Mayor Rawlings: Obama's Gun Proposals "Are Solid and I Support Them."

Categories: City Hall

Thumbnail image for Thumbnail image for RawlingsSpeech.jpg
Mayor Mike Rawlings said today that he's behind President Obama's push for new restrictions aimed at curbing gun violence.

"We already say we can't own Stinger rockets. So the question is where does the line go? And the line being at semiautomatics is the right place," Rawlings told the Morning News' Todd Gilman today. "The proposals that the president has put on the table are solid, and I support them."

Rawlings, for those of you have missed the name-dropping of high-ranking administration officials on his Twitter account, is in D.C. right now for the U.S. Conference of Mayors' annual meeting.

Vice President Joe Biden addressed the conference yesterday, calling on attendees to help combat gun violence.

Rawlings was receptive.

"Which side am I on in this thing? I'm on the side of universal background checks and minimizing these magazines. This is a common sense approach," he told Gilman. "I'm most passionate about magazines. There's no reason for a 30-round magazine. What the right number is, I don't know."

Don't expect a push for additional local regulations; Rawlings said that his focus will be on supporting national proposals.

It shouldn't go unmentioned that Rawlings is a gun owner himself and knows many others. "Most of Dallas is major gun owners," he said, before adding somewhat ominously that "99 percent of my friends and my associates who own guns want to do it in a common-sense manner."

That other 1 percent? Let's just say you probably don't want to mess with them.


Sponsor Content

My Voice Nation Help
37 comments
roo_ster
roo_ster

Yet another exhibit that demonstrates Dallas is run by nincompoops.

GuitarPlayer
GuitarPlayer

Remember the Minute Men 10 years ago? Those same folks think they are going to over throw the Gov't. Think about it.

KeefyMcKeef
KeefyMcKeef

I understand the threats to my safety from common criminals and the possibility of a tyrannical government, but frankly, I'm a lot more afraid of people whose judgment is so out of whack they actually think Obama is a fascist. Anyone who doesn't see reality any more clearly than that should not be allowed anywhere near a weapon.

keepcensoringDO
keepcensoringDO

Is there a manual that gets passed around on catch phrases to use whenever a liberal fascist gets a hankering for a cause?

"Common sense gun control measures"

"Kill as many people as fast as possible"

etc etc etc

It's like a bunch of robots repeating themselves enough to make the lie true. 

How they are all so fixated to the point of fetish on magazine size is amazing. WE MUST DO SOMETHING EVEN IF COMPLETELY INEFFECTIVE WE MUST DO SOMETHING!!!

Rumpunch1
Rumpunch1

I understand Rawlings need to deflect issues away from broken 911 system, however now that the US attorney has secured their indictment against Ray Nagan and may now focus on JWP and Kathy Neely. Pizza Mike might want to worry that Neely might flip and reveal that she was hired to secure the endorsement of South Dallas pastors. I would be more worried about prison reform right now Pizza Boy.

Rumpunch1
Rumpunch1

Our country has a history of bad policy based on public outcry. We have a segregated races out fear that a small percentage might cause a violent act. We will even cite incidents to justify those policies. We now have laws to protect those groups from discrimination and therefore only punish the individuals who do wrong, rather to the entire defined group.

When we take away someone's rights in today's society it is meant to be punitive. You drive drunk, you may lose your right to drive. We don't take away everyone's cars in order to prevent the minuscule percentage of people who drive drunk.

If you take the thousands of defined "assault rifles" which have been produced since the expiration of the 1994 ban as compared to the number of deaths as a result of crimes committed with assault rifles the result should be very minuscule. Yes any death is a horrible tragedy, however the liberty of the law abiding citizens cannot be ignored.

Gun owners are a constitutionally protected group as well. I have said all along that we need to have a meaningful debate regarding violence, security in schools, mental health and keeping guns out of the wrong hands. A ban against law abiding citizens in order to prevent violence as a solution is a fantasy.

The only place my kids are outside the protection of an armed individual is at school. The other gun free zones (I.e. sporting events, government offices) there are armed officers and generally metal detectors. They are only protected by signs that say gun free zone once they are at school.

Those who might choose to do me harm often carry assault rifles, therefore in addition to a legally possessed sidearm, I am generally in close proximity to a "modern sporting rifle". If they are armed less than that, the protection of my family does not require me to fight fair. If they come after us with a knife, I will not search for a knife.

