MORE NONSENSE FROM THE CHOSEN ONE – AT 9:06 A.M. ET: Just as Mitt Romney hands the Obama campaign an undeserved gift (see our first post of the morning, below) the president himself delivers a cynical, patronizing speech to the Urban League, aided by unprofessional news reporting that, strangely, always seems to help Obama.
NEW ORLEANS— President Obama vowed Wednesday night to “leave no stone unturned” in seeking ways to curb the growing challenge of violence in American cities, including reasonable restrictions on gun ownership.
The president offered his most extensive comments in some time on the issue of gun control in a speech to the National Urban League, which came at the end of a four-day trip that began in Colorado, where he met with victims of the movie theater shooting that claimed a dozen lives. After that meeting, he reflected on the lives affected by the shooting, but did not suggest a refreshed attempt to restrict gun ownership.
Obama said Wednesday that every day and a half, the same number of young people die as a result of violent crime as were lost in that Aurora massacre.
“For every Columbine or Virginia Tech, there are dozens gunned down on the streets of Chicago and Atlanta, and here in New Orleans. For every Tucson or Aurora, there is daily heartbreak over young Americans shot in Milwaukee or Cleveland,” he said. “And when there’s extraordinary heartbreak and tragedy like the one we saw there’s always an outcry immediately after for action. There’s talk of new reforms and there’s talk of new legislation. And too often those efforts are defeated by politics and by lobbying and eventually by the pull of our collective attention elsewhere.”
Maybe a little talk about culture, family breakdown, cynical local "leaders," dishonest "programs," might help a bit. This we didn't get from Mr. Hope 'n' Change.
Acknowledging sensitivity of the issue, he said he nonetheless believes that even gun owners would agree “that AK-47s belong in the hands of soldiers, not in the hands of children.” He offered no specific proposals but referred to background checks to prevent criminals and fugitives from purchasing weapons, and preventing guns from getting into the hands of the mentally unbalanced. Previous efforts to do the same have been thwarted by political opposition and the reluctance of sympathetic elected officials to take on the National Rifle Assn., among the nation’s most potent lobbying forces.
The big, bad NRA again. The president did not have the spine, nor did the reporter writing that piece, to point out something we've discussed here – the rules set down by the very liberal "mental health" establishment, making it virtually impossible for some very disturbing information to be placed in the federal database that governs the purchase of weapons. Some of these rules, often justified on grounds of "privacy," are established be educational institutions, others by law.
Most of the recent mass gun killings in the U.S. have been conducted by students, and they have been protected by privacy rules. The shooter at Virginia Tech was well known for his mental issues. The alleged shooter in the Gabrielle Giffords case had experienced five hostile contacts with campus police in the immediate period before he committed his crime. But those contacts were barred from inclusion in the database. Had they been there, this individual could not have bought the gun he used.
Now we find that the alleged Colorado killer had quite a history. Did no one notice? Or did political correctness and a desire to be "sympathetic" to those with mental "issues" prevent action?
Not much discussion of this, is there?
July 26, 2012