2nd amendment persuasive speech

• New Hampshire
• North Carolina
• Pennsylvania
• West Virginia
• Online hoaxes
• Coronavirus
• Health Care
• Immigration
• Environment
• Foreign Policy
• Kamala Harris
• Donald Trump
• Mitch McConnell
• Hakeem Jeffries
• Ron DeSantis
• Tucker Carlson
• Sean Hannity
• Rachel Maddow
• PolitiFact Videos
• 2024 Elections
• Mostly True
• Mostly False
• Pants on Fire
• Biden Promise Tracker
• Trump-O-Meter
• Latest Promises
• Our Process
• Who pays for PolitiFact?
• Advertise with Us
• Suggest a Fact-check
• Corrections and Updates
• Newsletters

Stand up for the facts!

Our only agenda is to publish the truth so you can be an informed participant in democracy. We need your help.

I would like to contribute

In context: donald trump's 'second amendment people' comment.

Did Donald Trump suggest that Second Amendment supporters commit violence to protect their gun rights? That’s what some heard in remarks he made at an Aug. 9, 2016, rally in Wilmington, N.C.

Here are Trump’s remarks -- which are actually quite brief -- in their full context.

"So here, I just wrote this down today. Hillary wants to raise taxes -- it's a comparison. I want to lower them. Hillary wants to expand regulations, which she does bigly. Can you believe that? I will reduce them very, very substantially, could be as much as 70 to 75 percent. Hillary wants to shut down energy production. I want to expand it. Lower electric bills, folks! Hillary wants to abolish, essentially abolish, the Second Amendment. By the way, and if she gets to pick --if she gets to pick her judges, nothing you can do, folks. Although the Second Amendment people, maybe there is, I don't know. But I'll tell you what, that will be a horrible day, if -- if -- Hillary gets to put her judges in."

To hear his tone of voice, check out this tweet from Politico for a brief video clip of the comments. The full speech can be seen here .

First off, we’ll note that the core factual claim here -- that Clinton wants to "essentially abolish" the Second Amendment -- is something we’ve rated False , noting that we found no evidence of Clinton ever saying she wants to abolish the Second Amendment. The bulk of her comments suggest the opposite: She wants to enact stricter gun control, but has no objection to responsible gun ownership.

But what attracted immediate attention on social media was this part of what Trump said -- "If she gets to pick her judges, nothing you can do, folks. Although the Second Amendment people, maybe there is, I don't know."

Some saw it as a joke about assassination -- either of Clinton or of Supreme Court justices.

Clinton campaign manager Robby Mook sent a blast email saying, "This is simple—what Trump is saying is dangerous. A person seeking to be the president of the United States should not suggest violence in any way."

Others said it was much ado about nothing, arguing that Trump was simply touting the political influence of voters motivated by gun rights.

Trump campaign senior communications advisor released a statement that said, "It’s called the power of unification – 2nd Amendment people have amazing spirit and are tremendously unified, which gives them great political power. And this year, they will be voting in record numbers, and it won’t be for Hillary Clinton, it will be for Donald Trump."

Our only conclusion: Trump’s rather elliptical words certainly left room for interpretation.

Our Sources

Linked in article.

Browse the Truth-O-Meter

More by louis jacobson.

In context: Donald Trump's 'Second Amendment people' comment

The 'scope' of the argument: Why the Second Amendment matters

The U.S. Constitution's guarantee of the right to bear arms has been a primary conversation topic among Americans in 2020. As uncertainty and fear have plagued the world over the last eight months, there has been a surge in gun sales nationwide — many of them to first-time owners.

Austin and Danielle, one young couple in Utah, had always talked about owning a firearm. Austin grew up in a city where gun ownership was less common, but Danielle grew up in a small town where gun ownership was normal. They both said the events of 2020 lead them to buy a firearm.

“We always talked about having a gun,' Austin said. 'I thought they were probably important to have for self-defense. Once COVID-19 hit , it made getting one feel like an important purchase to make.”

The couple bought their gun in early April. While they believe in gun ownership, they wanted to keep their last name anonymous to avoid the negative stigma some associate with gun owners.

“I feel like a lot of people have a mental image of gun owners as uneducated or having low IQs,' Danielle said. 'I do feel like most gun owners are responsible and only want them for recreation and self-defense purposes, but some people think they are hillbillies.”

The two cited the case of the Orem wildfires in mid-October, which were caused by target practice at a local gun range. They also mentioned a few other reasons they didn't want to be labeled as 'gun owners.'

“We wanted to remain anonymous because we didn’t want to be targeted for our political beliefs or because we choose to own a gun,' Austin said. 'Remaining anonymous is a safe choice. That’s the reason I bought a gun — it’s something to protect my family and keep us safe.”

While some Americans have sought to restrict gun ownership, for many others it is a cherished right they work to protect. According to The New York Times , demand for guns has surged since the start of the pandemic in March and hasn’t let up all year. The National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) recorded an estimated 28 million background checks were requested from January to the end of September.

Jeffrey Denning, a Salt Lake City Police detective, teaches firearm safety classes to private parties. He has seen a dramatic increase in people wanting to exercise their Second Amendment rights.

“One gun store owner I talked to said the day after the Utah earthquake on March 13th, he received the most sales he had ever gotten,” Denning said. “After that, sales started going through the roof. The numbers are off the charts.”

According to the data reported by the NICS, the first spike (3.7 million background checks) in firearm demand happened in March likely because of the pandemic. The second spike (3.9 million background checks) was larger and occurred in June — right after acts of civil unrest began in major American cities.

“ People should be able to protect themselves individually and collectively,” Denning said. “We should be able to preserve our freedoms — this lets us have agency and a land of liberty.”

Denning said that while firearms are certainly good for personal protection, the reason the Second Amendment is considered a right is more complex than that.

“The Second Amendment was included in the Constitution so the government could not take over,” Denning said. 'It’s to serve against government encroachments. The amendments were developed because of what the founding fathers saw in other parts of the world.”

Most historians agree that this was the premise of the Second Amendment. But some people have grown increasingly wary of the potential dangers of an armed population. Because of this fear, there has been heated debate in recent years over whether to update or reform the Second Amendment.

Lucy Williams, an assistant professor of political philosophy, said the conflict was most pronounced in the 2008 Supreme Court case D.C. v. Heller.

“For some time, there was a debate about whether the prefatory clause ‘A well-regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State’ was intended to limit the right to bear arms or if it merely explained why the right is important,” Williams said. “The debate is now largely settled.”

