|
||
Being "Deeply Saddened" at Gun Violence Is Not Enough
Today we offer them our thoughts and prayers, but we also have to offer them our determination to do whatever it takes to eradicate this violence from our streets, from our schools, from our neighborhoods and our cities. That is our duty as Americans.
Yesterday, President Obama gave an historic speech in Cairo, Egypt, in an attempt to create a new relationship between the United States and 1.5 billion Muslims across the world. Earlier this month, he spoke to the graduates of Notre Dame University on bringing together opposing sides of the abortion debate.
Meanwhile, the president is still overseeing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, trying to pull the economy out of the ditch, and pushing to enact health care and energy reform by the end of the year.
Yes, the president has a lot on his plate. Yet not only did then-Senator Obama contemplate this heavy workload, he campaigned for it. As a presidential candidate, he famously said last September, "It's going to be part of the president's job to be able to deal with more than one thing at once."
Keeping this in mind, there is an immediate economic and public health crisis in America that, so far, both the president and Congress have chosen to ignore: approximately 12,000 gun homicides, 17,000 gun suicides, 650 accidental gun deaths, plus 70,000 non-fatal gun injuries occur every year in this country.
Yet rather than propose concrete action that makes it harder for dangerous people to get firearms -- while still respecting the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding gun owners -- all Washington can seem to muster after high-profile shootings are "thoughts and prayers" for the victims and their families.
For his part, the president has also included sincere expressions of "deep sadness" at these tragic losses -- though without any call to change any of our policies to prevent those losses.
For example, after the shootings in March of four Oakland, CA police officers at the hands of a gunman armed with a military-style assault rifle, the president said in a prepared statement:
I was deeply saddened to learn of the tragic loss of Sgt. Mark Dunakin, Officer John Hege, Sgt. Ervin Romans, and Sgt. Daniel Sakai. Michelle and I hold their families and your community in our thoughts and prayers.
Our Nation is grateful for the men and women of law enforcement who work tirelessly to ensure the safety of our citizens and our neighborhoods. They risk their lives each day on our behalf and ask little in return. And although the danger of their work is well known, words still fail to explain the senseless violence that claims so many of them....
Following the April massacre of 13 aspiring American citizens in Binghamton, NY, by a deranged gunman - who fired 99 rounds from two semi-automatic pistols with high-capacity ammunition magazines before killing himself - the President said in a prepared statement:
Michelle and I were shocked and deeply saddened to learn about the act of senseless violence in Binghamton, NY today. Our thoughts and prayers go out to the victims, their families and the people of Binghamton. We don't yet know all the facts, but my administration is actively monitoring the situation and the Vice President is in touch with Governor Paterson and local officials to track developments.
Last month, after a mentally disturbed soldier shot and killed five fellow servicemembers at Camp Victory in Iraq before killing himself, the President said in a prepared statement:
I was shocked and deeply saddened to hear the news from Camp Victory this morning, and my heart goes out to the families and friends of all the service members involved in this horrible tragedy. I will press to ensure that we fully understand what led to this tragedy, and that we are doing everything we can to ensure that our men and women in uniform are protected as they serve our country so capably and courageously in harm's way. To begin this process, I met with Secretary Gates this afternoon to get a briefing on the situation.
And now, in the days following an attack on a military recruiting station in Little Rock, AR, that killed one soldier and wounded another - at the hands of yet another man armed with a military-style assault rifle - the President released this prepared statement:
I am deeply saddened by this senseless act of violence against two brave young soldiers who were doing their part to strengthen our armed forces and keep our country safe. I would like to wish Quinton Ezeagwula a speedy recovery, and to offer my condolences and prayers to William Long's family as they mourn the loss of their son.
Contrast these statements with Candidate Obama's pointed remarks after yet another deranged "suicide shooter" attacked a classroom at Northern Illinois University in February 2008 and murdered 5 students before killing himself:
Today we offer them our thoughts and prayers, but we also have to offer them our determination to do whatever it takes to eradicate this violence from our streets, from our schools, from our neighborhoods and our cities. That is our duty as Americans.
Four-and-a-half months into his Administration, it sounds like there is a difference between Candidate Obama and President Obama.
Candidate Obama stated his firm belief that we can reach common ground about effective ways to address gun violence prevention in America while respecting the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens.
