Obama: Better Background Checks Would Stop Future Loughners

In an Arizona Daily Star op-ed piece (which Jesse Walker noted this morning), President Obama urges "an instant, accurate, comprehensive and consistent system for background checks" in response to the Tucson massacre. But since there is no reason to think such a system would have stopped Jared Lee Loughner from buying a gun, this recommendation seems like a non sequitur (as gun control proposals often do).

Obama regrets that "a man our Army rejected as unfit for service; a man one of our colleges deemed too unstable for studies; a man apparently bent on violence, was able to walk into a store and buy a gun." But people who are rejected for military service or thrown out of community college are still allowed to own firearms, and Obama does not propose changing the factors that disqualify people from buying guns. As for his description of Loughner as "a man apparently bent on violence," that is true mainly in retrospect; the school officials and police officers who encountered him prior to his crime seem to have viewed him more as a nuisance than a menace. In any case, Loughner was never "adjudicated as a mental defective" or "committed to a mental institution," which would have made his gun purchase illegal.

In short, the president's solution would not have stopped Loughner, and it would not stop similar assailants in the future. Yet Obama not only says the current system of background checks is "supposed to stop the wrong people from getting their hands on a gun"; he claims beefing up the system (primarily by incorporating more state data regarding disqualifying criteria) "will actually keep those irresponsible, law-breaking few from getting their hands on a gun in the first place." Which is worse: that Obama believes this (assuming he does) or that he expects us to believe it?

I discussed "the perils of letting armed lunatics drive public policy" in a January column.

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.

  • X||

    Obama: Better Background Checks

    lol

  • ||

    Any guesses on if the improved checks would include a prospective buyer submitting a notarized copy of their birth certificate...

  • Vermont Gun Owner||

    Well clearly: if you're going to do something official, like buy a gun, you need to prove you are qualified and eligible.

  • Democratic Strategist||

    Yes, the better background checks will involve precogs examining the mind of prospective gun buyers to determine if a shooting is in their future.

  • Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan||

    Obama regrets that "a man our Army rejected as unfit for service; a man one of our colleges deemed too unstable for studies; a man apparently bent on violence, was able to walk into a store and buy a gun."

    But enough about me....

  • ||

    Well, that's who immediately popped into my mind when I read that reference to the Army.

  • Vermont Gun Owner||

    So Obama is arguing that the Army should take everyone eligible of buying a private gun?

  • cynical||

    I believe he's saying that the physically disabled should not be allowed to arm themselves. I wonder what he has planned for them? [/infowars]

  • ||

    Or is he arguing that anyone rejected by teh Army should not be able to buy a gun?

    (Im thinking of R. Lee Ermy's unforgettable performance in FMJ as I write that.)

  • ||

    I could kinda buy that argument. I mean, rejected by the Army? What options are left for those people besides a life of crime of gov't service. (but I repeat myself.)

  • ||

    (2nd "of" should be an "or"...then again, the slip makes sense in the context I created.)

  • alan||

    Funny, no such grandstanding from Obama on calling for an independent inquiry after what you did. I can't imagine why they would want to sweep it under the rug.

    Oh well, no big deal. What are the lives of soldiers compared to that of a judge and a congress woman? They were likely the sons and daughters of bitter clingers anyway.

  • ||

    hasan is charged w murder carrying death penalty specifications & 9 other officers face disciplinary charges.

  • alan||

    Already covered by Obama on calling for an independent inquiry. You didn't think I didn't see you coming from a mile away, stupid bitch? Now lick around the rim some more.

  • alan||

    Oh, it's you, OhioORRIN. NEVER FUCKING ANSWER ONE OF MY POST! NEVER, YOU GODDAMN TROLL.

  • Nipplemancer||

    Oh, it's you, OhioORRIN. NEVER FUCKING ANSWER ONE OF MY POST! NEVER, YOU GODDAMN TROLL.
    fify

  • alan||

    Agreed. I was being a little selfish there.

    Some people seem to like having trolls track around their parts of the neighborhood, but in the interest of keeping the place top notch, they need to do some care taking as well.

  • ||

    evidently u cant follow ur own posts. nothing was "swept under the rug" (ur words) considering the death penalty charges. try to keep up please

  • alan||

    I said stay off my lawn clueless motherfucker. I have no interest in your troll games.