Williams said reformers proposed that the Constitution only protects a right to bear arms in relation to military service. People who took the other position argued the right was not connected to military service. The Supreme Court sided with the latter position.

After this Supreme Court decision, it seems that the debate has shifted. Instead of asking whether individuals should be allowed to have firearms, the debate is focused on whether the government has the ability to regulate and restrict specific weapons from entering the public sphere.

This threat of potential regulation has made some Americans nervous, and conservative politicians say the Second Amendment is under attack, or will be eliminated because of their political opponents. Williams said this is not likely.

“Although the scope of (the Second Amendment) may change, it’s hard to imagine that the right could ever be eliminated entirely,” Williams said.

Though reform may happen in the future, more people are making use of their Second Amendment right. Background checks, first-time gun purchases and training classes are increasing in demand. It remains to be seen whether gun sales will trend downward anytime soon.

“If you haven’t had a gun in 70 years, and are only interested in one because you’re scared, there is no reason to buy one now,” Denning said. “You are going to be fine.”

Despite this, Denning said individuals who have considered buying a gun and want to educate themselves should do so.

“It’s ignorant and foolish not to have a plan for preparation and protection,” Denning said. “You can think all day long that something won’t happen ‘here’ or ‘to you’ but if it does, you’re not going to be prepared.”

Discussing Controversial Topics: The Second Amendment

In July of 2012, a g

Bill of Rights Institute Resources

• The United States Constitution
• The United States Bill of Rights
• District of Columbia v. Heller (2008)
• McDonald v. Chicago (2010)

News Resources

• Temple massacre has some Sikhs mulling gun ownership , FOX News
• Candidates show little appetite for new gun control laws , CNN
• Gunman Dies After Killing at Empire State Building , New York Times

Ac tivity/How to Use

• What right does the Second Amendment protect?
• No right in the Bill of Rights is considered absolute. What limits on firearms has the Supreme Court ruled are constitutional? What limits on firearms do you believe are constitutional?
• One group should prepare to argue that high profile shootings are reasons to increase gun control.
• The other should prepare to argue that high profile shootings are reasons to loosen restrictions on firearms.
• Speak courteously: No raised voices or insults.
• Listen courteously: No interruptions.
• Argue authoritatively: Use primary sources to support reasoning.
• Distribute “Questions to Consider” to help students prepare their data and arguments. The teacher may add additional questions during the debate to help clarify or extend arguments.
• Students will have to think about why they are for or against increasing or decreasing gun control.
• Students should use primary sources and facts to support their argument.
• Students should think about why the opposing group believes what they believe and be able to respond to that argument.
• Alternate which team answers the questions first.
• Allow students from the opposing group to ask clarifying questions if necessary.
• Give each group a time limit on each question to keep the debate moving.

Questions to Consider

What right does the Second Amendment to the Constitution protect?  Do you think this protection is necessary? Why or why not? Why did the Founders include the Second Amendment in the Bill of Rights?  Do you think that their reasons are still valid today? Why or why not? What has the Supreme Court ruled about the meaning of the Second Amendment? Do you agree with their reasoning and conclusions? What types of restrictions have local and state governments put on weapons?  What laws have local and state governments proposed?  Do you support or oppose these restrictions?  Explain. What laws would you propose regarding gun control?  How do you think the public would react to your ideas?  Why do you think gun control is controversial? During the Empire State Building shooting, it is believed that police officers fired shots at the accused shooter and accidentally wounded nine bystanders.  A grand jury is now reviewing evidence in this case to determine whether the officers should stand charges.  How does this knowledge impact your understanding of the Second Amendment?  How does it impact your opinion on gun control regulations?

• After the debate, students should think about what they learned from reading the articles and debating on the the topic.  They should write a brief essay explaining what they learned and if their opinion changed after thinking about the issue.
• Students should research laws regarding guns in your state or community and then write a brief essay explaining one of the laws.  Examples may include limits on sale or ownership of certain weapons, concealed carry requirements, limits on gun purchases, or others. Their essay should include reasons the law was proposed or passed, what the final vote on the law was, and how the community reacted to the law.

Related Content

The Constitution

The Constitution was written in the summer of 1787 in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, by delegates from 12 states, in order to replace the Articles of Confederation with a new form of government. It created a federal system with a national government composed of 3 separated powers, and included both reserved and concurrent powers of states.

Bill of Rights: The 1st Ten Amendments

The first 10 amendments to the Constitution make up the Bill of Rights. James Madison wrote the amendments, which list specific prohibitions on governmental power, in response to calls from several states for greater constitutional protection for individual liberties.

McDonald v. Chicago | Homework Help from the Bill of Rights Institute

Does the Second Amendment prevent a city from effectively outlawing handgun ownership? In 2008, Otis McDonald attempted to purchase a handgun for self-defense purposes in a Chicago suburb. However, the city of Chicago had banned handgun ownership in 1982 when it passed a law that prevented issuing handgun registrations. McDonald argued this law violated the Fourteenth Amendment’s Privileges and Immunities Clause as well as the Due Process Clause. In a 5-4 decision, the Court ruled that McDonald’s Second Amendment right to bear arms was protected at the state and local level by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

• Skip to main content
• Keyboard shortcuts for audio player

Donald Trump's Controversial Speech Often Walks The Line

Sarah McCammon

Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump speaks at a rally in Green Bay, Wis., on Friday. Darren Hauck/Getty Images hide caption

Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump speaks at a rally in Green Bay, Wis., on Friday.

Donald Trump's suggestion that "maybe there is" something Second Amendment supporters could do to stop his Democratic rival from picking Supreme Court justices caused outrage among those who read it as an incitement to violence.

Trump says he was merely talking about the political power of gun-rights advocates and the National Rifle Association to defeat Hillary Clinton. But it's far from the first time the Republican nominee has made a statement that seems open to sinister interpretations.

As we've noted before , Trump has repeatedly made public comments that have seemed to many observers to push or violate the boundaries of acceptable political discourse in the United States.

Russian email hackers

Just a couple of weeks ago , the real estate developer held a press conference in Florida where he suggested that Russian hackers should look for emails missing from Hillary Clinton's time as secretary of state.

"Russia, if you're listening, I hope you're able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing," Trump said.

Pressed by reporters on whether he was concerned about the idea of Russians looking at private State Department emails, Trump said he was not. He did not clarify his remarks until later, after the Clinton campaign accused Trump of encouraging Russian hacking.

