October 2, 2015

"Somebody somewhere will comment and say, Obama politicized this issue," said Obama.

"Well, this is something we should politicize. It is relevant to our common life together, to the body politic."
"When Americans are killed in mine disasters, we work to make mines safer. When Americans are killed in floods and hurricanes, we work to make communities safer. When roads are unsafe, we fix them. To reduce auto fatalities, we have seat belt laws because we know it saves lives," Obama said.

"So the notion that gun violence is somehow different, that our freedom and our Constitution prohibits any modest regulation of how we use a deadly weapon, when there are law-abiding gun owners across the country who could hunt and protect their families and do everything they do under such regulations. Doesn't make sense."
Of course, gun rights advocates are politicizing this in the other direction. It's entirely predictable. What's new is the clear statement: This is something we should politicize.

It's even odd to see the word "politicize" used in a positive way. I looked up the word (in the OED). The original meaning was "To engage in or talk about politics." That's an intransitive verb. You're not politicizing anything, just politicizing — gabbing about politics. It goes back to 1758. Horace Walpole, the 4th Earl of Orford, wrote: "But while I am politicizing, I forget to tell you half the purport of my letter."



The transitive verb, meaning "To make political" has spent most of its time referring to people — making them "politically aware or politically active." That goes back to 1846. The idea of making a subject matter political seems to be much more recent. The first example in the OED is from 1991: "Sociobiology was politicized at the outset by those who saw in it an elaborate argument for justifying a competitive, capitalist status quo." Timothy H. Goldsmith Biol. Roots Human Nature i. 5.

Now, I'm getting deeply into NYT archive, looking at the development of the word. The transitive verb referring to people spikes in 1968 in the context of politicizing students. (There's also talk of politicizing the Court and politicizing black people.) By the early 70s, I'm seeing references to politicizing the activities of persons — politicizing education, politicizing the Watergate investigation. The idea of politicizing an issue happens a bit later.

ADDED: I've gone through 1,000+ occurrences of "politicize" in the NYT archive, and I'll do another post showing you a lot of interesting things about it, but I want to complete this post by saying that I believe that Obama did something new. I can't find earlier examples of a high-level, newsworthy person saying that politicizing an issue is a good idea. I can find examples of people saying that it's a good idea to politicize people — to make them politically aware/active.

In the late 60s, there were lots of lefties who were excited about politicizing college students, and the yippies wanted to politicize hippies. But the later-developing idea of politicizing an issue is always somebody saying they don't want to politicize it, that they want to "de-politicize" it, or an attack on somebody else for politicizing it.

I did find this, from 1989, in a long article by the art critic Grace Glueck about the artist Jenny Holzer:
Holzer's real admirers among artists tend, naturally, to be those involved with newer forms. ''Her work is great, a bit ahead of its time,'' says Christoper Wool, a painter who last year began to make ''word drawings'' that deal with words as abstractions.... ''She has managed to politicize her art without losing the poetics of it. And she's made the light-emitting diodes so much her own that no one else can use them without evoking her work.''

Holzer... accepts the term ''political'' for her work. ''I hope it's political in the larger sense, not topical,'' she says. ''It deals with life-and-death issues; that's supposedly what politics are about.'' An avowed feminist, she is usually seen as part of a group of other strong female artists - Cindy Sherman, Louise Lawler and Kruger, among them - who in their work seem concerned about ''real world'' rather than fantasy subject matter, especially the might of military and corporate America.
Since feminism runs on the theory that "the personal is political," it makes sense to find the positive view of politicization in this context.

201 comments:

1 – 200 of 201   Newer›   Newest»
Scott said...

"Politicizing an issue" is the main tool of a community activist. It's a familiar tool for Obama. But he's President now, and he should be using tools appropriate to his office.

Rob said...

The President inveighs against the notion "that our freedom and our Constitution prohibits [sic] any modest regulation of how we use a deadly weapon." Is he under the misapprehension that there is not already regulation of the use of deadly weapons, regulation that is considerably more than "modest"?

Nonapod said...

When you run in front of cameras to lecture everybody about gun control before the bodies are even cold it's kind of hard to not see that as opportunistically "politicizing" a tragedy.

Sebastian said...

Oh yeah, O pushes Prog agenda, "evolves" on gun ownership, blows dog whistle for fellow Progs, and what we need to care about is how he uses the word "politicizing." Right.

Skeptical Voter said...

Taking the time to analyze the meaning of an Obama statement (any Obama statement) is a job for an old time oracle or voodoo doctor---who is used to stirring the entrails of a chicken.

To paraphrase Obama, that job is beyond my pay grade. But Ms. Althouse, you and your readers are welcome to try.

rehajm said...

"But we put together a Benghazi special committee, a select committee. What are her numbers today? Her numbers are dropping. Why? Because she's untrustable. But no one would have known any of that had happened had we not fought."

This is something we should politicize.

The Cracker Emcee said...

I'm struck by how little moral authority Obama has. Does anyone take anything he says seriously? I don't know a single person, liberal or conservative, who gives a shit what Obama thinks.

Bob Ellison said...

Obama is just answering Charles C.W. Cooke's challenge. I respect the uncharacteristic honesty.

rhhardin said...

Polticizing the issue means free-riding on the entertainment value of the issue that the media use for ratings gold.

lgv said...

Great, Mr. President. What's your solution. What policy on guns would you like to see? Copy Australia? Put it out there.

All the constitutionally conforming solutions, if in place, would have never stopped these events. The only way to stop it if through prohibition and confiscation of hand guns. So, quit politicizing gun violence. Start working on the repeal of the 2nd amendment. If that is what the citizens want, it can be done.

khesanh0802 said...

@ Cracker Emcee Someone takes him seriously ( NY, CA), but fewer and fewer. He can work up a good head of steam about the incident in Oregon, but Syria?!? The Russians in Ukraine or Syria… never mind.

He plays exclusively to his left wing audience. As many commenters point out, the gun crime statistics for a weekend in Chicago make this shooting - though evil - pale by comparison.

Jack Wayne said...

You are missing the point that Obama doesn't want to DO anything. He just wants to politicize it.

Matthew Sablan said...

I was expecting this would be left to a surrogate. The fact it wasn't makes me think: There aren't surrogates left to do the dirty politicization.

And that's what this is. There's ways to have serious conversations about gun laws; this isn't one of them. This is a direct attempt at fear mongering to scare people into falling in line. It's exactly the opposite sort of approach that the Obama we elected said he would bring to the office.

Unknown said...

https://www.quora.com/Political-Rhetoric/What-does-it-mean-to-politicize-something

"Rather than discussing an issue independently and on its own merits, to associate it with the opinions of clusters of people that generally share ideological viewpoints."

I don't know if there's a "formal" definition of politicize, but this one matches my concept. I suspect that this definition matches Obama's (which is kind of the core of "community organization") but (if so) the problem is Obama sees nothing fundamentally wrong or flawed with politicizing and issue rather than analyzing it. That's pretty anti-"science."

Gabriel said...

“I just want to be absolutely clear. Alright, So I don’t want any misunderstanding when you all go home and you are talking to your buddies and you say, ah ‘He wants to take your guns away.’ You’ve heard it here, I’m on television so everybody knows it. I believe in the Second Amendment. I believe in people’s lawful right to bear arms. I will not take your shotgun away. I will not take your rifle away. I won’t take your handgun away.”

Like his belief that marriage is a sanctified bond between a man and a woman, his belief in the Second Amendment did not last beyond his need for re-election.

RAH said...

Obama politicizes a horror when he calls for gun control when there is not any investigation that this was caused by a lack of gun control. This is blood libel against gun owners. Murder is against the law but this criminal broke that law. It was gun free campus and he broke that rule . So what rule would stop a man intending to kill?

The answer is no rule can stop that. The only way to stop a shooter is to shoot him or tackle him. A man did try to tackle but he was shot first.

That is why gun rights people say the way to stop a bad man with a gun is to have a good man with gun in the same area. Could be a cop or a CW holder. But that answer goes against Obama's need to control people.

Ann Althouse said...

By the way, neither of Obama's books uses the word.

khesanh0802 said...

@Bob Ellison Thanks for the link. Great piece.

Matthew Sablan said...

The "not waiting for an investigation" bothers me the most. With the VA Tech Shooter and others, it turns out, the problem WASN'T with gun laws. Rather, various bureaucracies FAILED people. Many of these multiple shootings were done by people who, if the government did its job, would not have been able to obtain the guns they had legally. Instead, the government drops the ball, and then creates new rules that they also won't enforce.

CWJ said...

"Somebody somewhere will comment and say, Obama politicized this issue," said Obama.

Obama then said, "Well, this is something we should politicize. It is relevant to our common life together, to the body politic."

Somebody is therefore Obama.

Somewhere is therefore the White House.

He's now his own strawmen.

Laura said...

