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 commentEyolf....
"I believe, long term, that policy will eventually guarantee that gun fans will be forced into a corner and have to choose between either fighting their way (and lose) or have to endure confiscations (another loss)." If you actually believe this then I think we are in for a civil war! Right now we are led to believe if you want to keep your gun then you don't care about kids in a school being killed. If you are NOT infavor of a union then rather than being considered a person that has a right to work without PAYING for a job you are a union-buster.
Take a good look at what Obama is doing without DOING much more that his spewing words that pit Left against Right, black and minorities against white, rich against poor, young against old....and I could go on. This man you call your president is perfect example of DIVIDE and conquer. I was a democrate years ago and if you don't know by my mentioning I am a new retiree, I lived the Viet Nam era and the riots. Do I think we are headed in that direction? I most certainly do. If you think that we don't have a country divided look around. Our over paid Congress can't get their act together so we are left to presume, surmise and become suspicious of those that are trying to control us. He was a bit subtle in his first 4 years...but I predict right after Monday he will be full speed ahead. Just watch and see!
Bond
My point is simple, fluke was made to look like your typical poor college student who cannot afford contraception when she is in fact an attorney and a women's rights activist. If someone like that needs the government to pay for their contraception we are all in for a ride!
Interesting how this administration was so opposed to Voter ID
claiming that voting was a Constitutional Right, and asking people to show ID was going to disenfranchise certain groups; and yet they are opposed to the Constitutional Right to own guns. On one hand, you cannot discriminate against the mentally ill for voting, but you can go after them for owning guns. And how many of those "disenfranchised" groups who couldn't get an ID, seem to find one to get a gun. Besides, what's worse, some idiot with a gun, or some idiot voting for more free stuff??
Sorry, twist
She was at a congressional committee to speak for HER FRIEND who had been PRESCRIBED HORMONES for the treatment of ovarian cysts. She was not allowed to speak to the all-male committee.
The Georgetown U health plan had scratched birth control coverage from their health insurance even if prescribed for medical reasons. She was a law student at the time at a college with an annual tuition of around $75,000. Rush's attacks probably enabled her to command a high paying job when she graduated and to pay back her loans.
She never complained about her inability to pay for pills so she could have sex..that was Rush and the extremists. In fact Rush thinks you need a pill each time you have sex. He was confusing the birth control pill with the little blue one!
To him: men who have sex=stud muffins
women who have sex=*[filtered word]*
It backfired, btw.
If I am wrong, point that out to me. I watched the entire scenario play out in congress and the press and knew it was going to come back and slap the right in their puritanical and hypocritical little faces. Because we all know, women vote and college women are in the majority nowadays on campuses and in most professional graduate school programs.
And I do think the friend had other resources for obtaining free pills such as Planned Parenthood. Her situation was lost in the shuffle of the attention which turned to Ms. fluke.
Was she getting paid to be "a women's rights activist?" Most of us aren't!
Ok, attack my statements. Your turn.
So you agree she was not "living off of the government?"
Sorry southie
As I said before I am not making excuses for rush and don't have a dog in the race for anyone in the media! I have a simple opinion and that is the government shouldn't be paying for contraception period! So you can label me a sexist male if you'd like I didn't once say anything bad about fluke. I said it was wrong to put someone like that who can't relate to most middle class American college students.
Bond = Milk
= the ultimate troll/weasel
Fluke was raised middle class.
Her father is a machinist and Methodist pastor; her mother is a school counselor. I am sure she can relate to middle class college students as she was one.
I don't know many
College students around here going to Georgetown law.
Bond
You illustrate perfect clarity when you personify the example.
Sadie
Apparently you do not understand the definition of an internet troll. I suggest you watch again the Rachel Maddow video that describes this behavior.
A troll is someone who says stupid stuff like there will be a civil war, our President is a socialist, marxist...etc, Obama is a liar, he hates America, Obama wants to take your guns and other such nonsensical claptrap.... many other examples of over the top statements.
I voted for Obama twice and he won, twice.
I voted for Rich Nolan and he won.
I voted against the Marriage Amendment and it failed.
I voted against the Voter ID amendment and it failed.
I voted for Amy Klobuchar and she won.
