Obama's Case for Gun Control: One Emotion-Laden Non Sequitur After Another

During last night's State of the Union address, President Obama did not make a case for gun control. Instead, as usual, he made an emotional appeal:

What I've said tonight matters little if we don’t come together to protect our most precious resource: our children. It has been two months since Newtown. I know this is not the first time this country has debated how to reduce gun violence. But this time is different. Overwhelming majorities of Americans—Americans who believe in the Second Amendment—have come together around common-sense reform, like background checks that will make it harder for criminals to get their hands on a gun. (Applause.) Senators of both parties are working together on tough new laws to prevent anyone from buying guns for resale to criminals. Police chiefs are asking our help to get weapons of war and massive ammunition magazines off our streets, because these police chiefs, they’re tired of seeing their guys and gals being outgunned.  

Each of these proposals deserves a vote in Congress. (Applause.) Now, if you want to vote no, that’s your choice. But these proposals deserve a vote. Because in the two months since Newtown, more than a thousand birthdays, graduations, anniversaries have been stolen from our lives by a bullet from a gun—more than a thousand. 

One of those we lost was a young girl named Hadiya Pendleton. She was 15 years old. She loved Fig Newtons and lip gloss. She was a majorette. She was so good to her friends they all thought they were her best friend. Just three weeks ago, she was here, in Washington, with her classmates, performing for her country at my inauguration. And a week later, she was shot and killed in a Chicago park after school, just a mile away from my house. 

Hadiya’s parents, Nate and Cleo, are in this chamber tonight, along with more than two dozen Americans whose lives have been torn apart by gun violence. They deserve a vote. They deserve a vote. (Applause.) Gabby Giffords deserves a vote. (Applause.) The families of Newtown deserve a vote.  (Applause.) The families of Aurora deserve a vote. (Applause.) The families of Oak Creek and Tucson and Blacksburg, and the countless other communities ripped open by gun violence—they deserve a simple vote.  (Applause.) They deserve a simple vote.   

Our actions will not prevent every senseless act of violence in this country. In fact, no laws, no initiatives, no administrative acts will perfectly solve all the challenges I’ve outlined tonight. But we were never sent here to be perfect. We were sent here to make what difference we can, to secure this nation, expand opportunity, uphold our ideals through the hard, often frustrating, but absolutely necessary work of self-government.

I was with him until that seventh word. The rest is a ritualistic invocation of dead children aimed at manipulating people into supporting policies that have nothing to do with the event that supposedly demonstrated their necessity. Background checks and magazine limits would not have made any difference in Newtown, and a ban on military-style semiautomatic rifles (which Obama misleadingly calls "weapons of war") demonstrably did not: Connecticut has such a law, and it did not stop Adam Lanza. Banning the particular rifle that he used, as Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) has inanely proposed, is mere symbolism given that would-be mass murderers have many equally lethal alternatives.

While he opens his discussion of gun control by referring to the Sandy Hook massacre, Obama focuses on Hadiya Pendleton, a teenager killed in a Chicago park on January 29 by an 18-year-old named Michael Ward who mistook one of her companions for a rival gang member. That kind of bait and switch is familiar: When you point out that the measures proposed in the wake of a mass shooting cannot reasonably be expected to prevent mass shootings, gun controllers say their real concern is more common forms of gun violence (although they never mention the role that drug prohibition plays in the deaths of gang members and bystanders, probably because the solution to that problem involves repealing old bans rather than imposing new ones).  

All right, then: How might a a ban on "assault weapons," a 10-round limit on magazine capacity, or a broader background check requirement have saved Hadiya Pendleton? Ward, who apparently used a revolver, fired six rounds. He was on probation for a weapons offense, and I am guessing he did not obtain the gun he used from someone who will suddenly start running background checks on his customers if that is what the law requires. Likewise, although Obama claims Congress "can prevent anyone from buying guns for resale to criminals," all it can really do is jack up the penalties for something that is already a crime.

Well, Obama says, you can't expect to "prevent every senseless act of violence." But if the policies he favors would not prevent the sorts of homicides he cites, why is he citing them? What are the situations where he imagines these measures would make a difference, and exactly how might that work? Obama's proposals assuredly do not "deserve a vote" if all he can offer in their favor is one emotion-laden non sequitur after another. 

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.

