We find ourselves (not the royal ‘we,’ by the way, as Mrs. Animal is here as well) in the Boston area this fine October morning, as the Traveling Life has yr. obdt. teaching some classes on change management here today. We’ll be here most of the week, so posts may be terse.
Still and all: In the wake of an unspeakable atrocity in Oregon late last week, President Obama wasted no time in politicizing the murder of nine innocents. Read Obama’s Empty Gun Control Promise. Excerpt:
President Obama is tired of calling for more gun control after every mass shooting, and I am tired of explaining why that knee-jerk reaction is illogical. But he feels duty-bound to continue (“each time this happens, I’m going to bring this up,” he says), and I guess I do too.
Last night Obama gave an impassioned 13-minute speech, ostensibly in response to yesterday’s murder of nine people at Umpqua Community College in Roseburg, Oregon, by a gunman who died after a shootout with police. The president insisted that “modest regulation,” consistent with the Second Amendment rights of “law-abiding gun owners,” could “prevent this carnage from being inflicted someplace else in America.” But as Brian Doherty pointed out, Obama did not mention a single specific policy fitting that description.
That telling omission makes it pretty hard to buy Obama’s argument that anyone who opposes “common-sense gun-safety laws” has blood on his hands. “This is a political choice that we make to allow this to happen every few months in America,” he said. “We collectively are answerable to those families who lose their loved ones because of our inaction.” If only we had done something, in other words, those people in Oregon would still be alive. But we are left to guess what that thing might be.
What that thing might be, is taking more liberty away from the law-abiding, on the off chance that one out of 160,000,000 of the law-abiding gun owners in the country might eventually end up being a nutbar.
Loathe as I am to politicize the Oregon shootings – although the President has already done so – let’s examine the incident dispassionately. None – not one – of the “common sense gun laws” commonly promoted by statist pols would have prevented this. The shooter, who we will let remain nameless, came by all of his guns legally; he would have passed any background check under every scheme so far devised for same. Nobody is a murderous nutcase until they are, and no background check or other gun-control scheme so far touted by the statist Left would have prevented this.
This leaves the would-be gun banners with one option: Seize some 300 million guns from roughly 160 million legal gun owners. If one percent of those gun owners refuse to comply, that’s an army of 1.6 million armed citizens in open, armed rebellion – welcome to the Second Civil War.
Nothing President Obama advocates would have affected the Oregon atrocity in any way. Not in the slightest. But that won’t stop the Obama Administration from pushing an anti-liberty agenda on the bodies of the victims, will it?