  • Red Rocks Rockin||

    Nice email addy, Orrin. Is that the speed we can expect you to hit a wall in the near future?

  • ||

    Which is worse: that Obama believes this (assuming he does) or that he expects us to believe it?

    It doesn't matter--never did and never will.

    This is a purely political statement intended to endear him to a target audience identified by his pollsters.

  • The Campaigner and Chief||

    ^^THIS

    Between now and November 2012, there is nothing coming out of my mouth that isn't campaign speech.

  • Rich||

    target audience

    When that incendiary rhetoric surfaces in your background check -- no gun for you!

  • Montani Semper Liberi||

    Obama is right that "commonsense" is not a code word for confiscation. It's a codeword for, "I want to make buying a gun such a pain in the ass that no one will be willing to put up with the hassle." I think this is the route that D.C. went after Heller.

  • Pip||

    Will obama publish the names of everyone who owns a gun?

  • Trespassers W||

    And the route that Chicago went after McDonald.

  • JD the elder||

    And the route that NYC went...oh, ages ago, anyway.

  • Vermont Gun Owner||

    "shall not be infringed" is a codephrase for "shall be subject to any regulations we deem 'reasonable'."

  • Rich||

    This. And public schools help produce "reasonable" individuals to support the deeming.

  • PantsFan||

    but doing something!

  • ||

    Was there an actual recommendation buried in there?

    All I saw was a standard concern troll platitude checklist.

  • ||

    Obama left out "who had made repeated death threats." That added to everything else should have been enough to stop the gun purchase, if the police had done their job.

  • ||

    That by itself should have been enough. Death threats are a felony in most jurisdictions and having pending felony charges against you makes it illegal to possess a gun under federal law.

  • Really?||

    Is this outcome compatible with libertarianism?

  • cynical||

    It probably depends. Obviously you can imprisoned before trial under certain circumstances, so it's mainly a question of "how much", not "if".

  • Abdul||

    Maybe they'll add the Tea Party registry to the no-gun database, and we'll finally have peace in our time!

  • Amelia Mouth||

    Obama does not propose changing the factors that disqualify people from buying guns

    Yet.

    I think it's just a matter of time before "Already owns a gun" is a floated as a disqualifying factor.

  • Vermont Gun Owner||

    They've already got their arm!

  • A T Effer||

    We're reasonable people. We'll let you have one weapon for hunting and one for home defense. Sign here for your yearly ammo ration.

  • Vermont Gun Owner||

    Oh you seem to have neglected to bring back your empty cases from last year's ration. We will have to assume you are stockpiling. Sorry, can't let you get any new ammo this year.

  • Team Blue||

    That's reasonable.

  • Michael Ejercito||

    We're reasonable people. We'll let you have one weapon for hunting and one for home defense. Sign here for your yearly ammo ration.


    And the government will abide by these same restrictions, right ?

  • Jason||

    It should be "Already owns two guns"... the Constitution does say arms.

  • Papa Napalis||

    Another tactic would be making gun ownership like home ownership: If you don't pay the yearly tax, the government takes it.

  • LarryA||

    I think it's just a matter of time before "Already owns Wants a gun" is a floated as a disqualifying factor.

    FTFY

  • Red Rocks Rockin||

    Yep, just like Napolitano "does not intend" to put TSA groper-goons at train or bus stations.

  • ||

    Using news making tragedies to try to justify moves to erode our civil rights makes for some ugly parallels...

    Barack Obama really shouldn't act like this and then get all huffy when people compare him to the you know whatzies.

  • Rhet O'Rical||

    You know who else got all huffy when people compared him to the you know whatzies?

  • ||

    "You know who else got all huffy when people compared him to the you know whatzies?"

    I don't know.

    ...and I don't care.

    Nobody should get huffy about being compared to the you know whatzies if he or she is acting like the you know whatzies.

    I have double immunity from tu quoques on this anyway, because 1) it's a tu quoque and 2) because whoever you're talking about probably wasn't a libertarian.

  • Armchair Historian||

    Stalin?

  • blockhead||

  • Jess Asken||

    state budget cuts could mean no more ... exercise classes to help prevent falls

    How many seniors are injured participating in these exercise classes?

  • Vermont Gun Owner||

    Well when she gets kicked to the curb she'll get exercise standing back up.

  • Granny||

    Whaaaat?!

  • ||

    This shit is getting really old.

