Obama's Abuse of Dead Children

The president's case for gun control relies on emotional manipulation.

"This is about doing the right thing for all the families who are here that have been torn apart by gun violence," President Obama declared on Monday, promoting his "common-sense gun safety reforms" in a speech at the University of Hartford, where the audience included parents of children who were murdered at Sandy Hook Elementary School in nearby Newtown last December. "This is not about politics."

Unless you disagree with him. "There is only one thing that can stand in the way of change," Obama said, "and that's politics in Washington." Members of Congress have a simple choice to make, he explained: "What's more important to you—our children, or an A grade from the gun lobby?" This crass attempt at moral intimidation, contrasting Obama's benevolent motives with his opponents' child-endangering partisanship, is the essence of his case for new gun restrictions, which relies on emotional manipulation rather than logical argument.

Two days after the Sandy Hook attack, at a memorial service for the 20 children and six adults killed by Adam Lanza, Obama said people who don't support his gun control agenda are in effect saying "we're powerless in the face of such carnage" because "the politics are too hard." Since then he has repeatedly cited the Newtown massacre as a reason to enact the same gun controls he has always supported—including "universal background checks," a renewed "assault weapon" ban, and a 10-round limit on magazines—even though these policies could not possibly have prevented that horrific attack. He calls this "common sense."

Obama cites the careless, confusing gun control bills hastily enacted in New York, Colorado, Connecticut, and Maryland as models for Congress to follow. "We can't stand by and keep letting these tragedies happen," he said on Monday, as if strong resolve is all that's needed to stop mass shootings. "If there is just one thing we can do to keep one father from having to bury his child, isn't that worth fighting for?"

Contrary to Obama's implication, the question is not whether preventing the murder of children is desirable but whether the policies he supports would do that. Instead of explaining, for example, how background checks can thwart mass killers, who typically do not have disqualifying criminal or psychiatric records and who in any event can use guns purchased by someone else (as Lanza did), Obama simply assumes his plan will work and insinuates that anyone who opposes it does not care about children as much as he does.

Even as he claims to be troubled by a lack of empathy in the gun control debate, Obama refuses to entertain the possibility that his opponents, like him, are doing what they believe to be right. On Monday he described them as "powerful interests that are very good at confusing the subject, that are good at amplifying conflict and extremes, that are good at drowning out rational debate, good at ginning up irrational fears."

This from a man who says mass shootings, which remain thankfully rare, are becoming "routine"; who falsely asserts that Lanza used a "fully automatic weapon" and habitually conflates military-style semi-automatics with machine guns; and who claims background checks have "prevented more than 2 million dangerous people from getting their hands on a gun," when in fact we don't know how many of those people were actually dangerous or how many were actually prevented from obtaining firearms. Obama's idea of "rational debate" involves trotting out grieving parents and presenting their pain as if it were an argument.

"There are good people on both sides of this thing," Obama said in Denver last week, "but we have to be able to put ourselves in the other person's shoes." He worried that "both sides of the debate sometimes don't listen to each other" and wondered, "How do you build trust?" Here's one way: Stop trying to claim the moral high ground by clambering onto the bloody corpses of children.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Sometimes children can be of use to the state.

  • jester||

    ...so that government of communal-concern for the children, for the benefit of the children, by using the phrase 'it's for the children', shall not perish from this earth.

  • ||

    "...relies on emotional manipulation rather than logical argument."

    What captain shithead understands very well, and we understand but mostly refuse to engage in, is that emotional appeals usually win the day. What could be more sensational than murdered children?

    Someone here pointed this out very succinctly a while back; You cant use fact, logic, and reason in an argument with someone whose beliefs arent based on fact, logic or reason.

  • Ted S.||

    I care about the children because I want them to think logically and independently.

    The Obamas of the world want to infantilize the children, which can't possibly be good for them.

    They've arrogated the idea that they're the only ones who care about the children. Turn it around on them.

  • H. ReardEn||

    Let me engage in the pedantry that you so revel in. (Please excuse me ending a sentence in a preposition)

    The Obamas of the world want to infantilize the children, which can't possibly be good for them.

    Who is the 'them' to which you refer? The 'Obamas of the world' or the 'children'. The validity of your statement is dependent of your answer.

  • Ted S.||

    (Please excuse me ending a sentence in a preposition)

    That is an abomination up with which I will not put!

    The "them", referred to the children.

    And if you want to be as much of a pedantic bastard as I am, go for it!

  • H. ReardEn||

    And if you want to be as much of a pedantic bastard as I am, go for it!

    No thanks.

    My comment was not meant to be a challenge to your pedantic skills, of which there can be no equal. It was rhetorical. In essence, the Obamas of the world want to 'infantilize' not only children but the entire citizenry. It can be used to justify any restriction on your freedom that they care to undertake.

  • wareagle||

    In essence, the Obamas of the world want to 'infantilize' not only children but the entire citizenry.

    and most depressing is how many are willing to be infantilized, to have someone else make decisions for them. Man was given free will and I am constantly amazed at how many willingly give it away.

  • Ted S.||

    Man was given free will and I am constantly amazed at how many willingly give it away.

    And want to throw away mine at the same time. Fucking bastards.

  • Ted S.||

    In essence, the Obamas of the world want to 'infantilize' not only children but the entire citizenry.

    I wouldn't disagree with that.

