Wow: Obama’s planning a special speech on gun control, claims Chris Matthews

posted at 9:22 pm on January 25, 2011 by Allahpundit

This isn’t Tingles talking out of his rear, I don’t think. He was at the White House for lunch today with Obama along with a few other journalists to receive some advance spin about tonight’s marathon snoozer, so this subject must have come up. And much to my surprise, assuming he’s accurately relaying The One’s words here, the White House is planning to take this issue on. Why would Obama want to do that knowing full well that new gun control measures won’t pass the House? For the same reason, presumably, that the GOP’s pushing ObamaCare repeal knowing that it won’t pass the Senate: Namely, optics. An Obama gun control speech will, I assume, be exceedingly modest in its demands. Lots of lip service to the Second Amendment and America’s fine hunting tradition, plenty of upfront concessions about not wanting to ban handguns, etc. He can’t afford to be aggressive on this issue, after all: Even knowing that nothing will pass the House and end up on his desk, he has to be careful about alienating the sort of rural Democrats he needs to win states like Pennsylvania. Peter Beinart:

Unlike crime, which was a constant presence, continually reminding Americans of the absurdity of allowing dangerous people to buy high-tech weapons, episodes like the one in Tucson produce a temporary spike in support for gun control, which quickly recedes. According to a CNN-Gallup poll, 28 percent of Americans said the Giffords shooting made them more likely to support gun control. But according to Pew, there were similar spikes after Columbine and Virginia Tech, and they had no lasting effect.

So there’s little chance Obama will lose votes by avoiding the gun issue. He just doesn’t have a big problem among the kinds of voters who support gun control: minorities, urbanites and white liberals. What he does have is a serious problem with gun control opponents, who are disproportionately white, male non-college educated and rural. They are, in other words, exactly the people with whom Barack Obama struggles, even compared to other Democrats. That’s why Hillary Clinton beat him by ten points in the Pennsylvania and Ohio primaries and almost 40 points in the West Virginia primary. And she did so, in part, by clobbering him for having said that in times of economic distress, working-class whites “cling to guns or religion.”

What he’ll do, I take it, is limit himself to “common sense” restrictions on, say, high-capacity magazines of the sort Loughner used in Arizona. A CNN poll taken 10 days ago showed 61 percent support for a ban on those, and of course no less a figure than Dick Cheney suggested that American can do without them. The point wouldn’t be to see any such measure pass, it’d merely be to use the issue as a wedge against the Republican House while pandering to his base. Even so, why he’d want to risk angering voters who pay close attention to gun rights issues in order to please a wider audience whose interest in this issue will fade as the Arizona shootings recede from the news cycle is bizarre to me. And tackling it in a speech devoted to the subject instead of slipping it into some broader address, like tonight’s, is doubly bizarre given that there’s no way to downplay the message afterwards if there’s a backlash. Maybe he was just telling Tingles what he wanted to hear? Click the image to watch.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Good.

Gun restrictions are a big time losing issue in swing and red states, the more he harps on them the worse off the democrat party will be.

Rebar on January 25, 2011 at 9:26 PM

chris matthews eats garbage.

moonbatkiller on January 25, 2011 at 9:27 PM

easy answer, fodder for the left without actually doing anything.

rob verdi on January 25, 2011 at 9:28 PM

I’m sure Tester, Webb, and McCaskill will be thrilled.

Mark1971 on January 25, 2011 at 9:28 PM

Why would Obama want to do that knowing full well that new gun control measures won’t pass the House?

Because they could. While Boehner is on board, remember it was Peter King that talked about that 1000-foot rule. He’s not the only squish in the House that would be willing to hop on board with the likes of Carolyn McCarthy.

MadisonConservative on January 25, 2011 at 9:28 PM

Well Allah, it could be what you said, or it could have been Tingles simply conflating a passing remark by the one about how he’ll “speak on that issue later”.

Tim Zank on January 25, 2011 at 9:29 PM

Come and get em.

