Gun Control: The silence of Obama

posted at 10:35 am on November 25, 2011 by Jazz Shaw

Fall is time when the thoughts of many Americans turns to hunting. In fact, when I arrived at my sister’s house yesterday for a Thanksgiving visit with the family, my nephew was unloading a five point buck he’d taken just that morning. But when we think of hunting, it also brings up the frequently uncomfortable (for Democrats) subject of gun control.

As an AP article today reminds us, President Obama has something of an “interesting” history on the issue. As a senator and candidate, this is the man who once chastised rural voters about “clinging” to their God and their guns. He was also a champion of bans on “assault rifles” and other measures before reaching the White House. Now, however, facing a slate of potential GOP challengers who are all avid hunters and shooters, it’s gotten awfully quiet at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue when it comes to second amendment rights.

President Barack Obama, on the other hand, is virtually silent on the issue.

He has hardly addressed it since a couple of months after the January assassination attempt on Rep. Gabrielle Giffords in Tucson, Ariz., when he promised to develop new steps on gun safety in response. He still has failed to do so, even as Tucson survivors came to Capitol Hill last week to push for action to close loopholes in the gun background check system.

Democrats have learned the hard way that embracing gun control can be terrible politics, and the 2012 presidential election is shaping up to underscore just how delicate the issue can be. With the election likely to be decided largely by states where hunting is a popular pastime, like Missouri, Ohio or Pennsylvania, candidates of both parties want to win over gun owners, not alienate them.

For Republicans, that means emphasizing their pro-gun credentials. But for Obama and the Democrats, the approach is trickier.

Tricky is putting it mildly. From the pure politics side, this issue is completely toxic for Democrats. As Ed noted in October, public support for bans on handguns has dropped to historic lows, with barely one quarter of voters giving the idea Up Twinkles. Support for the idea of restricting rifles and shotguns for hunters is essentially non-existent.

But Obama’s base is still putting pressure on him. He made some promises after the shooting of Gabby Giffords, and progressives are still hopping on buses and heading to Washington to ask whether he plans to make good on them. Gun control is hardly the number one issue on most people’s plates given the economic environment, but it’s still an important one for the furthest left segment of his base.

So what has Obama’s response been? Pretty much radio silence. In fact, the only movement we’ve seen in either direction was his decision to sign into law a measure allowing people to bring guns into national parks. But that was fairly weak tea in terms of winning over second amendment rights enthusiasts, and really did nothing much aside from angering an already disappointed liberal base.

Rest assured that you’ll be seeing plenty of advertisements next year showing Republicans loading up the truck and heading out to go hunting. And as the AP points out, hunting is a very popular pastime in the less urban areas of Pennsylvania, Ohio and Virginia. Don’t think that Team Obama hasn’t taken note of it.

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

This post is pointless.

underceij on November 25, 2011 at 10:40 AM

I’m sure Plouffe is working hard on avoiding this issue.

Barry just does what he’s told.

NoDonkey on November 25, 2011 at 10:40 AM

He and the rest of them are just waiting and hoping for re-election. Should that tragic event occur, the assault will start with an iron fist, using exec orders, crooked planted judges, and other tricks never before comtemplated.

golfmann on November 25, 2011 at 10:43 AM

If He wins and thus never has to run for anything, we’ll hear and see His true feelings and it will be ugly.

Dingbat63 on November 25, 2011 at 10:43 AM

So what has Obama’s response been? Pretty much radio silence.

He’s just working below the radar as he promised the Brady people with a program called…Fast and Furious.

a capella on November 25, 2011 at 10:44 AM

This post is pointless.

underceij on November 25, 2011 at 10:40 AM

Hello, troll. You’re pointless.

Blake on November 25, 2011 at 10:45 AM

That horse left the barn so long ago you couldn’t find it with tracking dogs and helicopters.

100 million gun owners in the U.S., Minnesota alone fielding 300,000 deer hunters from a state population of about 5 million. Nope, even a thug criminal stooge douchebag hammerhead jackwagon like PBHO isn’t crazy enough to raise the specter of gun bans.

Bishop on November 25, 2011 at 10:45 AM

Hahahaha! Seven months ago, northddallasthirty called underceiji “the new Plouffe troll.”

http://hotair.com/archives/2011/04/11/obamas-very-big-brand-new-idea-on-entitlement-reform-is/

Blake on November 25, 2011 at 10:48 AM

Your right to keep and bear (aka Have and Carry)
has absolutely nothing to do with hunting.

It has only to do with securing your self and family from criminals and tyrants.

esnap on November 25, 2011 at 10:49 AM

There is nothing in this sentence that is hard to understand:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Parse all you want gun control freaks, but the writing is written clearly & legibly upon the wall.
There’s nothing in the definition of infringe that leaves any of this to the imagination:

to encroach upon in a way that violates law or the rights of another

Giffords’ is a terrible tragedy, along with the others that died that day. But you can have terrible tragedies with a car, a ball point pen, a pen knife, a rock, you name it.

Badger40 on November 25, 2011 at 10:54 AM

My post is pointless.

underceij on November 25, 2011 at 10:40 AM

Fixed.