"It cannot be this easy for somebody who wants to inflict harm on [the people of Israel] to get his or her hands on a [nuclear weapon]."

Yeah, some things should be politicized.

Matthew Sablan said...

With almost every multi-shooting/spree-shooting, whatever, that has been politicized, where the guns were obtained legally, if the government had been doing its job: Those people who had obvious mental problems, medications, threatened people with violence, previous histories of violence, etc, should NEVER have been able to legally buy a gun with the way the laws were currently written. Yet, they did.

We need an efficient government that can enforce the rules we have. If, when we've got excellent current enforcement and efficiency, we STILL have problems, then we can talk.

Lauderdale Vet said...

Soon people will be capable of printing firearms in their own home and the point of who is “privileged” enough to have access to them will be moot.

Then we can focus on the actual root problems of violence in our culture.

More jobs, hope, mental health reform and stronger families please.

The BubFather said...

As a parent and a Christian (although I sin....more than I might admit)....I would prefer a president to hit a few topics in a speech after a tragedy.

- I'd like for him to say how sorry he was to the grieving families....
- That he's going to offer up certain governmental funds to help with psychological services to the grieving....
- I'd like him to say we need to find it in our hearts to live with religions of all kinds.....
- I'd like to see him willing to spend some money on mentally ill services....
- And if he'd like to bitch about guns and gun control...have at it. But last night was a politician doing his own thing and being numb to all the other things above.

Ron Winkleheimer said...

Obama is under the impression that the issue of gun control hasn't already been politicized?

I find that hard to believe.

I noticed that the folks on the NBC morning show were doing their best to use the issue to their political advantage this morning. They used the phrases "the nation" and "the entire country" and "everyone" a lot.

They actually meant, "all right thinking people of our class."

Ignorance is Bliss said...

So I assume that if we are not going to let the constitution and our freedoms get in the way of reducing gun violence then President Obama is going to come out in favor of aggressive stop-and-frisk in our inner cities? That would surely do more to reduce gun violence than any restrictions on gun ownership that he might propose.

Hagar said...

Also a fairly fact-free rant.
The perpetrators of the "mass murders" have not used the weapons with features the Democrats are ranting against.
It is already easier to get firearms illegally than to go through the process, but again, almost all the perpetrators got their weapons legally.
(The only outlier I can think of immediately is Columbine, where the perpetrators were too young and had a machine pistol.)
And one flat wrong statement: The highest murder rates are in the states and cities with the most onerous ownership restrictions, such as his own Chicago, where I understand there were 50 shootings over this last weekend.

Paddy O said...

The trouble with politicizing is not issues should not be addressed. Rather, the trouble with politicizing is that the issues usually addressed are 1) not the core issue really at hand 2)tends to both confirm the speakers pre-established ideas and seek more authoritarian power for the people they support.

Politicizing is de-humanizing, because it makes a real person with real problems in a real tragedy that caused real pain to many into yet more political theater.

The guy was emotionally damaged, angry, alone, stewing in his frustrations. The media attention on every other shooting provided him some hope for identity. People care about his name because of the violence. Herostratus in contemporary expression.

Are there issues to address? Yes. What about the breakdown in his family life that left him isolated? What about the absence of community in his life? What about the rhetoric about the evils of religion (Christianity especially), which became the target of his rage? What about the divisive rhetoric that played into his increasing isolation, radicalizing him and suffocating him at the same time so that he embraced death as his only path to meaning?

Those are a lot more complex issues and less easily legislated and also don't give power to people who don't care about real loss or real suffering but just want to maximize their own sense of moral superiority on a narrow set of issues they feel self-righteous about.

jr565 said...

Never let a crisis go to waste.

CStanley said...

Fine, Mr. president, let's politicize this.

So please tell us what gun laws the politicians in your home town need to amend to stop the horrific violence there.

I Callahan said...

You are missing the point that Obama doesn't want to DO anything. He just wants to politicize it.

I happen to believe that the president does want to do something. But he can't, and it pisses him off to no end. But let's take your view for a minute and assume you're 100% correct. The next question is: Why?

Why would anyone want to just politicize an issue? He's a lame duck president who doesn't have to please anyone anymore. What does he have to gain? If it's to get more democrats elected - why? If politicians are only there to get people to vote for them, what's the point?

No, I happen to believe that, like any other leftist, the president views private gun ownership as an impediment to the elites being able to control the masses. If only the government has guns, what stops the government from doing what they want to the people? Nothing.

Of course he wants guns illegal. He figures that if he beats this dead horse any time something like this happens, enough people will vote enough democrats in, and get a USSC that will overturn Heller and allow gun control. In the long run, he, like every other leftist, wants the 2nd amendment overturned. It is the main thing standing in the way of their complete takeover.

Big Mike said...

Democrats have been politicizing gun control for years. What's new is Obama being open about it. Usually he lies about nearly everything.

In a country with nearly 320 million people, estimated by some to have more guns than people (!), and with (apparently) a lively black market trade in guns (including the long-banned fully automatic weapons) in the inner cities that no one in government (apparently!) has any interest in stopping, gun control is a practical impossibility. But focusing on gun control allows the Democrats to focus attention away from the fact that this latest mass shooter was particularly targeting Christians. Can't let that be the lede!

jacksonjay said...

"Just words?"

By the way, did he mention the persecution of Christians?

virgil xenophon said...

@Ron Winkleheimer/

Not to mention their own personal concealed carry permits and personal body guards. Akin to Obama et al advocating for forced public schooling for the poor while they send their own special little snowflakes to pvt schools like SidWell Friends replete with their own security forces.

Hammond X. Gritzkofe said...

Another slaughter of persons in a self-defense-prohibited zone.

Unexpectedly.

Hrumph.

MadisonMan said...

It's time a great National Conversation on guns. And by Conversation I mean lecture.

jr565 said...

Gun owners should start their own hashtag #Shoutyourgunrights, mirrored after this one:

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/sep/22/i-set-up-shoutyourabortion-because-i-am-not-sorry-and-i-will-not-whisper

I don't care how many school shootings there are (a hell of a lot fewer than there are abortions, that's for sure) . We have a constitutional right to own guns which is enumerated, unlike abortion which is a penumbra, meaning NOT in the constitution. We are not shooting up schools and/or engaged in criminality. And yet these left wingers keep demanding that our rights be violated.


jr565 said...

"The answer is no rule can stop that. The only way to stop a shooter is to shoot him or tackle him. A man did try to tackle but he was shot first."
That's because its a lot easier to kill someone with a gun with a gun. Otherwise you have to get close enough to him to tackle him. and guns, which are ranged weapons allows you to shoot someone from a distance. I'll give the tackler an A for effort, but he was at a decided disadvantage.

Hagar said...

And, of course, for Obama this shooting in Oregon was a Godsend to deflect media attention away from Putin telling the USAF to "stand down" while he takes care of business in Syria.

holdfast said...

Is Obama really in the pay of Sturm Ruger, Glock and Smith & Wesson? Seruiously, every time he makes a statement like this, monthly gun sales will jump by an additonal 250,000 or so.

Lately Obama has begun making vague references to Australian gun control measures - which, as anyone who is paying attention knows, is code for mass confiscation of most or all semi-auto weapons. Which in the US context would be somewhere between 100 million and 200 million firearms. Assuming compensation will be paid (we can't shred the whole Bill of Rights in one day, can we?) that would require minimum compensation of between $100 and $200 billion.

Remember 2008? Yeah, neither does Obama. Too bad ManBearPig invented the Internets:

“I just want to be absolutely clear, O.K.? I just don’t want any misunderstanding when you all go home and you talk with your buddies, and they say, ‘Oh, he wants to take my gun away.’ You heard it here, and I’m on television, so everybody knows. I believe in the Second Amendment. I believe in people’s lawful right to bear arms. I will not take your shotgun away. I will not take your rifle away. I won’t take your handgun away.

“So if you want to find an excuse not to vote for me, don’t use that one!” Obama said, eliciting laughter and cheers from the crowd. “It just ain’t true!”


http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/19/magazine/19obama-t.html?pagewanted=all&_r=1&

Laura said...

Do something meaningful, Mr. President. Change the name of federal prisons to federal asylums. Declare the City of Chicago an asylum. Mental illness funding and mass shootings solved in one fell swoop.

(Rant over. Gonna reread Paddy O now.)

I Callahan said...

If I were going to a gun-free college, I'd ignore the rule. I'd concealed carry. College class buildings don't normally have metal detectors, nor do they normally have security guards patting all students down.

No lunatic is going to take me down without me taking him down first.

Rick said...

Obama is showing his racism for such disproportionate focus on an event with a death toll similar to a holiday weekend in Chicago.

I Callahan said...

Lately Obama has begun making vague references to Australian gun control measures - which, as anyone who is paying attention knows, is code for mass confiscation of most or all semi-auto weapons. Which in the US context would be somewhere between 100 million and 200 million firearms. Assuming compensation will be paid (we can't shred the whole Bill of Rights in one day, can we?) that would require minimum compensation of between $100 and $200 billion.