If you find my thoughts offensive, that is your opinion and only that. Just as I will not pass a law requiring you to arm and protect your family and therefore take the burden off of the police, you should not disarm me.

tagkev1
tagkev1

wow..you can  hear  the  sucking sound  all the  way from  washington to dallas..

roadsidecouch
roadsidecouch

"We already say we can't own Stinger rockets. So the question is where does the line go? And the line being at semiautomatics is the right place," "

Dear Mayor Dumbshit,

Don't you think that after the two hundred plus year history of our country that this issue has already been ajudicated?  It has and the case is called the USA vs Miller.  SCOTUS ruled that citizens are allowed to own indivieual (as opposed to crew operated) weapons that a regualar soldier soldier would carry into battle.  That includes semiautomatic weapons, which for the libtards reading this, is a gun that shoots one bullet per depression of the trigger and load another bullet into the chanber awaiting another trigger pull.  What is the difference between a semiautomatic vs a assualt weapon?  Appearently an assualt weapon causes a libtard to fully wet themselves while a semiautomatic weapon does not, or only partially causes them to wet themselves or their bed.

mavdog
mavdog topcommenter

Finally something that I can agree with Rawlings on.

Common sense is what we need, and less of the irrational excuses of guns being needed to protect us from tyranny. Common sense is to verify every gun buyer isn't on the NICS database. Common sense says as a country we can reduce the level of homocidal violence. Common sense says we need to be diligent on getting help to the mentally disturbed, and prevent those who are mentally disturbed from accessing guns. Common sense says to do our best to secure guns and not allow for them to be carelessly stored.

yes, Mayor, you're correct. more common sense, and a lot less hyperbole.

Rumpunch1
Rumpunch1

Once you read the DMN article referenced, the common sense approach referred to above is actually a little more left leaning. He specifically mentions support of an assault rifle ban (which he justifies based on the fact that citizens currently cannot own stinger missiles), which does not have the 99% approval rating of his gun owning friends he has quoted above.

Not only did he state that he speaks for the citizens of Dallas, but by stating that he is also a gun owner who has gun owner friends, he is also claiming to speak on the behalf of gun owners. However, I think we will see a statement from his spokesperson saying that these were the opinions of Citizen Mike, rather than Mayor Mike. (still having trouble keeping them straight)

everlastingphelps
everlastingphelps topcommenter

Unsurprising, mobsters were behind the Sullivan Act when it was first instituted.  They didn't like how many of their victims were shooting back.  (Timothy Sullivan was also a mobster in addition to politician.)

MikeWestEast
MikeWestEast

Pro or con on this issue or any other issue, does it really matter what the opinion of the Mayor of Dallas is? He can put it on the Council's agenda. Big whoop! Your problem past week was his appearance in that sensitivity video. Why was he there? He did not have anything else to do. Is his opinion a political barometer? Not really. He gets elected by the Citizens Council. They do not mind their picks to spout off on nonsense like gun control because it won't change anything. He starts spotting off on zoning, highways, or government contracts and he will get some feedback.

wilme2
wilme2

Oh well, many have thought all along he would be a one-term Mayor.  I have a campaign donation waiting for anyone a little smarter than Rawlings who is willing to run...

Scruffygeist
Scruffygeist

@keepcensoringDO "It's like a bunch of robots repeating themselves enough to make the lie true."

That's your personal MO, slick. But keep trying though, someday you may actually type something of worth.

mavdog
mavdog topcommenter

@keepcensoringDO 

"liberal fascist"

thanks for the laugh. you're a very funny poster.

Scruffygeist
Scruffygeist

@Rumpunch1 While well-written and I respect your view, there's also the thing that nobody is trying to disarm anyone. Putting restrictions on certain types of arms is not disarming nor banning completely. Nowhere does the 2nd Amendment (all 27 words) state that the definition of "arms" is determined solely by each and every person's opinion. Should I be able to reasonably expect to be able to purchase an attack drone? A grenade launcher? A shoulder-mounted rocket launcher? An artillery cannon? A Gatling gun? 

Could the authors of the 2nd Amendment have even contemplated some of those weapons? Would they support anyone with enough money being able to by any arms of their choosing? It doesn't specifically say no, but it also doesn't specifically say yes. That part gets glossed over by the "They took our guns!" crowd.

If people would just accept that restricting the sale of certain weaponry in the future is a rational approach, I doubt many people on either side would object all that much. While there's no place for the "ban 'em all!" rhetoric, nor is there a place for the "I can own whatever I damn well please" rhetoric. No, you can't. A vague amendment guarantees you can own something, but it doesn't say some restrictions can't be put in place either. The is a middle, which seems to be completely forgotten.