Del Dolemonte on November 25, 2011 at 10:54 AM

I honestly wonder if Obama has ever shot a firearm… Seriously…

Khun Joe on November 25, 2011 at 10:54 AM

Maybe they could sharpen up barrys hunting cred and set up a hunting trip with Cheney to show him how it’s done.

jistincase on November 25, 2011 at 10:57 AM

” this is the man who once chastised rural voters about “clinging” to their God and their guns.”

My recollection is that Obama said this behind closed doors to his liberal financial contributors. He would never have the guts to say this directly to rural voters themselves.

NCC on November 25, 2011 at 10:58 AM

Your right to keep and bear (aka Have and Carry)
has absolutely nothing to do with hunting.

It has only to do with securing your self and family from criminals and tyrants.

esnap on November 25, 2011 at 10:49 AM

9th post pointing this out. Shame.

bbhack on November 25, 2011 at 11:01 AM

So what has Obama’s response been? Pretty much radio silence.

Au contraire, mon ami Jazzy. O’Bonehead has made his feeling on gun control crystal clear throughout his short, idiotic political career. From his underground work at the Joyce Foundation to his appointment of fringe-left anti-2nd Amendment Supreme Court frauds.

Oh, and let us not bitterly cling, but … remember?

He may be mute, but he’s far from silent on the 2nd Amendment. He would repeal it today if he could. Obama is a maggot.

Jaibones on November 25, 2011 at 11:02 AM

has absolutely nothing to do with hunting.

It has only to do with securing your self and family from criminals and tyrants.

esnap on November 25, 2011 at 10:49 AM

9th post pointing this out. Shame.

bbhack on November 25, 2011 at 11:01 AM

I was just wondering if esnap somehow considers the banning of hunting with that comment.
While it may be true that the Founders had that specific reason for including the 2nd, it does not mean that hunting is any less important.
Security of a free state can mean all sorts of things.
Being able to provide for your own table is also an issue of security.

Badger40 on November 25, 2011 at 11:04 AM

I’m clinging bitterly to my gun..:)

Dire Straits on November 25, 2011 at 11:05 AM

Expect “executive action”, not legislation or public statements in this arena.

And if, Bog forbid, there is ANYTHING like a terrorist attack or insurrection (like from the OWS), expect martial law and an immediate clamp down on guns AND AMMUNITION!!

Also, expect that NICS will get “backed up” to “secure data storage” somewhere inside “Homeland Security”, regardless of what the Federal law actually says. (If anyone doubts this administrations contempt for law, they haven’t been paying attention.)

Just because you don’t see movement on top of the water, doesn’t mean that swimming is safe.

The sooner this guy is out of office (with his gang of revolutionaries) the safer the country will be. He’s already committed enough “high crimes and misdemeanors” to justify impeachment, but that it a toothless tiger. Clinton proved that and Barry paid a lot of attention to those activities.

CrazyGene on November 25, 2011 at 11:05 AM

Gun control is being able to hit your target.

Sorry, always wanted to say that in context…

Rufus on November 25, 2011 at 11:05 AM

I honestly wonder if Obama has ever shot a firearm… Seriously…

Khun Joe on November 25, 2011 at 10:54 AM

No..Bill Ayers didn’t teach him that..:)

Dire Straits on November 25, 2011 at 11:06 AM

Now, however, facing a slate of potential GOP challengers who are all avid hunters and shooters, it’s gotten awfully quiet at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue when it comes to second amendment rights.

It has nothing to do with the republican primary, and everything to do with the operation fast and furius fiasco.

That’s a worse-than-Watergate scandal which could – and should – bring the 0bama regime down.

Rebar on November 25, 2011 at 11:08 AM

They’ll ban ammunition.Classify them as hazardous explosives and enviornmental harards shippable only with hazmat approved transports with 10 million regs to get through every weigh station.

A box of 38′s will cost $1200.00

golfmann on November 25, 2011 at 11:09 AM

Here is the latest gun control plan.

Dave Kopel on Testimony About the “The Fix Gun Checks Act”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ltgX_LGihSo

mad saint jack on November 25, 2011 at 11:09 AM

Tucson survivors came to Capitol Hill last week to push for action to close loopholes in the gun background check system.

I agree that it is time for more gun control. Let’s close the “White House loophole”. Whenever the AFT allows a straw purchase of a gun destined for drug cartels to proceed, Congress must be notified. This way we can stop the Obama gun-running network. When Mexico demands that those responsible be extradited, we can hand Obama over to them for prosecution. As the liberals constantly cry: “We have to do something!”

scrubjay on November 25, 2011 at 11:11 AM

Gun Control: The silence of Obama

Really?

I think dead border patrol agent Brian Terry, who was murdered by guns Obama’s AG Eric Holder walked across our southern border, speaks pretty damn loud.

locomotivebreath1901 on November 25, 2011 at 11:12 AM

They’ll ban ammunition.Classify them as hazardous explosives and enviornmental harards shippable only with hazmat approved transports with 10 million regs to get through every weigh station.

A box of 38′s will cost $1200.00

golfmann on November 25, 2011 at 11:09 AM

Comedian Pat Paulsen proposed just that when he ran for President in 1968.

His plan? Let everyone who wanted to have guns have them, but just lock up all of the bullets.

Del Dolemonte on November 25, 2011 at 11:12 AM

Gun Control: The silence of Obama

If Cass Sunstein’s working on it “under-the-radar”, nobody in the WH is going to say jack-peep.

