Today's op ed in the newspaper. I love the last paragragh. --------------------------------------
As with other mass shootings, Friday's killings at a movie theater in Aurora, Colo., trigger a familiar chain of reactions: horror, remorse, rage and a call for new restrictions on guns.
And in the recent past, at least, that call for action has been followed by little or no legislative action at all.
For example, after the January 2011 shooting of U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords in Tucson, Ariz., which left six people dead and 13 others injured, President Barack Obama delivered a moving nationally televised address, but a call for new gun laws was conspicuous in its absence.
Instead, in an Arizona Daily Star op-ed, he repeated his support for the Second Amendment and called for stricter enforcement of gun laws already on the books. That position perfectly matches the position of the National Rifle Association, the nation's leading gun owners' advocacy group. But if NRA leaders were pleased, they are not about to show it.
Quite the opposite, there are too many votes to be won, too much money to be raised and too many news members to be enlisted by tagging Obama as "anti-gun" for the NRA or other gun lobbyists to be deterred by mere facts.
Remember the dramatic surge in gun and ammunition sales that immediately followed Obama's election? They're surging again, according to the National Shooting Sports Foundation, a firearms industry trade group, as owners fear the weapons won't be available if Obama is re-elected.
The Wall Street Journal reports that growing social acceptance of guns and demographic and geographic changes in buying patterns suggest the increase in firearm sales that dropped off within a few months last time may hold this time for the long term.
"He's his own stimulus plan for the gun industry," said U.S. Sen. Mark Pryor, D-Ark., according to Politico.
Fear of what Obama might do is being fed by NRA leaders like Wayne LaPierre, who warned in February that Obama's plan is to "get re-elected and, with no more elections to worry about, get busy dismantling and destroying our firearms freedom."
The organization's 2008 website, gunbanobama.com, is up and running with its headline, "Obama Would Be The Most Anti-Gun President in History" and a link touting, "If Obama Is Pro-Gun, Why Are Leading Anti-Gun and Anti-Hunting Groups Endorsing Him?"
One might just as easily ask, if Obama is so anti-gun, why did one of those endorsers, the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, give Obama an "F" for his gun record the following year? The Brady Campaign and other gun-control advocates continue to express frustration over actions and inaction by Obama that should bring the NRA delight.
Obama has signed a law that permits Amtrak passengers to carry guns in their checked baggage and another that allows visitors to national parks and wildlife refuges to possess concealed guns. He has not pushed for actions he supported in his 2008 campaign, including closing the so-called "gun show loophole" that allows unlicensed private firearm sellers to sell weapons at gun shows without conducting the background checks and reporting requirements that registered gun dealers must conduct.
Yet the NRA, which went after Obama with a $40 million advertising and direct-mail campaign last time around, has set aside at least that much for this go-round, Politico reports. Its biggest hot-button issue is Fast and Furious, the Republican-promoted controversy in which Obama invoked executive privilege to block the disclosure of some Justice Department documents to a House committee involving a gun-running investigation. If the operation was really part of an Obama plot to ban guns, as some of his critics charge, it would be a far-fetched way to do it.
In this way, the NRA, which likes to call itself the nation's "oldest continuously operating civil rights organization," exhibits one of the worst attributes that critics often attribute to conventional civil rights organizations: manufactured outrage. If they don't have a real enemy of gun rights in the White House, they hammer the administration with inflated accusations and unfounded predictions anyway.
But activist gun owners tend to come from the same demographic that gives the least support to Obama: older white men from rural or outer suburban communities. Even unfounded accusations carry convincing weight with people who already are inclined to believe them.
Wanting a Custom fit in an off the rack world.
I don't have time for a job, I just need the money.
Jim, The only thing that the crime rates or gun violence in Chicago and NYC proves is a need for a national standard for firearms regulations. Having tough gun laws in the city or singal state only drives interstate trafficking. It doesn't do NY any good to have tough gun laws when 99% of crime guns come from places like PA, VA, and the Carolinas to name a few that have weak laws.
The Constitution calls for a well regulated militia for people to be able to bear arms...... Well regulated..... I think we all have an idea of what regulations are and do..... So instead of calling it gun control, call it gun regulation... Or If you want to bear arms, join the militia.
The Problem For Democrats Is The Gun Lobby Is The Majority Of Americans
CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER: The problem for [Joe] Lieberman is the gun lobby is the majority of the American people. It's not a lobby that is stopping all of this. The reason that the lobby is strong is because it represents overwhelming opinion in the United States. How do we know that? The president of the United States, who had this tremendous opening if he wanted to push the use of guns after a tragedy of this magnitude could easily have done it and he has assiduously stayed away because he knows it's a losing political proposition.
Liberals in the country want gun control, Democrats don't. They normally overlap, but not on this. Democrats will not go near it because of the experience as we heard earlier about 1994, and they don't want to repeat that again. We're at the height of an election and they won't go near it. You're going to have discussion on talk shows and none in Congress and nothing will happen in terms of legislation.
Actually I don't care for Charles Krauthammer, he's in our paper and is always extremely one sided and makes blanket statements like this all the time.
Quote:
it represents overwhelming opinion in the United States.
Funny, I never was asked and don't know of anyone that was.
Wanting a Custom fit in an off the rack world.
I don't have time for a job, I just need the money.
Jim, The only thing that the crime rates or gun violence in Chicago and NYC proves is a need for a national standard for firearms regulations. Having tough gun laws in the city or singal state only drives interstate trafficking. It doesn't do NY any good to have tough gun laws when 99% of crime guns come from places like PA, VA, and the Carolinas to name a few that have weak laws.
SethMast, Constitution aside, more regulations at any level of government would do little except to make it difficult for law-abiding citizens to own firearms. This nation has proven it cannot stop millions of people, massive shipments of drugs, or much else from illegally entering from foreign countries.
Chicago's crime is the result of decades of decaying self responsibility, self motivation, morals, ethics, family, and misguided government programs that enable that decay. A hundred years of oppressive national gun laws would not decrease Chicago gun availability to thugs.
The Constitution calls for a well regulated militia for people to be able to bear arms...... Well regulated..... I think we all have an idea of what regulations are and do..... So instead of calling it gun control, call it gun regulation... Or If you want to bear arms, join the militia.
The ducks were the innocent people in the "Gun Free Zone" theater. Unarmed they could be picked off at will.
Perhaps some of the victims or their families will sue that theater chain for posting that "gun Free Zone" sign and then not effectively enforcing it or providing protection to their customers after they disarmed them.
Gentlemen, The majority of this thread is subject to debate. Although I do not see it happening, I do wish we could someday get an honest politician into office who puts the U.S. and it's people above others first.
I would simply like to say that I hope the victims and their families can find peace and comfort. I can only pray that the kind of person who can do this decides to take their own life before deciding to take the lives of others along with theirs.
God bless the victims and their families.
Cant wait for summer... 68HO4004spvert Sleddog Iowa
God Bless the men and women past and present that have served this country. Thank you. Support D.A.V. - it helps gives a life back to those who gave so much for us.....
there are 'sickos' all around the world, and we cannot get rid of them ,so we are always going to be targets of their crazy ideas...how they kill innocent victims varies, and just take away ONE means (guns) of killing others isnt going to stop them....having a gun gives you a fighting chance to defend yourself.... I think sethMast should know that...isnt that why police officers carry them? to defend themselves (from criminals)its not to attack people...
Actually I don't care for Charles Krauthammer, he's in our paper and is always extremely one sided and makes blanket statements like this all the time.
While you quote liberal Chicago Tribune columnist Clarence Page.....
