Getty Images
House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) sat down with CNN's Jake Tapper yesterday, and their discussion turned to the Sandy Hook shootings. The host asked about the Speaker about his emotional reaction "as a dad," and Boehner replied with a complaint about President Obama.
"Our hearts go out to those who are the victims of Sandy Hook, or these other mass shootings," Boehner said. "I would hope the president would have focused on the bigger problem, you know, violence in our society."
It led to this interesting exchange:
TAPPER: Do you think background checks, improving background checks might be part of that?
BOEHNER: They should actually do a real background check on everyone.
It was an unexpected response. After all, a policy that requires real background checks on everyone is the centerpiece of President Obama's efforts to combat gun violence, and it's an idea that enjoys overwhelming support from Americans. But Republicans and the NRA continue to strongly oppose the policy, making Boehner's response on national television a pleasant surprise.
Alas, it was a fleeting development. Tapper later reported that the Speaker's office said Boehner misspoke, and he only supports Justice Department background checks "that are already required that are not necessarily done." In other words, when Boehner endorsed "real background check on everyone," he did not mean that he actually supports "real background check on everyone."
Of course, we can't say with certainty exactly what happened here. Maybe he misspoke or maybe the Speaker just spoke his mind and said what he believes, only to learn soon after that his genuine position is impolitic and he would have to abandon it.
It wouldn't be the first time.
The funny thing about John Boehner, which doesn't seem to get much attention, is that his political instincts are not ridiculous. In 2010, he said in a television interview that he was prepared to accept tax increases on income above $250,000 if that was all Democrats were prepared to offer. His office had to walk that back soon after, saying Boehner didn't really mean that.
In 2011, the Speaker said in another television interview that he would consider ending tax subsidies to the oil industry. Less than a day later, Boehner had to say he didn't mean that, either.
Presented with opportunities to align himself and his party with the American mainstream, Boehner does not reflexively run to the far-right extreme. Indeed, it's exactly why he said he supports "real background checks on everyone" as if it were a common-sense position to take -- which it is.
But the Speaker seems to realize soon after that he's the nation's highest-ranking Republican officeholder, and reasonable positions on controversial issues put his career in jeopardy, so he keeps having to explain that he doesn't really mean what he says.
Incidentally, in the same CNN interview yesterday, Boehner said, "We've got plenty of [gun]laws on the books. Let's go and enforce them before we just load up more laws on law-abiding citizens. Criminals don't respect the law."
If that's true, shouldn't Boehner support universal background checks?
Leave a Comment:
If a horror such as the murder of dozens on small children in an idyllic New England town does not move our idiot lawmakers to action on the question of gun, we are doomed to be a nation overrun by deadly firearms forever. It's amazing that we have to engage in such hand-wringing and excruciating bargaining overt even the smallest and most rational common sense steps to combat gun violence like universal background checks. Apparently the NRA endorses the idea of terrorists or other foreign agents intent on doing harm to America being able to purchase military-style weapons, because that's the result of their repetitive righteousness and lobbying against these basic checks. - progressive
If I'm unable to buy military weapons, then why would you think a terrorist would be able to?
But, but! Well something something militia! Second amendment! Slippery Slope! They'll come for your guns! Guns, guns, guns!!! Mine, mine, mine!!!
No, let's make sweet stuffed animal memorials and stand around shaking our heads sadly. Let's sadly ask how crazy people get guns (legally, of course). Let's not empathize with all those parents who find out that the child they saw leaving their house is never coming home again, whether s/he was eating Skittles, watching a movie, going to the mall, to school, or depressed. Let's not think about the fact that it could be us next, or our kids, our neighbor, parent, friend. No, second amendment, slippery slope, freedom - well, you can write the script as well as I can.
If it took having a gay child for Dick Cheney and Rob Portman to change their minds about gay marriage, would it take a similar situation to change Republican minds on gun violence? (I'm just asking, not threatening.) What will it take?
What Massachusian said
Well said, massachusian. But if having one of their own shot (Gabby Giffords) didn't change Republican minds, there is nothing that will change Republican minds. Unless she doesn't count because she's a Democrat?