Considering the current Administration, it may actually be a bad sign that the silence on gun-control is ‘loud’.

listens2glenn on November 25, 2011 at 11:13 AM

President Obama can not discuss gun control because it is inexorably linked to Fast and Furious. Any discussion by him of gun control will only serve to contextualize F&F as completely consistent with Obama’s anti-gun views and bring the scandal closer to within the White House.

allanbourdius on November 25, 2011 at 11:14 AM

Barry is at the top of Fast and Furious. Watch and see.

Key West Reader on November 25, 2011 at 11:15 AM

Not in California, the death to our second amendment zealots have taken advantage of a liberal in the Whitehouse to rush into law infringing legislation against gun owners.

With Jerry Brown as Governor they haven’t even tried to disguise their efforts to mutate our Constitution.

If 2010 hadn’t been a debacle for DC Dems that’s what would have happened nationally too.

Speakup on November 25, 2011 at 11:16 AM

I guess if you consider fast & furious gun control desperation as being silent… I also haven’t heard one republican yet ask him about his totalitarian wish of a nation civilian army why?

The GOP was too busy stopping Sarah Palin from running, weren’t they?

Don L on November 25, 2011 at 11:16 AM

“We’re working on it…. under the radar”

/But he didn’t know about F&F. I spent an entire night printing every single document available online on F&F; 3 reams of paper. Obama is the head of the snake.

Key West Reader on November 25, 2011 at 11:18 AM

Moderation ate my post … so I’ll summarize. Obama is perfectly clear on the 2nd Amendment — he wants to make it illegal for individuals to own guns in America, and leave the police and his regulatory henchmen the only ones armed.

He worked toward this goal with the Joyce Foundation. He worked toward this goal with both of his SCOTUS nominees, each of whom is actively anti-gun, as their first votes have proved.

And he has stupidly stated in public his view that gun owners are bitter clingers to the past. Anyone who claims they don’t know Obama’s position on guns is either a fool or willfully ignorant. All you need to do is read.

Jaibones on November 25, 2011 at 11:21 AM

(OK, moderation coughed up my comment … sorry)

Jaibones on November 25, 2011 at 11:22 AM

On the subject of bho and his doesn’t give a flit about anyone but him, see what he is up to now!

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/manhattan/cash_chaos_on_yule_tree_day_HixCW5a2UlmlSgeJ35498L
L

letget on November 25, 2011 at 11:24 AM

If we can get the National Reciprocity bill that just passed the House onto the Senate floor, there would be a REAL good chance that it would pass. The leftards would really squeal at that point. Obozo would then be in a bit of a spot, me thinks.

DocinPA on November 25, 2011 at 11:25 AM

If Cass Sunstein’s working on it “under-the-radar”, nobody in the WH is going to say jack-peep.

Considering the current Administration, it may actually be a bad sign that the silence on gun-control is ‘loud’.

listens2glenn on November 25, 2011 at 11:13 AM

The SCOTUS is the final word on gun control as well as so many other important issues. That is why this next election is so critical. If obambi is re-elected and allowed to appoint another gun grabber like kagan or the wise latina our gun rights are doomed as well our freedom. Take a look at England (and I no longer describe her as Great Britan).

VegasRick on November 25, 2011 at 11:26 AM

Gun control is being able to hit your target.

Sorry, always wanted to say that in context…

Rufus on November 25, 2011 at 11:05 AM

Incorrect. Gun control is a soundness of mind and body while a person has a firearm in his/her possession.

Charles Whitman hit what he was aiming at. So did Oswald. That doesn’t imply any amount of gun control.

I know plenty of guys who can shoot 40/40 on the range, but whom I was still uncomfortable around while they were in possession of a firearm.

This speaks to the heart of the gun control issue along the political lines. A conservative believes that the citizenry ought to be in possession of firearms because the citizenry is by and large sound in body and mind, and ought to be capable of defending itself from those who are unsound independently of the government.

Liberals believe that the citizenry is incompetent and incapable of making decisions, even decisions as simple as whether to keep breathing or not. Thus, the masses of Plebes cry out for a ruling body to protect them from themselves. And certainly a body of people that shiftless and incapable cannot be trusted to carry around implements capable of causing themselves, others, and most importantly the ruling body, lethal harm.

Sgt Steve on November 25, 2011 at 11:26 AM

Considering the current Administration, it may actually be a bad sign that the silence on gun-control is ‘loud’.

listens2glenn on November 25, 2011 at 11:13 AM

Amen

CrazyGene on November 25, 2011 at 11:27 AM

Is that Dick Cheney in the picture?..:)

Dire Straits on November 25, 2011 at 11:27 AM

Gun control is hardly the number one issue on most people’s plates given the economic environment, but it’s still an important one for the furthest left segment of his base.

Again: why, exactly, is the far-Left opposed to gun ownership by private citizens? Why is this issue–of all issues–so important to them?

It isn’t because increases in private gun ownership correlate to increases in gun-related crime. There is an appreciable drop in gun violence in every state and city that has enacted or made less restrictive carry licensing. Ironically, those urban areas with the greatest restrictions on private gun carry and ownership are those among the most dangerous, with the highest gun-related crime rates.