I voted for Al Franken and he won.
Now who is in the mainstream and who is on the fringe?
Eylof
Hey Buddy. Are you trying to say that I am less than intelligent because I think that Obama is the one dividing this country? You have a pretty big ego. I have followed you many times and You are not taking sides? I am just as thoughtful, educated,thoughtful AND professional asthe next guy. It really hurts me that you think the way you do. I am going to mark this day and we will see just who is dividing this country. You are right about one thing tho. No I do not like Obama and never did. He is a pathological narcissist and we have four more years for him to destroy this country. And I am pretty sure there are many more like me out there. You and Captron are something else! Good Night. But like I said wait, watch and see what happens!
Add Mr. Bond to that last
Add Mr. Bond to that last comment!
Pat, I am pleased that you can see the trees for the forest
and are blessed with the gift of logic and good social skills. I agree that Obama is a divider, but then turns around and accuses the GOP of attempting to divide when we don't like or agree with him or his political goal.
It's pretty simple to see it IF you open your eyes and watch, but like always there will be people that follow blindly and assume that a Govn leader would NEVER have improper plans or intentions!
Thank you for being able to communicate without attacking, for being able to see without disillusionment, it's a blessing to have a logical and strong communicator that is not caught in the wheelspokes of a political party and just flaps along in the breeze for a ride.
Thank You NursePat1
Thank You for associating me with thoughtful posters like Captron and Eyeolf. Quite the compliment, Thanks.
I disagree with everything you said in you latest post. Obama is not dividing this country, it is the Republicans. The day of his inauguration in 2009 they were meeting to stop every one of his initiatives, even the ones they used to support! Just look at people like Michelle Bachman, Allen West, Sean Hannity, Donald Trump, and the entire Fox News channel, all negative and disruptive voices. Obama has created many jobs and the stock market is doing very well we are out of Iraq, soon Afghanistan. People like you made similar over the top predictions 4 years ago and they were all wrong.
Will you apologize 4 years from now? Nope, I doubt it, you will have some other made up issue to complain about.
Bond's last statement
assuredly will disqualify her from gun ownership. That makes me feel better!
Thanks for your thoughtful commentaries, Eye
NursePat, I guess I didn't read Eye's comment as an attack on your, or anyone's, intelligence. I thought he was just pointing out that it doesn't serve either side to make sweeping generalizations or use inflammatory, divisive language. Commenters on both sides can (and do) engage in this, and it doesn't lead to a better understanding of one's views. (Rather, it causes folks to dig in their heels, and more stridently go on the defense.) Obviously, anonymous dialogue, set in a drop-in comment section, in which participants may or may not have the time or ability to fully explain their point of view, makes it diffiuclt to always communicate clearly and respectfully.
The liked the trolls video, too, Geno. I referenced it on Keith Hansen's last commentary; I think he's frequently stirring the pot with rhetorical flames rather advancing useful dialogue on issues.
Pdnt/CraigKeef: The Constitution doesn't guarantee your right to own a particular kind of weapon. Even Scalia, in Heller v. D.C. underscored this point. To keep your supposed "tyrannical gov't." at bay, you'd required a whole host of weapons you're currently denied. This person's outline of currently off-limits weaponry for the private bunker defense illustrates the point.
"If you want a grenade you need a NFA Destructive Device permit which isn't easy to get. If you want a rocket launcher you can't have one. If you want an attack helicopter that's not going to fly. So your 2nd amendment, or the purpose of the 2nd amendment, your right to arm up to dissuade from and defeat tyrannical government, it's already been betrayed. You're already denied ownership of necessary weaponry for such a scenario, are you not? I know you don't bear an attack helicopter, technically speaking. But that's only because the founding fathers did not envisage a society where an attack helicopter is required! so unless you support the citizens right to easily access and own repeat-fire rocket launchers, fragmentation grenades, the right to create bombs, then you won't be taken seriously by me when talking about the 2nd amendment, nor should you be taken seriously by anybody else." http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread916611/pg1
Mr. Bond (and those you
Mr. Bond (and those you admire). I Really don't give a rip if you agree with anything I said in my post. I believe what I believe and you believe what you believe. In the end the only loss is our country. I stand by my conservative beliefs and while I am much more of a Libertarian, I do side with the Republicans and those on the side of our Constitution. Don't even try to make me believe that Obama believes in it as there is plenty of evidence that he does not. Anyway, I have said my piece and we will see who "eats crow" in 4 years. Hope we have some assemblence of a country by then. In the meantime there are plenty "posters" that feel like I do. Obamas puppets, Pelosi, Reid, Frank and the like are just as responsible for this countrys mess as the Big O so like I said our country is the loser in the end. What a Great Country we were before it was given away!