Initially, Trump's spokesman, Jason Miller, tweeted: "To be clear, Mr. Trump did not call on or invite Russia or anyone else to hack Hillary Clinton's emails today."

But that interpretation differed even from an explanation offered later by Trump himself, who told Fox News the next day that "of course I'm being sarcastic."

Wanting to "hit" his opponents

Trump got into trouble for seeming to encourage violent behavior at his rallies after several violent clashes between protesters and supporters during the primary season. Trump suggested he would pay the legal fees of a man accused of punching a protester at a rally in North Carolina in March. He also urged supporters to "knock the crap out" of anyone trying to disrupt his rally by throwing tomatoes. He later backed off those statements, telling CBS News , "I don't condone violence."

More recently, while campaigning during the Democratic National Convention, Trump repeatedly told supporters he'd like to "hit" his critics who were attacking him from the convention stage — including former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg. CNN ran that headline , while also noting that Trump often uses that term as a rhetorical device to describe verbal attacks.

Even so, during a rally at the Wings Over the Rockies Air & Space Museum in Denver, Trump doubled down, promising to "hit them back so hard." At that rally, Trump made clear that he'd "do it verbally" and on social media, and also attacked the media for questioning the statement.

"CNN put on, 'Trump is going to hit them.' I mean, I'm gonna hit them with this, with the lips, I'm gonna hit them verbally," Trump said, motioning toward his mouth. "They put out a thing, 'Trump hitting — .' You never saw people — these people are so dishonest. They're so dishonest. But I'm gonna hit 'em hard."

Double entendre and innuendo

Many of Trump's opaque statements seem to rely on suggestion and innuendo. It's been a year since Trump, displeased with Fox News host Megyn Kelly's tough questions at the first Republican presidential debate, told CNN that Kelly had "blood coming out of her eyes, blood coming out of her wherever." That comment was widely viewed as referring to Kelly's menstrual cycle — though Trump claimed his comments were misinterpreted. "Only a deviant would think that," Trump said.

But there have been other remarks that appear to fall along similar lines. Trump mocked 2012 GOP nominee Mitt Romney after Romney criticized him , saying the former Massachusetts governor would have "dropped to his knees" for Trump's endorsement four years ago. Also in March, during the primary season, there was the infamous "hand size" discussion , when then-rival Florida Sen. Marco Rubio raised questions about Trump's ostensibly small hands (a concern that has plagued Trump since the 1980s). Trump objected , saying, "Look at those hands, are they small hands? And, he referred to my hands — 'If they're small, something else must be small.' I guarantee you there's no problem. I guarantee."

"Dishonest media"

The response to these vague statements from Trump tends to follow a pattern:

1. Trump makes an apparently offensive remark.

2. Criticism ensues from Democrats.

3. The media go into a frenzy, with several news cycles of coverage.

4. Trump and his allies complain that his words have been distorted, taken out of context or overblown.

Over the past year or more, this cycle has played out like a ritual again and again — keeping Trump in the spotlight and feeding news outlets' appetite for headlines. It's also fed Trump's narrative that the media are a mouthpiece for the Clinton campaign.

After Trump's remarks about the Second Amendment this week, his campaign released a statement titled "Trump Campaign Statement on Dishonest Media." Spokesman Jason Miller said Trump's remarks were about the "amazing spirit" of Second Amendment advocates, "which gives them great political power."

Trump Campaign Says 'Dishonest Media' Misinterpreted His Second Amendment Comment

That approach worked well for Trump in the primaries, when he excited many core GOP voters with his bluntness and plainspoken, visceral style. Many Republican-leaning voters have told reporters they liked Trump's directness, even if they sometimes wished he'd moderate his tone. Many have also said they don't take his more outrageous statements literally, but admire that he's not afraid to say them.

But it's less clear that this style will work for Trump with general election voters. Since the Democratic convention, he's been slipping in polls of likely voters in key battleground states . About two-thirds of voters in a recent Washington Post -ABC News poll said they didn't believe Trump has the temperament to be president — a concern that may be exacerbated by Trump's pattern of making questionable statements, and a charge Hillary Clinton has picked up on.

• Donald Trump
• 2016 democratic national convention
• megyn kelly
• political speech
• Mitt Romney
• Second Amendment
• Republican party
• US Presidential Election
• Hillary Clinton
• russian hackers

American University Magazine American

American university magazine.

Insights and Impact March 2016

3 Minutes On the Second Amendment

Jamie Raskin, Washington College of Law professor and three-term Democratic Maryland State senator, on the right to bear arms

Everything about the Second Amendment is contested, beginning with its grammar. The text is: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Conservatives read the prefatory clause as a kind of throat-clearing introduction, language that is logically disconnected from the definition of the substantive right. Liberals believe that the clause crucially informs the meaning of the so-called operative clause so that the individual's right to possess weapons must be linked directly to participation in militia service, which is what we call today the National Guard.

The historical dispute follows the lines of this argument. Conservatives say that, while people may have originally possessed weapons as a result of there being a popular militia, a broad popular right to gun ownership became entrenched in the culture of the colonies. Liberals are skeptical of that claim and argue that gun possession was much more closely tethered to participation in the militia. Some historians argue that the real motivation behind the Second Amendment was to guarantee that the federal military would not try to disarm local militias called out to put down slave insurrections.

In the 5-4 Heller decision of 2008, the Supreme Court majority adopted the conservative position and found that the Second Amendment right goes far beyond militia service. It took the position that there is a broader and historically rooted right to individual arms for self-defense, hunting, and recreation, as well as the traditional purpose of participation in militia service. In the decision, the court struck down Washington, DC's handgun-control ordinance, which was the strictest in the country, as a violation of the population's right to armed self-defense in the home.

As polarized as debate is over the Second Amendment, there is in fact a huge area of common ground we can work with to make social progress. Both sides agree that the right must be subject to reasonable regulation. Indeed, every right in the Constitution is subject to reasonable regulation, including speech. We allow reasonable time/place/manner restrictions for speech. You can protest in front of the White House, but not at 2:30 in the morning with a bullhorn. You have a right to free exercise of religion, but not if your beliefs entail human sacrifice or child slavery.

Even the majority in the Heller decision, which gave the most pro-NRA interpretation of the Second Amendment in Supreme Court history, said the Second Amendment right does not extend to felons, to the mentally ill, to gun possession in public buildings, and so on. There's simply nothing absolute about the right, even in the strongest pro-gun gloss ever given the document.

Pitch a Story

Please complete the form below to pitch a story for the print or digital versions of American magazine. If we decide to pursue your story, we will contact you for additional information.

