Beyond his control

Obama's misguided attempt to grab at America's guns misfires

  • Follow Editorials

His administration has exerted unprecedented control over our health care, our businesses, our stewardship of the environment, the auto industry, the financial sector – even student loans.

It’s clearly galling the president that he can’t get to first base with regard to controlling our guns.

After the Senate failed to agree to expanded gun background checks this past week, a petulant and contemptuous President Obama looked down his nose at opponents – leaving no room for the possibility that they might have any principled reasons for opposing him.

It’s not clear whether he just wants a midterm election issue with which to pummel Republicans, or if this is the attempted gun grab so many suspect him of harboring ambitions of.

Either way, Mr. President, our system of government was founded in large part on a distrust of government and its proclivity for abusing power.

The fact remains that many gun-owning Americans simply don’t trust your administration, which has already shown a voracious appetite for control over our lives.

This president also has shown an uncanny disdain for the legislative process – for the give and take it entails, for the personal relationships it requires, for the compromise needed to respect views opposed to his own. Instead, he flies his bully pulpit around the country to bitterly lament that others in Washington just won’t kowtow to what he wants, when he wants it.

Many of them are fellow Democrats, by the way – some of whom are facing re-election soon and feel compelled to do the bidding of their constituents rather than bend to the politically correct pressure in Washington.

Mr. Obama decries the pressure being put on such leaders by Second Amendment aficionados – but the fact remains that he’s been pushing pretty hard himself, using survivors of Sandy Hook as his surrogates and backdrops.

He has no room to complain about a “vocal minority” pushing its perfectly valid agenda when he’s doing the same.

Regarding his agenda, the moribund economy – Americans’ No. 1 concern – continues to be on his back burner, as always. If only he would use the weight of his office to press for policies that would free up America’s pent-up economic might. Of course, those things – smaller government, fewer regulations, lower taxes – are anathema to his entire political pedigree.

Instead, he’s put all his dwindling political capital on immigration and guns – which, by the way, a new Gallup Poll says are the top concerns of a whopping 4 percent of Americans.

As for gun violence: The guns he and other Democrats want banned are responsible for a fraction of a fraction of gun crime in America, and any other new restrictions will only hem in the law-abiding among us.

In addition, Sen. Lindsey Graham notes that last year, nearly 80,000 people failed gun background checks – yet fewer than 100 of them were prosecuted. Graham has joined other Republican senators in proposing a bill to beef up that prosecution, while cracking down on trafficking, straw sales and purchases by the mentally ill, and beefing up school security.

These are things most of us can agree on – and which would have the potential to make a difference, not just make for grandiose speeches.

The question is whether the president wants to find common ground, or stay where he is and just stamp his feet.

Comments (26) Add comment
ADVISORY: Users are solely responsible for opinions they post here and for following agreed-upon rules of civility. Posts and comments do not reflect the views of this site. Posts and comments are automatically checked for inappropriate language, but readers might find some comments offensive or inaccurate. If you believe a comment violates our rules, click the "Flag as offensive" link below the comment.
Riverman1
93854
Points
Riverman1 04/22/13 - 05:26 am
11
1
To Sen. Graham, Chronicle and Conservatives

Background checks for everyone are unconstitutional if the truth be told. The Constitution, plain and simple, gives everyone the right to bear arms. If states want to limit felons or the insane from having weapons it’s up to them to do it without having a requirement that impinges on everyone’s right. Jumping through hoops with a background check is such an encroachment.

I understand this legality presents a dilemma trying to determine who is a felon or mentally ill, but the Constitution is the Constitution. If you don’t like it call conventions and get three quarters of the states to approve a change. But we all know that ain’t going to happen.

