-
What Those Who Boycott Israel Really Want
May 14, 2013 | 143 comments
-
Mitt on Marriage
May 8, 2013 | 38 comments
-
The One Constant
May 1, 2013 | 118 comments
-
Trudeaus and Terrorism
April 22, 2013 | 15 comments
-
I Was Almost There
April 16, 2013 | 171 comments
A Further Perspective
Hiding Behind the Children
Why Obama is exploiting them to gain support for gun control.
During the last press conference of his first term in office, President Obama pledged to take “executive action” to reduce gun violence in response to the massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut last month.
The President told reporters, “If there is a step we can take that will save even one child from what happened in Newtown, we should take that step.”
When Obama unveils his gun control proposals today at the White House, he will be surrounded by children.
It’s something straight out of South Park. In one episode, the locals organized a proposition against the opening of a Starbucks (called Harbucks in the episode for legal purposes) in South Park. A campaign ad featuring Stan, Kyle, Cartman, and Kenny is produced in support of the proposition. The ad’s narrator says at the end of the message, “Vote for Prop 10 or else you hate children. You don’t hate children, do you?”
Well, the same principle applies here. The substance of Obama’s proposals will not matter. This is strictly about emotion, not reason. All that will matter will be the powerful visual image of Obama being surrounded by beautiful, young children of all backgrounds. His underlying message will be, “Support my gun control proposals or else you hate children. You don’t hate children, do you?”
President Obama, have you no decency? President Obama, have you no shame?
Well, of course he doesn’t. This is after all a President who never lets a crisis go to waste and if being surrounded by a roomful of beautiful, young children of all backgrounds is what it takes to fulfill his political objectives then so be it.
And yet once President Obama is done using these children as political props and sends them on their way home to their parents, none of them will leave the White House any safer than when they walked into it.
The reason the tragedy at Sandy Hook hit this country so hard was that a majority of the victims were children under the age of six. While it is true that children haven’t been immune from gun violence there had never been so many young children whose lives were savagely snuffed out in an instant. People were shocked not just because of the depravity of this heinous act but because of its rarity.
Nevertheless, school shootings have occurred far more frequently over the past quarter century. So the idea of children being shot and killed at school isn’t beyond our conception. But what makes anyone think that more gun control is going to end gun violence? The Federal Assault Weapons Ban was of no use to the children of Columbine High School. If gun control is the answer to ending gun violence, then why were more people (including children) killed in Chicago last year than U.S. soldiers who lost their lives in Afghanistan?
President Obama, of course, knows all of this to be true. There is nothing he can do to prevent another massacre of children by a crazed man with a gun and nothing he proposes today will save the life of a single child including those chosen to stand by his side for this announcement. But it is important to remember that Obama, like most politicians, must give the appearance of doing something in order to justify his existence and thus his legacy. This is especially true in Obama’s case. After all, it is Obama’s ambition not only to transform this nation, but to calm the world’s oceans.
But when the mere force of Obama’s personality isn’t sufficient to calm the deficit much less calm the oceans, never mind offer a coherent argument in favor of gun control, he does what politicians have done for generations. He kisses our babies and tells us to look at those young faces and not to listen to what he is actually saying. He does this in the hope it will remind us of our sons and daughters. This is why Obama is surrounding himself with the children, exploiting them for all it’s worth.
About the Author
Aaron Goldstein writes from Boston, Massachusetts.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (178) | Leave a comment
More Articles by Aaron Goldstein
More Articles From A Further Perspective
http://spectator.org/archives/2013/01/16/hiding-behind-the-children
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
Current Issue
- Her Unrequited Letter
- The (Real) Great Divide
- Inside the Gates of Eden
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
drudge ette obama| 1.16.13 @ 6:10AM
What makes it all the more nauseating is that the White House leaks this scene in advance. Why aren't these children in school?
I hope they break out in a finger gun battle in the middle of the signing farce.
Jack in Wi| 1.16.13 @ 8:00AM
Obama loves the children? He has never met an abortion he didn't love. He even is a rabid believer in partial birth abortion, and the killing of babies who survive an abortion outside the womb. He should be called on it by every sane person.
Appleby| 1.16.13 @ 9:10AM
This is the man who blurted out that he didn't want his daughters "punished with a baby." This is a man who considers his own grandchildren a punishment. (Or perhaps, competition?)
Frank Drackman| 1.16.13 @ 9:49AM
As someone with 2 fertile Daughters...
Are Grandchildren really that wonderful???
I mean I know they need to do their duty, obey the maternal instinct, carry on the bloodline etc etc, but I remember what kind of Grandchild I was... my parents would palm me and my sister off on my Grandparents, they couldn't wait to give us back.
Frank
Stkman| 1.16.13 @ 11:20AM
My granparents loved having me, my sibling and cousins over. My best memeories are with my granparents. They were awesome loving people who had no problem teaching all of their grandchildren manners and how lucky we all were to be born and live in the United States.
I have long had a feeling that one of the reasons our country is going to crap is because the good people in it are not having enough children. Why is that? Could it be that good people work and pay taxes, so much so that they can't afford to have as many children as they would like to have bec ause they are burdened down supporting ghetto rats and their illegitimate children? Me thinks so.
Jack in Wi| 1.16.13 @ 1:03PM
Dreck: I was the first grandchild on one side of the family. My grandfather was 70 when I was born. He had a total of 16 grandchildren. I am sure he was glad to see all of us. but in very limited doses. My grandchildren are such a blessing. I love seeing them, all but again in limited doses. I am sure the feeling is mutal. In your case I am sure, it would be far better for humanity if your line died out. I hope your daughters are far better and more humane people then you are.
Frank Drackman| 1.16.13 @ 2:38PM
Umm lets see, one daughter's spying for Israel, I mean in (US)Marine Officer Training, on line for an F-35/18/Harrier cockpit, so she can sell classified stuff to the Moe-sad,
The other pulls the wings off flies, starts fires, laughs at the handicapped, you know,
"Daddy's Little Girl".
Jeezus, Jack, I'M supposed to be the one with the Ass-burgers....
Frank
Rhoetus| 1.16.13 @ 10:22PM
http://www.ducksters.com/biogr.....stalin.php
Von Mises Jr| 1.16.13 @ 8:24AM
These children are not in school since they will have better indoctrination today at the White House.
Moe Blotz| 1.16.13 @ 10:52AM
Oy Jr. Do you suppose Calypso Louie had any input on Barry's proposals for his second amendment assault coming to a total of nineteen? I have heard the Nation of Islam band leader rant about the number 19 in past speeches and find interesting the fact that now it shows up in Barry's calculations.
Von Mises Jr| 1.16.13 @ 11:44AM
Rush brought this up yesterday since I think it was Calypso Louis that said any black man the saw that new movie about slavery should be prepared for "Waaa," whatever the hell waaa is.
Moe Blotz| 1.16.13 @ 12:00PM
That segment I missed and should have known Dr. of Democracy would cover it.
Anthony| 1.16.13 @ 3:11PM
I'm still waiting for the Mother Ship to attack Earth. What is it with Calypso? He has no pull, even with the aliens.
davidh| 1.16.13 @ 11:44AM
Their strategy is crystal clear:
If you don't agree with our politics on gun control you do not care about the murdered children.
If you comment or question Obama or his political agenda you are a racist.
If you don't think Susan Rice deserves State then you are a sexist, misogynist.
If you want to get ahead in this world these are the rules....simple
They hate the 1st amendment but this strategy makes that amendment moot.