  • Auric Demonocles||

    Each of these vote suppression proposals deserves a vote in Congress. Now, if you want to vote no, that’s your choice. But these proposals deserve a vote.
  • Brett L||

    The GOP should definitely take the Br'er Rabbit approach to this. "Don't throw us into that briar patch!"

  • ||

    I agree. Tar Babies will be Tar Babies...

  • R C Dean||

    The racism just won't stop with you people, will it?

  • anon||

    What do you mean by "you people!?"

    RACIST!

  • Restoras||

    RC, do you have an opnion about the FNX40 or the EAA Witness in .40?

  • Adam.||

    I had an FNX9 for a stint and I absolutely loved it, especially being a lefty having fully ambi controls was great. I ended up selling it because I wanted a concealed. I regret selling it though.

  • Restoras||

    Thanks, Adam.

  • ||

    The gun grabbers will die on this hill, as they have done so many times before. Thank Jeebus they're so. Fucking. Stupid.

  • anon||

    But epi! What about TEH CHILDRUNZ!?!?

    Have you no heart? (rhetorical question)

  • John||

    They just can't help themselves. They are going to cost themselves the Senate over this.

  • Jordan||

    The gun grabbers will die on this hill,

    ELIMINATIONIST RHETORIC!!!

  • Tman||

    How are our Children our most precious resource? Children are fucking useless. They can't even hold a job!

    Just look at the studies PROVING how useless they are.

    http://www.onion.demon.co.uk/t.....babies.htm

    Some of the babies tested were actually so stupid that they choked to death on pieces of Micronaut space toys. Others, unable to use such primitive instruments as can openers and spoons due to insufficient motor skills, simply starved to death, despite being surrounded by cabinets full of nutritious, life-giving Gerber-brand baby-food products.

    Our most precious resource? I THINK NOT.

  • anon||

    You jest, yet I offer my entire age group (18-34) as proof of your assertion.

    Of course, there are a few exceptions that prove the rule.

  • AuH2O||

    Have you ever eaten baby?

    Fucking delicious meat. Goes really well with a gremolata sauce.

  • Tman||

    Gremolata sauce? You savage. I bet you eat tuna straight from the can too.

    Everyone knows a good baby steak is eaten with a light Bearnaise and sauteed shallots.

  • GILMORE||

    frankly anything other than sashimi is a waste of decent baby. you really dont want to cook that fat off

  • ||

    Wrong. Tarragon, a hint of mint, and sauteed in butter and garlic. Then quickly seared with a Beaujolais.

    Hollandaise sauce served on the side will do if you are a Frog lover.

  • Enough About Palin||

    I cook very well. I've done so professionally. How does one sear anything with a Beaujolais?

  • SugarFree||

    Gremolata is not a sauce, it is a citrus and herb and spice paste. Fucking savage.

  • AuH2O||

    Well, I prefer something that's like a Gremolata mixed with a chimi churri, but that's just my loud and garish upbringing talking.

  • SugarFree||

    Persillade, you animal!

  • fish||

    I love it when you go all "Libertarian Kitchen" on the thread!

  • SugarFree||

    There's nothing wrong with having standards.

  • Tman||

    Especially when it comes to tender baby meat.

  • ||

    I'm simple. I like mine with some bar-be-que sauce and roasted red potatoes.

  • Unindicted Co-conspirator||

    This. Pulled baby shoulder, Carolina-style.

  • AuH2O||

    Also, can we stop this bullshit canard of "having a vote" or "having a conversation"?

    We've had votes. We've had conversations. We've even had Supreme Court cases.

    Gun control lost.

    Jesus, this shit is like someone challenging Brown v Board of Ed. in 2038.

  • anon||

    The real question is why do you hate black people?

  • GILMORE||

    conversation =

    "gimme them guns!"

    "fuck you"

    "...."

    "....and?"

    "...we need to have a conversation, because talking isnt working"

  • Night Elf Mohawk||

    What I've said tonight matters little if we don’t come together to protect our most precious resource: our children.

    My pre-teen daughters know that "for the children" is an appeal to emotion, not an actual reason. That adults are persuaded by such crap makes them laugh. And makes me sad.

  • KPres||

    The adults know it too. It's weird. Somebody says "do it for the children" and everybody knows their full of shit. But then, the opposition responds anyway, cause they don't want people to pretend accuse them of hating children. It's like delusion stacked on top of delusion.