Loading....

Add a Class Note

Please complete the form below to submit a class note for the print and digital versions of American magazine. We will contact you if we need any additional information.

Mobile Menu Overlay

The White House 1600 Pennsylvania Ave NW Washington, DC 20500

Remarks by President   Biden on Gun Violence   Prevention

Rose Garden

**Please see below for a correction, marked with an asterisk.

THE PRESIDENT:  Thank you, Kamala — Madam Vice President.  Thank you very much.    You know, we’re joined today by the Attorney General, Merrick Garland, who I’ve asked to prioritize gun violence.  It’s also good to see the Second Gentleman, who is here.  And it’s good to see the First Lady, Dr. Jill Biden, who cares deeply about this issue as well.    And I look out there and I see so many members of Congress who have led in this fight.  So many of you who have never given up.  So many of you who are in — absolutely determined, as Murph and others are, to get this done.    We got a long way to go.  It always seems like we always have a long way to go.  But I also — today, we’re taking steps to confront not just the gun crisis, but what is actually a public health crisis.  Nothing — nothing I’m about to recommend in any way impinges on the Second Amendment.  They’re phony, arguments suggesting that these are Second Amendment rights at stake from what we’re talking about.    But no amendment — no amendment to the Constitution is absolute.  You can’t yell crowd — you can’t tell [yell]* “fire” in a crowded movie theater and call it freedom of speech.  From the very beginning, you couldn’t own any weapon you wanted to own.  From the very beginning that the Second Amendment existed, certain people weren’t allowed to have weapons.  So the idea is just bizarre to suggest that some of the things we’re recommending are contrary to the Constitution.    Gun violence in this country is an epidemic.  Let me say it again: Gun violence in this country is an epidemic, and it’s an international embarrassment.  (Applause.)    You know, we saw that again.  Last night, as I was coming to the Oval office, I got the word that, in South Carolina, a physician with his wife, two grandchildren, and a person working at his house was gunned down — all five.  So many people — so many of the people sitting here today know that well, unfortunately.  You know, they know what it’s like when the seconds change your life forever.    I have had the — the pleasure of getting to meet, in awful circumstances, many of you — many of you who’ve lost your children, your husbands, your wives.  You know, they know what it’s like to bury a piece of their soul deep in the Earth.  We understand that.    Mark and Jackie, I want to tell you: It’s always good to see you, but not under these circumstances.       I want to say, before I introduce the rest of the folks, is, you know, what — a lot of people have not been through what they’ve been through — don’t understand.  It takes a lot of courage to come to an event like this.  They’re absolutely, absolutely determined to make change.    But Mark and Jackie, whose son Daniel was a first grader at Sandy Hook Elementary School.  Daniel loved sports — loves outdoors sports, getting muddy.   I see my friend Fred Guttenberg.  His daughter, Jaime, was a freshman at Marjorie Stoneman Douglas High School.  She was an accomplished dancer.   I see Brandon Wolf, who — the shooting at the — at the impulse — at the Pulse club — nightclub.  He survived, but his two best friends died.    Greg Jackson, who was just walking down the street when he was caught in the crossfire of a gunfight.   And, of course, I see a close friend of Jill’s and mine, Congresswoman Gabby Giffords, who is here.  Who was — who was speaking with her constituents in front a grocery store in her state when she was shot and a member of her staff was killed.    You know, they’re here, and their pain is immense.  And, you know, what a lot of you — hopefully many of you — don’t know is if you’ve gone through a trauma, no matter how much you work to make sure others don’t go through it, every time you show up at an event like this, it brings back when you got that phone call.  It brings back the immediacy of what happened at that moment.    So I genuinely mean it: Thank you.  Thank you for having the courage — the courage to be here, the courage to continue this fight.  Senator Blumenthal understands it.  A lot of the folks out here understand it.  But it takes real courage, so thank you.      To turn pain into purpose and demand that we take the actions that gives meaning to the word “enough.”  Enough.  Enough.  Enough.  Enough.  Because what they want you to know, what they want you to do is not just listen.    Every day in this country, 316 people are shot.  Every single day.  A hundred and six of them die every day.  Our flag was still flying at half-staff for the victims of the horrific murder of 8 primarily Asian American people in Georgia when 10 more lives were taken in a mass murder in Colorado.    You probably didn’t hear it, but between those two incidents, less than one week apart, there were more than 850 additional shootings — 850 — that took the lives of more than 250 people, and left 500 — 500 — injured.  This is an epidemic, for God’s sake.  And it has to stop.    So I’m here to talk about two things: first, the steps we’re going to take immediately, and, second, the action that needs to be taken going forward to curb the epidemic of gun violence.   I asked the Attorney General and his team to identify for me immediate, concrete actions I could can take now without having to go through the Congress.   And today, I’m announcing several initial steps my administration is taking to curb this epidemic of gun violence.    Much more need be done, but the first — first, I want to rein in the proliferation of so-called “ghost guns.”   These are guns that are homemade, built from a kit that include the directions on how to finish the firearm.  You can go buy the kit.  They have no serial numbers, so when they show up at a crime scene, they can’t be traced.    And the buyers aren’t required to pass a background check to buy the kit to make the gun.  Consequently, anyone — anyone from a criminal to a terrorist can buy this kit and, in as little as 30 minutes, put together a weapon.   You know, I want to see these kits treated as firearms under the Gun Control Act, which is going to require that the seller and manufacturers make the key parts with serial numbers and run background checks on the buyers when they walk in to buy that package.    The section [sic] action we’re going to — the second action we’re going to take — back in 2000 — the year 2000, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms released a report on its investigations into firearms trafficking in America.  The report was of pivotal value.  It was an important tool for policymakers when I was in the Senate and beyond, at all levels, to stop firearms from being illegally diverted into dangerous hands.    Today, with online sales and ghost guns, times and trafficking methods have changed, and we have to adjust.  We also have to ask the Justice Department to release a new annual report.  This report will better help policymakers address firearms trafficking as it is today, not what it was yesterday.    A third change: We want to treat pistols modified with stabilizing braces with the seriousness they deserve.  A stabilizing brace — you’re going to (inaudible) — essentially, it makes that pistol a hell of a lot more accurate and a mini-rifle.  As a result, it’s more lethal, effectively turning into a short-barreled rifle.  That’s what the alleged shooter in Boulder appears to have done.   I want to be clear that these modifications to firearms that make them more lethal should be subject to the National Firearms Act.  The National Firearms Act requires that a potential owner pay a $200 fee and submit their name and other identifying information to the Justice Department, just as they would if they went out and purchased a silencer for a gun.    Fourthly, during my campaign for President, I wanted to make it easier for states to adopt extreme risk protection order laws.  They’re also called “red flag” laws, which everybody on this lawn knows, but many people listening do not know.  These laws allow a police or family member to petition a court in their jurisdiction and say, “I want you to temporarily remove from the following people any firearm they may possess because they’re a danger.  In a crisis, they’re presenting a danger to themselves and to others.”  And the court makes a ruling.    To put this in perspective, more than half of all suicides, for example, involve the use of a firearm.  But when a gun is not available, an attempt at suicide — the death rate drops precipitously.  States that have red flag laws have seen and — seen a reduction in the number of suicides in their states.    Every single month, by the way, an average of 53 women are shot and killed by an intimate partner.  I wrote the Violence Against Women Act.  It’s been a constant struggle to keep it moving.  We know red flag laws can have a significant effect in protecting women from domestic violence.  And we know red flag laws can stop mass shooters before they can act out their violent plans.    