Now to the rest of that pesky antiquated document.
TLP| 1.16.13 @ 1:47PM
Hitler used to pose with all the children. He had his Hitler Youth.
The Soviets had their Young Pioneers.
Mao had his Young Revolutionary Fighters.
Castro had The Young Communist League.
And, Obama has the Public School System, and the Universities.
It's standard procedure for the left. It's as predictable as the Sun coming up in the Morning, a Fastball on a 3 and two pitch with the bases loaded, or some old fool who's fixated on everybody's penis, writing garbage on a web site, and then signing his name at the bottom, like anyone gives a sh*t who he is.
It's that predictable.
Robbins Mitchell| 1.16.13 @ 6:16AM
http://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/.....6863_n.png
MelvinNC| 1.16.13 @ 6:25AM
The Progressives have been exploiting children since as long as anyone can remember. When I became politically aware, LBJ was embarking on his, "Great Society."
The great failures of once great American cities are filled with children that have been exploited for political gain.
These children languish in crime, drug, prostitution infested warehouses that promote single mothers are a virtue instead of a societal curse. But that is another story I suppose.
So it is of no surprise that this individual who swore upon the Bible to uphold the Constitution from all enemies foreign and domestic, now fancies himself making his own laws, by his own hand.
Of course there will be the weeping marching mommies with their out-raised fists punching the air, screaming at the top of there lungs, "Yes we can." Makes great sound and video bites doesn't it.?
Sometimes I wonder who is President Obama or Steven Spielberg. This might be an Oscar winning performance for old Barry Sotero.
Don L| 1.16.13 @ 7:06AM
Exploiting children--I guess you could call abortion and infanticide that....
MelvinNC| 1.16.13 @ 7:13AM
I would call the gist of your comment, "exploiting," I would call it, "murder."
TLP| 1.16.13 @ 2:16PM
Some of you people still don't understand what we're dealing with, here.
To Barack Hussein Obama, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer, and every Democrat Politician in this Country: Newtown was Christmas, Hanukkah, Kwanza, New Years, their Birthdays, and Winning the Lottery, all rolled in to one.
Like their Muslim buddies did on 911, I have no doubt that they were High Fiving, Dancing, and Passing out Candies and Pastries, when they heard what happened.
In their world of: Never let a Crises go to waste?
This was their SUPER BOWL.
As Rush would say: Don't Doubt Me.
Appleby| 1.16.13 @ 6:57AM
It's the End Times and you are seeing what the Bible said you'd see at the End Times. The tremendous upsurge in gun sales (which Obama is ignoring in his race to ban things he'll never even be able to find) and the easy way around all the "rules" Obama claims he will issue by fiat, ex cathedra, tout suite, are clear to a blind man. Going to make it harder for registered mentally ill people to get guns? Mentally ill people will not get treatment -- you can't force them into treatment now, and when everyone knows a check box under "mentally ill" will prvent him from getting a gun, why, just don't check that box. True, the next step will be forcing the gun sellers to decide if someone is mentally ill or not -- and ultimately the government declaring that ipso facto anybody who wants a certain kind of gun MUST be mentally ill ... but everybody over the age of 3 can tell you that any law Man can make, Man can circumvent. I grew up in a Mob neighbourhood in New York where the gun laws were draconian. Everybody in that neighbourhood including the Judge had a gun.
Anthony| 1.16.13 @ 11:42AM
C'mon Appleby, how do you know the Judge had a gun? Were you peeking under his robe?
In my Bronx neighborhood, we didn't have NO judge. Maybe because I lived off of Gun Hill Road.
Don L| 1.16.13 @ 7:04AM
I eagerly await this faux messiah to stage a pro-abortion speech surrounded by hundred of dead babies that he so loves to support.
After all, it's just so much medical tissue and a reproductive "health is good" product.
We have only ourselves to blame for this moral and political corruption of a once great nation.
Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 1.16.13 @ 7:12AM
Children who made it through the hurdle of abortion are now being used as props for liberal gun policies which will see more of the children killed.
Alan| 1.16.13 @ 7:26AM
What does it say about the parents who would allow their children to be used as fodder props for this marxist clown? Stupid is as stupid does.
Joellen| 1.16.13 @ 7:40AM
Exactly Alan, another example of how certain parents are failing their children, if we survive twenty years from now, will they be weeping for their foolishness or will they be happy of their childrens indoctrination into the liberal mental disorder? My guess, misery loves company.
Von Mises Jr| 1.16.13 @ 8:28AM
These are the same parents that saddled those same children with about $60K in debt before they reached double digits in age.
This would be bad enough, but with trillion dollar deficits in perpetuity, Agenda21 planned society and no guns, the $60K is moot since the children will be slaves of the government Ruling Class.
Al Adab| 1.16.13 @ 8:36AM
These are the parents who are true believers in government paternalism. No doubt the students teacher gave them an assignment to write the President to "help us".
Nothing proposed or likely to be dictated or legislated would have prevented the horrid events at issue. Criminals and mental cases are no respecters of the law. How many laws were broken here?
No friends, the issue is control and we must never lat a crisis opportunity go to waste.
Von Mises Jr| 1.16.13 @ 8:47AM
"Criminals and mental cases" - are you referring to our leaders in Washington?
Al Adab| 1.16.13 @ 10:51AM
Good question Jr. Takes one to know one as they say. Not you, the "leadership".
Albert Constantine Jr.| 1.16.13 @ 8:46AM
VMJ;
That was along the lines of my thoughts-why not bring the children there. They are the ones (along with their children) who will be picking up the tab for all of Obama's largesse.
Von Mises Jr| 1.16.13 @ 8:52AM
The tab will be their liberty and freedom. In socialist New Jersey, Christie is setting up Agenda21 for those kids to live in 700 sq/ft Section 8 apartments taking the light rail to their crony capitalist sponsored factory job working for GM, Immelt's GE or one of old Warren's fascist enterprises. Visit the Parks now especially if you have children since it may be the last chance they get to see Yellowstone, the Grand Circle or Olympic National Parks.
Appleby| 1.16.13 @ 9:13AM
It's all happening up here in Toronto even as we speak. I been tellin' ya. Ain't I been tellin' ya?
Von Mises Jr| 1.16.13 @ 10:47AM
I have not been to Ontario in years. We visited Nova Scotia, PEI, New Brunswick and Vancouver more recently and I have visited Quebec. It was not evident in these vacation areas, but I have been hearing about Agenda21 in Canada since it is a hot topic in socialist New Jersey.
I met a couple from Ontario and they were brainwashed into believing coming to the US would result in bankruptcy if you got hurt or ill. I asked the young lady how long she must wait for a doctor's visit and it was many weeks to several months, but she was convinced she had great health care. Our illegal immigrants get treated immediately and for free.
TLP| 1.16.13 @ 2:17PM
You, Sir, are a "Noble Savage".
SUBVET| 1.16.13 @ 10:41AM
Alan..........that song started in the 60's........and this is what we have now.....why wouldn't the song continue.
MelvinNC| 1.16.13 @ 7:20AM
Government always tends to forget one little important fact. Society will follow laws that they think are morally, and personally acceptable. But society can very easily do the opposite.
A perfect example of this is the, "No texting or talking on a cell phone, while operating a motor vehicle," that is on the books in many states. And we know how well society follows that law don't we?
