Gun Control

Putting Himself in the Other Person's Shoes, Obama Says Gun Control Opponents Abet Murder


White House

Speaking about gun control in Denver yesterday, President Obama declared, "We've got to get past some of the rhetoric that gets perpetuated that breaks down trust and is so over the top that it just shuts down all discussion." I agree. Here is an example of such debate-squelching rhetoric, drawn from the speech surrounding the president's call for calm and rational discussion:

It's now been just over 100 days since the murder of 20 innocent children and six brave educators in Newtown, Connecticut—an event that shocked this country and I think galvanized parents all across the country to say, we've got to do something more to protect our kids. But consider this: Over those 100 days or so, more than 100 times as many Americans have fallen victim to gun violence. More than 2,000 of our fellow citizens, struck down, often because they were just going about their daily round. They weren't doing anything special. Just doing what folks do every day—shopping, going to school. Every day that we wait to do something about it, even more of our fellow citizens are stolen from our lives by a bullet from a gun.

Here Obama is not-so-subtly charging his political opponents with complicity in murder. If Congress passes his "common-sense proposals," the president avers, fewer people will be killed by guns. Therefore if legislators refuse to "do something," they have the blood of innocent children on their hands. This is the same emotional appeal Obama has been making since December, when he said that if you don't agree with him about gun control you are in effect saying "we're powerless in the face of such carnage" because "the politics are too hard." 

Why would anyone oppose new gun controls? Not for any decent, honorable, or principled reason that the president is willing to concede:

There's no reason we can't do this unless politics is getting in the way.  There's no reason we can't do this….

Most of these ideas are not controversial….

There are already some senators back in Washington floating the idea that they might use obscure procedural stunts to prevent or delay any of these votes on reform.

Think about that. They're not just saying they'll vote "no" on the proposal that most Americans support. They're saying they'll do everything they can to avoid even allowing a vote on a proposal that the overwhelming majority of the American people support. They're saying your opinion doesn't matter. 

We knew from the beginning that change wouldn't be easy. And we knew that there would be powerful voices that would do everything they could to run out the clock, change the subject, ignore the majority of the American people. We knew they'd try to make any progress collapse under the weight of fear and frustration, or maybe people would just stop paying attention.

Obama refuses to entertain the possibility that his opponents have any comprehensible motivation at all, aside perhaps from sheer partisan perversity, let alone that they might be doing what they believe to be right. This demonization of the opposition sits rather uneasily with Obama's comment in the same speech that "there are good people on both sides of this thing, but we have to be able to put ourselves in the other person's shoes." He worries that "both sides of the debate sometimes don't listen to each other," that "people who take absolute positions on these issues, on both sides, sometimes aren't willing to concede even an inch of ground." And he wonders, "How do you build trust?"

Here is a good way to start: Stop assuming that you have a monopoly on virtue or empathy and stop arguing, whether implicitly or explicitly, that people who disagree with you about the merits of particular gun policies simply don't care enough about the mass murder of children. At the top of the White House website right now is a link to "The President's Plan to Reduce Gun Violence." The headline over the link: "We Have Not Forgotten." The implication: The people on the other side of the debate have,

A New York Times story about Connecticut's recently enacted hodpodge of gun controls illustrates what Obama is trying to achieve through his heart-tugging campaign of moral intimidation:

Senator Michael McLachlan, a Danbury Republican, said that much in the bill made him uncomfortable, but that the Newtown shooting "changed a lot of people's viewpoints on a lot of things, on the preciousness of life, on the priority of our lives, and it certainly affected me in a very great way."

"Under different circumstances, I would look at this bill very differently," he said, "But today I'm supporting this bill in hopes that I am properly honoring Caroline Phoebe Previdi."

In other words, McLachlan supported what he concedes is a bad law because he felt a need to "do something," as the president puts it. Surely there is a better way to honor the dead.

NEXT: Half Believe Background Checks Will Lead to Gun Confiscation

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 or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Here are an example of such debate-squelching rhetoric,

    Here are an example?

  2. And then this weekend he will be on the news shows whining about how all of his opponents hate him and just won’t work with him.