    I guess democracy means we're all naked emperors?

  • 34lbs||

    Today.. in Victoria, there is a teacher's strike going on because teacher's wages haven't risen at the same rate as inflation, but on the TV all i hear is, "Baillieu Don't give no fucks about dem childrenz" "Honor your words Ted", I even saw people holding up Green Party signs. Fak u teachers. Possibly the greatest appeal to maternal and patriarchal instincts, superseding gun control, is teacher unions.

  • ||

    Police chiefs are asking our help to get weapons of war and massive ammunition magazines off our streets

    Hmm, I thought police chiefs were asking for the feds' help to get more weapons of war on their streets? You know, DHS grants and shit.

  • Jordan||

    Wow. He really said that? Who the fuck cares what police chiefs want? They'd love to repeal the 4th Amendment if they could.

  • John||

    And they can't pass local laws on this?

  • Zeb||

    I really hate that. The job of the police is to enforce the laws that the legislature passes. Not to say what those laws should be. Of course they have the right to make their opinions known, but that doesn't mean that they are worth a shit.

  • ||

    Funny, I thought the role of police officers was to serve and protect.

  • RickC||

  • Zeb||

    That's just their slogan. And if the stupid laws were all repealed, it might actually be their job too. But as it is now, their main jobs seem to be giving out traffic tickets and busting people for consensual non-crimes.

  • mad libertarian guy||

    Not to mention the dozens of chiefs who have openly stated that they won't pursue any weapons violations that are crimes by presidential fiat.

  • R C Dean||

    massive ammunition magazines

    I laughed.

    Particularly ironic since this speech followed hours of coverage featuring "weapons of war and massive ammunition magazines" all over the street of California, being wielded at the behest of, yes, police chiefs.

  • ||

    How dare he cite a shooting in Chicago, the city with the toughest gun control laws in the entire country, as evidence that "we" "need" more laws? I mean seriously—what kind of balls does that take? Could you possibly have made it any harder for Pendleton's murderer to get his hands on a gun? And what about the dozens and hundreds of people just like Pendleton who are being killed but didn't get to the inaugural and therefore didn't have tens of thousands of dollars offered as a reward for information about their killers?

    In happier news, when I was at the range on Saturday there was a married couple in front of me renting a Glock. Neither of them had ever shot a gun before, but they both had an FOID, which means they basically decided they were going to get one and began the application process directly after Sandy Hook. And the moment it came they were going to go and figure out what would work for them. Even someplace like IL (not Chi), where you have to jump through those kinds of hoops before you can even hold a gun in your hand at the store, they were motivated enough by this bullshit to get themselves ready.

  • mad libertarian guy||

    That there are any gun owners at all who choose to live in these fucktarded states is a mystery to me.

    Go to store
    pick out gun
    fill out form
    go home with gun

    If I already know which gun I want, I can theoretically be out of he gun shop in less than 10 minutes. How can you put up with a months-long process?

  • ||

    How can you put up with a months-long process?

    It's the deep-dish pizza.

  • AuH2O||

    A steady supply of delicious deep dish pizza will help a man put up with a great abundance of irritation.

  • mad libertarian guy||

    Then these people have more problems than can be properly enumerated.

  • ||

    How can you put up with a months-long process?

    Because of family, work, financial, and cultural concerns? It's not like I can't leave IL, but the places I "should" go other than IL would be much worse. I'd rather wait for an FOID and be limited to purchasing 1 gun per month, no "assault weapons," go through 90% of the same bullshit and pay 2 or 3 times as much state income tax on top of it.

  • ||

    Insert "than" before "go through"

  • mad libertarian guy||

    So what exactly is "much worse" about other places if there are various other reasons, besides gun purchase considerations, that make your chosen domicile a shit hole?

  • ||

    In my daily life, there is nothing that makes Chicago a shithole. I like it here a lot. I like living in a city of ~3 million, at least at my age and life stage. My main other option would be to move to NYC, where there are a lot more people, cost of living is significantly higher, taxes are significantly higher, and nanny bullshit is significantly more prevalent (plus all the same gun issues).

    I love the country, and god willing we will buy a house there someday, but I also firmly believe there are cultural and basic knowledge barriers that make it difficult for a city person to just up and move to the middle of nowhere in Montana or something.