Read the Charles CW Cooke link in Bob Ellison's post above. It explains how such a confiscation would be impossible.

Real American said...

and when the butchers at Planned Parenthood kill unborn babies to harvest their body parts for sale, isn't that something ought to be politicized? Isn't that "relevant to our common life together, to the body politic." Isn't abortion violence, which has a body count that would make the Nazis blush, something we should "do something" about? Why is that violence off limits, Mr. President?

Drago said...

"When Americans are being murdered and assaulted and raped by illegal aliens in sanctuary cities......"

Drago said...

Putins butt-boy: "I believe in people’s lawful right to bear arms. I will not take your shotgun away. I will not take your rifle away. I won’t take your handgun away."

"If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor. Period."

Crimso said...

According to the CDC, nearly three times as many people die in this country every year due to alcohol (by any mechanism) than due to firearms (by any mechanism). If he's worried about saving lives, he should be working to ban alcohol. It's not like it can't be done. To paraphrase William S. Burroughs "[We] HAVE done it."

How many events in this country every year DIRECTLY result in the deaths of 5-10 people (or more) due to alcohol? It is seen as foolish and impractical to punish all drinkers because a very small minority kill people as a result of their alcohol use. And yet, applying the "logic" used in "discussing" firearms (more like engaging in hysterics over firearms) is never considered.

Private ownership of firearms is a threat to the imposition of the will of the government. Alcohol facilitates it.

I know, both issues are more complex than that. But sometimes people need to be reminded of the strength of their argument by using the same "logic" to address a similar issue (and the similarity is that both kill lots of people, and both are widely available).

garage mahal said...

Yawn. These "victims" weren't even fetuses.

HoodlumDoodlum said...

Chickenshit mealy mouthed posturing. Propose a law! Put forward a Constitutional amendment. Write your "common sense" regulation ideas into a law and vote on it.
Mean ol' Republicans stopping progress? You had the Executive and the Legislative branches, all Dem, you assholes. Did you vote for any legislation then? I don't remember any.
Pathetic.

Static Ping said...

The shooting started at roughly 1:30pm Eastern Time.

Obama started his press conference at 6:20pm Eastern Time, less than 4 hours later.

At this point I do not even think the shooter had been identified, the number of dead and injured was unclear, the motivation for the killing was speculative at best, the killer's acquisition of his guns unknown, and more or less everything beyond the most basic of details was unavailable. Given how horribly inaccurate the initial press reports tend to be for mass shootings like this, the bulk of the details that are known now are subject to major revision. There is literally nothing to talk about at this point than to express condolences and assure the nation that the problem is now contained.

And yet our President felt it necessary to use such a moment of tragedy and loss to push for his personal goals, using the dead and injured merely as props, without having the slightest clue if anything he said really had any relevance to the subject at hand. Furthermore, he had no ideas to put forth, whether they would be relevant or not, other than a vague suggestion that we should follow the lead of Australia, which would entail massive gun confiscation.

One of the reasons why the word "politicize" got such a bad connotation is acts like this. This is the inappropriate and indefensible use of tragic events without knowing the facts for personal political gain. Such things cannot be condemned enough.

Theranter said...

I like what this guy had to say:

"Ken Gardner ‏@kesgardner 17h17 hours ago
I don't want to hear about gun control -- again -- from the same guy who is making it possible for Iran to get nuclear weapons."

grackle said...

The people in that classroom were unarmed sitting ducks. Where I live there’s a chance that someone in the group would have had the ability to shoot back.

Here’s what I would have done:

Hit the floor as I pull out my 9 mil and shoot his feet and legs. He wouldn’t have a chance to ask about anyone’s religious beliefs. After he was down I would take aim at his head, saving the state the expense of incarceration, hospitalization, hearings and trial. After he was quiet and unmoving I would get up, walk over and deliver two more well-aimed shots to the head because hastily delivered headshots are not necessarily fatal.

After that I would call the cops to clean up the mess.

Drago said...

Static Ping: "At this point I do not even think the shooter had been identified, the number of dead and injured was unclear, the motivation for the killing was speculative at best, the killer's acquisition of his guns unknown, and more or less everything beyond the most basic of details was unavailable."

At that point there was no information being made "public" related to those observations.

But that doesn't mean that President "flexible after the election for his man-crush pal Putin" didn't have some early indications.

So, if you are Obama, and you know the info that will come out later will basically run against your preferred narrative, what do you do? You preemptively go out before the "facts are known" to make sure you plant the narrative you wish were real, knowing your media pals would play right along.

The fact that President "do you need more hard cash Iran?" was also quickly able to move the key topics away from things like putin's boys bombing the Obama admin backed rebels, and then laughing in his face about it, was even better.

Not to mention that this comes a day ahead of the "fantastic" economic news....which is really about how Obama has us well on our way to "Venezuela-workers paradise" status.

So, it's all good. Plus Biden's plugs aren't quite nearly as noticeable and the botox is working great!

HoodlumDoodlum said...

When do root causes matter, again? I can't keep up. Is the root cause "access to firearms?" That seems stupid, but then again that's crediting Leftists with a respect for logical consistency.
Hey, if the murderer was employed at the school part time this'd just be workplace violence, right? If he's posed with a flag of some sort, though, watch out.

CStanley said...

I didn't realize that Obama had made those comments in 2008. So to paraphrase he basically said that if you like your gun, you can keep your gun.

So, stop the paranoia! Nothing to worry about.

Right?

Coupe said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Theranter said...

Crimso--exactly.

Surfing through channels, happened to hear on "The Voice" a kid's story about singing as an outlet after his father was killed, then they cued the Mom saying "Imagine having to tell your children their Dad was just killed [murdered, I'd say] by a drunk driver..."

You could say the same for the Oregon victims families, "Imagine telling your wife her son has just been murdered by a ..."

Both forms of murder horrific and tragic, forever altering the course of that family's history by a person that made a choice to use a lethal weapon. And, yes, it is much far more complex than a simplistic "gun control" reactionary meme.

EDH said...

Not sure Obama's quick response will have the maximum politicizing (or distraction) advantage he seeks.

Obama already shot his wad.

And at this point in his administration, the public treats his words as the ephemeral bullshit that they are.

After all, it's been almost eight years for him to do something.

Attention will quickly turn back to the eroding economic, diplomatic and military status of the "nation" and its "people" under his mismanagement.

grackle said...

It’s lucky for us white men that the shooter was black. Also, the prog anti-gun, anti-conservative meme is complicated by the fact that he singled out Christians. The MSM wishes mightily that he hadn’t done that and will do their best to downplay it because the MSM are dimly aware that right-wingers almost never shoot Christians on purpose.

Static Ping said...

One of the other reasons why "politicize" has a bad connotation is the bad habit of moral crusaders of all political stripes to try to turn generally non-political areas of life into political ones where politics becomes more relevant than the actual activity. For recent examples, see sports, science fiction, and video games.

The thing is the shooting here could be relevant to politics. If after the facts are gathered and confirmed there is some gap in the laws that allowed this to happen, that can be addressed with new laws (which probably will be lazily enforced, but that is another story). The problem here is the facts of the shooting are mostly unknown, so there is nothing to act upon at this point. Our President could have given a press conference at any time to push for more gun control or to support mass gun confiscation, but he chose this event specifically to do so for no other reason than to try to gain political traction through dead people that he would not have given a second thought about the day before. It is a foul act.

President-Mom-Jeans said...

The bodies aren't even cold yet and that shitstain on the history of the United States executive branch is already trying to push measures that would never prevent a tragedy like this.

Fuck Obama and every retard who voted that piece of shit into office. Hope you are proud of yourself, Ann.

"Ugly."

President-Mom-Jeans said...

"Yawn. These "victims" weren't even fetuses."

This is what that fat fuck Garage Mahal thinks about Christians getting targeted and slaughtered.

I really hope that your obesity related death is slow and painful.

Just Mike said...

Politicizing is one thing. Lying is another.

Big Mike said...

I want to complete this post by saying that I believe that Obama did something new. I can't find earlier examples of a high-level, newsworthy person saying that politicizing an issue is a good idea.

It isn't.

Tank said...

Zero has politicized everything from day one. The difference now is that he's not running for anything, and does not have to make believe he cares what you think. So don't waste time pointing out he's being political, trying (failing) to take advantage of a terrible act, he doesn't care what you think. It's just another poke in the eye from the #1 asshole.

jacksonjay said...

Pace yourself Mom Jeans. This is a marathon, not a sprint.

PB said...

Responding to patently false claims by someone who is politicizing the issue is not politicizing the issue. Practically everything Obama said about the matter was false. For him to get in front of the mic while the bodies were still warm is beyond the pale.

And he's said not one word about the poor woman shot by the illegal immigrant in San Francisco.

Achilles said...

