Wednesday, January 26, 2011

Josh Horwitz on the President's Speech

Deafening Silence

6 dead and 14 wounded in Tucson at the hands of a severely deranged substance abuser who legally purchased guns and high-capacity ammuniton magazines.

13 law enforcement officers shots since Thursday in what is being described as a "war on police."

And President Obama still hasn't found the courage to speak out for stronger gun laws.

In his State of the Union address last night, the president spoke for over an hour and yet couldn't find so much as one second to address the issue of easy access to guns in our society. Meanwhile, another 86 Americans will die from gun violence today, and tomorrow, and the next day...

Barack Obama campaigned on promises to reign in the scourge of gun violence in our country and he's done absolutely nothing to fulfill them. Now it's our time to hold him to his word.
I agree. What do you think?

Please leave a comment.


  1. I figure there's two possibilities here.

    Either Obama is very much in favor of gun control, but recognizes speaking in favor of it as political suicide that would clinch his NOT getting re-elected,


    The President really wasn't very anti-gun to begin with but only voiced support of it in Illinois to get support from the anti-gun voters.

    I guess there's a third possible option, that maybe he WAS anti-gun but has recently realized the futility of it - but if that was the case, why wouldn't he say so? So I find this unlikely.


  2. Gun control is an invention of tyrants. That's how a government controls it's citizens. Take away their guns and you have made them defenseless. That was the first step the National Socialist Party used to control the Jews in the 1930's. They instituted gun control with the issue of permits, just like we have today.

    Guns are tools just like my saw and hammer. And like other tools, they can be used in the wrong way. So to elaborate, it's not the tool, it's the person using the tool.


  3. I was very disappointed as well. Clearly it was on his mind and others', given that victims of the Tucson shooting were in the balcony with the first lady, everyone was wearing an awareness ribbon, and GIffords' empty seat was pointed out. Yet he surely felt it was a divisive topic (more so, apparently, than gays in the military, which was mentioned).

    My blog post on this topic:

    @ thatmrgguy: extremists love to compare gun control laws to the laws passed by dictators like in Nazi Germany, Russia, or China, but they conveniently overlook thriving modern democracies all over the world, such as most of Europe, where crimes are very low and gun control measures are common and effective.

    And unlike a hammer or saw, guns are purpose-made to kill efficiently and easily (why else do people arm themselves with guns instead of hammers?) -- and thus are easy to abuse in the wrong hands.

  4. Well that's real nice Baldy. Because I believe in asserting my rights as enumerated in the Constitution with the Second Amendment, I'm an extremist?...nice stretch of logic there. You may decide for yourself not to own a gun, but you have no right whatsoever to decide for me.

    And yes, guns are a tool for efficient killing of animals for food and yes for killing other varmints of the two legged kind. God forbid I'd ever need to, but if I have to defend myself or my family, I want the most effective method of defending myself and that would be a gun.


  5. Well, well, I have to admit I was pleased to not hear BHO speak of gun control. He's enjoying a 'Jared Bounce' in the polls; seems this was his opportunity to make all the leftys happy; but wisely, he backed off.

    Seems that even Democrats can be trained on occasion.

  6. Obama went to Arizona, said what he felt needed to be said there about the tragedy. As important as the subject of keeping illegal guns out of the handsof the violent, the dangerously crazy, and the criminals, it is still not the top of the list. That doesn't mean Obama won't be doing everything he can to support the proposed restrictions on the larger capacity ammo, or to strengthen the NCIS. The SotU has a finite time for the speech. There is already plenty of legislation already going through Congress. The strongest support he can give may not be the most direct. I'll be interested in the next few months to see what happens next. Then will be plenty of time to arrive at a conclusion about Obama and gun legislation.

  7. @ Mike: "Baldy"? Taken to making fun of people's names now?

    I'm not calling you an extremist because you exert your 2nd amendment rights. I'm calling you an extremist because you associate any gun control legislation with brutal dictators and not any other government. You're the one with the "stretch of logic."

  8. Mike "thatmrgguy", welcome to the blog and thanks for commenting. Your views are certainly not new to us. But, try to understand around here we call them "extremist."

    All that talk of tyranny and the Jews of 1930 sounds a little nutty.

    About the President's speech, I pretty much agree with Orygunner's first proposal. This leads me to hope that in his second term he's gonna turn out to be a nightmare for you guys.

  9. I've never made any secret of my lack of enthusiasm for the Obama presidency, but he clearly took the smart course Tuesday night.

    This country has a great many important problems it needs to work on, and screwing around with additional ineffectual infringements on that which shall not be infringed ain't gonna solve them.

    Actually, in light of the projected $1.5 trillion deficit for the year, it's especially gratifying to see that the administration is looking at BATFE funding cuts:

    At the department's Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, OMB had proposed, in a document drafted just before Christmas, a cut of 3.5% from what the agency is likely to spend this year, and a 12.7% cut from what the agency had said it needed. ATF officials therefore spent weeks deliberating whether to scale back Operation Gunrunner, part of the Obama administration's effort to attack Mexican drug cartels by cracking down on gunrunning along the southwest border.