  • Brian Combs||

    "As it is, Sears Methodist Retirement System in Austin has to solicit donations and charge private patients more to make up the $4 million loss it suffers on its Medicaid residents, said Keith Perry, who heads the non-profit. If the cuts go through, Sears Methodist would have to stop caring for its roughly 400 Medicaid patients, whose average age is 84."

    So, if the cuts go through rates will go down for those that can actually pay? I like it!

  • Fluffy||

    I think the intention here is to create a federal gun database that will be like the Do Not Fly list.

    If some bureaucrat somewhere doesn't like you [like a community college professor or a military recruiter] they'll be able to put your name on the list. And the list will stop you from buying a gun. But there will be some kind of hearing process to get yourself taken off the list, so they'll argue it doesn't violate your 2nd Amendment right. The hearings wait list will be 18 months long and representation will cost thousands of dollars, but liberals will just say, "Why do you hate having to participate in government so much?" to anyone who objects.

    It's really simple math: "Do Not Fly List" plus "Asset Forfeiture Law" = "Their New Background Check Policy".

  • ||

    You give them too much credit. Currently there is no way to get off the no fly list. Further, you can end up on the list more often by mistake than by any malicious act. If you have an arabic or a common name, good luck.

  • Fluffy||

    Oh, don't get me wrong. I'm sure their PREFERENCE would be for the list to be no-appeal.

    But they'll put a hearings clause on it because they'll have to.

    Just as they claim that asset forfeitures aren't really seizures or fines without a jury trial, because you can just sue to get your money back, they'll claim that being put no the list doesn't really take away your 2nd amendment right, because the hearings process means you can get off the Do Not Buy list.

  • Gray Ghost||

    Well played, Fluffy.

    I really can't add anything to what you've written.

  • ||

    Put another way, as long as there is a post deprivational hearing, there is no constitutional infirmity.

  • Michael Ejercito||

    Put another way, as long as there is a post deprivational hearing, there is no constitutional infirmity.


    I wonder why this does not imply to imprisonment?

    Instead of holding a trial first, just imprison people for crimes, and let them sue to get out.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    I can't believe it took Obama this long to try to make a play for gun control from the shootings. I guess enough time has passed that the incident isn't so freshly horrific that we can't use it to push an agenda.

    Which means I can finally unveil my new website, www.catsthatlooklikejaredloughner.com.

  • Rahm Emanuel||

    I can't believe it took Obama this long to try to make a play for gun control from the shootings.

    I know! That's fucking retarded.

  • Red Rocks Rockin||

    Making a play for it that soon probably would have been a little too obvious. It's pretty well-known that he's had a hard-on for banning handgun ownership for a while.

  • Old Mexican||

    In an Arizona Daily Star op-ed piece (which Jesse Walker noted this morning), President Obama urges "an instant, accurate, comprehensive and consistent system for background checks" in response to the Tucson massacre.


    Well, first - did Obama really write it? There's some dispute about his near-perfect writing skills.

    Second, what kind of background check would have detected Loughner, if he's nothing more than a 22 year-old punk?

  • ||

    "...a man our Army rejected as unfit for service; a man one of our colleges deemed too unstable for studies..."

    Stay in school kids, or your Constitutional rights will be forfeit!

  • jasno||

    I'll support improved background checks for gun purchases when the government implements I.Q. testing for political candidates.

  • alan||

    They do, but the criteria is upside down.

  • MNG||

    ""a man our Army rejected as unfit for service; a man one of our colleges deemed too unstable for studies; a man apparently bent on violence, was able to walk into a store and buy a gun.""

    Wow, three red herrings in one setting, what a fisherman our Prez is!

  • prolefeed||

    Yes, in ObamaWorld TM, if you are "apparently" bent on violence, that subjective criteria means the government can deny your 2nd Am rights.

  • MNG||

    What they will end up advocating is putting people on a 'no buy' list for vague and unproven assertions...

    Obama's just trying to throw a bone to his base here while trying not to come off as pro-gun control.

  • MNG||

    Ack, beaten to it by Fluffy...Well said Fluffy One.

  • Michael Ejercito||

    What they will end up advocating is putting people on a 'no buy' list for vague and unproven assertions...


    I wonder why, if these people are so dangerous that they should not be allowed to buy guns, they should not be herded into internment camps or gas chambers.

  • Night Elf Mohawk||

    I wonder if he favors an an instant, accurate, comprehensive and consistent system for checking voter eligibility.

  • Q Upoverdare||

    No, 'cause that's RACIST!!

  • cynical||

    True. Government is basically a weapon.

  • Tim||

    Why is Obama stirring up the gun crowd for 2012?

  • ||

    Because he is stupid and has no understanding of this country.

  • MNG||

    He has to throw bones to his base right now which is upset with him. If you think about it this is the most politically palatable step he can make in the sense that it will make his base think he did not totally lay down on this issue and it will drive a wedge between independents who tend to support gun rights but see some regulation as ok and more absolutist gun rights supporters (as Clinton did with his 'cop killer' bullets stuff).

    Sure, those of us who support gun rights are going to be rightly troubled by this (btw so should anyone who supports the rights of the mentally ill), but if he frames it as NRA v. people who want to make it harder for crazy people to buy guns/ammo then it could be a political winner, or at least no harm, for him.

  • alan||

    Compare this to how Clinton had the soccer moms eating out of the palm of his hands in the mid eighties and could have had them backing almost anything. We're lucky his motives were only cynical ones calling on the ban of the superficial differences in the physical appearance of a class of weapons. With Obama's ideology and Clinton's charisma, it could have turned out much worse. However, Obama is probably the least proficient politician to be a major party candidate since Dukakis. There is very little he does that doesn't increase his negatives.

  • alan||

    Mid nineties, of course. Couldn't get Mike's helmet hair out of my head while writing that.

  • ||

    Well, Clinton was having sex with about half of them already...

  • The Gobbler||

    That is exactly correct, John. He really does not understand Americans. He demonstrated this when he told Joe the plumber that he planned “to spread the wealth around”. In Obama’s mind, a blue collar worker just had to be someone who would want more of the rich man’s pie. It never occurred to him that Joe would have other ideas.

    I believe Obama was born in the USA, but he certainly is not an American.

  • prolefeed||

    I believe Obama was born in the USA, but he certainly is not an American.

    I know plenty of Americans who think the same way as Obama.

  • MNG||

    "I believe Obama was born in the USA, but he certainly is not an American."

    He's not one of "us," eh Gobby?

    Somehow I imagine Gobby wrote that with "Born in the USA" playing loudly in the background and his non-typing fist pumping the air.

  • The Gobbler||

    No, Nessun Dorma.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VATmgtmR5o4

    But more to the point my little ad hominem friend, just look at how fearful he is to project any meaningful power with regard to Libya. He tells the world, "Gadaffi (sp?) has to go." And then does nothing about it to the point that France and a unanimous Arab League have to take the lead. The man is not a leader in any sense of the word. I think this cartoon sums it up well:

    http://bigjournalism.com/files.....TION75.jpg

  • MNG||

    Beat those war drums conservative "libertarian!"

  • ||

    >He's not one of "us," eh Gobby?

    He's certainly one of you...

    -jcr

  • Pip||

    It's not just Obama that's out of touch.

    Liberals can be suckered precisely because they think they are the only intelligent people in America. This smug confidence insulates them from having to pay attention to what anybody else is saying. The conventional wisdom among liberals is that people disagree with them only because they are stupid, uneducated, or have been bought off by the sinister forces of American capitalism. . . .

    You cannot find a liberal intellectual anywhere who can give you an honest, objective accounting of conservative positions on major issues. All they know is that conservatives are "stupid," racist" and "scary"--boilerplate terms but unfortunately the exact words employed by Schiller on the tape. Practically the only liberal around who has ever been able to give a recognizable presentation of a conservative position is Barack Obama, who was always very good at repeating everybody's argument before choosing the most liberal point of view. For that we elected him President.

    By assuming they are smarter than everybody else, liberals leave themselves utterly vulnerable to anyone who plays on their sense of superiority. It's a classic Italian Renaissance comedy--the wily servant who, with cajoling and flattery, outwits his master. It's been going on for centuries. Liberal intellectuals could write you an unintelligible paper on the subject for the Modern Language Association, but they can never see it happening to themselves!

    http://spectator.org/archives/.....se-suckers

  • Tony||

    Because conservatives are so often prone to a fair weighing of all sides? The only difference between your caricature of liberals and a similarly realistic estimation of conservatives is that conservatives don't bother to call themselves educated. They're right and everyone else is wrong because that's what their intestines tell them.