1. Someone took guns on a campus where the other students were prohibited from having guns.

2. This person asked students if they were Christian. If they answered yes he shot them in the head.

This is going to hurt Obama badly. Obama didn't know any of the facts before he jumped out there and started spewing his filth. No matter how you spin this story it does not support gun control. No reasonable person can look at this story and say that we need to take away guns. Especially Christians and Jews.

This also highlights the violence being used to suppress freedom. It is clear that violence is the tool of choice as always by the totalitarians in the world. People are waking up to the fact that they are going to have to fight back.

garage mahal said...

PMJ
The conservative Republican shooter was targeting Christians? We're they all visibly wearing c4osses?

Richard Dolan said...

The President contends that, because we work to make mines and roads and floodplains safe when problems arise, we should be ready to adopt some modest regulations to make guns safe as well. But the problem is not about the safety of the gun, and it can't be fixed by reengineering the gun (as it can be with the design of mines or roads or structures in floodplains). Instead the problem is that the gun is being used illegally, to commit mass murder. Very unlikely that there will be an engineering solution to that one.

O's solution is that we just need to adopt some always-unnamed but assuredly modest, common sense regulations. But the nature of the problem is that the user of the gun is already violating legal prohibitions that carry the most severe penalties known to the law. So adding additional penalties is hardly going to accomplish anything. Instead, those modest, common sense regulations have to keep the gun from ever reaching an individual who might use it to commit this (and presumably, any other) crime. So what we need is a modest, common sense regulation that divides the population of potential gun owners into two, separating the potential criminals from the safely law-abiding.

If someone could come up with such a 'regulation,' it might be worth considering. But no one ever has, and there are no prospects that anyone will in the foreseeable future.

The only modest, common sense regulation that might work is a complete ban on gun ownership, an approach which some countries have adopted. If that's what O and Hillary! have in mind, they should say so. (I don't think either of them regards the Second Amendment as a problem -- their solution is to await the demise of Roberts-Scalia-Kennedy-Thomas-Alito, and welcome the replacement with a clone of Breyer-RBG-Sotomayor-Kagan who won't be troubled by stare decisis.)

Scott said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Tank said...

On his radio show today, Geraldo Rivera put forth his own two part plan. It would not have prevented any of the mass murders we've seen.

madAsHell said...

Is Obama really in the pay of Sturm Ruger, Glock and Smith & Wesson? Seruiously, every time he makes a statement like this, monthly gun sales will jump by an additonal 250,000 or so.

The $12 box of 9mm jumps to $15, and then settles back down again.

After Sandy Hook, the shelves at Cabella's were void of semi-automatic weapons, and...if you could find one....a $500 9mm Glock was still selling with a $200 premium.

President-Mom-Jeans said...

"This is a marathon, not a sprint."

Two things the chronically overweight Bitchtits Mahal could never do.

And fat boy, I know it may not have breached your leftist narrative bubble yet, but accounts from survivors already have come out.

"A gunman singled out Christians, telling them they would see God in “one second,” during a rampage at an Oregon college Thursday that left at least nine innocent people dead and several more wounded, survivors and authorities said.

“[He started] asking people one by one what their religion was. ‘Are you a Christian?’ he would ask them, and if you’re a Christian, stand up. And they would stand up and he said, ‘Good, because you’re a Christian, you are going to see God in just about one second.’ And then he shot and killed them,” Stacy Boylen, whose daughter was wounded at Umpqua Community College in Roseburg, Ore., told CNN."


Anonymous said...

46 shot dead in Chicago LAST WEEKEND and not ONE WORD

President-Mom-Jeans said...

Hey Tubby, was it your wife leaving you and taking your child with her that caused you to become such a reprehensible piece of shit, or was that the cause of her fleeing?

One of those chicken and egg questions I guess.

Achilles said...

garage mahal said...
"PMJ
The conservative Republican shooter was targeting Christians? We're they all visibly wearing c4osses?"

Is this a moby trying to make GM look stupid?

AJ Lynch said...

Why doesn't Obama just issue an exec order and violate the law again just like has has on other issues he does not like?

EMD said...

I am going to start sabotaging mines to see if making mines safer saves lives.

Birches said...

Are there issues to address? Yes. What about the breakdown in his family life that left him isolated? What about the absence of community in his life? What about the rhetoric about the evils of religion (Christianity especially), which became the target of his rage? What about the divisive rhetoric that played into his increasing isolation, radicalizing him and suffocating him at the same time so that he embraced death as his only path to meaning?

This.

Ok. Mr. President. Tell us, which guns are you going to take away first. Revolvers or Derringers?

These people have no clue and that's why they bloviate.

garage mahal said...

PMJ
Just a few Christians. Don't get your panties in a bunch. Small price to pay for our 2nd amendment rights. When I read the shooter described himself as a conservative Republican, who hated women I immediately thought of you. Glad you're okay!

President-Mom-Jeans said...

"described himself as a conservative Republican, who hated women I immediately thought of you."

How many times do I have to tell you, lardass, that just because you have breasts you are not a real woman.

I'm also not surprised that Madison's pre-eminent spray paint activist for Hamas doesn't care about "Just a few Christians"

Now go stuff your face with some more fried cheese, to hasten the inevitable Diabetes related amputations.

Jack Wayne said...

Callahan, Obama is a community organizer, an instigator. He is not and never has been a president. His job is to cause turmoil, nothing more and nothing less because he knows that turmoil leads to conflict. And conflict leads to more government. He doesn't specifically care what the "more government" is, just as long as it happens.

Michael said...

I can be persuaded to confiscate guns. Let's test drive Chicago with a mandatory 15 year sentence for gun possession. Give a six month time to turn them in and after that if you are caught off you go to the slammer. I believe upon examination of the outcome the authorities would have a different opinion.

Static Ping said...

As to the targeting Christian angle, I would advise caution. The early reports of shootings are often rife with errors and misunderstandings. Even if he did ask for religion, it may not have been relevant to the targeting and more of some need to explain to his Christian victims that they are about to see Jesus while others may not. Yes, that would be a weird thing to do when murdering multiple people, but mass murderers tend to not be of the soundest of minds.

Big Mike: This may be new. Politicizing events is not new. Admitting that is exactly what you are doing is a bit unusual. Typically an essential part of the role of the demagogue is not to admit that you are a demagogue, manipulating the citizenry's emotions to get what you want else they catch on that they are being played. Letting the mask slip intentionally is odd. Not something you usually see in any kind of politician from elected politicians to the worst of dictators.

Birches said...

I'll add that I find it interesting that NOW, all of the sudden, the media decides that they'd better not show this cretin's picture. Of course, they are posting the video of his father.

Interesting.

Laura said...

"Yawn. These 'victims' weren't even fetuses."

No, but I'll wager Cecile Richards' federal funding that they started out that way.

Dr Weevil said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Dr Weevil said...

Birches:
They're not showing his picture because he was mixed-race - mostly white, but some black, enough to notice in the pictures. That tends to spoil the usual media-blogger-Twitter talking point that mass-murderers are always white males. Of course, there have been plenty of non-white mass-murderers in the U.S. - just off the top of my head, the LIRR killer, the Beltway Snipers, the fired beer-truck driver in Connecticut (I omit their names as a matter of policy), so only a very ignorant or stupid person could believe that, but the MSM is always willing to help out when it comes to keeping people ignorant and making them stupid.

Dr Weevil said...

If the creep did call himself a "conservative republican", he was probably referring to his admiration for the Irish Republican Army, and added "conservative" as an ironic sneer. There is nothing in what he did that was at all "conservative" or "Republican" in the contemporary American sense. Of course, GM knows that and is just being his usual obtuse asshole self.

I'm pretty sure his admiration for the IRA was because of the number of people they murdered rather than despite of it: some of Thatcher's cabinet, Lord Mountbatten, dozens of innocent bystanders, what's not to like - if you're a psychopath?

Dr Weevil said...

Birches:
I just noticed you mentioned that they're showing video of his father. (I haven't seen it.) His father's white, his mother black, so showing his father, but not him, is a deeply dishonest way of implying that he's white without actually saying so. I'm never surprised, but often disgusted, by the extent of the corruption and dishonesty of the modern media.

Fernandinande said...

"So the notion that gun violence is somehow different, that our freedom and our Constitution prohibits any modest regulation of how we use a deadly weapon, ...blah blah ... hunt and protect their families and do everything they do under such regulations. Doesn't make sense."

It doesn't make sense because it's not true. The gov't infringes on "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms" quite a bit.

EMD said...

"Ok. Mr. President. Tell us, which guns are you going to take away first. Revolvers or Derringers?"

Whew. My howitzer is safe. For now.

Cheryl said...

At the time the President gave that statement, we didn't even know for sure how many people had been killed. For him to stand there mere hours after this event and talk about the politics of it is despicable.