Appleby| 1.16.13 @ 9:16AM
The one axiom I cannot explain to my Canadian friends is this one: "You cannot make Americans do ANYTHING they do not wish to do." They are flabbergasted that America doesn't have a dollar coin and doesn't use the metric system, although Its Betters have insisted for more than 40 years that "this time for sure" Americans WILL do both. And a country filled with people who do not do what they are told simply because they're told to do it is a country that cannot be overtaken or overthrown. This is what I have learned after 15 years living under socialism. Socialism can only be imposed upon people who are conditioned to do as they are told, and to believe that they have no choice. Americans are not that kind of people.
Dave Williams| 1.16.13 @ 12:07PM
We USED not to be that kind of people....but the world is changing, and not for the better. That conditioning has been in place for 40+ years now, and the sludge of conformity lies heavy all over the USA. Land of the free and the home of the brave? Neither, anymore.
Anthony| 1.16.13 @ 3:20PM
Appleby, America does have a dollar coin. Several versions in fact, starting with the Susan B. Anthony dollar. And then there was some weird edged dollar coin.
Our leaders insisted, and so we keep them with our Kennedy half dollars and our silver dollars, except when going to the automatic car wash and the launder mat (which I haven't done in 30 years, the launder mat that is), those are the only institutions that use coin dollars.
Alan| 1.16.13 @ 7:24AM
C'mon Aaron, decency and shame? These are weaknesses for revolutonaries, tools to use to further the agenda against your enemies. When are you people going to get a clue about what we are dealing with here?
RABart| 1.16.13 @ 7:39AM
I wonder how many innocent children have been killed by Obamulatto's drones.
This cretin is beyond despicable. I wish someone had the guts to stand up to him and tell him to go directly to hades.
Nancy in NC| 1.16.13 @ 7:43AM
A very good article, but the children were not under six. They were six and seven years old.
The parents allowing their children to be used in such a dishonest venture should be charged with child abuse...ok, child endangerment. It is truly despicable, but what about this administration is anything but vile?
Russel| 1.16.13 @ 7:52AM
Look Aaron , it's simple : ' Never let a good crisis go to waste ' to exploit and further your agenda . If there's ANY crisis , expect to see The Emperor any time . He began by using the oil spill to demean the Brits and has been picture perfect ever since , such as the doctor skit at the Rose garden ? . After all , a picture is worth a thousand words , so why not go on any tv program that will have you ? . He learned when he let slip to Joe the plumber and has been perfecting his spiel ever since .
Alan| 1.16.13 @ 7:59AM
The real changeover starts when they quit using crisis to further their agenda and start CREATING crisis to further their agendas. That stage is very close and real in some cases.
c. j. acworth| 1.16.13 @ 8:33AM
....CREATING crisis to further their agendas. You mean like Global Warming?
Alan| 1.16.13 @ 8:35AM
Bingo!
Albert Constantine Jr.| 1.16.13 @ 8:44AM
...which was exactly what "Fast & Furious' was designed to accomplish, except the carnage was supposed to be en Espanol.
Anthony| 1.16.13 @ 11:00AM
Yes, and speaking of gun violence carnage, Obozo and Holder are accessories to the murder of agents Terry and Zapata for Fast & Furious.
If we truly were a country of laws and not men, Obozo and Holder would be in prison awaiting trial.
I've not heard one other person offer up the proposition that Holder & Obozo are accessories to murder. It's basic black letter law, not that laws apply to leftist elites.
Hey David Gregory, congratulations, you too skated the law as well, but it was a "close call", so said the hack D.C. chief of corruption, err police.
Our great country has sunk to depths never before imagined.
itsy_bitsy| 1.16.13 @ 8:26AM
"Doing it for the Children" is an overused ruse by charlatan democrats for the last 30 years! But once again Obama hauls out this ridiculous ploy, and those of us who actually have a brain know the reason is because he has no feasible argument, so he is reduced to putting on a sideshow!
Frank Drackman| 1.16.13 @ 8:57AM
OK, I'm too busy to read every comment, but am I the only one to note the Ironic-city(Dontcha think?)
Of a President speaking to children about gun control surrounded by a score of Secret Service carrying,
well it ain't Pepper Spray...
What ARE the Secret Service packin anyway? it's been 30+ years since we saw that agent whip that Uzi out from under his jacket...
Frank
mike 3/505| 1.16.13 @ 9:13AM
OK all you Moms out there...please chime in...Who do you trust more to protect your children, some stranger, or your husband?
Slacker| 1.16.13 @ 11:31AM
Funny. The mothers screaming the loudest for gun control are the single mothers. Probably tells us something...
Frank Drackman| 1.16.13 @ 2:41PM
Single Mothers?? Like (the late) Nicole Simpson, who if she had a simple Raven 25 auto, that she could have obtained for probably 1/100th the cost of the clothes/shoes she was wearing when OJ gave her a Sicillian Shave, would still be alive, spending OJ's money.
Frank
Jack London| 1.16.13 @ 9:53AM
I think he should surround himself with dead children who were shot, in their coffins, and tell Americans to go shoot some more.
I agree with the comment above about the drone attacks. We should only kill American children.
Anthony| 1.16.13 @ 10:51AM
Good point Jack, and Chicago is just the place for the Muslim Marxist and the prima donna mayor ballarina to do this.
Chicago has bodies sacked up ready for display.
CJW| 1.16.13 @ 1:22PM
Or they could use the photos of the children incinirated at Waco by Janet Reno.
Frank Drackman| 1.16.13 @ 12:02PM
Jack, if I'm ever shot, I hope it's after I'm in a coffin.
Which I'll never be, cause I've already sold, I mean "donated" my bod to the Southern Anatomical Society, to teach future generations of Asians what Jehovah can do when He puts His perfect attention to something...
Frank
Al Adab| 1.16.13 @ 2:53PM
Frank:
Since the doctors will now be reporting mental cases to the police, how long before mental illness is defined as thinking one needs to own a firearm? After all, no one is out to hurt or rob you so thinking that might make one paranoid, yes?
TLP| 1.16.13 @ 1:53PM
Yeah, Jack.
Why hasn't he gone to HIS HOME TOWN to speak about Gun Violence?
Wake Up, Black America.
CONTENT OF CHARACHTER!
TLP| 1.16.13 @ 1:53PM
Yeah, Jack.
Why hasn't he gone to HIS HOME TOWN to speak about Gun Violence?
Wake Up, Black America.
CONTENT OF CHARACHTER!
TLP| 1.16.13 @ 1:53PM
Yeah, Jack.
Why hasn't he gone to HIS HOME TOWN to speak about Gun Violence?
Wake Up, Black America.
CONTENT OF CHARACHTER!
TLP| 1.16.13 @ 1:55PM
Stupid IPad.
TLP| 1.16.13 @ 2:04PM
Stupid Router.
Michel| 1.16.13 @ 10:02AM
The irony is , while at the White House, those same children will be in closer proximity to more guns then they will ever be the rest of their lives.
Frank Drackman| 1.16.13 @ 10:15AM
Umm I said the same thang about an hour ago...
ironic, dontcha think?
Frank
Tumbleweed| 1.16.13 @ 10:29AM
A Marxist does not have shame or regret in what they do or say to get their way!
gardenbuzzy| 1.16.13 @ 10:35AM
Who is surprised by this stunt? After all, this is what Obama's buddies, Al Qaida and Hamas, do. They hide behind children when they attack. Birds of a feather, don't ya know!
Anthony| 1.16.13 @ 10:48AM
This is what disgusting and reprehensible demigods do, the use props for their propaganda. Alinsky spawned a whole generation of radicals and they are now in charge.The low information voters will eat this crap up, as will the whores in the MSM.