  • Jason||

    QED

  • Red Rocks Rockin||

    Right, Tony--as if "academics" aren't subject to the latest fashionable theories, as long as those theories hit all the reflexive intellectual dog whistles.

    Google "Sokal affair" sometime and then try arguing that academia carefully and objectively thinks things through.

  • ||

    Perhaps he hopes to provoke them into doing or saying something that he can take advantage of.

    Or maybe even he's just setting the background to make it easier to blame the next incident on them: the MSM meme can be "angry gun nuts overreacting to President Obama's oh-so-reasonable plan blah blah blah". It won't matter if the shooter is, say, a lefty. They'll blame gun owners anyway.

  • Brett L||

    Because the people who really believe in say, leaving Afghanistan or closing Gitmo, don't trust him. Might as well send a MASH note to the anti-gun lobby, they might believe him.

  • Tim||

    From the article:

    But one clear and terrible fact remains. A man our Army rejected as unfit for service; a man one of our colleges deemed too fat for soccer; a man apparently bent on gluttony, was able to walk into a store and buy a twinkie.

    But since that day, we have lost perhaps another 2,000 members of our American family to obesity. Thousands more have been fattened. We lose the same number of young people to cheeseburgers every day and a half as we did at Columbine, and every four days as we did at Virginia Tech.
    Every single day, America is robbed of more futures. It has awful consequences for our society. And as a society, we have a responsibility to do everything we can to put a stop to it.

  • Tim||

    But one clear and terrible fact remains. A man our Army rejected as unfit for service; a man one of our colleges deemed too out of breath for track; a man apparently bent on tobacco, was able to walk into a store and buy a cigarette.

  • Tim||

    But one clear and terrible fact remains. A man our Army rejected as unfit for service; a man one of our colleges deemed too stoned for sports; a man apparently bent on getting high, was able to walk into an alley and buy a joint.

  • ||

    stoners dont kill people. duh

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: OhioOrrin,

    stoners dont kill people


    No, they only cause mental paralysis, case in point: OO.

  • ||

    Am I the only person that sees this as a good thing? I mean, he's not talking banning guns. He's not talking registering guns. I agree that it could lead to criteria in background checks that might go overboard. But the checks are there already, and what should go into the system is already part of the discusion. I'm a gun "nut" I've been told. But I am not totally against background checks.

  • Rich||

    FTA: "Clearly, there's more we can do to prevent gun violence."

    I'll bite. What?

  • AlmightyJB||

    Make sure everyone has a gun.

  • Vermont Gun Owner||

    Make bows cheaper.

  • ||

    Love is the answer.

  • Tman||

    But the checks are there already

    Right, so what exactly is the president proposing that would've stopped Loughner?

    That would be a big fat nothing. And that's even if you disregard the reality that Loughner could've easily obtained a gun illegally, which is how most gun crimes happen in the first place.

  • ||

    I find his justification more threatening than his prescription--that's for sure.

    "Obama regrets that "a man our Army rejected as unfit for service; a man one of our colleges deemed too unstable for studies; a man apparently bent on violence, was able to walk into a store and buy a gun."

    So if the Army won't accept you, and you get kicked out of school, that means you shouldn't be allowed to own a gun?

    Isn't that what he's saying?

  • Tim||

    Womder what he thinks about presidents who get kicked out of the White House?

  • Michael Ejercito||

    So if the Army won't accept you, and you get kicked out of school, that means you shouldn't be allowed to own a gun?

    Isn't that what he's saying?
    reply to this


    Which begs the question.

    If such people are so dangerous that they should be prevented from getting guns, why not herd them into a prison cell or a gas chamber, which would all but guarantee that they can not get a gun?

  • Kristen||

    But the checks are there already

    ORLY? Study up on your individual state gun laws, son.

  • AlmightyJB||

    Gun control? Really? So does he just not want to be president anymore? Or is he just so confident that he can beat any GOP contenders that he feels he can make whatever stupid political move he wants to without consequence?

  • ||

    Am I the only person that sees this as a good thing?

    Just because a bad thing could be worse, doesn't make it a good thing.

  • ||

    You're right. I should have said, not as bad a thing as it could be. However, if he stays on this course, he'll be pissing off both sides of the debate. That's a good thing.