Well, I thought the exact same thing, but if you remember there wasn't even lip service paid to dealing with gun violence after Giffords was shot. They did all clap for her when she went back to Congress for a visit, though. Whoop-de-do. In my cynicism, I do figure it's because she's a Democrat - very easy to ignore.
Guns are tools. No different than a hammer. If liberals really wanted to save childrens lives then they would be all for background checks on all parents. http://www.everychildmatters.org/storage/documents/pdf/reports/can_report_august2012_final.pdf Why don't I hear liberals railing against child abuse? In 2010 alone 1560 children were killed by abuse from parents or relatives..
BTW The NRA isn't against background checks, they are however aganst a national registry. That is a little known fact that Steve Benen and his ilk never write about.
Therefore the NRA does have it's members backs on this.
Are you serious, Inspector? Liberals are constantly railing against child abuse and domestic abuse, such as with the Violence Against Women act, which the GOP did NOT want to pass either.... so you have your facts WRONG, like they do... the status quo of keeping women, minorities, children, the poor, and the elderly under the control of wealthy white men is their #1 priority.... so, until some of these politicians get a conscience or a backbone, we will continue to have conflict and repression of so many logical changes that need to be made for the betterment of society.... it was a SAD day for America when the GOP took control of the Congress. Just think of how much economic and social progress would have been made for our country by now, if this weren't the case. So, for you to defend this sorry mop of angry men who prefer guns over human lives is your biggest error as an American. We always need to evolve as a civilized country. But these people don't want to evolve. They want to suppress and control.
He just said guns are no different than a hammer, so no, he's not serious. He must be play-acting, because the alternative is Bizzarro World.
What a total load of horsesqueeze. You get all your info from msnbc and npr don't you. Every sane person knows that the repubs only problem with VAWA was the Indian problem, give me a break. All the polls were simply worded to ask if people support background checks. Sure everyone thinks background checks are a good thing. But if you add "do you want a national gun registry/ database to those polls you would get a totally different answer from the people. What really makes me sick is posters on this site using the Sandy Hook children for political purposes in order to get legislation passed to limit the rights given to us by the constitution.
An assault rifle did not kill those children poor parenting did. The shooter's mother was a terrible parent. She knew full well that her son had mental health issues and she still left open access to her firearms.
Um, yes, actually that was the weapon used. I suspect far fewer kids would have been killed if Adam Lanza had tried to bludgeon them to death with kitchen utensils.
And it seems you weren't play-acting after all. Go figure.
1.1 Really Alva? If you can't do something it can't be done?
No I Repeat No children would have been killed if Adam's mother didn't let him have access to her firearms.
When police called the Aurora shooter's mom the first thing out of her mouth was "You have the right guy" WTF!! She knew her kid was a POS too and never did anything about it.
True. And more children could have survived if his mother couldn't have purchased a Bushmaster AR15 with a high-capacity mag.
Weapons designed to kill people will be used to kill people. Duh.
Rochester, Why can't you even touch the personal/parental responsibility aspect of this?
I do and I have. Didn't you read where I said "True" to your comment?
Why do you think US citizens have a right to own weapons designed to kill as many people as possible in as quick a time possible? And if you say "2nd Amendment", you're a coward.
Inspector - why can't you even touch the 2nd Amendment aspect of this? Where exactly does it say that civilians have the right to own military weapons SO THEY CAN HUNT? That is the stock excuse used by most NRA types. Then the next response will be "to protect myself from government tyranny"? OK, exactly where in the 2nd Amendment does it give YOU, and ONLY YOU, the right to have a weapon "to protect yourself from government tyranny". Yeah, it doesn't.
The 2nd Amendment was written in times of hand-loaded muskets and cannons. IT uses the phrase "well regulated militia" which most constitutional scholars concur relates to State National Guards, not some whackjob white supremacist anti-government goofball and his buddies holed out in Montana.