The Tucson shooting was not the result of weak gun control laws or 33-rd magazines any more than the OC bombing was the result of the availability of ammonium nitrate fertilizer. Loughner’s increasingly erratic behavior and online statements had not yet put him on official watch-lists–and he had, in fact, dropped out of college before he had to undergo a mental health examination in order to stay in school. A determined assassin or terrorist with a single end in mind will not be deterred by difficulty in obtaining the means.

According to Mao, political power flows from the barrel of a gun. The American Left, all of whom no doubt assiduously read Mao, opposes gun ownership by private citizens because they believe all power should reside with the state–and make no mistake, guns are power, even your grandfather’s old double-barreled 12-gauge you forgetfully keep unloaded in the back of the closet. The guns we own and carry and bitterly cling to represent a threat, however minor, to the brave new world they dream about.

Thus, ‘gun control’ is a misnomer. The hardcore, old-school Marxists among them don’t want to control guns. They want to control you.

troyriser_gopftw on November 25, 2011 at 11:29 AM

Sgt Steve on November 25, 2011 at 11:26 AM

+ 100..Excellent Post!!..This post sums it up well..:)

Dire Straits on November 25, 2011 at 11:30 AM

Come October next, I’m sure Obama will show up in a key state in a florescent orange suit asking “Where can I get me a huntin license around he-uh?
It’s on page 534, 2cd paragraph of Rules for Tragicals

Don L on November 25, 2011 at 11:35 AM

Gun control is being able to hit your target.

Rufus on November 25, 2011 at 11:05 AM

Incorrect

Sgt Steve on November 25, 2011 at 11:26 AM

Get over yourself, it was a snark. Did you somehow fail to read half of a two-sentence comment, Captain America?

Sorry, always wanted to say that in context…

Jaibones on November 25, 2011 at 11:36 AM

Your right to keep and bear (aka Have and Carry)
has absolutely nothing to do with hunting.
It has only to do with securing your self and family from criminals and tyrants.
esnap on November 25, 2011 at 10:49 AM

Along the same lines, I had created a hand written poster that was hung-up at my work-station where I was employed some years ago.

Worded as follows:

The Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is not about the HOBBY/RECREATIONAL/SPORTING use of firearms.
It is about the common citizen having the capability to function as their own first-line of defense against Government tyranny, and common criminals.

listens2glenn on November 25, 2011 at 11:37 AM

Hunting is only part of the political implications of the pro-gun/anti-gun minefield. Hunters, even those who haven’t hunted much in years, make a very deep mental connection to the idea of self reliance and their knowledge of hunting. The uncertainty the Obama administration has created in the economy, job reliability, etc., cause tens of millions of Americans to assess their abilities to be more self reliant in the system were to collapse. People with hunting backgrounds have in their minds at some nearly instinctive level an understanding that the anti-gun crowd is a threat to them and their family’s ability to survive a crises. Is it realistic to think millions of people could survive by living off the land? Probably not; at least not long term. But it’s as realistic as the anti-gun belief that getting rid of legally owned guns would get rid of crime.

MikeA on November 25, 2011 at 11:39 AM

I was just wondering if esnap somehow considers the banning of hunting with that comment.
While it may be true that the Founders had that specific reason for including the 2nd, it does not mean that hunting is any less important.
Security of a free state can mean all sorts of things.
Being able to provide for your own table is also an issue of security.

Badger40 on November 25, 2011 at 11:04 AM

We must always point out that the 2A is about self defense, because the gun controllers usually start with something like “but we respect the hunters”, and “why does a hunter need an ‘assault rifle’”.

bbhack on November 25, 2011 at 11:40 AM

That’s a worse-than-Watergate scandal which could – and should – bring the 0bama regime down.

Rebar on November 25, 2011 at 11:08 AM

Apparently you assume that the pro-Obama parasite and baby killing class gives a hoot about a mere scandal…they don’t -it’s a badge of honor and evidence of being worthy of their support.

Don L on November 25, 2011 at 11:44 AM

Typical of AP coverage on a subject it wants to spin. Obama’s extensive anti-gun rights track record is completely glossed over.

Obama’s history in support of strict gun control measures prior to becoming president makes it difficult for him to claim he’s a Second Amendment champion, even though he signed a bill allowing people to take loaded guns into national parks.

Web search keywords “Obama” and “Joyce Foundation” for just a taste. His record can’t be spun as anything except extremely anti-gun rights. Obama has been willing to use virtually any tactic to advance the agenda, including payoffs for law review articles attacking the “individual right” interpretation of the Second Amendment.

Two shots at the NRA and other gun rights organizations:

At the same time, he’s apparently decided that his record backing gun safety is nothing to boast of either, perhaps because of the power of the gun lobby and their opposition to anything smacking of gun control.

But the NRA outspends gun-control groups by a wide margin, and analysts say that when it comes time to vote, the gun issue is more likely to motivate gun rights activists than gun control supporters.

The only reason there is a “gun lobby” is that there is an “anti-gun lobby” that has been attacking the Second Amendment rights of all citizens for decades, funded far beyond the proportional membership of the organizations behind it. The NRA is far more than a “gun lobby” and its power comes from its huge membership that votes.