I am ashamed to admit that when I first heard about this shooting, one of my first thoughts was to dread listening to the President pontificate on the evils of guns. I just had no idea he would do it so quickly.

Meanwhile, Russia is telling us where we can and can't fly, and fetus body parts are being sold, and soldiers are being kicked out of the Army for defending boys from rape, and another city has fallen to the Taliban, and not one--NOT ONE--of these topics is important enough to talk about. Beyond disgusting.

Big Mike said...

@grackle, under the law you'd be on trial for murder, with a good chance that you'd be convicted of 2nd degree. I can't believe your state allowed you to get a concealed carry permit without an explanation of the relevant laws. In case you or any other Althouse reader needs a refresher buy -- and read!!! -- The Law of Self Defense by Andrew Branca (use the Althouse Amazon portal).

Roy Jacobsen said...

Fuck you, Mr. president.

jimbino said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
jimbino said...

Gummint airbag laws kill a lot of small Amerikans, especially women. So do the headrest laws, since short people often need to remove the headrests entirely. Leave it to our gummint to keep on choosing life's winners and losers.

Jason said...

Yawn. These 'victims' weren't even fetuses.

You know, just when I think Garage couldn't possibly be any more of a stupid, vile cur...

The conservative Republican shooter was targeting Christians? We're they all visibly wearing c4osses?" [sic]

He proves I've been misunderestimating him!

JRPtwo said...

Obama is trying to be rhetorically clever (dishonest?) and use politicize in new way to defend himself against the politicization charge--for example, that he's trying to use this as a wedge issue or trying to capitalize on our emotional reaction to get his preferred policy through.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/politicize has this definition: Politicize: to relate (an idea, issue, etc.) to politics in a way that makes people less likely to agree

Will said...

Obama has consistently misjudged what is possible and been unwilling to reach compromises.

After Newtown, virtually any other President would have come away with some progress. Instead, Obama completely misread public opinion and pushed for so much he got absolutely nothing. Obama doesn't want to fix mine safey; he wants to remind the mine owner he "didn't build that" and drive the evil entrepreneur into bankruptcy and seize his company. No wonder gun sales have exploded on his watch as people fear some illegal executive action gun grab. They saw what he did to the Health Plan they could keep.

Politicizing is not "something new" for a Community Organizer. Remember when Obama politicized his own re-election above the country's interests and withdrew troops from Iraq so he could say he ended the war, but how that created a vacuum that gave rise to ISIS?

Obama's gun control policy is no different than his foreign policy or his economic policy. They all lie in smoldering failure at his feet because he simply doesn't know how to build consensus and settle for half a loaf. Instead he has no loaf at all.

Come see us in ten years about this Iran Deal.

Fernandinande said...

AA: Since feminism runs on the theory that "the personal is political," it makes sense to find the positive view of politicization in this context.

Quite the opposite, because "the personal is political" means "I want to apply the force of government to the personal lives of (other) people."

jimbino said...
Gummint airbag laws kill a lot of small Amerikans, especially women.


Airbags Kill More Kids Than School Shootings

Static Ping said...

The concept that the US government could actually successfully confiscate all guns, when it seems completely incapable of stopping not only the drug trade but also a huge influx of illegal immigrants along the Mexican border (when it tries), seems laughable. But that is what passes for "common sense" these days.

grackle said...

@grackle, under the law you'd be on trial for murder, with a good chance that you'd be convicted of 2nd degree. I can't believe your state allowed you to get a concealed carry permit without an explanation of the relevant laws. In case you or any other Althouse reader needs a refresher buy -- and read!!! -- The Law of Self Defense by Andrew Branca (use the Althouse Amazon portal).

On trial for killing an on-campus shooter? Possibly. But I would be alive, wouldn’t I? And the others in the classroom that I saved – they would be alive. So there’s that.

But I think the commentor is wrong. I seriously doubt the local legal authorities would indict me because they have to get re-elected and picking on the hero of a campus shooting that saved the lives of innocents is not going to help them do that. Their political opponents, of course, would be very glad if I were indicted. The campaign ad would write itself. No, I think the local law would be VERY reluctant to bring me to trial.

But since the commentor holds himself to be a legal expert – would the commentor please cite for the readers just what law I’ve broken in the example I set forth?

chuck said...

Well, the President has his impact on our 'common life together', which is that many of us will urge him to FOAD.

Ignorance is Bliss said...

grackle said...

But since the commentor holds himself to be a legal expert – would the commentor please cite for the readers just what law I’ve broken in the example I set forth?

I'm a different commenter ( and not a legal expert ) but I would assume the law you broke would be murder, based on this action:

After he was quiet and unmoving I would get up, walk over and deliver two more well-aimed shots to the head because hastily delivered headshots are not necessarily fatal.

Any action you took to stop him from being a threat while he was trying to shoot people would be legal self-defense. Once he is quiet and unmoving it is not.

Todd said...

grackle said...
@grackle, under the law you'd be on trial for murder, with a good chance that you'd be convicted of 2nd degree. I can't believe your state allowed you to get a concealed carry permit without an explanation of the relevant laws. In case you or any other Althouse reader needs a refresher buy -- and read!!! -- The Law of Self Defense by Andrew Branca (use the Althouse Amazon portal).

On trial for killing an on-campus shooter? Possibly. But I would be alive, wouldn’t I? And the others in the classroom that I saved – they would be alive. So there’s that.

But I think the commentor is wrong. I seriously doubt the local legal authorities would indict me because they have to get re-elected and picking on the hero of a campus shooting that saved the lives of innocents is not going to help them do that. Their political opponents, of course, would be very glad if I were indicted. The campaign ad would write itself. No, I think the local law would be VERY reluctant to bring me to trial.

But since the commentor holds himself to be a legal expert – would the commentor please cite for the readers just what law I’ve broken in the example I set forth?

10/2/15, 1:58 PM


Well he did not hold himself out as an expert and in fact, referred you to a book by a legal expert.

As another layman, using my understanding of FL law, your initial shots to his legs were OK as they clearly were from the stand point of self defense of self and others. If he still had his weapon in hand and continued to be a deadly threat to you or others, the initial head-shot would past muster as well. Your "after the fact" follow-up shots would not and it is those that could/would get you in trouble. The initial threat was neutralized and the "perp" was no longer a danger to you or others.

If you were really a CWP holder, you would/should know this...

tim in vermont said...

I agree with lgv, if it's so popular, repeal the 2nd amendment. Get started on it. Run every Democrat candidate on that platform. Fearless leader says so!

JackOfClubs said...

I agree with Obama: let's politicize this issue. Let's argue about what policy is best for the polis.

The trouble with Obama is that he doesn't debate, he asserts. He mischaracterizes his own policies and demagogues his opponents'. (There's another new transitive verb for you.) There is plenty of data showing that gun-free zones decrease safety and concealed carry increases it. Can we consider the option of allowing citizens (properly licensed and instructed, if you like) to defend themselves in these situations? If not, we are not really politicizing anything.

tim in vermont said...

jimbino complaining about a law that kills small children. Now I've heard everything.

Bruce Hayden said...

Agree with Mike and not Grackle, including buying that book. Of course, there is always the adage that it is better to be tried by twelve than carried by six. Problem from a use of force point of view are the last shots, when the perp is lying on the ground. At that point, he most likely doesn't still pose a reasonable imminent threat of death or great bodily injury. If he is lying on the ground, bleeding out, the threat is probably neither reasonable nor imminent. Esp if everyone can just walk out at this point.

Sigivald said...

prohibits any modest regulation of how we use a deadly weapon

...

Does he not know that it's already illegal to use deadly weapons to murder people, or even threaten them?

And that nobody thinks that's wrong or bad or beyond "modest"?

(He really means "own", not "use", and I don't think "modest" describes the plan he'd push.

Well, except in comparison to "complete prohibition because scary".)

I Callahan said...

No, but I'll wager Cecile Richards' federal funding that they started out that way.

Bravo, Laura. Well played!!

Fabi said...

I witnessed the shooting, and when he went to check on the shooter, he made a move for his gun and grackle had to finish him off. Case dismissed.

Drago said...

So, to recap:

Babies being carved up and sold for parts--> Garage reaction: laughter and joy
Christians being targeted for murder--> Garage reaction: laughter and joy
.....

Anthony Weiner inadvertently exposing himself on social media--> Garage reaction: spittle-flecked rage and demanding justice!

Priorities.

Let us hope that not all Wisconsin middle school gridiron heroes are made of such stuff.

Fen said...

Interesting that when the gun grabbers were politicizing every shooting before the bodies were cold, and the gun rights people were being civil and respectful, people like Althouse had nothing to say about the politicization.

But as soon as the gun rights people join in, because they are tired of one side getting away with, these same people are all "both sides are politicizing the shooting!"

garage mahal said...

Sick burn Drago! You are on top of your game my friend.

Brando said...