Too bad one of the kiddy props won't say to Obozo Na Na Na Na Na, I suvived the womb, you didn't kill me!!!
AllAmericanAmerican| 1.16.13 @ 10:52AM
If locking up, interning, re-educating, or just plain murdering hundreds of thousands of law-abiding gunowners even saves one child, it's worth it.
Right Obumma?
Anthony| 1.16.13 @ 3:27PM
Finally!!! Some use for those FDR internment camps, that have been rotting for decades.
Jack London| 1.16.13 @ 11:15AM
You people are idiots - really. So a classroom of children are shot dead and you don' t want children involved in gun control?
Stkman| 1.16.13 @ 11:38AM
No Jack, We don't. They are what they are, children, and they should be left as they are, children. There is a reason they are called children, we are called adults. It is not a childs responsibility to govern. It is their parents responsibility to govern and make the rules.
By your way of thinking I guess we should let children in on the discussion of how much candy they should have, and soda, tv, video games, porn or whatever else.
Jack, I won't lower myself to your standards and call you an idiot. I will say you should engage your brain before you engage your fingers to the keyboard.
Jack London| 1.16.13 @ 11:45AM
You ignore children as citizens of this country with their own voices. They have as much right to speak and be heard as you do.
Albert Constantine Jr.| 1.16.13 @ 11:54AM
No, they don't have as much right, says the SCOTUS. Likewise, they don't have the right to vote, the right to purchase a firearm from a licensed dealer, or the right to run for Congress or President.
Jack London| 1.16.13 @ 12:12PM
Children have the same 1st Amendment rights as anyone else. We should listen to them more.
Stkman| 1.16.13 @ 12:48PM
Jack,
Children have the right to do as they are told by their parents, period. In Texas you are responsible for yourself at age 17. Until then your parents are legally responsible for you. Every state has some sort of law saying when a child is no longer a child and as nebtioned above the Siupreme Court has ruled more than once that children do not enjoy the full rights of the Constitution. If that were the case then you lovely leader Obama would have to outlaw abortion, because we all have the RIGHT TO LIFE, LIBERTY, AND THE PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS.
Please argue that one will you? Here's another one you can argue while we're at it. If it is an impediment to voting that we can not ask for legal identification, then wouldn't it also be an impediment to one's right to purchase firearms to have to show identitfication?
Albert Constantine Jr.| 1.16.13 @ 12:53PM
According to the 2011 decision [and many before it, such as Ginsberg v. New York, 390 U. S. 629 (1968), which is my minors can’t purchase adult magazines, etc.] by SCOTUS in Brown (as in Jerry Brown, the Governor of California) v. Entertainment Merchants Association (evil lobbying group for violent video games), it is repeated from past cases:
" ‘[M]inors are entitled to a significant measure of First Amendment protection, and only in relatively narrow and well-defined circumstances may government bar public dissemination of protected materials to them.’ Erznoznik v. Jacksonville, 422 U. S. 205, 212-213 (1975)”
“Significant Measure” is quite different from “the same”, which is why children can’t buy pornography at the local adult video arcade, or in public schools have dress codes and other regulations that the Obama Administration isn’t been to apply to everyone else (so we could all wear Mao jackets and “be more like China”, as he has wished in the past), even if California can’t stop the sale of violent video games to them.
Not that anyone is, but we should definitely not listen to you at all.
Jack London| 1.16.13 @ 1:13PM
The supremes, in a case on school students displaying a banner advocating drug use, ruled that the school could stop them but also said that there must be "no support for any restriction on speech that can plausibly be interpreted as commenting on any political or social issue.."
Children are protected by the first in political speech, which is what we are talking about here.
Albert Constantine Jr.| 1.16.13 @ 1:28PM
"Children have the same 1st Amendment rights as anyone else."
Funny, you left out the part about political speech in that statement. It has not been suggested that Congress should pass a law restricting children's political speech; what is being said is that they should not be used as a political prop. Of course, if a school can prohibit the political message in support of drug use, then there is a restriction, and their rights are not the same as adults, as I posted.
Children can't vote or buy firearms (a 2nd Amendment right denied them) or adult magazines because they are childish. Of course, they are not the only ones who are childish, and given the inane quality of your remarks on the site today, I think a popular vote of those who post here would support you being stripped of all your personal and property rights.
Of course, the Constitution presumably protects you (and everyone else) from the results of such a vote, at least when it is observed. This is why so many here object vociferously to Obama's repeated attempts (including this latest one) to ignore or defy it.
Jack London| 1.16.13 @ 2:09PM
So are you suggesting that you'd stop children writing to the president, and for the president to invite them to the White House, and for them to say what's important to them? You'd ban that?
Albert Constantine Jr.| 1.16.13 @ 2:40PM
“It has not been suggested that Congress should pass a law restricting children's political speech; what is being said is that they should not be used as a political prop.”
“So are you suggesting that you'd stop children writing to the president, and for the president to invite them to the White House, and for them to say what's important to them? You'd ban that?”
Your response to what I did not suggest by suggesting that I suggested it illustrates all that is wrong with you, and all that is wrong with the Left’s position on gun control. Just as I clearly did not make any suggestion, inference, implication or iota of what you wrote; all of the President’s (and Gov. Cuomo’s) suggestions or responses in the form of executive orders or new laws would not have prevented Adam Lanza from killing 28 last month.
It just makes all of you feel better for having done it, while inaccurately reflecting the reality of the world (except as you wish it would be).
To ban something is a tactic of the Left.
Jack London| 1.16.13 @ 2:58PM
No - you set up a falsehood by saying that children are being use as a political prop. I say those who wrote to the president have a right and are demeaned by you who label them as stooges.
And let's see what control measures do. If they don't do anything you have nothing to worry about, do you?
Albert Constantine Jr.| 1.16.13 @ 3:14PM
"If they don't do anything you have nothing to worry about, do you?"
I didn't say that the restrictions wouldn't do anything, I wrote that they would not have prevented the killing. What many will do is turn otherwise law-abiding citizens into lawbreakers without the due process the Constitution calls for, and/or infringe on the 2nd Amendment rights of all.
Please highlight where I said children shouldn’t write the president. I have only stated that they shouldn’t be used as political props.
Your lack of reading comprehension is either deliberate, and therefore reflects the weakness of your mind; or deliberate, in which case it reflects the weakness of your arguments. Of course, it can also reflect both with regards to you.
Jack London| 1.16.13 @ 3:30PM
You are a stubborn mule Albert. Let me repeat slowly... 20 children were shot point-blank by an AR-15 ... many children want the president to act and he's listening to them. Get it now?
As for controls, do you object say to all buyers being subject to a background check, and a ban on large magazines and assault-style weapons? There are in fact a lot of new proposed measures - do you think doing nothing is a preferred option?
Albert Constantine Jr.| 1.16.13 @ 3:42PM
It is not so much the case that I am stubborn, the facts that I put forth are stubborn things, and have yet to be refuted by you.
Twenty children were not shot point blank by an AR15. Lanza’s mother was shot point by her AR15, and the children were shot with her handguns. Lanza tried to buy a firearm and was denied.
If Lanza had used an AR15 stolen from a police car to kill his mother instead of his own, she would still be dead. If he had used a handgun or handguns stolen from a police officer’s trunk, they would be just as dead (except maybe he would also have body armor, which would have made him a little harder to kill, had he decided to fight it out with the police instead of kill himself).
As someone who has labored three decades in law enforcement, and taken or supervised the seizure of hundreds of firearms from the possession of criminals (including the mentally ill), I say enforce the laws we already have (which is generally not occurring effectively at the state or federal level now) before you pass any more to feel good.
Al Adab| 1.16.13 @ 3:57PM
More laws all in the name of doing something. When did criminals ever start to obey the law? It might as well be against the law to break the law. That would stop crime, right?
Jack London| 1.16.13 @ 4:04PM
Are you saying that we can't make it harder for criminals and others who might cause harm to get weapons, Al?
Curtis Rasmussen| 1.16.13 @ 5:53PM
Jack has his shoved so far up your ass that he can't see daylight. This administration and others have perpetuated a porous border that's allowed millions of illegal aliens and billions of dollars worth of drugs to pass into the U.S. Outlaw guns here and guess which new hot commodity will be smuggled in to your neighborhood criminal?
The only thing that can stop many gun violence episodes is an armed law-abiding citizen. That's why cowards like Lanza only go on rampages in gun-free zones.
Look up the gun laws in Kennesaw, GA for perspective on guns as a deterrent.
Jack London| 1.16.13 @ 4:00PM
You'll have to better than this Albert - the AR-15 was the gun used to kill the children. Lanza's mother should not have had such weapons in the house and that's what gun control may not achieve.
Albert Constantine Jr.| 1.16.13 @ 4:11PM
The AR15 was not the weapon used to kill the children, it was left in the car. But say that it was, would it make you feel better if he had used a pair of .22 autoloaders (the AR is .223) with non-detachable tube magazines (such as appear in most boardwalk shooting galleries throughout America for the last hundred years? Would it change anything if he battered down the door with a 4inch capped pipe, and immolated all of the children with Molotov cocktails, after he stabbed his mother to death? The only death that might have prevented would have been his own, and the outcome otherwise would remain the same.
Your fixation on the nomenclature of a weapon that would have had no effect on the outcome shows what you are interested in accomplishing, which is not the protection of children. A properly trained and armed person would have been able to stop him as he began to breach the perimeter, and prevented what followed.
Jack London| 1.16.13 @ 4:27PM
Albert - for goodness sake go read some newspapers - the AR-15 with a 30 round magazine was identified by the medical examiner as the main weapon.
And the topic is guns, not Molotov cocktails.
And tell me how those armed guards at Columbine did.
Albert Constantine Jr.| 1.16.13 @ 4:40PM
I don't rely on newspapers to report events accurately, but if they are correct, how did the AR15 get back in the car?
More importantly, though, you didn't answer the question, which was how would have Lanza being armed with handguns, .22 rifle (such as the Glenfield or Marlin Model 60, which has an 18 round non-detached magazine, with over 11 million produced and sold during the last 50 years) or Molotov cocktails changed the outcome.
Also, we are talking about Newtown, not Columbine (which took place in 1999, during the 1994-2004 assault weapons ban).
Again, how would the outcome be changed?
Jack London| 1.16.13 @ 5:03PM
For the last time - the police found a shotgun in the car. Lanza was armed in the school with the Bushmaster XM-15 and two semi-auto handguns, a Sig and a Glock.
We change the outcome by measures such as family background checks, semi-auto weapon bans, compulsory gun locks and safes, and so on. The bigger issue is casual handgun trafficking and sales with no background checks, no registration and no responsibility by legal gun owners. Go read what the White House said today.
Albert Constantine Jr.| 1.16.13 @ 5:35PM
None of those measures would have changed this outcome. At best, it may have forced Lanza to change the type of weapon he used (any of which could take the life of 20 youngsters aged 7 and younger, as well as 6 adults) or the source from which he stole it (again, you failed to address who you would have prevented him from stealing it from the police, as happens regularly; unless, of course, you are suggesting disarming the police).
At best, if you banned and confiscated all guns, you could change the outcome from young bodies riddled by small arms rounds to bodies charred by fire (or hacked by machetes like Rwanda, etc.).
None of your proposals protect anyone, as criminals by their definitions don't follow laws.
You create a new class of criminal suspects (all law abiding semi-auto owners) that the overworked criminal justice system does not have the resources to police or punish, much less disarm. You violate the Constitution so you can feel good, while protecting no one.
Jack London| 1.16.13 @ 4:21PM
I meant may achieve.
thinkingabovemypaygrade| 1.18.13 @ 2:13PM
Good to read a law enforcement professional's assessment. (Something missing from much of the public media debate...!)
CJW| 1.16.13 @ 3:51PM
Commie Jack,
"20 children were shot point-blank by an AR-15 ... "
Wrong. They were shot by a criminal using guns he did not own or buy. You, indavertently, stated the idiocy of the lefties' "gun control." You believe that the guns go around killing without any criminals using the gun. You focus on the gun, and igonore the root cause. The root cause is the criminal.
Here is a challenge for your or any of your lefty mates:
Write a law that will prevent criminals from using guns to commit crimes. Post it here, we will discuss it.
Jack London| 1.16.13 @ 3:56PM
We have plenty of laws that deter people from crime, and crime has been dropping a lot in recent years. What we need are better laws and procedures to stop them getting guns, which is what will now get but no thanks to people like you.
CJW| 1.16.13 @ 4:12PM
Commie Jack
So you have no answer.
Try again, Write a law that will prevent criminals from getting guns. Post it here. Can't do it?
Jack London| 1.16.13 @ 4:20PM
CJW - you said a law preventing them from USING guns. For prevention of them getting guns, see the statements from the White House today.
CJW| 1.16.13 @ 5:17PM
Commie Jack
So after today's White House statements, criminals will be prevented from getting guns?
And we will not have any more attacks on children in schools, or mall, or theaters, or other gun free zones?
If this is true, why did Obama wait until after 20 children were killed to issue his executive orders? He could have issued these orders four years ago and save those 20 children.
Why didnt Bubba issue these orders in 1992?
Do you realize how ludicrous your answer is?
Jack London| 1.16.13 @ 5:23PM
It will take years to change our gun culture but we have to start with stronger regulation such as background checks on all gun sales and I hope we stop people like Adam Lanza's mother amassing a collection of unsecured semi-automatic weapons.
CJW| 1.16.13 @ 7:44PM
Commie Jack
Nobody objects to background checks. That is not the issue, your boys want to confiscate guns.
What is the gun culture? Again you get into psycho/social babble. We have to stop criminals from committing crimes, not take guns from law abiding citizens who are the only ones who obey any gun laws.
And stop the nonsense of gun free zones. Each school district should hire trained police officers, and get rid of some the bureaucratic dead weight pushing papers around in the offices.
We have armed guards in every federal and state building, and most office buildings in our downtown area. We must provide the same security in schools.
I read Obama's statements or orders, and it is there are some good points about background checks, but none of them would have prevented these killings. A trained police officer who would have shot this creep would have prevented the kilings.
Anthony| 1.16.13 @ 2:36PM
Same rights eh Jack? There is a reason why there is an age requirement in order to vote or drive a car, just as there should be a restriction on having leftists vote.
O.K., not really, but in fact, leftists shouldn't be allowed to vote, just say'n.
Let me guess Jack, you're also a member of MAMBLA, and think children have the same sexual rights as adults, right Jack?
Jack London| 1.16.13 @ 2:46PM
We're talking about freedom of speech not your twisted sick fantasies, Anthony.
Anthony| 1.16.13 @ 3:35PM
Seems like I struck a nerve, eh Jack? It's ok Jack, everybody is entitled to their kink, besides, you lefties think child sex is just fine, and who are we to argue with the best and brightest of Americans?
