Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire Why Obama Won't Touch Guns

Why Obama won�t do anything about guns
By Oliver Franklin 17 December

There's a moment in Lincoln when Daniel Day-Lewis, playing the 16th American president, slams his fist heavily on a table. "We are stepped out upon the world stage now, with the fate of human dignity in our hands," he rages. "Blood has been spilled to afford us this moment! Now, now, now!"


Lincoln is referring to the fight to end slavery, but the words could easily refer to America's present blight: guns. After Friday's slaughter of 27 innocent people in Newton, Connecticut, including 20 children between the ages of six and seven years old, that country's problem with guns has never been starker. In a speech at an interfaith vigil yesterday, President Obama said, "We can't tolerate this anymore. These tragedies must end. And to end them we must change." It was a moving speech but in 19 minutes, he never said "guns" once.

Despite this most recent shooting, the killing of 12 people in Aurora, Colorado in July and the attempted murder of former congresswoman Gabby Giffords last year - and countless less high-profile shootings - the American public still privately own almost 300 million firearms. Weapons currently available include the M4 Bushmaster assault rifle, a military-grade device used by Adam Lanza on Friday. Yet 72 hours after the tragedy, the President still hasn't used the words "gun control"publicly. It's starting to look like he never will, with even a mild form of legislation, such as banning assault weapons, looking unlikely. So, the wait for news of the next terrible tragedy begins and the cycle continues.

The problem in Lincoln is one of timing: the president wants to pass the 13th amendment before the end of the civil war or risk losing the window of opportunity. For Lincoln,the odds were in his favour - the Republicans had a political majority, leverage over their Democratic opposition (who had just taken an electoral beating) and, as importantly, they had moral force behind them. Obama has his heart in the right place, but none of Lincoln's other opportunities. He is already fighting the Republicans over the economy, after a keenly fought election. He also knows that complete gun control is hugely unpopular and confiscating the weapons already in circulation is a virtually impossible task. So, bar perhaps a few rhetorical flourishes, any chance of progress on gun control has already perished. Governments only act when the political consequences are outweighed by sheer public will. In this case, Obama knows that no matter the moral obligation for better gun control, the vast majority Americans simply won't support it yet. Which raises a horrifying question: if the massacre of children isn't enough for Americans to give up their guns, will anything ever be?

What kinda whacky lib wrote that?

No kidding, and Lincoln didn't care any more about the slaves than Obama cares about those kids who were killed.

I'd appreciate a link to this.

NO

I don't know, but I hope he's right.......

Good article and I agree.



I'm sure Obama is right there with Feinstein in spirit but he's smart enough to know it's a losing proposition and it will kill the Dems in upcoming elections.

and just who in the hell is Oliver Franklin and why should I care what he says? (I'll bet he is a Brit)

It ain't about giving up guns it's about common sense. The closets in this country have been getting stuffed with guns and ammo reportedly since 08 out of fear that will be a last chance to "get
this type of weapon. So we have more of these ar's out there, more
get misused. It's all legal.

Setting aside his style,try and read between the lines. If Obama felt he had emotion on his side and the majority of this country's support,why is it that he hasn't already promulgated such a EO during the past week?

Certainly, you can't believe the passage of time strengthens his position.

Further,he is well aware the NRA is coming out with their policy decision press release tomorrow. Why didn't he just nip that certain problematic headwind at the bud when he could have?

I hope the guy has it pegged right.Aside from that, with the disclosure of a top ATF guy with dirty hands, I don't think Obama really wants "assault rifles", or guns in general in the news mix on a daily basis.

He really doesn't have the political capital to risk spending it in a wasteful fashion, and guns have never proven to be a winner for democrats.

i can remember when the Brits were begging us to send them guns, now they have partially disarmed themselves who do you suppose they will beg to come save thier ass the next time?

Americans didn't support obamacare either.

The vast majority of Americans won't stand for congress yet we still have one.

Obamacare was enacted by vote,not EO.

Do you really think Obama wants to further risk a already vulnerable 2014 dem Senate vote?

Thank God it is too! The 2nd Amendment is all about being able to resist tyranny in our gov't as well as resisting outside invasions as a nation. It's not about bird hunting. At the time it was written, it was widely understood that the intent was for the populace to be as well-armed as any army. There are plenty of letters and outside supporting documents to come to that logical conclusion.

I thought the supreme court said it was a tax

After the lawfully enacted health care bill was appealed,yes they did.

What do you believe the S Ct. will rule in regards the constitutionality of a AR 15 ban when a semi-automatic handgun shoots near exactly the same way.

He is trying to stack the odds in his favor

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/13/filibuster-reform-poll_n_2292086.html

not to mention Sotomayor and kagan. 1 more and he's bulletproof.