Next thing is you'll blame video games and movies. Guns are instruments of death. No more, no less. They are designed, primarily, to kill people. There should be stricter controls and enforcement to avoid repeat instances such as Sandy Hook, Aurora and Tucson. If you want to ban hammers, why stop there? Ban scissors, knives (of all sorts), nails, staples, pencils, pens and so on. Better still, let's go back to the stone age so you can drag your woman by the hair!!
Stop, take a breath, and think. Turn off the Faux News and Limbo. And Beck. And Hannity. And O'lielly. Think for yourself. It's amazing what happens when you do. Consider how your position would change if your child were killed by a legally owned gun handled by a legal gun owner. You might think differently.
So are you saying that instead of licensing and regulating guns, we should license and regulate parents? That's where your logic seems to be going.
I agree with you that Adam Lanza's mother was a whack job who not only let her son have access to guns, she had him do gun training so his aim was good when he went on his rampage. What you seem to be leaving out is that she bought the arsenal because she really liked guns. Should each and every parent who owns guns get some kind of inspection to verify that nobody around them is nuts, or depressed? Is that what you're saying? I mean, we can blame parents all we want to, but what are you proposing to do to prevent bad parenting?
I still believe that even if Adam's parents were whacko, if he had not had access to the guns in his household, he would not have been able to kill so many people. He killed 26 people in under 5 minutes, using high capacity magazines. Could he have done that with your preferred tool, the hammer? I don't think so.
Rochester
First of all I personally don't think that any untrained person should own a fully automatic assault weapon. I do however believe that the second amendment is crucial to freedom. My main problem with gun control in general and the underhanded way that some people are trying to subvert it. I don't believe for a minute that the people pushing for it are being truthful in their arguments. I see it on this blog all the time when someone says "they aren't coming for your guns" then turn around in the next breath the same person says that all guns should be banned. I personally have owned various hunting firearms all my life. I have never even thought about shooting anything but food. The problem comes with perception, I have small caliber rifles that I target shoot and hunt varmints with. My .22 cal rifle can hold 15 rounds. It has a beautiful walnut stock. I can buy a plastic stock and forarm for it. If I do, does that then make it an assault rifle? The answer is no but to anyone that doesn't know the difference the answer is quite different. Perception is everything. I also have a 12 guage pump action shotgun that by Ohio law only hold 3 shells. I bought a kit for it that is plastic and has a pistol grip. It now weighs alot less and is easier to carry in the woods for turkey hunting. My point in all of this is that this shotgun just looks scarier to the untrained eye, therefore should it be included in the assault weapons ban?
I cannot find where to load the bullets in my hammer.
Hmm - maybe hammers are different.
Mass
I think people on the left are missing the point all together on this. They are looking for a scapegoat instead of looking at the real problem. Personal responsibility. My take on this is that the only time a firearm is an assault weapon is when you use it to assault someone. A 9mm Makarov with 3 7 shot clips could have done the same damage in that school. The main problem we have is that noone wants to stop the enablers that are raising rude, aggressive children with no respect for life.
Inspector, if laws evolve to where you can't have a hobby interest in assault weapons, or god forbid you can't admire your walnut stock rifle anymore... believe me when I say I won't lose any sleep over your loss.
Instead of freaking out about a supposed loss of a hobby, try empathizing with people who've lost family members to gunfire. Where you say "scapegoat", I say "public safety".
Look Rochester
I had a nephew with a 3.9 gpa in engineering school gunned down in cold blood by a pants draging cornrowed POS. The reason? Because he had the balls to ask this sub human if his mom had taught him manners when he came in to a gas station and cut in line in front of about 4 people with his Ahole attitude. The rotten piece of gutter slime had an illegal firearm And a previous arrest record longer than my silverado. He was only 21 when he shot my nephew 5 times. If This piece of yacksqueeze 's parents were anything but trash themselves David would be just fine today.
Because People keep putting out useless offspring I have a concealed carry permit today. I learn from other's actions. Hobby, my Ass.
I give thanks for not giving into the fear that would cause me to carry a handgun, and feel sorry for people who do. It must suck to be that person. Weird that you defend it.
