, and real diagnosis of mental disease, defect, or disorder which should preclude someone from possessing a firearm until successful treatment is completed are few and far between. Finally, even though he is a Constitutional attorney, he seems to forget the Constitution, and he is so left he is unable to see the wrong as well as danger in a proposal of gun grabbing. Is he trying to grab guns or is he going to propose meaningful legislation to attempt to ensure only appropriate and vetted persons have access to firearms? These are just my opinions. Thanks for asking a great question.

SGT (Join to see) In effect it is the same thing regarding disarming because if those few hold power those few can do what they wish.....

I cannot add to this...

Obama wants a nationalized and militarized police force to further his agenda of taking more of our rights away. He won't be successful, the 2cd Amendment protects us plus, he is becoming more "lame" every day. Good Riddance, I hope the motorcade that takes him and Michael away from the WH on his last day takes him to an undisclosed Supermax. The girls can go back to Central Casting. He is nothing but a meat puppet anyway, after he is gone the CIA should hunt down and kill George Soros. I would throw the biggest party ever.

easier to control the masses

I think it's their desire to see fewer innocent people killed at schools, movie theaters, bases, and other public places. I have yet to see a hard move towards disarming us, but stricter gun laws and a stronger ATF seems like a good start in the right direction.

The actual confiscation of weapons has never been a proposal, and the wish to change what you can buy is not the same as taking what you have. This hysteria is the problem, your original statement was not factual in any way. Honorable people can disagree, but this is ridiculous; I have no problem with people who disagree with the President, but our country does not have time for one side to have a debate with their imagination.