“Members of the Congressional Black Caucus urged President Obama to take action on gun control legislation Tuesday at their first meeting with the president in more than two years,” thehill.com reports. “Obama ‘reaffirmed his commitment’ to the issue during the White House meeting, one administration official said.” Interesting that thehill.com used the term “gun control” instead of “gun safety” or “gun reform.” The appropriate term is, of course, “civilian disarmament.” That said, scribes Arnie Parnes and Justin Sink didn’t hold back in the anti-gun bias department. Oh no, not at all . . .
Many black lawmakers have noted that a disproportionate number of African-Americans are victims of gun violence. Trayvon Martin, a black teenager killed in Florida last year in an altercation with a neighborhood watch volunteer, did not come up, a source familiar with the meeting said. The trial of the man accused of killing Martin has received enormous attention in the last few weeks.
Holy Meaningless Digression Batman. What in God’s name does the Zimmerman trial have to do with the problem of African-American gang bangers shooting each other and the occasional bystander?
By the same token, why would a group of Americans who were disarmed and then enslaved, tortured, beaten, killed and economically and politically disenfranchised support civilian disarmament? Sorry, gun safety.
Setting “common sense” to one side, President Obama signaled his desire to shift focus from spree killing to gang bangers shooting each other and the occasional bystander. I mean, “urban gun violence.”
The president told the lawmakers that he will focus on gun violence and acknowledged the problem wasn’t just about tragic events like the one in Newtown, Conn., where 20 children and six educators were killed by a lone gunman in December . . .
Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D-Texas), another attendee of Tuesday’s meeting, said Obama has not “ceded any ground” on the issue, adding that he “is particularly concerned about the urban gun violence that happens in places like Chicago.”
“But he’s perplexed as to how Congress could not have moved after the heinous tragedy in Sandy Hook,” she added.
Strange that a Constitutional scholar, the Chief Executive who swore to uphold and defend America’s raison d’être, still doesn’t get it. Unless he does . . .