And yes, hobby:
Also, it seems your nephew's murder has brought out the bigot in you. Not an unexpected reaction from a tragedy, but I feel sorry for you about that, too. I really do.
And there it is. Be proud that you carry a handgun to protect yourself from prants dragging cornrowed POS people. The alternative is shame, and that's not acceptable, is it?
You don't get it at all do you? Pants dragging cornrow is a state of mind not a color. You are the bigot for thinking otherwise. I don't have a problem with black people, I have a problem with anyone that raises a child to be anything less than a productive citizen that doesn't feel entitled to kill someone that calls them on bad behavior. It doesn't bring me any pride whatsoever to have to arm myself against other peoples parental insufficiencies.
I will never blame the tool. I will however always blame the abuser.
While you're busy assigning blame to everything except access to guns, people get shot every day. For that, I blame the shooter, and people like you.
Ironic, isn't it?
Oh please unveil your secret plan to disarm the gangbangers and other criminals while protecting the rights of the american people.
Go watch this video, then tell me your secret plan to make sure assault weapons won't be used again like this. Because they will... bank on it.
People who carry guns are frightened, I get that and feel bad for them their choices in life. However, people who *want* to carry guns are cowards, and as much to blame for this problem as criminals.
Yeah, drunks often enlist others to make excuses for them.
Restrict gun ownership: No
Background checks when purchasing a gun: absolutely
Background checks when purchasing a gun WOULD, of necessity, restrict gun ownership. So what are you saying independent? I mean, I am for that, definitely. I just didn't understand your comment.
If background checks restrict gun ownership, then how come driver's licenses don't restrict car ownership? And the same thing goes for registration.
But I see your point, Phyllis. These checks would restrict criminals and the mentally deranged from buying guns and committing more violence.
I'm glad it's not my job to defend Republican dogma. Boehner isn't very good at it, but let's not confuse this with independent thought.
All of the politicians lately are doing a"Jekyll and Hyde." On one hand, they say something that the American public likes, to appease theirconstituents, then they give the NRA party line to appease their donors. And they act like that appeases everybody, never mind that the party line is being heard by constituents, and the the appeasing of constituents is being heard by the NRA. When confronted, they can say, "But on XX XX XXXX I said this XXXXX.. Really being two faced and obvious.
Yes, it's a lot harder now to pander to both sides like that in the era of cell phone videos that can be uploaded just as fast as their phone's bandwith will allow.
The argument that criminals don't respect the law is very frustrating. Wouldn't that line of thinking lead to the ultimate conclusion that we shouldn't make laws at all?
Thinking is the word that is tripping you up.
Justmekp
Repeat after me ...If it stops one senseless death and family destroyed...
Is 2824 killed since Sandy Hook enough? Just click on one of the little stick figures in the interactive ...it may take you to your town and tell you how many of your neighbors have been gunned down.
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/crime/2012/12/gun_death_tally_every_american_gun_death_since_newtown_sandy_hook_shooting.html
My dad was a cop and a gun nut. I had my first rifle at 5. Nobody needs or should have access to assault weapons or high capacity magazines or ammo clips.
It is absurd that we are frozen in what is essentially a theological debate over this.
If only criminals did have these guns, it would make it a lot easier for cops to sot out the bad guys from the population.
I agree, Robert. I grew up in a hunting family. I shot a 410 shotgun at 8. A 30 06 at about 12 (I was 5'10" in the fourth grade so I was big enough the kick didn't knock me down). I have a hunter safety card. I used to be a member of the NRA, I am still a member of the rocky MOuntain Elk Foundation. I like shooting a semi automatic 22 because you can shoot cans all day long for about five dollars. We do not need these big assault type rifles with large capacity clips. Nobody does.
Robert, you are wrong. Need has nothing to do with it. Your opinion has nothing to do with it. 2nd Amendment. Period. Neither you nor anyone else is owed an explanation concerning a peaceable citizen's legal ownership of any property. A sport rifle is NOT an "assault weapon", and those high capacity magazines you are so scared of saved people in Colorado AND Conn, as their weapons jammed and they were forced to use a different weapon. Sorry, but there is nothing wrong with an armed citizenry. The 2nd amendment was put in place as a last resort to prevent the rise of tyranny in this nation. Its not an issue BECAUSE of the 2nd amendment. Maybe instead of trying to punish and prevent the 99% of firearm owners who are NOT criminals, we should just hold criminals accountable for their own actions.
