No ‘common sense’ to be found in gun control debate despite Obama Arizona op-ed

In an Arizona Daily Star op-ed Sunday, President Obama called for “common sense” in re-examining the country’s firearms debate. But between significant players in the firearms debate, there still isn’t much “common” ground in their sense-making.

Common sense says that the co-founder of the Arizona Citizens Defense League, a Grand Canyon State gun-rights group, would react to Obama’s piece with knee-jerk scorn. Not so. While the AACDL was instrumental in pushing open-carry legislation (Arizona Gov. Jane Brewer made it law in 2010), Charles Heller’s first remark to The Daily Caller was one of praise.

“I thought it was absolutely refreshing that the President of the United States acknowledged the individual right to keep and bear arms as affirmed by the courts,” Heller told TheDC. And despite being “as diametrically opposed to everything as a human being could be to him,” Heller said, “I have to acknowledge, so far, [Obama] hasn’t caused us any real damage.”

Actual common sense, then, might also say that the National Rifle Association’s President Wayne LaPierre could appreciate not only the expansion of certain gun rights under the Obama administration, but also Obama’s respectful commentary that said gun-safety advocates “need to accept” legal gun-owners’ generally safe practices. No so.

LaPierre pushed back hard against Obama’s call to “strengthen” existing laws and background checks. Not that LaPierre thinks people don’t kill people, but his common sense argument is that those bad people should be in jail before they have a chance to get guns.

“The dialogue really should be on bad people and bad men because unless we focus on that we’re never going to get to the point,” said LaPierre Monday on Fox News. “We need to be out to be doing everything we can to take bad men and felons and drug dealers off the streets.”

LaPierre said you can pass all the gun laws you want but “unless you get them [criminals] off the street, you’re not going to make them safe.”

While LaPierre said the “dialogue really shouldn’t be about guns,” his own organization has said that it really should be about guns. Not guns in the street, per se. But definitely guns. Just last year, the NRA ran a report that defies conventional common sense. The title, “More Guns, Less Crime,” is fairly self-explanatory. Taking felons off the streets sounds like common sense, too, but apart from the unlawful sale of firearms, felonies also include writing bad checks and possessing stolen merchandise. Not to mention that simply taking all the bad men off the street would leave citizens defenseless against all the bad women.

Common sense, and his previous statements, suggests Heller would agree with either Obama’s keep-guns-away-from-bad-men or LaPierre’s keep-bad-men-away-from-everyone. No so.

Obama framed his appeal for sensible gun reform around one particular bad man’s ability to purchase a gun. While Jared Loughner was “apparently bent on violence,” the man who Obama said was “unfit for service [and] a man one of our colleges deemed too unstable for studies” passed a background check for a reason. Heller said it’s a “common orgasmic fantasy that there is some way of keeping criminals and crazy people from having guns. There is not.”

“There is no background check that will ever stop someone committed to criminal violence or getting the tools to do it. It’s impossible,” said Heller. “In the United States, there are probably about 50 million guns, that’s more than one per person.”