Rumpunch1
Rumpunch1

@roadsidecouch It's because assault rifles are black.

tagkev1
tagkev1

@mavdog if  the mayor  really  gave  two shits  about  the  citizens..he  would  get  behind  a vote  to make  dallas a dry city..sure  would  reduce  those pesky  deaths

Rumpunch1
Rumpunch1

@mavdog These are just 3 of the 4 points from Obama's proposal. They are common sense, and as a responsible gun owner I support them. It's the other point that you did not mention which is the problem. Just because I support 75% does not mean I am not seeking a solution.

If you read the DMN article , one should note Rawlings refers to semi automatics rather than assault rifles. Could be he's doesn't know what he's talking about, or could be something more.

monstruss
monstruss

@Rumpunch1 I'm a responsible gun owner, and I think assault weapons should be banned. This is pretty much the only time I've agreed with Mike Rawlings on anything. 

mavdog
mavdog topcommenter

@tagkev1

yes, just as we regulate alcohol and enact laws to do what is possible to protect innocent individuals from their misuse, so too we need to regulate guns and enact laws to do what is possible to protect innocent individuals from their misuse..

mavdog
mavdog topcommenter

@keepcensoringDO 

you do a great job of exposing your lack of knowledge about political theory.

otoh, keep coming with the comments, I like the humor!

mavdog
mavdog topcommenter

@keepcensoringDO 

"will only punish the law abiding".

there you go again with your tendancy to write humorous comments. if a person s "law abiding", how and why would they be punished? by reason they wouldn't.

the countless cancer survivors would be shocked to hear the "war on cancer" is a failure. actually, there isn't a single type of cancer that has not seen improved survival rates over the past 3 decades.

not heard anyone refer to a "war on high capacity magazines" tho. maybe you should copyright that and try and make a buck. after all, the event today shows that these gun rights folks aren't too smart with their $. they paid 2x and 3x the FMV for a gun. surely they'd open their wallets for a great slogan like yours!

keepcensoringDO
keepcensoringDO

@mavdog @keepcensoringDO Magazines are a piece of metal or plastic with a spring inside. Not exactly an engineering mystery. There are also countless numbers of them in circulation. So your proposal is pointless and will only punish the law abiding.


War on cancer.. failure..

War on poverty..  failure..

War on drugs.. failure

War on high capacity magazines? WINNER! 

Doesn't even matter that the last time they did what you want to be done again.. DIDN'T FUCKING DO ANYTHING. Nope.. this time will be way different. 

mavdog
mavdog topcommenter

@keepcensoringDO 

I know it's hard for you to understand the concept, but the proposal is to not have the larger capacity clips in circulation. not available for sale. understand better?

the stats show the majority of murders are done out of emotion. so it isn't the murderer doesn't "care..about the law against murder", they aren't focused on the penalty at all. so no, the death penalty for most murders never enters the equation. if it isn't considered, how can it be a deterrent?

"fetishize". that's really funny. thanks for the laugh. your posts are so full of humor.

keepcensoringDO
keepcensoringDO

@mavdog @keepcensoringDO So please tell me why someone who doesn't care enough about a law against murder is going to give a shit about your stupid magazine limit?

Meanwhile you will turn around and say the death penalty "isn't a deterrent" right? Whatever you can do to protect the rights of the violent criminals you fetishize. 

mavdog
mavdog topcommenter

@keepcensoringDO 

"A law can't stop something from happening that isn't how they work"

thanks Einstein. it is the penalty for violating the law that deters a person from violating the law.

"people like you want to punish the law abiding gun owners who have committed no crime"

wow, you are on a roll. who is being "punished" if they do not commit a crime?

you should change your name to Mr. Strawman...

keepcensoringDO
keepcensoringDO

@mavdog @tagkev1 If a politician actually came up with a law that protected anyone from anything wouldn't that be amazing? But they can't. We punish punish people for breaking laws. A law can't stop something from happening that isn't how they work.

And when you have thousands of gun laws already on the books that are not enforced what makes you think adding more will do anything differently? Just a few days ago the New York Times had an article that pointed out only 44 out of 80,000 people who lied on the background check for were actually prosecuted and yet people like you want to punish the law abiding gun owners who have committed no crime? 

Common sense my ass. 

monstruss
monstruss

@keepcensoringDO @monstruss @Rumpunch1 hey dipshit, i'm sure you can go to google.com and type that in and read all about the previous federal assault weapon ban that no one seemed to have a problem with for 10 years. 

Now Trending

Dallas Concert Tickets

Around The Web

From the Vault

 

General

Loading...