JavaScript is disabled
Our website requires JavaScript to function properly. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser settings before proceeding.
Messages
1,410
Reactions
707
This is hardly "news", but thought about sharing anyways. An abridged version of this aritcle was published on the Oregonian yesterday.

Gun issue represents tough politics for Obama
Nov. 24, 2011, 7:33 p.m. PST
AP
WASHINGTON (AP) — They are fuzzy about some issues but the Republican presidential candidates leave little doubt about where they stand on gun rights.

Rick Perry and Rick Santorum go pheasant hunting and give interviews before heading out. Newt Gingrich and Herman Cain speak to the National Rifle Association convention. Michele Bachmann tells People magazine she wants to teach her daughters how to shoot because women need to be able to protect themselves. Mitt Romney, after backing some gun control measures in Massachusetts, now presents himself as a strong Second Amendment supporter.

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

He has hardly addressed it since a couple 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 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.

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. 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.

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."

Administration officials say they are working to develop the gun safety measures promised after the Giffords shooting, and they say have taken steps to improve the background check system. White House spokesman Matt Lehrich says the White House goal is to "protect the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens while keeping guns out of the hands of those who shouldn't have them under existing law."

But when it comes to guns and politics, Democrats haven't forgotten what happened in 1994. That year, President Bill Clinton was pushing for passage of a landmark crime bill featuring a ban on assault weapons, and then-House Speaker Thomas Foley, D-Wash., twisted Democrats' arms to get it through the House. Come November, Democrats suffered widespread election losses and lost control of the House and the Senate. Foley was among those defeated, and Clinton and others credited the NRA's campaigning with a big role in the outcome. And when the assault weapons ban came up for congressional reauthorization in 2004, it failed.

Given that history, the NRA expects to see Obama treading carefully on guns through 2012.

"It's bad politics to be on the wrong side of the Second Amendment at election time," said Wayne LaPierre, NRA executive vice president. "They're trying to fog the issue through the 2012 election and deceive gun owners into thinking he's something he's not, which is pro-Second Amendment."

For gun control advocates, it adds up to frustration with Obama and the Democrats. The group Mayors Against Illegal Guns argues that polling shows voters support certain gun safety measures like stronger background checks — although a recent Gallup poll also finds more support for enforcing current laws than for passing new ones.

"Good policy here is good politics," said John Feinblatt, an adviser to New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who is a co-chair of the mayors' group. "Unfortunately, for too long the administration has bought the conventional wisdom" that gun control is bad politics.

But the NRA outspends gun-control groups by wide margins, 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.

Since becoming president, Obama has been extremely cautious on the issue. In his 2004 Senate race, for example, Obama said it was a "scandal" that then-President George W. Bush didn't force renewal of the assault weapons ban. But Obama himself has done nothing to promote that issue since becoming president.

Obama's commitment to act on gun safety may also be complicated by an unrelated controversy over a Justice Department program aimed at stanching gun trafficking into Mexico. The government lost track of numerous weapons in connection with the program.

Obama has vowed to figure out what went wrong with the operation and make sure it's corrected, but with Republicans seizing on the issue to attack the White House, the politics around taking action on guns hasn't gotten any easier.

So for now, supporters who hoped to see Obama adopt a stronger stance on guns and act in the wake of the Giffords shooting look like they're going to be disappointed. "We haven't given up hope," said Dennis Henigan, acting president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, "but our impatience is growing with each passing day."

<broken link removed>
 
Why do people insist that "he hasn't done anything anti-gun, therefore he must be anti-gun" is a valid argument? He has an *F* from the Brady Campaign. People for whom gun control is a positive thing can't stand him. If he wants their vote, he would need to do something BEFORE the election. He won't, because he knows it's an issue he CAN'T deal with.

Even if he wins, he won't do anything, because he knows it would destroy moderate support for Democratic congressmen.
 
