Louisville Courier-Journal: More gun lunacy

[marmar]

More gun lunacy
February 27, 2010


At first, Barack Obama's election as president seemed what the gun lobby and its firearm-toting foot soldiers feared most: a chief executive who had promised during his campaign to strengthen federal gun regulations. Or, to put it more coarsely but in terms the most extreme gun advocates understand, the White House was now in the hands of a black man who they feared would take away their guns or restrict their ability to buy more — a fantasy, but one which feeds their paranoia and fuels their activism.

As it has played out, they need not have worried. President Obama, unfortunately, has not made good on his vows to resurrect the federal ban on military-style assault weapons, to end the ability of unlicensed dealers to sell firearms at gun shows without background checks and to obtain from states more data about guns used in crimes. He has, however, signed misconceived bills that allow visitors to carry guns in national parks and passengers to pack guns in accessible luggage on Amtrak trains. Gun control advocates understandably are deeply disappointed.

Nevertheless, “gun rights” groups are proceeding on the assumption that action is needed to shield them from a federal crackdown. As a disturbing New York Times report makes clear, gun lobbies are persuading pliant state legislatures to enact bills that ease restrictions and even allow practices that they have rejected in the past.

....(snip)....

The nation is so awash in guns that it would be difficult to lower the gun carnage significantly without strong federal action, and, alas, the President has shown no inclination to lead that fight. In the meantime, however, state legislatures, by buckling to the gun lobby's pressure, can only make a tragic situation worse. ............(more)

The complete piece is at: http://www.courier-journal.com/article/20100227/OPINION01/2270315/More+gun+lunacy

[bluestateguy]

1. Typical: Newspaper editorial boards obsess over gun control

As the gun control is an elitist agenda.

[TheWraith]

2. Not to mention, one which has been long since proven ineffective.

Banning guns will eliminate them from murders just like banning drugs has made it impossible to get them. :sarcasm:

[GreenStormCloud]

7. Translation: Gun control advocates are losing in most states. N/T

[proteus_lives]

15. That's the truth!

"As the gun control is an elitist agenda."

[zanana1]

3. I'm not going into the gun forum...

But I just have to say that the above editorial is one of the sanest I've ever read and spells it out for everyone to see. Lunacy does exist in this country and not on ly on the Right.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

4. Then why are you here?

[SteveM]

6. Gun ownership up. Crime rate down. Please explain "lunacy." nt

[benEzra]

11. What does legislating rifle handgrip shape have to do with fighting violent crime?

Rifles are among the least likely of weapons to be used in homicides, and account for fewer murders than knives, clubs, and even shoes and bare hands.

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2008/data/table_20.html

Attempting to restrict the lawful ownership of modern-looking rifles doesn't make much sense from a violence prevention standpoint.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

19. So you call an irrational fear of law abiding people sane?

[SteveM]

5. More mumblings from the gun-control MSM. nt

[X_Digger]

8. Aka: Waaah!

Like a plum sitting in the sun, well on it's way to becoming a dried prune, the rhetoric gets more bitter and vitriolic as their culture war prohibitionist tactics continue to be dismissed.

[spin]

9. I would need to drink before I kissed any of those women. (n/t)

[X_Digger]

12. Here ya go, just for you ;)

[tburnsten]

21. Heavily, really heavily. n/t

[tburnsten]

20. No. They look like dead men, who would want to kiss them?

[slackmaster]

10. The "gun carnage" is becoming less common in spite of all that

The opinion piece is a crock of shit.

[east texas lib]

13. The sky is falling! The sky is falling!

:o

[Euromutt]

14. I'm getting a bit fed up with these 20/20 hindsight accusations of paranoia

Or, to put it more coarsely but in terms the most extreme gun advocates understand, the White House was now in the hands of a black man who they feared would take away their guns or restrict their ability to buy more — a fantasy, but one which feeds their paranoia and fuels their activism.

As it has played out, they need not have worried. President Obama, unfortunately, has not made good on his vows to resurrect the federal ban on military-style assault weapons, to end the ability of unlicensed dealers to sell firearms at gun shows without background checks and to obtain from states more data about guns used in crimes.

Leaving aside the usual bullshit about "assault weapons," "unlicensed dealers," etc. the editorial board of the Courier-Journal acknowledges that Obama did indeed "vow" during his campaign to reinstate a ban on scary-looking semi-automatics, restrict sales between private parties and repeal that Tiahrt amendment. So how was it a "fantasy" to be concerned that Obama intended to restrict the ability of private citizens to acquire firearms?

When there is good cause to believe something undesirable might happen, and you take steps to head it off, and as a result it does not happen, were you paranoid for believing it would in the first place? Is it paranoid to put out a campfire when you leave the campground? Was the forest fire you feared it might cause a "fantasy" because it never materialized, even though the reason it never materialized was because you put out the campfire?

[Callisto32]

16. Subtext:

Gun owners are racist, ignorant, bigoted troglodytes.

A subtext that is, in itself, ignorant and bigoted.

One rule for me, another for thee. Typical.

[aikoaiko]

17. Nice race baiting article, marmar. The premises of this piece and those like are flawed.

First, the panic and concern had nothing to do with President Obama being African-American. The same thing would have happened if Hillary Clinton or John Edwards had been elected. All had a history of supporting gun control that reduced law abiding folks to firearms. President Obama was on the Board of Directors of the zealously anti-gun Joyce Foundation, supported extreme local (Chicago style) gun control, and voted or supported for some weird anti-gun laws while involved in Illinois politics.

Second, the context of the Congress can't be dismissed either. A pro-gun control president whose party controlled both houses of congress was a factor. Anti-gun politicians could not be stopped except by popular opinion and the wrath of voters if those chose to keep their promises.

Third, I am convinced that the year of massive guns and ammo buying during a recession was proof positive to the Obama administration and Congressional leaders that the voters were serious about protecting their access to many popular firearms. If people are willing to spend hundreds or thousands of dollars on something to protect their right DURING A RECESSION, then its a sure thing that those same people and more will protect their rights by voting out politicians who voted for laws that diminished access.

So yes, "“gun rights” groups are proceeding on the assumption that action is needed to shield them from a federal crackdown" because none of our party leaders who have promised to enact poorly motivated and conceived gun control laws in the past have actually renounced their errors in thinking and judgment. Its not like the anti-gun organizations are kicking back -- their just losing support and their fear mongering is more ineffective than ever. Their failures are so blatant they are attacking the President (e.g., Brady Campaign gave Obama and F-grade).

Gains made in the area of the right to keep and bear arms happened because of the voters (you know, the people mentioned in the 2nd Amendment) -- not gun manufacturers.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

18. More irrational fear of the law abiding.