I’m proud — “Excuse the point of personal privilege,” as we used to say in the Senate — I’m proud that the red flag law in my home state of Delaware was named after my son, Attorney General Beau Biden — our son; excuse me, Jill — who proposed that legislation back in 2013.    I want to see a national red flag law and legislation to incentivize states to enact their own red flag laws.  Today, I asked the Justice Department to publish a model red flag legislation so states can start crafting their own laws right now.  Just like with background checks, the vast majority of Americans support these extreme risk protection order laws, and it’s time to put these laws on the books and protect even more people.  The Attorney General will have more to say about this in a moment.    Additionally, we recognize that cities across the country are experiencing historic spikes in homicides, as the law enforcement can tell you.  The violence is hitting Black and brown communities the hardest.  Homicide is the leading cause of death of Black boys and men ages 15 to 34 — the leading cause of death.    But there are proven strategies that reduce gun violence in urban communities, and there are programs that have demonstrated they can reduce homicides by up to 60 percent in urban communities.  But many of these have been badly underfunded or not funded at all of late.   Gun violence in America — for those of you who think of this from an economic standpoint listening to me — estimated to cost the nation $280 billion –- let me say it again — $280 billion a year.  They said, “How could that be, Joe?”  Hospital bills, physical therapy, trauma counseling, legal fees, prison costs, and the loss of productivity.  Not to mention the psychological damage done to the children who live in these cities, watching this happen, knowing someone it happened to.    This gun violence in our neighborhood is having a profound impact on our children, even if they’re never involved in pulling the trigger or being the victim of — on the other side of a trigger.   For a fraction of the cost of gun violence, we can save lives, create safe and healthy communities, and build economies that work for all of us, and save billions of American dollars.    In the meantime, much of it, as Senator Cicilline knows, is taxpayer money.   Finally, the Bureau of Alcobol [sic] — Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms, the key agency enforcing gun laws, hasn’t had a permanent director since 2015.   Today, I’m proud to nominate David Chipman to serve as the Director of the AFT.  David knows the AFT well.  He served there for 25 years.  And Vice President Harris and I believe he’s the right person, at this moment, for this important agency.   And I’ve said before: My job, the job of any President, is to protect the American people.  Whether Congress acts or not, I’m going to use all the resources at my disposal as President to keep the American people safe from gun violence.  But there’s much more that Congress can do to help that effort.  And they can do it right now.   They’ve offered plenty of thoughts and prayers — members of Congress — but they’ve passed not a single new federal law to reduce gun violence.  Enough prayers.  Time for some action.   I believe the Senate should immediately pass three House-passed bills to close loopholes that allow gun purchases — purchasers to bypass the background checks.  The vast majority of the American people, including gun owners, believe there should be background checks before you purchase a gun.   As was noted earlier, hundreds of thousands of people have been denied guns because of the background checks.  What more would have happened?    These bills, one, require background checks for anyone purchasing a gun at a gun show or an online sale.  (Applause.)   Most people don’t know: If you walk into a store and you buy a gun, you have a background check.  But you go to a gun show, you can buy whatever you want and no background check.   Second thing is to close the Charles- — what’s known as the “Charleston” loophole.  Like people here, I spent time down at that church in Charleston.  What happened is someone was allowed to get the gun used to kill those innocent people at a church service.  If the FBI hasn’t com- — didn’t complete the background check within three days.    There’s a process.  If wasn’t done in three days, according to Charleston loophole, you get to buy the gun.  They bought the gun and killed a hell of a lot of innocent people who invited him to pray with them.   And three, reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act, which — the so-called — close — (applause) — the “boyfriend” and “stalking” loopholes to keep guns out of the hands of people found by a court to be an abuser and continuing threat.   I held over a thousand hours of hearings to pass the Violence Against Women Act, and one thing came through.  If, in fact, a stay-away order — an order preventing the abuser from coming in a certain distance of the person he has abused or she has abused — and now the idea that they can own a weapon when they have a court order saying they are an abuser?    These are some of the best tools we have right now to prevent gun violence and save lives.  But all these bills, they had support of both Democrats and Republicans in the House.  And universal background checks are supported by the vast majority of the American people and, I might add, the vast majority of responsible gun owners.   So let me be clear: This is not a partisan issue among the American people.  This is a view by the American people as an American issue.  And I’m willing to work with anyone to get these done. And it’s long past time that we act.    Now, I know this has been a hobbyhorse of mine for a long time — got it done once.  We should also ban assault weapons and high-capacity magazines in this country.  (Applause.)   For that 10 years we had it done, the number of mass shootings actually went down.  Even law enforcement officials have told me and told other champions of this legislation they sometimes feel outgunned by assault weapons with large-capacity magazines.    There’s no reason someone needs a weapon of war with 100 rounds, 100 bullets that can be fired from that weapon.  Nobody needs that.  Nobody needs that.   We got that done when I was a United States senator.  It wasn’t easy going up against the gun lobby, but it saved lives.  And we should also eliminate gun manufacturers from the immunity they received from the Congress.  (Applause.)   You realize — again, the people here — because they’re so knowledgeable out here in the Rose Garden.  But what people don’t realize: The only industry in America — a billion-dollar industry — that can’t be sued — has exempt from being sued — are gun manufacturers.    Imagine how different it would be had that same exemption been available to tobacco companies who knew — who knew and lied about the danger they were causing — the cancer caused and the like.  Imagine where we’d be.   But this is the only outfit that is exempt from being sued. If I get one thing on my list — the Lord came down and said, “Joe, you get one of these” — give me that one.  (Applause.)  Because I tell you what, there would be a “come to the Lord” moment these folks would have real quickly.  But they’re not.  They’re not. They’re exempt.    I know that the conversation about guns in this country can be a difficult one.  But even here, there’s much more common ground than we — anyone would believe.  There’s much more common ground.   Everything that’s being proposed today is totally consistent with the Second Amendment.  And there’s a wide consensus behind the need to take action.   I know that when overwhelming majorities of Americans want to see something change that will affect their lives and it still doesn’t change, it can be demoralizing to our fellow citizens.  It can feel like our entire political process is broken.    I know it’s painful and frustrating that we haven’t made the progress that we’d hoped for.  But it took five years to get the Brady bill passed, and it took even more years to work to pass the assault weapons ban.  And it saved lives.    No matter how long it takes, we’re going to get these passed.  We’re not going to give up.  We have an opportunity to fulfill the first responsibility of government: to keep our people safe.  And in the process, we can show the world and show ourselves that democracy works, that we can come together and get big things done.   When I look around and see such brave survivors sitting out here in the Rose Garden, public servants who devoted their lives to dealing with this, advocates who feel strongly and are pushing every day to make the rational changes, and courageous parents and family members, I know that progress, even in this most difficult of issues, is possible.   So, folks, this is just the start.  We’ve got a lot of work to do.  But I know almost every one of you sitting in the garden here; none of you have ever given up.  We’re not going to give up now.    The idea that we have so many people dying every single day from gun violence in America is a blemish on our character as nation.   Let me say to all of you: God bless you, but most importantly, the memory of all many of you have lost to this senseless gun violence.    And now I’d like to hand it over to the Attorney General for him to speak and make some comments.  And I hope I get a chance to see some of you after this is over.    Thank you.  Thank you.  Thank you. (Applause.)   12:22 P.M. EDT