The law should be if a felon or mentally ill person is CAUGHT with a gun he goes to jail, not that law abiding citizens have to be subjected to unconstitutional background checks when buying guns. Practically speaking, a background check does no good keeping guns out of the hands of criminals anyway.

myfather15
56910
Points
myfather15 04/22/13 - 05:41 am
6
1
"This president also has

"This president also has shown an uncanny disdain for the legislative process – for the give and take it entails, for the personal relationships it requires, for the compromise needed to respect views opposed to his own. Instead, he flies his bully pulpit around the country to bitterly lament that others in Washington just won’t kowtow to what he wants, when he wants it."

Not trying to be repetitive, but this is just another example of the liberal mindset of "We are smarter than you." They believe their way is the only way and we simpleton idiots are just standing in the way of THEM creating a better world. They believe we should blindly trust them and their superior intellect; at least if we know what is good for us. Because they literally don't believe Americans know what is good for us. It irritates them to know end that we will not go along with their ideology. To them, we are standing in the way of progress and we need to be removed; plain and simple.

BUT, they can't remove us without disarming us. Just like the Brittish couldn't keep us under control without disarming us. Just like Japan couldn't invade the mainland without us being disarmed. These people and their belief in their own superiority are dangerous, very dangerous!!

myfather15
56910
Points
myfather15 04/22/13 - 05:46 am
4
2
Not to mention; even liberal

Not to mention; even liberal democrats had to admit that NONE of the recent legislation would have prevented the shootings at Sandy Hook, Colorado or Oregon. The fact is, it wouldn't have prevented the vast majority of shootings in this Country. The vast majority of mass shooting in this Country, the shooter didn't get their firearms from a dealer or gun show. They either stole the weapons or got them from family members, etc. So, the true intentions of the left is to take away guns period; but it isn't for the reason you might think.

Now, let the leftists go ahead and start the name calling, such as crazed conspirator.

ymnbde
10675
Points
ymnbde 04/22/13 - 06:03 am
0
3
the mentally ill have a right to privacy!

pried from the constitution by governing liberals
and the cold dead fingers of children

Rhetor
1082
Points
Rhetor 04/22/13 - 06:16 am
6
11
not really

If one would take the time to read our country's founding documents, such as the Federalist Papers and the speeches and writings of our founders, one finds very little support for the ideas in this editorial. Federalist Paper #1 specifically points out--on the first page!--that a strong government is the best guarantee of liberty. Most of the anti-government quotes attributed to the nation's founders are late 20th-century fakes. The founding fathers--the real founders, not the imaginary anarchists about whom talk radio likes to speak--had a profound respect for government and a profound fear of disorder. The anti-government ideas being propounded by the right wing in recent years are utterly contrary to what our nation's founders really had to say. I suggest that we should all spend more time reading their real writings, and less time listening to the fabrications of the popular media.
And, please, may I point out that the purpose of the President's speaking tours is to rally public opinion--not to force his will on them. A dictator would use force to gain his will; a president uses persuasion. The way the right wing is complaining about the President's speaking tours is merely a sign that he is winning the war of ideas. He is winning the war of ideas, my friends, not because of trickery or force, but because his ideas (although far from perfect) are much better than those of the right wing. Have a great day, and enjoy the blessings of a great form of government that you apparently neither understand nor appreciate.

Jon Lester
2480
Points
Jon Lester 04/22/13 - 06:35 am
4
2
Forging public opinion at the expense of truth? What else are we
Unpublished

to call it? I don't see this president slowing down the drone program, which routinely makes new terrorists out of bereaved parents. You want me to see photos of the Sandy Hook crime scene? How about looking at what a couple of Hawk missiles will do to a crowded household?