And my fantasies are not sick or twisted!!!
I like a good cigar in my intern, just like the rest of the guys, so what's the big deal??
Stan Redmond| 1.17.13 @ 3:29AM
If children have the same first amendment rights as the rest of us then they have the same 2nd amendment right as the rest of us. It's all or none.
Joellen| 1.16.13 @ 6:01PM
Jack London - "They (children) have as much right to speak and be heard as you do". unless they are about to be aborted - then it's the WOMEN's choice. So hypocritcal!
Houdini| 1.16.13 @ 11:38AM
Speaking of idiots.....Jack. We already have children involved in gun control.....democrats.
Albert Constantine Jr.| 1.16.13 @ 11:55AM
Clearly, the President was so childlike and petulant in his recent press conference, that he has chosen to surround himself with his peers.
Anthony| 1.16.13 @ 11:59AM
Right Jack, so with hundreds of children killed in Chicago every year, children should be removed from Chicago, for the children's sake.
To quote Bill slick wee willie Clinton, "using a child as a prop never fed a hungry criminal".
Jack London| 1.16.13 @ 12:13PM
Right idea wrong thing - we should remove guns from Chicago for the children's sake.
Stkman| 1.16.13 @ 12:54PM
No Jack, we should put criminals in jail for longer periods of time including first time offenders. We should require all men to work and have a checking account with direct deposit. We should reform our welfare system so that those who do not get a high school diploma NEVER recive welfare of any kind. We should make it the law that everyone graduate from high school(excludinbg those with mental handicaps). Lastly we should make damn sure you are never allowed inside the United States of America.
Jack London| 1.16.13 @ 1:21PM
How big do you want our already huge jail population to get and how do we pay for it?
Riff Raff| 1.16.13 @ 1:35PM
Prisons are overcrowded BECAUSE of lax and indeterminate sentencing. Absent swift and sure punishment, the volume of crime increases so that the sheer numbers of criminals overwhelm the system and prisons become overcrowded. Oldest story in history. If you tax something you get less of it. When you subsidize something you get more of it. Lax sentencing is a defacto subsidy of crime, so logically you get more crime. Ergo, overcrowded prisons.
My goodness, you lack even the most basic skills in logic and analysis.
Jack London| 1.16.13 @ 2:21PM
You make no sense. What is swift and sure punishment? Do you mean execution?
Riff Raff| 1.16.13 @ 5:54PM
Are you REALLY asking this?! What it means is obvious. Someone who commits a crime should be tried, convicted, and imprisoned. Not "excused" or released. We HAVE violent criminals on our streets, TODAY! Are you blind? And where do you get "execution" from my post? For murderers, of course execution is an option, but not for non-capital crimes. So, your post is utter nonsense. If punishment is swift and sure, as opposed to what we have today which is all-to-frequently slow, erratic, and unsure, then the prisons would have fewer candidates for admittance. This is common sense. Are you for real? Or are you pretending to be stupid for effect? ???
Frank Drackman| 1.16.13 @ 2:29PM
Jack, you're absolutely right, our jail population is entirely too fat, and should only eat food they grow themselves, with the only red meat being the occasional contraband Rat......
Glad to see you're coming around to our side, you gotta check that Homo-ness at the door though...
Frank
Jack London| 1.16.13 @ 1:25PM
Oh you think the main reason kids don't graduate is they get welfare?
Warrior| 1.16.13 @ 1:32PM
Statistically, your statement is correct.
Riff Raff| 1.16.13 @ 1:01PM
They already HAVE "removed" the guns from Chicago. It is illegal to have guns in the City. This has not stopped ANYONE from committing murder. So if it doesn't work in Chicago, let's do it everywhere! You are nuts.
Jack London| 1.16.13 @ 1:20PM
So Riff, where do they get the guns from?
Riff Raff| 1.16.13 @ 1:30PM
Is this a serious question? Really? I know your point. If there were no guns there could be no stolen guns. This however is impossible. Guns are here to stay. What do you propose? A house by house seizure? Will you kill people to disarm them? People WILL refuse. What do YOU propose?
Jack London| 1.16.13 @ 2:22PM
So you admit being awash with guns is the problem. The prosecution rests and I thank you.
But unlike you, most of us know we can do something about it with gun controls.
Riff Raff| 1.16.13 @ 5:57PM
I have "admitted" no such thing. You need to study formal logic. As for your second statement, you HAVE done something with gun controls. You have disarmed VICTIMS, not criminals. This is why Chicago is murder-central. And no, being "awash with guns" is not the problem. More guns equals LESS crime. This is a statistical fact, your arguments notwithstanding.
Riff Raff| 1.16.13 @ 6:05PM
By the way, you didn't answer my questions.
Stan Redmond| 1.17.13 @ 3:39AM
Good luck with that
Anthony| 1.16.13 @ 1:34PM
Fine Jack, remove guns from Chicago, see if I care. Can we post your real name and address so the good folks in Chicago can thank you?
And Jack, when will you post for us your "This is a Gun Free House" poster posted on the front door of your little hovel? Maybe with you in the picture as well?
C'mon Jack lead by example!!!
Stan Redmond| 1.17.13 @ 3:38AM
300 million Americans must be punished and have their unalienable right removed because criminals. I think you're an intelligent man. But people like you are scary. They will do anything and everything "For the children" without ever considering the end result to tyranny in the name of the children. When will there ever be enough "good" done "for the children?"
Riff Raff| 1.16.13 @ 12:20PM
Mr. London,
We don't want gun control. Gun control kills innocent people. Gun control disarms victims. No gun control law ever disarmed a single criminal or prevented a single crime. Gun control emboldens criminals who know their victims are forcibly disarmed. Scholarly studies have shown that 2.5 millions times each year American citizens successfully defend themselves with a gun. 15% of those genuinely believed that had they NOT had a gun they would be dead. That would be 375,000 ADDITIONAL murders each year because of gun control! What YOU are saying is that YOU want these 375,000 people to be murdered each year. You are saying that because that would be the logical consequence of your idiotic gun control rant. You are your Democrat Party created "gun free zones." The blood of Sandy Hook is on your hands.
Jack London| 1.16.13 @ 12:52PM
As the pres has just said, we've lost 900 Americans since the school shooting. Your "scholarly studies" are utter nonsense because they assume criminals will kill every time and that we can't stop criminals getting guns. That is false. Most criminals just want to boost an iPhone.
Stkman| 1.16.13 @ 12:57PM
Jack Jack Jack, you're so short sighted? Have you ever wondered why they want to boost an i-phone, or steal your computer or flatscreen? So they can hock it somewhere and go by they're drugs. And if they don't stick a gun in your face to do it they will use a knife or a club. More people died last year by a knife or blunt instrument than by a bullet you moron.
Riff Raff| 1.16.13 @ 12:59PM
You are a demonstrable idiot. The studies are quite genuine and an accurate picture of the issue. You think it is possible to keep guns pout of the hands of criminals, which is ludicrous since the government can't keep anything else out of the hands of criminals, be it drugs or other contraband. It also assumes that criminals kill only when using a gun. Most murders are committed without a gun. The criminal has the advantage when innocents are disarmed, even unarmed criminals, who are generally stronger and far more aggressive and violent than the victim. The gun is the equalizer. You have no clue what you are talking about and you completely ignore empirical evidence. You have no credibility whatsoever. And the blood of Sandy Hook is still on your hands.
