So Who IS Invited to the President’s Gun Control Pow-Wow?

Anyone remember when President Obama invited Republicans to a sit-down on health care? The Prez proceeded to dominate the “discussions,” completely ignored Republican suggestions and rammed through one of the largest and most unpopular pieces of legislation in United States history. That’s just one example of the President’s bogus bi-partisanship: the Commander-in-Chief’s desire to appear centrist without actually being centrist. Is it any wonder that National Rifle Association jefe Wayne LaPierre greeted Obama’s invitation to meet with the Prez and gun control groups to discuss current gun laws with his own invitation to the President to fuck off and die (paraphrasing)? In fact, we don’t know of ANY pro-gun rights group that have accepted the President’s faux olive branch. But we do know of one that feels snubbed . . .

The Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms (CCRKBA) says it’s “eager” to talk with the White House—especially about the “Project Gunrunner” and “Fast and Furious” scandals. Hmmm. Maybe that explains the lack of an invitation. Let’s have a closer look at the gun right groups’ proposed agenda, via their press release . . .

“If we were to be invited,” [CCRKBA Chairman Alan] Gottlieb insisted, “it won’t be for a photo op. There are serious issues American gun owners want discussed, such as restoration of rights, national concealed carry reciprocity, cracking down on states like New Jersey, New York and California that routinely violate gun owners’ rights, lifting the administration’s ban on importation of historic WWII-era rifles, reining in the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, especially the Phoenix office and its ‘Fast and Furious’ operation, and the nomination of anti-gun rights Andrew Traver to head BATFE. That’s like putting an arsonist in charge of the U.S. Forest Service.”

Yeah, I’m not feeling the spirit of compromise in that one. So . . . what? I reckon TTAG’s Armed Intelligentsia have this one right. Not only is the President dicking with gun rights groups, but why should they yield ground on any front? The history of gun control in America is a story of abject failure. Failure to prevent crime. Failure to prevent injustice. Failure to uphold the rights enshrined by the United States Constitution.

The President’s stated desire to strengthen the criminal background check system for firearms purchases (NICS) is nothing more than a ruse. The hugely expensive, monumentally inefficient, patently ineffective system is nothing more than security theater. Criminals purchase their weapon on the black market—except for the ATF-enabled thugs smuggling guns to Mexico on the U.S. government’s behalf. Be that as it is, black market gun sellers don’t use the NICS system.

Common sense says the Prez and his gun control pals on the left want to “strengthen” the NICS system to stop as many Americans as possible from purchasing firearms. For example, if we allow this confederacy of dunces to “close the mental health loophole” using the “we need to stop crazies like Loughner” rationale, some thirty million Americans could lose their gun rights. That’s the number of people taking prescription anti-depressants.

Philosophically, the President and gun control groups believe gun crime is like forest fires: prevention is the key. Here’s a typical example of that line of thinking from a blog post about guns in the workplace over at the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence:

The problem with relying on a “good guy” to shoot a “bad guy” is that mass shootings are characterized by panic and pure chaos. The potential for collateral damage in a crossfire is enormous and the killer will always define the rules of engagement.

A preferable strategy is to make sure the shooting never starts in the first place. There is a lot more our country could be doing to prevent homicidal individuals like Timothy Hendron from acquiring small arsenals (in this case two handguns, a shotgun, an AK-47 and hundreds of rounds of ammunition).

According to the President’s editorial on gun control, improving the NICS system is the new/old key to gun crime prevention. He wants to reward states who improve the quantity (if not quality) of information it contains (with your tax money no less). In reality, the NICS is to crime prevention what signing the back of your credit card is to fraud prevention. Only less.

Besides, that’s not how the American experiment was designed. Our founding fathers believed the government should leave its citizens alone until they do something that harms others, and maybe even then. And if the government does decide someone needs punishing, that someone is still innocent until proven guilty.

As far as the gun grabbers are concerned, that’s not how it works. You’re guilty until proven innocent. If you were a drug user (ANY illegal drug), incarcerated for a crime (for which you paid your debt to society) or held for observation during a mental health crisis, you can’t own a gun legally because of what you might do with it. Big Brother says society can’t take that risk. See? See what happens? People get killed.

But we can take the risk posed by a government that consider inclusion on an error-ridden, unaccountable, secret terrorist watch list sufficient reason to deny a law-abiding citizen his or her Constitutional right to bear arms. And have faith that the people with a proven track of record of seeking to restrict our gun rights respect the Second Amendment, because they say so.

Does anyone else find the President’s new “inclusive” stance on gun control beyond ridiculous; a hypocritical mockery of his sworn allegiance to the United States Constitutional? Yes, obviously. Which is why the White House won’t be able to assemble a credible confab of gun groups representing both “sides” of the issue. Gun rights groups realize they have nothing to gain and everything to lose from participating in this Kabuki theater.

Never mind. Just like the “health care summit,” this gun summit was never supposed to accomplish anything “new” in the way of anti-gun crime initiatives. It’s just a warm-up, a photo op proceeding the introduction of gun control legislation already in the works. The New York Times reveals the plan and, inadvertently, exposes the frightening parellel with Obamacare, increased federal power and all:

Among other things, the [proposed] bill would increase penalties for states that do not properly turn over records of people who are already barred by federal law from owning a gun. The bill would also require federal agencies to certify twice a year to the U.S. Attorney General that they have submitted all relevant records to the background-check data base. Senator Charles E. Schumer recently introduced similar legislation in the Senate.