The result is that while Republicans are more than happy to talk up their support for gun rights, Obama may barely be heard from on the issue at all.

“Gun control is a fight that the administration is not willing to pick. They’re not likely to win it,” said Harry Wilson, author of a book on gun politics and director of the Institute for Policy and Opinion Research at Roanoke College in Virginia. “They certainly would not win it in Congress, and it’s not likely to be a winner at the polls. … It comes down to one pretty simple word: Politics.”

Democrats have learned the hard way that embracing gun control can be terrible politics, and the 2012 presidential election is shaping up to underscore just how delicate the issue can be. With the election likely to be decided largely by states where hunting is a popular pastime, like Missouri, Ohio or Pennsylvania, candidates of both parties want to win over gun owners, not alienate them.

And yet many people believe that the Obama administration’s criminal conspiracy to arm Sinaloa drug cartel operatives with over 2,000 weapons in Operation Fast & Furious and at least four other similar operations is a political gambit to support a massively unpopular and politically suicidal gun control agenda? Why would supposedly clever politicians engage in a massive conspiracy to violate US and Mexican law and international arms treaties, risking exposure and criminal prosecution, and arguably responsibility for hundreds of murders, just to advance a policy agenda that would likely result in losing elections?

I just doesn’t make sense, people. Much more than a gun control agenda is behind this monstrous and bloody conspiracy. “Sting operation gone wrong” was obviously just a smoke screen, and pushing an unpopular political policy is just a second level smoke screen. Neither one can explain the facts, which add up to the Obama administration intentionally arming the Sinaloa Cartel. The real question is why, and we don’t have the answer to that question yet. Is it a proxy war with the most dangerous of the cartels, Los Zetas? They are an exigent threat to the Mexican government’s ability to control its territory, and their willingness to act in concert with terrorist organizations threatens US national security. That would make far more sense than promoting a politically suicidal gun control policy agenda.

novaculus on November 25, 2011 at 11:45 AM

We must always point out that the 2A is about self defense, because the gun controllers usually start with something like “but we respect the hunters”, and “why does a hunter need an ‘assault rifle’”.

bbhack on November 25, 2011 at 11:40 AM

A lib girlfriend of my wife’s asked me that same type of question regarding my Springfeild XDM (20 round capacity) and multiple mags. She said “why would a hunter need something like that?” And I jokingly replied “All depends on what your hunting” – I thought her face was going to fall off.

VegasRick on November 25, 2011 at 11:49 AM

Incorrect. Gun control is a soundness of mind and body while a person has a firearm in his/her possession.

Sgt Steve on November 25, 2011 at 11:26 AM

The guy was kidding, Steve. And btw, I’ve never heard a shooting expert, military or civilian, equate ‘gun control’ to ‘soundness of mind and body’. Usually when firearms professionals are talking about gun control, they mean gun control in the sense everyone else means gun control; that is, the laws, rules, and regulations pertaining to firearms. Look over Jeff Cooper’s talks or written body of work, for example, and highlight one instance anywhere where he referenced ‘gun control’ other than in the context of what we’re talking about here.

troyriser_gopftw on November 25, 2011 at 11:50 AM

So what has Obama’s response been? Pretty much radio silence.

And you know damn well it’s killing him. The Statist wants firearms only in the hands of the Feds and the socialist elites, unfortunately odumbo’s party (including the msm) stumbled badly running with the fabricated Gabby Giffords narritive, and now the admin has been caught purposefully shipping assault rifles to Mexican Drug Cartels (a la F&F).

He’s only silent because he CAN’T talk about it – be wary about what’s happening behind the scenes.

Tim_CA on November 25, 2011 at 11:54 AM

OT

10 year anniversary

Johnny Michael Spann C.I.A. – S.A.D

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,185955,00.html

blatantblue on November 25, 2011 at 11:54 AM

Jaibones on November 25, 2011 at 11:02 AM

Exactly.

AZCoyote on November 25, 2011 at 11:58 AM

This post is pointless.

underceij on November 25, 2011 at 10:40 AM

Yours or Jazz’s?

 

Both.

;D

FlatFoot on November 25, 2011 at 11:58 AM

So what has Obama’s response been? Pretty much radio silence.

He’s just working below the radar as he promised the Brady people with a program called…Fast and Furious.

a capella on November 25, 2011 at 10:44 AM

Exactly. Fast and Furious makes the gun control issue too delicate to touch. Which is ironic, considering the intent of F&F was clearly to create an opening for gun demagoguery and more gun restrictions.

tom on November 25, 2011 at 12:04 PM

I’m pretty sure Sgt. Steve knows snark when he sees it. He is using it as a springboard to make a broader point. There are two important aspects of self-defense with a firearm, competent gun handling and mental discipline combined with a certain necessary courage.

I agree the segue could have been smoother.

novaculus on November 25, 2011 at 12:07 PM

Liberals believe that the citizenry is incompetent and incapable of making decisions, even decisions as simple as whether to keep breathing or not.

Sgt Steve on November 25, 2011 at 11:26 AM

The way things are going I’m starting to believe that they may be right. Cynical, yeah but that don’t mean it ain’t the truth. The citizen’s elected Obama, didn’t they?