    The broader point is that infantilizing the people is a very bd thing, and the people who wish to do that cannot possibly care about the people. If people like that get huffy with me and say they have good intentions, I'm just as likely to turn around and say, no, you have bad intentions, because we know where this shit leads. We know they really just want to control others. (Think the War on Drugs as a good example.)

    Of course, a lot of people think I'm a freak. Easier to demonize people than actually point out why they're wrong.

  • H. ReardEn||

    It's getting loud inside this echo chamber.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    I don't come here for debate, I come to commiserate.

  • db||

    I thought we all are here for a different word ending in"-ate."

  • Ted S.||

    I think that's only Sarcasmic and his stream of Daily Mail posts in all of the Mourning Lynx threads.

  • Ted S.||

    Then shut up and listen to my brilliance! :-p

  • grylliade||

    (Please excuse me ending a sentence in a preposition)

    Don't worry, you didn't end a sentence with a preposition. You ended a sentence with a word that can also be used as a preposition, but here it's not a preposition.

    You didn't ask forgiveness for ending a clause with a "preposition" earlier in the sentence, did you? No, because as a native speaker of English you instinctively know that it's perfectly acceptable to use the verb "engage in" without having to have an object for the "preposition." in the pedantry isn't a separate part of the phrase engage in the pedantry the way to the store is a separate part of the phrase go to the store. Instead, "engage in" is effectively a single verb here, with its object being "the pedantry." Likewise, "revel in" is a single verb, with its implied object being "the pedantry."

  • H. ReardEn||

    Thanks, pedant. Maybe you and Ted could engage in some lively debate on some other thread.

  • ||

    "Please excuse me ending a sentence in a preposition"

    That's please excuse "my" ending a sentence in a preposition.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    They've arrogated the idea that they're the only ones who care about the children. Turn it around on them.

    Yep.

    The progressive's irrational fear of guns is keeping them out of the hands of anyone at schools, which is the only way to stop the next Lanza. And yet, that fear of guns does not stop any politician from having armed bodyguards.

    Obviously Diane Fienstien thinks her life is more valuable than the children and teachers of Sandy Hook.

  • Rich||

    You cant use fact, logic, and reason in an argument with someone whose beliefs arent based on fact, logic or reason.

    So, how do you deal with such a person? State your case clearly and calmly, then do what you want to? Scream louder and more hysterically until you get a "compromise"?

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    So, how do you deal with such a person?

    Tar, feathers, a coil of hemp rope, a high tree branch or lamppost.

  • sarcasmic||

    aye

  • Ted S.||

    Turn their emotion around on them. Ask them how it helps the children to give them (this refers to the children, Hank) the idea that you get what you want by shouting others down and avoiding the truth.

  • sarcasmic||

    Considering that's how liberals get their way, they probably teach that to their children anyway. If not explicitly then by example.

  • Rich||

    "If you're not going to take me seriously, there's just no talking to you!"

    *** Storms off in a huffpo ***

  • Mickey Rat||

    "There is only one thing that can stand in the way of change," Obama said, "and that's politics in Washington."

    How Washington decides things is politics. How we decide the nature and extent of "change" is politics. Deciding whether "change" is good or necessary is politics. The only way politics would not be involved is if we already agree that "change" is necessary. It is an argument that inherently unsympathetic towards an opponents point of view as it denies that one's opponents are not simply wrong but they do not honestly believe in their position.

  • ||

    Or that their side deserves to be heard.

    The jug-eared shitweasel is saying "Shut the fuck up and do as we say."

  • Mickey Rat||

    Exactly.

  • Drake||

    You are good people and I will respect you if you bow down and obey me.

  • deified||

    In this thread, the right honorable President Obama, Commander-in-Chief of these United States and Lord High Ruler of all Americans Citizens, Benevolent Master upon whose benificence and largesse we all depend for our daily bread and the crumbs of which we humbly thank Him that he does not scarf them from our miserable plates as would be His right

    ...has already been called "Captain Shithead" and...

    ... "jug-eared shit-weasel."

    reasonoids! - We must settle this dilemma once and for all.

    I vote for jug-eared shit-weasel.

  • itsnotmeitsyou||

    How about Captain jug-eared shit-weasel

    See, compromise.

  • $park¥||

    You've got my vote.

  • MacKlingon||

    Living God Emperor jug-eared shit-weasel

  • Libertarius||

    Your insolence against the grand designs of Obamugabe betray your intolerance, which will not be tolerated.

    Contemplate this on the Tree of Progress.

  • Ron||

    just like a sentence from one of his State of the Union speachs

    "I'm willing to listen but the time to talk is over"

    I laughed when I heard that one if the time to talk is over then you won't be able to listen to anything since no one can talk..

  • ||

    "[P]owerful interests that are very good at confusing the subject, that are good at amplifying conflict and extremes, that are good at drowning out rational debate, good at ginning up irrational fears."

    Hmmm.... sounds awfully familiar somehow....

  • jester||

    I'm talking' 'bout the man in the mirror.

  • LTC(ret) John||

    +1 moonwalk

  • jester||

    ...and you can send me dead children every morning,
    Send me dead children by the US Mail,
    Send me dead children to my Inauguration,
    And I'll be sure to put roses on your weapons ban bill

  • bmp1701||

    +1 Keef

  • Curtisls87||

    Nanker Phelge would be proud.

  • mr lizard||

    Anybody got an over/under on wether or not this dies in the senate?

  • WTF||

    Looks like the Stupid Party is getting ready to "compromise".