What we're seeing is the impotent rage of an impotent man. The question for Obama is "what is it that you propose that would make such tragedies less likely?" And if is his answer is one of his piecemeal "close the gun show loophole" bits of pablum, then he's no more serious than the NRA and he can STFU.

We're a violent people with a lot of guns. You can't unring the bell. This is something we can never change, and only the "do something" brigands of morons would suggest some minor gun control law would make any difference.

Achilles said...

Brando said...
"What we're seeing is the impotent rage of an impotent man."

This is wrong and misses the context of this event. All over the world Obama is empowering violent people. He had his administration sell guns to Mexican Cartels. He pushed for the Muslim Brotherhood to take over Egypt and fought their removal. He has done everything in his power to make ISIS successful. There are dozens of examples of where he has undermined peaceful people around the world and he desperately wants to do it here too.

When ISIS rises and starts beheading Yazidi's and Christians and selling women into slavery it is the Republicans fault. When the Muslim Brotherhood seizes power in Egypt and starts wiping out the Coptic Christians Islam is the religion of peace. Iran is the worlds undisputed leader in the exportation of terror and death and he signs a deal giving them billions of dollars and accuses Republicans of siding with the hardliners. The only places in the United States that have similar crime rates to Mexico are places like Chicago whigh are dominated by Obama progressives and their policies.

And now what is his ultimate goal when a shooter goes to a college campus where people can't have guns, lines people up and shoots the Christians? He wants to take guns away from Christians.

He is not impotent. There are numerous places and millions of people suffering under his policies.

Hunter said...

Guns serve somewhat the same function to the left that abortion does to the right. Both are issues of seemingly needless loss of innocent human life. Both are things that would be nearly impossible to eradicate legislatively because they would need a constitutional amendment (or a massive and unlikely reversal of SCOTUS precedent). Both are issues where legislation can still try to nibble around the margins, but even if successful -- and even successful nibbling is hard to accomplish -- the advocates are not going to be much happier than they were before.

Nevertheless, they will propose edge-nibbling measures whenever and wherever they can because every nibble gets them closer to their goal.

Meanwhile, the near impossibility of actually ever getting to that goal guarantees an endless supply of fuel to keep throwing on the fire of partisan anger at the other side which (it seems clear) doesn't care at all about innocent lives being needlessly snuffed out.

MayBee said...

Obama said these shootings don't happen in other countries. That's true to some extent. But European countries and Australia are exporting their violent young men to ISIS.

MayBee said...

Did Obama say anything about the shootings in Chicago? An 11 month old was shot from a stray bullet this weekend. Baltimore? Or does he only care about mass shootings?

AReasonableMan said...

I blame the absent father.

cf said...

Forgive me if someone discussed this above.

I am of a Mind that I want the Opposite of what the President describes.

I want a nation of militia women, issued weapons and trained to be a ready and civic volunteer.

Kind of like the Swiss system, though I think it would be charming that it be a women's draft, not men firstly.

The trunks of civilization that our President has opened up and upended across the world means we will need a militia of women in our own streets soon enough.

I volunteer.

Drago said...

Garage: "You are on top of your game..."

As always, I neither requested nor require the latest middle school playground perspective.

Drago said...

Cf: "I want a nation of militia women.."

Chicks packing heat. Chick fighter pilots.

Its all good.

garage mahal said...

We can't do one single thing to prevent gun murders here in the U.S. Hey, stuff happens. But I DO hold Obama personally responsible for the four deaths in Benghazi. #Pray4Benghazi

wildswan said...

Obama has actually realized that Putin has made a fool of him. He's upset. Suddenly a chance to posture before Americans, some of whom still respect him. And there he is on television, talking about how tough he might be to American gun owners.
Do something about Putin's guns? Too scared. Do something ugly to Americans? Great idea.

And here's way to be ugly to Americans. How many jobs did the economy add in August? 173,000? OK, bring in 200,000 Mid-East migrants.

You could write a book on his Presidency with an old title, politicized: "The Ugly-To-Americans American President."

MayBee said...

I'm tired of people thinking they sound so moral when they talk about "passing laws" and "gun safety" and "new laws".

Good for you. Now tell us what laws you think you are going to pass to stop this stuff. You don't get some extra credit for daring- gasp- to say you want to stop gun violence. That doesn't take guts or bravery or even intelligence.

MayBee said...

Obama pretty much just said there's nothing we can do about mentally ill young men. I don't know why he thinks there's something magic we can do about guns.

Mike said...

Obama and the media are responsible for these murderers because he and the Liberal MSM publicise it and give shooters the very glorification they seek. Yesterday's shooter wrote about all the cool press his actions would get. He was right. Obama proved it and inspired the next guy who is likely now planning his glory shot.

Gun confiscation is a Liberal pipedream. Ain't gonna happen. Here's a modest proposal for Obama that would work.

Don't release the name of the shooter. Don't print any "manifestos" after the fact. Don't give them the publicity they seek. Fuck with the First Amendment for a change instead of the 2nd. Tell your buddies in the criminal Liberal media to shut the fuck up and stop encouraging violence.

BN said...

Just Mike said "Politicizing is one thing. Lying is another."

Not to The One. Not to the Left period, for that matter.

Hey, is that guy who jumped up at a SOTU address and shouted, "You LIE!" still around? No? But The One is? What does that tell you about the future?

Bob Ellison said...

Notice the innumeracy that Obama displays and exploits. Holland is not America, and Mississippi is not Belgium. I think Obama knows these things, but his diction suggests that maybe he does not. Stupid, or dishonest?

Greenland is really homicidal. Maybe it's all the trees.

Leftist-controlled cities with strict gun-control laws get all the blue ribbons in murder rates.

Hey, Obama, all of Europe is about the size of America. Pretty close. Quit comparing Luxembourg to our fifty states, you arithmetic buffoon.

And Europe is a bunch of panty-waists that couldn't entrepreneur itself out of a paper bag, compared to America or Israel.

BN said...

"stupid or dishonest?"

Both.

Bob Ellison said...

I think the proper term might be "panty-waste", as in, the stuff that comes out isn't even worth cleaning up after.

Big Mike said...

@garage, Benghazi is Hillary's fault, top to bottom. Do you ever get anything correct?

@grackle, I certainly am not an expert on the law of self-defense. In fact, the classroom briefing I got scared me badly enough to put a lawyer on retainer, the first time I've ever felt the need to do so.

I have no idea what the law is in Oregon; in Virginia self-defense is an "affirmative plea to second degree murder." That's a verbatim quote from the training materials. Even if the perpetrator has chased you into your bedroom and kicked down the locked door; even if he's screaming that he's going to kill you, kill your kids, and rape your wife; even if the police have it all on tape because you managed to call 911 and leave the line open; even after you warned him that you were armed and he should retreat; you could expect -- in Virginia -- to be led away from the scene in handcuffs and be booked on felony murder. You might be allowed to leave jail on your own recognizance, but more likely you'll spend the night in jail until a bail bondsman bothers to show up. I love this state with all my heart, but now and again its laws seem calculated to pile on people who've already been traumatized.

In Virginia -- and, again, other states may be different -- criminals have succeeded in winning cash awards by suing the person they were trying to murder after being wounded and surviving. In Virginia, if you are legitimately in fear for your life, you have to shoot to kill or get ready to defend yourself in court from a potential civil suit.

Fundamentally you are allowed to use deadly force to save your life or the lives of other people, but you are only allowed to use as much force at it takes to end the threat. So if you plink the guy in the leg, and he drops his gun, then game over. Any shots you take after that expose you to criminal and civil (!) liability.

That's what I understand as a lay person, not a lawyer. A concealed carry permit is not a license to go shooting up any bad guy you come across and it isn't meant to be.

Michael said...

Garage

Why sure you can stop gun violence. The Democrats should propose and run on a platform of an Australia-style gun confiscation program.

I think this is a winning strategy and a genius way to win election after election.

50 years in prison if you are caught with a gun (even your cousin's gun) after the amnesty period.

Go. For. It.

BN said...

As for Charles C. W. Cooke's demand to change the Constitution, that is so early Progressivism. We don't do that anymore. We have phones, pens, and penumbras now. It's the 21st century, man!

Bob Ellison said...

Just wanting a solution doesn't mean there is a solution.

Most people do not understand this. It's a basic problem in public policy.

garage mahal said...

Because it's either do absolutely nothing or confiscate every gun in America.

Big Mike said...

@garage, yours first.

Richard Dolan said...

Then, again, for those urging draconian gun control laws, on WR Mead's blog there is an article pointing out this problem:
"According to the Bureau of Labor of Justice statistics, state, local, and federal governments arrested black people for gun crimes at a five times higher rate than they arrested whites. More than three out of four gun arrests were in urban areas. So people who empathize with the message of the Black Lives Matter movement—that young, black men in America’s cities are treated unfairly by the criminal justice system and that mass incarceration has devastated too many communities—should think further about what the draconian gun policies they pine for would actually entail."

Achilles said...