Jack London| 1.16.13 @ 1:19PM
Well you two is very hard to take anything you say seriously if you don't even know the fundamental point that guns are by far the weapon most used in homicides. You say 'Most murders are committed without a gun' and 'More people died last year by a knife or blunt instrument than by a bullet you moron.'
The truth is that firearms are used in about 65% of homicides. Who's the moron now?
You can see figures here:
http://projects.wsj.com/murderdata/#view=all
Riff Raff| 1.16.13 @ 1:28PM
FBI statistics say otherwise. Furthermore, it does not matter what you "take seriously," since you are obviously clueless.
The simple truth is, the President lacks any legal authority whatsoever to ban guns or magazines or ammunition by "executive order." And Congress lacks any such authority as well. The Supreme Law of the Land expressly prohibits any such action by government. The only way our rights can be taken away is through due process of law. Gun Control will not be met with "resistance." It will be met with outright refusal.
Jack London| 1.16.13 @ 2:11PM
65% or so is the FBI gun homicide figure and it's as high as 80% or so for young people. Show me the source that says I'm wrong why don't you.
Warrior| 1.16.13 @ 3:01PM
Over 80% of crimes committed with a gun are committed with an illegal gun. Nothing that is being proposed will stop a criminal from possessing an illegal firearm.
Simon Templar| 1.16.13 @ 3:02PM
You forgot to mention that these gun crimes have predominantly happened in the most restrictive gun control cities in the nation and often occur in the same gun free zones. These gun crimes are often criminal gang related. You forgot to mention that these school killings have been conducted by mentally ill individuals who chose gun free zones knowing full well no one would be there to stop them. All the laws currently surrounding gun control have failed but you want to double down and create even more. Another little fact you conveniently leave out in your old and tired liberal knee jerk rant.
Your ilk ran to exploit this horrible incident literally seconds after it happened. now, you create an exploitative media event dragging young children in front of the media while your Unholy Fraud pretends he cares so much about them. Your ilk and your messiah have no problem killing them in the womb or even when they are half sticking out of the birth canal. Perhaps you should use a gun next time when you do it and we could then get you to stop the abortions.
Simon Templar| 1.16.13 @ 3:12PM
Your solutions only leave more people undefended and have led to mass slaughters by mentally ill individuals that you have released into the communities with an army of liberal lawyers who do everything thing they can from stopping actions to be taken to commit these people and intervene. You object to armed security in schools but you insist it be provided for your Fraud's kids and hold up their lives as more valuable than ours kids lives. You ridiculously argue that the second amendment was originally created for hunting.
Simon Templar| 1.16.13 @ 3:20PM
You also like to cover up the fact that merry old England with its gun control has led to doubling the crime and murders rates in that nation. You think that we should take you seriously, you should be ignored, not just because you are a troll but also because you are lying, sack of typical liberal shit incapable of having an honest conversation on anything.
Jack London| 1.16.13 @ 3:12PM
So Simple Simon, how do people get guns illegally? And how do mentally ill people get guns?
Simon Templar| 1.16.13 @ 3:27PM
I rest my case. You have no answer and are incapable of an honest debate or logical response.
How do mentally ill people get explosives, knives, clubs, cars, poisons......
How do they get them illegally. Well, they show up at legal gun stores whereby the federal government under the direction of your Fraud forces them to sell them to criminals and drug dealers so they can use them in crimes in Mexico and killing border agents. That's one way.
So, liberal Jackoff London...want to try answering some of your own questions for once and formulating a logical reasoned argument?
Simon Templar| 1.16.13 @ 3:30PM
Or are we to do all the thinking and you all the emoting, manipulating, lying, and obfuscating?
Simon Templar| 1.16.13 @ 3:40PM
You are really not interested in actually helping stop these horrible incidents. You are more interested in destroying and removing the second amendment and banning all gun ownership..that is the real agenda...and you will say and do everything to accomplish that even if it includes exploiting children, making emotive illogical arguments, lying, distorting, misinforming, and using the federal police forces to illegally allow criminals to acquire guns and force legitimate gun salesman to sell them to them.
Jack London| 1.16.13 @ 3:32PM
Answer the questions - the topic is guns by the way, not cars or anything else. Here they are:
How do people get guns illegally? And how do mentally ill people get guns?
Simon Templar| 1.16.13 @ 3:42PM
You answer. Stop obsfuscating.
Simon Templar| 1.16.13 @ 3:45PM
You address my arguments and criticism or go fuck yourself.
Crickets.
I thought so.
Jack London| 1.16.13 @ 3:53PM
Answer what? You just post lies such as 'England with its gun control has led to doubling the crime and murders rates in that nation' - absolute lie - they had only about 500 homicides in the last reported year and only about 35 with guns and their crime rate has been dropping.
And you say our government is selling arms to illegals - really?
You haven't asked me a question and you refuse to answer mine.
JD| 1.16.13 @ 5:06PM
Jack, your cherry-picking is misleading. England's crime rate jumped sharply in the years immediately following its institution of gun control laws. Some years later, the rate began a slow decline, although at the same time many British are complaining about a "catch and release" approach to police work that prevents many crimes from ever being recorded.
The point is, the statistics regarding reasonable time periods following strengthening and loosening of gun control laws all show the same thing: Gun control reduces gun murders but increases overall violence.
Jack London| 1.16.13 @ 5:32PM
England's crime rate had nothing to do with gun control because very few people had handguns anyway. So that's a useless argument. And it's even more useless because as I've said before I checked on this and England had a big change in what they reported as crime that led to an increase in figures but the country hadn't suddenly changed.
Stan Redmond| 1.17.13 @ 9:00PM
They illegally kill their mother and take them. Or they buy them legally. Or they get them illegally. What does this have to do with eliminating an unalienable right of 300 Americans?
Anthony| 1.16.13 @ 3:45PM
Ask Obozo and Holder Jack, Fast & Furious was about as illegal as it gets.These two felons should be in prison, they are culpable for the deaths of 100s of Mexicans and two American agents, Terry and Zapata.
Of course, that doesn't address your last point, as to how two mentally disturbed individuals, like Obozo and Holder, got the guns in the first place.
JD| 1.16.13 @ 5:09PM
People suggesting that gun control laws won't prevent a single gun crime should stop; of course they will. Making something illegal does make it harder to get it, which reduces the number of people who get it.
It is absolutely true that gun control laws will prevent some crimes that might otherwise have been committed. HOWEVER, it is also true that gun restrictions result in the commission of crimes that would NOT otherwise have been committed, due to reduced deterrence and self-defense.
So will the net of crimes increase or decrease under gun control? That depends on a great many factors. The best way to answer the question is by studying the results of past experiments.
Those results overwhelmingly show that overall crime increases as gun restrictions increase.
Jack London| 1.16.13 @ 5:18PM
"Those results overwhelmingly show that overall crime increases as gun restrictions increase."
So here we are again JD - a big assertion with no source. Give your evidence. One fact is certain: the number of gun homicides goes down without guns, which is hardly surprising.
Riff Raff| 1.16.13 @ 6:02PM
Exactly. Where guns are freely owned and carried, crime and murder are low. Where guns are banned, crime and murder are rampant.
Riff Raff| 1.16.13 @ 6:01PM
The 65% number you cite references all homicides, not just murders, according to the FBI website. This includes justifiable homicides and police killings. Justifiable homicides and police killings are almost exclusively by firearm. This skews the percentage upward. Furthermore, the percentage was over 80% in 2005, so the trend is a decline in percentage concurrent with more States adopting concealed carry policies. This demolishes your argument completely.