  • Ted S.||

    Surprise, surprise.

  • wareagle||

    which is so ridiculous considering that even Dems in the Senate are against the more draconian ideas. Harry Reid pretty much shot down DiFi's proposal, pun intended, before she could pull it out of her holster.

  • H. ReardEn||

    I cower in fear of your puns and handle.

  • sarcasmic||

    In any compromise between good and evil, it is only evil that can profit.


    -Ayn Rand

  • Rich||

    aye

  • db||

    And profit is evil!

    /progtard

  • Fatty Bolger||

    OT: Obama parties while America reels from the effects of sequestration: A sneak peek into the White House's Celebration of Memphis Soul.

    President Barack Obama and the first family sang along with Justin Timberlake and other performers during the White House’s tax-payer funded celebration of Memphis Soul.
  • WTF||

    The sequester has practically shut down the government!

  • Ted S.||

    President Barack Obama and the first family sang along with Justin Timberlake

    Wow they have no taste.

  • H. ReardEn||

    Justin Timberlake in a celebration of Memphis Soul? With unlimited funds they can't do the simplest thing right, can they?

  • WTF||

    Unlimited funds? Haven't you heard of The SEQUESTER?!

  • Ted S.||

    They could always just print an unlimited number of dollar bills. (Well, there is a constraint on the number of atoms in the universe. But we won't hit that any time soon.) Nothing could possibly go wrong with that, could it?

  • Bardas Phocas||

    The Obama daughters wanted Timberlake.
    The Whitehouse minions ginned up something about Memphis Soul as a cover.

    Why do you hate the children?

  • BlogimiDei||

    Timberlak =\= Soul of any sense

  • db||

    The best part was when Timberlake and Barry reenacted the "Dick in a Box" video with Michelle.

  • Curtisls87||

    Wait, Michelle participated? That explains a lot!

  • wareagle||

    "This is about doing the right thing for all the families who are here that have been torn apart by gun violence,"

    and doing the right thing is always "do what I want" with this guy. What a disingenuous fuck; god, this man just pisses me off with each campaign stop. Never a thought that some who disagrees does so on principle, never a consideration of anything beyond political expediency.

  • Wind Rider||

    He does not care about any of that. He won. You shut up. He's working a Cloward-Piven move to destabalize and humiliate the big evil country his mother ran away from and told him all about while he was a child himself in a foreign land. Good thing he was lucky enough to wind up with one bitchin disguise so people would think he was a certain racial minority that has been fed hatred their entire lives, and was raised by a extreme fringe leftist so that he would learn how to manipulate them with ease. And Skippy doesn't just want cookies anymore.

  • $park¥||

    Hey, wareagle, thanks for your help yesterday morning.

  • wareagle||

    i'm always there for you, sparky.

  • $park¥||

    Seriously, between you and darius I was able to refine my ideas a bit more. Now all I need to do is try to come at it from the other extreme.

  • deified||

    This crass attempt at moral intimidation...is the essence of his case for new gun restrictions, which relies on emotional manipulation rather than logical argument.

    Jacob Sullum, meet Politics. Politics, this is Jacob Sullum.

    Seriously, politics is all about the feels. That's why no one wants to hang out with our mustache-twirling, monocle-polishing, logic-chopping, data-devouring, robot-dancing libertarian party.

    Who wants to party with Spock?

    We're no good with the fee-fees. :'(

  • Ted S.||

    Who wants to party with Spock?

    Randian Objectivists?

  • $park¥||

    Yeah right, why would Spock want to hang out with those stuffy bastards?

  • Libertarius||

    He wouldn't, because he is smart enough to know we would destroy him in debate.

    I would relish the opportunity to destroy his "needs of the many vs. needs of the few" pseudo-logic of altruism.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    You didn't quote his most ham fisted, disgusting statement from that speech.

    (Paraphrasing) He just wants to "make it a little harder to kill kids."

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    (Paraphrasing) He just wants to "make it a little harder to kill kids."

    So he's adding the presence of kids near targets as a value in the Disposition Matrix?

  • $park¥||

    Don't be ridiculous. Everyone knows "kids" means white kids in America.

  • Bardas Phocas||

    From Biden: “No way that Uncle Sam can go find out whether you own a gun because we’re about to really take away all your rights and you’re not going to be able to defend yourself and we’re going to swoop down with Special Forces folks and gather up every gun in America,” Biden added mockingly. “It’s bizarre. But that’s what’s being sold out there.”
    http://washingtonexaminer.com/article/2526679
    Am I parnoid to assume he's planning all of that?
    Of course they'll use police swat teams and not Special Forces operators.

  • LTC(ret) John||

    Slow Joe's stream of consciousness sometimes includes Kinsleyesque gaffes.

  • Fatty Bolger||

    Oh, they know they can't do it yet, but they're certainly laying the groundwork for it. Why else would they need to know where all the guns are? Universal registration and background checks do not track criminal gun transactions, they let the government know who has guns legally. This is the first step towards taking them away from law abiding citizens.

    Isn't it odd that the legislation coming out of the Senate in response to Sandy Hook focuses on background checks, which would not in any way have prevented the Sandy Hook tragedy? It's almost like the goal isn't actually to prevent another Sandy Hook. Weird, huh?

  • sarcasmic||

    They won't do it all at once. They'll just keep adding more and more classes of people to the prohibited list until no one except government employees are eligible.