Yet up to now, President Obama has been unwilling to do much more than express his deep sadness and send his thoughts and prayers to victims and their families in response to shooting after shooting in this country, repeating gun lobby rhetoric that we should just "enforce the laws on the books," and sidestepping the fact that there are only a handful of Federal laws which make it harder for dangerous people to get guns.
He has yet to offer even a hint of his commitment after the Northern Illinois killings "to do whatever it takes" to keep dangerous weapons out of the hands of dangerous people.
Gun violence prevention should no longer be a cultural issue or a wedge issue. The Supreme Court decision last summer helped affirm this by putting the extreme positions in this debate off the table.
When it comes to preventing tens of thousands of senseless American deaths and injuries every year, President Obama has a perfect opportunity to bring Americans together on a broad middle ground.
In the wake of the next mass shooting - and sadly, due to America's lack of a gun violence prevention safety net, I fear this is inevitable - I hope the president goes beyond merely expressing his deep sadness, and calls on Congress and on all Americans to act.
(Note to readers: This entry, along with past entries, has been co-posted on bradycampaign.org/blog and the Huffington Post.)
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
WASHINGTON (June 17) - The man who tried to kill President Ronald Reagan is now allowed to visit his mother more, to get a driver's license and spend more time away from the mental hospital where he lives, a federal judge ruled.
The ruling, released Tuesday, expands the freedoms of John Hinckley Jr. over the objections of prosecutors. They argued that Hinckley is still mentally ill and harbors unhealthy feelings about women.
http://news.aol.com/article/judge-gives-hinckley-more-freedom/530442
Paul, maybe you can take a break from bashing law-abiding gun owners and the NRA and comment on this outrage?
The BC and all of it's supporters must be on vacation.
Or have we won the war?
Paul, greenpebbles and Kelli are really posting much less than they used to--I guess they must be reallydepressed that even with the Chicago Messiah in office and big D majorities the gun bans they so favor are going nowhere (and the RKBA is advancing)
I wonder what Sarah and Jim Brady have to say about that !
It seems to me that shooting the President should earn you a life-long suspension of driving privelages. If this guy can't get another gun, do you think he just might decide to mow someone down with his car?
"If this guy can't get another gun, do you think he just might decide to mow someone down with his car?"
That's absolutely a possibility. Or a knife, bat, brick, rope, hammer, 2x4, fire poker . . .
Or (because the hypothetical that he can't get another gun is fairy tale nonsense) another gun.
Because, folks, you could put all the anti-gun laws on the books you want, 'til you've got a set of law books just on that subject that look like a set of Encyclopaedia Britannica, but that still will not stop violent criminals from being what they are and doing what they do.
Gee< I wonder what the BC response to this will be?
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,526100,00.html
It's over people, the ones in charge have gone mad.
Uh, if there's anybody from the Brady Campaign reading comments here, you might wanna check this out.
http://www.nraila.org/media/PDFs/SemiAutostateAGsLetter061109.pdf
We win, they lose, now let's get to work.
On June 11, the top law enforcement officials of nearly half the states signed a letter to U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder, expressing their opposition to reinstatement of the federal ban on semi-automatic firearms.
"We share the Obama Administration's commitment to reducing illegal drugs and violent crime within the United States. We also share your deep concern about drug cartel violence in Mexico. However, we do not believe that restricting law-abiding Americans' access to certain semi-automatic firearms will resolve any of these problems," the letter said.
The letter notes congressional opposition to bringing back the ban, and calls for increasing enforcement of existing laws.
I would say it makes Paul's claims about all the LEO support he has got look much weaker
Paul, you clearly show a disregard for the law and the BOR with your "do whatever it takes" stance. I for one will head your call. From now on I will carry my legally owned handgun everywhere so that if, heaven forbid, so that I can do whatever it takes to stop, or limit the violence (Yes I do have a CCW Permit). The only place I will not carry are those places where everyone passes through a metal detector. At least there I can be reasonably confident everyone else is also unarmed. That is off course with the exception of the police, federal agents and armed security guards. But they never commit crimes with their weapons so what do I have to worry about.
Paul's vaunted "willingness to do whatever it takes" rings very hollow since I have NEVER heard him say a word about investing police resources to make sure if people like vonBrunn (who is a convicted felon) never get a gun. Since under common law felons lose certain rights--regular searches of their residences and vehicles can take place without a warrant or with a low standard of proof and if a gun, magazine or ammo is found--they go to jail for 5 to 10 years
Really. Where do your Federal lawmen come off telling people who work in Women's centers around the country that the violence and threats they experience daily come with the profession they have chosen. WHAT ARE YOU DOING TO PROTECT AMERICANS? Deeply saddened?