  3. Kinda funny to hear that from a guy who’s responsible for the murder of American citizens.

    What if we propose to trade a bit of gun control for a bit of drone control?

    1. Kinda funny to hear that from a former member of the Illinois senate.

    2. He he would would trade gun control for drone control deserves neither.

  4. So, actual murderer claims everyone else is complicit in murder. Nice.

    1. Well, a majority of us did vote to re-elect him.

      1. Uh, no.

    1. Then throw books, scream and vomit on yourself, right?

  5. Consistency is for people who don’t have millions of dogwashers editing and spinning every word they say.

  6. If you people would stop fanning the flames and just do everything Obama tells you to do when Obama tells you to do it, life would be much easier for Obama.

    1. Exactly. Why can’t we just tone down the rhetoric, have an adult discussion, and obey Obama without hesitation?

  7. I love this. To these Liberal douchebags, a chance to finally get comprehensive, real gun control to make a fascist blush was handed to them by Adam Lanza. And it is slipping away, bit by bit, and there is nothing they can do about it. Rational thought is triumphing over their knee-jerk, emotional reactionaryism, letting slip the veil of their true intent – total control – and it is driving them nuts.

    1. But dead children Restoras. We had 20 beautiful, perfect dead children. We had been waiting for decades for them to come. And finally we had them. It was fucking glorious and the God damned NRA and the tea baggers are fucking it up!!

      1. This is exactly what is going through their minds. It is so reprehensibly disgusting and completely unfathomable to me.

        1. Me too. It is amazing how liberals tend to be complete assholes as people. See below, faculty members at Columbia found to be stealing tips from employees at the faculty lounge. Would bet that 90+% of them are total leftists who claim to love the people, that is when they are not stealing from them.


          1. It’s a small example that some would say doesn’t mean anything, but it really does reveal their true character for what it really is.

          2. “We, the little people of your realm, (want) to get back a living wage, guaranteed health care and our stolen tips.”

            I only support you getting the last one, fuckface. If you want “health care” go pick up a bag of Ricolas from WalMart.

            1. I totally support their right to get as much as they possibly can from columbia. It is not my money.

      2. Am I the only one that thinks our government is sick enough to sacrifice these kids for the cause? I’m really starting to wonder if MK ultra was just a beta version.

        1. If they could figure out a way to do it and get away with it, absolutely. I don’t think however they could do such a thing.

          1. Well they basically go away with it the first time. And the payoff for a successful program would be huge. Plus you only have to get away with it long enough to get pardoned by the next guy.

            The only thing that keeps me sane is the fact that they haven’t arranged for a copy cat incident with the attention time span of the country. Although they might have a hail Mary play

          2. You forget the whole “Gun running” fiasco and how they basically perpetrated an act of war on Mexico, so they could then ban guns?

        2. It’s not about guns, it’s about control. Control of the Sheeple so we can rule you with out superior intellect and desire for comfort.

      3. Tears for 20 dead white children in Connecticut. None for 70 dead brown children in Pakistan.

        Gun grabbers = racists. Q.E.D.

    2. At a Federal level yes, it was never going anywhere. But in states like New Yawk, Connecticut, and Colorado they have sadly had more success.

      I find it bizarre how liberals accuse pro-gun rights people of being paranoid when we all know that if they had the numbers the liberals would do in Congress what they did in New York.

      1. I find it bizarre how liberals accuse pro-gun rights people of being paranoid…”

        …while they consider it perfectly ‘sensible’ and ‘reasonable’ t treat every american like a mass-shooter waiting to happen, and can’t be trusted in any way

    3. It’s especially strange since none of the bills being proposed in Congress would have prevented the Newtown shootings if they were law.

      1. Which just goes to show that they’re not interested in preventing more shootings; they’re interested in whatever control they can wrest away from the people.

        1. Some of them, yes.

          But one mustn’t forget that many of them are just fucking retarded. They don’t know how to spell gun, nor are they aware of how it is different from a killer attack ostrich.