    For example police in New York are now confiscating guns from people who take anti-anxiety medication.

    http://www.infowars.com/new-yo.....edication/

    Who can argue with that? I mean, if someone is taking anti-anxiety medication, how can they be trusted with a firearm? They might have an anxiety attack and do something terrible. Can't allow that.

  • Ted S.||

    Ah, the medicalization of unpopulat behavior. It's too bad Thomas Szasz isn't around any longer.

  • Ted S.||

    Fucking typos. "Unpopular", of course. I wish I had that steambot I typoed several days back.

  • $park¥||

    They make a pill for people who constantly make typos.

  • sarcasmic||

    If your goal is to be a troll to be ignored, you are succeeding admirably.

  • sarcasmic||

    that was to the fan of the woman who drinks pee

  • $park¥||

    Are you trolling me now?

  • Fatty Bolger||

    No question, that's exactly how it would be approached. Also, I think they would begin by routinely investigating people with large gun collections. "Why do you need all of those weapons? What are you planning on doing with them?" The FBI could have fun with that.

  • sarcasmic||

    I'm thinking that they'll require licenses to own more than some arbitrary number of guns.
    That way they know where they are when it's time to steal them.

  • KDN||

    Mental illness is (or should be) an automatic disqualifier for gun ownership. It's just common sense. What does it matter if the degrees of mental illness between this and shooting up a school corresponds roughly to the distance between the common cold and ebola? Illness is illness.

  • Rich||

    And if you don't agree with common sense, you are *by definition* mentally ill.

  • Jon Lester||

    For those who may have missed this story Monday, I'll link again:

    http://www.wired.com/dangerroo.....-database/

    Just because they can't yet do what Biden said, doesn't mean they're not trying. Remember 'Total Information Awareness?'

  • ||

    The day he used those kids at that press conference and the constant use of those precious Newtown children was the day we saw right through his empty intellectualism; perhaps morals even. Infuriating cynical and weak; without honor and decorum.

  • itsnotmeitsyou||

    "We" (in the royal sense), have seen through his empty intellectualism since the beginning. I just hope the "we" you're referring to is more along the lines of the general public.

    Unfortunately, I see my libtartd friends fawning over him more and more as time goes one. They are the worst apologists and have no principals whatsoever. If Daddy Barack says something, that's just the way the world is. If you don't like it, then FUCK YOU, RACIST!

  • ||

    no principals

    no principles

  • Ken Shultz||

    Barack Obama has to do these things because of our sins, Rufus. If you weren't so insistent on maintaining your silly little "rights", he wouldn't have to do any of this at all...

    But there he is, bending over backwards, trying to stop you and your misguided affection for "rights" from killing more children, and you expect HIM to have a sense of decency?

    You should be ashamed of yourself!

    We have to find better ways to combat this bullshit. I wish reason and logic were the answer, but they're not. In the face of Obama's brand of bullshit, our reason and logic fails miserably with ordinary people.

    And if we wait around for average people to somehow become susceptible to reason and logic, Obama and his ilk will walk away with the rest of our constitutional rights--right in front of us. I just don't think there are enough rational people out there to make a difference.

  • Ken Shultz||

    I mean, the extent to which average people are resistant to gun control, I think it's mostly instinctive. It's like their resistance to gay marriage.

    They may give reasons for it, but it's like their reasons for believing that Jesus created the panda. We opponents of Obama are not as good at exploiting that instinctive stuff as Obama is.

    We might have to learn to fight fire with fire.

  • itsnotmeitsyou||

    I'd recommend a sharp strike with a blunt object to the base of the skull. That usually cures progtardedness.

  • Ken Shultz||

    There's gotta be another way!

  • ||

    'Infuriatingly cynical' I blame the V-8 Smoothie!

  • Ken Shultz||

    "Stop trying to claim the moral high ground by clambering onto the bloody corpses of children."

    Rahm Emmanuel was Barack Obama's Chief of Staff when he said, "You never want a serious crisis to go to waste, and what I mean by that, it's an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before."

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rs6TgitlNIA

    If all those dead children aren't there for Obama to exploit for partisan political purposes, then what are they for?

  • AlgerHiss||

    My freedom and liberty is far more important than the lives of those kids.

    Period.

    End of discussion.

  • sarcasmic||

    That's dumb.

    Restricting [M]y freedom and liberty is far more important than will do nothing to save the lives of those kids.

    ftfy

  • Rich||

    BUT WE HAVE TO DO SOMETHING!!

  • Ted S.||

    Nuking Washington would be something, but I have a feeling it's not legal. It probably violates the libertarian non-aggression principle, too.

  • Gadianton||

    I'll grant you illegal, but isn't there a self-defense exception in the NAP?

  • Ken Shultz||

    "My freedom and liberty is far more important than the lives of those kids."

    I think that's right on!

    Even if gun control did work, some people qualitatively prefer freedom to security--and I'm one of them.

    Qualitatively, I'd rather suffer more 9/11s than live in a country that tortures people.

    If that makes people mad, too bad! Some of these statements are more palatable to average people than others:

    I'd rather have jury trials, where the defendant's innocence is presumed until proven guilty--even if it means guilty child murderers sometimes go free!

    We have swung far too hard in the direction of utilitarianism, to the point that people are starting to assume that I and my rights exist for your benefit or the benefit of society at large.

    And that's false! If my rights happen to benefit society, that's just icing on the cake. I am not here for your benefit.

