For anyone who missed it, our Commander in Chief had an op ed on guns in the Arizona Daily Star this past Sunday.
I've been able to see two possible interpretations of President Obama's stance on our gun rights for quite some time now. The first stance is the one put forth by the NRA and most of the other gun rights advocates. That is that he thinks very poorly of all shades of gun owners, and that he is biding his time until he can seize upon any available opportunity to roll back the 2nd amendment rights that we have worked so hard to secure. The second possibility is decidedly more moderate, that he's not exactly spending his spare time at the range, but he doesn't have particularly strong feelings on the subject. That he may have osmotically picked up some of the anti-2nd amendment ideas floating around the Democratic party, but he remembers 1994 and doesn't want to pay the steep political cost that comes along with curtailing our constitutionally guaranteed freedoms. Notice that in neither case is he a friend to sportsmen, we're talking about a difference of degree here.
Up until this point, I'd have to say that the available evidence is equally compatible with either hypothesis. Lets see if President Obama's Op Ed can tip the scales in either direction:
I've been able to see two possible interpretations of President Obama's stance on our gun rights for quite some time now. The first stance is the one put forth by the NRA and most of the other gun rights advocates. That is that he thinks very poorly of all shades of gun owners, and that he is biding his time until he can seize upon any available opportunity to roll back the 2nd amendment rights that we have worked so hard to secure. The second possibility is decidedly more moderate, that he's not exactly spending his spare time at the range, but he doesn't have particularly strong feelings on the subject. That he may have osmotically picked up some of the anti-2nd amendment ideas floating around the Democratic party, but he remembers 1994 and doesn't want to pay the steep political cost that comes along with curtailing our constitutionally guaranteed freedoms. Notice that in neither case is he a friend to sportsmen, we're talking about a difference of degree here.
Up until this point, I'd have to say that the available evidence is equally compatible with either hypothesis. Lets see if President Obama's Op Ed can tip the scales in either direction:
since that day, we have lost perhaps another 2,000 members of our American family to gun violence. Thousands more have been wounded. We lose the same number of young people to guns every day and a half as we did at Columbine, and every four days as we did at Virginia Tech.
This one has got to be counted as a point in favor of the NRA's interpretation. This is a trick commonly used by gun banning groups like the Violence Policy Center. He throws out a large number in the context of an atrocity like what happened in Arizona and the implicit suggestion is that 2000 innocent victims have been MURDERED with firearms since that attack. I'm afraid that's not even close to the truth. You see, in order to generate such large numbers they have to include ALL deaths by firearms. So that number includes women who shot an attacking rapist to save their own lives, police officers who had to shoot to save their partner's life, and loving fathers who were forced to defend their families from home invaders. Do those sound like they should be in the same category as the Arizona shooting to you? Do you think that someone who didn't already have a strong anti-2nd amendment stance would twist the numbers like that?
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.
I'm not really sure which side this counts as a point for, but we know that he is being...shall we say..."less than truthful" here. He only took this stance AFTER the Supreme Court ruled on DC v. Heller; before that he asserted that the 2nd amendment only protected the rights of people in the National Guard. He has also publicly voiced support for total gun bans like those that were in place in DC and Chicago...he must have a rather loose interpretation of what the founders meant by "shall not be infringed".
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.
Well, if we assume he is sincere then this would seem to be a point in favor of the more moderate interpretation. It's particularly promising that he included "protection" in that list because it is a common strategy of the gun banning groups to say that the second amendment is all about hunting and target shooting. So then its OK to ban guns that they don't think are "suitable" for these purposes. All that is left after that is to gradually narrow what firearms are "suitable" for those purposes until there is nothing left, then their goal of disarming the American public has been accomplished.
• 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. • Second, we should in fact reward the states that provide the best data - and therefore do the most to protect our citizens. • Third, we should make the system faster and nimbler. We should provide an instant, accurate, comprehensive and consistent system for background checks to sellers who want to do the right thing, and make sure that criminals can't escape it.
Assuming that there aren't any weasel words in there, and that what we're actually talking about here is improving law enforcement systems without further burdening law-abiding citizens, then this is a strong point for the more moderate interpretation.
Clearly, there's more we can do to prevent gun violence. But I want this to at least be the beginning of a new discussion on how we can keep America safe for all our people.
He wants this to be the beginning huh? What exactly does he think the end is? We've got to keep in mind that this is a man who has supported outright bans on the private ownership of firearms. It doesn't make me sleep easy at night when he proposes a very non-controversial gun policy to gain broad support and then says that it's "just the beginning". One point for the NRA's interpretation.
Most gun-control advocates know that most gun owners are responsible citizens. Most gun owners know that the word "commonsense" isn't a code word for "confiscation."
This last one's pretty simple. There are only two possibilities to explain that statement. Either he has never read the writings of the largest "gun control" groups in the country like the Brady campaign and the VPC, or he is aware of their opinions and he is deliberately misleading the public as to their intentions in order to gain broader support. Given that President Obama spent several years as a law professor in a left-leaning university, and several more on the board of the Joyce foundation, a leading funder of these groups, I find the former to be highly implausible and I am therefore forced to conclude that the later explanation is likely true. One final point for the NRA's interpretation.
So, the analysis of President Obama's Op Ed is suggestive, but far from conclusive. Has this evidence swayed you one way or another?
-K.M.
So, the analysis of President Obama's Op Ed is suggestive, but far from conclusive. Has this evidence swayed you one way or another?
-K.M.
RSS Feed
