Friday, December 14, 2012

So what if President Obama is politicizing this tragedy

I heard the president's reaction to the terrible shooting in Connecticut today. After speaking about the horrors of so many innocent children being cut down by an armed maniac, President Obama said the country needs “meaningful action to prevent more tragedies like this, regardless of the politics.”

Make no mistake, this was an attempt to politicize the tragedy in a non-committed way. A coded message, if you will.

It just so happens, however, that I don't think there's anything wrong with people using a tragedy as a rallying point for their movement. I don't support most gun control measures, but if I did I wouldn't see how speaking of ways someone believes would reduce future tragedies is in any way disrespectful to the victims. As I said this summer, there's nothing wrong with politicizing a tragedy.


  1. I disagree. I think proper laws come from an understanding of humanity and the concept of rights. Not from the latest event that triggered a strong emotion. If the law is so fungible as to be molded based on what happened yesterday, then there is a fundamental problem with the law. The end result of all this emotionalist legislation is more government control over our lives. Never seems to work in favor of those who advocate limited government, does it?

  2. I'm not concerned about him getting anything done regarding gun control. There is no stomach in either house, to pass gun control laws.

    The way federal courts have been interpreting the second amendment lately almost ensures that no one is going to try any gun grabbing sneakiness. I think the fear is that if they do something with gun control, when it gets challenged they risk the Supreme Court striking it down and adding further restrictions to what the government may do.

    Look at Illinois. A federal court just ruled that the state cannot ban the carrying of weapons outside the home and gave them 180 days to pass some kind of concealed carry law. I'm almost certain they won't appeal to the high court, because losing could very well mean concealed carry becomes a constitutional right. A possibility just as bad in their view would be the high court striking down other restrictions that might otherwise survive if they allow concealed carry.

    The Brady Campaign people are going crazy, at least 6 people have commented on their facebook page saying now is the time for a universal ban and the seizure of all guns in private hands. Obviously they won't ever be able to do that, but you don't often see even these people going that far with the laws they want. It does scare me a little that people actually think we should get rid of any right recognized in the Bill of Rights.

    They'll cool off soon enough, and their shrieking will fade into the background once again. With the rise of 3D printing it's all over for them anyway. Within a few years I think we are going to have printers that can make almost all of the parts needed. They have already used 3D printed parts in firearms.

  3. I should point out that only the upper receiver is considered a gun, meaning that if you can print it, there are no restrictions on buying the rest of the pieces.

    A guy actually made a receiver for an AR-15, and put over 200 rounds through it without a problem. It wasn't hyperbole when I said that it's over for Brady and the rest. Imagine trying to control 3D printed guns. You would be more successful removing all of the porn on the internet.

    (I think porn is around 130% of all internet usage.

  4. Thankfully on this point, Mike, we agree.