  • Tony||

    God do you people realize how you sound? I have a feeling you actually do.

    Like a really obnoxious teenager, that's how. "You can't tell me what to do, Mom, I am not here for your benefit. Now can I have the keys to your car?"

    If you have no social responsibility then get the fuck off my roads, mooch.

  • sarcasmic||

    That's better than you and your progressive ilk who sound like 2yr old children wailing "But I wan it! I wan it! I wan it!"

  • Ken Shultz||

    And which point is Tony arguing for, anyway?

    Does he want to torture people?

    Or is he lookin' to take away jury trials?

    Does he want to take away a defendant's presumption of innocence?

    Are all of these things childish to Tony?

    Or is Tony just a troll.

  • Tony||

    As you know I generally favor big government programs such as criminal justice.

  • Ken Shultz||

    It went right over your empty little head.

  • Ken Shultz||

    Go fuck a duck, Tony.

  • BlogimiDei||

    I like how Tony imagines that we imagine the Government to be an authority figure like a "Mom".

    It is natural for him to "feel" like his government is like his mommy. So he assumes we "feel" the same.

    Fuck you, and your mom Tony

  • ||

    ROOOOOOOADDDDDZZZZZZZZZZZ!!11!eleventyone!!!!

    SOMALIA!

    Get a new shtick fucknut

  • Jordan||

    Yep. Just like my freedom and liberty are more important than the 3,000 who died on 9/11.

  • Ken Shultz||

    I don't want to oversell it.

    To me, it's more like my freedom is more important to me than the risk of being killed by terrorists.

    My gun rights are more important to me than the risk of being shot by a madman.

    Children are important, too. It's just that we're talking about risk here--not certainties.

    Even if gun control worked as advertised (and as the madman who stabbed all those people in Texas yesterday demonstrated, it doesn't), we're talking about risks here. Gun control probably isn't going to save me and my children from lunatics. ...at best, it'll just lower the risks from one in a 100,000 to one in 150,000?

    The chances of Al Qaeda actually killing me or any civilian in my family are even more remote. So, for the sake of argument, let's say torture works as advertised. If you're taking my chances of being killed in a terrorist attack down from one in a 100,000 to 150,000, I'd rather live in a world without torture.

    They always sell these freedom for more security trades as if the security threat to you is personal and immediate. But it almost never is.

  • Jackand Ace||

    Using the Texas event is actually counter to your point. These people were wounded, most released immediately, and no one died.

    So substitute a gun in place of the knife, and what result would we have had?

  • Ken Shultz||

    My point wasn't about the relative severity of knife vs. gun wounds. My point was about the likelihood of being subjected to either one vs. my preferences for freedom.

    I have no doubt that getting rid of the presumption of innocence or the 5th amendment or trials by juries, or any one of a dozen other rights and freedoms--might make it less likely that I'll be harmed at the hands of a gang member or an armed robber--but no thanks!

    I'd rather have more liberty and a little less security--pretty much across the board. ...it's certainly true about AR-15s and gun registries.

  • Jim in Denver||

    Comparing the results of a gun to a knife is non-sense. Do we know the intent of the knife wielder? Did he want to kill or just hurt people? It's relatively safe to say if he was intent on killing people he would have brought a couple machetes instead of a box cutter.

  • Gamblorr||

    I think most of the Reason commentariat would agree with me when I say that if I could save somebody's life, even more so a lot of people's lives, by giving up my right to own a gun, I would do so. If somehow my doing so would actually prevent something like 9/11 or Newtown from happening, I'd voluntarily go to prison. The thing is, that just isn't how it works. There is a big difference between asking somebody to sacrifice their rights in order to save lives, and asking somebody to give up their rights in order to arguably have a minimal effect on the chance that lives will be lost.

  • Travis Pierson||

    It amazes me that anyone actually believes Obama's "caring" schtick when it comes to children. He supports unfettered access to abortion up until the moments AFTER birth & once referred to his own potential grandchildren as punishments for a mistake. The only value human life has for him comes in the form of votes supporting his power-hungry, statist agenda - and even those lives don't mean all that much to him since he's more likely to have the support of dead voters than live ones.

  • Ken Shultz||

    Obama certainly seems to think that a woman's freedom to choose an abortion is more important than whether a child dies.

    We make these kinds of judgements all the time.

    Automobiles kill some 30,000-40,000 people ever year in this country--many of them children! ...and yet most of us decide to go out and driver our cars killing machines around anyway.

    That doesn't make us calloused and awful people. It means we make judgement calls about the value of freedom relative to human life, and that makes us...normal.

  • Travis Pierson||

    I don't think he gives one crap about the children who died at Newtown or the grief of their families. Actually, I think he's glad the shooting happened because it gives him an chance to "accomplish" something it's unlikely he would've been able to had the tragedy not occurred. He's a pure political opportunist.

  • Travis Pierson||

    ... a chance ... Changed to "chance" from "opportunity" in order to avoid repetition once I added the last sentence.

  • Tony||

    So are the Sandy Hook parents who are personally lobbying for gun-related regulations abusing their own dead children?

    Or do we only get to talk about gun regulation when there's nobody dying from guns? I know, sounds good to you guys, since that would be never.

  • sarcasmic||

    The point is that legislation and regulation should created based upon rational thought, not emotion.

    Not that I would expect you to understand the distinction.

  • Tony||

    Is that what comes out of Wayne LaPierre's crazy, paranoid face? Rational thought? This is politics dude.

