Two days ago, the National Rifle Association told President Obama to pound sand. Now that it’s clear that gun rights groups aren’t going to heed the Commander-in-Chief’s call for a “commonsense” consensus on strengthening existing gun laws, gun control advocates are turning on the Prez. This morning’s New York Times upbraids Obama for his gun control op ed‘s weasel words . . .
It was a promising start toward a sensible discussion of gun violence, even though the president stopped short of offering a specific legislative proposal or endorsing one already in the Congressional hopper. His to-do list omitted banning the big volume ammunition magazines that figured in the Tucson massacre and a long line of other mass shootings. The magazines have no defensible use outside of combat and law enforcement.
Mr. Obama owes the country [i.e. East Coast intellectuals] muscular White House leadership to make sure his reforms happen.
Note: “reforms.” Not “initiatives” or “legislation.” Gun control advocates are engaged in an Orwellian campaign to throw a cloak of invisibility around their cause. So even as they attack the Prez they’re trying to fly beneath the radar.
Check this from the Washington Post editorial “Why Won’t President Obama Stand Up to the NRA Bullies?” . . .
Gun-safety advocates don’t “need” to accept that most gun owners are responsible. We always have, as the president sort of acknowledges later in his piece. How can repeating NRA propaganda against advocates of sane gun laws be helpful to this debate? It was a bolder Obama who said in 2001: “I know that the NRA believes people should be unimpeded and unregulated on gun ownership. I disagree.” Crisp, clear, and right.
“Assault weapons are not for hunting,” Obama said in 2004. “They are the weapons of choice for gang-bangers, drug dealers and terrorists.” Right again.
Yet in his op-ed, the president wrote: “Some will say that anything short of the most sweeping anti-gun legislation is a capitulation to the gun lobby. Others will predictably cast any discussion as the opening salvo in a wild-eyed scheme to take away everybody’s guns.”
The first statement is a wild distortion of the position of actual advocates of sane gun laws. They are not seeking “sweeping anti-gun legislation.” They are pushing tame steps that LaPierre and his lobbyists reject — thorough background checks and a ban on those big magazines. Yes, restoring the highly effective ban on assault weapons would also be good. But that’s Obama’s own position. Isn’t it?
Obama said last week that “bullying can have destructive consequences for our young people.” It can also have destructive consequences for politicians. The president could set a good example by standing up to the bullies of the NRA.
Was E.J. That was his position. I guess Washington Post editorialist E.J. Dionne Jr. has just woken up to the fact that President Obama is, like most people in his profession, ready to sacrifice anyone and anything to achieve his goals, whatever they may be, at any given moment. A list at the top of which you’ll find the word “Maintain power. Get Reelected.”
At least E.J. got the memo from Newsweek re: gun grabbers’ rebranding exercise: swapping “gun safety advocates” for “gun control advocates.” We’ll be keeping a watch out to see if this obfuscatory linguistic jujitsu catches on.
After much contemplation (another cup of coffee), I’m in favor of it. When Americans hear “gun safety,” they hear safe gun handling. Nothing more and nothing less. By dropping the word “control” from “gun control,” gun control advocates are shooting themselves in the foot.
For example, there’s a disconnect between “gun safety” and “closing the gun show loophole.” How does that make guns safer? It doesn’t. Even where the term does apply, it doesn’t. For example, how does limiting magazine capacity to 10 rounds make a gun safer? Answer: it doesn’t. Not really. And that’s a debate gun rights groups should be fighting, right now.
The misnamed Assault Weapon Ban had no discernable impact on crime, even as admitted by the jackasses that supported it (Clinton’s gun-grabbing cronies). None. And that included a ban on normal-capacity magazines.
Will these gun-grabbers ever get tired of lying? Even their misuse of the English language is a deception intended to cloak their real intentions…
All right, we need to stop with the “Gun Safety Advocates”. Just because President Obama would like to paint anti-gun groups as such, it doesn’t make them so. Gun control has never been about safety. There aren’t any gun control groups going around trying to reduce accidental shootings through education efforts. Not only are they not doing this, they are directly opposing any efforts by the NRA or other pro-gun groups to introduce this into the curriculum.
“Some will say”
Obama and his legions of straw men. As Reagan would say, “There you go again.”
(Clinton’s gun-grabbing cronies)
Agreed. But, let’s not forget who drove that issue – a group headed up by the wife of one of Reagan’s cronies who had the misfortune to catch a bullet. Remember when it was National Center to Control Handguns? Remember when it was Handgun Control Inc?
Probably not. But everyone knows the name Brady Center and that damnable Brady Bill.
I’m no fan of clueless bleeding hearts who think that gun violence is stopped (or even curtailed) by banning guns. But the facts are that we haven’t had a friend in the White House since pre-68.
Bush had both houses and yet nobody repealed the GCA of 1968. Or even better the NFA of 1934.
Re: Bush:
There was no broad consensus (or even a narrow consensus) to repeal either GCA68 or NFA34. For that matter, there isn’t today. A tiny, microscopic fringe of the gun owners want GCA68 repealed, the remaining tens of millions don’t care (if they even know what they are.) I was 6 years old in 1968 so the reality is I have never known a world without GCA68.
You could probably put all the people in the US who want NFA34 repealed into a single room, and it wouldn’t have to be a big one, either.
My point here is that the fact that Bush didn’t push for the repeal of either doesn’t mean he was unfriendly to gun owners, just that he was politically savvy enough to not waste his political capital on an issue that would only appeal to a fringe and would alienate a huge portion of the electorate.
Bush could have pushed for a reauthorization of the AW ban. He even said he’d sign such a bill if it came to his desk. But he also knew damn well that with the House and Senate in Republican hands, that wouldn’t happen, so his pledge to sign the auth (when accompanied by absolutely zero effort to cajole Congress into sending him a bill) was a meaningless, cynical political promise.
As far as having ‘friends’ in the white house, I don’t think it matters if we do or not. I’d settle for simply not having an enemy there and for all his flaws I think GWB fitted that description.
Fair enough, I realize that there will likely never be the political groundswell or capital to repeal 1968, let alone 1934.
As to repealing 1934, I could fill a rather large hall with supporters in short order. I’m rather sure that if you wander around gun shows anywhere in this country, you’d find much more support than you might think.
Reagan signed FOPA with the Hughes amendment – once that was done, the AWB under Clinton was rather small potatoes. Annoying, but no auto, it’s no assault weapon anyway.
You’re right of course, as long as they aren’t our sworn enemies, they’ll have to do in a pinch. I just get frustrated when the mythology starts painting that concord of necessity as being something more akin to a partnership.
Doubly agreed. But it was the Clinton administration that ran the “was this useful” study, and their conclusion was pretty simple: it wasn’t.
The term “gun safety” implies everything broadly related to using guns safely. Anyone who is advocating the non-use of guns in any way, for any reason or by anybody, is a gun restriction advocate.
The NRA and any other organizations or people who promote the safe use of guns and conduct gun safety training courses and seminars are the only gun safety advocates.
Did somebody say Clinton? ‘Cuz pulling a Clinton is exactly what Obama is doing right now. It’s also known as triangulation: staking out a position that is strategically between his base on the Left and the opposition on the Right. It has nothing to do with ideology. It is a political strategy to make him look reasonable and moderate to the masses of mindless voters that dislike politics and haven’t given the world around them enough thought to develop an ideology of their own.
This is how Obama’s people plan to get him reelected. There’s a good chance it will work.
“This is how Obama’s people plan to get him reelected. There’s a good chance it will work.”
Agreed. Nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the average American.
+1
It makes me throw up a little bit in my mouth just typing these words but… He is going to be reelected. So get ready for 2013-2016. It’s not going to be fun.
I often wouldn’t even bother to read the anti-gun articles linked to in posts like this since I know what they’re going to say, but I’ll tend to click on them so I can read the comments section there and see 10s or 100s of pro-gun people laying the smacketh down on the author.
Assault rifles not used for sports. Puhhlease. I believe some people are living under rocks. This country has always took military firearms and used them in a sporting environment. Be it flintlocks, 1911s, 1903s, M1 Garands, M14 clones, ARs, M1 Carbines. People have used them for hunting, NRA High Power matches, full-auto matches, IDPA/IPSC, long range matches, etc. ARs are now a big coyote/varmint hunting platform.
As far as something being considered an “assault weapon”, even the lever action was an assault weapon of its time. Single-shot rifles were the ones of another time. As far as the true interpretation of the U.S. Constitution, both the NFA ’34 and GCA ’68 are unconstitutional and should be thrown out. All the NFA has accomplished is drove Class III firearms out of the reach of common U.S. citizens who were actually the ones who the 2nd was protecting. The GCA has the “legitimate sporting purpose” horsecrap in it to be twisted by whoever chooses to. The 2nd was never put in the Constitution for sporting firearms. It was put in there is allow citizens of this country to keep tyrants out of power. After the War between the States tyrants have been taking (or at least trying)over more and more of our God-given rights.
Comments are closed.