These most recent gun control measures, particularly in New York and Connecticut, have also seriously set back the cause of de-stigmatizing mental health issues, and may well move some people who need help to not actually get it. I doubt if Rosalyn Carter would be very pleased with that, after all of her efforts in the last 35 years.

chascushman
6653
Points
chascushman 04/22/13 - 07:34 am
5
2
Marxist/communist in the WH wants.
Unpublished

"If one would take the time to read our country's founding documents, such as the Federalist Papers and the speeches and writings of our founders, one finds very little support for the ideas in this editorial. Federalist Paper #1 specifically points out--on the first page!--that a strong government is the best guarantee of liberty."
Rhetor, it is obvious you are confusing a 'strong government' with large bloated government. Everyone wants a strong gov't but NOT a socialist one like the Marxist/communist in the WH wants.

t3bledsoe
14291
Points
t3bledsoe 04/22/13 - 08:24 am
1
6
Meeting in the middle about gun laws

"The question is whether the president wants to find common ground, or stay where he is and just stamp his feet."

This is a statement right from the editorial. It talks about The President finding common ground. I ask you, "Should not we listen and consider what the families of the dead want in gun laws ??!!" The parents from Conniticut ARE NOT ASKING FOR YOUR GUNS, THEY JUST WANT MORE GOVERNMENT AND POLICE CONTROL OVER GUNS !! Families of the dead; EVERY WHERE; must have a voice about gun laws ! Especially when ; again; they are not asking for your guns ((JUST THE TYPE THAT NO, NO PUBLIC CITIZEN HAS ANY BUISSNESS OWNING)). What is next? Humble Angela wants the right to own a mechine-gun. Is this the point at which the government must draw the line ????????!!!!!!!!!

seenitB4
97752
Points
seenitB4 04/22/13 - 08:31 am
5
0
Getting elected again..lol

Many of them are fellow Democrats, by the way – some of whom are facing re-election soon and feel compelled to do the bidding of their constituents rather than bend to the politically correct pressure in Washington.

THAT will change a politician everytime..:)

kissofdeath
474
Points
kissofdeath 04/22/13 - 09:23 am
1
5
We expect our Senators to stand up for their constituents and

do the right thing. But Sen. Isakson and Chambliss have failed the people of Georgia and the vast majority of Americans. When faced with imtimidation from the NRA and the Washington gun lobby,Sen. Isakson and Chambliss defied their constituents and voted NO on expanding criminal background checks. However, when applying for employment you got to pass a background check to get a job, we need to change Congress.

dichotomy
37529
Points
dichotomy 04/22/13 - 09:24 am
5
1
"Either way, Mr. President,

"Either way, Mr. President, our system of government was founded in large part on a distrust of government and its proclivity for abusing power."

And YOUR administration, Mr. President, is the EPITOME of why there is/was so much distrust AND why the Constitution was written so clearly on this issue.

itsanotherday1
48344
Points
itsanotherday1 04/22/13 - 09:42 am
4
0
bledsoe

I think everyone is agreeable to laws and controls that would have prevented the killings; but none of what is proposed would do that.

Young Fred
21143
Points
Young Fred 04/22/13 - 10:00 am
5
0
kissofdeath

Why should we vote for more gun laws when your president refuses to uphold the ones we already have? Speaking of "refusing to uphold" did not this man swear to uphold the constitution? Twice?

I don't remember the part about “...and to the best of my ability preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States..those parts that I agree with."

Did he not take an oath? Did he not start the oath with “I do solemnly swear”? Do words mean nothing? Does this man's words mean nothing?

Young Fred
21143
Points
Young Fred 04/22/13 - 11:00 am
3
0
Not just any koolaid, but

Not just any koolaid, but made in the tub, red-staining, mixed with everclear.

Humble Angela
41338
Points
Humble Angela 04/22/13 - 11:09 am
3
1
bledsoe. Please tell us a
Unpublished

bledsoe. Please tell us a law that would have made the Newtown shooting less deadly than it was.........a law that doesn't violate the Constitution. Heck...tell us one that DOES violate the Constitution that would have helped.

t3bledsoe
14291
Points
t3bledsoe 04/22/13 - 11:46 am
1
3
The out-lawing of 30 plus capasity magazines

Now that you are communicating and you want a law "even if it is against the second amendment", I say listen to the wishes and hopes of the families of the dead. These families ARE CONVINCED that the assault weapons ban that ended must be brought back.

