Barack Obama's Speech to
Newtown, Connecticut
Sunday, December 16th,
2012
When a town experiences a tragedy such
as took place this past week in Newtown, Connecticut, it is right and
valid to ask the question, "Why?" Truthfully, there may
never be an entirely specific and correct answer to this question.
The problem is, the best and most accurate answers could very well be
political suicide. Therefore, should a president want to both retain
his integrity and and sidestep that landmine, the issue would be
better avoided entirely in a speech such as Obama gave tonight.
President Obama's speech began in a
very odd fashion, quoting the last three verses from chapter four of
Paul's second letter to the church at Corinth. He used this passage
as comfort to those who have experienced tragic loss, and the apostle
Paul offers great comfort through his words. However, I am a little
confused as to what the president himself thought of these verses and
how they apply to the victims' family, friends and sympathizers.
Upon reading the first fifteen verses
of this chapter, it becomes clear that this comfort is offered
specifically to those who know "...that he who raised the Lord
Jesus will raise us also with Jesus and bring us...into his
presence." (ESV, verse 14) Now perhaps Obama believes that
everyone is included, but it is pretty clear that Paul does
not believe such a thing. For one thing, not everybody views Jesus as
his or her Lord (this goes without saying, does it not?). Nonetheless, despite the
oddities of Obama's use of the Bible, I very much desire that this
reference to II Corinthians offered hope and comfort to those in
attendance and to those watching elsewhere. The next few minutes of
Obama's speech were very well-written and compassionate, and most
assuredly helped listeners to grieve corporately in a most
appropriate manner.
Following the good part of his speech,
the president then began the 'power-to-the-state' section of the
speech: "Are we really prepared to say that we're powerless in
the face of such carnage?" Obama said. "That the politics
are too hard? That such violence visited on our children year after
year after year is somehow the price of our freedom?"
Here, Obama is implying that "violence
visited on our children" is a result of the freedoms we have.
The state always takes advantage of a tragedy. This is a tragedy in
itself, with respect to both the politicized suffering of the
immediate victims, and for the future victims which will result from
the newly strengthened/imposed government policies.
In any watershed event like this one,
it seems like "something must be done!" In a sense, that is
true. There are quite a few courses of action that would help to
prevent a tragedy such as the one that occurred in Newtown,
Connecticut. Gun control, however, is most assuredly not one of them.
In fact, the very opposite would help prevent such
tragedies. I am willing to admit that considering every murder
committed with a firearm, it is possible to assert hypothetically
that were the firearm not owned, the murder would not have been
committed. If this is the only assertion taken into consideration, we
should amend the US Constitution right now, and outlaw the ownership
of guns for all civilians from this day forth. However, the wrong
question is being asked.
Instead of asking whether or not this
particular massacre would have happened under stricter gun control,
we should be asking whether or not violence in total would
be increased or decreased under stricter gun control. Furthermore, we
should be asking whether or not it is moral for the government to
place such a ban on firearms. It is not easy to answer the morality
question, but the question as to the effectiveness of gun control
laws is quite easy to answer. Stricter gun control laws coincide with
higher murder rates. [1] It is possible to argue correlation instead
of causation, but the evidence points overwhelmingly to the contrary.
The
difficulty in pointing out unintended consequences - specifically of
government actions in this case - is that the anecdotal argument is
emotionally powerful. The listeners always want to hear how the
government is going to make sure to prevent anything like this from
ever happening again. This makes everyone feel much better about the
future. How could the president stand in front of a town that has
lived through one of the most horrific events a group of people could
possibly experience and instead tell them (and the world for that
matter) that the government itself is powerless to prevent such
violence? There might be calls for impeachment.
He
would have to tell them that violence is best prevented by putting
power back into the hands of the non-violent by allowing them to own
guns more easily. This is a truthful, powerful and effective message,
but alas, politically incorrect, especially because there can never
be a guarantee that violence would end, nor that this most recent
tragedy would have been averted. Furthermore, it is seemingly
a non-action, and a non-action
after a tragedy by a political figure would be at best unsympathetic
and at worst cold-hearted and cruel. In actuality though, it is
anything but a non-action, as the individual would then have the
power to act - a far more effective method of preventing violence in
general.
As to
the morality of gun control laws, this concerns the office of
pre-crime [2] that our government has proudly created. This is a far
more difficult issue. How far should a government be allowed to go to
prevent things from happening even when there is no precedent set by
the individual suspected? (As opposed to the individual who has
committed violence against another and therefore generally is not
trusted with weapons.) Another way of saying this: "It should
not be illegal for someone to own something on the premise that he or
she may commit a violent act at some point in the future."
This
would be akin to outlawing the ownership of cars. Thousands of people
die every year from car accidents, yet I have never met someone who
thinks driving should be outlawed. The difference of course is the
usual lack of intent in car accidents, but the result is the same. If
it is moral to criminalize ownership of firearms based solely on the
possibility that the
owner will commit a violent act or allow someone else to do so, it
should also be illegal to own cars.
The
extreme long-term tragedy in all of this is that more people will be
dead and injured because of foolish policies by governments (for some
governments, it is outright oppression - we can debate which
governments have crossed the line between the two). Furthermore, it
is immoral for a government to criminalize the ownership of guns. The
2nd Amendment of the US Constitution is not the reason it is immoral,
but was made because of the immorality of such laws. While the
constitution is flawed in many ways, this is one thing the founders
got right. Aside from the immediate tragedy that has occurred in
Newtown, CT this week, consider also the tragedy that the dead and
injured are being exploited to bring about more power for the
leviathan state and in turn more violence to the citizens of this
country.
[1]
http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp#
[2]
adopted term from the movie, Minority Report
Appendix A
If an intruder
enters your house, would you not like to have the ability to defend
yourself and your family? The police are powerless to help you in
that moment. A good security system can be helpful, but what if the
criminal gets past it? Or what if you cannot afford something
expensive enough to actually be effective? The idea of being
completely at the mercy of the intruder who could end up doing
permanent harm to your family in unspeakable ways is petrifying. The
idea of the government criminalizing this life-saving use of firearms
is criminal itself.
Appendix B
Not all parents are able to home-school their children, but I hope people are reminded that the fewer and smaller the government schools, the fewer these types of tragedies there will be. Also, if your children are at home, you are in a much better position to protect them, especially given the observance of our 2nd Amendment rights.
