Results 1 to 7 of 7

Thread: Interesting piece from the Chicago Tribune

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Columbus, Georgia, United States
    Posts
    204

    Post imported post

    http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2...aws-gun-rights

    Thought this was a good read and clicked with what I already thought. Obama won't touch the gun issue because he knows it'sa loser, and other democrats are learning that as well. It also points out the pro-gun items he's helped pass. Basically if you take the things you know are losers off the table you get rid of something for the other side to use against you.

  2. #2
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    across Death's Door on Washington Island, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,382

    Post imported post

    February 14, 2010|By Steve ChapmanAmong the many groups that opposed Barack Obama's presidential race, few were more certain or vehement than gun-rights organizations. "Barack Obama would be the most anti-gun president in American history," the National Rifle Association announced. "Obama is a committed anti-gunner," warned Gun Owners of America.

    So it's no stunner that after a year in office, the president is getting hammered by people who have no use for his policy on firearms. The surprise is that the people attacking him are those who favor gun control, not those who oppose it.

    Obama's record on this issue has been largely overlooked — except by the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, which recently issued a report card flunking Obama on all seven issues it deems important. Said President Paul Helmke, "If I had been told, in the days before Barack Obama's inauguration, that his record on gun violence prevention would be this poor, I would not have believed it."

    Had he listened to the candidate in 2008, he would have believed. At a September campaign rally in rural Virginia, Obama declared unequivocally, "I believe in the Second Amendment. I believe in people's lawful right to bear arms. I will not take your shotgun away. I will not take your rifle away. I won't take your handgun away. .. There are some common-sense gun safety laws that I believe in. But I am not going to take your guns away."

    The Brady Center must have hoped he was being less than honest. And he was: He had no intention of pushing those "common-sense" laws he had previously favored. On the list of issues for which Obama is willing to put himself on the line, gun control ranks somewhere below free trade with Uzbekistan.

    So he has proposed nothing in the way of new federal restrictions on firearms. Even the "assault weapons" ban signed by President Bill Clinton — and allowed to expire in 2004 — has no visible place on Obama's agenda.

    Not only that, he's approved changes that should gladden the hearts of gun-rights supporters, a group that includes me. He signed a law permitting guns to be taken into national parks. He signed another allowing guns as checked baggage on Amtrak. He acted to preserve an existing law limiting the use of government information on firearms it has traced.

    Still, the NRA is not rushing to recant. A spokesman admits the president has signed some provisions it favors, but notes that they were attached to legislation he wanted, making them hard to veto. Says Andrew Arulanandam, "He has disappointed us with his appointments," particularly Attorney General Eric Holder and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, neither a darling of the shooting set.

    But those are petty matters given Obama's overall refusal to do anything to advance gun control. On this issue, he took such a strong, clear position during the campaign that he has no room to maneuver. That was not accidental. It was deliberate — the equivalent of burning his ships to eliminate the option of retreat.

    In terms of actual policy, rather than his previous record, Obama is a long way from being anti-gun. This is not because he has fond memories of sitting in a deer stand as a lad in Hawaii or of talking shotguns with Dick Cheney. It's because his mother didn't raise a fool.

    Like some other Democrats, he may recall that in 1994, after banning "assault weapons," they lost the House for the first time in 40 years. Obama knows that anyone who staunchly favors banning guns won't vote Republican no matter what. But some independents who are protective of their weapons may vote Democratic if that issue is off the table.

    Off the table is exactly where he intends to keep it. Last year, 65 House Democrats (including Jerry Costello and Debbie Halvorson of Illinois) wrote Holder vowing to "actively oppose" any effort to restore the assault weapons ban. The president has enough trouble getting legislation that enjoys overwhelming support in his party. He is not about to pick a fight with centrist Democrats over gun control.

    Opponents of gun control should not rely on Obama's innermost sentiments on the subject. He obviously doesn't cherish the right to keep and bear arms. But for those who favor Second Amendment rights, here's the nice thing about having such a canny politician in the White House: He doesn't have to.

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Columbus, Georgia, United States
    Posts
    204

    Post imported post

    Apologies, I'll remember to post the text next time.

  4. #4
    Regular Member KansasMustang's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Herington, Kansas, USA
    Posts
    1,005

    Post imported post

    He doesn't have to legislate more gun control. All he and Holder have to do is wait for the next crisis ie more "militia" groups plotting against the government to declare martial law. I'm already sick of this %#$
    Laws that forbid the carrying of arms... disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man. Thomas Jefferson

  5. #5
    Regular Member MamaLiberty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Newcastle, Wyoming, USA
    Posts
    885

    Post imported post

    GUNS RIGHTS WATCH http://gunsmagazine.com/GUNSRights.html
    David Codrea
    A Healthy Republic Needs More Than Guns

    It wasn’t just the anti-gunners pointing derisively at Gun Owners of America for raising flags on the “federal health care reform” bill wending its way through Congress. But the talking points started at the very top. From a GOA alert:

    “On the official White House blog, deputy communications director Dan Pfeiffer denied the health care bill would affect gun owners. After all, he writes, ‘there is no mention [of] “gun-related health data” or anything like it anywhere in either the Senate or the House bills.’”

    The Internet is where much of the criticism of GOA’s concerns was sounded—including from some in the “pro-gun” camp hostile to GOA’s hardline approach to politics. We were told the “no-compromise gun lobby” was seeing things that weren’t there. Besides, no less a Second Amendment luminary than NRA-endorsed Harry Reid was pushing the health care bill. And GOA’s protestations that provisions of the bill could be interpreted to accommodate gun registration, expansion of prohibited persons, and the consideration of firearms ownership for insurance premiums, were dismissed by some as unfounded hysteria.
    I will not knowingly initiate force. I am a self owner.

    Let the record show that I did not consent to be governed. I did not consent to any constitution. I did not consent to any president. I did not consent to any law except the natural law of "mala en se." I did not consent to the police. Nor any tax. Nor any prohibition of anything. Nor any regulation or licensing of any kind.

  6. #6
    Regular Member Alexcabbie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Alexandria, Virginia, United States
    Posts
    2,290

    Post imported post

    So, a politician acting (or not) out of political expediency? In the immortal words of Gomer Pyle:

    "Surprise, surprise, surprise!!"

  7. #7
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Greensboro, North Carolina, USA
    Posts
    1,052

    Post imported post

    Yippy kai yay - wupty friggin doo

    Only time will tell what will truely happen.

    President Obama has not sunk his ships. You think presidents haven't gone back on their staunchly decreed campaigning word?

    "Read my lips no new taxes!"

    Surprise indeed.

    With a great role ofleadership comes great responsibility. Yet, also with that responsibility comes humility, disappointment, andsome loss of soul.

    You can't appease everyone, you will have to go back on your word, whether it was a lie, an oversight, or an honest change of plans for what is necessary.

    Dogs take dumps in arbitrary places and eventually, we're all gonna step in some.

    Get over it and don't let you bloody guard down.

    And on another note:
    Like some other Democrats, he may recall that in 1994, after banning "assault weapons," they lost the House for the first time in 40 years. Obama knows that anyone who staunchly favors banning guns won't vote Republican no matter what. But some independents who are protective of their weapons may vote Democratic if that issue is off the table.

    I figured this had more to do with the fact that the democratically controlled house stifled President Bush's attempts[several yearsprior]to not raise taxes and to balance the budget and reduce the deficit, forcing him to compromise by raising taxes. Guns are great and wonderful, but I still believe the Union is more collectively pissed off about taxes than about assault weapons, and has thus always been the case.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •