On President Obama’s proposal for curbing gun violence, I have several thoughts.
1. Even when I agree in substance with the president, as I do in this instance, I find his combination of self-righteousness and demagoguery to be off-putting. In his remarks earlier today, for example, the president once again took to the task of demonizing his opponents, something he does more promiscuously than any president I can recall.
For Mr. Obama, it’s never about honest differences over policies. His political opponents have to be painted as morally obtuse, cruel and motivated by the basest considerations. (The president, of course, is always portraying himself as hovering far above politics, a man of stainless integrity and motives that are pure as the driven snow. Which is quite a feat for a man who ran a billion-dollar campaign of unusual ruthlessness and dishonesty.)
In this instance, Mr. Obama posed the choices this way: Are members of Congress doing what it takes to “get an A grade from the gun lobby that funds their campaigns? Or giving parents some piece of mind when they drop their child off to 1st grade?” It’s not that his critics believe his proposals will be worthless or even wrong. No, their motivation is to “gin up fear or higher ratings or revenue for themselves.”
I happen to know people–good, decent, and thoughtful people–who disagree with me on guns. They are more absolutist on the Second Amendment than I am. And shockingly, they care about their children as much as Mr. Obama does. In fact, many of them care for their unborn children far more than Obama does.
Mr. Obama’s political libel is so common that people have come to accept it. And journalists who jump on back-benchers from the GOP for their incivility never call out Obama on his ugly little game. I wonder if Obama understands how much damage he’s doing to America’s political culture, or if he even cares.
2. As for the substance of what the president is advocating: He’s calling for expanded background checks, broader sharing of databases among law enforcement officials, more aggressive prosecutions for crimes under existing laws, prohibition of high-capacity magazine clips (like the 30-round magazines that the police said Adam Lanza used in the Newton massacre), improving mental-health reporting requirements by federal agencies, calling on the CDC to conduct research on gun violence, bans on certain types of semi-automatic rifles, and blocking the importation of certain guns made overseas.
Most of these measures sound fairly reasonable to me. And whether or not I’m right about that, these steps do not qualify as an assault on the Second Amendment.
As Justice Antonin Scalia has pointed out in United States v. Heller, like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It leaves room to regulate guns; you don’t have a constitutional right to own a RPG or a machine gun.
What we’re talking about, then, is a prudential application of restrictions on guns. I would prefer that the president advance his agenda through legislation rather than through 23 executive orders, in order to respect the separation of powers and the role of Congress in such matters. But in terms of the substance of what he wants, I for one find the proposals to be unobjectionable and in some cases meritorious.
3. What about the slippery-slope argument? It’s true that we need to be more alert to it with some presidents than others. But as George Will once said, life is lived on a slippery slope. Taxation can become confiscation, he pointed out, and police could become Gestapos. One could invoke the slippery slope argument in order to undo seat belt laws and argue that people should be able to own machine guns and M-1 tanks. Resorting to the slippery-slope argument is often, though not always, a sign of intellectual laziness. It can also be a concession that a person doesn’t feel confident they can win on the merits of the particular case, so they decide to manufacture another debate. So an argument about restricting 30-round magazines becomes a debate about the right to bear arms, when in fact they’re separable.
4. Having said all this, my guess is that the proposals by the president will have very modest, and almost certainly no appreciable, effect on gun violence. Most of the proposals being advocated would have done nothing to stop the mass killings of recent years–and those that directly bear on them could be relatively easily overcome by sociopaths. I’ve also pointed out before that respected studies have found that the evidence is insufficient to determine whether firearms laws are effective. I actually think that having a greater police presence at schools would do more to curb violence than anything the president is proposing. That seems to me to be an obvious conclusion; the only question is how practical and costly it might be.
All of which means the Obama proposals are, I think, fairly reasonable, but they may well prove to be nugatory. We should therefore go into this with modest expectations and pay attention to what the empirical findings show.
5. If some on the right are too critical of what the president is trying to do, then some on the left are engaged in moral posturing and an obsessive fixation with gun control. CNN, and Piers Morgan in particular, seem most guilty of this. They have devoted countless hours to the gun issue, arguing for steps that at best might be marginally effective. The heat and anger this debate is generating is odd, given that the things we’re talking about are minor changes that probably won’t have any measurable effect on violence, which itself has dropped massively since the mid-1990s.
6. In his comments today Mr. Obama mentioned that “more than 900 of our fellow Americans have reportedly died at the end of a gun in the past month.” Is it indecorous to point out that deaths on this scale were happening during Obama’s first term, yet he didn’t lift a finger on gun control? Which, to turn the tables on Mr. Obama, raises the question: Was he cruelly indifferent to these killings?
In addition, the president’s proposals today would have done virtually nothing to save any of those 900 lives. So why doesn’t the president endorse what from his perspective would be real steps to curb gun violence, such as those taken in Australia, where, as the New York Times points out, a 1996 mass shooting led to banning the sale, importation and possession of semiautomatic rifles and by removing 700,000 guns from circulation.
Is it that Mr. Obama has no interest in giving parents some piece of mind when they drop their child off to 1st grade? Was he afraid of taking on the NRA? Was he afraid Democrats might lose seats in Congress? Or maybe he is icily indifferent to the 6,220 people who were killed by handguns in 2011 (versus 323 by rifles). Why doesn’t the president show the political courage to argue for removing handguns from Americans in order to protect the most vulnerable among us? One possibility is that Obama, for political reasons, isn’t willing to do what most of us believe he’d like to do, which would make him no better than those he castigates.
7. One final comment on Obama’s rhetorical tricks. On both same-sex marriage and raising the debt-limit ceiling, Obama was against those things before he was for them. But Obama, being Obama, has to characterize those who hold positions he once held as moral cretins and nihilists.
Call it the Obama way. Even on those rare occasions when I find myself in agreement with Mr. Obama, I cannot help but find his haughtiness and hypocrisy a bit difficult to take. My guess is I’m not alone.
Peter, your remarks about the press enabling and encouraging Obama's incivility and bad faith cannot be overstressed. But as to your remarks about the proposed regulations, where do I begin? n n"expanded background checks, broader sharing of databases among law enforcement officials, more aggressive prosecutions for crimes under existing laws" nAnd ignoring that the NRA has been advocating the same thing for years. n n" prohibition of high-capacity magazine clips" nThere are clips and there are magazines; there is no such thing as a magazine clip, just as their is no such thing as a kidney gall bladder. When you say "magazine clip", you are telling people that you do not know much about firearms and that your opinions are so self-evidently right that you needn't bother to check your facts. [cont'd]
That was the first thing that I gathered as well. My pistol has a clip, my rifle has a magazine.
More about magazines: n nIs it worth pointing out that a ban on high capacity magazines did not keep the Columbine killers from using them? Or that someone intent on mass murder can simply do what Quantrill and his men did and carry multiple handguns? Or that magazines can be changed rapidly with minimal practice? Or that the Aurora killer's choice of a 'beta' style hi-capapcity magazine, which often jams, slowed down the rate at which he committed his murders? n[cont'd]
Exactly, banning high capcity magazines does nothing.
"calling on the CDC to conduct research on gun violence" nPast CDC research on guns was notoriously flawed and biased. What reason is there to think that future partisan research by the CDC will be any less biased or unreliable? n n" bans on certain types of semi-automatic rifles," nRifles of any kind are used in less than 5% of all crimes in the US. In NY last year, 5 times as many people were beaten to death wtih bare fists as were killed with rifles. n nAnd the rifles he wants to ban were banned when the Columbine killers used them, and were banned in CT when the Sandy Hook killer used them. Like the ban on hi-capacity magazines, we know it does not save lives. n n"blocking the importation of certain guns made overseas." Because they are more deadly than the same gun made in the US? Or is this merely protectionism? [cont'd]
"Most of these measures sound fairly reasonable to me. " nEven though they haven't worked in the past? And even though by your own admission you know very little about firearms? n n"And whether or not I’m right about that, these steps do not qualify as an assault on the Second Amendment." nPerhaps, perhaps not. But a law that is constitutional may still be unnecessary, counterproductive and ill-considered.