“The vast majority of Americans agree about what should be done,” said Mr. Bloomberg, who as a co-chairman of Mayors Against Illegal Guns has worked aggressively with other big city mayors to close loop holes in gun laws and end the sale of illegal guns.

Ms. McCarthy, whose husband was killed and son badly injured in a 1993 shooting on the Long Island Railroad, said that she would continue to press for certain types of gun laws, including one that would ban high-capacity ammunition clips like the one used in the shooting rampage in Arizona earlier this year, even though she conceded she did not have support of a single Republican member of the House. “The American people have to back us up on this one,” she said.

Or not.

avatar

About Robert Farago

Robert Farago is the Publisher of The Truth About Guns (TTAG). He started the site to explore the ethics, morality, business, politics, culture, technology, practice, strategy, dangers and fun of guns.

16 Responses to So Who IS Invited to the President’s Gun Control Pow-Wow?

  1. avatarRyan Finn says:

    So I’m guessing that MAIG, the Brady bunch and every gun grabbing dem will be the only ones involved. It pains me to see that no one from our side is involved, but their dismissal of the invitation is definitely warranted.

    Even if the pro 2A side did show up, all you would get is a screaming match with the POTUS backed side getting their way. Why? Because all you have done is taken the rabid, frothing at the mouth, far ends of the spectrum from each side of the issue (no offense to NRA or CCRKBA, all offense to hizzoner and his cronies) and put them in a room together with a “moderator” whose backing comes from the same party that thinks 11 rounds is too many to have in a magazine, but 10 is ok.

    That’s what the NRA and CCRKBA realizes. Nothing is going to be addressed properly or solved at a farce of a meeting with Paul Helmke and Harry Reid. The “battle” is going to be won in the trenches, like it always has, by lobbying to push pro 2A legislation, fighting anti -2A legislation and presenting common sense arguments to those on the other side who actually are walking down the middle of the road in attempt to help them see the “light”.

  2. avatarJeff O. says:

    As far as the gun grabbers are concerned, that’s not how it works. You’re guilty until proven innocent. If you were a drug user (ANY illegal drug), incarcerated for a crime (for which you paid your dues to society) or held for observation during a mental health crisis, you can’t own a gun legally because of what you might do with it.

    You know what, I hadn’t actually thought about it that way before, and I the wording does say “shall not be infringed.”

    …violent felons would still make me uneasy, but I guess if we were actually tougher on crime that might help the situation. And oh yeah, people would have guns to defend themselves, which would curb repeat offenses, one way or another.

    …actually, I guess we’d have to start being tough on crime before we became tougher…

    • avatarPete Moss says:

      I like your thinking.

      “Shall not be infringed” means the government can’t even step on the fringes of which arms the people chose to keep and where they choose to bear them.

      Since this is an amendment to the constitution, it modifies and supercedes the main text. Absent the second amendment, Congress may have had the power to regulate guns through taxation or control of interstate commerce, but the second amendment erased those powers. Congress has no authority in this area, and that’s what the framers of the constitution intended.

      As far as criminals, yeah. If they are rehabilitated, hand them a gun and a voter registration application on the way out of prison. If you wouldn’t hand them a gun, they’re not rehabilitated, and they need to stay in prison.

      • avatarPeter M. Crowmell, Friendly Neighborhood Gunsmith says:

        [ There used to be a "Pete Moss" around the Hillsdale, MI area; the (stage) name of both the bass player/singer & the band. ]

        I LOVE your thinking, man! I’ve been at this “game” for several decades, now, but the “Amendment(s)” superceding the Constitution “angle” is a new/good’n, to me. I fully understand, accept, appreciate and expect to have enforced the whole “… Shall Not Be Infringed.” bit!!

  3. avatartdiinva says:

    I think you are getting over excited about the President’s proposals. It’s a photo op to keep part of his base happy and in line. The Speaker of the House has said flatly that more gun control is off the the table. Obama can meet all he wants but the status quo will not change.

  4. avatarTTACer says:

    I got time, I’ll go.

  5. avatarRalph says:

    I’ll go to the conference if I can carry.

  6. avatarJR says:

    Hey Ms. McCarthy, how about as a representative of the American people YOU back US up? What a novel idea.

    Best sentence on TTAG EVER:

    “Is it any wonder that National Rifle Association jefe Wayne LaPierre greeted Obama’s invitation to meet with the Prez and gun control groups to discuss current gun laws with his own invitation to the President to fuck off and die (paraphrasing)?”

  7. avatarRalph says:

    From the same HufPo article cited by DesertRat comes this side-splitting quote from New York’s lame duck Mayor Gasbag: “Our coalition strongly believes in the Second Amendment. We also know from experience that we can keep guns away from dangerous people without imposing burdens on law-abiding gun owners.”

    And you guys think I’m a comedian.

  8. avatarFat Hubie says:

    People or organizations attempting to thwart any part of the Bill of Rights should be tried for treason.

  9. avatarswampsniper says:

    These “conferences” are nothing but a ploy to allow Obama to claim he is listening to all interests, he already knows exactly what he is going to do, or try to do.

Leave a Reply

Please use your real name instead of you company name or keyword spam.