AReasonableMan said...
"I blame the absent father."

No, that is why Black kids are shooting other Black kids in inner cities.

This guy went to a place where he knew he would find people who were unarmed. Imagine that he found them in a place dominated by progressives who would not allow their charges to defend themselves.

You lefties really are just mailing it in today.

AReasonableMan said...

Achilles said...
AReasonableMan said...
"I blame the absent father."

No, that is why Black kids are shooting other Black kids in inner cities.


Painfully stupid.

BN said...

I'm off to Cabela's! More bullets. Anyone need a ride?

Birches said...

Good for you. Now tell us what laws you think you are going to pass to stop this stuff. You don't get some extra credit for daring- gasp- to say you want to stop gun violence. That doesn't take guts or bravery or even intelligence.

MayBee, your words reminded me of this comedy sketch.

Achilles said...

garage mahal said...
"Because it's either do absolutely nothing or confiscate every gun in America."

Explain your policy. Be specific. Explain how it would stop this kid from shooting people. So far not one single measure that would restrict a person who follows the law would have done so. The problem is what this kid did is already against the law.

I agree we should do something. I think we should make college boards and administrators, and any business owners, elected officials of municipalities, or any other person or group that creates a place where people cannot carry a gun in self defense personally liable for death and injury caused by shootings in that area. This would effectively eliminate gun free zones. There hasn't been a mass shooting outside of a "gun free zone" in years.

Achilles said...

AReasonableMan said...
Achilles said...
AReasonableMan said...
"I blame the absent father."

No, that is why Black kids are shooting other Black kids in inner cities.

"Painfully stupid."

Not even trying today I see. I accept your admission of failure. Go take some aspirin. It will help with that pain.

Doug said...

I believe the media would do all a service by reporting these stories as " ... some asshole shot and killed ....".

The Cracker Emcee said...

"I blame the absent father."

Not sure if ARM is being facetious 'cause I'm not up on this latest douchenutter's familial status but the same thought occurred to me.

Look, prior to GCA '68 you could get a surplus semi-auto carbine in the freakin' mail for $35 and a signature. Yet school shootings were unheard of and mass shootings almost unknown (Whitman is the only one that immediately comes to mind though there were no doubt others). What has changed between then and now? The cratering of the nuclear family leaps out. And given that so many of these shooters are loner/social misfits without the benefit of effective fathering or even a mother willing and able to confront the kid's problems, it isn't at all far-fetched to think that absent fathers and broken families are a contributing factor to this shit.

Michael McClain said...

Why do the LibCong seek to deny me my right to self-defense with the imposition of "Gun Free Zones."

Alex said...

If only we had a society that instilled shooting culture as a universal thing from early adolescence and concealed carry everywhere. There would never be any mass shootings, since any psychopath out there would always know there is at least one person in that crowd armed and ready to take him down. But liberals want us as sheep to the slaughter.

Alex said...

garage mahal said...
Because it's either do absolutely nothing or confiscate every gun in America.

Read what I just said. That is the only way in a country floating with 250 million guns already, unless you want a dictatorship.

Michael K said...

Because it's either do absolutely nothing or confiscate every gun in America.

I was working today and am not going to read all those comments so I will choose the dumbest.

There are a couple of possibilities. One is that the shooter is Muslim and Obama knows it and is laying the smokescreen. The other is that this is another psychotic and we should change the laws about involuntary commitment.

Homelessness and mass shootings followed the closing of the nation's mental hospitals in the 60s. Mass shootings are pretty rare bit homelessness is all around every city dweller.

The mass killings in this country the past 40 years have been Muslims and psychotics, most of whom were well known by family and others to be dangerous. The Tucson shooter is a great example. The students at the junior college (sound familiar ?) he attended at times were complaining about him all the time. His mother, a Democrat political hack, concealed all the complaints and made sure nothing was done.

Guns have as much to do with it as cars have to do with traffic accidents. Neither creates the problem by itself.

Hagar said...

One thing that has changed is that "gun control" has been taken up as a party ID and liberal cause and so these things gets trumpeted over the media at every opportunity.

Doug above is onto something. Obama could do a lot of good, if he actually wanted to, by jawboning the media to report these shootings somewhat along the lines Doug advocates.

sinz52 said...

The more Obama talks about this issue, the worse he makes it.

Much of the American right is in a state of near-hysteria already, as witness the nativism and even the racialism I'm seeing these days. They feel themselves under siege for real.

They don't want guns to protect themselves from criminals.

They want guns to protect themselves from liberals.

In politics, personal trust counts for a lot (which is why Hillary is in political trouble these days).

The American right might have considered some gun regulations if they had come from someone they trusted like Bush 43 or Cheney. But the more Obama or other liberals keep harping on it, the more the American right will feel threatened, and the more they will dig in their heels.

Sometimes, the best thing you can do with an issue is try to defuse it. Not escalate it.

Sebastian said...

"Sometimes, the best thing you can do with an issue is try to defuse it. Not escalate it."

For reasonable people, yes. For Progs, no. Escalation is the community organizer's MO.

Matt said...

Gun restrictions as to WHAT people can buy, WHO can buy them and HOW they can buy them is worth considering. I know the NRA and many conservatives don't want to do that and even Democrats step away from such legislation. But I think it's a conversation worth having.

garage mahal said...

To recap:

The fault of these shootings lies clearly at the feet of Obama and progs. NOT with guns or with the self described conservative Republican who pulled the trigger. This is so easy.

AReasonableMan said...

Michael K said...
I was working today and am not going to read all those comments so I will choose the dumbest.

the shooter is Muslim and Obama knows it and is laying the smokescreen.


averagejoe said...

garage mahal said...
We can't do one single thing to prevent gun murders here in the U.S. Hey, stuff happens. But I DO hold Obama personally responsible for the four deaths in Benghazi. #Pray4Benghazi

10/2/15, 4:09 PM

Benghazi- A good example of the politicization of a tragedy. The White House knew within hours that it was a terrorist attack, yet lied to the American people and had an American citizen arrested to support their deception. Pretty despicable stuff for a government to be doing, right Mister Rights-of-Man? That's where the outrage comes from, moron. Americans expect their embassies will be attacked by enemies, but we don't expect the president to lie about it, and imprison innocent people in order to save himself during an election campaign.

Anonymous said...

He describes himself as a "conservative republican" politically

Big Mike said...

@Darla, just goes to show that some dudes will write anything on their page to try to get laid. I rather doubt his viewpoints are consonant with modern conservative thinking. Make that "were."

Rusty said...

garage mahal said...
Because it's either do absolutely nothing or confiscate every gun in America.


Let's hear your plan.

garage mahal said...

If you were to lie to get laid, why on earth would you describe yourself as a "conservative Republican", of all things?

Michael K said...

Blogger AReasonableMan said...
Michael K said...
I was working today and am not going to read all those comments so I will choose the dumbest.

the shooter is Muslim and Obama knows it and is laying the smokescreen.


That was, and still is, a possibility but the mental health issue is the more important.

I assume you are not interested in mental health issues in these cases.

Beorn said...

garage mahal said...
If you were to lie to get laid, why on earth would you describe yourself as a "conservative Republican", of all things?

Because writing "Pajama Boy" is a non starter.

Hagar said...

Just about all of these losers have been suicidal and dreaming about going out in "a blaze of glory."
Cutting the "glory" is much the best prospect for preventing more such events.

Hagar said...

Why has not anyone challenged Obama to tell us just what his "common sense legislation" would consist of?

20 minutes of going on about this on national TV, and not boo about exactly what he proposes we do.
Though that is pretty typical for Obama.

MayBee said...

Birches- hahaha! so perfect

Beorn said...

Obama's solution to the problem is turning his gun control "plan" to 11.

BN said...

"liberals want us as sheep to the slaughter."

And we say "bahhhh."

Either we stop it or we parse words. We parse words.

"Politicize"?!?! Has anyone seen my chest? It used to be right here...

HT said...

Just repeal the frickin 2nd amendment and be done with it. This is nonsense. We are fools, and have been since at least 1998. No half measures. Just repeal the thing.

chickelit said...

Althouse said: I believe that Obama did something new.

I disagree. He didn't do something new because he said it was a "good" thing to politicize the issue. Other examples which you cite were made by people who also believed it was a "good" thing to politicize their pet issue. But perhaps this is the first time you agree with Obama about the morality of politicizing the gun issue. That wouldn't surprise me but it's nothing "new."

Fen said...

garage mahal: If you were to lie to get laid, why on earth would you describe yourself as a "conservative Republican", of all things?

We don't say that to get laid. Although we do tell the women we want to marry.

But - you have girls right? - for the liberal girls we use different lines, and damn do we use them. See, there are some things you would never do to the woman who is going to be the mother of your kids. That's what liberal women are for.

Barry Dauphin said...

The president rants on television, and the country yawns.

Achilles said...

