Presiden Obama begins: "It's been more than two months since the tragedy in Tucson stunned the nation. It was a moment when we came together as one people to mourn and to pray for those we lost. And in the attack's turbulent wake, Americans by and large rightly refrained from finger-pointing, assigning blame or playing politics with other people's pain."
Captain Mark Kelly, Representative Gabrielle Giffords's husband, held her hand in her room at University Medical Center in Tucson, 01/11/11. (photo: Office of Gabrielle Giffords)
Obama Op-Ed: We Must Seek Agreement on Gun Reforms
15 March 11
t's been more than two months since the tragedy in Tucson stunned the nation. It was a moment when we came together as one people to mourn and to pray for those we lost. And in the attack's turbulent wake, Americans by and large rightly refrained from finger-pointing, assigning blame or playing politics with other people's pain.
But one clear and terrible fact remains. A man our Army rejected as unfit for service; a man one of our colleges deemed too unstable for studies; a man apparently bent on violence, was able to walk into a store and buy a gun.
He used it to murder six people and wound 13 others. And if not for the heroism of bystanders and a brilliant surgical team, it would have been far worse.
But since that day, we have lost perhaps another 2,000 members of our American family to gun violence. Thousands more have been wounded. We lose the same number of young people to guns every day and a half as we did at Columbine, and every four days as we did at Virginia Tech.
Every single day, America is robbed of more futures. It has awful consequences for our society. And as a society, we have a responsibility to do everything we can to put a stop to it.
Now, like the majority of Americans, I believe that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to bear arms. And the courts have settled that as the law of the land. In this country, we have a strong tradition of gun ownership that's handed from generation to generation. Hunting and shooting are part of our national heritage. And, in fact, my administration has not curtailed the rights of gun owners - it has expanded them, including allowing people to carry their guns in national parks and wildlife refuges.
The fact is, almost all gun owners in America are highly responsible. They're our friends and neighbors. They buy their guns legally and use them safely, whether for hunting or target shooting, collection or protection. And that's something that gun-safety advocates need to accept. Likewise, advocates for gun owners should accept the awful reality that gun violence affects Americans everywhere, whether on the streets of Chicago or at a supermarket in Tucson.
I know that every time we try to talk about guns, it can reinforce stark divides. People shout at one another, which makes it impossible to listen. We mire ourselves in stalemate, which makes it impossible to get to where we need to go as a country.
However, I believe that if common sense prevails, we can get beyond wedge issues and stale political debates to find a sensible, intelligent way to make the United States of America a safer, stronger place.
I'm willing to bet that responsible, law-abiding gun owners agree that we should be able to keep an irresponsible, law-breaking few - dangerous criminals and fugitives, for example - from getting their hands on a gun in the first place.
I'm willing to bet they don't think that using a gun and using common sense are incompatible ideas - that we should check someone's criminal record before he can check out at a gun seller; that an unbalanced man shouldn't be able to buy a gun so easily; that there's room for us to have reasonable laws that uphold liberty, ensure citizen safety and are fully compatible with a robust Second Amendment.
That's why our focus right now should be on sound and effective steps that will actually keep those irresponsible, law-breaking few from getting their hands on a gun in the first place.
- First, we should begin by enforcing laws that are already on the books. The National Instant Criminal Background Check System is the filter that's supposed to stop the wrong people from getting their hands on a gun. Bipartisan legislation four years ago was supposed to strengthen this system, but it hasn't been properly implemented. It relies on data supplied by states - but that data is often incomplete and inadequate. We must do better.
- Second, we should in fact reward the states that provide the best data - and therefore do the most to protect our citizens.
- Third, we should make the system faster and nimbler. We should provide an instant, accurate, comprehensive and consistent system for background checks to sellers who want to do the right thing, and make sure that criminals can't escape it.
Porous background checks are bad for police officers, for law-abiding citizens and for the sellers themselves. If we're serious about keeping guns away from someone who's made up his mind to kill, then we can't allow a situation where a responsible seller denies him a weapon at one store, but he effortlessly buys the same gun someplace else.
Clearly, there's more we can do to prevent gun violence. But I want this to at least be the beginning of a new discussion on how we can keep America safe for all our people.