      2. Right. Which actually suggests there is nothing strange about it at all.

      3. That isn’t strange. The people who want these bills passed know that it won’t prevent anything, just as they know Obamacare will make healthcare more expensive.
        They’re focused on the end game.
        In the case of gun control it’s total confiscation, and in the case of health care it’s European style single payer.
        They know that their end game will not sell, so they try to get there in steps.

      4. It’s all this:

        In other words, McLachlan supported what he concedes is a bad law because he felt a need to “do something

        It’t the politician’s syllogism:

        1. We must do something.
        2. This is something.
        3. Therefore, we will this.

        1. “Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it whether it exists or not, diagnosing it incorrectly, and applying the wrong remedy.”
          –Sir Ernest John Pickstone Benn

      5. And the Patriot Act wouldnt have done anything to stop 911.

        Its what was wanted before and Newtown/911 gave them a reason to push it.

    4. You know they’re starting to lose the argument when they start lashing out at their opponents by characterizing as a bunch of angry white men with small penises.

      Ah, the schadenfreude. I find I can’t quite handle another sip of their delicious yummy tears. I’m a bit full.

  8. I hate this community organizer with every fiber of my being.

    1. Every time I think our political class can’t get worse, they prove me wrong. He is just fucking horrible. He makes Bill Clinton and Newt Gingrich look like the founding fathers.

      1. John, you and Vince are just horrible, horrible RACISTS.

        Just. Horrible.

        /every prog EVAR

        1. OK, I admit it. Community Organizer is RACIST code for douche bag.
          I feel much better now that I have that off of my chest.

  9. He sure does love to use the Royal We, doesn’t he?

    1. Well,we did have the chance to give him the royal fuck you last November and passed up on it.

  10. What part of “…shall not be infringed” does this idiot not understand?

    Anyone who drafts and/or votes for unconstitutional legislation should be immediately impeached. They are in clear violation of their oaths.

    1. Kind of makes you wonder how serious the founders were about limiting the power and scope of their own class when they did not include punishments for doing just that.

      1. As you note above, the punishment should be voting them out. Franklin did say (supposedly), a republic, if you can keep it.

      2. They made the criteria for impeachment pretty broad: ‘treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors’.

      3. Punishments enforced by whom?

        The idea behind separation of powers and federalism is that power-grabbers push back against each other’s grabbing attempts — self-sustaining. The 17th amendment has done a great deal of damage to that.

        1. As has the concept of judicial deference. Really when the assholes in Congress and the White House pass and sign into law an unconstituitional bill the remedy would be for someone to bring the case before the Supreme Court who should then slap it down. Unfortunately that check and balance has been severely damaged due to the concept of judicial deference.

          It would also be nice if the clowns got their heads handed to them in the next election cycle too.

      4. Especially in light of one of the first major pieces of legislation passed by those very founders, the Alien and Sedition Acts.

        1. And a couple of years later in 1800 they got routed out of office.

          Sounds like a workable system to me.

          1. Except that no one gets routed out of office anymore.

            1. Doesn’t that speak to a failure outside the system?

              1. It’s a consequence of the two party system.

    2. Congress members can’t be impeached.

      1. Are you out of your mind? A Senator has been impeached (William Blount 1797) but the trial was dropped because he had already been expelled. They have always chosen to expel members rather than impeach them. The only difference is that an expelled member can seek office in the future, while one that has been impeached and found guilty cannot.

        1. Oh. Mmmmm. Delicious.

        2. The trial was dropped because the Senate said it had no jurisdiction over the impeachment.

          The President, Vice President, and all civil Officers of the United States shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other High Crimes and Misdemeanors.

          Civil officers are executive branch folks.

          1. The trial was dropped because the Senate said it had no jurisdiction over the impeachment.

            Wrong. They dropped the impeachment because he had been removed from the Senate for a reason unrelated to the impeachment trial. They no longer had a civil Officer to impeach as he wasn’t under their jurisdiction.

            Civil officers are executive branch folks.

            Which explains why of the 19 “Officers” that were impeached, 15 of them were federal judges.

            Here. This might help you.

            1. Both were given as reasons for dropping the impeachment trial of Blount. He was already out of office AND the Senate had no jurisdiction to convict its own members in an impeachment trial.