Stan Redmond| 1.17.13 @ 3:40AM
Well. If that's the case. Write a letter to OBama and make sure the Obamaphones handed out are Iphones.
Or better yet. Using your logic, the Iphone is the source of the crime so let's ban Iphones.
Anthony| 1.16.13 @ 4:30PM
Well Jack, upon reflection, we'd rather have children opine on gun control rather than morons such as yourself.
No child I've ever known has been as dull witted and stupid as you.
Petronius| 1.16.13 @ 11:33AM
The "children" Obama cares about are himself and his playmates who act goody-goody and behave like thugs. The children bleeding and dieing in the streets have already quit school, and because they aren't in class, the school district no longer draws subsidies for them, so the Mayor of Chicago just tells them to keep the carnage to themselves. Gun Control and these types of prohibitions are the vehicles of emotional investments of cultural cowards who dream of a world without any vicissitudes to upset them in any way. Obama has been accused of being a closet Muslim. Politically and economically he's the Arch Peter Pantheist.
Riff Raff| 1.16.13 @ 1:21PM
What's next? "Obama Youth"??? With uniforms and songs and meetings with cake and ice cream and propaganda?
Hardcard| 1.16.13 @ 1:16PM
Gun control as deemed by the leader has begone, the leader wants to take your finger off the trigger of a weapon, they want your doctor to supply your medical records for the leaders review. Our leader has at his finger tips the trigger for thousands on weapons of mass destruction, not to mention the triggers of thousands of drones at dear leaders nictotine stained fingers, has anyone checked our leaders medical records or a listing of drugs he uses or has used? seig heil!!!
Joe D.| 1.16.13 @ 1:33PM
Ain't it great, our president is hiding behind children again.
Who Knows?| 1.16.13 @ 2:16PM
It’s vital to know who your opponent or enemy is.
After four years, MAYBE people will begin to fathom how deep Obama’s wallowing in ideological excrement is. Consider the following take on Hitler’s Table Talks, with my words in parenthesis—
“The ‘magic spell’ that Hitler (Obama?) cast over his listeners has been acknowledged many times. This fascination—‘the strange magnetism that radiated from Hitler in such a compelling manner’---rested indeed ‘on the fanatical belief of this man in himself’, on his pseudo-authoritative judgments about everything under the sun, and the fact that his opinions---whether they dealt with the harmful effects of smoking or with Napoleon’s policies---could always be fitted into an all-encompassing ideology.
Fascination is a social phenomenon, and the fascination Hitler exercised over his environment must be understood in terms of the particular company he kept (Which is why we need to note WHO Obama is now choosing for his high powered minion, like Kerry, Hagel, et al). Society is always prone to accept a person offhand for what he pretends to be, so that a crackpot posing as a genius always has a certain chance to be believed (Hence, the 2008 and 2012 election of The One).
Who Knows?| 1.16.13 @ 2:17PM
In modern society, with its characteristic lack of discerning judgment, this tendency is strengthened, so that someone who not only holds opinions but presents them in a tone of unshakable conviction (Then there’s even a Rush Limbaugh) will not so easily forfeit his prestige, no matter how m any times he has been demonstrably wrong (When has Obama EVER been right?). Hitler, who knew the modern chaos of opinions from first-hand experience, discovered that the helpless seesawing between various opinions and ‘the conviction … that everything is balderdash’ could best be avoided by adhering to ONE of the many current opinions with ‘unbending consistency’. The hair-raising arbitrariness (With Obama, though, there is NO arbitrariness—he’s a true blue socialist, at least) of such fanaticism (But, BHO IS a fanatic!) holds great fascination for society because for the duration of the social gathering it is freed from the chaos of opinions that it constantly generates.
Who Knows?| 1.16.13 @ 2:17PM
This ‘gift’ of fascination, however, has only social relevance; it is so prominent in the Table Talks because here Hitler plays the game of society and was not speaking to his own kind but to the generals of the Wehrmacht, all of whom more or less belonged to ‘society’. To believe that Hitler’s successes were based on his ‘powers of fascination’ is altogether erroneous; with those qualities alone he would never have advanced beyond the role of a prominent figure in the salons (Just so with Obama---his successes were surely aided by his “fascination”, but IMHO they are actually due to the “totalitarianism” of the MSM) .” Page 305, “The Origin of Totalitarianism”, Hannah Arendt 1951
thinkingabovemypaygrade| 1.18.13 @ 2:10PM
Lots of people think in pictures/photo ops/touching vignettes.
So...until we get votors who think out the implications before voting, we will go deeper into the mire.
Frank Drackman| 1.16.13 @ 3:12PM
Am I the only one who was reminded of that scene from "The Dead Zone" at the "President"'s Photo Op today?
Albert Constantine Jr.| 1.16.13 @ 3:21PM
Until you brought it up, yes, but now that you have, I think you have demonstrated your savant side. Both the POTUS (and Jack London on the site here today) are like Martin Sheen, hiding behind the body of a child (or children).
Didn't Christopher Walken have to get killed in order to supply that visual?
RCV| 1.16.13 @ 5:02PM
Imagine that? Bringing school children into the discussion about what to do in reaction to the mass murder of school children! What was he thinking?
Albert Constantine Jr.| 1.16.13 @ 6:17PM
Are we bringing school children into the discussion or are we criticizing turning children into props to increase the emotional support for an assault on the Constitution.
After all, the Left is shrieking today about the NRA's bringing up the armed guards at Obama's children's school as "political pornography".
Dimitry_Aleksandrovich| 1.16.13 @ 6:17PM
If Obama and the rest of the gun control liberals in D.C. aren't careful they could end up doing serious damage to the Democratic Party in the next election cycle. They could very well end up losing their Senate majority.
Dimitry_Aleksandrovich| 1.16.13 @ 7:06PM
Millions of Americans are gun owners and millions more have a very libertarian outlook on the second amendment. Obama and the Democrats might be biting off more than they can chew in this fights. It doesn't matter for Obama though this is the second term, but any Democrat up for re-election in 2014 might want to think twice before following Obama off the cliff on this one. For Obama its all win win, he has his four more years regardless but the rest of the Democratic Party should think very carefully on how far they want to push gun control, because the push back in 2014 is going to be extremely strong.
Stan Redmond| 1.17.13 @ 3:49AM
Does ANYONE really believe children were picking up pad and pencil writing Obama? Please! Every liberal orgasmed at the chance to exploit this shooting. How quickly they forget Columbine was during the golden shower, I mean age, of the assault weapon ban.
CHAUSSURES FEMME AIR MAX LTD | 1.17.13 @ 4:17AM
The reason the tragedy at Sandy Hook hit this country so hard was that a majority of the victims were children under the age of six. While it is true that children haven’t been immune from gun violence there had never been so many young children whose lives were savagely snuffed out in an instant. People were shocked not just because of the depravity of this heinous act but because of its rarity.
Stan Redmond| 1.17.13 @ 9:06PM
Very true. Which makes it all the more disgusting that a certain political persuasion and Obama are using this to further their political goals of eliminating gun rights for Americans.
thinkingabovemypaygrade| 1.18.13 @ 2:09PM
This quote says it all "... If gun control is the answer to ending gun violence, then why were more people (including children) killed in Chicago last year than U.S. soldiers who lost their lives in Afghanistan?..."
hrgfue | 1.20.13 @ 7:37PM
2013 Fashion kickoff for u