The Speech I Would Give About Tucson

President Obama is scheduled to speak to the nation about this weekend’s attack in Arizona, as noted here – if were your benevolent dictator, as Atrios puts it (and assuming I could step into Obama's shoes), I would say the following (this is why I'd never be elected, I know)…

My fellow Americans, I come to you tonight in the wake of another murderous attack in our nation in which a deranged individual is accused of carrying out wholesale slaughter against men, women and children. Police believe that a member of the United States Congress was targeted by this person for reasons that are, only now, becoming clear. It could be legally prejudicial for me to speak further on his possible motives, so I’ll reserve comment for now.

As your president, part of my duty is to speak to the mood of the country, and the visibility and import granted to be by this office allows me to do this in a way which could potentially influence future events. For this reason, many in politics and the media have requested that I speak in such a fashion as to provide comfort and assurance to the nation. There is a time and place for such language, and indeed, if I were a member of the clergy, I would be speaking in such a vein at this moment, and I have done so in prior occasions.

However, I do not believe that this is such a time. Yes, the families and the friends of the victims of the slaughter in Tucson deserve no less. But I believe that comfort leads to inaction, and in the face of a grave threat to our safety, it is time to act. And I believe that is the best way to provide support at the moment.

To begin, I call for the passage of the bill sponsored by U.S. House Representative Carolyn McCarthy of New York to outlaw high-capacity bullet magazines such as the type used in the Tucson shooting. These types of magazines are not commonly used by law enforcement in this county. Jared Loughner allegedly used a 31-round clip in the Tucson shooting. Reinstating the 1994 assault weapons ban and the requirement of a clip with a 10-round maximum, while not totally removing the threat of gun violence by deranged individuals, would at least limit the destruction of such an attack.

Also, I call for national legislation that does not allow an individual under the age of 21 to conceal a handgun or semi-automatic weapon on their person. In addition, all states are to update the federal background check database within 90 days with the names of any individuals who authorities believe should be prohibited from owning a gun, such as those convicted of criminal offenses and subject to restraining orders. In the event that this is impossible, a designated state representative must officially communicate the reason why to the Federal Bureau of Investigation, along with a plan to bring their state into compliance.

Finally, Representative Peter King of New York will introduce legislation that would make it illegal to knowingly carry a gun within 1,000 feet of high-profile federal officials. I call for the immediate passage of this legislation.

I realize that none of these measures will be easy. However, one of my predecessors in this office once said we would “pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty.” How can we “assure the survival and the success of liberty” if those we charge to represent us in our democratically-elected republic continually face the threat of violence by individuals seeking the most extreme means to impose their will?

I know we also face the pervasive and engrained mythology of guns and violence in our discourse and our popular culture, and that is an obstacle to action also. Our media glorifies the notion of individual self-reliance practiced by a moral individual possessing a firearm. But this can, and has, become twisted in our political discourse, as we saw in our most recent elections. Also, the highest-selling home video product of the moment features extreme depictions of violence carried out to achieve success in a military mission. Our country remains the leader in exporting weaponry throughout the world. Our courts have, to a large degree, enshrined the rights of an individual to own a gun to a greater point now than at any prior time in our history, and this administration has supported the right of a gun owner to transport a firearm on a passenger train and carry one into a national park.

None of this, however, is an excuse not to act with courage and determination in support of legislation and governmental policy to control the threat of gun violence posed by criminals and other individuals with diminished capacity. We can act to both ensure the freedom of law-abiding sportsmen and protect our citizens from those acting irresponsibly with a firearm. And after the latest attack of gun violence, in which only the brave actions of bystanders prevented an even greater slaughter than that which we experienced, the time to do this is now.

I’m not expecting to hear anything close to this. But it would be nice if we did, wouldn’t it?