Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Obama on Oregon Shooting: ‘This Is Something We Should Politicize’
President Obama delivered an angry statement on the Thursday shooting at Umpqua Community College in Roseburg, OR. “Each time we see one of these mass shootings,” he said from the White House briefing room podium, “our thoughts and prayers are not enough.
In a 15-minute statement, Obama stressed that the US is “the only advanced country on Earth that sees these kinds of mass shootings every couple of months.” He praised the gun control efforts in Australia, a nation that conducted a mass confiscation of firearms from its citizenry.
The President repeatedly complained about the Republican-led Congress and gun rights advocates. “There is a gun for roughly every man, woman, and child in America,” he said, “so how can you with a straight face say more guns will make us safer?”
Obama claimed that states with the most gun laws tend to have the fewest gun deaths and repeatedly called for “common-sense” gun safety legislation. “Somebody somewhere will comment and say, ‘Obama politicized this issue.’ Well, this is something we should politicize,” the President said.
Instead of offering a plan of his own, Obama told voters to change American politics on the issue. He even requested that the media make gun control more popular.
“I would ask news organizations — because I won’t put these facts forward — have news organizations tally up the number of Americans who’ve been killed through terrorist attacks over the last decade and the number of Americans who’ve been killed by gun violence, and post those side-by-side on their news reports. It won’t be information coming from me, it’ll be coming from you,” the President said, pointing to reporters in the room.
Published in Guns
Barack Obama can go straight to hell.
And the truth is revealed.
There does seem to be a pattern, doesn’t there? When Jews are specifically targeted and killed, he or his proxies can’t bring themselves to say that. They just talk about “random people in a deli” or something. When Christians are specifically targeted and killed, he can’t mention that, either.
A Muslim shooter is “workplace violence,” and the President can’t acknowledge the chants of Allahu Akbar!
It was absolutely jaw-dropping that he’d go before the UN to say”Chanting Death to America won’t create jobs.” Oh . . . did you feel the burn Mr. Khameini?
Geez.
But you know, you can’t get on your high horse about ISIS, because the Crusades!
Isn’t it long past time we acknowledged that we twice elected a jihadi-sympathizer to the highest office in the land?
Drew,
Agreed.
Regards,
Jim
Overstating it somewhat, no? Clearly, he doesn’t take the problem of jihadi violence as seriously as a president should. But sympathizer? Really?
Midge,
Sympathizer only implies an obvious pattern of behavior. It you look at his reactions to ISIS atrocities & genocides you immediately get the idea that anything these sick monsters do is just more water under the bridge. Meanwhile, Iran is a Jihadist State by any measure. He has fabricated a false idea of a relationship with them that even he admits is impossible. He brings a kid to the White House who has patently used a bomb look alike to provoke a response. Meanwhile, reports of massive increases in anti-Semitic acts are a yawn. Christians under an ongoing genocide in the Middle East isn’t anything “to get on your high horse about” and don’t forget the crusades.
Midge what other conclusion is there to come to.
Regards,
Jim
Sympathizer implies some sort of positive feelings and common goals, doesn’t it? At worst he’s indifferent; most likely he finds jihadism abhorrent but just has a different set of political priorities in which dealing decisively with the issue is less important than, say, free birth control.
Yes. Sympathizer implies intent, not just a pattern of behavior.
Pretty much. Presidential fecklessness may enable jihad, but that isn’t the same thing as sympathizing with it.
Mark,
Aren’t you just telling yourself a convenient lie. It is so much easier to rationalize a sitting President’s actions and words than face an unpleasant reality. Please observe the pattern more closely.
Qaddafi must be taken out by cruise missile and Mubarak must go. American intel gave him clear indication that this would put Jihadists and The Muslim Brotherhood in power but that didn’t matter. When the Jihadist State of Iran was on the brink of collapse in 2009-10 we didn’t dare make even a strong speech about the Mullahs. We sat and watched the Greens getting beaten and gassed in the streets of Tehran for six months.
I think there is a clear unmistakable pattern.
