Posted on 02/15/2010 8:31:16 PM PST by neverdem
Among 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 him 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 Clinton—and allowed to expire in 2004—has no visible place on his 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 Atty. Gen. 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 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.
COPYRIGHT 2010 CREATORS.COM
How is Obama getting Senate ratification?
Maybe Obama wants to make sure his revolutionary thugs are well armed.
He’s been doing this for a while now.
He still has three years to carry it out.
Senate may or may not be a problem, TARP is not the only creative accounting in Washington.
Beware “Voice Only Voting”, and Dem’s holding the gavel.
The Senate works on unanimous consent. Without it, they can get roll call votes just for cloture. Cork your paranoia. There are other matters that need attention. The rats are crapping in their pants. The rats in Congress moved right in 2006 to take over Congress and 2008 to expand their majority. Obama let the hard left Congressional leadership go wild for health care reform and cap & tax. What do they have now? More and more retirements in all the wrong places.
I don’t think Obama is at this point in any position to ever get around to it, thanks in large part to the efforts of pro-gun individuals. To be quite honest I don’t think the next democrat politician will be in much of a position to do anything about it either.
Too many Americans are armed, and many of their States are increasingly active in keeping it that way, knowing that an armed population is the best asset they could have, in defending liberty against all threats, be it criminal or governmental.
Even liberals who are now feeling more threaten by an increasingly vocal and argent conservative movement, and talk of revolution are starting to recognized the need to buy and keep guns.
They may trust the government too much for their own and unfortunately OUR good.
But having in their possession the means of their own defense will educate them a thing or two about the nature of individual rights and self-reliance.
Guns are not going away anytime soon, thats for dam sure, we now have more time to focus more our resources on restoring and reenforcement other American liberties.
Slowly but surely we are turning the tide, the question is will we be able to keep up the effort and make enough gains in ground to offset the almost certain losses that will follow.
When “conservative” republicans have taken congress they will probably be almost as bad as the democrats. The game for a politician is power not so much ideology. It is that power which is most threatening to our liberty, not how they clam to desire to uses it.
Surprised that they didn’t mention that little court decision last year as a factor. The Heller decision made it a lot more difficult to sell new gun laws as being kosher constitutionally. It’s going to get even more interesting after the McDonald v Chicago case is heard and decided. If the Court goes with incorporation as they should, gun laws will be in even deeper doodoo
BFL
The anti’s are fearful of guns for many reasons but now I believe that there is one reason more than any other why they are fearful...
When SCOTUS incorporates the 2nd in the McDonald case, the anti’s will have to face responsibility. They will have to learn to exercise caution and be responsible for themselves to a greater degree than they are ready to do so.
This is why they are mad at Obama and want more gun bans.
I agree with you.
I buy ammo which is mostly military surplus or European in origin these days. Its a lot cheaper.
Ammoman and Sportsmans Guide are my favorite suppliers.
http://www.ammoman.com/webstore_30.htm
http://www.sportsmansguide.com/net/browse/BrowseAmmoIndex.aspx
I really appreciate your heads up on this. It is a typical underhanded Obama Junta approach, severing ammo from guns in litigation.
I suppose we will all have to reload our way through these new creative ways of taking away our ammo. We have the right to bear arms but no right to to bear ammo? Well here we go again ,as Reagan would say.
I see a whole black market being created.
These 0bamunist bastards can sign whatever they want. The problem lies in enforcing it.
The Second Amendment leaves no room for federal “common sense safety laws.”
The government applied a tax stamp to full autos and suppressors in 1934, and nobody did a thing. So yes, the government set their own precedent in controlling firearms and accessories.
And people are still importing them and fabricating them.
I think it was intentional, and he needs to be punished! ;)
Yes, he’ll have to devote all his attention to gun control.
Believe me, it is coming, if the dems are still around.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.