Took the words right out of my mouth. The author of the article knows nothing about guns and prefers to not do his diligence in statistics, research and factual claims. He is a concrete jungle urbanite whose associations of different people in America is very finite. He simply has not, nor cares to, get off his duff and head into New Hampshire or even Pennsylvania and hang out with some guys at a target range. Or even make a trip and greet to NRA Headquarters. n nYou look stupid, Peter. Effete and phobic about firearms. Hang out with some strong women.
lol
I really irks me when people who do not have experience handling firearms, have never been around firearms in a consequential way, only have very basic knowledge of how firearms work, and are frightened at the prospect of being in the vicinity of firearms lecture to those of us who are very familiar and responsible with firearms on what is and what is not a reasonable regulation. To illustrate, let's change topics. Drilling for oil and natural gas is good, but hydrolic fracturing is either dangerous to the environment or potentially dangerous to the environment. Find one, just one, case where it has been proven than hydrolic fracturing has harmed the environment or polluted ground water. (hint – hydrolic fracturing is done well below where ground water accumulates. If there is water at 10,000 below the surface, it would be naturally poisoned. But don't worry. It isn't there.) n nQuit being a wussy. If a law is passed that doesn't even make a dent in the problem, but infringes on the rights of law abiding citizens and turns them into criminals, it's a bad law. Period. Don't pass it. Don't give in to the shallow tyranny of the present.
"I wonder if Obama understands how much damage he’s doing to America’s political culture, or if he even cares." nAre you serious? Of course he knows, and of course he cares! It's what he is trying to do.
The author is obviously an intelligent and experienced public policy person, in a strictly inside-the-beltway sense, and this piece illustrates precisely the kind of thinking, policy approach and complete inability to understand Obama's inherently radical approach to politics and governance that got the Romney campaign's teeth kicked in during the election. n nCriminals need to be controlled, not guns. Psychotropic drugs are the key link between the various recent mass shootings, not guns. God made man, guns make men equal.
One more point, Mr. Wehner; Why is it that those of you who are obviously not well versed in firearms are so convinced that high capacity magazines are a problem. Have you ever reloaded a semi-automatic rifle before? Do you know how long it takes to do accomplish that? If you did you would realize that banning a magazine with a capacity of 30 rounds and leaving a 10 round, or even 7 round, magazine legal is nonsensical. It takes less than 2 seconds to reload a semi-automatic rifle and resume firing. n nThe problem people like you don't seem to fully understand is that firearms and ammunition are very, very diverse. There is not an effective ban you could pass that would give you more than anything other than a good feeling. What you seem to neglect to think about is 1., the sheer number of firearms in the country, 2., the number of high capacity magazines, and 3., the relationship between the firearm and the ammunition. For example, I'll bet you didn't know that a .30-06, a .300 magnum, a .30-30, a .300 ultra magnum, and a .30 cal are all the same size of bullet. Yet they are very different in terms of construction and kinetic energy and you cannot interchange these rounds in the same rifle. n nAny ban you and Sen. Feinstein can think of would be entirely ineffective because you are too ignorant about the entire subject. You seem to think what makes firearms deadly are pistol grips, telescoping stocks, camo, scopes, and magazines. No. Not at all. n nBy the way, the M-1 Garand was legal during the assault weapon ban days and would continue to be legal if Obama had his way. We won WWII with the M-1 Garand, and it is a reliable, powerful weapon – a .30-06.
Do not forget that the 9mm, 38 special and 357 magnum all use the same bullet.
Point 2, referring to the ABSOLUTE right to keep and bear arms. Because the citizens needs to be armed to be part of the militia (and for self-defense) the citizen would need to HAVE those guns, long guns and/or pistols, and CARRY those armaments with him when he joins the militia. These armaments are NOT M-1 tanks, NOT army team armaments like machine guns on a tripod fed with belts of ammo, nor cannons and cannonballs.
Same size of bullet, or same diameter? Don't they differ in length and in mass?
That is correct. That's what I meant by same size. They are all .30 caliber, and that is really the only thing they have in common. If you don't know what grain or caliber represents, you don't know the first thing about what makes a firearm deadly.
Sounds like a good argument for banning semi-automatic self-loading rifles fed by detachable magazines. That knowledgable enough about firearms for you? n nIf you had any sense, you would realize that the "assault weapons ban" is what it is precisely because Democrat politicians want to pass something to make their pro-gun control constituencies feel better while not actually banning anything that would cause millions of gun owners rise up and vote out a half dozen Democrat Senators. The ineffectiveness is the whole point! n nIf the "gun rights" crowd keeps complaining about it, though, they might decide that they are losing just as much with a phony ban as they would with a serious ban.
regarding: n n"..Any ban you and Sen. Feinstein can think of would be entirely ineffective because you are too ignorant about the entire subject. " n nseems that people who don;t know much about guns are writing about guns n nand people who don;t know much about islam, are writing about islam n nwhat happened to Commentary that I have been reading for more than 30 years?