  • Ken Shultz||

    This is politics dude.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rs6TgitlNIA

    Exploiting dead children may be politics to you and your ilk, but that doesn't mean you are your ilk aren't disgusting.

  • sarcasmic||

    Tony responds by attacking a straw man. Dude, you're beyond retarded.

  • Tony||

    No he really is the spokesperson for the NRA whose propagandistic nonsense everyone here is substituting for their own thoughts.

  • sarcasmic||

    I see. Any disagreement with Obama on gun control is a result of the NRA's mind control powers. Gotcha. That makes perfect sense. If you're a retard.

  • Tony||

    Oh no, the disagreement seems to be that what he's proposing isn't going to be effective. So which stronger measures do you guys favor?

  • sarcasmic||

    No more gun free unarmed victim zones.

    No, that doesn't mean arming children you retard. It means adults being allowed to carry weapons for self defense without being treated as criminals because when seconds matter, the cops are minutes away.

  • Tony||

    And here you are claiming your thoughts are your own and not the NRA's. Children being shot in large numbers? The solution is obviously more guns around children! Stubbed your toe? Buy a gun! Wife pissing you off? Why not buy a gun! Er...

  • Jordan||

    Children being shot in large numbers? The solution is obviously more guns around children!

    So you're saying that if you saw somebody shooting children, you wouldn't call for men with guns to come stop him?

  • sarcasmic||

    Children being shot in large numbers? The solution is obviously more guns around children!

    Tell me, why would children be less safe if there was a possibility that some adult who follows the rules was armed?

    Do you think that they're going to go on a shooting spree just because they have a gun? Is the gun going to magically start shooting kids? Will the gun use mind control powers to cause the person to become a murderer?

    The fact is that when seconds count, the police are minutes away. Those intent on killing lots of people know this, which is why they choose gun free unarmed victim zones.

    Take away the certainty that everyone who follows the rules will be unarmed, and schools (or theaters that don't allow people who follows the rules to be armed) will no longer be attractive targets to these people.

    The logic is irrefutable.

  • Tony||

    There were armed guards at Columbine. How long shall this arms race between psychopaths and school security guards go on? Until there is a police force at every school with military-level arsenals at their disposal?

    You gotta love people who love freedom. We can't possibly disarm psychopaths--we shouldn't even try. Instead, let's make the place children spend all day into a police state.

  • Jordan||

    How long shall this arms race between psychopaths and school security guards go on?

    Armed guards aren't necessary. Allow teachers, administrators, and parents to carry. Even 1 adult armed with a pistol is enough to stop or delay a lone shooter until the police arrive.

  • Tony||

    You're insane.

  • sarcasmic||

    Even 1 adult armed with a pistol is enough to stop or delay a lone shooter until the police arrive.

    The mere chance that someone might be armed will deter a lone shooter from selecting the school in the first place. They only select schools because they can be certain that everyone who follows the rules is unarmed and unable to fight back.

  • oncogenesis||

    We can't possibly disarm psychopaths--we shouldn't even try. Instead, let's make the place children spend all day into a police state disarm everyone.

    Derp.

  • Jim in Denver||

    The armed guards at Columbine, and to be factually accurate you need to say AN armed guard, was on the opposite end of the campus in his car eating lunch at the time the attack began.

    No one in the immediate vicinity of the shooting was armed. It took him five minutes to get on scene due to the lag time between his being notified of the shooting and travel time.

    At which point he engaged the shooters and began escorting survivors to safety.

    Now, please place your hands on your buttocks and push furiously.

  • DaveSs||

    Nothing short of Gestapo like warrant-less search and confiscation would be effective.

    I doubt even you would want to live in that kind of USA.

  • sarcasmic||

    I doubt even you would want to live in that kind of USA.

    Tony has said that he fully supports repealing the 2A. So yes, he would like to live in that kind of USA.

  • Tony||

    Gun nuts are always crying about tyranny, I say why not let them experience a little so they can see what it really means.

  • Jordan||

    That mask sure has been slipping a lot lately.

  • Tejicano||

    No. We only get talk about gun regulation when the regulations being proposed will actually change something about the examples being raised. And not in a theoretical, down the road, maybe in some cases vague connection. Nothing being discussed would have made a difference nor would they make in the future.

    Tony, you are so full of shit.

  • Tony||

    I think it's a free country and we can talk about whatever we want. You don't think it's a bit disingenuous to oppose even the most modest gun reform and then bitch that what's being proposed isn't effective?

  • Travis Pierson||

    What modest gun reforms would stop another Sandy Hook from happening? The shooter broke 41 laws. We could enact hundreds more & the next shooter wouldn't give a second thought to breaking every single one of them.

    Seems to me the ONLY law these psychos take into account when choosing their targets is whether the area is a gun-free zone. If you really care about the children (which you don't. What you care about is controlling the people who disagree with you), that is what you should be in support of reforming - in the most immodest fashion possible.

  • Tony||

    Of course it's the best of all worlds for you. Bring more guns into schools filled with little children, and any resulting uptick in the shooting deaths of children you can just ignore like you do all other gun death statistics.

    Let's just make sure we're on the same page: making schools full of children gun-required zones is not a good idea. Not at all. The only reason it's being proposed is because the lobby for people who sell guns has a disproportionate role in this conversation. Their solution to everything is for people to buy more guns. That doesn't mean putting guns in schools is less absurd than it sounds.