I know some aren't interested in participating. Some will say that anything short of the most sweeping anti-gun legislation is a capitulation to the gun lobby. Others will predictably cast any discussion as the opening salvo in a wild-eyed scheme to take away everybody's guns. And such hyperbole will become the fodder for overheated fundraising letters.
But I have more faith in the American people than that. Most gun-control advocates know that most gun owners are responsible citizens. Most gun owners know that the word "commonsense" isn't a code word for "confiscation." And none of us should be willing to remain passive in the face of violence or resigned to watching helplessly as another rampage unfolds on television.
As long as those whose lives are shattered by gun violence don't get to look away and move on, neither can we.
We owe the victims of the tragedy in Tucson and the countless unheralded tragedies each year nothing less than our best efforts - to seek consensus, to prevent future bloodshed, to forge a nation worthy of our children's futures.
|
THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community. |













Comments
We are concerned about a recent drift towards vitriol in the RSN Reader comments section. There is a fine line between moderation and censorship. No one likes a harsh or confrontational forum atmosphere. At the same time everyone wants to be able to express themselves freely. We'll start by encouraging good judgment. If that doesn't work we'll have to ramp up the moderation.
General guidelines: Avoid personal attacks on other forum members; Avoid remarks that are ethnically derogatory; Do not advocate violence, or any illegal activity.
Remember that making the world better begins with responsible action.
- The RSN Team
He refuses to take a hard stand on anything. Where is the strong progressive leader we need so badly?
I won't vote for a Republican, unless they are an extremely different Republican than we have seen in modern times, but I think it's time we collectively throw support behind and urge a third choice to get into the race, before the campaigning season begins. So far, the only two choices that make sense are Howard Dean and Dennis Kucinich; But an Anthony Weiner or even a Barbara Boxer could be a dark horse.
Obama needs to make that famous LBJ speech. "If nominated, I will not run; If elected, I will not serve". I won't hold my breath.
Quoting George Levinson:
Go to http://kucinich.us/ and see the kind of speech that President Obama should be making -- but won't. Where has he been during the labor crisis in Wisconsin, Ohio, Michigan and Indiana? Where's his desperately-nee ded leadership?
This false "the sky is falling" argument about slashing deficits is partly his fault: by agreeing to extend the Bush Tax Cuts for the wealthy, we've INCREASED the deficit by $680B over the next decade, and then come after the working class to pay for it. We needed Obama to stand up against the Bush Tax Cuts -- like he promised -- not pave the way for the GOP/Tea Party slash-and-burn program.
It's all about private profit instead of government expenditure. The Right wants to crush government services so they can privatize EVERYTHING and make private profit on everything that used to be a public service.
We need to stop it NOW, and we need a president who will stand up and fight for the very essence of America: government of, by and for THE PEOPLE.
Lead, Mr. President, OR GET OUT OF THE WAY.
Better still: how many people since the tragedy in Tucson went down to their local sporting goods store, legally purchased a firearm, and used it to shoot someone? I would bet you can count the number on one hand. In fact...there might be none at all.
Depending on who you believe, between one and two million Americans defend themselves with lawfully-owned firearms every year. In 90-95% of such cases, no shots are fired, so you won't find those in the statistics above.
I am a lawful and law-abiding gun owner. But the day I am asked to give up, register, or otherwise limit my own access to my own property will be the day I become a criminal. Not so much because I have a "need" for firearms but because I will never trust or obey a government that does not trust its citizens.
Quoting Doctoretty:
So how would you get such statistics at all?
And what the heck does this have to do with "trust?" Oh, I get it. You want to carry weapons in public because you don't trust your fellow citizens, who of course, don't trust you when you carry lethal weapons in public, so they want to carry lethal weapons in public.
This means that Obama agrees with the Roberts 5 majority in Heller which includes 2 justices appointed by a president illegally selected by the other 3.
He disagrees with the 4 judge minority including Justice John Paul Stevens who stated that the Roberts 5's decision in Heller was "a strained and unpersuasive reading" which overturned longstanding precedent, and that the court had "bestowed a dramatic upheaval in the law".
We once again know which side Obama is on - with his finger always in the wind, whichever way the money is blowing.