Stay Connected

We'll be in touch with the latest information on how President Biden and his administration are working for the American people, as well as ways you can get involved and help our country build back better.

Opt in to send and receive text messages from President Biden.

• White House

Read Barack Obama’s Speech on New Gun Control Measures

P resident Barack Obama unveiled a new set of executive actions aimed at limiting gun violence in a press conference Tuesday from the White House. The efforts largely center on more stringent background checks.

Here’s a full transcript of his remarks.

THE PRESIDENT: Mark, I want to thank you for your introduction. I still remember the first time we met, the time we spent together, and the conversation we had about Daniel. And that changed me that day. And my hope, earnestly, has been that it would change the country. Five years ago this week, a sitting member of Congress and 18 others were shot at, at a supermarket in Tucson, Arizona. It wasn’t the first time I had to talk to the nation in response to a mass shooting, nor would it be the last. Fort Hood. Binghamton. Aurora. Oak Creek. Newtown. The Navy Yard. Santa Barbara. Charleston. San Bernardino. Too many. AUDIENCE MEMBER: Too many. AUDIENCE MEMBER: Too many. AUDIENCE MEMBER: Too many. THE PRESIDENT: Thanks to a great medical team and the love of her husband, Mark, my dear friend and colleague, Gabby Giffords, survived. She’s here with us today, with her wonderful mom. (Applause.) Thanks to a great medical team, her wonderful husband, Mark — who, by the way, the last time I met with Mark — this is just a small aside — you may know Mark’s twin brother is in outer space. (Laughter.) He came to the office, and I said, how often are you talking to him? And he says, well, I usually talk to him every day, but the call was coming in right before the meeting so I think I may have not answered his call — (laughter) — which made me feel kind of bad. (Laughter.) That’s a long-distance call. (Laughter.) So I told him if his brother, Scott, is calling today, that he should take it. (Laughter.) Turn the ringer on. (Laughter.) I was there with Gabby when she was still in the hospital, and we didn’t think necessarily at that point that she was going to survive. And that visit right before a memorial — about an hour later Gabby first opened her eyes. And I remember talking to mom about that. But I know the pain that she and her family have endured these past five years, and the rehabilitation and the work and the effort to recover from shattering injuries. And then I think of all the Americans who aren’t as fortunate. Every single year, more than 30,000 Americans have their lives cut short by guns — 30,000. Suicides. Domestic violence. Gang shootouts. Accidents. Hundreds of thousands of Americans have lost brothers and sisters, or buried their own children. Many have had to learn to live with a disability, or learned to live without the love of their life. A number of those people are here today. They can tell you some stories. In this room right here, there are a lot of stories. There’s a lot of heartache. There’s a lot of resilience, there’s a lot of strength, but there’s also a lot of pain. And this is just a small sample. The United States of America is not the only country on Earth with violent or dangerous people. We are not inherently more prone to violence. But we are the only advanced country on Earth that sees this kind of mass violence erupt with this kind of frequency. It doesn’t happen in other advanced countries. It’s not even close. And as I’ve said before, somehow we’ve become numb to it and we start thinking that this is normal. And instead of thinking about how to solve the problem, this has become one of our most polarized, partisan debates — despite the fact that there’s a general consensus in America about what needs to be done. That’s part of the reason why, on Thursday, I’m going to hold a town hall meeting in Virginia on gun violence. Because my goal here is to bring good people on both sides of this issue together for an open discussion. I’m not on the ballot again. I’m not looking to score some points. I think we can disagree without impugning other people’s motives or without being disagreeable. We don’t need to be talking past one another. But we do have to feel a sense of urgency about it. In Dr. King’s words, we need to feel the “fierce urgency of now.” Because people are dying. And the constant excuses for inaction no longer do, no longer suffice. That’s why we’re here today. Not to debate the last mass shooting, but to do something to try to prevent the next one. (Applause.) To prove that the vast majority of Americans, even if our voices aren’t always the loudest or most extreme, care enough about a little boy like Daniel to come together and take common-sense steps to save lives and protect more of our children. Now, I want to be absolutely clear at the start — and I’ve said this over and over again, this also becomes routine, there is a ritual about this whole thing that I have to do — I believe in the Second Amendment. It’s there written on the paper. It guarantees a right to bear arms. No matter how many times people try to twist my words around — I taught constitutional law, I know a little about this — (applause) — I get it. But I also believe that we can find ways to reduce gun violence consistent with the Second Amendment. I mean, think about it. We all believe in the First Amendment, the guarantee of free speech, but we accept that you can’t yell “fire” in a theater. We understand there are some constraints on our freedom in order to protect innocent people. We cherish our right to privacy, but we accept that you have to go through metal detectors before being allowed to board a plane. It’s not because people like doing that, but we understand that that’s part of the price of living in a civilized society. And what’s often ignored in this debate is that a majority of gun owners actually agree. A majority of gun owners agree that we can respect the Second Amendment while keeping an irresponsible, law-breaking feud from inflicting harm on a massive scale. Today, background checks are required at gun stores. If a father wants to teach his daughter how to hunt, he can walk into a gun store, get a background check, purchase his weapon safely and responsibly. This is not seen as an infringement on the Second Amendment. Contrary to the claims of what some gun rights proponents have suggested, this hasn’t been the first step in some slippery slope to mass confiscation. Contrary to claims of some presidential candidates, apparently, before this meeting, this is not a plot to take away everybody’s guns. You pass a background check; you purchase a firearm. The problem is some gun sellers have been operating under a different set of rules. A violent felon can buy the exact same weapon over the Internet with no background check, no questions asked. A recent study found that about one in 30 people looking to buy guns on one website had criminal records — one out of 30 had a criminal record. We’re talking about individuals convicted of serious crimes — aggravated assault, domestic violence, robbery, illegal gun possession. People with lengthy criminal histories buying deadly weapons all too easily. And this was just one website within the span of a few months. So we’ve created a system