  • ||

    You're only choices aren't Chicago, NYC, or the middle of nowhere, Montana.

    The D/FW metroplex is nearly as large as Chicago, the weather is better (IMO - I hate snow), there are plenty of cultural things to do (art and history museums, symphonies, etc), AND you have much cheaper cost of living and everyone around you isn't a proggy retard.

  • ||

    You're only choices aren't Chicago, NYC, or the middle of nowhere, Montana.

    No, of course they're not, but there are a lot of considerations. Family? Chicago or NYC. Weather? Um, nowhere south of Philadelphia, except maybe the west coast, which is really far from family.

    Seriously, the weather is a big issue for me. Texas sounds like a lot of fun. But I melt at like 75 degrees.

  • Auric Demonocles||

    But I melt at like 75 degrees.

    People who would rather put up with 100+ than 30 (put on a coat) make no sense to me.

  • Jordan||

    I absolutely hate cold weather. And being able to swim outside in the sun is one of life's greatest pleasures.

  • ||

    You can always put more clothes on, Auric. There's only so much you can take off.

  • Zeb||

    I agree, if it's cold, you can always regulate by adding or removing layers. If it is hot, you're out of luck.

  • mr simple||

    It's been 10 years since I lived there, but I don't remember Chicago summers being all that mild, especially with the humidity. We get bad humidity here too, but IMO it's not something you get used to.

  • ||

    Houston is the same size with a lower cost of living, no income tax and a lot less bullshit. Also Dallas, but it is full of assholes.

  • ||

    HEY!

  • Contrarian P||

    I'm with you on this one, Nicole. Chicago is one of my favorite cities. Great food, shopping, theater, sports, architecture...lots of great things to enjoy. I don't live there, nor do I think I ever will, but I certainly see why people wouldn't want to leave, even with all the corruption and ridiculousness than comes from the city government.

  • 34lbs||

    I once worked at a Pizzeria/Italian restaurant in Downunderland (formerly known as Oz), and according to anyone who cooks Pizza in any style besides Chicago style, Chicago style "is worse than fucking hitler", so i gave it a try, unbeknownst to my boss, and you know what, i can see why people stay in Chicago, i'd put up with 50% income tax just to have a thick ass slice of Chicago-Style down my throat again...

  • Restoras||

    I have the same problem in NY. I am jumping through the hoops now. I have all my paperwork together, including the receipt for the gun I had to buy before being issued a permit (the dealer gets to hold it for me), and am now waiting for my appointment just to turn in my paperwork to come up - October 21 (of this year, thankfully).

    I am also scrambling to find a 10-round magazine pistol to get as well, before the idiotic NY law limiting magazines to 7 round takes effect in April.

  • Killazontherun||

    I have several weapons but have not spent even a minute in the process. Some are inherited, one is a gift, and others I bought from acquaintances or at shows. I wont submit to a background check. They may want to know, but they don't need to know who I am.

  • Auric Demonocles||

    I looked into getting a gun here in MA and then decided to give up and just keep the 2 guns I already have at my parents in VT, where the process I went through was listening to my dad say "Here you go son, I just went to the store and gave a guy some money and he gave me this gun. It's yours now."

  • R C Dean||

    In Texas, you can replace "fill out form" with "show concealed carry license".

    Although, we generally pay for our guns, so there's an extra step here.

  • mad libertarian guy||

    We can in KY too.

  • jb4479||

    What is this license thing you refer to? In Wyoming we go to shop, fill out form, have cup of coffee (to wait for form to be processed) buy gun, done.

    Simple.

  • WuzYoungOnceToo||

    That's not accurate. Showing your CHL allows you to skip the call to the NICS for a background check, but you still have to fill out a 4473.

  • Killazontherun||

    'I stand before you, this evening, at this podium propped up on the corpse of a dead girl . . .'

    Yeah, he is the kind of dirtbag that goes there.

  • anon||

    What I've said tonight matters little

    Well, I guess even a broken clock is right twice a day.

  • Jordan||

    What I've said tonight matters little if we don’t come together to protect our most precious resource: our children.

    And by "protect" I mean make it impossible for non-state-approved adults to defend them. Oh, and if their father happens to be an Al Qaeda member, we'll bomb the shit out of them.

