(Removes extraneous word in 8th paragraph)
* President casts issue as matter of protecting children
* A possible turning point on gun control, but other
priorities loom
* Re-election could give Obama more freedom to pursue gun
limits
WASHINGTON, Dec 17 (Reuters) - His words have been eloquent
and sympathetic, as they typically are when he is the voice of a
nation in mourning.
But President Barack Obama's response to a gunman's massacre
of 20 children and six adults at a Connecticut grade school has
revealed a more complex view of the president: emotional,
frustrated - and perhaps rethinking his largely hands-off
approach to gun control.
"We can't tolerate this anymore," Obama said late Sunday at
the vigil for the victims in Newtown, Connecticut, as he
recalled earlier mass slayings and the shooting of former U.S.
congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords in 2011. "These tragedies must
end. And to end them we must change."
Obama notably did not use the word "gun," but he did cast
his argument against violence in terms of another politically
potent image: protecting America's children.
"Can we honestly say we're doing enough to keep our
children, all of them, safe from harm?" Obama asked. "...If
we're honest with ourselves, the answer's no. We're not doing
enough and we will have to change."
Obama promised that "in the coming weeks, I'll use whatever
power this office holds to engage my fellow citizens - from law
enforcement to mental health professionals to parents and
educators - in an effort aimed at preventing more tragedies like
this."
It was the strongest signal yet that Friday's shootings and
Obama's standing -- he was just returned to office and will not
be up for election again -- may have inspired him to embrace gun
control as part of his second-term agenda.
It is an issue around which Obama has stepped carefully
during his first term and his re-election campaign, to the
frustration of gun-control advocates.
Despite a series of mass killings by gunmen in recent years,
polls have long indicated that most Americans are wary of
increased restrictions on guns.
And the gun lobby, led by the National Rifle Association,
has been a powerful force in building support among Republicans
and rural Democrats, to the extent that trying to push new gun
limits through Congress has been seen as a futile exercise.
But the slayings in Newtown, Connecticut, have given new
momentum to calls for more limits on guns, including the
reinstatement of a ban on the sale of "assault" weapons such as
the semiautomatic rifle that gunman Adam Lanza used.
Sen. Dianne Feinstein, a California Democrat, said Sunday on
NBC's "Meet the Press" that she will introduce a proposed ban on
assault weapon sales when the new Congress convenes in January.
New York Governor Andrew Cuomo, a potential Democratic
contender for president in 2016, was among others calling for
new laws that would limits access to guns.
And New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, a persistent and
vocal voice for gun control, essentially warned Obama against
inaction, saying that it should be at the top of his agenda.
It's unlikely that Obama will go that far, but it is clear
that the Newtown shootings - and the fact that five of the 12
most deadly shootings in U.S. history have occurred since Obama
took office in January 2009 - are weighing on the president.
"If you put aside the loss of troops ... these specific
instances of the shootings have impacted him more personally
than anything else," said one former Obama aide, speaking on
condition of anonymity.
Even so, any effort to get a significant change in gun
policy through Congress would be complicated by other
legislative priorities Obama has for his second term, the former
aide said.
"So the question is: Is (gun control) his thing? Or is it
immigration or tax reform?" the former aide said, listing other
policy goals. He said it was highly unlikely that the president
could tackle all three.
WHAT IS 'MEANINGFUL ACTION'?
Whatever the obstacles, Obama effectively has committed
himself to do something aimed at reducing gun violence by
promising to take "meaningful action."
So after the emotion of the moment has subsided, what might
he do?
Some analysts believe that Obama would support a renewed
push by Democrats in Congress to reinstate the assault weapons
ban, which Congress allowed to expire in 2004. The analysts also
believe that he would back stronger steps to ensure that the
mentally ill are unable to buy firearms easily.
Obama may be able to take some action by executive order,
without waiting for Congress to act.