in which dangerous people are allowed to play by a different set of rules than a responsible gun owner who buys his or her gun the right way and subjects themselves to a background check. That doesn’t make sense. Everybody should have to abide by the same rules. Most Americans and gun owners agree. And that’s what we tried to change three years ago, after 26 Americans -– including 20 children -– were murdered at Sandy Hook Elementary. Two United States Senators -– Joe Manchin, a Democrat from West Virginia, and Pat Toomey, a Republican from Pennsylvania, both gun owners, both strong defenders of our Second Amendment rights, both with “A” grades from the NRA –- that’s hard to get — worked together in good faith, consulting with folks like our Vice President, who has been a champion on this for a long time, to write a common-sense compromise bill that would have required virtually everyone who buys a gun to get a background check. That was it. Pretty common-sense stuff. Ninety percent of Americans supported that idea. Ninety percent of Democrats in the Senate voted for that idea. But it failed because 90 percent of Republicans in the Senate voted against that idea. How did this become such a partisan issue? Republican President George W. Bush once said, “I believe in background checks at gun shows or anywhere to make sure that guns don’t get into the hands of people that shouldn’t have them.” Senator John McCain introduced a bipartisan measure to address the gun show loophole, saying, “We need this amendment because criminals and terrorists have exploited and are exploiting this very obvious loophole in our gun safety laws.” Even the NRA used to support expanded background checks. And by the way, most of its members still do. Most Republican voters still do. How did we get here? How did we get to the place where people think requiring a comprehensive background check means taking away people’s guns? Each time this comes up, we are fed the excuse that common-sense reforms like background checks might not have stopped the last massacre, or the one before that, or the one before that, so why bother trying. I reject that thinking. (Applause.) We know we can’t stop every act of violence, every act of evil in the world. But maybe we could try to stop one act of evil, one act of violence. Some of you may recall, at the same time that Sandy Hook happened, a disturbed person in China took a knife and tried to kill — with a knife — a bunch of children in China. But most of them survived because he didn’t have access to a powerful weapon. We maybe can’t save everybody, but we could save some. Just as we don’t prevent all traffic accidents but we take steps to try to reduce traffic accidents. As Ronald Reagan once said, if mandatory background checks could save more lives, “it would be well worth making it the law of the land.” The bill before Congress three years ago met that test. Unfortunately, too many senators failed theirs. (Applause.) In fact, we know that background checks make a difference. After Connecticut passed a law requiring background checks and gun safety courses, gun deaths decreased by 40 percent — 40 percent. (Applause.) Meanwhile, since Missouri repealed a law requiring comprehensive background checks and purchase permits, gun deaths have increased to almost 50 percent higher than the national average. One study found, unsurprisingly, that criminals in Missouri now have easier access to guns. And the evidence tells us that in states that require background checks, law-abiding Americans don’t find it any harder to purchase guns whatsoever. Their guns have not been confiscated. Their rights have not been infringed. And that’s just the information we have access to. With more research, we could further improve gun safety. Just as with more research, we’ve reduced traffic fatalities enormously over the last 30 years. We do research when cars, food, medicine, even toys harm people so that we make them safer. And you know what — research, science — those are good things. They work. (Laughter and applause.) They do. But think about this. When it comes to an inherently deadly weapon — nobody argues that guns are potentially deadly — weapons that kill tens of thousands of Americans every year, Congress actually voted to make it harder for public health experts to conduct research into gun violence; made it harder to collect data and facts and develop strategies to reduce gun violence. Even after San Bernardino, they’ve refused to make it harder for terror suspects who can’t get on a plane to buy semi-automatic weapons. That’s not right. That can’t be right. So the gun lobby may be holding Congress hostage right now, but they cannot hold America hostage. (Applause.) We do not have to accept this carnage as the price of freedom. (Applause.) Now, I want to be clear. Congress still needs to act. The folks in this room will not rest until Congress does. (Applause.) Because once Congress gets on board with common-sense gun safety measures we can reduce gun violence a whole lot more. But we also can’t wait. Until we have a Congress that’s in line with the majority of Americans, there are actions within my legal authority that we can take to help reduce gun violence and save more lives -– actions that protect our rights and our kids. After Sandy Hook, Joe and I worked together with our teams and we put forward a whole series of executive actions to try to tighten up the existing rules and systems that we had in place. But today, we want to take it a step further. So let me outline what we’re going to be doing. Number one, anybody in the business of selling firearms must get a license and conduct background checks, or be subject to criminal prosecutions. (Applause.) It doesn’t matter whether you’re doing it over the Internet or at a gun show. It’s not where you do it, but what you do. We’re also expanding background checks to cover violent criminals who try to buy some of the most dangerous firearms by hiding behind trusts and corporations and various cutouts. We’re also taking steps to make the background check system more efficient. Under the guidance of Jim Comey and the FBI, our Deputy Director Tom Brandon at ATF, we’re going to hire more folks to process applications faster, and we’re going to bring an outdated background check system into the 21st century. (Applause.) And these steps will actually lead to a smoother process for law-abiding gun owners, a smoother process for responsible gun dealers, a stronger process for protecting the people from — the public from dangerous people. So that’s number one. Number two, we’re going to do everything we can to ensure the smart and effective enforcement of gun safety laws that are already on the books, which means we’re going to add 200 more ATF agents and investigators. We’re going to require firearms dealers to report more lost or stolen guns on a timely basis. We’re working with advocates to protect victims of domestic abuse from gun violence, where too often — (applause) — where too often, people are not getting the protection that they need. Number three, we’re going to do more to help those suffering from mental illness get the help that they need. (Applause.) High-profile mass shootings tend to shine a light on those few mentally unstable people who inflict harm on others. But the truth is, is that nearly two in three gun deaths are from suicides. So