Peter Wehner is indulging in a form of anti-intellectualism. His knowledge on the subject of guns is next to zilch—and he almost seems proud of it. Wehner apparently desires to throw a bone to the progressive cultural elites. This man literally cannot handle a ten minute conversation on this particular topic. He is way over his head.
If in 1799 the government had decided to ban assault weapons, what would they have taken? All muskets that are breach loaders?, All muskets that have a bayonet clip? All muskets with a barrel length shorter that 26"? Would they have left the citizenry with only sling-shots? n nThe best way to stop School shootings is to post the following on school doors. n nAll Teachers and Staff are Armed and trained. nAny attempt to harm children will be met with lethal force. n nOh and by the way train and arm the teachers and staff. People send their children to school thinking that the teachers and staff will protect them.
Exactly. And don't forget that the smooth-bore muskets could be loaded, aimed (well, pointed toward the enemy) and fired a good deal more rapidly than the more accurate Pennsylvania (aka Kentucky) long rifle used by hunters and backwoodsmen at the time.
Peter says, “[h]aving said all this, my guess is that the proposals by the president will have very modest, and almost certainly no appreciable, effect on gun violence. Most of the proposals being advocated would have done nothing to stop the mass killings of recent years–and those that directly bear on them could be relatively easily overcome by sociopaths. ”
But he says, let’s do it anyway. He just doesn’t like Obama’s style.
Disgusting. Regulate, take away freedom, punish law abiding citizens just because Peter thinks it is reasonable. In other words, just because. Sounds like the rest of the left. If it weren’t for a few actual conservatives on this site, I’d have stopped coming here years ago.
Exactly. Pass a law that doesn't even make a dent in the problem, but turns law abiding, reponsible citizens into criminals, and infringes on the rights of gun owners? Reasonable? Not in the slightest. Don't give in to the shallow tyranny of the present. Doing that is never reasonable.
How will banning new magazines with a capacity of more than 10 rounds save any lives? All one has to do is carry more 10 round magazines. Don't those first 10 rounds kill as well? The right to keep and bear arms includes the ammunition feeding system for the firearm that one keeps and bears. n nObama stated in the past that he opposes private ownership of firearms and everything he is doing is intented to that end. n nRemember he said Chicago's and Washingon, D.C.'s gun laws were constitutional. Both ban the possession of pistols and "assault weapons." Obama's intent is to ban gun ownership.
Exactly. Quantrill's bandits cum guerillas wreaked a lot of havoc with 5-shot cap and ball revolvers simply by carrying several of them. Limiting magazine size is not going to accomplish much except to increase the sale of the smaller magazines, duct tape, and pistols.
Imagine if the guy in Aurora had an M-1 Garand instead of an AR-15 (i think that's what it was). 10 round capacity magazines, wood stock (no scary pistol grips, flashlights, or anything scary looking), open sights, completely legal under the old and new assault weapon ban. The thing is, it fires a .30-06 150 grain round. That's pretty big. Flesh, bone, furniture, doors, cars won't stop that round.
True, but I thought the Garands used an en-bloc clip, not a magazine. Let's not fall into the same confusion as the ban supporters.
The M1 Garand has an internal magazine that is charged with an 8-round, not 10-round, en bloc clip.
Correction noted. Nice catch.
Rember this rule, a clip feeds a magazine, whether internal or external. The magazine feeds the weapon.
First, the so-called assault weapons that Obama wants to ban are not machine guns. Second, Americans do actually legally own machine guns. There you have it, Americans own machine guns, and tanks by the way, and there is no carnage on the streets because of that. n nGet some facts straight. But in any event, the argument for 2nd Amendement extremism is pretty good. Machinegun and tank owners aren't out there committing crimes with their weapons. n nHowever, being ignorant of the facts, that semi-automatic rifles are not machine guns and are not a threat to public safety, that Amercans can and do own machine guns and tanks, that having the best weapon available, along with a magazine of one's chosing, is protected by the 2nd Amendment. n nThere is no 10 round limit in the 2nd Amendment. What Justice Scalia means is that guns may be prohibited to the insane and felonious, just as you can't bring a gun into a court room or a jail are the only reasonalbe restrictions on guns, just as the Founders also held. Not magazine limits or limits on the functionality of a particular model of firearm.