              It’s very questionable whether judges were supposed to be eligible for impeachment; Samuel Chase’s impeachment was one of Thomas Jefferson’s many tyrannical executive overreachings. Chase was impeached for criticizing the Jeff-Republicans’ shitcanning of Federalist judges who were supposed to have lifetime appointments. Chase’s attorneys argued that the impeachment power did not extend to judges, but for better or worse the precedent was set.

              1. Chase’s attorneys argued that the impeachment power did not extend to judges, but for better or worse the precedent was set.

                Then why did you just say above that “Civil Officers are Executive Branch folks”?

                1. Because that’s what the intent probably was, and Congress misinterpreted the Constitution to serve their own purposes.

            2. Senators can’t be impeached because they’re uncivil officers.

        3. Mark Sanford and Malcolm Smith (OK, Smith is a NY Assemblycritter.) Why would we prosecute a politicritter just because they don’t know the Constitution?

      2. And even if they could be, it would have to be done by congress members, who would never want to set that precedent.

    3. Mick, just because the founders of the country had access to weapons like cannons and rockets, doesn’t mean that they could have possibly foreseen such deadly weapons as pistols that discharge a single round every time you squeeze the trigger.

  11. “You people are derailing my narrative! How dare you?”

  12. the Newtown shooting “changed a lot of people’s viewpoints on a lot of things, on the preciousness of life, on the priority of our lives, and it certainly affected me in a very great way.”

    “Under different circumstances, I would look at this bill very differently,” he said, “But today I’m supporting this bill in hopes that I am properly honoring Caroline Phoebe Previdi.”

    Utterly pathetic.

    1. And bullshit. Well, either bullshit or idiocy. How does that change anyone’s mind? If guns are allowed then bad shit like that can happen. If it takes a mass murder involving lots of kids to make you realize that, then you aren’t very good at thinking.

  13. Senator Michael McLachlan, a Danbury Republican, said that much in the bill made him uncomfortable, but that the Newtown shooting “changed a lot of people’s viewpoints on a lot of things, on the preciousness of life, on the priority of our lives, and it certainly affected me in a very great way.”

    “Under different circumstances, I would look at this bill very differently,” he said, “But today I’m supporting this bill in hopes that I am properly honoring Caroline Phoebe Previdi.”

    Translation: I am a shitbag who won’t stand up to the mob or do anything that might risk my access to power.

    1. No, it’s more like advancing my agenda on someone’s grave.

  14. Fuck Obama. If he really believed his bullshit, he’d disband the Secret Service and be forced to abide by the draconian D.C. gun laws. An so would his spoiled daughters and treasury-raping wife.

  15. Wait, he says they’re “common-sense” proposals?

    Jeez, why didn’t he say that before? If they’re common-sense, it would be, well, nonsensical for any person to oppose them.

    Gosh, I’m sorry for all the confusion, Mr. President. Now I’ll support them, for sure!

    1. It’s all about branding with the modern left.

      In the 60s and 70s they talked about “gun bans”. After that push petered out in the 80s and 90s it was “gun control”. Now it’s “common sense reforms” or, as I heard on NPR yesterday, “gun safety measures”.

      They soil one phrase and move on to the next one; the meaning isn’t important.

      1. “Gun violence prevention” seems to be the big thing this time around.

        1. Who would do violence to a beautiful gun? I’ve known people who would let that beautiful, blued barrel RUST in a dank, basement safe. So, yes, they exist.

          That’s why Glock had to invent Ugly Guns? made out of polymer and Invinci-Steel? – because people commit violence against guns if you let them.

          Tha bastards.

          1. What we need is a Violence Against Guns Act.

    2. Yes, common sense. They make sense to all people of common intelligence. They are sensible and apply to the common people. All commoners can sense the need for these proposals. It doesn’t make sense that his holiness Barack I should have explain himself to you common folk, but out of his benevolence he does so.

      Common sense.

  16. More than 2,000 of our fellow citizens, struck down, often because they were just going about their daily round. They weren’t doing anything special. Just doing what folks do every day?shopping, going to school.

    What’s “often”?

    Is there a breakdown anywhere of the circumstances under which people are murdered? I wonder how many happen while “going to school” and how man happen while protecting a gang’s turf or in the illegal drug trade, which the prick wants to keep illegal.

    1. I’m more curious to find out how many of them were “struck down” by their own hand. Because, you know, suicide deaths where a gun were used wouldn’t have happened otherwise. Just ask Japan.

      1. He’s flat out lying. Most of the gun deaths are suicides. After that, its gang bangers.

        Off to the grocery store, school, work? Please. If that really were the case people would be clammering for easier conceal carry permits. You are far more likley to be killed or injured in a car accident when going about your daily routine than hearing a gunshot, mcuh less being injured or killed by one.

    2. Probably similar to the breakdown of drone killings.

    3. To be fair, protecting a gang’s turf might be “their daily round.”

  17. “Under different circumstances, I would look at this bill very differently,” he said, “But today I’m supporting this bill in hopes that I am properly honoring Caroline Phoebe Previdi.”

    Just an FYI in case I am ever killed in some way that makes politicians want to do something retarded: if you want to “honor” me, you can do it by repealing laws, not by passing more. Kthxbai.

    1. The “Nikki Diamond Memorial Kitten Euthanasia Law” that requires all kittens found to be immediately euthanized will be passed unanimously.

      And it will be your legacy.

        1. When kitties attack!!!

          And my calico is up to 15 lbs, has these tufts of fur that go through her feet pads and is impervious to cold and wet. I am starting to become afraid of her a bit. How do you deter a cat that doesn’t mind water?

          1. fire extinguisher

          2. Do you have a calico Maine Coon? The horror. The horror.

            1. I think there is some Maine Coon running around in there. The tufts of fur. My old cat would spend the entire winter huddled around a warm radiator. This cat lays on the cold floor in the draft coming under the door and doesn’t care. She walks around in a wet shower. And she just keeps getting bigger. Not fat but bigger. She is only 9 months old. It is not normal I tell you.

              1. Wow. That’s going to be some cat.

            2. Every time I read “Maine Coon”, I think of the Penthouse I found in a field as a kid that had an…”article”…displaying various women under various cat breed names. The “Main Coon” chick was big-titted and Rubenesque, I recall.

              I don’t remember any of the other “breeds” – just big-tit Maine Coon. Good times…

          3. Laser Pointer…. Preferably one attached to a .380. Cats are smart, he’ll figure it out

            1. My dad insisted on .22 only, but he grew up on a farm, so cheapest ammo to kill the nuisances was hammered into him since birth.

              I still remember the look of horror on my mom’s face when me dad talked about my grandma’s little sickly lap dog…”…damned thing is always sick, doesn’t do any work, and cost them thousands in vet bills. Thousands! I’d “cure” her with a seven cent .22 shell and get another dog….”

              You can take the boy off the farm, but…

          4. Fire?

        2. Must. Have. That. Kitten.

          Is cuteness-induced asphyxiation how Warty secretly kills his victims?!?

          1. That, and my special AIDS kittens.

          2. Warty’s dates just all seem to die suddenly and unexpectedly.

            He’s a victim of soikumstance!

    2. Likewise, if anyone wants to honor me, please do it by burning my corpse, along with a President (sitting or former) on a giant pyramidal pyre on the White House lawn.

      1. Can we do it Viking funeral style on the Tidal Basin instead? It just seems more appropriate.

        1. As long as the boat is huge, sure.

          1. That would kick ass. I volunteer to bring Coleman fuel to help start the fire.

    3. You’re not a child. It’s dead children, or sometimes dead white coeds, that get laws named after them.

      1. Niki seems to be a top shelf white girl. So her death would work.

        1. It would have to be something esoteric.

          “For too long, the total lack of regulation in the sex toy industry has placed our children, and our almosthirtysomethings at risk. That stops now. In memory of Nicole, I am proud to sign the Dangerous Invasively Large Devices Omnibus Act into law.”