    Sic 'em, boys!

  10. Most gun control laws like those introduced by McCarthy are just "feel good" legislation. Banning standard capacity magazines will not stop crime in any way. Reduced capacity magazines are used to kill every day in states like New York that already fell for McCarthy's dog and pony show.

    Even the President realizes that the country has problems that require real solutions and obviously he didn't have time to pay lip service to extremist politicians that prey on a public tragedy to get their names in the papers.

  11. Well, I don't know that it's a feel-good effort, but I certainly have my doubts about the magazine capacity legislation. I think all the gun control politicians should get themselves organized and push for background checks on all sales and full licensing and registration. At the same time they should work out a revamping of the ATF and all the databases. That's where they could do some real good, in my opinion.

  12. And how exactly is licensing and registration supposed to be a positive thing? Is there anywhere that licensing and registration has worked to make any society safer? Is there anywhere that registration has been implemented that has been used to solve enough crimes to justify the cost?

    In the US, prohibited persons are legally protected from having to register their firearms, anyway, so why do you need a list of law-abiding people's guns? I thought the supposed aim of gun control was controlling criminals...


  13. Orygunner, You've got some good arguments, you're a good writer and a welcome addition to our discussions over here. But when you repeat the talking points you need to consider first if they make any sense at all.

    Case in point:

    "In the US, prohibited persons are legally protected from having to register their firearms, anyway, so why do you need a list of law-abiding people's guns?"

    Just think about that for a minute. Please don't tell me I have to explain what's wrong with it.

    Overlooking the strange paradox or whatever the hell that silly statement is, the answer is simple. Maintaining a register of law-abiding gun owners and what guns they own will encourage them to hold on to those guns and stop letting them so easily flow into the criminal world.

    You don't deny that all the guns start out legally owned do you?

  14. Mike B - I think Orygunner is referring to this:

    The U.S. Supreme ruled in the case of Hayes v. U.S. (390 U.S. 85, 1968) that because it would be incriminating, a criminal cannot be required to register a gun or be charged with possession of an unregistered gun. The Court said,

    We hold that a proper claim of the constitutional privilege against self-incrimination provides a full defense to prosecution either for failure to register a firearm ... or for possession of an unregistered firearm.

  15. Please don't tell me I have to explain what's wrong with it.

    Whether or not Orygunner needs an explanation of "what's wrong with" that statement, I would like one. The 5th Amendment guarantee of the right to not be forced to self-incriminate would seem to support his statement just fine, thank you very much.

    You don't deny that all the guns start out legally owned do you?

    He certainly should deny it. If a "prohibited purchaser" buys an 80% completed receiver, which is by law, not a gun, and then completes it so it suddenly becomes a gun, then the gun starts its existence as an "illegally owned" gun.

    I know it has happened, by personal experience.

  16. Zorroy, Now that's a teaser, your mentioning "personal experience." Do tell.

    About that ruling on self-incrimination, Jim, I know that one I've heard it all before.

    Still it's kinda silly to say a felon in possession of a gun does not legally have to register it when we never expected him to do so in the first place. As you guys are continually pointing out, these laws would be aimed at you, the law-abiding. By enforcing the laws, you, the law-abiding, would be less likely to let that felon have one of your guns.

  17. mikeb- so the point of the law is indeed to make it harder on legal gun owners with no regard to whether or not it has any effect on criminals? Nice that you are so concerned for our safety.

  18. Zorroy, Now that's a teaser, your mentioning "personal experience." Do tell.

    A guy I know--great guy, but was busted for a non-violent drug felony 20 years ago (long before I knew him), had never heard of the 80% frame thing. I told him about it, he ordered one, and came over to my place and completed it, using my drill press and jigs, and guidance.

    I did absolutely nothing illegal. He did, of course, but "bad laws be damned"--just like Thoreau, Gandhi, and King said.

  19. No, It's really "bad laws be damned," like Loughner, Adkisson and Diveroli. You see, these are the guys, and countless others just like them, who violate gun laws like your friend (and you?). Those great men you named have nothing to do with this and for you to associate yourself with them is really quite laughable.

  20. No, It's really "bad laws be damned," like Loughner, Adkisson and Diveroli.

    Wrong. The law against slaughtering groups of innocent people is a quite good one, while a law that imposes a life sentence of disarmed defenselessness, for selling pot as a 20-year-old college student, is beyond bad--it's pure, black-hearted evil.

    Thoreau, Gandhi, and King famously defied laws they viewed as evil, and thought themselves as not only justified in their defiance, but as having met a moral obligation in doing so.

    Me too (although, as I said, I didn't actually do the lawbreaking--just helped it along a bit--guess I'm not quite as ennobled as I might otherwise have been).