Inanemergencydial on January 25, 2011 at 9:30 PM

AWB passed once before, and when it was up for renewal, you had people like Dubya and Chris Christie cheerleading for it. Keep a careful eye on your reps. While party is a good indicator of how they’ll lean, check their records. Gun rights aren’t always bipartisan.

MadisonConservative on January 25, 2011 at 9:31 PM

He’s not the only squish in the House that would be willing to hop on board with the likes of Carolyn McCarthy.

They’d need fully 25 Republicans to vote with Democrats on that to pass it, *assuming* that all of the Blue Dogs voted with the left. It’s not happening.

Allahpundit on January 25, 2011 at 9:32 PM

I’m sure there will be a couple of conservatives out there that will respond with some “I’ll shoot any fed who comes for my gun” kind of rhetoric and the left will get another chance to say all conservatives are violent extremists. This might be something that would motivate him to give this speech.

Mark1971 on January 25, 2011 at 9:33 PM

Banning high cap mags will definitely keep killers from using guns. Or something.

Bishop on January 25, 2011 at 9:34 PM

Gun control? How about keeping the guns out of the hands of criminals? Isn’t treating all people like criminals some sort or prejudice?

CWforFreedom on January 25, 2011 at 9:36 PM

I think Bob Casey just had a coronary….

rockmom on January 25, 2011 at 9:37 PM

Maybe he was just telling Tingles what he wanted to hear?

a rhetorical feel-up?

ted c on January 25, 2011 at 9:38 PM

It’s from the new, never-to-end B-move called Milking Tucson.

JammieWearingFool on January 25, 2011 at 9:45 PM

Oh, good; sales will go through the roof putting even more guns and high capacity magazines out there. And much larger calibers after. A .40 SW round would have left the Congresswoman dead as a doornail.

michaelo on January 25, 2011 at 9:45 PM

“B-movie”

JammieWearingFool on January 25, 2011 at 9:46 PM

Raise the berms! This week – magazines, next week – ?

OldEnglish on January 25, 2011 at 9:46 PM

Trial baloon of the “not letting a crisis go to waste” variety.

paragon27x on January 25, 2011 at 9:47 PM

Dude.

Any such speech costs him the White House in 2012. And probably gives the GOP a Senate majority, if not a veto-proof one in both houses. You heard it here first.

Barry O has displayed one single skill over his entire adult life: getting himself (re)elected. No way he touches this issue with a ten foot poll. Don’t get me wrong, he’s been an extremist gun-grabber for his entire political life. He’s just too savvy to try it. Now.

CTD on January 25, 2011 at 9:49 PM

No, I don’t want to click the image to watch. I might get some of Matthews’ spittle on me.

IronDioPriest on January 25, 2011 at 9:53 PM

it’d merely be to use the issue as a wedge against the Republican House while pandering to his base

Yes, but it’d make many Senate Dems. in red states a little queasy too. There’s no upside to this outside a play to his base, and it’s not really a “wedge” issue. If Obama goes this route, it will appear as a sloppy, ham-fisted way to get on top of a narrative to throw off Republican legislative advancements in keeping with their mandate.

Weight of Glory on January 25, 2011 at 9:58 PM

Go ahead. This s/b very good.

Schadenfreude on January 25, 2011 at 10:12 PM

I doubt he’ll focus on magazine capacity, or any other controls that have more to do with the actual guns.

Rather I think he’ll suggest something along the lines of further limiting access to guns by the mentally unstable, or catching unstable persons earlier. Given the largely centrist tone of SOTU, this has to be where he’s going, if Matthews is right.

Free Constitution on January 25, 2011 at 10:21 PM

just heard it from wolfie that he plans on another speech re: guns

cmsinaz on January 25, 2011 at 10:25 PM

Gore. Gun control. 2000. Tennessee electoral votes.

Wethal on January 25, 2011 at 10:25 PM

Any such speech costs him the White House in 2012. And probably gives the GOP a Senate majority, if not a veto-proof one in both houses. You heard it here first.