  • sarcasmic||

    and any resulting uptick in the shooting deaths of children

    Why would more children die if adults were not banned from arming themselves in schools?
    Do you think teachers or parents are going to start shooting kids?

    What's the rationale other than "Guns are scary! Guns kill people! Scary guns kill people! Guns plus children equals dead children because guns are scary!"?

  • Tony||

    The presence of guns means any confrontation is more likely to result in somebody dying, no matter the context. Putting properly trained security guards in schools isn't the most insane idea coming out of this debate, but it's hardly ideal, and in the case of Columbine wasn't effective. Nobody's talking about any reform that isn't just trying to reduce the ability of crazy people to get their hands on mass-killing apparatus. Lanza shot 26 people in 5 minutes. Maybe an armed guard could have stopped him, or maybe it would have been 27 dead people instead. Regardless, you aren't saying anything that isn't straight from NRA talking points, and their only goal is to sell guns, so I don't know why I should trust your judgment.

  • Jordan||

    Regardless, you aren't saying anything that isn't straight from NRA talking points, and their only goal is to sell guns, so I don't know why I should trust your judgment.

    Because that would require intellectual honesty. Better to retreat to the safety of ad homs.

  • sarcasmic||

    Because that would require intellectual honesty. Better to retreat to the safety of ad homs.

    That's Tony in a nutshell.

  • sarcasmic||

    The presence of guns means any confrontation is more likely to result in somebody dying, no matter the context.

    Guns are not magical. They don't cause people to become murderers.

    Putting properly trained security guards in schools isn't the most insane idea coming out of this debate

    It still misses the point. I don't support paying armed guards. Yep. I don't take orders from the NRA.

    I support getting rid of gun free defenseless victim zones.

    The problem is the certainty that everyone will be unarmed. That makes schools attractive to mass murderers. Take that certainty away. Allow people to arm themselves. That doesn't mean everyone will. Heck, maybe no one will. But the certainty will be gone, and that's what matters.

  • Tony||

    Only a libertarian could see a mass shooting in an elementary school and think the problem was less a psycho with an arsenal and more that the school was just a little too safe.

  • sarcasmic||

    Too safe? How is it "too safe" when a gunman can kill over twenty people with impunity? Seems very unsafe to me.

  • sarcasmic||

    Here's the problem, Tony. You can't stop the psycho from getting guns. Even if all guns were illegal, you still couldn't stop him. Laws are not magic. Even if all known legal guns were confiscated, there would still be a flourishing black market where any determined psycho could find a gun.

    Reality is not optional.

    So you've got two options. Armed or unarmed targets. I don't know about you, but I'd feel a heck of a lot safer knowing that someone could shoot back than knowing that everyone is a sitting duck.

    Explain to me why you would rather be a sitting duck. I'm curious about that. Why would you feel safer knowing that no one can shoot back if some psycho started killing people?

  • Sarg221||

    How do you know that the parents weren't anti-gun before the shooting, and that the loss of their children only strengthened their opinion on the issue?

  • Tony||

    Why would that matter?

  • ||

    It really doesn't - they're still opportunistic cunts all the same. Just like you.

  • Jackand Ace||

    What a complete misrepresentation of the President's stance. Nice job, Jacob, of using SOME of his quote and then attaching it to something he never said. He never said those who don't support his agenda are powerless, or are giving up. Read the speech you cite. What he said is that it would be unacceptable to do nothing in the face of such carnage. Not his agenda as the only option, but an agenda that we want.

    And what's your problem that he proposed a plan? That is what he was supposed to do...he was elected President...its well past time that you get over that fact. Your constant whining about that is getting tedious.

    Mass shooting are becoming routine...4 last year. 4 too many, Jacob, and much to routine. And there are powerful interests (NRA) that confuse the subject. Or are only you, Jacob, the one that gets to pick who confuses the subject? How provincial you are.

    But its telling that in the face of 26 murdered children, you feel that the abuse of children came from the President. Truly pathetic on your part, Jacob.

  • DaveSs||

    "Mass shooting are becoming routine"

    According to criminologists, there has been no increase. (Reason has of course covered this)

    Adjusting for the increase in population over the past 20 years, they are actually decreasing in frequency.

  • Jackand Ace||

    Who said anything about an increase? I said routine, and you only prove my point. They happen all the time, and they are routine, for the past 20 years. Using increasing population to say they are decreasing is beyond ridiculous.

  • Jordan||

    They happen all the time

    No they don't.

  • Jon Lester||

    A far better use of the word "routine" would apply to the drone strikes that this president authorizes without a second thought.

  • Jackand Ace||

    So now, Jon, that you and I agree on something, now what Oh, I get it...just because I support this President on what he is trying to do on gun control, YOU think I support him on everything. Because to believe otherwise just would not fit into that meme in which you live.

  • Jon Lester||

    You're not exactly ingratiating yourself with your deduction here.

  • Jon Lester||

    What I'm getting from you is that you take the president's words at face value, up to and including his abuse of the phrase "common sense," and now you're resorting to means other than logic to argue.

  • Jackand Ace||

    So, when the President asked people to urge Congress to pass common sense laws, just exactly what did that mean to you? What is it that you are reading into that as abuse? This should be good.

  • Jon Lester||

    You seem to have some emotional need to get the last word. I happen to not care. You either get what Jacob says in his post, or you don't. I have to go put subtitles on my French punk and Russian metal videos now.