I can't say that I am impressed with the current GOP options but the fact that Obama has been as silent as he has on gun control issues really peeves me!!! It would be nice to know where our politicians stand on such important issues! (from their mouths)
 
Gun control is quitely being worked behind the scenes. The Zero has already put two anti-2A judges on the Supreme Court and if he gets a second term, that number could go up. Fast & Furious/Gunwalker was an attempt to put lawful US gunowners on the hot seat. They all like the UN small arms treaty...

He sure as **** is going to make a run but it will most likely be in a second term.
 
I see the press once again protecting their Wonder Boy from the ire of gun control advocates, excusing his current behavior, reassuring them things will change on his 2nd term, while he is preparing the stage for his GC agenda offensive.
 
Even if he wins, he won't do anything, because he knows it would destroy moderate support for Democratic congressmen.


I sincerely doubt it, as he'll have way more on his hands than he knows what to do with and gun control is a totally losing bet for him or anyone.

Agree with both.

Serious question: There is no need for more gun laws but I am wondering if enforcing existing law stringently would've prevented a Cho or Loughner? Would application of existing law or even new law have been able to prevent these types of individuals from perpetrating crimes like they did?
 
Agree with both.

Serious question: There is no need for more gun laws but I am wondering if enforcing existing law stringently would've prevented a Cho or Loughner? Would application of existing law or even new law have been able to prevent these types of individuals from perpetrating crimes like they did?

No. So lets ban all guns? Is that your point? Since their weapons were purchased legally.....
 
Obama is a political realist, not an idealist, that should be painfully obvious by now. Honestly I don't think we have all that much to worry about unless some dramatic incident causes large scale public outcry - in which case he will likely feel compelled to at least pay lip service to gun control. I think Romney would likely do the same, I don't trust him one bit.
 
Obama is a political realist, not an idealist, that should be painfully obvious by now. Honestly I don't think we have all that much to worry about unless some dramatic incident causes large scale public outcry - in which case he will likely feel compelled to at least pay lip service to gun control. I think Romney would likely do the same, I don't trust him one bit.

So it's okay with you if Obama does it, but not Romney? :huh:
 
Obama is a political realist, not an idealist, that should be painfully obvious by now. Honestly I don't think we have all that much to worry about unless some dramatic incident causes large scale public outcry - In which case he will likely feel compelled to at least pay lip service to gun control


You mean like "Gun Walker"? That wasn't lip service it was a planned underhanded attack by the Obama administration on our gun rights by creating a problem that would require "fixing", the fix would have been to take more rights from gun owners.

Any gun owner that would vote for this clown a second time is not a critical thinker but a partisan dupe.
 
You mean like "Gun Walker"? That wasn't lip service it was a planned underhanded attack by the Obama administration on our gun rights by creating a problem that would require "fixing", the fix would have been to take more rights from gun owners.

Any gun owner that would vote for this clown a second time is not a critical thinker but a partisan dupe.

#1 I didn't vote for him.
#2 I think its a little premature to implicate Obama in the "gunwalker" fiasco or to proclaim it a part of some vast conspiracy. The BATF has been out of control for years, even under Republican administrations.
#3 I do find Ron Paul to be one of, or perhaps even the most sincere of the candidates. I just think he goes a little too far with pushing individualism as the answer to everything, there are many things I think are most efficiently accomplished collectively.
 
No. So lets ban all guns? Is that your point? Since their weapons were purchased legally.....

No, that wasn't my point. Are you being obtuse on purpose? How could I be a gun owner and want to ban them???? That absolutely makes no sense.

Yes, the guns that they bought were done legally. The point of my question was just as I asked it before: would enforcement of existing law or changes in law to help keep guns out of he hands of individuals who showed serious mental health issues? I don't know and that's why I asked the question. Aside from trying to address that issue I see no reason for any more gun laws/restrictions.
 

Upcoming Events

Centralia Gun Show
Centralia, WA
Klamath Falls gun show
Klamath Falls, OR
Oregon Arms Collectors April 2024 Gun Show
Portland, OR
Albany Gun Show
Albany, OR

New Resource Reviews

New Classified Ads

Back Top