THE OTHER SHOE DROPS

Weasel words. The biggest one? “Commonsense” The author (whoever wrote it) is right. It is not a code word for “confiscation.” It’s a code word for “whatever I want.”

The problem with the disturbed murderer in Tucson is not that he shot people. The problem is that he killed people. There is NO guarantee that his being unable to obtain a firearm would have saved anybody. The man was not unintelligent, he was unbalanced. There is no reason to believe he would not have found any number of other ways to kill, like say a car (and you can’t pig pile a car to stop it).

If you factor in that these tragic events are so rare that they do not justify the proposed legislation, you find the veneer of reasonable “commonsense” is stripped away.

Weasel words from a ghost writer. Could not have said it better, myself. Has to be. =

Interesting to see a bit better moonbat-to-common-sense ratio in the comments to that Huffpo article. Maybe there’s hope for us yet in that forum.

My take:
Obama ran his column in a far-from-Washington paper instead of the Washington Post only because even the Washington Post wouldn’t touch it – as antigun as the Washington Post is and has been.
Obama thus ran his column as lip service to the antigun lobby – and nothing else. He isn’t about to throw away next year’s election for every Democrat facing reelection over this – least of all when he didn’t push it his second day as president when he and the Democrats had so much less to lose. Nor is he about to risk an angry Congress refusing funding for agencies or programs perceived as hostile to gun owners in reprisal.
The issue will quietly die.

Mr. O bama spoke on this long before he was President.

in his view, all “good” citizens are granted 2A priviliges by the government,and the government will decide who is a “good” citizen. (in the interest of protecting the people of course)

so an unelected government panel will decide who can be trusted and who can’t, that way all elected officials are covered.

there is nothing new about this, dictators have tried it before. there’s also nothing special about Mr. Obama.

This piece actually held some substance for a change. Say what you want about our President, but there is no denying that he is a great politician. He knows the gun debate is no-win. So he will cater to each side, which is what I got from his piece. I have no agenda to pacify other people or groups, I just see reality and rights. I will never sell a firearm to an individual at a gunshow or in private without a NICS check involved. I see it as part of the responibility of gun ownsership and a CYA (cover your a**) situation. Why can’t we have the deal of: All firearm transfers and purchases require a NICS check, therefore, no limits put on magazine capacity, no ban of any kind on semiauto firearms and every state will be shall issue for CCW. The FFL dealers would have a $25 cap on the NICS check and 4473 form. What about family heirlooms? Okay, I’m still thinking about that grey area.

“This piece” was referring to the Presidents op-ed. Love everything you write Mr. Ayoob.

While we’re talking “common sense” legislation, how about these “common sense” proposals:

* National CCW reciprocity
* A weapons transport law, so I can legally transport firearms through, say, New Jersey, without becoming a felon
* Speaking of felons, if you’ve paid your debt to society, you should have your gun ownership rights back. Especially if your particular felony was nonviolent.
* A nationally endorsed castle doctrine, complete with no requirement to retreat

“Why can’t we have the deal of: All firearm transfers and purchases require a NICS check, therefore, no limits put on magazine capacity, no ban of any kind on semiauto firearms and every state will be shall issue for CCW.”

Because the liberals don’t “compromise” when they win, we shouldn’t either – IF we want anyone to think our side is worth supporting!
Our side won the last election – bigtime. “Elections have consequences,” like the liberals chant. Neither a need nor a reason to “compromise” – least of all when we all know that the liberals forever have demanded more on this issue after each past “compromise” since 1934. End of discussion.

I have no doubts Obama would shove as much anti-gun legislation as he can IF he had the support for it. Thankfully he doesn’t and I do agree he is good at politics which is why I think this article was more of a “I’d love to ban guns but I can’t so let’s pretend I’m a moderate and I’ll use the buzzword, commonsense! Maybe I’ll even trick the liberals into thinking I’m actually doing something”

Given his record, I can’t see him as anything but anti-gun. My concern is what he might be up to with the U.N. Small Arms Treaty that we aren’t aware of. Then there is the Executive Orders he’s so fond of as well…

The President strikes this resonable tone, and we gun owners and shooters are supposed to nod our heads and go along. He describes us as responsible gun owners. I know a lot of gun owners and so called conservatives who will go along with the background checks, its resonable, after all.

Reasonable? Would it be reasonable to undergo a background check before exercising our first ammendendment? Maybe the federal government should screen and license churches and clergy to guard against extremism.

That would be reasonable, right?

Mike

I think the administration is hedging and will elect a course of action based on public response to this Op-ed. If there is a huge outcry one way or the other that is the outcry he will address.