"Sometimes, the best thing you can do with an issue is try to defuse it. Not escalate it."

1. Murder is already illegal. It carries our harshest legal penalties.

2. This person took guns into a "gun free zone." All of these mass shootings happen in "Gun Free Zones."

These are two inarguable truths. What regulation or restriction on gun ownership by law abiding citizens is going to stop someone who obviously doesn't care about laws or the sanctity of life?

After you break it down at this point anything that makes it more difficult for me to carry a weapon to defend myself makes it more likely I will end up a victim of one of these tragedies. A new law or regulation is going to do nothing to stop someone who is already crossing the murder line but it will affect me because I obey the laws.

Anyone proposing any restriction based off of this shooting that would do nothing to stop this shooting doesn't care about citizens or their safety. They are extraordinarily stupid, or they have bad intent. We have numerous historical examples of people that talk just like our current crop of progressives who disarm their people right before they start killing them off. Germany, Russia/Soviet Union, Cuba, Venezuela, China, Cambodia/SE Asia, Sudan etc.

Good people do not try to disarm the citizenry.

Achilles said...

Darla said...
"He describes himself as a "conservative republican" politically"

So what? Does that mean you need to take our guns now? That means nothing and people who bring it into the argument have bad intentions.

chickelit said...

garage mahal said...

The conservative Republican shooter was targeting Christians? We're they all visibly wearing c4osses?

I read tonight that the shooter had amended his profile the day of the shooting to read "conservative Republican." He was a registered independent for voting purposes.

So, the Internet told us that he's a conservative Republican, and the internet tells us that he's a Moby.

Which is true?

Achilles said...

garage mahal said...
"To recap:

The fault of these shootings lies clearly at the feet of Obama and progs. NOT with guns or with the self described conservative Republican who pulled the trigger. This is so easy."

It lies at the feet of the people who created the "gun free zone" on that campus. I guarantee you they were progressives.

chickelit said...

The problem with Progressives and guns (and I know the type intimately well) is that they cannot conceive of how guns in the hands of "good guys" can be a positive thing. They literally cannot make that connection. They are totally steeped in the notion that "guns are bad" so as to summarily dismiss anyone who carries or uses one as bad or at least suspect.

Coupe said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Coupe said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Coupe said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Anonymous said...

Puh-LEEZ!

I'm too late here, but "Kim Il Oh" is using the wrong word. He doesn't mean "politicize", he means "demagogue".

What a SAC O SHIT we're stuck with as Preznit.

I used to think the guys who went around cleaning out the nasty decayed grease in Burger King Fryolaters had the worst job in the world.

I was wrong: the WORST JOB IN THE WORLD is to swear you will take a bullet for HIS Excellency and his SASQUATCH CONSORT.

Anonymous said...

UCC was not a gun free zone.

"Umpqua Community College, however, was not a gun free zone. A 2011 state court decision prohibited public colleges from banning guns on campus. The decision stemmed from a suit filed by the Oregon Firearm Education Foundation, a gun rights group. There was an effort to pass a new law to reinstate the ability of public colleges to ban guns. That measure was defeated by gun rights advocates."

http://www.oregonlive.com/politics/index.ssf/2012/03/gun_rights_advocates_score_a_d.html

Rusty said...

Still waiting for one of the usual suspects to provide us with what "reasonable restrictions" we need to consider.

Dr Weevil said...

Darla:
Try to keep up. Plenty of commenters (here or elsewhere, I'm not sure) have quoted the current UCC policy from their website, which includes a complete ban on guns on campus. That ban is in gross and blatant violation of state law, which means you could sue and win if they expelled you for carrying a gun on campus, but in the mean time you'd still be expelled for however long it took to win the case (probably years). UCC is in fact a gun-free zone, and the fact that that violates state law just makes the administration that much more shameful and contemptible - not to mention vulnerable to lawsuits from the wounded and the families of the dead.

Dr Weevil said...

Darla:
To forestall any possible objections, here's the link to the pertinent page of the Umpqua C. C. Student Handbook:
http://www.umpqua.edu/resources-and-services/academic/student-code-of-conduct?showall=&start=4

And here's the quotation:
"19. Possession or use, without written authorization, of firearms, explosives, dangerous chemicals, substances, or any other weapons or destructive devices that are designed to or readily capable of causing physical injury, on College premises, at College-sponsored or supervised functions or at functions sponsored or participated in by the College."

As already noted, UCC policies violate Oregon state law, but they can still enforce them until someone sues.

Lyle Smith said...

President Obama is something less than a great man. If he was a great man he would politicize the hell out of all murders, but especially black on black murder. He is after all black and represented Chicago in the state house and in the Senate.

Anonymous said...

This is another example of the progressive WAR ON WORDS.

Michael K said...

"This is nonsense. We are fools, and have been since at least 1998. No half measures. Just repeal the thing."

I have a suggestion. Repeal it for yourself and leave the rest of us alone.

Has anyone else noticed that there were Americans, even in Europe, who ran toward the sound of guns and went for the shooter ? I don't know if the Army vet in Oregon saved some other people but he tried. The three guys on the Brussels-Paris train did save a lot of people. The wimps who post comments on British newspaper sites about those terrible Americans and their gun culture are watching their country be taken over by Muslims who have nothing to do with British culture. Another 20 years and those who are left will be living in Pakistan.

Drago said...

Chickelit: "I read tonight that the shooter had amended his profile the day of the shooting to read "conservative Republican." He was a registered independent for voting purposes."

You're writing to garage who STILL believes Anthony Weiners stories about having his social media hacked!

Drago said...

But it is a good day for garage. It looks like garages beloved and much adored Hamas gunned down a young jewish couple in front of the couples 4 children in Israel yesterday.

On top of the Oregon shooter changing his social media profile to conservative republican (which is particularly amusing these days as no conservative is willing to proudly label themselves as a "republican"), thus exposing his moby-ness.

It's likely the lefties will have the Oregon shooter labeled the leader of the republican party in about 24 hours.

Similar to how poor poor Marxist-Leninist Lee Harvey Oswald, who had spent time in both the Soviet Union and Cuba, was moved by the climate of "right-wing hate" in Dallas to shoot Kennedy.

"Lefties gonna lefty"

Birkel said...

Anybody else see the press conference in which President Obama acknowledged the rumors that he would try to stay in power after his term runs?

And that he also mentioned the ability of Putin to influence Russia's people because of a less than free press?

He seemed wistful to me. It was odd for a sitting president to say those things.

Birkel said...

Mass deportations of people illegally this country: impossible.

Mass confiscation of guns held by law-abiding citizens protected by the Second Amendment: worth a try.

#ObamaLogic

Nichevo said...

garage mahal said...
If you were to lie to get laid, why on earth would you describe yourself as a "conservative Republican", of all things?
10/2/15, 7:43 PM


Just so you know, on the next line the guy says that he eats brains. I suppose you believe that too.

grackle said...

I apologize for the delay in this response. Life sometimes interferes with timely responses. But better late than never, to coin a cliché.

@grackle, under the law you'd be on trial for murder, with a good chance that you'd be convicted of 2nd degree.

Gee, readers, but the above flat statement containing a certitude(“… you'd be on trial for murder …”) and an expert-sounding statement about even the degree of the murder indictment(“ … a good chance that you'd be convicted of 2nd degree …”) certainly seems to me to be an authoritarian statement.

In case you or any other Althouse reader needs a refresher buy -- and read!!! -- The Law of Self Defense by Andrew Branca.

Also, making questionable legal-expert-like statements without citations other than ordering the rest of us to go read a book is quite simply – a copout.

Any action you took to stop him from being a threat while he was trying to shoot people would be legal self-defense. Once he is quiet and unmoving it is not.

Another expert-sounding flat statement without any citation of any REAL experts.

Here’s what I would say to the jury, if it ever got that far, which I don’t think it would:

Quiet and unmoving doesn’t necessarily mean the gunman is harmless. As long as his guns are near and he hasn’t been pronounced as dead by a medical authority I must assume the gunman is still dangerous. I would then put into evidence some of the many instances in which a shooter has been shot multiple times and still raised up and returned fire.

This, coupled to my hero status as the saver of many innocent lives, I think could sway the jury to my side of the issue.

Nichevo said...

Grackle, you forgot the part where you get a Bronx jury and they bury you under the brig.

You would have to put at least some more dressing on that salad for you could feed it to 12 jurors.

If your real intent is to make sure that he doesn't come to trial, then when you first start shooting, empty the clip into him. Then you say you were scared. I believe that's the trick. You should probably put more emotion into it then I just did but essentially the free pass for shooting somebody is that you were afraid for your life or the lives of others.

But once he's done and clearly not a threat, you're not supposed to be scared anymore. I would be with you in spirit but you should probably study the problem a little more closely. I agree that it sounds like you would be in trouble. At the very least it would be excessive use of force or something. I really encourage you not to be so blithe.

«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 201   Newer› Newest»