  • AuH2O||

    Okay,so Obama's SoTU was basically a liberal wish list-more taxes, bigger welfare state, higher minimum wage,etc.To me this indicates that he is going to spend the next two years campaigning against the Do Nothing Republican Congress who is Mean because they Don't Spend More Money on You.He's hoping to retake the House in 2014 and get another 2 years to shove through his desired legislation.He wants to be the third great Liberal president, the successor to FDR and LBJ.

    Given all that, why the fuck choose the hill of gun control to die on? If you are willing to ignore guns, you actually have a shot at this. Gun owners and people who care about the 2nd Amendment aren't immune to the lure of free shit, and the same rural areas that give a damn about gun rights also have a long and storied history in American Progressivism.I get that Obama is a very urban Democrat,not a prairie populist,but it seems odd for a man who wants to build this campaign infrastructure which will outlast his term in office(and which he will presumably go an manage after his presidency to retain political power)to completely shit on so much of the country.You go after guns, you lose large parts of rural and suburban America.

    And the guns thing is even weirder because passing gun control isn't like Social Security- it isn't a thing you can trot out every election for more votes.

    It's just such an odd case of cutting off his nose to spite his face.

  • John||

    Obama is stupid. There is nothing shrewd about him. He got incredibly lucky in 08. And then proceeded to completely destroy his congressional majority. He is not smart. He got ahead because he is black and the media are completely devoted to having a cool Ivy league black guy in the white house. If the media had treated him even like they did Clinton, he would have lost in 2012. He is too stupid to understand why he is where he is. He thinks it is because the country actually likes his ideas.

  • ||

    I just keep wondering if people like him (and those he surrounds himself with) don't realize this is nothing but a hill to die on. You are probably not dissimilar, Goldwater, but I grew up with just this kind of "urban Democrat" (suburban, technically, but really the same thing in our case), and they literally do not know a soul with a gun. Or maybe they do but they don't know it. Shit, ours are a "secret" from our families and all but one or two friends. They see these vaguely worded polls and get genuinely convinced they are a majority here. Pauline Kael syndrome, firearms style.

  • John||

    They think they can intimidate and guilt people into supporting it.

  • R C Dean||

    The truly delicious thing about gun control is that support for it skews old. Younger people don't much like the idea nearly as much as older people.

  • John||

    Old white people, just like environmentalism, the ultimate old white guy and gal movement

  • AuH2O||

    Given all the bullshit talks, weeks, planning committees, etc. my college had about "sustainability" I would sadly say that the creed of environmentalism is alive and well among the young. Then again, I went to a hippie school.

    Still, it makes me want to shoot someone when the new president of the college's big proposal include shit about making the campus more sustainable etc.

  • Killazontherun||

    Yup, the ultimate NIMBYs.

  • Virginian||

    True. One time was discussing healthcare at a party, and its me versus 4 people. Somehow the topic shifts to guns and all of a sudden its me, and three of the four against the one guy.

    Gun control is really like segregation circa 1970. A vocal minority wants to bring it back, but everyone else disagrees.

  • ||

    Younger people don't much like the idea nearly as much as older people.

    Yet want everything else collectivized.

  • Virginian||

    Not collectivized. We're working together. Or collaborating. Only government can do that for us Groovus.

  • ||

    One time was discussing healthcare at a party, and its me versus 4 people.

    Working together indeed.-)

    Only government can do that for us Groovus.

    Like Alice sang, "When you're walking around with blinders on, it's tough to see..." I MUST BE RELEASED OF MY FALSE CONSCIOUSNESS!

  • fish||

    Yep...old people like this guy. I wonder if he might reconsider!

    http://tinyurl.com/fortunately-he-didnt-hav-a-gun

  • GILMORE||

    the successor to FDR and LBJ

    i.e. The Great Bankruptors of America

    Men who loved the poor so much they wanted the rest of America to join them ASAP

  • Killazontherun||

    Disarming us is the closest thing to a principle that proglodytes have. Everything else about their agenda reeks of cronyism. Can only be put into effect by massive cronyism. Without this one issue which Obama put on the back burner to get reelected, he would be a total whore.

  • Zeb||

    "our most precious resource: our children"

    More precious that coal?

  • Loki||

    Yes. Because you need the children to work in the coal mines in order to get the coal in the first place.

  • Brandon||

    ...protect our most precious resource: our children.

