President Obama and Vice President Biden spoke on Wednesday — with children as backdrop props — to make the case for strict gun control measures. Both men framed power grabs, multiple times, as a “moral obligation” while demonizing opponents as extremists who want to “gin up fear and ratings and revenue.” Saul Alinsky would be proud.

Once again Mr. Obama turned to the erroneous logic that if anything can be done to prevent a single death, his administration has “a moral obligation” to try it. He spoke of “23 executive actions” to accomplish this goal and claimed that the “overwhelming majority of Americans” agree with him, but not one of his proposals would have done anything to prevent the Newtown, Conn., massacre that led to this manufactured crisis. If he were philosophically honest he would start with one call: to amend the Constitution of the United States.

The president readily acknowledged Wednesday that “there is no piece of legislation that can prevent every act of evil,” but he does not concede the laughable logic of arbitrariy limiting magazine capacity to 10 rounds. On Tuesday night, New York decided seven was the magic number. Why not five? Or four? Or perhaps the U.S. could move to establish the musket as America’s weapon of choice.

Like most of the president’s speeches, Wednesday’s announcement was high on soaring vagueness and short on specifics. A ban on military-style weapons? Check. So now weapons that look scary will be banned, while weapons that are just as deadly can still be sold (for now). Supporters of the president’s endless supply of flowery platitudes will cheer his speech for multiple news cycles. Free-thinking Americans who care about consequences instead of intentions will not be so impressed.

Read more at Times247.


About the Author Douglas Ernst

I'm a former Army guy who believes success comes through hard work, honesty, optimism, and perseverance. I believe seeing yourself as a victim creates a self-fulfilling prophecy. I believe in God. I'm a USC Trojan with an MA in Political Science from American University.


  1. I always come on here ready to duke it out with you Doug but occasionally find myself in surprising agreement with you. Constitutional amendment IS the only meaningful action on US gun control… but it would also unleash a freakstorm of red neck hate. Good luck with all that.

    1. Ha! Well, I’m always up for a good duke-out. I’m glad you still check out the site.

      With that said, I would not be in favor of a Constitutional amendment. My issue with Obama is that he should be philosophically consistent. I watch these politicians pat themselves on the back — as if they’ve done something grand — when really they just created the illusion they’ve done something.

      The vast majority of gun crime in the U.S. comes from your standard handgun — not “assault” weapons … and yet they act that they’ve saved countless children because they’ve gone after rifles with “military style” characteristics.

      What are they going to do when they get the next madman who goes for the bolt-action rifle with a scope? Gruesome? Yes. Evil? Yes. I guess the point is, you can’t legislate away madness.

    2. “I always come on here ready to duke it out with you Doug but occasionally find myself in surprising agreement with you.”

      I’m in total agreement. Great post, Doug.

      Now if lizard18 agrees, I will assume the world is ending…

  2. when we allow politicians to rush into passing legislation because we are afraid, the results aren’t usually good, like the Patriot Act, so it might surprise those here assuming what my opinion may be that I don’t support new gun legislation exploiting another mass shooting.

    the security state is bipartisan, by the way, even though our reactions aren’t. people on the right can laugh at how the state responded to the OWS movement while at the same time getting enraged that Napolitano’s Homeland Security Department would dare assessing returning military veterans as possible threats.

    I even wrote a post about it, which you can read here.

    1. I would broaden the scope and say that a convincing case can be made that the Department of Homeland Security was an unnecessary creation — brought to us because of cries to “do something.”

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s