Then mergina--when are you going to start supporting a proven solution--namely keeping violent, murdering thugs in prison. And in terms of protection, per the Supreme Court, that responsibility is yours alone--I would suggest you support shall issue CCW in your state if it does not already have it and get the permit and the gun/training so you can protect yourself.
Being saddened and horrified by violence is far better than encouraging and facilitating it
The President is but one man. Where is Congress? What about the States?
I guess the attacks have to be as big as Waco or Oklahoma City to REALLY hit home with Washington. Asleep and uncaring until the disaster is paramount.
So mergina--what rights that are protected by the BOR are YOU willing to give up?
Who's encouraging the violence? If you'll take notice of the mass and high profile shootings over the last few years, they have been committed mostly by criminal recidivists, and in "gun free zones." Both of which are supported by the left. They certainly balk at keeping criminals behind bars (and opt for ineffective gun laws instead) and love to create environments where only criminals are allowed to be armed.
Don't turn this into an "It's Bush's Fault!(tm) talking point.
Paul, You stated "...but we also have to offer them our determination to do whatever it takes to eradicate this violence from our streets." Does that include breaking the law, violating the constitution, trampling on people's liberties? Where do you draw the line?
Many people complained when the CIA and DOD did whatever it took to get information from suspected terrorists. Many people also feel that in hindsight that was wrong. It violated our principals as Americans enshrined in our Constitution.
If you are truely willing to do "whatever it takes" then you would focus on the causes of violent crime and support real punishment of criminals rather than criminalizing otherwise lawfull behavior.
From what I have seen, the BC is far more interested in disarming the law abiding than keeping violent felons in jail
I'll betcha money that Laughtenburg's gun show bill goes nowhere, it won't get out of committee. With Harry Reid up for re-election next year, from a pro-gun state (Nevada), it will be DOA = dead on arrival.
Heck, the way Obama is writing check's, with no plan, to stimulate the economy, which has had zero impact by the other, other than to explode the debt, the GOP just might retake the Congress next year. I'm predicting that Obama's crapola stimulus will not have provided any results by then either, at that point, the Dem's will be in trouble.
And once again, we have the demonization of non-automatic civilian rifles with handgrips that stick out, even though according to the FBI, only 3% of U.S. murders involve ANY type of rifle.
Murder, by State and Type of Weapon:
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2007/data/table_20.html
Police-officer shooting deaths were lower in 2008 than any prior year since *1956*:
http://www.nleomf.com/TheMemorial/Facts/2008_endyear_FinalUpdate_Mar09_lores.pdf
The trend since 1970:
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/leokweap.png
Small- and intermediate-caliber, non-automatic rifles with modern styling are NOT the menace to society that the MSM and others would like you to believe. They are, however, the most popular centerfire civilian target rifles and defensive carbines in U.S. homes, and more Americans own them than hunt.
Too bad Paul, Kelli, greenrocks and Grits are never going to admit this
While the national Brady Bunch is reduced to focusing on individual states, state firearm organizations are expanding to promote national initiatives.
The Illinois State Rifle Assoc. has established a National PAC to "elect those who support the 2nd Amendment, and work even harder to un-elect those who do not."
How the mighty have fallen.
http://daysofourtrailers.blogspot.com/2009/06/contraction-vs-expansion.html
Sorry, Paul, but Obama supporters have to shoulder at least part of the blame here.
It was complete naivety to think of Obama as the next coming of Christ and to think that the chasm between campaign promises and political reality would all of a sudden vanish with Obama's election.
Looks like you'll have to sit around and wait for your Change(tm) like the rest of us.
Paul, please get your facts straight.
"For example, after the shootings in March of four Oakland, CA police officers at the hands of a gunman armed with a military-style assault rifle,"
It was not an assault rifle. It was a semi-auto. Assault rifles (not assault weapons) are full-auto.
"Following the April massacre of 13 aspiring American citizens in Binghamton, NY, by a deranged gunman - who fired 99 rounds from two semi-automatic pistols with high-capacity ammunition magazines "
High capacity based on a completely arbitrary number. There is little difference between one 30 cartridges magazine, two 15 cartridges mags, and three 10 cartridge mags.
"Last month, after a mentally disturbed soldier shot and killed five fellow servicemembers at Camp Victory in Iraq before killing himself,"
It is the military's job to carry firearms. Unless you would rather be protected by people with swords and spears.