Oldnuke on November 25, 2011 at 12:10 PM

Why would supposedly clever politicians engage in a massive conspiracy to violate US and Mexican law and international arms treaties, risking exposure and criminal prosecution, and arguably responsibility for hundreds of murders, just to advance a policy agenda that would likely result in losing elections?

I just doesn’t make sense, people. Much more than a gun control agenda is behind this monstrous and bloody conspiracy. “Sting operation gone wrong” was obviously just a smoke screen, and pushing an unpopular political policy is just a second level smoke screen. Neither one can explain the facts, which add up to the Obama administration intentionally arming the Sinaloa Cartel. The real question is why, and we don’t have the answer to that question yet. Is it a proxy war with the most dangerous of the cartels, Los Zetas? They are an exigent threat to the Mexican government’s ability to control its territory, and their willingness to act in concert with terrorist organizations threatens US national security. That would make far more sense than promoting a politically suicidal gun control policy agenda.

novaculus on November 25, 2011 at 11:45 AM

I think the most likely explanation is that they’ve seen that public opinion is against them, and wanted to shape public opinion by ensuring lots of media stories about guns used in crimes.

Yes, they should have known it wouldn’t work. But these people are a lot more arrogant than they are smart.

tom on November 25, 2011 at 12:11 PM

“All depends on what your hunting” – I thought her face was going to fall off.

VegasRick on November 25, 2011 at 11:49 AM

LOL!

Key West Reader on November 25, 2011 at 12:12 PM

100 million gun owners in the U.S., Minnesota alone fielding 300,000 deer hunters from a state population of about 5 million. Nope, even a thug criminal stooge douchebag hammerhead jackwagon like PBHO isn’t crazy enough to raise the specter of gun bans.

Bishop on November 25, 2011 at 10:45 AM

There is a certain amount of truth to safety in numbers. Those numbers certainly make me feel a little safer than I otherwise might feel. As far as another line of reasoning that describes controlling ammo rather than firearms, all it takes to defeat that is to create self-controlled groups that make their own for their members. If you’re not selling ammo for profit, then the ability of the gubmint to get a grip on you is much less.

platypus on November 25, 2011 at 12:13 PM

But these people are a lot more arrogant than they are smart.

tom on November 25, 2011 at 12:11 PM

Hopefully, they’ll eventually become sufficiently arrogant to defy a moving locomotive. That would be must-see video.

platypus on November 25, 2011 at 12:15 PM

Gun control is a soundness of mind and body while a person has a firearm in his/her possession.
Sgt Steve on November 25, 2011 at 11:26 AM

Well stated.

I have believed for years (since High School, 1970s) that the biggest threat to the 2nd Amendment was and IS the unbridled hedonism that Americans were and are accepting as the new “standard of normality.”
Very few people (if any) complain when drunk drivers have their licenses revoked.
But ownership/possession of most types of firearms is not “licensed” (so far) in a majority of the United States.
AS long as some of our fellow Americans continue to practice a deliberate absence of the “soundness of mind and body”, we can expect more public outcry for more limitations on private ownership of “deadly force.”

listens2glenn on November 25, 2011 at 12:19 PM

…Tucson survivors came to Capitol Hill last week to push for action to close loopholes in the gun background check system.

It drives me nuts whenever I hear talk of this non-existent “loophole”. It is the gun control lobby’s warping of the common meaning of words to trick voters into supporting what they normally wouldn’t, and the media are knowing co-conspirators in this. There are no loopholes in current federal law on gun sales, it applies to everyone in all circumstances. (Unless you’re a drug cartel member sponsored by the BATF or an FBI informant.)

What the gun control lobby wants, and what Obama is likely willing to give them should he be re-elected, is federal jurisdiction over gun sales between private parties within states. Under the Liberal interpretation of the Commerce Clause, everything under the sun is the jurisdiction of the federal government, but since the gun-free school zone ban was explicitly shot down by the Supreme Court for lack of jurisdiction, it’s debatable whether or not such a law would survive a Constitutional challenge even if there was a chance it could get through Congress. That’s not closing a “loophole”, it’s a huge expansion of federal power over every single voluntary exchange of goods between US citizens.

Socratease on November 25, 2011 at 12:20 PM

Nope, even a thug criminal stooge douchebag hammerhead jackwagon like PBHO isn’t crazy enough to raise the specter of gun bans.

Bishop on November 25, 2011 at 10:45 AM

First — this deserved to be in bold and posted for the fourth or fifth time. It’s just fun.

Second — I beg to differ on your premise. Yes, O’Bozo is both crazy enough and stupid enough. His puppeteer may have stuffed a cork in his mouth, but his actions for the past 10 years speak louder than TOTUS ever did: Joyce, Kagan, Sotomayor

Jaibones on November 25, 2011 at 12:22 PM

Barry is at the top of Fast and Furious. Watch and see.
Key West Reader on November 25, 2011 at 11:15 AM

Give yourself a pat on the back – exactly correct. Obama should be held culpable for his role in Terry’s murder- criminally culpable – just as you and I would be.

turfmann on November 25, 2011 at 12:27 PM

“We’re working on sneaking gun control in under the radar.”Barack Obama to Sarah Brady at a paid dinner.

Ryan Anthony on November 25, 2011 at 12:28 PM

If Cass Sunstein’s working on it “under-the-radar”, nobody in the WH is going to say jack-peep.

Considering the current Administration, it may actually be a bad sign that the silence on gun-control is ‘loud’.

listens2glenn on November 25, 2011 at 11:13 AM

Exactly, and thank you.

Obama’s work as a board member of the Joyce Foundation — a non-profit group largely dedicated to the “under the radar” rollback of 2nd Amendment rights — is never reported. Under the guise of legal scholarship, The Joyce Foundation disseminates anti-gun propaganda in the form of issue primers and “background reports” to judges across the country.

rrpjr on November 25, 2011 at 12:29 PM

I honestly wonder if Obama has ever shot a firearm… Seriously…

Khun Joe on November 25, 2011 at 10:54 AM

I think it would be a hybrid of the Chuck U Schumer picture: Chuck-U Shooting

and Duh One on a bicycle: Jugears on a Bike

It would definitely be comedy gold.

AZfederalist on November 25, 2011 at 12:40 PM

Chuck U Schumer picture: Chuck-U Shooting

That is the face of a man who should be denied a FOID card by the State Police. He is one crazy looking son of a b!tch.

Jaibones on November 25, 2011 at 12:50 PM

And it’s not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.”

What Obama would really like to really control are the bitter clingers themselves, not just their guns and their worship.

Mr. Obama has told people that it would be so much easier to be the president of China.

theCork on November 25, 2011 at 1:07 PM

Badger40 on November 25, 2011 at 11:04 AM

WTF?
I am a huge hunter, eating is the essences of life.

I think that inalienable right is covered under “LIFE, liberty and the pursuit of happiness”.

esnap on November 25, 2011 at 1:07 PM

tom on November 25, 2011 at 12:11 PM

I’m sure the possibility of generating support for their gun control agenda was a factor. I just can’t believe they took these monstrous risks for that reason alone, or even primarily for that reason.

President Obama can not discuss gun control because it is inexorably linked to Fast and Furious. Any discussion by him of gun control will only serve to contextualize F&F as completely consistent with Obama’s anti-gun views and bring the scandal closer to within the White House.

allanbourdius on November 25, 2011 at 11:14 AM

Barry is at the top of Fast and Furious. Watch and see.

Key West Reader on November 25, 2011 at 11:15 AM

Absolutely correct. F&F and at least 4 similar ops involved multiple federal law enforcement agencies and multiple cabinet level departments acting in concert. Only Obama could authorize a project of that magnitude.

novaculus on November 25, 2011 at 2:06 PM

Nope, even a thug criminal stooge douchebag hammerhead jackwagon like PBHO isn’t crazy enough to raise the specter of gun bans.

Bishop on November 25, 2011 at 10:45 AM

That it would be tough to do does not mean they won’t try.

The price of freedom is eternal vigilance.

roy_batty on November 25, 2011 at 2:07 PM

I wish Dick Cheney would take Obooba pheasant hunting.

Akzed on November 25, 2011 at 2:09 PM

Any mention of gun control will open up the Fast and Furious discussions.

djaymick on November 25, 2011 at 2:11 PM

Akzed on November 25, 2011 at 2:09 PM

Reaching across party lines! Excellent.

Jaibones on November 25, 2011 at 2:13 PM

and right after Homeland Security bans guns, the liberals can expect a ban on deep fat fried turkeys which are also terroristic according to Big Sis.

katablog.com on November 25, 2011 at 2:31 PM

Sgt Steve on November 25, 2011 at 11:26 AM

You convinced me. Let’s ban all liberals from carrying or getting within 10 feet of a gun.

katablog.com on November 25, 2011 at 2:33 PM

They will try to get gun control piece by piece. The Dept of Interior tried recently to prohibit recreational shooters from some public lands. Rep. Rehberg (R)Mt, convinced Sec. Salazar that it would not be a good idea, so Salazar decided to punt the rule. Rehberg said the left was always trying to get some rule against guns implemented and we have to keep an eye on them all the time. Sounds just like what the con man in chief said he was going to do.

Kissmygrits on November 25, 2011 at 3:02 PM

That horse left the barn so long ago you couldn’t find it with tracking dogs and helicopters.

100 million gun owners in the U.S., Minnesota alone fielding 300,000 deer hunters from a state population of about 5 million. Nope, even a thug criminal stooge douchebag hammerhead jackwagon like PBHO isn’t crazy enough to raise the specter of gun bans.

Bishop on November 25, 2011 at 10:45 AM

Until he wins the second term.

You left that part out.

KMC1 on November 25, 2011 at 3:16 PM

Fall is time when the thoughts of many Americans turns to hunting.
==================================================================

Paul Ryan bags one!!

Wednesday, November 23, 2011
Paul Ryan- Just a Policy Wonk
.
Paul Ryan is pretty good with numbers and such.

Windage and elevation…
**************************

http://grandpajohn.blogspot.com/

canopfor on November 25, 2011 at 4:01 PM

He did not campaign on reforming gun laws and hasn’t. Giffords was a proponent of gun ownership so I don’t see that going anywhere. There are existing controls on crazies getting guns. This is years old news.

lexhamfox on November 25, 2011 at 4:27 PM

Just out of morbid curiosity, how does the extreme left plan to mount their ‘cultural revolution’ without guns? Seeing as they are also the same group that opposes anyone from owning one?

GarandFan on November 25, 2011 at 5:07 PM

Giffords was a proponent of gun ownership so I don’t see that going anywhere. There are existing controls on crazies getting guns. This is years old news.

lexhamfox on November 25, 2011 at 4:27 PM

In addition to the fact that any push in this direction will point right at Sheriff Dupnik and the several opportunities he and his department had to intervene. January was not the first encounter Laughner had with the Sheriff’s department.

AZfederalist on November 25, 2011 at 5:29 PM

lexhamfox on November 25, 2011 at 4:27 PM

For reference: Washington Post Published: April 11, 2011

Over a barrel? Meet White House gun policy adviser Steve Croley
http://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/over-a-barrel-meet-white-house-gun-policy-adviser-steve-croley/2011/04/04/AFt9EKND_story.html

On March 30, the 30th anniversary of the assassination attempt on President Ronald Reagan……………

…………..During the meeting, President Obama dropped in and, according to Sarah Brady, brought up the issue of gun control, “to fill us in that it was very much on his agenda,” she said.

“I just want you to know that we are working on it,” Brady recalled the president telling them. “We have to go through a few processes, but under the radar.”

Just what did El Presidente Downgrade mean about disarming the innocent under the radar?

Did he mean the scheme to arm the psychotic Mexican drug cartels with weapons they don’t normally use but the gun grabbers are targeting in the US for registration and then confiscation?

Inquiring minds want to know.

Chip on November 25, 2011 at 5:44 PM

Ever heard of the Devil’s Greatest Trick?

Obama convincing anyone, especially someone writing for HotAir, that he’s not anti-gun is a close second.

Years running the Joyce foundation, telling the Bradys “under the radar”, Fast and Furious going to the White House, etc.

CPL 310 on November 25, 2011 at 7:30 PM

I honestly wonder if Obama has ever shot a firearm… Seriously…

Khun Joe on November 25, 2011 at 10:54 AM

No way, ever. The closest he has been to firearms are the ones borne by his security peeps.

Who is John Galt on November 25, 2011 at 7:43 PM

Nope, even a thug criminal stooge douchebag hammerhead jackwagon like PBHO isn’t crazy enough to raise the specter of gun bans.

Bishop on November 25, 2011 at 10:45 AM

2nd term – google Matthew Bracken.

Who is John Galt on November 25, 2011 at 8:04 PM

Push comes to shove, look for Barry to ‘pull a Kerry’. A gaggle of reporters will be led out into a field. A short distance away a shot is heard. A few minutes later, Barry will appear from behind a clump of trees, a shotgun on one shoulder, a dead goose hanging over the other shoulder.

Works for the left every time.

GarandFan on November 25, 2011 at 8:11 PM

Hahahah, I can’t wait to see the obama campaign commercial of him dressed up in hunting gear and talking like a redneck. lol

free on November 25, 2011 at 10:02 PM

The lack of activity better not lull americans into thinking this guy wont try, and is not already trying to gut the 2nd amendment.

tx2654 on November 25, 2011 at 10:30 PM

welp, Jazz Shaw has utterly failed to relate Obama’s promise of sub-rosa action with the Fast & Furious outrages. A plan to circumvent all the legal restrictions, including perverting the FBI-run NICS so that criminals could buy multiple firearms. A plan to ‘track’ firearms that tracked not one thin. A plan to LIE OUTRIGHT about the percentage of US-sourced arms in mexican criminal hands – besides the issue that many of those arms were legitimately sold to the mexican govt and were subsequently misappropriated IN mexico. A plan that inflated the murderous violence along our border, all used to justify REGULATORY changes instituting longarm registration in our four southern border states.
All THAT is NOT ‘radio silence’ or a lack of movement by the lying Marxist in Chief.

rayra on November 26, 2011 at 5:51 AM

Heasds UP Alert!

@andreamsaul tweeted:

andreamsaul
Just passed $2 million raised since @MittRomney announced @PaulRyanVP #RomneyRyan2012

42 mins ago from twitter.com by editor
==========================================

Romney and Ryan to hold a ‘homecoming’ rally in Wisconsin at 5:30 p.m. on Sunday night – @GingerGibson

1 hour ago by editor

canopfor on August 11, 2012 at 5:07 PM

MeanWhile,GaffeBiden reachs out……………

@ZekeJMiller tweeted:

ZekeJMiller
OFA:

Vice President Biden reached out to Congressman Ryan earlier today to congratulate him on his selection and welcome him to the race.

3 hours ago from twitter.com by editor

canopfor on August 11, 2012 at 5:11 PM

Romney-Ryan rally planned for Waukesha Sunday night
Updated: 4:10 p.m.
******************

A rally featuring presumptive Republican nominees Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan will be held Sunday evening beginning at 6:05 p.m. at the Waukesha County Expo, 1000 Northview Road.

Doors will open at 4 p.m. The event is expected to begin at 6:05 p.m.

The two running mates will be coming from North Carolina.

The Romney campaign has posted a website to register for tickets. Here is the link to the site.

The campaign has not yet released details of the rally.

http://www.jsonline.com/news/milwaukee/romneyryan-rally-planned-for-waukesha-sunday-night-096f6lt-165842666.html

canopfor on August 11, 2012 at 5:26 PM