  • prolefeed||

    I discussed "the perils of letting armed lunatics drive public policy"

    Jacob: when I first read this, I thought you were referring to politicians who had gotten a waiver from their own gun control laws ...

  • Michael Ejercito||

    Jacob: when I first read this, I thought you were referring to politicians who had gotten a waiver from their own gun control laws ...


    Which politicians would they be?

  • ||

    Chicago alderman, to cite one case. Another is congresspersons, who can ignore the restrictions that hem in other Washington inhabitants.

  • Resto Druid FTW||

    Eff anything referred to ostensibly as "gun control." What we need friends is GUM control. It's so annoying when people chew with their mouths open.

  • Kristen||

    Seconded! This morning on the train I was treated to a smary-looking creep chawing away and occassionally sticking his lizardy tongue out, over which was stretched his nasty gum.

    And he had a combover. Couldn't have been more than 40 years old and he had a combover.

    On second thought, I don't think he should be allowed to own a gun either, just as punishment for the combover.

  • Tim||

    The smary ones are the worst.

  • Jame J. B.||

    I know O'bama said about the military rejecting Laughner, but what if Laughner was good at Modern Warfare 2 or Black Ops - could he then own a gun?

  • A Serious Man||

    If he was good at Black OPs he'd be good at shooting targets ahead of where they actually are since the framerate online is so shitty. He'd also have great patience since the server disconnects after 2 matches or more.

  • A Serious Man||

    Won't Future Jared Loughner be strapped into a chair and shot up with deadly chemicals? I don't think we'll have to worry about him acquiring a time machine and coming back.

  • cynical||

    It's possible he'll be strapped to a bed and shot up with less deadly chemicals.

  • ||

    It's time for Obama to quit bitterly clinging to his fantasy that we'll all be safe if we just surrender more power to the government.

    -jcr

  • Kreel Sarloo||

    I don't know if anyone has any actual statistics on the subject, but it strikes me that while mass killings are appallingly common in the US (seems like one every two years or so) they do occur elsewhere at a frequency that, per capita, appears to not be far from that of the US.

    And that is in countries that have long had strict gun control, which they then make stricter (to little affect judging by the fact they have another mass killing in another five or ten years).

  • ||

    I can't think of much that is less interest to little old libertarian me than a government flack losing his cushy job because he departed from the Party Line.

  • ||

    That's weird. I swear there was a post here complaining that Reason didn't have a post up on wossname who got fired for saying the wikileaker was being abused.

  • ||

    It's on the cop thread.

  • Kreel Sarloo||

    That appears to relate to the PJ Crowley resignation. And I agree.

    But, I do find it interesting and amusing to watch the most transparent administration ever being revealed as being as opaque as any other.

  • Neu Mejican||

    So if the Army won't accept you...that means you shouldn't be allowed to own a gun?

    Remind me, 'cuz I don't recall...why was JL's application to the army rejected? Was it due to admitted drug use, or was he deemed mentally unstable?

    Seems like the "why" of his rejection is important in your question. Somehow.

  • ||

    Seems like the "why" of his rejection is important in your question.

    It obviously wasn't because he was a lousy shot.

    Maybe the Tuscon PD could get him on work release as a firearms instructor.

  • creech||

    Didn't the Marines accept Oswald and teach him to shoot straight?

  • A Serious Man||

    Yes. They also taught Charles Whitman, the guy who shot and killed 16 people from an obesrvation tower at a Texas university. Both men had a history of behavioral problems and instability. Go figure.

  • WDIK||

    I agree with Obama, we do need to force people who sell guns illegally to do back ground checks. I'm sure they will be more than happy to comply.

  • Michael Ejercito||

    I agree with Obama, we do need to force people who sell guns illegally to do back ground checks. I'm sure they will be more than happy to comply.


    Maybe they will also do background checks when they sell heroin, just to prove to people that they comply with the law.

  • Old Mexican||

    Obama regrets that "a man our Army rejected as unfit for service;"


    In your face, you nearsighted, bespectacled chumps!

    Ha ha ha!!!

    "[...]a man one of our colleges deemed too unstable for studies;"


    In your face, ADD sufferers!!!!

    Ha ha ha!!!

    "[...]a man apparently bent on violence, was able to walk into a store and buy a gun."


    You mean he was bent on violence and yet rejected from the Army?

    I would have expected him to be S.E.A.L. material!

  • ||

    S.E.A.L. - Navy. Ranger or Greenie Beenie - Army.