a lot of our work is to prevent people from hurting themselves. That’s why we made sure that the Affordable Care Act — also known as Obamacare — (laughter and applause) — that law made sure that treatment for mental health was covered the same as treatment for any other illness. And that’s why we’re going to invest $500 million to expand access to treatment across the country. (Applause.) It’s also why we’re going to ensure that federal mental health records are submitted to the background check system, and remove barriers that prevent states from reporting relevant information. If we can continue to de-stigmatize mental health issues, get folks proper care, and fill gaps in the background check system, then we can spare more families the pain of losing a loved one to suicide. And for those in Congress who so often rush to blame mental illness for mass shootings as a way of avoiding action on guns, here’s your chance to support these efforts. Put your money where your mouth is. (Applause.) Number four, we’re going to boost gun safety technology. Today, many gun injuries and deaths are the result of legal guns that were stolen or misused or discharged accidentally. In 2013 alone, more than 500 people lost their lives to gun accidents –- and that includes 30 children younger than five years old. In the greatest, most technologically advanced nation on Earth, there is no reason for this. We need to develop new technologies that make guns safer. If we can set it up so you can’t unlock your phone unless you’ve got the right fingerprint, why can’t we do the same thing for our guns? (Applause.) If there’s an app that can help us find a missing tablet — which happens to me often the older I get — (laughter) — if we can do it for your iPad, there’s no reason we can’t do it with a stolen gun. If a child can’t open a bottle of aspirin, we should make sure that they can’t pull a trigger on a gun. (Applause.) Right? So we’re going to advance research. We’re going to work with the private sector to update firearms technology. And some gun retailers are already stepping up by refusing to finalize a purchase without a complete background check, or by refraining from selling semi-automatic weapons or high-capacity magazines. And I hope that more retailers and more manufacturers join them — because they should care as much as anybody about a product that now kills almost as many Americans as car accidents. I make this point because none of us can do this alone. I think Mark made that point earlier. All of us should be able to work together to find a balance that declares the rest of our rights are also important — Second Amendment rights are important, but there are other rights that we care about as well. And we have to be able to balance them. Because our right to worship freely and safely –- that right was denied to Christians in Charleston, South Carolina. (Applause.) And that was denied Jews in Kansas City. And that was denied Muslims in Chapel Hill, and Sikhs in Oak Creek. (Applause.) They had rights, too. (Applause.) Our right to peaceful assembly -– that right was robbed from moviegoers in Aurora and Lafayette. Our unalienable right to life, and liberty, and the pursuit of happiness -– those rights were stripped from college students in Blacksburg and Santa Barbara, and from high schoolers at Columbine, and from first-graders in Newtown. First-graders. And from every family who never imagined that their loved one would be taken from our lives by a bullet from a gun. Every time I think about those kids it gets me mad. And by the way, it happens on the streets of Chicago every day. (Applause.) So all of us need to demand a Congress brave enough to stand up to the gun lobby’s lies. All of us need to stand up and protect its citizens. All of us need to demand governors and legislatures and businesses do their part to make our communities safer. We need the wide majority of responsible gun owners who grieve with us every time this happens and feel like your views are not being properly represented to join with us to demand something better. (Applause.) And we need voters who want safer gun laws, and who are disappointed in leaders who stand in their way, to remember come election time. (Applause.) I mean, some of this is just simple math. Yes, the gun lobby is loud and it is organized in defense of making it effortless for guns to be available for anybody, any time. Well, you know what, the rest of us, we all have to be just as passionate. We have to be just as organized in defense of our kids. This is not that complicated. The reason Congress blocks laws is because they want to win elections. And if you make it hard for them to win an election if they block those laws, they’ll change course, I promise you. (Applause.) And, yes, it will be hard, and it won’t happen overnight. It won’t happen during this Congress. It won’t happen during my presidency. But a lot of things don’t happen overnight. A woman’s right to vote didn’t happen overnight. The liberation of African Americans didn’t happen overnight. LGBT rights — that was decades’ worth of work. So just because it’s hard, that’s no excuse not to try. And if you have any doubt as to why you should feel that “fierce urgency of now,” think about what happened three weeks ago. Zaevion Dobson was a sophomore at Fulton High School in Knoxville, Tennessee. He played football; beloved by his classmates and his teachers. His own mayor called him one of their city’s success stories. The week before Christmas, he headed to a friend’s house to play video games. He wasn’t in the wrong place at the wrong time. He hadn’t made a bad decision. He was exactly where any other kid would be. Your kid. My kids. And then gunmen started firing. And Zaevion — who was in high school, hadn’t even gotten started in life — dove on top of three girls to shield them from the bullets. And he was shot in the head. And the girls were spared. He gave his life to save theirs –- an act of heroism a lot bigger than anything we should ever expect from a 15-year-old. “Greater love hath no man than this that a man lay down his life for his friends.” We are not asked to do what Zaevion Dobson did. We’re not asked to have shoulders that big; a heart that strong; reactions that quick. I’m not asking people to have that same level of courage, or sacrifice, or love. But if we love our kids and care about their prospects, and if we love this country and care about its future, then we can find the courage to vote. We can find the courage to get mobilized and organized. We can find the courage to cut through all the noise and do what a sensible country would do. That’s what we’re doing today. And tomorrow, we should do more. And we should do more the day after that. And if we do, we’ll leave behind a nation that’s stronger than the one we inherited and worthy of the sacrifice of a young man like Zaevion. (Applause.) Thank you very much, everybody. God bless you. Thank you. God bless America. (Applause.)

More Must-Reads from TIME

• Heman Bekele Is TIME’s 2024 Kid of the Year
• The Reintroduction of Kamala Harris
• The 7 States That Will Decide the Election
• Why China Won’t Allow Single Women to Freeze Their Eggs
• Is the U.S. Ready for Psychedelics?
• The Rise of a New Kind of Parenting Guru
• The 50 Best Romance Novels to Read Right Now
• Can Food Really Change Your Hormones?

Contact us at [email protected]