KSL
144079
Points
KSL 04/22/13 - 12:16 pm
2
1
Capacity, bledsoe

Capacity, bledsoe

Young Fred
21143
Points
Young Fred 04/22/13 - 12:44 pm
4
1
Bledsoe, do you wish to

Bledsoe, do you wish to "listen to (all) the wishes and hopes of the families of the dead" or just the ones you agree with?

Humble Angela
41338
Points
Humble Angela 04/22/13 - 01:32 pm
4
1
So Bledsoe.....what have
Unpublished

So Bledsoe.....what have those families proposed that would have stopped the incident?

Humble Angela
41338
Points
Humble Angela 04/22/13 - 01:35 pm
4
1
Bledsoe....are you aware that
Unpublished

Bledsoe....are you aware that the guns that were used in Newtown were perfectly legal even during the "assault weapons ban?" So how would bringing back the ban have stopped the killing?

Humble Angela
41338
Points
Humble Angela 04/22/13 - 02:09 pm
4
1
I doubt the families of the
Unpublished

I doubt the families of the Sandy Hook victims would want to ban assault weapons, especially if no assault weapons were used in the shooting.

http://www.ijreview.com/2013/01/30208-nbc-admits-no-assault-rifle-used-i...

Little Lamb
49126
Points
Little Lamb 04/22/13 - 02:49 pm
3
0
Test you fail — go to jail

From the editorial:

In addition, Sen. Lindsey Graham notes that last year, nearly 80,000 people failed gun background checks – yet fewer than 100 of them were prosecuted.

Since when is it against the law to fail a test? So 79,900 people did not meet the criteria to purchase a weapon from a licensed gun dealer. That's no crime. If Biden's bill made it a crime to even begin the process of purchasing a weapon if you don't meet all the criteria; then hallelujah that the bill failed in the Senate.

Humble Angela
41338
Points
Humble Angela 04/22/13 - 03:00 pm
3
1
LL...the only problem is that
Unpublished

LL...the only problem is that in order to fail the background check, you almost HAVE to lie on the form. Lying on the form is a felony.

Little Lamb
49126
Points
Little Lamb 04/22/13 - 04:18 pm
3
0
Entrapment

If you have to answer all sorts of questions, and then the authorities check all sorts of databases to see if you answered truthfully, then a better system would be to just provide your social security number and let the computer databases take over. It would be a waste of time to answer a bunch of questions on a form.

Young Fred
21143
Points
Young Fred 04/22/13 - 04:21 pm
3
0
Great point LL, better point

Great point LL, better point HA. I like watching you guys. Its like watching two Olympic caliber rapierist.

Little Lamb
49126
Points
Little Lamb 04/22/13 - 04:22 pm
3
0
Background Checks

I wish they'd start doing some background checks to find the large number of people who have registered to vote multiple times.

Little Lamb
49126
Points
Little Lamb 04/22/13 - 04:27 pm
3
0
Fencing

Fred, if I were fencing with Humble Angela, she would be touchéing me all over the place.

Young Fred
21143
Points
Young Fred 04/22/13 - 04:29 pm
3
0
Exactly what kind of info

Exactly what kind of info would you like tied to your SSN? Who would be in charge of said info? Who would insure the info was accurate? My brain hurts just thinking of what would be involved with this new gov't project.

Young Fred
21143
Points
Young Fred 04/22/13 - 04:32 pm
3
0
"Fred, if I were fencing with

"Fred, if I were fencing with Humble Angela, she would be touchéing me all over the place."

Now that's a picture that will get me slapped by my wife for sure!!!

I'm not going to say if it'd be worth it.

"touchéing" now that's funny, I don't care who you are!!!

rmwhitley
5547
Points
rmwhitley 04/22/13 - 05:07 pm
0
0
lefties!
Unpublished

Ain't worth the paper they're printed on.

Back to Top
loading...
Search Augusta jobs