President Obama: We're Not Doing Enough

      That was a very strong speech by the President last night. He lamented that this was the 4th such shooting massacre he's had to give speeches like last not following and that we're just not doing enough. As he points out, there will be those who argue that the problem is too complex and there's nothing that can be done, but simple resignation is not an option.

       Speaking before an auditorium of grieving parents, community members and others there to mourn the killing of 20 first graders and six educators from Newtown, Conn., President Barack Obama pledged Sunday to use the power of the office he occupies to end the epidemic of gun violence shaking the nation."

       "We're not doing enough," the president said. "And we will have to change."

        "We can't tolerate this anymore," he added. "These tragedies must end, and to end them, we must change. We will be told that the causes of such violence are complex, and it is true. No single law, no set of laws can eliminate evil from the world or prevent every senseless act of violence in our society. But that can't be an excuse for inaction. Surely we can do better than this."

       http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/16/obama-speaks-at-sandy-hoo_n_2312869.html

        At this point, how can anyone claim that passivity is the answer?

        "We can't accept events like this as routine," he said. "Are we really prepared to say that we're powerless in the face of such carnage? That the politics are too hard? Are we prepared to say that the violence visited on our children year after year after year is somehow the price of our freedom?"

        As he himself said, this has become too routine during his time in office.

         These moments have become disturbingly regular for this president. His speech in the aftermath of the Fort Hood shootings touched on the concept of justice for such heinous acts. His address to the victims of the Tucson, Ariz., shooting that nearly took former Rep. Gabrielle Gifford's (D-Ariz.) life focused on the need to renew the human spirit in the wake of seeming madness. His talk before the National Urban League convention following the shooting in Aurora, Colo., rested on the notion of community and how society can protect and better itself even amid epidemics of gun violence.

          There are many gun control advocates who remain skeptical about the President on gun control:

           "The address in Newtown offered a more stern call for cultural, or even legislative, change.
"We can't accept events like this as routine," he said. "Are we really prepared to say that we're powerless in the face of such carnage? That the politics are too hard? Are we prepared to say that the violence visited on our children year after year after year is somehow the price of our freedom?"
But like the three speeches before, the president stayed vague on the methods of seeing that change through. This could very well be out of a sense of proper setting. A vigil isn't always the best time to make policy points. But that may not be much comfort to those who are tired of the debate being ducked."

            I don't think that not getting into a policy debate at a vigil is ducking the question. It seems quite plausible that what happened in Newton on Friday has changed things. What hits home is that these were children-first graders mowed down with an assault weapon designed for a war zone.  The shock of this kind of violence being visited down on defenseless first-graders may be the game changer to get something done.

            Though there still are some crazy gun nuts out there with their absurd belief that the more guns we have the safer we are. Yesterday on Meet the Press, Bill Bennett actually suggested this tragedy could have been mitigated if someone at school-the Principal or someone else-had been armed. He said he knows making such a comment will get him mail. David Brooks added the vapid delcaration that there is a rural-urban divide on this issue and liberals must respect that people from the rural areas feel differently. So that's his answer: we should just accept more gridlock? I'm sorry the absurdity of the "the more guns we have the safer we'll be argument" hardly seems worth dignifying with a response.

            If "guns don't kill people, people kill people" it's clear that guns have been the weapon of choice for these large killings we've been suffering every few months lately. Yes, someone can also kill by putting his hands around someone's neck but that would not have lead to 20 dead children last Friday.

            Mike Bloomberg made the good point that the NRA's power is great exaggerated these days. While everyone assumes that the Brady Bill was a big part of the Democrats' defeat in 1994, what's clear is that the NRA went after Obama and Democrats in Congress who supported some measure of gun control and they didn't win many contests.

            The NRA like Norquist may be more paper tiger than real these day. As Ed Rendell argued, if protecting America's children from more of these massacres or at least doing what we can isn''t worth risking a Congressional seat there's something wrong anyway.