    Simpsons did it. Like 20 years ago. The President is 2 decades behind pop culture when it comes to recognizing cheap rhetorical manipulation. Wonderful.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    Police chiefs are asking our help to get weapons of war and massive ammunition magazines off our streets, because these police chiefs, they’re tired of seeing their guys and gals being outgunned.

    Holy fuck.

    1980 called, and they want their bogus rhetoric back.

  • GILMORE||

    SAY HILLO TO MAH MASSIVE FRIEND

    THE 10RD 'CLIP'!!

    RATATATATATTATATATATA

    I used to actually wonder if politicians believed the rhetoric they often employed, particularly in cases where it seemed to be in direct denial of reality.

    in this case, it is abundantly clear that they 100% know what they are saying is complete and utter bullshit, but sally forth nevertheless... because they hope and pray that people are as stupid as they treat them as. Its the only way they can 'move forward'.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    She loved Fig Newtons and lip gloss.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    She loved Fig Newtons and lip gloss.

    "Dude."

    "That is so gross."

    "Seriously?"

    Fuck you, skwerlz.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    Hadiya’s parents, Nate and Cleo, are in this chamber tonight, along with more than two dozen Americans whose lives have been torn apart by gun violence. They deserve a vote. They deserve a vote. (Applause.) Gabby Giffords deserves a vote. (Applause.) The families of Newtown deserve a vote. (Applause.) The families of Aurora deserve a vote. (Applause.) The families of Oak Creek and Tucson and Blacksburg, and the countless other communities ripped open by gun violence—they deserve a simple vote. (Applause.) They deserve a simple vote.

    Unless those people all run for Congress and win, they don't get a vote, you cretinous snake oil salesman.

  • Anonymous Coward||

    they’re tired of seeing their guys and gals being outgunned.

    I demand to know who exactly is "outgunning" the police when the cops can requisition military hardware including, but not limited to, assault rifles, Armored Personnel Carriers, body armor, and sniper rifles. In California, cops are exempted from the state "Assault Weapons Ban."

  • ||

    Yeah, but how can that stuff outgun bayonet lugs and barrel shrouds? Huh?! How?!?! VERTICAL FORWARD GRIP!!!1!

  • Loki||

    I hope folks are right when they say the gun grabbers aren't going to success, but I can't help but fear that things might be different this time. This is Obama we're talking about.

    How could people not see that his proposals are so "common sense"? *SWOON* I mean, he's just so dreamy! *SWOON* And what you libertardians call "emotional laden non-sequitors" are just proof that he really, really cares! *SWOON* And he's the smartest man in the room! *SWOON*... /Obama fluffer

    You get the idea. I could go on, but I'm already giving myself a fucking migraine.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    I hope folks are right when they say the gun grabbers aren't going to success, but I can't help but fear that things might be different this time. This is Obama we're talking about.

    Exactly.

    I believed the likelihood of Obamacare becoming law was about one in ten million, right up to the day it passed. And there is no reason to believe they won't at least TRY some bullshit technical maneuver (as they did with O-care) to drag their gun control wish list into the end zone.

  • Virginian||

    The GOP majority in the house is way too large. They can only do gun control via executive shenanigans. I'm guessing unleashing the full power of the regulatory state onto gun and ammo manufacturers.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    The GOP majority in the house is way too large.

    Remember "We have to pass it, to find out what's in it."?

    I desperately want to be proven wrong, but I fear there is a very real chance we're going see democracy in action, as in:

    Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard.

  • Auric Demonocles||

    Remember "We have to pass it, to find out what's in it."?

    I still can't believe she didn't get impeached (or whatever the term for a Congresscriter is) for that.

  • Virginian||

    Totally different situation. Obamacare passed because they had huge majorities in both houses. They don't have the votes to pass gun control in either house. Hell, Reid is scum, but he's actually really good on RKBA.

    The legislature is the hand they want you to watch. The executive branch, with their inspectors and audits and environmental rule making, that's the way they'll do it.

  • Enough About Palin||

    "Obama's Case for Gun Control: One Emotion-Laden Non Sequitur After Another"

    **Gabby Clap**

GET REASON MAGAZINE

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

  • Video Game Nation: How gaming is making America freer – and more fun.
  • Matt Welch: How the left turned against free speech.
  • Nothing Left to Cut? Congress can’t live within their means.
  • And much more.

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement