MENU

Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

Obama's Gun Control Policies Serve the Same Function As His Tears

The president boldly proclaims that good intentions matter more than results.

White HouseWhite HouseAnnouncing his gun-related "executive actions" yesterday, President Obama predictably substituted emotion for logic while engaging in a familiar bait and switch. He recited a litany of horrific, headline-grabbing mass shootings while proposing policies that would have done nothing to prevent them. Anticipating that his non sequitur would draw criticism, he boldly proclaimed that good intentions matter more than actual results:

Each time this comes up, we are fed the excuse that common-sense reforms like background checks might not have stopped the last massacre, or the one before that, or the one before that, so why bother trying. I reject that thinking. We know we can't stop every act of violence, every act of evil in the world. But maybe we could try to stop one act of evil, one act of violence. 

White HouseWhite HouseIn Obama's mind, even if a mass shooter passed a background check (or could have passed a background check) because he did not have a disqualifying criminal or psychiatric record, as is typically the case, it still makes sense to cite his crime as justification for more background checks. The reason it makes sense is that Obama's gun control proposals serve the same function as his ostentatious tears: They show he cares enough to try, even if the effort is bound to fail. The implication, of course, is that anyone who does not support his policies does not care, as he so conspicuously does, about murdered children. 

"Every time I think about those kids, it gets me mad," Obama declared, referring to the first-graders killed three years ago at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut. The target of the president's anger is not the perpetrator of that massacre so much as the awful, uncaring Republicans who refused to respond by requiring background checks for all gun transfers.

White HouseWhite HouseNever mind that the Sandy Hook shooter used his mother's guns, meaning he would not have undergone a background check even if Congress already had passed the law that Obama demanded. Never mind that the killer was legally qualified to buy a gun, meaning that even if he had undergone a background check he would have passed it. And never mind that "universal background checks" would impose real burdens on gun owners trying to sell their own property as well as Americans unjustly deprived of their constitutional rights for no good reason. As far as the president is concerned, those points are irrelevant, because once you start considering how new gun controls might work in practice you have already forfeited your status as a decent human being, the sort who is moved by the senseless slaughter of first-graders.

More on Obama's latest gun speech: Brian Doherty explains why Second Amendment supporters do not trust him, I note the tension in his goals regarding gun ownership and mental health, and Ken White at Popehat analyzes his obfuscating rights rhetoric. 

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.

  • WTF||

    What a douche. I can't wait until this fucker is gone. Although we'll probably end up with Hilldog, anyway.

  • Stephdumas||

    "Hilldog", on some others websites, I read some folks who refers her as "Hitlery" or "Queen Hillary".

  • AlexInCT||

    This fucker will never be "gone-gone", man. Narcissists like Obama can't just up and quit, and like a bad case of herpes, he will try to stay in the limelight perpetually. besides, he needs to stay on top so he can remind us all that he did the right thing even as all of it goes to hell.

  • Bluwater||

    Truth truth! January 21, 2017 is the first date of the rewriting of the Obama legacy and the excoriating of anyone who disagrees "because they are racist". And among the rabid left and much of the slobbering media, he will be successful with that.

    Farrakhan doesn't have a damn thing on this fucker when it comes to the verbal diarrhea this man will exude. In about 3 years, nobody will remember that he also had a white mama because that isn't where he will find his rage or his millions.

  • Set Us Up The Chipper||

    Crocodile tears from President Poindexter or maybe not. Maybe they were tears of joy.

  • JayWye||

    I call her The Witch.

  • SugarFree||

    Damn, Jacob. Bring the pain. This is a great takedown of yesterday's weeping dog and crying pony show.

  • Princess Trigger||

    We can't make fun of Obama for crying like a bitch - but Boehner, he's totally lame as cry baby.
    Smokey said it best:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k2kxlZDOHeQ

  • colorblindkid||

    Exactly what I was thinking when I saw everybody on Facebook praising his tears, most of whom were the same people that constantly called Boehner a wimpy Oompa Loompa crybaby.

  • colorblindkid||

    Not saying they were wrong about Boehner, by the way.

  • Princess Trigger||

    Are the crocodile tears of a politician tasty.
    I'm guessing they aren't as sweet.

  • bacon-magic||

    They are expensive...but have no taste.

  • SimonJester||

    I dated a girl like that, once.

  • Loki||

    That's, like, totes different because something something... TEAM... mumble mumble... KKKOCHTOPUSS!!!!!111!!!!! /progtard

  • Cdr Lytton||

    Debating whether background checks would have prevented violence is conceding the premise to a side that has proven time and time again that they do not argue in good faith.

    Point out that almost all of the victims were prevented by law or government policy or both. Point out that the constitutional moron could issue an executive order repealing agency prohibitions against lawful carry but has so far failed to do so. He wants to bring up gun control? Point out how his party (& the stupid party leadership) is pro criminal and anti-self defense.

  • Cdr Lytton||

    Point out that almost all of the victims were prevented by law or government policy or both from being able to defend themselves.

  • Tejicano||

    Why "almost all"? Seems to me that none of the victims in any of the cases have ever been armed.

  • Cdr Lytton||

    My feeling is you're right butI don't claim to be familiar with every shooting so there may have been one that I overlooked.

  • Tundra, well-chilled.||

    Certainly none of the high profile ones that O is so fond of pimping.

  • Tejicano||

    I am willing to bet that had any mass shooting victim (who ended up shot and/or killed) been armed we would never hear the end of the one example showing that being armed does not mean you are protected.

  • Just say Nikki||

    Doesn't mean they were all prevented from being armed.

  • Foo_dd||

    there are 12 that i'm aware of. most involved someone going to their car to get the gun, because they were in a gun free zone. these just don't get much press.

    this, of course, does not count the multiple cases where the incident never reaches the body count required to call it a "mass shooting"

  • Foo_dd||

    just reread, an i think i misunderstood what you were saying. yes, they do like to dig on when legal gun owners muddy the situation. i think i've seen everytown articles claiming as many as 5 cases of that.

  • Stephdumas||

    I guess those who do black market sales with illegal guns traffic like Senator Leland Yee have a big smile today.

    On a off-topic note; I spotted this article from the American Spectator titled: "We need a conservative Alinsky".

  • colorblindkid||

    How the Leland Yee story didn't become a major national news story I don't know. Oh wait, yeah I do...

  • Michael Ejercito||

    Enlighten us, please.

  • brady949||

    Probably because he's a state rep few people outside of San Francisco had ever heard of? I don't see a conspiracy hiding under every rock though, so who knows.

  • WuzYoungOnceToo||

    Yes, I'm quite sure that a Republican state official being convicted of facilitating the trafficking of actual military weapons to terrorist groups would have received minimal coverage by today's "news" media...not to mention their pop-culture counterparts.

  • Tundra, well-chilled.||

    What a fuckwit. We've done a pretty shitty job of protecting our rights, granted, but this is a fight they literally can't win. He fucking knows it.

    George Mason knew the score:

    " ... to disarm the people - that was the best and most effectual way to enslave them."

  • Michael Ejercito||

    Does anyone miss George W. Bush?

  • brady949||

    No.

  • ||

    Oh no he didn't.

    He did.

    Tears - the ultimate weapon on appealing to emotions.

  • WTF||

    If you don't agree to gun control you'll make baby Jesus Obama the Lightworker cry!

  • Tejicano||

    Is that a promise?

  • Akira||

  • Just say Nikki||

    But maybe we could try to stop one act of evil, one act of violence.

    Start with your drone war, you fucking murderer.

  • Florida Man||

    The kids he kills over there don't look like his son, so fuck em.

  • ||

    How many acts of violence are stopped by gun sales? The stats are pretty sound that they stop over a million per year.

  • Ceci n'est pas un woodchipper||

    I'll say this, there doesn't appear to be a solid correlation between background checks and murders committed with guns, so I daresay if a private-sale background check doesn't affect gun crime a public background check isn't doing much, either.

  • ||

    Start with your drone war, you fucking murderer.

    HAHAHAHAHA!!!! Oh wait, you were serious.

    Look on the bright side: Hillary wants to step it up, and Bernie wants to make it a larger team effort. So in comparison, Obama is a smaller scale murderer.

  • ||

    Last night was 'ladies night out' for my wife. I get to be the designated driver. I take her to the restaurant then take her home. This has been going on for over a decade, every tuesday night come hell or high water. I used to sit in on those sessions but burned out long ago. These days I bring along 'Little Boy', a miniature pinscher that doubles as my shadow, and sit in the parking lot. We share fried chicken and listen to the radio to pass the time.

    Last night I listened to the Mark Levin show. As expected he eviscerated Obama on the gun issue. His guest was a guy named John Lott. Lott claims that while teaching at UofC he met Obumbles and Obumbles told him "I don't think people should be able to have guns" and then rebuffed Lott's suggestion to discuss the issue.

    What did he say yesterday? "We have the second amendment, it's right there on the paper".

    Jesus Christ. Fuck every idiot who voted for that POS.

  • sarcasmic||

    John Lott is somewhat famous for his study on how more guns equals less crime. Of course people on the left dismiss his study without even looking at it. The fact that he is a right-winger is all they need to know.

  • Loki||

    Principals, not principles.

  • JayWye||

    ISTR that Lott before he started his gun research,was anti-gun. Or was that Kleck?
    Whatever,that says much for their credibility and honesty.
    OTOH,when the anti-gun researchers were pointed out the significant errors in their studies,they doubled down on the belief they were right. To me,that indicates a bias affecting their "study". Kellerman was counting criminal-on-criminal acts for his "43X more likely to suffer gun violence if you have a gun in the home" "study". (that he revised several times after his errors were pointed out,and the new "study" was always downward. He counted over-18 as "children" in his studies. Hemenway had the same problems. Those researchers are not to be believed.

  • Old.Mexican||

    Re: Suthenboy,

    Last night was 'ladies night out' for my wife. I get to be the designated driver.


    Who gets to be the male stripper?

  • SimonJester||

    OMWC, I hope.

  • ||

    *shoves Obama* You going to cry? Huh? You going to cry to momma?

    /Nelson Muntz

  • ||

  • Rational Exhuberance||

    The Obama administration will have the most abysmal privacy and civil liberties record in US history. Under Obama, our medical histories, financial transactions, and now any mental illnesses have all become fully disclosed to the federal government. It's an outrage.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Except those crocodile tears won't drown me when trying to engage in private commerce.

  • Loki||

    Clearly the solution is to ban private commerce. /sarc

  • Tejicano||

    So he cried on camera for the audience. Big-F-deal. I didn't respect him before and this doesn't change that in either direction. He's just trying to gather support for some further unconstitutional restrictions which I hope will not affect gun ownership in any real terms.

  • Ceci n'est pas un woodchipper||

    Jacob, everyone knows that Adam Lanza was an innocent victim of the Republicans and Big Pharma conspiring to keep the mentally ill from receiving the treatment they deserve. The real murderers are those goddamned crazy white redneck antigovernment Teabaggers, and they should all be shot by the mothers of people who've been killed with assault weapons! And Ammon Bundy had something to do with it, too, the racist!

  • Ranter||

    Oh lord. The idiots on the prog sites are all over this and throwing confetti over his award-winning performance.

    I guess intentions + tears + teh children = a-ok to infringe constitutional rights

    Because who could possibly be opposed to making guns slightly more regulated (nevermind whether this will actually DO anything, since it provably will not). If you disagree, they you're a redneck teabagger who thinks Obama is a muslim. "WHY DO YOU WANT TO MURDER CHILDREN?"

    When a GOP does this - say for restricting abortion, I'm sure they'll be a-ok with it as long as it's done for kids and there are tears shed over it.

  • Adans smith||

    In Hollywood they use a trick to cry on cue.They put a something on their fingers that,when put towards the face and eyes causes tears.I wouldn't put that past him,The man has no true emotion as far as I have seen,except anger.I think there's a personality type for that.

  • Abu Nudnik||

    When I think of those kids, I get sad, not mad. Mad at whom? Not the shooter, not the stupid mother, but people who oppose his policy ideals. Politicians!

  • Adans smith||

    Policy uber alles

  • Michael Ejercito||

    I wonder if President Obama is aware that criminal homicide is at an all-time low since 1993.

  • Adans smith||

    That's not 'common sense'.

  • Michael Ejercito||

    Common sense is not what President Obama thinks it is.

  • sasob||

    And never mind that "universal background checks" would impose real burdens on gun owners trying to sell their own property as well as Americans unjustly deprived of their constitutional rights for no good reason.

    Time after time it has been made abundantly clear that this dishonorable, constitutional "scholar" of a president, who swore to uphold the constitution, cares nothing at all for the rights of individual citizens in this country - or indeed, in any other country. He should never have been elected, especially the second time, and he really should have been impeached long ago.

  • Deep Lurker||

    Sadly, the same thing could have been said of Woodrow Wilson, a century ago.

  • Michael Ejercito||

    Anti-gunners refuse to argue in good faith. See here:

    http://tinyurl.com/je7fnh6

  • uunderstand||

    This is news, that they refuse to argue in good faith? I always ask the small penis compensation theory people why so many women buy guns. They can't seem to explain that.

  • Rational Exhuberance||

    Ask Hillary, she knows.

  • ||

    He was so upset about those kids at Sandy Hook it took him three years to get around to doing something that, according to him, was completely legal, reasonable, and within his authority. You know, for some reason I find myself using the phrase "doesn't pass the smell test" a lot lately.

  • GregMax||

    The statists control the narrative and the people who respect their rights and the rights of others are in the position of defense. I believe there needs to be a concerted effort to go on offense. Start by promoting law suits in every jurisdiction that challenges ALL laws that infringe on a citizen's right own, purchase, sell and carry as many weapons as they choose. Then promote legislation in every legislature to repeal all firearms laws regarding ownership and carry. Pound them and keep pounding. When we let the gun-phobes control the narrative we lose, all citizens lose in some unconstitutional way, and our members of congress who believe in the 2nd Amendment should stop worrying what the liberal media will say about them.
    We waste our breath trying to come up with counter arguments to fools who don't respect civil and human rights except the ones they like.
    We continue to be asked to give another inch, but nobody responds by saying we should go back to the start and then come up with constitutionally consistent "reasonable" restrictions. Fine, register suppressors and continuous fire weapons. National concealed carry law. Have background checks for commercial sales only, let them do an FBI check that is based on ID and Name, and then there is NO record of the transactions - it's either "you are not prohibited" or "you are prohibited" - period. Watch the gun-phobes shit themselves. That's a bargaining position.

  • uunderstand||

    I like that, GM.

  • Fun at Parties||

    It doesn't get any more desperate than "won't someone please think of the children."

    Can't wait for this hack to be gone from office.

  • Rational Exhuberance||

    Well, Obama has shown that he is utterly incompetent at his job (defense, politics, constitutional law, economics, diplomacy, administration). So, showing that "he cares" is all he can do.

  • Alan@.4||

    At the end of the day, I still wonder as to how Good Intentions are defined and or spelled. Re his tear streaked face, I continue to wonder as to who did the makeup?

  • Sanjuro Tsubaki||

    Good intentions?!

  • Bluwater||

    This isn't the final iteration. This is camel-nose-in-the-tent shit. Several of those like what constitutes a gun dealer are 'fill in the blank later' items they will take care of when not as many people are looking. Reminiscent of the ACA where dozens of paragraphs were voted on as "TBD" [to be determined] so nobody had to suffer blame for voting for it.

  • antodav||

    As with everything in liberalism. It's the thought that counts. And only the thought. Words speak louder than actions.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

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