"We could do more to improve our mental health data reporting
into the background check system," said Adam Winkler, a
professor at the UCLA School of Law. "That may be done by
executive order."
However, Winkler said, the Supreme Court has said that
states can't be forced to hand over such data to the federal
government. State objections to doing so often revolve around
costs; Winkler suggested that more federal grants may be needed
to serve as a financial incentive for states to report the data.
Winkler also said that the system now used to make sure gun
buyers do not have criminal backgrounds should be improved, but
that probably would require an act of Congress. Because of
various loopholes, many lawful gun sales occur without any
background check, Winkler said.
It isn't clear whether such changes could have prevented
many of the shootings that have plagued the nation in recent
years. In the Newtown case, for example, the three guns Lanza
used in the shootings appear to have been purchased legally by
his mother, who was Lanza's first victim, authorities said.
White House officials have not elaborated on what Obama
meant by "meaningful action."
Bloomberg and other gun-control advocates say the president
needs to move quickly and decisively, or risk being cast as part
of the problem.
"We have heard all the rhetoric before," said Bloomberg, who
endorsed Obama's re-election this year. "What we have not seen
is leadership - not from the White House and not from Congress."
A CHANGING POSITION
Early in his political career, Obama expressed support for
increased restrictions on guns.
As a state senator from Illinois representing an urban
Chicago district in 2000, he was quoted in the Hyde Park Herald
as calling for increased penalties for the use of guns, limiting
buyers to one gun purchase a month and tougher laws to stop the
sale of firearms at gun shows.
During his first campaign for president in 2008, Obama said
he backed reinstating the assault weapons ban.
But once in office, he made no big push to do so, a stance
that reflected a lack of enthusiasm on Capitol Hill for such
legislation.
About a month after Obama took office, in February 2009,
Attorney General Eric Holder said that the administration wanted
to reinstate the ban on the sale of assault weapons.
But then House Speaker Nancy Pelosi of California, a fellow
Democrat of Obama, threw cold water on the idea. "I think we
need to enforce the laws we have right now," she said then.
And a spokesman for another Democratic leader, then-Senate
Majority Leader Harry Reid, said the senator would oppose any
effort to revive the assault weapons ban. Reid, a Democrat from
the western state of Nevada, had voted against the ban when it
was instituted back in 1994.
Holder then backtracked. When he was asked about the assault
weapons ban again three weeks later, he said, "I think what
we're going to do is try to enforce the laws that we have on the
books."
Pelosi and Reid have not said whether they would embrace any
new efforts to push for an assault weapons ban or other
gun-control measures.
To date, Obama's administration actually has expanded gun
rights: He signed a law allowing concealed guns to be carried in
national parks such as Yellowstone and the Grand Canyon, and
allowing guns in checked baggage on Amtrak trains.
The Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence issued a scathing
report in 2010, saying that Obama had "abdicated his
responsibility" on the issue and giving him a grade of "F" for
failing to support gun restrictions he had supported while
campaigning.
A NEW 'POLITICAL CALCULUS'
But the Newtown shooting "may well be a turning point for
the gun debate in America," said Winkler, author of "Gunfight:
The Battle over the Right to Bear Arms in America."
"People seem angrier than ever before," he said. "To see 20
children mercilessly slaughtered in a schoolhouse is too much
for people to bear. I think the political environment is
different today than it was even a few weeks ago. President
Obama, who has avoided gun control assiduously, no longer has to
worry about re-election. President Obama didn't want to talk
about guns, because a lot of swing-state voters feel very
passionately about guns and he needed to win those votes."
Now, Winkler said, "his political calculus has got to be
different."
Winkler also noted that several Republican congressional
candidates who received more than $100,000 from the NRA for the
November elections wound up losing. The NRA has not commented on
the shootings.
"The NRA had a pretty rough November," Winkler said. "So
maybe Democrats are not as fearful of electoral retribution by
the NRA."
(Mason reported from Newtown, Connecticut; Editing by David
Lindsey and David Storey)