Barry O has displayed one single skill over his entire adult life: getting himself (re)elected. No way he touches this issue with a ten foot poll. Don’t get me wrong, he’s been an extremist gun-grabber for his entire political life. He’s just too savvy to try it. Now.
CTD on January 25, 2011 at 9:49 PM

Unless a) he believes the adulation from the press (which he does) and believes he can get away with it, b) he’s asking for cover/back-up from his cheerleaders when he goes for this issue (which they will dutifully give him), c) he’s policizing the Tucson tragedy to further his leftist ideology, d) All of the above.

I’m going with D.

conservative pilgrim on January 25, 2011 at 10:25 PM

That Tingley Leg says a lot of things. I’m just surprised it took THIS long.

HornetSting on January 25, 2011 at 10:32 PM

isn’t this speech over yet?

unseen on January 25, 2011 at 10:36 PM

The speech is over. Long live the speech.

Bishop on January 25, 2011 at 10:38 PM

The public may be in favor of banning high-capacity magazines, but it’s still a stupid and unworkable idea. Right now they are selling like crazy, and the factories are working two shifts to make them because they think a ban might be coming.

Also beware what other trinkets the democratics and RINOs might sneak in there.

slickwillie2001 on January 25, 2011 at 10:40 PM

just heard it from wolfie that he plans on another speech re: guns
cmsinaz on January 25, 2011 at 10:25 PM

Then PBHO really is stupid. Just the threat of him getting elected in 2008 was enough to send half of America into the closest gun store. If PBHO comes out with some half-baked speech about controlling access or something, you will see a run on small arms that would be hurricane force.

Bishop on January 25, 2011 at 10:40 PM

We don’t need more laws to limit the sale of guns.

Had Sheriff Dupenik done his job, Loughner would have had a criminal record which would have caused him to fail the instant background check. Democratics always want new laws, but will not enforce the ones we have.

slickwillie2001 on January 25, 2011 at 10:41 PM

Bishop on January 25, 2011 at 10:40 PM

yepper

cmsinaz on January 25, 2011 at 10:45 PM

Well, not surprising. Anti-gunners always exploit incidents like this. Not worth going into the arguments, tomorrow it is 10 round magazines, next it will be 5, then single shot, then muzzle loaders only (only being half facetious here).

Hopefully this, like his other issues and speeches, will blow up in his face and cost him re-election.

As was said, what’s the benefit? It plays to his base, but he’s got that regardless of what he does. It could easily cost some of his party in conservative states their seats just by making the non-moonbat citizens of those states nervous about more government restrictions of liberty. Not seeing what this buys, even from a moonbat liberal position.

Shoot, even the 61% number was bogus and kneejerk.

AZfederalist on January 25, 2011 at 10:46 PM

They’d need fully 25 Republicans to vote with Democrats on that to pass it, *assuming* that all of the Blue Dogs voted with the left. It’s not happening.

Allahpundit on January 25, 2011 at 9:32 PM

They got 46 in 1994. We saw with ObamaCare how easily they could be bought.

MadisonConservative on January 25, 2011 at 10:52 PM

It’s always gun control … yet the SC says the federal government cannot infringe on a Constitutionally protected right.

I remember when people got carry laws passed and the liberals said the streets would flow red with blood. Even told tourists to stay away …

tarpon on January 25, 2011 at 10:53 PM

Then PBHO really is stupid. Just the threat of him getting elected in 2008 was enough to send half of America into the closest gun store. If PBHO comes out with some half-baked speech about controlling access or something, you will see a run on small arms that would be hurricane force.

Bishop on January 25, 2011 at 10:40 PM

Sometimes I wonder if it’s intentional. The ammo shortage was awful…and I’ll bet at least a few Dems loved it.

MadisonConservative on January 25, 2011 at 10:53 PM

just heard it from wolfie that he plans on another speech re: guns
cmsinaz on January 25, 2011 at 10:25 PM

..I guess after failing to pull off a Reagen tonight…
…..Obama is going to follow it up by throwing a bone to his base with his Carter imitation.

Obama might as well double down on stupid by going after gun control.He can add this to the rest of his unpopular and failed agenda.

…well not totally failed…he did keep the Bush Tax Cuts.