  • ||

    ---"I would have expected him to be S.E.A.L. material!"---

    SEALS are Navy, not Army.

  • ||

    Refresh before posting, I always forget.

  • ||

    I live in Tucson.
    Had the College Police or the Sheriff's Department done their job and charged The Killer Of Judge Roll when he was clearly in violation of several laws, he would have been at least on probation and thus failed the background check which he passed because the police and sheriff failed to do their jobs.

    The laws were all in place to prevent this tragic loss of life but those charged with enforcing those laws shirked their duty.

    Obvious solution, more laws, not.

  • Tony||

    I don't think this is a bone to his base. I mean gun policy has swung way toward liberalization in recent years, and polls indicate a plurality of Americans want stricter gun control than what we have now. This is a pretty weak stance to take considering where the gun control debate used to be.

  • ||

    >a plurality of Americans want stricter gun control than what we have now

    Good thing the framers of our constitution had the foresight to place our right to self-defense out of the reach of the whims of the majority, then.

    -jcr

  • Tony||

    Notwithstanding certain unfortunate recent supreme court cases, the 2nd doesn't say anything about self-defense, modern firearms, or an individual right to own them.

  • Neu Mejican||

    You can't discount the SCOTUS so easily. The meaning of the 2nd includes all the text of all SCOTUS decisions related to it.

    While I have said before that the wording of the 2nd is unfortunately vague, that wording is clarified by a history of SCOTUS decisions. The current SCOTUS decisions are made in light of those previous decisions.

  • A Serious Man||

    Tony: if there is no gurantee of a right to own a firearm in the Second Amendment, it simply ceases to make any sense at all. It's incredibly obvious from looking at the writings of the Framers from the tme period that they thought everyone should be allowed to own a gun for defensive purposes.

    You must be the type that dismisses the Constitution as being outdated, what with it's silly conception of a LIMITED government that maxmimizes INVDIVIDUAL freedom.

  • Michael Ejercito||

    Notwithstanding certain unfortunate recent supreme court cases, the 2nd doesn't say anything about self-defense, modern firearms, or an individual right to own them.

    Of course, people like you think that Mapp v. Ohio , Gideon v. Wainwright , and Brown v. Board of Education were unfortunate decisions too.
  • Tench Coxe||

    Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom? Congress shall have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American. The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the People.

  • ||

    Modern firearms? Are you actually trying to say that citizens should forever be limited to Brown Bess muskets while the standing army enjoys all the benefits from advances in chemistry, metallurgy, and manufacturing techniques?

    Gracious, man, can't you recognize that the firearms citizens keep and bear as members of the militia need to be comparable to those used by the regular army? Maybe better, as some of them were during the Revolution. Many Americans carried rifles; having a longer accurate range than the smoothbore muskets issued to soldiers, those arms could be considered more modern than regulation military weapons.

  • LarryA||

    I've also seen a number of polls that contradict this.

    And in the real-world-U.S. firearm ownership has never been more popular. Both the number of NICS checks and the dollars flowing into Pittman-Robertson keep setting records.

  • LarryA||

    Obama regrets that "a man our Army rejected as unfit for service;

    And after the Fort Hood shooting the Brady folks were saying, “It’s a good thing none of those soldiers had guns...”

    What really jumped out for me was this jewel:

    The fact is, almost all gun owners in America are highly responsible. They're our friends and neighbors. They buy their guns legally and use them safely, whether for hunting or target shooting, collection or protection. And that's something that gun-safety advocates need to accept.

    Hear the spin whizzing? Gun control folks are now “gun-safety advocates.” And it’s not the first time I’ve seen that. One article had the balls to call the Brady campaign “the nation’s largest gun-safety organization.”
    [hurl]

  • Michael Ejercito||

    And after the Fort Hood shooting the Brady folks were saying, “It’s a good thing none of those soldiers had guns...”


    The shooter was an insider, so he could predict when the soldiers would be unarmed.

    I have yet to hear of a case where an outsider broke into a military base and shot some soldiers.

  • Michael Ejercito||

    What President Obama does not seem to be getting is the reason that most people do not support stricter gun control if because the government gets to keep its guns despite its record of abusing guns .

    By contrast, those who criminalized polygamy criminalized it for everyone , including government agents.

  • ||

    Is it a crime to call the President a dick? Yet?

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