Regards,
Jim
Australia: Two Dead In Police Station Shooting
Right outside a police station, still not enough to save those two lives.
OK, let’s have one of the GOP candidates politicize this. Sounds great!
The shortest speech Obama will ever make is telling us what shouldn’t be politicized.
That brings headlines of “Shame!” from left wing (i.e. mainstream) news outlets. Just the other day I saw one that tried to shame GOP politicians for expressing public sympathy to the families of the victims, because those same politicians had, at some point in the past, voted against unspecified gun control legislation. It’s their fault, you know.
Tough to find those lying around the house or a science supply store.
Eric Hines
True, and the President himself is blaming GOP politicians too (what a noble leader!).
My feeling is that on guns and late-term abortions, the GOP candidates have a fighting chance of convincing the proverbial swing-voter that the cruel, unreasonable ones are the Democrats.
The vast majority of those shootings are done by and to people who look like Obama’s son, if he had one. Hard for him to politicize those without offending his favored constituencies, so no faux outrage.
Yes, really. Starting from the beginning of his Presidency, his seemingly incoherent Middle East policy can only be explained by a sympathy for jihadists.
Absolutely agreed.
Or as others have stated, if he was sympathetic to jihadists, how would his actions be any different?
Steynamite.
What was the shooter’s race? Must have been a white guy or Obama wouldn’t have jumped on it. If it was cops killed in a race riot there would be silence, or at best, a mild reproach a week later. Everything in the Obama mentality is seen through the prism of race. Everything! He, like others of his ilk, is a prisoner of his own bigotry. What fools Americans are not to have seen who he was once the Black Liberation Theology connection was revealed at the outset.
White-ish.
Obama behaves as if he is living in an Aaron Sorkin fantasy. After his truthtelling about guns, there will be a montage in which Congress bends to his will. Then mass shootings will be no more and he moves on to eliminating income inequality once and for all. with another speech and another montage.
It’s like Harry Potter without the accent or the lighting for the castles or…
The West Wing is a fascinating look at how Democrats see themselves.
Unfortunately for them, reality isn’t that contrived.
If I rear-end another’s car, I could do it deliberately (“road rage”) or accidentally. The damage I do is identical either way, but the crime is not. One is a criminal offense, involving mens rea; the other, an accident for which I am liable.
The law distinguishes between these two scenarios because intent does matter when establishing guilt, even though lack of bad intent doesn’t undo the bad outcomes of actions.
Saying that, whether someone sympathizes or not, he’s enabling, is one thing. Deducing from that enabling behavior that he must be a sympathizer is another.
I would like to hear from Obama exactly what laws he would recommend that would have prevented this particular massacre, and how those laws would have done so.
I would like to hear what Obama has done or plans to do to keep the rest of us safe from demented killers, whether armed with guns, knives, or other weapons.
I haven’t read all of the comments, but I’ve been thinking about this all day.
I think we need to look at the “mass shootings”–people who shoot innocent people in theaters, colleges, schools, churches–differently.
As a country, first, we need to look at this analytically and convene our best and most experienced minds regionally and then nationally, for the purpose of gathering as much on-the-ground information as we can about these seemingly random killings.
Second, we need to separate out the killings by people who are under or have been under psychiatric care from the relatively small number of shooters–like yesterday’s–who are not ill but who are rather, frankly, evil.
The left is hysterical because there are so many of these instances. But they are not all alike. There are two problems to address.
The psychiatric cases we can solve. They need better supervision.
I have no idea how to handle the terrorists, but I trust the American people to come up with some good answers if we put the right people in the same room.
And until we solve these problems, if I were the president, I’d be handing more guns to the American people, saying, “No one has a right to take your life away. Here is a gun. Protect yourself.”
Does anybody have any good data on Australia and the UK and the claim that non-gun related crime and house break-ins increased in that country as a result of their gun ban?
I did some research on this — alas, I don’t have copious amount of free time to do so — and I’m not coming up with anything in favor of conservatives’ argument.
I would ask news organizations to tally up the number of Americans who’ve been killed because they couldn’t get guns to defend themselves.