Baxter Greene on January 25, 2011 at 11:01 PM

Banning high cap mags will definitely keep killers from using guns. Or something.

Bishop on January 25, 2011 at 9:34 PM

But lets keep the Southern border wide open where more people are being killed than in Iraq and Afghanistan combined.

democrats are so smart///

Baxter Greene on January 25, 2011 at 11:03 PM

Sometimes I wonder if it’s intentional. The ammo shortage was awful…and I’ll bet at least a few Dems loved it.
MadisonConservative on January 25, 2011 at 10:53 PM

The silver lining was that someone was buying it. The stats are unbelievable: 3 billion rounds of ammo sold in the last quarter of 2009. O_O

Bishop on January 25, 2011 at 11:06 PM

Barry can’t even find jobs. Now he wants to take on another issue?

GarandFan on January 25, 2011 at 11:07 PM

Baxter Greene on January 25, 2011 at 11:01 PM

he is good at doubling down on stupid

cmsinaz on January 25, 2011 at 11:11 PM

The ammo shortage was awful…and I’ll bet at least a few Dems loved it.

MadisonConservative on January 25, 2011 at 10:53 PM

Not sure how that was a win for them. The shortage wasn’t because ammo wasn’t being produced, it was because the ammo that was produced was snapped up as fast as it came off the line. That means lots and lots of ammo on the street. If you’re a lib anti-gun person, that would strike fear in your hear (which ain’t a bad thing IMHO).

AZfederalist on January 25, 2011 at 11:15 PM

Not sure how that was a win for them. The shortage wasn’t because ammo wasn’t being produced, it was because the ammo that was produced was snapped up as fast as it came off the line. That means lots and lots of ammo on the street. If you’re a lib anti-gun person, that would strike fear in your hear (which ain’t a bad thing IMHO).

AZfederalist on January 25, 2011 at 11:15 PM

True enough, but how much of that buying was due to hoarders, and how many people purchasing their first firearms couldn’t find ammo at their local Wal-Mart as a result?

MadisonConservative on January 25, 2011 at 11:18 PM

MadisonConservative on January 25, 2011 at 11:18 PM

Oh, no doubt 90% was (is) due to hoarders. Yeah, it took time to get ammo for new guns (took me 2 months before I was able to get 380 ammo for my new Micro Desert Eagle. Just meant I bought more when it became available. Then bought a Sig P238 when the Micro Eagle turned out to be a dog.

/yeah, hoarding guns and ammo — it’s all good

AZfederalist on January 25, 2011 at 11:24 PM

Why don’t we just ban victims? That will cut down on the body count.

fossten on January 25, 2011 at 11:33 PM

I hope the Democrats and RINO’s propose “common sense” gun restrictions. I look forward to sweeping them out in 2012.

Rode Werk on January 25, 2011 at 11:36 PM

You guys’ faith in your rulers protecting your Second Amendment Rights is as touching. Riught on a par with Hillary’s faith in Bill’s fidelity.

Frankly given past and recent history, I’m embarrassed for many of you.

One lone nutcase has them more scared than 30 million tea party voters; They are more willing to enact, then hole up in “Fortress Washington” and sit next to their new bestest buddies from across the aisle than they are to come out and run for re-election amongst us peasants.

Those wimps will sell you and the Constitution out next week or next month on this, and hope you forget about it before Nov 2012. They may fight each other about healthcare, budget cuts and debt ceilings, but they will form ranks to legislatively defend themselves from from scary looking and scary sounding mechanical devices.

LegendHasIt on January 26, 2011 at 12:40 AM

They got 46 in 1994. We saw with ObamaCare how easily they could be bought.

MadisonConservative on January 25, 2011 at 10:52 PM

Which Republicans were bought by ObamaCare?

ladyingray on January 26, 2011 at 7:14 AM

“…assuming he’s accurately relaying The One’s words here…”

Like, being accurate is his life goal or something?

percysunshine on January 26, 2011 at 7:23 AM

Well, not surprising. Anti-gunners always exploit incidents like this. Not worth going into the arguments, tomorrow it is 10 round magazines, next it will be 5, then single shot, then muzzle loaders only (only being half facetious here).

AZfederalist on January 25, 2011 at 10:46 PM

Just ask anyone from Australia how this works.

VelvetElvis on January 26, 2011 at 7:51 AM

Bishop on January 25, 2011 at 10:40 PM

After Teh Won was elected, my wife came up to me unbidden and asked me, “Why don’t you go get a couple of new guns”. At the time I owned 37 of them, and she had repeatedly asked me “why so many?” I now own 46.

Heckuva job limiting guns there, Bamster.

VelvetElvis on January 26, 2011 at 7:56 AM

When ever I hear the gun-control folks sound off, I am always reminded that it wasn’t the taxes that started the American Revolution against Britian. Surely, part of the mix (kindling), but it was when the Brits went to collect the guns and powder at Lexington and Condord that kicked it off.

The Colonists realized they would not be able to protect themselves against tyranny without them.

AZ_Redneck on January 26, 2011 at 8:17 AM

What happened to the laser light focus on jobs? This issue is a distraction.

Kissmygrits on January 26, 2011 at 8:36 AM

I don’t believe it. He’s not that stupid. Well, okay, he is. But I still don’t think he’ll touch it.

princetrumpet on January 26, 2011 at 8:50 AM

This country is sick of its’ government’s intrusion into private lives, I think on both sides. This issue flies like a lead balloon anymore. Bill Maher style political correctness is in a death rattle……

Gun control is hitting your target…………

adamsmith on January 26, 2011 at 9:39 AM

Banning high cap standard capacity mags will definitely keep killers from using guns. Or something.

Bishop on January 25, 2011 at 9:34 PM

FIFY.

Gun control? How about keeping the guns out of the hands of criminals? Isn’t treating all people like criminals some sort or prejudice?

CWforFreedom on January 25, 2011 at 9:36 PM

There’s no way to rule innocent men. The only power government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren’t enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws.
- Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged

CPL 310 on January 26, 2011 at 10:33 AM

There’s no way to rule innocent men. The only power government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren’t enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws.
- Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged

CPL 310 on January 26, 2011 at 10:33 AM

-
I agree with the thought and it definetly applies… but in this current situation it’s more that they are unwilling to even call the real criminals by name… let along focus on arresting them and keeping them locked up. Instead they are going for the easy and soft targets (so shoot me) like cell phone/walkers and grandma’s hip implant.
-
Yup… there are plenty of evil doers out there, but the really crooked bast*rds are in DC.
-

RalphyBoy on January 26, 2011 at 10:48 AM

After Teh Won was elected, my wife came up to me unbidden and asked me, “Why don’t you go get a couple of new guns”. At the time I owned 37 of them, and she had repeatedly asked me “why so many?” I now own 46.

Heckuva job limiting guns there, Bamster.

VelvetElvis on January 26, 2011 at 7:56 AM

You should not discuss how many guns you own, or ammunition. Even though it is perfectly legal, fascist police departments have raided citizens for what they arbitrarily decide is ‘too many guns’. In some cases they simply take them away even though no charges are laid, and you have to sue to get them back.

slickwillie2001 on January 26, 2011 at 10:58 AM

I’m sure there will be a couple of conservatives out there that will respond with some “I’ll shoot any fed who comes for my gun” kind of rhetoric…

Rhetoric?

You do know what sparked the Revolution, don’t you?

Crawford on January 26, 2011 at 1:35 PM

Rather I think he’ll suggest something along the lines of further limiting access to guns by the mentally unstable, or catching unstable persons earlier.

Impossible. He’d be alienating too many of his core constituents if he singles out the mentally ill.

Crawford on January 26, 2011 at 1:36 PM

I’m still waiting for the frog march of Cheney and Rove out of the White House that Tinkles and Shuster promised before Barry became President.

Northlander on January 26, 2011 at 6:07 PM

Better have some extra kleenex for this one Prithy….

IYKWIMAITYD

cableguy615 on January 26, 2011 at 9:03 PM