President Obama's approval rating
today is 54%.
We shall see if in four years we are better or worse. Construction is up, foreclosures are down, and gas went under $3 for a little bit.
But dwelling on the negative can eat up your soul. So a little less rhetoric and loaded words on all sides would do a lot to improve the dialogue and to move the country forward.
Meanwhile as I head south for awhile, I will practice what I preach!
(Oh dear, here comes my big crush to attack me!)
Given Away To Whom?
"What a Great Country we were before it was given away!"
So you think our country is no longer great? To whom or what was our country given away to?
I for one believe the Republicans have done their best to give our country away to the corporations and the plutocrats like Romney.
Obama does not stand by the Constitution? Why hasn't he been impeached? Didn't the Supreme Court rule Obamacare constitutional?
You say there is plenty of evidence. Can you provide some examples so we can do some research and dispel any of your possible misconceptions?
Your list of politicians who are you think are not working for our country failed to mention Boehner, Ryan, Cantor and the Republican controlled Congress and Senators like McConnell and that libertarian nincompoop Rand "King Obama" Paul. Did you forget them?
BTW - I just saw a news story about the recovering housing t. Oh my, that can't be good news for your the world is ending narrative.
I heard it was 50%.
A big drop from the 62% he used to have.
And I heard that on MSNBC Herr southie.
Gallup
Has him at 48%. The honeymoon will ware off, except for the 34% lunatic fringe
I Heard It Was 28%
A big drop from the 90% he used to have (Post 9/11).
Oh Bond
When all else fails blame Bush... Funny thing though listening to Obama blasting about Bush "irresponsibly" spending more then all the presidents before him. Flash forward to now and he's spent more in 4 years then Bush in 8. Look those facts up.
I Heard It Was 28%
To dispel any confusion, these are George W. Bush's numbers!
What is "ware" off?
You have warened off bondo.
Worn will do tho......
Good luck with your mental evaluation.
No really bond?
Why do you think I jumped to Bush? Who's trolling now? And I'm sorry my spellcheck must not be working on my iPhone hahaha wear... Oops!
False Statement Mr. Twisty
"Flash forward to now and he's spent more in 4 years then Bush in 8. Look those facts up."
Obama is responsible for the lowest government spending growth in 60 years, according to the Wall Street Journal's Market Watch!
Slowest Spending In Decades
(Annualized Growth In Federal Spending)
Reagan '82-'85 = 8.7%
Reagan '86-'89 = 4.9%
Bush '90-'93 = 5.2%
Clinton '94-'97 = 3.2%
Clinton '98-'01 = 3.9%
Bush '02-'05 = 7.3%
Bush '06-'09 = 8.1%
Obama '10-13' = 1..4%
Gee...the Republicans are the big spenders while the Democrats are the small spenders. Hmmm... again those pesky facts.
FYI - Wall Street Journal Market Watch Link
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/obama-spending-binge-never-happened-201...
Just to let you know that I base my opinions on more than what I hear from the blogosphere or emails, or Fox 'n Friends.
Bond
In the campaign Obama said raising the debt ceiling was irresponsible and said Bush had taken out a credit card on the people of America and that was irresponsible. Now he's doing the same thing. And your little figures have not begun to take into account what the health care bill is going to add. Fortunately we've had a check and balance in there to keep them from ramming everything down our throats, that's the reason why he hasn't passed everything he wants. He is trying though I will give him that! Maybe he should have tried fixing the financial problems first before passing the healthcare bill that is going to cost this country.
FYI
I'm too busy working 50 hours a week to feed my family to watch fox n friends, I do have the drudge report CNN and foxnews mobile apps though