to our current gun laws.
I agree that Obama has a strong record of opposing firearms but it is necessary to realize that he is a politician from Chicago. The Windy City is a strong bastion of opposition to RKBA. A Democrat rising through the political ranks in Chicago would have little chance of getting elected dog catcher if he was pro-RKBA.
At a national level, the political reality of the gun control issue changes dramatically. In Chicago voters are unfamiliar with firearms and consequently their exposure has largely been to the negative and irresponsible use of handguns in criminal hands. The voters in most areas of the rest of the country have a much more favorable view of responsible gun owners and realize that firearms can be used for both sport and legitimate self defense.
During the last Presidential election, Obama did play the typical politician in that when he was making a speech at a San Francisco fundraiser he made the following comments:
You go into these small towns in Pennsylvania and, like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing's replaced them. And they fell through the Clinton administration, and the Bush administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not.
And it's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy toward people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.
http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0408/Obama_on_smalltown_PA_Clinging_religion_guns_xenophobia.html Obviously this might play well in San Francisco but proved to be a dud in much of the rest of the country.
It's hard to say exactly what Obama's true feelings are on RKBA. In his recent editorial in the Arizona Daily Star he stated:
Now, like the majority of Americans, I believe that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to bear arms. And the courts have settled that as the law of the land. In this country, we have a strong tradition of gun ownership that's handed from generation to generation. Hunting and shooting are part of our national heritage. And, in fact, my administration has not curtailed the rights of gun owners - it has expanded them, including allowing people to carry their guns in national parks and wildlife refuges.
The fact is, almost all gun owners in America are highly responsible. They're our friends and neighbors. They buy their guns legally and use them safely, whether for hunting or target shooting, collection or protection. And that's something that gun-safety advocates need to accept. Likewise, advocates for gun owners should accept the awful reality that gun violence affects Americans everywhere, whether on the streets of Chicago or at a supermarket in Tucson.
***snip***
That's why our focus right now should be on sound and effective steps that will actually keep those irresponsible, law-breaking few from getting their hands on a gun in the first place.
• First, we should begin by enforcing laws that are already on the books. The National Instant Criminal Background Check System is the filter that's supposed to stop the wrong people from getting their hands on a gun. Bipartisan legislation four years ago was supposed to strengthen this system, but it hasn't been properly implemented. It relies on data supplied by states - but that data is often incomplete and inadequate. We must do better.
http://azstarnet.com/article_011e7118-8951-5206-a878-39bfbc9dc89d.html emphasis added Wayne LaPierre replied:
We read your editorial submission to the Arizona Star. However, to focus a national dialogue on guns — and not criminals or mental health issues — misses the point entirely. Americans are not afraid of gun ownership. To the contrary, they overwhelmingly support the fundamental, individual right to keep and bear arms. The primary reason why tens of millions of Americans own firearms is that they fear violent criminals roaming the streets undeterred.
***snip***
The government owes its citizens its most vigorous efforts to enforce penalties against those who violate our existing laws. The NRA has members proudly serving in law enforcement agencies at every level. Rank and file law enforcement want to arrest bad people — not harass law-abiding gun owners and retailers.
As for enforcing the laws on the books, we strongly suggest you enforce those that actually take violent criminals off the streets. To start, we urge you to contact every U.S. attorney and ask them to bring at least ten cases per month against drug dealers, gang members and other violent felons caught illegally possessing firearms. By prosecuting these criminals in federal court — rather than state court — strong sentencing guidelines would apply and charges would not be plea-bargained or dismissed, nor would criminals be released after serving only a fraction of their sentences. This simple directive would result in roughly 12,000 violent criminals being taken off the streets every year. Surely you agree that this would be a good first step.
http://www.ammoland.com/2011/03/16/nra-response-to-president-obamas-op-ed-on-gun-laws/ Now I agree with much of what Wayne LaPierre said but he also refused to sit down and talk.
NRA refuses to meet with Obama ***snip***
Let's hope the President fights the instinct to give them something for nothing in order to woo them to the table.“Why should I or the N.R.A. go sit down with a group of people that have spent a lifetime trying to destroy the Second Amendment in the United States?” said Wayne LaPierre, the longtime chief executive of the National Rifle Association.
He named Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, who has almost no role in gun-related policies, and Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr.
http://www.americablog.com/2011/03/nra-refuses-to-meet-with-obama.html I believe that the strongest arguments support RKBA and by discussing the issues, the NRA can produce convincing rebuttals that will counter any positions presented by the Brady Campaign and other RKBA opponents. On this forum, the strongest arguments come from those who support RKBA and it's rare for those who oppose it to counter with strong and valid points based on facts and statistics. They commonly use emotional arguments about the tragic misuse of firearms to support their position and often resort to insults when it's pointed out that often firearm are used legitimately in self defense to save lives. When you consider that DU is a very liberal and progressive board with many very intelligent posters, the fact that the pro-RKBA posters are able to hold their own and prevail is surprising and shows how strong our arguments are.
Perhaps Wayne LaPierre is interested in stopping NRA members from fleeing to other pro-RKBA organizations such as the GOA. Gun Owners of American is a far more right wing organization than the NRA and it will say the NRA is pandering to Obama if the NRA sits down to honestly discuss the issues.
If so, LaPierre is guilty of playing politics and not representing the desire of many of his membership who want to reduce unnecessary gun violence by enforcing and improving existing laws. But not participating, he allows those who oppose firearms an opportunity to impress both the media and the President by proposing "feel good" laws such as a ban on magazines which hold more than 10 rounds. Such laws will do nothing to solve any problem.
Of course, the NRA can use the results of Obama's meeting with the Brady Campaign and other organizations that oppose firearms to drive future contribution campaigns and discussing how Obama wants to ban or confiscate firearms.
I would rather have the NRA work together with the President and the Brady Campaign to find truly effective solutions. It's a far more mature and rational approach than acting like a child with a temper tantrum who refuses to play a game with other children he is not fond of.
Obama may, as you suggest, be "very hostile toward the 2nd Amendment". If so, the NRA can attend the meetings and put forth an honest effort and then walk out. They can then discuss why they feel Obama does not support the Second Amendment. Obama would suffer far more damage from this approach. If he truly is opposed to firearm ownership, he wins if the NRA fails to discuss the issue. He can say, "I tried to reach out to them, but they refused my offer."
My biggest disappointment with Obama is that I hoped for a stronger leader. I was very disappointed that he didn't take the point in the fight for healthcare, but instead allowed Reid and Pelosi to screw it up. I am also disappointed in his ability to create jobs and turn the economy around. Admittedly it's a daunting task, but I think his advisers helped Wall Street and the banks but ignored Main Street. Still, the election is a long way off and our economy does seem to be improving.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
