Posted on 12/30/2008 4:57:21 AM PST by marktwain
I got an angry e-mail from a Montana friend, ranting about "crazy" politicians looking "to increase crime" and worried about the future of the US constitution over an item posted on Change.gov, Obama's transition website that includes, among press releases, blog posts and job notices, extensive policy statements outlining the next administration's agenda. The policy statement that set my friend off was this, under "urban policy":
Obama and Biden would repeal the Tiahrt amendment, which restricts the ability of local law enforcement to access important gun trace information, and give police officers across the nation the tools they need to solve gun crimes and fight the illegal arms trade. Obama and Biden also favour commonsense measures that respect the second amendment rights of gun owners, while keeping guns away from children and from criminals. They support closing the gun show loophole and making guns in this country childproof. They also support making the expired federal assault weapons ban permanent.
So what's the deal?
The debate on assault weapons and gun shows is fairly well known. Basically those who oppose the assault weapon ban and closing the gun show loophole believe the laws to be aribtrary and ineffective and overly burdensom, while those who support them believe them to be in the best interest of public Tiahrt amendment falls along similar lines of reasoning. Basically the amendment is a provision that prevents anyone other than a law enforcement agency acting in a criminal investigation to have access to gun trace information. Proponents of the admendment's repeal argue the provision restricts municipal police from investigating illegal gun sales. Opponents argue that disclosing the information violates the privacy rights of gun owners, and that the information could be used in municipalities' lawsuits against gun manufacturers.
And, of course, gun control is anathema to most Rocky Mountain residents. Montana governor Brian Schweitzer once joked that, to Montanans, "gun control is hitting what you shoot at," and predicted in February that a Democratic presidential nominee couldn't win his state because of the issue. (Later Schweitzer urged voters whose "primary issue" was guns to vote for the Libertarian candidate, Bob Barr.) Montana's Democratic senators, Max Baucus and Jon Tester, along with Schweitzer, all have strong pro-gun voting records. Undaunted, Montana progressive gun owners tried to steer the conversation to hunting and the preservation of game habitat and wildlife management. Others even promised that Obama wasn't interested in gun control – capped off by a late August statement from Tester, who said the candidate was "no threat to gun owners".
Imagine, then, the triple gut punch this short paragraph on Change.gov had for many Montanans: not only does it outline unacceptable gun control policies and puts Tester and other pro-gun Obama supporters in an awkward position, it adds the sharp indignity of identifying control of Montanans' beloved guns as an "urban policy". No doubt the angst expressed by my Montana friend in his e-mail is being echoed across the state.
If Obama forges ahead on these issues and rams through Congress a comprehensive gun control bill, it's likely he'll lose Montana in 2012 and jeopardise the standing of the state's Democrats in a region the Democrats need to hold if they want to maintain their electoral advantages. And it's for those reasons that gun control is likely to fail in Congress if it ever makes it to the floor. The president would have to spend enormous political capital to get the gun control laws passed – capital he needs for healthcare reform, a new energy policy and economic stimulus packages. And consider that Baucus, one of the Senate's most powerful Democrats – who chairs the Senate tax and finance committee and who'll have his imprint on any healthcare reform that makes it through Congress – received an "A+" and an endorsement from the National Rifle Association this election.
After Obama's sizeable and sweeping win this November, it's easy to forget how new and fragile the new coalitions are that created his win. Among them are western pro-gun politicos who can effectively block any gun control laws Obama might propose to serve his urban, pro-gun-control constituencies. It's easy to imagine there are dozens of such issues ready to crack the political alliances around Obama. It's likely he'll have to surf on the narrow strip of issues that enjoy broad support among the disparate coalitions that help elect him.
Barack Obama United States Law US domestic policy US Congress Democrats guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2008 |
John Lott Jr was on Dennis Miller’s radio show (Dennis was off and it was being hosted by Tucker Carlson) and Lott has some interesting things to say about BaCrack.
John knows Obama from U of Chicago Law School. John stated that Obama told him he hated guns or something along those lines and absolutely disliked anyone who disagreed with him. I’d post the link of the audio but it’s for paid subscribers.
Let us hope and pray that gun control is the altar which our present abomination of desolation sacrifices himself on.
What did these idiots who voted for Obama think he was going to do?
I’ve heard Lott mention this, as well, though I can’t recall the source. It was probably one of the other Townhall pindits.
It’s interesting that we have to rely on second hand information rather than a voting record. My guess is that Barack may NOT have been present in any of the legislatures where gun control comes up.
Unfortunately, I don’t put a lot of stock in western states and their support for conservative causes. They’ve all been Californicated.
Let us hope and pray that gun control is the altar which our present abomination of desolation sacrifices himself on.
Would be a megga mistake!
There's a whole lot of gun owners who are going to be left scratching their heads. These people voted on the strength of propoganda, not the facts or the record.
Jay Stevens: Passing gun control legislation could cost Obama the support of western Democrats
So what? He did not need them to win this time. As long as he has the National Socialist Media and George Soros and Acorn he has it made.
Oh boo hoo. Prepare to get all the change you can stomach, and then a bunch more.
Any firearms owner who was so ignorant as to vote for Obama deserves everything they are going to get. Unfortunately, the rest of us don’t.
Anyone who didn’t think that Obama and his ilk have draconian gun legislation in the hopper is delusional.
Look at his record. Look at his votes. Look at what he SAID. It’s ALL THERE!
Mark
It's time to start hitting on the Congressional critters, and hitting them hard. Let them know that WE THE PEOPLE will crucify them if they violate the SECOND AMENDMENT any more than they have. Obama will seal his fate if he comes after our rights.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.