          1. That doesn’t even address the number one cause of masturbation deaths: sharp edged cucumbers.

            1. I saw that on “1,000 Ways To Die” on Spike the only time I ever watched it. Who knew?

        2. And nicole is just enough of a total whore to keep the media interested. It’s perfect. So who gets to kill her?

          1. And more importantly, how? I vote for erotic asphyxiation.

            1. I don’t think that’s violent enough. As we all know, chicks love violence and violent dudes. Think more violently.

              1. Ok, fine, throw in some assrape if you prefer. Pervert.

                1. That’s not the good kind of assplay. Asshole.

                  1. It also doesn’t make any sense, considering I am a total whore. He should just torture me with cake, then erotic asphyxiation. Possibly also with cake.

                    1. Listening to Cake is torture, for sure.

                    2. Well, obviously I’m going to torture you with a cake. AN ENTEMANN’S CAKE.

                    3. The chocolate kind with the ridiculous amount of disgustingly sweet chocolate frosting? Please say yes!

                    4. Of course. And little chocolate donuts too. An entire room full of little chocolate donuts, just out of reach…

                    5. OMG SO WET RIGHT NOW

                    6. “I like the pole and the hole, and right now I’m as moist as a snack cake down there. So, why don’t you come over to my crib after school, and I’ll make your pinky aaaall stinky.”

          2. Nancy Grace’s producers will send you a thank you note.

          3. Not “who”, but rather “what”.

            See Virginian above.

          4. Well Warty was supposed to come abduct me the other day, and yet here I still am.

            1. Warty answers to no schedule!


    This is interesting. Natalie Wood was deathly afraid of water. She would have never gotten in a dingy alone. The story made no sense. Not sure that her finding her husband and Christopher Walkin doing the nasty and them offing her to keep her from spilling the beans makes any more sense. But it is intriguing.

    1. I’ve got a fever and the only cure is MOAR COWBOY

  19. an expelled member can seek office in the future

    This reminds me of a certain Congressman Brooks, whose constituents, after Congress expelled him for rudely chastising a member of the Senate, promptly stamped RETURN TO SENDER on him in a special election.

  20. I say he’s WRONG! I say gun control advocates abet murder. They abet armed robbers. They abet rapists. They abet assaults, burglaries, and every other crime that occurs when law abiding citizens are unable to protect themselves with firearms!!!!!

    And I say he’s insulting MILLIONS of Americans who support the Second Amendment!

  21. Obama Many people refuses to entertain the possibility that his their opponents have any comprehensible motivation at all, aside perhaps from sheer partisan perversity ignorance, insanity, or pure evilness, let alone that they might be doing what they believe to be right.

    Many people – especially the sorts of people who go into politics – seriously believe they know best how to run the world and everything in it and simply cannot accept that other people might believe otherwise.

    Which is why one of my favorite quotes is that of Oliver Cromwell rebutting the Church of Scotland in their assertion that they spoke for God: ‘I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible that you may be mistaken.’

    Not that those sorts of people ever listen.

  22. Gun control proponents abet murder and genocide and tyranny.

  23. Dude truly knows what he is talking about, I like it man. WQow.

  24. 500,000 NEW people are incarcerated annually (for nonviolent drug offenses, state and federal only) with average life expectancy in U.S. being 78.5 yrs calculates out to 6,369 lives lost to prohibition annually at the hands of our government.

    Being a conservative estimate since a MINIMUM of one year incarceration is required to make it into state/federal prisons. These numbers do not even count local incarceration.

    So, what it really boils down to is that drug policy wastes more human potential than terrorism or malicious gun violence when we consider just how conservative the above numbers are… and is directly related to our shrinking rights and liberties, which further suppresses human potential.

    The cost to taxpayers for keeping all these people behind bars is $63.4 billion a year.

    6,369 lives lost annually. More than Iraq, more than 9/11. Less than automobile accidents, less than FDA approved pharmaceuticals.

    It isn’t just overdoses killing people and wasting lives.

    So, it seems Obama has been abetting crimes against humanity for the duration of his presidency along with the entire House of Reps, Senate, ATF, FDA, DEA, FBI, etc. Officially, at least since Nixon declared war on the citizenry of the world. Unofficially since Hearst and Anslinger started their racist campaigns of disinfomation.

  25. Well, two can play that game.

    Every gun death that happens in a Gun Free Zone, is on his hands.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.