BTW, the Soldier in question had his firearms removed. He managed to get a firearm from one of the people who was guarding him. So this anecdote fails to support your argument.
"And now, in the days following an attack on a military recruiting station in Little Rock, AR, that killed one soldier and wounded another - at the hands of yet another man armed with a military-style assault rifle "
Yet again, it was not an assault rifle. It was a semi-auto.
When those 7.62 rounds are comin at you, those fired at a semi auto rate will kill you just a quick as full auto, which are often less accurate my friend, believe me I know...!
Which is one reason why I prefer my Garand, Ruger Deerstalker (44mag semiauto with a tubular mag) and SKS over an M16 (although the stopping power of a 3006, 7.62X39 and 44mag is nice). As far as that goes for close range, my lever actions (Winchester in 30 30 and Marlin in 44mag) are more politically correct as well as being better stoppers.
And when those 7.62/.308 caliber bullets are fired from a bolt action, they are often even more accurate, and given that the ones from the bolt action are likely to be from a .308 Win, .30-06 Springfield, .300 Win Mag, etc. all of which are vastly more powerful than the 7.62x39 fired by the AKs and SKSs. So, your point is?
Oh, and trust me, I know.
//signed//
Cop
Arms instructor
Certified armorer
Retired military combat veteran
OE--you and Paul left out the most pertinent point about the Oakland shooter--as a CONVICTED CHILD RAPIST--he was absolutely a prohibited person (someone not able to own ANY FIREARM) who was raping and murdering 12 and 13 year old minority girls in his 'hood
Its called the second amendment these guns used in killings were legal guns the owner had a right to carry them. We have a violent culture and until you work to change that there is nothing you can do because if people are going to get a gun to commit a murder they are going to find it.
Carol
Only sometimes--as an example--vonBrunn was convicted of kidnapping and thus is a felon and prohibited from owning a gun--the fact he had a gun means that if law enforcement had done its job--he would have been in prison
Well said, Paul. Obama's supporters should indeed take a close look at his actions on this issue and be willing to hold him accountable. Our president knows that his party's cowardice in the face of the gun lobby is wrong and costing American lives. The time to stand up and show leadership on this issue is NOW.
"Our president knows that his party's cowardice in the face of the gun lobby is wrong "
Which is why, after less than three months, the White House removed their call for more gun control from their urban agenda web page, right?
Which says that the (un)Annointed One is at least recognizing political reality (even if he still has the same problem that Grits has with understanding the history of the 2nd amendment) especially since the roots of gun control in this country are based in disarming the freed slaves, immigrants and Native Americans
Grits, I hope that at some point you will accept the Heller decision and acknowledge that the vast majority of what Paul supports is unconstitutional (as evidenced by the FACT that the BC supported DC in the Parker/Heller case--and DC lost at all 3 levels)
Instead of all the handwringing, what, precisely, would you have the Prez. do?
I am sure Grits want the Prez to get something unconstitutional done--like bringing the DC laws nationwide
What people don’t realize, at the national level, at least, is that I can count the federal gun laws on the books on one hand. I don’t even need all five fingers to do it.
Doug Pennington
June 7, 2009
Giving him an allowance for NFA34 covering suppressors, short barreled shotguns/rifles in addition to machine guns and that GCA68 covers more than prohibition of felons owning firearms. He conveniently overlooks the following (here and here are partial references):
* The executive order import bans
* The "sporting purpose" requirements on imported guns
* The Hughs Amendment
* Bans on "destructive devices" which includes some shotguns
* Restrictions on disguised guns (disguised as pens, cell phones, canes, etc.)
* Restrictions on handguns with a forward grip
* Extra taxes on guns and ammo
* Restrictions on guns near schools
* Restrictions on sale of a gun to a person in another state
* Restrictions on how you can ship a firearm
* Restrictions on firearms on airplanes
* Restrictions on transporting a firearm while aboard a "common carrier"
* Age restrictions on gun possession
* Age restrictions on ammo possession
* Restrictions on "armor-piercing handgun ammo"
* Restrictions on sales of multiple handguns to one person within a five day period
* Documentation of sales via form 4474 which must be stored for 20 years
* Bans on possession by people convicted of domestic violence
http://blog.joehuffman.org/2009/06/07/QuoteOfTheDayDougPennington.aspx
And that's just a hand full of the 20k plus federal gun laws...
Did you really expect Dougie to be accurate?
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