From what I heard Obama has ever ant-gun group going to common scents meeting on gun control. As for agenda there gone come up with restate newer uglyer assault rifle ban along with high cap mag ban gun control laws look like the ones have out here in California. I would be suprise if try pass any stuff with out going through congress becuase they would give go head votes for any this stuff.

I remember after he was elected, Clinton put on the garb of a duck hunter and and sat in a stage blind to deliver a similar speech about gun control.
Don’t be fooled by there reasonable sounding talk. They indeed mean to disarm all of us!

He wants to sound reasonable to the uninformed. A lot of older voters will fall for it and not raise a fuss when he makes an end run around Congress, and the will of the people. He will make it appear that he had to do it to save us from ourselves and make it look like that evil Congress was obstructing him, and so many sheep will blindly follow. But I for one will never give up my guns even in the face of death. an armed citezenry is all that is left between freedom and a monarchy.

As I write this, it was minutes ago that our esteemed President committed us to military force being used in Libya. I am sitting here stunned. Never would have thought I’d see our military stretched to what must be close to the breaking point in 3 simultaneous wars (not counting the humanitarian efforts they are engaged in).

Numerous domestic issues, articles appearing today that his cabinet members are sick of his not being able to make a timely decision, foreign policy that makes us the laughing stock of the world. What else can he do to this country? I can’t wait to throw the lever (or electronically check the box) next November.

First time he was an unknown. So he and the folks that voted for him get a pass. If this country re-elects him I will no longer have any respect left for my fellow citizens.

Joe Biden’s Office Joins Gun Policy Discussions

WASHINGTON — With the Obama administration gearing up for its first attempt at reforming federal gun policy, Vice President Joe Biden’s office has begun assuming more of an active role.

Aides to the vice president were present at a 90-minute meeting that the Department of Justice hosted with gun control advocates on Tuesday, administration officials said. And while those officials stressed Biden’s involvement in the gun policy discussion was still very much in its beginning stages — “at this point, we are just gathering ideas from people,” said an administration official, “and [the Vice President’s staff is] involved in that” — those in attendance were pleased to see Biden emissaries at the table, interpreting it as a sign of seriousness on the administration’s behalf.

“We have had other meetings with folks at justice and meetings with other people in the administration,” said one attendee. “This was the most thorough engagement we have had to date.”

The vice president, after all, was the lawmaker most closely associated with the last major congressional effort to refigure Second Amendment rights. The Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 was written, in large part, by then-senator Biden. It included major curbs on assault weapons, not only barring the manufacturing of 19 different brands of firearms, but also outlawing the possession of newly manufactured high-capacity magazines.

The law expired in 2004, and despite several high-profile gun-related incidents since then, efforts at re-introduction have failed.

The shooting of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-Ariz.) and 19 others in Tucson in January was, for gun control advocates, the hook to try again.

“Tucson truly has a potential to be a game changer in this discussion for a number of reasons,” explained Paul Helmke, President of the Brady Campaign and the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence. “There is a high profile target who lived. There will continue to be Gabrielle Giffords stories… [The shooter Jared] Loughner survived too. In the Virginia Tech shootings, no one was high profile there… with most shootings nobody knows who any of the people were. You almost have to go back to Jim Brady and Reagan.Over the past week, Helmke’s group and several others were in contact with the Department of Justice about what type of policy response, whether through congressional or executive action, could be taken. Tuesday’s meeting was the first formal sit-down, to be followed with similar meetings with both law-enforcement officials and second-amendment rights groups.

While the purpose of the early talks is to explore all possible ideas, several officials involved said that it is already fairly clear the scope of the policy options is limited. Tuesday’s meeting, which included officials from the White House and the Department of Justice in addition to the VP’s office, involved open discussion on a host of topics.

But the session mainly focused on the set of reforms Obama outlined in his op-ed in the Arizona Daily Star on Sunday, including proper implementation of the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS); greater state-to-state coordination; and a “faster and nimbler” system so that those conducting background checks have the best available data.

Most widely discussed was how states could be better supported or encouraged to quickly and comprehensively upload data on criminal records and the mentally ill to the NICS system. That, however, is considered low-hanging fruit in the gun control advocacy community. Going after straw buyers and private sellers is a much harder lift, though one that was discussed on Tuesday. Participants mentioned high-capacity magazines too, but tellingly it was the attendees, not the administration, which originated the discussion.

“It struck me that they were looking for a broad range of ideas,” said Helmke. “That they hadn’t decided on any proposals or written anything off.”