Prominent Republican says something reasonable in a very public setting, hours later his handlers walk it back and the walkback only reaches the base. Where have we seen this happen before? FitzHominy... GlitzyTobaggan SplitDomine...I just can't place it.... /Colbertnesia
We all realize that most NRA members support universal background checks. The NRA leadership isn't even representing its own members. Just who do they represent? Terrorists?
Weapons manufacturers. It has nothing to do with the 2nd Amendment. It's all about money.
I realize yours was probably a rhetorical question, but there it is anyway.
And the answer is -- GUN MANUFACTURERS, AMMO MANUFACTURERS, SHOOTING RANGE OWNERS -- that is who the NRA represents.
How many times has a Republican said something sensible in the last 4 years and then had to moonwalk it back? This has gotten really old.
I love "moonwalk it back." Would love to see Congressional reps moonwalking on the capitol steps! LOL
Huh. How about if the Senate would confirm an Director of the ATF to make it possible to enforce the existing laws?
Nah.
And how about allowing the ATF and FBI to compile and release statistics on gun deaths, including homicides, suicides, accidental discharges, as well as injury rates? Oh that's right, that would be facts, something the modern Republican party, under tea party control, is seriously allergic to!
The senate doesn't respect the law either. If they did they would be doing what the people want, not the NRA
remember thats how you spell leadersh_t
Follow the $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ and ignore the + + + + + + + ad infinitum.
Follow the $$$$$$$$$$$$$$ and ignore the + + + + + + + +
We should have a national plebiscite to vote for or against the manufacture & sale of assault weapons and large capacity magazines.
The key element missing is what constitutes a background check. Sure criminal is fine but that's easy since if you've ever had contact with the criminal justice system as a suspect/perp it'll return a quick result.
However if you've never had contact you'll pass.
Now include a psychological evaluation and you get closer to having a TRUE check.
Drug test? Credit check? Family, friend and association check? Where do we go with this?
I agree, and I have had a problem with this. Who gets to sit in the office and pick who gets a weapon, and who doesn't? I spent two years in therapy after a bad marriage. Does that qualify as depressed enough that I couldnt get a gun? Which psychiatrist determines who is too crazy, and who is merely depressed (which could mean they shouldn't have access to weapons)?? Nobody is going to be happy to try to buy a 22 for fun plinking at cans, and find out because they suffered from depression they can't buy a gun. Or the guy who got in an argument with his wife, the cops were called, and now he is a potential domestic violence person. who gets to decide? if a guy has several weapons and gets into a domestic violence situation with his wife, who gets to go to his house and take his guns away from him for a certain amount of time when he has a restraining order against him? It could get sticky.
Not sure about all states, but in Ga and Az I know if you've been served with a protective order you're already prohibited from possessing a firearm - at least for the duration of that order.
The whole "slippery slope" arguments about the specifics of the eventual laws are simply a diversion and only the nutters really worry about "who gets to make the laws?" At it's core - it's anti-democratic hysteria.
Great comments and discussion. Now - when do the trolls and nutters start showing up?
*I support rational discussion in this forum. Trolls, off topic ranters and Nutters will be flagged and won't be responded to. (add to your own posts if you agree)
...free guns should be given to everyone and starting with nine year olds. Most of all all crazy people and all developmentally challenged people should be given guns. We all should have guns. No safety for anyone! (satire)
Why wait until 9? Give 'em one with their SSI#. Hand 'em out with the cigars. That would go a long way toward limiting the number of surviving children of the "ghetto hos" that one of my favorite trolls is fascinated with.
</snark>
Ooh, I'm cranky today. Need more coffee.
Taking away firearms does not make you safe. It makes you unsafe. The right to bear arms is what protects every other Constitutional Right. Yes, everyone SHOULD have a weapon because the fact of the matter is the only person who can protect you is YOU.
