WASHINGTON - After the slaughter last month of 20 schoolchildren at Sandy Hook Elementary in Newtown, Conn., cynics said the response wouldn’t be any different from those to the many mass killings that came before. After the tiny caskets disappeared, so would the shock, the grief and the resolve. Emotion, after all, is no match for the National Rifle Association.
What the cynics didn’t take into account is that Sandy Hook changed the one person who matters more than almost any other: the president. And he can count on the support of the one group that has more authority than almost any other: the parents of the children who died.
If Bill Clinton found his voice after the Oklahoma City bombing, Barack Obama found his after the Newtown shootings. The day he delivered his remarks at a memorial service there, Obama had sat in an empty theater, working on his speech and watching the dress rehearsal of his daughter Sasha’s Christmas pageant, which he would miss.
He was a father, not a president. He took Newtown to heart. After mentioning guns only rarely in four years, he announced on Jan. 16 the biggest battle against gun violence in decades. That which he could do on his own by executive order, he would. The rest of the fight he would take to Congress.
Of course, taking on the gun lobby isn’t exactly courageous. The public is on the side of more regulation: According to a recent Washington Post-ABC News poll, 88 percent of respondents favor background checks on people buying guns at gun shows, 76 percent support checks on buyers of ammunition and 71 percent back a new federal database that would track all gun sales. Some 65 percent also support banning high-capacity magazines.
When will it dawn on the majority of the nonviolent millions that just because our politicians do, we ourselves don’t have to stand helpless at the savage slaying of schoolchildren? Life doesn’t go on for them. It shouldn’t be the same for us.
We’ve conceded so much to the NRA largely because cowardly members of Congress have. If you’re a lobbying group and can plausibly threaten a single member of Congress with defeat, hordes of others will cower in fear — and that includes Democrats. The most intense emotion in Congress right now isn’t remorse over the lost children but fear of losing your seat.
Maybe the president could garner some support among members of Congress by showing them that support of reasonable regulation may help them stay in office. He has a vaunted political organization that is at least the equal of the NRA. Promise to mobilize it to save those who vote for his proposal. Split the NRA leadership from its members, the way workers were separated from union bosses. Make the NRA even more Republican and rural, and increasingly marginalized. Defeating a congressman because he supported gun regulation should be like defeating someone because he supported seatbelts or a smoking ban on airplanes.
The Founders had gun laws so intrusive that, were they running for office today, the NRA wouldn’t endorse them. Gun ownership was denied to slaves, free blacks, and any white man who refused to swear loyalty to the Revolution. Those given ownership had to report for frequent musters of the citizen militias, at which their guns were inspected.
And these were muskets, not Bushmaster rifles. Even Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, in affirming the individual right to bear arms under the Second Amendment, noted that there is considerable room to regulate that right.
Before the president announced his actions, the NRA released an ad that targeted his daughters, whose school has armed guards — the implication being that the president doesn’t want your children to be as safe as his. This is one of those moments to wish that the cool Obama could be more like hot-tempered New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie. When a voter once asked Christie where his children went to school, he shot back: “None of your business.”
Fortunately, there are many more parents (about 149 million) than NRA members (about 4.3 million). Obama should pack the gallery at next month’s State of the Union with parents who have lost children to gun violence. He should keep their sons and daughters vivid in our memories, as he did at this week’s announcement, with stories about their passions for painting and bike-riding. He should campaign for gun control the way he did for health-care reform.
The bereaved parents of Sandy Hook have joined together as a group called Sandy Hook Promise. At its founding, David Wheeler asked, “What is it worth doing to keep a child safe?” On Dec. 14, the Wheelers lost their 6-year-old son Benjamin. In the immediate aftermath, Wheeler and his wife comforted their surviving son, Nate, with the assurance they would do anything to protect him — and then realized they should make the same promise to Ben.
Like other children that day at Sandy Hook, Ben probably thought that Mom or Dad would be there any moment to rescue him. The least the rest of us can do is be there now.
Margaret Carlson is a Bloomberg View columnist.
Comments (101)
Add commentWhat's Obamam in that headline
supposed to be?
His Official and all important
new Imam lable. Bow down now! Obey Obamam!
Now Lefters,
go to the Aitkin Age website and read an open forum that Bob Ihde wrote.
After that get back to the rest of us about why, when Clinton started COPS in Schools, in 1998, and Pelosie, Schumer and Feinstine collected tens of millions for their districts, all were for it. Over 753 million was spent on the program.
When Bush left it out of the budget in 2005 Schumer and friends wailed loudly about Bush leaving the children defensless.
Fast forward to today: The left AND the President chastise the NRA for advocating Exactly what the Democrats screamed at Bush for stopping and say it'll never work!
I guess they were for it before they were against it!
All you lefter hypocrites can just go lay down and cuddle for all I care. Traitors aren't a needed item in the USA as we have way too many now!