    Fun fact: I post under my real name.

  • Jackand Ace||

    No, you got the last word. Wait! I did!

  • barfman2013||

    *barf*

  • DaveSs||

    "Becoming routine" implies that they are presently becoming more common than they have been in the past...meaning they are increasing in frequency (which they are not)

    English fail

  • Jackand Ace||

    Good try...routine means they happen all the time (as an example, mass murders with guns), and do not need to increase.

    From Meriams: "a regular course of procedure"

    Note the non-use of "increasing?"

  • Jordan||

    Reading comprehension fail. You didn't say mass shootings are "routine"; you said they are "becoming routine."

    Mass shooting are becoming routine...4 last year.
  • Jackand Ace||

    Libertarians...ya gotta love 'em.

  • DaveSs||

    Routine does not imply an increase. I did not say that it did.

    You modified 'routine' by preceding it with 'becoming'

    When you put those two words together it naturally suggests that there is an increase.

  • Jackand Ace||

    Indeed it does not suggest an increase. It only suggests that they happen routinely, as in every year.

  • mgd||

    "Becoming routing" means that they are not routine now but will be in the near future. If they are "becoming routine", then either the frequency is increasing, or the definition of "routine" is changing. Which is it?

  • Jordan||

    And what's your problem that he proposed a plan? That is what he was supposed to do...he was elected President

    No, he was elected to uphold the Constitution.

  • Jackand Ace||

    If you think that, you have no sense of what this government is all about. Its the Supreme Court that upholds the Constitution. The President, and Congress, both propose and enact policy to benefit the citizens. They don't just sit and watch the Constitution.

  • Jordan||

    Civics fail. The Executive's purpose is to enforce Constitutional laws passed by Congress.

  • DaveSs||

    I do solemnly swear to uphold and defend the Constititon...

    Judges, Congressmen, Senators, and the President all state this particular oath when they are sword in.

    Defense of the Constitution is the role of everyone who is elected.

  • Jackand Ace||

    Brother. Of course. But to support Jordan and his myopic view of government, that statement would had to have been:

    I do solemnly swear to BOTH uphold and defend the Constitution, and NEVER propose plans or policies.

  • DaveSs||

    The president can certainly propose policies but those policies must uphold and defend the Constitution.

  • Jackand Ace||

    NOW you get it. Tell it to Jordan.

  • DaveSs||

    Well you see, the policies he is proposing aren't to uphold and defend the Constitution. They are intended to do the opposite.

  • Jackand Ace||

    Of course, that is only your opinion, isn't it? And the one test we had, the only opinion that mattered (SC) said he has been proposing and getting enacted into law constitutional provisions.

  • ||

    Actually, the last major decisions on gun control at the supreme court were struck down as... wait for it... unconstitutional. Good job at completely shifting the subject though. Really really subtle. Your oratory is almost as amazing as your fellatio.

  • Jackand Ace||

    Ah, PM, your attempt at being too witty by half succeeded! But, of course, your knowledge of the discussion is woefully lacking.

    Guess you are speaking about Heller, or City of Chicago (but then who could ever be sure about what you are speaking of). Both cases have nothing to do with the President. Neither involved legislation, or policy he introduced- Heller was even decided in 2008 before Obama became President. But, of course, in your closeted world any piece of left wing legislation that gets challenged constitutionally must have come from him.

    But I'll give you some credit for trying, though, at both wit and wisdom.

  • Jackand Ace||

    Civics pass. I said policy, and every President since Washington has proposed policy that they hope Congress enacts into law. Surely you know that. Congress passes, if it so chooses, those policies into law. You think two of the three branches sit idly and observe the Constitution. You are wrong...and it never has been thus.

  • Jordan||

    You think two of the three branches sit idly and observe the Constitution.

    Derp. Enforcing and passing laws is not sitting idle.

  • ||

    To answer Obama: What is more important to you? Our human rights or passing a law that won't do anything to protect children?

  • jordanjerry||

    my roomate's sister-in-law makes $84/hour on the internet. She has been fired for 10 months but last month her pay check was $14612 just working on the internet for a few hours. Read more on this web site and go to home tab for more detail--- BIG76.COM

  • Marcus75||

    my best friend's step-sister makes $75/hour on the laptop. She has been without work for seven months but last month her income was $12149 just working on the laptop for a few hours. Read more on this site http://www.wow92.com

  • Marcus75||

    If you think Jeffrey`s story is really cool,, five weeks ago my friend's dad basically made the small fortune of $9462 sitting there a seventeen hour week an their house and their best friend's step-sister`s neighbour done this for nine months and recieved a check for more than $9462 in their spare time on there mac. apply the steps available on this page, http://www.wow92.com

  • joeedick||

    as Dale replied I'm amazed that a mom able to earn $4195 in a few weeks on the internet. have you seen this page -- Gig60.ℂOM

  • Bilwick||

    When has the statist Hive ever relied on logical arguments? What Obama is doing is essentially a grandstanding "political theater" version of the Argument From Pity--without which, and the Straw Man Argument--"liberals" (i.e., State-f*ckers) would hardly have any argument at all.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Progressive Puritans: From e-cigs to sex classifieds, the once transgressive left wants to criminalize fun.
  • Port Authoritarians: Chris Christie’s Bridgegate scandal
  • The Menace of Secret Government: Obama’s proposed intelligence reforms don’t safeguard civil liberties

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement