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
Oh, he’ll get around to it after he’s done with healthcare and cap-and-trade.....
B-R-I-N-G I-T N-O-W...So that my children wont have to fight this nonsense. I want it behind us.
I think the rats have learned there lesson about trying to mess with our guns!! Even “Zero The Incompetent” knows better!
The guy who keeps gun control off the agenda is Rahm. He’s the guy who told the DNC to STFU about gun control and start recruiting Democrats who were pro-gun to win races away from the GOP in districts where gun control was the deciding issue between the seat tipping GOP or Blue Dog Democrat. Rahm’s calculus was that over 40 such seats existed in the 2006 election, and upwards of 60 seats in 2008.
Since Obama was elected, there was talk of flying a new AW “ban” bill ... and Rahm was on the phone within a day, telling the leadership to round-file any such bill.
He thinks he has the power to tale our guns away. He is just "not doing it."
Obama does NOT have the power to take our guns away, no one does. No one.
Fascinating. Obviously he’s not doing it out of loyalty to the Constitution, but to maintain power. To what end, though? Leftists MUST seize guns from the people. It is 100% impossible for them to realize their utopia with an armed populace. Rahm knows this. What’s the “end game”?
The puppet learned from the clinton debacle. Don’t go directly after the 2nd ammendment. That tactic bit clinton in the ass. The democratic party (american communists) may be evil, but they aren’t stupid. They are going after the soft targets first but they are never going to give up on gutting the 2nd. Just biden their time.
I love the gun lobby. If they don’t like it, then beat them up and take their wallet.
What are they going to do about it?
In a letter to editor of the local paper, a nearby gun shop owner expressed his shame in having to honestly confess not voting for BO. “No one has ever done anything more to help me succeed.”
More like a biden gaff.
He might not take our guns away but he can take the ammo away and monitor the bullits. In some places you are now having to register to buy boxes of ammo for pistols rifles etc. This ammo is coded by lazer from the factory. The more you buy the most likely you will be monitored by authorities. So with that take this scenario: You are out on the town or at a gun range shooting and either leave your ammo in the box at the range when you leave or get it stolen out of your vehicle. Later on or months down the road someone is killed in a mugging or murder and then the law shows up at your house because they found ammo hulls at the scene of the crime that matched the code of the casings that was registered to you. Now you would probably be arrested and have to give your weapon to the law for tests and be in trouble locked up until a attorney arrives or the detectives after full investigation lets you go. I don’t want my ammo being tracked but that is the way Obama’s strategy is from what I have been reading.
I don't know, but I guess that it's either "death by a thousand cuts" or martial law. Depends upon how much of a hurry they're in. At the moment, it looks like the slow bleed route.
Aye, Aye, Aye, Zer0 is all about himself.
Obama won’t touch this issue unless there’s a situation he can exploit that doesn’t involve a muslim in the military.
No he’s going to take away our ammunition and reloading supply’s letting us keep our guns with nothing to shoot.
gang bangers, recently paroled mooselimb converts, chronic junkies that need ‘healthcare’...any nutso group that should be locked up, but arent, and would be forbidden from ‘legal’ firearms ???
meant to add...those are the recruits for the National police [spit] force...
What a thin, misleading, article.
It completely ignores Zero’s actions at the U.N., where he is reversing the Bush small arms control policy.
Zero is fully supporting the U.N.’s International Small Arms Treaty.
He intends to let the U.N. take the heat for the treaty the Dim’s hope to ratify.
This is a treaty that would revoke our RKBA, at the least forcing registration, as the precursor to later confiscation.
It specifically bans so called “Assault Weapons”, which are the arms most capable of being used to resist tyranny.
He is happy to allow a U.N. treaty to override our sovereign constitutional rights.
If U.N. treaty can be used to override the 2nd., the U.N can override ANYTHING!
Next up, Zero as El Presidente for life!
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.