Too bad they didn't do mental health background check on Bonehead.
Reminds of a quote from Point Break 'peace through superior fire power' So if the criminals can carry assault weapons with high capacity magazines I can't wait to see what the cops will be carrying soon! All produced and purchased from the NRA supported weapons manufacturers. He kids, don't forget your gloves, scarfs and bullet proof vests!
Ridiculous.
Why is it that they always talk about the "criminals" as if this is this autonomous group out there. Most gun violence is suicide or committed by family members, friends, none of whom are "criminals" until they pull the trigger. Most were law abiding citizens who have no criminal record. I know that this is hard to verify nationwide because of NRA obstructionism, but here in Oregon we have the stats, and over 70% of all gun violence was committed by a family member or was a suicide.
That's exactly why all this talk of background checks is nothing more than misdirection and half measures. Adam Lanza was not diagnosed with any mental illness nor did he have a criminal record...those two facts changed only AFTER a mass shooting. And his is not a unique story.
Background checks will do little to stop horrific gun crimes.
Less guns = less gun violence.Period.
I think you are wrong about Adam Lanza. He was known to be autistic. His family knew he had problems. I think he even tried to buy a gun but was denied. That is when he stole his mother's gun, and she was the first to die.
If he was indeed denied the right to buy a gun, then the system worked at that level. It just means that the ban on gun ownership needs to be extended to family members. Lanza's mother is ultimately responsible for this tragedy, but she cannot be prosecuted because she is dead.
The statistics show that owning a gun is less likely to protect you than to kill you. And even if you use the gun "to protect yourself" because you feel threatened, you may end up in jail.
Tom
Please post a link to those stats.
Wrong answer. Denying a person their 2nd amendment rights based on family members is Unconstitutional. That is one of the important parts concerning the Constitution. 14th Amendment. The DUE PROCESS clause. The EQUAL PROTECTION clause. Prohibits state and local governments from depriving persons of life, liberty, or property without certain steps being taken to ensure fairness. Requires each state to provide equal protection under the law to all people within its jurisdiction. Banning based on the actions of family members is unfairly revoking Constitutional Rights.
I cannot believe that the shape of our future is one where all Americans have guns and can do with them whatever we please.
What @massachusian said may sadly be true. To have to loose one of your own seems to be extreme to say the least if that's what it will take for people to have some sort of common sense response.
But that is exactly what happened in Colorado. The governor there signed the toughest gun control laws in the country yesterday in response to the shooting death of his Lt Governor the day before.
Why do we always wait until someone looses their life to actually do something right? That makes no sense at all. This is a sad state of affairs for what used to be a superpower in the world.
With the T-party behind all this wacko stuff the world is watching and scratching it's collective heads and wondering how far the mighty have and will fall. It is truly shameful.
But WE want to police the world. HA! We can't even police ourselves or look out for our own. Damn shame. The T-party won't be happy until there no more working class, poor, elderly or kids left in this country. What will be left will be dumb as rocks. Back to the stone age and caves they go. SMDH
Inspector 12 guns are tools.Dangerous tools.hammers don't have the death rate reputation guns have.
Inspector is a tool and better left to his own sick thoughts. DON'T FEED THE TROLLS!
You are 31x more likely to die in a fatal car accident than by a firearm = and that is after a century of registration and licensing. Yet oddly enough no one supports making it harder for sober people to own cars in an attempt to stop drunks from driving.
It is totally evident that our polititions only care about their bottom line, "re-election". I'll be basing my support, both personal and financial on their NRA grade. If they have an "A" rating, I will work to replace them. That my friends, is the only way we will see real progress on this issue.
I have said this before but I will say it again. Everyone needs to watch The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance. It is a good old John Ford western with Jimmy Stewart, John Wayne, and Lee Marvin. It really covers the whole issue. Do we want to live in a place where you have to be really good with a gun to keep from being beaten and robbed? In the end it is education and law that are the foundations of Democracy; not guns.
Rep. Boehner, you have my sympathy. It must be so difficult to be for something before you were against it.