He also shows a misuse of information. The 2008 Harris poll showed "a relative majority of respondents overall (49%) favored stricter gun control, rather than keeping things the same (21%) or relaxing restrictions (20%)." A right to bear arms is one thing; an uncontrolled right to bear arms is entirely different, but is what the Supreme Court seemed to dictate.
Almost makes me think that 'the system' needs these folks back out and causing trouble in order to justify their budgets...
Enforce the laws and punish the negligent, NOT the innocent.
Instead of focusing our energies on "let's control something that will make us feel more in control of an out of control situation", how about putting our energies into reversing the mortgage "meltdown" theft of 5 million homes, the BP Gulf oil disaster that is killing more people than gun violence, the rampant GOP program to suppress workers and unions, the massive movement of wealth to the rich from all the rest of us?
Those problems are harder to solve than passing a feel-good law. So are gun violence problems. We have to come to grips with the underlying problems - a meaner, greedier, more selfish, angrier, more hopeless, poorer society will be more violent.
Whether "finding agreement" on gun control "won't hurt" is useless. Will it help when the underlying rage and pain in our society keeps getting worse by the day? Will it REALLY help, or will it just make us feel better, a distraction from our sense of helplessness?
Obama - and the rest of us - need to be finding agreement on solutions to the real problems that are tearing apart our country, our economy and our environment.
Unfortunately those problems involve opposing rich, powerful companies rather than individual gun owners.
In other words, there is no common ground and it is a waste of time to even attempt to mediate it as such.
I have known some criminals in my day (many years ago)and it seems the guns were bought legally at one point in time. So the argument that is frequently made by the blow-'em away crowd- that criminals always get their guns illegally is false.
Go to a southern state and buy,buy,buy. It's incredibly easy to buy a bunch at those nutty gun shows. A wise criminal can hire people to go down and load up on guns. And what about all the weapons purchased by the Mexican gangs across the boarder in the good old USA ? Bought legally, of course.Your wasting your time,Prez.
I'm beginning to think the USA should divide into those who want their guns and abortion laws to rule over JOBS should be a separate country from those of us whowant JOBS, freedom to choose about their own bodies, and etc.
BTW, this brings me to another thought for the T-Party folks: You want smaller government control but most of you also want the government to control abortion: You want government to get out of education and into the womb? RIght to choose is as democratic as right to be protected ... as don't choose when governemnt can interfere and can't by random standards. Fair weather friends are not friends at all.
On the question of gun control, people get too polarized on both sides. Not all gun owners are criminals or killers. Most just feel safer to have a weapon in their home. I know that I do. But when I leave my home, I don't like to leave a weapon for a burglar to find and then help him become a (MY) murderer. So what to do?
Certainly, being able to legally carry a gun to a political rally is insanity. The Tea Party nutcase's need to be controlled; But not by outlawing guns.
Just another note; One person asked about owning an unregistered car. It was a dumb question because it is, in fact, LEGAL to own a car that isn't registered. But beyond that, should my bow and arrow be registered? What about my nail gun? My machete? This could go on and on.
There really needs to be a balance between controlling the ownership of something that can do massive damage to human life and the individual's right to be armed for their own self defense.
I don't buy the militia thing. Oh they can "pretend" they would be able to "fight for freedom" against the government, but it would be a very short fight indeed. Better to just kill yourself and get it over with.
For far too long the radicals have defended the freedom for inappropriate to purchase guns without full identification. This is done so that the unhinged can do their dirty work. They publish crosshairs, then demonize such people as ML King, and B Obama, Rep Giffords, etc. The unhinged have already purchased their gun in broad daylight - now they act to assassinate those identified as "other," or "muslim," or "alien," by Fox News et al.
These staunch proponents of "Law and Order" and "The War on Terra" refuse to allow our laws to protect us from the Hinkleys, Sirhans, Oswalds, Rays, and all the others who are the Black Ops of the Far Right Radicals. Gun shops oppose the laws, after all, a significant part of their income comes from the purchases by people who would be denied, or who would shy away from being identified as the purchaser of a gun.
Let us step beyond this denial, Now.
There is no better time
RSS feed for comments to this post