Southie, the headline in Bloomberg was:
"Can These Two Determined Forces Stop the NRA?"
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-01-16/can-these-two-determined-forces...
Not sure, but my guess is that the final "m" on "Obamam" was supposed to be a comma ("m" and "," are next to one another on keyboard). Properly printed, it might read: "Obama, Newtown Parents, Stop the NRA?" I liked Bloomberg's headline better.
FnB: President Obama's new plan for reducing gun violence includes a $150 million proposal to give school districts money that they can use to hire specially trained police officers,(or social workers or other support staff, if they want that instead of an "armed presence"). Some "Lefters" don't like it, but it's in there. If local schools are determined to have an armed presence in schools, Obama favors an armed cop over an armed English teacher (is how I read the guidelines, anyway).
Well BY
why did you thumb me down when the NRA proposed exactly what your Liberal bretheren wanted?
Double lefter standard?
FnB: I thumbed down the "traitors" remark. Those kinds
of statements get me in a thumb-downing kind of mood.
Obama's stories about the childrens paintings
were absolutely nothing more than "buying vote" talk which he is famous for! He doesn't look at the little girls painting on the White House wall that he claimed he "stops and looks at and remembers her love for life..."
Obama is the biggest sack of hooey to hit DC since Bill Clinton, and they are running neck and neck for "Liar of the Century" award.
And some of you [filtered word] artists like Blond...James Blond, will try to turn this into me being a child hater, when in fact, its me calling Obama a liar and a vote buyer using the childrens souls of Sandy Hook and nothing else. He is disgusting.
Obama hates children and pets
Perpetuity, when I reads what you has to says, I say, "here, here"! Obummer is a Muslim faker. The leftist lib media didn't even report it, but Fox news done discovered that Obummer stole a whole bunch of haloween candy from his girls's bags. Just pulled out the moon pies and just et them. And he say's he loves children? Give me a break!
SMTN
Aitkin
Don't hold back, Perp, tell us what you (and Fox glitterati
who've been running at the mouth all week about the poor, "abused" kids at the Presidential podium) really think about Pres. Obama! Gratuitous slams aside, though, what special powers do you possess that you can read what's on the President's heart, as a parent, and as a human being who has spent time with these grieving folks? He's probably not meditating on the little girl's artwork, but that doesn't mean he doesn't glance at it. It's a handy, touching reminder to stay vigilant in the face of an uphill battle regarding implementation of common sense gun legislation.
Just because he's President, doesn't mean he doesn't get particularly moved by some things he encounters in his job. Sandy Hook was a pivotal experience for this President. The main criticism we usualy hear about Obama's style is that he's too detached. Well, in this situation, his emotions were laid a bit bare. I doubt if you're a "child-hater", Perp, but you're a hardened cynic who's certain he's got Pres. Obama pegged, and "that's that".
SMTM: Your ongoing parody is fairly insightful, capturing the essence of your subject(s) quite accurately!
Parotty?
I dont know what your talking about Mr Gumbo
With all dew respect I ain't doing no "parroty" stuff, these is all my feelings from my own mind, however, Sean hannity did break the story about the moon pies.
I understand he stole the reeese peanut butter cups too.
SMTN
Aitkin
Teachers packin'?
Glad they weren't in my school days. I would have been dusted with bird shot a few times!
Brainerd TROLLS
Many of our fellow Brainerd residents who post on this forum with regularity, and who shall remain nameless, and have NOTHING positive to say about ANYTHING and say things that no intelligent, well-informed person would say in polite company are TROLLS. They post stuff that is ridiculous, crazy, kooky, inflammatory, factually false and down right stupid. Read the below definition and you decide if the term TROLL applies to these posters.
Not those little fairy tale (not tail or tell) creatures, but the internet definition:
"In Internet slang, a TROLL is someone who posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as a forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion."
How do you handle a TROLL? You just ignore them.
You TROLLS know who you are too !!! (Insert Smiley Face)
The president had a change of heart?
According to this op ed Obama wasn't against guns before?! No he just had to wait until after he was re-elected to show his true colors and what a better way then using this poor tragedy. There have been other shootings since but none have even gotten the media's attention! Why is this media complicit with the Obama administration when it was so critical of Bush? The libs are singing a different tune these days, used to be you can't trust govt. Now you kneel down for whatever bread crumbs this president will toss!
Funny, if its their cigarettes, Liberals are up in arms
ooops, sorry, bad choice of words, but if its someone elses guns, it's fine.
James Bond
Are you aware of this interesting take on who, and what Trolls are, and what the game is?
Its about 10 minutes but pretty spot-on.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TuXGiV82tmg
Get with reality..