It’s hard to tell what he’ll do. Waffled Libya to death. No out cry to help our allies in Japan. Opposite of much of what he’s been like so far. I just plain DO NOT TRUST HIM.

It’s hard to get to the Presidents real motive behind his letter. But if we read carefully, we can get to where he “Officially” stands on the issue of Gun ownership and possession. As I read it:
-He accepts that gun ownership will remain the law of the land.
– He believes that tightening up the background checks done now, and bettering the amount of information available for them will result in less “irresponsible, law-breaking” – “dangerous criminals and fugitives” from obtaining guns.
-he does not openly concern himself with the issue of theft of firearms.
-He gives no indication on if he would or would not work to prevent private-party gun sales.
-He gives no credit to those CC gun owners for helping to keep this country safe.
-He labels the anti-gun lobby as “gun-safety advocates”.
-He places blame for violence on the guns that are used; not the people who wield them for illegal reasons.

So the optimist in me sees this as an admission that he cannot make a significant change in gun laws. and so at least the president is trying to take a middle ground, where people on each side of this issue will think he’s more toward their side of things than he really is; in an attempt to win re-election.

But pessimist in me sees this as another piece of propaganda; reinforcing two lies about guns: 1)With laws you can keep guns out of the hands of criminals and the insane. 2) Removing guns from criminals and the insane will make them less violent.

“…But one clear and terrible fact remains. A man our Army saw fit for service; a man many of whose peers felt was too unstable for his position; a man apparently bent on violence, was able to walk onto an US Army base and kill 13 of our soldiers and wound many more…”
There, fixed the typo for his teleprompter.
Shy III

“A lot of older voters will fall for it and not raise a fuss when he makes an end run around Congress, and the will of the people.”

Forget that!
See the Tea Party rallies – and how predominantly “geezers” are at them?
The “geezers” AREN’T stupid! They – and the rest of the 50-and-older – are the only Americans who actually remember the Great America, when:
-“offshoring” wasn’t a word yet, and the factories in town had generation after generation get middle-class jobs in them.
-college graduates didn’t get stuck in jobs their parents would have gotten without high school degrees.
-“school resource officer” was a phrase not yet existing, because the government schools were safe and orderly and their students mainly middle-class.
-foreclosures were nil.
-Americans traded cars every three years, even typical Americans – and the streets weren’t an odd Third Worldish mix of new luxury models and cars whose brands had gone broke.
-General Motors going broke was unthinkable.
-Chrysler was a car manufacturer, not a jobs program that sells nil vehicles other than Jeep.
-malls were full of women actually shopping and buying daily.
-state governments weren’t paying bills in scrip.
-state capitols weren’t occupied by protesting bureaucrats in the tens of thousands for weeks, prompting media comparisons to current Arab revolts.

Definitely campaigning for re-election.

Only a completely ignorant idiot wouldn’t know our Dear Leader was anti-gun even before he got into the White House. Just look at his political history, or what limited experience he has in public office. He has a history of hanging around with Marxists, terrorists, Socialists, liberals, black nationalists, radical Islamic sympathizers, and various anti-American groups. On top of that, he was a big part of the corrupt Chicago political machine. Who in their right minds wouldn’t at least suspect he’s anti-gun? The man’s constant blatant lying rivals that of HillBilly and their protege Al Gore.

Ghost writer for sure. However all should remember a grinning Bear is still a Bear. Also I call him the “LIAR in Chief” for plenty of reasons.

The man is from Chicago. That’s all that needs to be said.

My initial thought, right off the bat, he’s fishing for a way to implement more gun control. A couple of points…

Every time the gun banners can’t outright disarm people, they try to sweet talk them out of their rights. And there’s a lot of people who fall for it *every time*.

Forget about what he said, just look at who is jumping on the bandwagon, Chuck Schumer, Michael Bloomberg, Carolyn McCarthy. That list tells you where this is going.

Speaking in general terms about the man himself, you judge an entity, be it a nation or a person, by their allies and friends. Looking at the people who were appointed to posts in his administration when he came on as president you can see that President Obama is just what he has always been, an inner city activist with an adjenda. I would add that his adjenda is NOT compatible with the concepts behind the Second Amendment. In fact they are in direct opposition to those concepts.

“Forget about what he said, just look at who is jumping on the bandwagon, Chuck Schumer, Michael Bloomberg, Carolyn McCarthy. That list tells you where this is going.”

Bass-ackwards. Bloomberg, McCarthy, Schumer were antigun extremists and notorious as such before anyone outside Illinois even knew what an obama was!
The bottom line is that it’s the LEFT that, again, is disappointed with what it’s gotten or will get out of Obama – just as it was on Guantanamo, the wars, the economy, etc.

The primary talking point is becoming clear: “2000+ Killed ‘by guns’ Since Tuscon” Expect to see that plastered everywhere possible for the next few weeks. A breakdown of the true stats will be immensely helpful to an informed discussion

I’m hoping for a change in the White House.

@JoeB: John Lott is from Chicago. Simplistic generalizations result in simplistic errors.

My question is this: if ‘we’ respond to every attempt to address the problem of bad guys getting guns with such suspicion that we refuse to even participate in a dialogue, how does the problem ever get solved? Lately, the rhetoric from ‘our’ side is constructed just like the rhetoric from ‘their’ side, with rampant demonization and distrust. Like it or not, guns increase everyone’s power; it is in everyone’s interest to keep them out of the hands of evildoers, and in the hands of responsible civilians.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4069761537893819675#

All I have to say, has already been said by someone who’s parents were shot/murdered in a Cafe in Texas.

“The primary talking point is becoming clear: “2000+ Killed ‘by guns’ Since Tuscon” Expect to see that plastered everywhere possible for the next few weeks.”

The liberals only destroy THEMSELVES if they do that – because it will get the “general public” realizing that the “typical” American doesn’t even know anyone who was intentionally shot outside of foreign war!
If the liberals do that, it will get the masses of “typical” Americans – white middle class – to realize that they have about as little chance of being shot as they have of winning Powerball.
And that will absolutely kill the antigun agenda.

# ankle Says:
March 18th, 2011 at 9:45 am

While we’re talking “common sense” legislation, how about these “common sense” proposals:

* National CCW reciprocity
* A weapons transport law, so I can legally transport firearms through, say, New Jersey, without becoming a felon
* Speaking of felons, if you’ve paid your debt to society, you should have your gun ownership rights back. Especially if your particular felony was nonviolent.
* A nationally endorsed castle doctrine, complete with no requirement to retreat

To the above, add, eliminate any and all registration schemes, Constitutional Carry anywhere for all law abiding citizens. Makes perfect Sense for me.

Gun Control seems to be the mark of a politcian who knows that they are in trouble.

Intrestingly enough, there is an article in 20 march Indy Star, where the Democrat candidate for mayor is wanting to make gun control a major effort in her campaign. This and the recent discovery of BATFE project gun runner shows a major effort towards is still alive and well.

– he’s from Chicago, ’nuff said.
– he would be coming on strong for more gun control, except that it would hurt him and the Dems in general in the polls.
– can the UN override the US Constitution ??? I think there would be an uprising such as this country has never seen before.

Hi Mas!
Mexico! HI Mas! is what are the rules for carry in Mexico? or aren’t there any?? My Father goes to Monterrey and Renoysa on business and I would love to accompany him. But what rules do we have to think about??
Hugs

Karen, you can’t carry in Mexico. Period, End.

That’s one reason I don’t go there anymore.

Sorry to be the bearer of unwelcome tidings,
Mas

Whenever a politician of any stripe uses the phrase “common sense” in any context I get real nervous. Face it, the goal of our out of control government is a disarmed citizenry. We cannot be tyrannized if we are armed. Armed we are citizens, disarmed we are subjects.
We already have some 20,000+ gun laws on the books, many of them contradictory and confusing. We don’t need more laws, but it appears that we will have them sooner or later.

Here is some common sense…

We must reject the idea that every time a law’s broken, society is guilty rather than the lawbreaker. It is time to restore the American precept that each individual is accountable for his actions.
~Ronald Reagan

You can’t blame everybody else for the actions of some individuals.
Punish those who actually commit crimes instead of trying to prevent every little thing that can be used in a crime. Oh wait… that actually makes sense…

ALE said: Like it or not, guns increase everyone’s power; it is in everyone’s interest to keep them out of the hands of evildoers, and in the hands of responsible civilians.”

Just to mention a few of the problems with this…

Who decides who are the “evildoers” and who are the “responsible?”

(By the way, “civilians” are ALL of us not active military.)

I’d like to see some real proof that any of the “laws” regarding “prohibited persons” and background checks, etc. prevent ANYONE from getting a gun if they really want one. (And violent crime can be committed with a thousand other implements, as has been mentioned.)

People who want to harm innocent people do NOT submit to background checks or anything else. They bypass all of it completely. Most guns used in real crime are stolen. What in the world difference does it make who sold it to whom? Knowing that after the fact certainly doesn’t prevent a crime from being committed.

How many guns are stolen because they can’t be “legally” carried and must be left at home or in cars? All by good, “law abiding” citizens, of course. I wonder.