Obama Praises Australian Gun Ban

[James K]

This from the Washington Times today. I think it shows Mr. Obama's real feelings and what he wants to achieve. I have to note that he doesn't mention anything about Constitutional rights, passing a law or involving Congress. But to him, none of those things matter, only his will. Not even the usual sop to hunters or Joe Biden's $30,000 double barrel shotgun.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...-its-gun-laws/

Jim

[Glenn E. Meyer]

By referencing Australia - he clearly comes down on the side of bans on modern sporting rifles (haha - that phrase was supposed to be the magic mantra to save our guns) and confiscation.

I did hear him say something about sportsmen (but not with modern sporting rifles) and responsible gun owners. Oh, maybe that is the 30K shotgun crowd.

However, I don't think we will see new laws get through the house certainly. Cantor's fate has probably put the fear of God in the GOP. Same in the Senate. Doubt we will see any of the GOP there stand up for gun control.

Sorry to be political - that's how I see it.

[gyvel]

And, of course, he conveniently omits any reference to his former Chicago with it's murder rate and draconian gun laws that don't work.

Politicians at work...

[JWT]

He's showing his true colors on this one. Doubtful it will have any impact other than the usual follow up comments by Schumer and the like. Glenn is correct on the GOP! They'll be even more wary of gun legislation.

[mehavey]

I still hesitate to predict what limits might actually exist as he prepares more "executive action"
given that has he's already shown that he's effectively thrown any/all Congressional prosciption
in the ash heap and is fully prepared to simply weather (i.e., ignore) any fallout that might ensue.

In the last several months I believe he has literally turned to the playbook chapter entitled: "Just Do It."
Barring conviction in the Senate (never happen), he's bombproof.

.

[P5 Guy]

Was Australia having a lot of 'gun crime' before the twit shot up the place in Tasmania?
Obviously if there was NOT a lot of 'gun crime' before the confiscation I'm doubtful that there will be a lot of 'gun crime' perpetrated by law abiding folks.
Too bad Obama is frustrated that the congress critters won't join him in ignoring the U.S. Constitution.

[eldermike]

I think Obama is speaking as a person who owes everything to a group of supporters that could never hold power by the vote, but they do have power through puppets. I have no idea how Obama thinks on any issue and have come to the conclusion that he's not the one to study on issues.

[psalm7]

He was unmasked before his first election . But 52% of the Country does not care about such issues they are more concerned about what He will give them . Free stuff .

[maestro pistolero]

He has nothing to lose but the D's will take a beating for it in the next couple of election cycles. Bring it on, Mr. President. He will blunder this for his constituents much like he has blundered everything else.

[Salmoneye]

And, of course, he conveniently omits any reference to his former Chicago with it's murder rate and draconian gun laws that don't work.

You know full well that the ceaseless 'gun violence' in Chicago, DC, etc., is due to lax gun laws in places like Vermont and Alaska...

[/sarcasm]

[BarryLee]

He has nothing to lose but the D's will take a beating for it in the next couple of election cycles. Bring it on, Mr. President.

I’m not so sure, but I guess we’ll wait and see. I suspect about 30% of voters agree with Mr. Obama on gun control. The remaining 70% are somewhere between NRA member and indifferent. I believe it’s very important for us to seek ways to win over the “fence sitters”. That’s why many of us are so passionate about conducting ourselves in the proper manner when we carry a gun in public.

[Colt46]

That's what went through my mind when he went after guns(again). I mean, it's not like anybody is raking him over the coals for trading 5 terrorist leaders for one deserter.

[spacemanspiff]

conveniently omits any reference to his former Chicago with it's murder rate and draconian gun laws that don't work

One of the articles I looked at yesterday had a commenter saying in regards to the high crime areas of places like Chicago: "Even the strictest gun laws won't work if the entire country doesn't have them in place."

So all the inner city murderers will stop killing if the rest of the country bans guns, huh?

[Technosavant]

He's extremely limited in what he can do by executive fiat.

Thus far, about all he could do is fiddle with imports (all those nice M1s rusting away in a South Korean warehouse makes my heart heavy) and try to work behind the scenes with banking regulations (the recently revealed attempt to make firearm loans and banking difficult to do). Really, I'm not sure what else he CAN do without Congressional help. I certainly don't believe that he had a whole list of possibilities before him for the last couple years and he's just thought "Well, I'll only do these little ones and leave those for later."

Nope. If he could, he has. At least for the stuff he (and his political pals) could think up, anyway. It's more of just the petulant cry from someone who has realized the actual limits of his power and is trying to motivate those of like minds to help him get more done.

[psalm7]

Its not Obama to worry about its the power behind him and who they can get in office next . Its not about safty either its disarmament . Obama has laid some good ground work for them . You can show the leadership of the left all day that firearms are not the problem they alread know that but some of us stand in the way of thier socialist bliss and they want us unarmed . But this is a firearm forum and not a political forum and I'm struggling to pull punches so I don't get banned . I will stop at that .

[Tom Servo]

Was Australia having a lot of 'gun crime' before the twit shot up the place in Tasmania?

Violent crimes did fall after the National Firearms Agreement, but they were already in decline as early as 1991. It's hard to gauge what effect the ban actually had, especially since compliance is estimated to be only about 20%.

Would violence decrease in the US if such a sweeping ban was introduced? Possibly over a long time, as the pool of available guns would limit supply to the criminal market through theft and straw purchases. However, I'm not willing to stake my rights on mights and maybes.

The President came into power while his party had a supermajority in Congress. If he wanted to push for gun control, that would have been the time. However, let's remember that the Manchin-Toomey bill only failed by 8 votes in the Senate last year. Depending on how things go in the midterms, that margin could easily shrink.

[kilimanjaro]

He's going to have a big problem when those pictures of the piles of Australian sporting arms being cut up for scrap start being shown here again.

Could see 8 million NRA members by 2016 election time.

[BarryLee]

Could see 8 million NRA members by 2016 election time.

While eight million NRA members sounds good we need to remember that over 120,000,000 people voted in the last election. One of the big focuses of folks like Bloomberg is to recruit more of them to his anti-gun campaign. In the past gun control efforts have been more top down and many Americans were quite frankly pretty indifferent. However, this new effort is hoping to engage people at the grass roots level to place more pressure on politicians. I think we would do well to pay attention to what’s going on.

[Technosavant]

While eight million NRA members sounds good we need to remember that over 120,000,000 people voted in the last election.

True.

But the margin of victory was about 5 million votes. I wonder how many of the NRA's current membership voted for Obama. Or how many others were on the fence and didn't vote. Or yet others who may be otherwise politically aligned with Obama but can't stomach the thought of pulling the lever for someone hard core pro-gun control.

It doesn't take that much to swing things. Even Obama carefully avoided gun control in the run-up to the election... the guy who never saw a gun control proposal he didn't like tried as hard as he could to avoid any mention of the issue in not just his first election but also his second.

Gun control may not be an issue that is guaranteed to bring a loss to its proponents but even in areas that have been trending to the left it's still not an issue that's going to help them- and they know it.

[Don P]

Well if Mr. President feels that way in 2 years he can pack his bags and move there or can leave early for down under, like now.

[Tom Servo]

In the past gun control efforts have been more top down and many Americans were quite frankly pretty indifferent. However, this new effort is hoping to engage people at the grass roots level to place more pressure on politicians.

It's still top-down. They just do a better job of making it look like grassroots. Attendance at MDA rallies is measured in the low double-digits most of the time, but look at their Facebook and Twitter feeds. They do a competent job of making it look like they have a tremendous amount of support.

As for some sudden upsurge of activism from gun owners, I wouldn't hold my breath. We do a great job of yelling slogans, but we're not good at getting involved. Six (or eight) million NRA members is still less than 10% of gun owners, and it's not as if NRA membership implies activism.

Judging from the turnout numbers from the last few national elections, we have a real problem getting to the polls.

[44 AMP]

Actually I think we do a good job of getting to the polls, but sadly, only when our people see their personal ox about to be gored.

94 was a prime example. The gun haters, both D and R gave us the Assault Weapons Bill, and made two major mistakes when they did.

First, despite their lies and media driven frenzy, they went too far, too soon. The AWB covered ALL SEMI AUTO firearms (potentially, and some other things), that suddenly put lots and lots of previously non-politically active gun owners in the "crosshairs" of the bans and restrictions. A significant number of them actually woke up to the danger. (most have since gone back to sleep, but that's another matter)

Second, and perhaps their worst mistake was giving us a sweeping gun control law, the summer before an election. Enough of us were still awake (and mad) in November to make a difference.

It wasn't the Republicans and their Contract with America (despite what the media said) it was the gun control issue that cost the Democrats the lock they had held on Congressional power for 40 years. And in private, amongst themselves, the Democrats admitted this. Never in front of the media, where, even with their strong control and high level of media sympathy to their causes, there is still a small risk that the truth might be told. But amongst themselves, at political meetings the admitted the truth of what happened, and WHY.

Obama is nothing. He's personally gone in a couple years (barring a truly "fundamental change in America"), and while he and his administration will be replaced with others of his ilk as candidates, their wining official power is NOT a guarantee.

I'd be willing to bet, during the coming election cycles, the antis running for office will avoid the gun control issue at all costs.

UNLESS, another horrific mass murder gives them more blood of innocents to dance in. THAT, they will play to the hilt, every chance they get.

[Unlicensed Dremel]

Yesterday, the NY Times, in the last paragraph of a story about the school single murder with AR15 story in Oregon, mentioned the Klackamas mall shooting just as an example of another public shooting that made headlines from that state. But they failed to mention that the Clackamas mall shooting stopped cold (with suicide) the instant that a CCW holder resisted and pointed his pistol at the murderer (just as most stories left out that fact back when it happened). They also failed to point out that, since the high school shooting by the 15 year old stopped immediately (via suicide) the moment that the two school security officers gave resistance and exchanged gunfire with the murderer, that this proves Wayne LaPierre exactly right for the humpteenth time, when he says that "the only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun, is a good guy with a gun."

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Just complaining - doesn't get us anywhere - deleted some.

I saw some schmoo on MSNBC by chance, arguing that now this is the time to ban exotic weapons (EBRs) and concealed carry. Geez.

Given all the other world fun today - I don't think we will see new gun laws.

[Tom Servo]

I'd be willing to bet, during the coming election cycles, the antis running for office will avoid the gun control issue at all costs.

I hope you're right, but we are really taking a beating in terms of public perception. The idea that Manchin-Toomey was a common sense compromise and we just wouldn't cooperate because we're jerks has really taken hold in some quarters.