For everyone that has decided to make and stand behind this radical movement to restrict and or remove our 2nd Amendment Right I would like to bring some factual information to reality. The first thing I will bring to your attention is research the definition of assault weapon and a semi-automatic weapon. Our political leaders have done nothing but use the terms in an untrue manner only to misguide the people of the US and others. The next I would like to applaud the president and vice-president for showing such compassion by bringing these children in front of everyone as you announce your plan and only to hit up the assault weapon again and high capacity magazines with your ban in connection to the Sandy Hook event. I would like to direct all of you to this little piece of news. http://www.ijreview.com/2013/01/30208-nbc-admits-no-assault-rifle-used-i...
As it has been released there was not an "assault weapon" even used in this event. Next I would like to encourage everyone to research many of the similar events. You will also find that most of these events were said to include high capacity magazines. Your right they did as well as the so called assault weapon. What they don't tell you is most of these high capacity magazines only at most had 50% of the shots used out of them. Look at the facts before you make your judge. As far as the argument of muskets being the weapon in thought when our 2nd Amendment Right was created by our founding fathers, as well as many other amendment rights have similar thoughts but we haven't decided to deface these have we. If you read deeper and educate yourself a little more on our history you will find that the intention of the 2nd Amendment was to arm the american people and citizens to arm with equal fire power and protect them from the enemy and or the military intending to attack or abolish the American people. Criminals have these weapons as well as others. So why shouldn't we be able to own weapons of this magnitude especially if we are law abiding citizens. Those aren't the people that are using these weapons as they shouldn't.
Gun Control
If it wasn't for FOX we would never get any view but the Liberal Left. And I for one do not believe what the liberal left has to say. FOX Business news has more learned speakers and presenters than the Liberal Left will ever have. Libs are just a bunch of lambs following blindly and "parroting" what our "Little Bo Bummer" wants them to believe or say. Once you get the "nodding" going, it is pretty hard to stop.
If you are going to apply the "2nd Amendment formula" to weapons
claiming that the forefathers had only muskets in mind, then "thou had best spread the formula with the same wide spatula" to the other amendments, as well!
I suspect that if you are going to claim that the forefathers had no "fore-vision" and that there is no reason to apply a smooth application of logic to the 2nd Amendment, then you can't justly walk thru the garden of amendments and any/all of the alterations to them, since, without making the same statement.
I apologize for trying to bring logic to a battle where the opponents aren't armed, but if it's "good fer the goose" then it surely is good for the gander. (excellent application and use of an early colony phrase)
I do tune into some of the
I do tune into some of the other news programs to get the views of Liberal but it usually just reinforces my feelings of being looked at as someone that is not "smart enough" to figure out things for myself. Conservatives are not all for big business (as I can attest to being a new Retiree) or people that don't want to adjust to the times but we ARE very interested in the Constitution. I know the topic of this particular subject is "gun control". But what this president has showen us so far is that He wants what He wants and I truely don't think He really give a damn about anyone but those that bow to Him. He is all about CONTROL and if you don't believe it keep your eyes open...watch and see!
Perp,
we couldn't exercise our 1st Amendment on a comment thread either! Al Gore hadn't invented the internet yet!
Given parallels
ox carts = cars, suv's, sports vehicles
horses = motorcycles
ride into town = take the suburban monorail or train from the suburb
Silver dollar = $100 dollar bill
musket = Glock 9mm or Browning Abolt 7mm
right to assemble = million man march
printed matter = internet and social media
etc etc
Ey
I agree on Maddow, but who should be responsible for putting someone in front of the nation that is so irresponsible with her decisions she need the government to pay for her personal choices? I'm not justifying rush calling her names but what do our forefathers probably never imagined sexual promiscuity being the way it is today either!
And
She's not just a young college student, she's a 30 something year old that had been living off the government system.. Aka you and me!
Thank You Geno
Thanks for the entertaining and spot on clip. Rachel Maddow does a great job of explaining what I meant by calling these local Brainerd provocateurs as TROLLS.
Thanks
So Bond
Are you going to put anything substantive on here? Or are you just going to insult people and accuse them of being trolls?
How many men
have died from Viagra that government paid insurance covers? Why should we pay for their fun? Can't they fund their own promiscuity? Should our government pay for it through Medicare?
See, that is what Rush should be saying.
This is what Rush the hypocrite entertainer actually does.
http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-201_162-1753947.html
What's good for the goose is good for the philanderer, oops, I mean gander!
Agreed!
I agree and thankfully am young enough to not need Viagra!
Twist
How was Sandra Fluke living off the government as a student at Georgetown Law? Document that for me, please.
She had health insurance through her college btw.
Troll Fishing Catch So Far = 5
If you are offended I suggest you do some soul searching.
BTW - I have posted several factually based opinions, including sources, only to be called names and other scurrilous characterizations. Troll season is open all year.
for troll season
Use a 12 guage shot gun instead of the so called assult rifle, it does more damage