The Daily Caller

The Daily Caller

Everything you need to know about the most recent gun-control debate (but didn’t have anyone to ask), Part 1

After some relatively quiet years, the national gun debate locked and loaded for another round last week after President Obama hinted his desire to reform the current background check system. Plenty has happened in the past few years with both sides entrenched in deep partisan arguments. To prepare readers for the onslaught of over-exaggerated political rhetoric, ambitious policies and former victims crying before the camera, The Daily Caller is launching a multi-part guide for readers not entirely up to snuff.

So much for a new non-partisan discussion

On Sunday March 13, President Obama took his first tiny steps into reigniting the debate over America’s oldest pastime: firearms.

He pleaded that we “find a sensible way to make the United States of America a safer, stronger place.” Avoiding the word “debate” in all but one instance (“… we can get beyond … stale political debates”), President Obama called for a “common sense” discussion.

That lasted less than 72 hours.

On Tuesday March 15, some of the staunchest liberals in Congress appeared with New York Mayor Michael “No Labels” Bloomberg in front of the Capitol to call for a “common sense” debate that just happens to include a whole host of new gun-control proposals. The centerpiece to this common sense discussion are two bills in the House and Senate that would be the first major reforms of national gun laws since the 1993 Brady Bill.

Nary a Republican has commented on the issue. The NRA has essentially refused to join in on the “discussion” aside from responding to Obama’s plea with a strong ‘yeah-thanks-but-no-thanks’ letter.

So, for those curious about the firearms debate but unsure what to think without conservative leadership, here’s the idiot’s guide to the 2011 “common sense” discussion.

Background

Gun-rights advocates have come a long way, particularly in recent years. Two Supreme Court rulings, Heller v. the District of Columbia (2008) and McDonald v. Chicago (2010), have affirmed that the right to keep and bear arms does indeed apply to individuals and not just the neighborhood ticker-tape militia. What’s more, gun-control advocates who thought they might have had another pistol-whipping ally in Obama have been sorely disappointed. Even since he was candidate Obama, he has extensively praised the 2nd Amendment.

Apart from offering plenty of lip service to gun-rights advocates, Democratic leaders and the Obama administration have also tried not to anger the NRA or a bread-and-butter base that enjoys its 2nd Amendment rights. The gun-shy Democrats saw what happened when a pro-gun-control candidate ran for the nation’s highest office. That former-candidate had a cooling-off period before beginning to advocate for an issue with more international appeal — global warming.

Despite dire warnings from gun-control advocates, the liberalization of gun laws hasn’t resulted in the bullet-ridden corpse of America. The rates of violent crimes and school violence have both decreased as legislation and court decisions continue to favor 2nd Amendment enthusiasts.

This isn’t to suggest the gun-control advocates and lawmakers have given up. They do get politically riled up, but it happens, more often, immediately following a tragic event.

As of this writing, 12 pieces of legislation dealing specifically with stricter gun-control have been introduced to Congress in the two months since the Tucson shooting. During a similar period after the Virginia Tech massacre, that number was seven. A whopping 40 acts, bills and amendments were introduced after Columbine.

How does that compare to quieter years? In the same time period, after Obama’s victory in 2008, the 111th Congress proposed two gun-control acts. In President George W. Bush’s first couple of months after Democrats took control of the House in the aftermath of the 2006 midterm elections, that number was three. No such legislation was introduced in 1995 after the Republican Revolution.

Since politicians on both sides are guilty of taking Rahm Emanuel’s aphorism to heart, a better reflection of gun-rights advocates’ gains can be seen in the opportunities they took in the months immediately following a crisis. After Columbine, no politician would be caught dead introducing legislation favorable to gun-rights advocates. Following Virginia Tech, however, two gun-rights bills were introduced. The current Congress has penciled in six pieces related to expanding gun-rights.

  • Pingback: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. | JunkScience Sidebar

  • Pingback: Democrats Takes On Gun Control - News Radio 970 KBUL

  • Iagorune

    Just what exactly is the point of an organization dedicated to lobbying the government to help maintain gun freedoms if they refuse to meet with the government to discuss gun freedoms?

    Frankly this is a case of the NRA biting its nose to spite its face.

    • chuck in st paul

      I disagree, lagorune. This is a bit of ‘gun violence’ Kabuki. The outcome has already been written into new legislation and regulations that will be presented to Congress and the agencies within a couple days of the end of this bit of theater.

      If there was an actual conference and presentation of facts involved, then the NRA and the Second Amendment Foudation (amongst others) would gladly participate. Giving legitimacy to a ‘hanging jury’ is not in the NRA’s best interest.

  • Pingback: Gun Rights Debate Heats Up Once Again | Kentucky News Journal

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Timothy-Farley/1066540230 Timothy Farley

    politicians are so obtuse……law or no law we who want a gun will easily buy one….with or without a so called license or permit…..do the wonks inside the beltway have any idea how easy it is now to buy so called illegal weapons…..banning them with new laws will only increase the number of weapons that cannot be traced or registered. gun ownership is woven in the american fabric, changing that fact is to risk political peril….

    • GeniousIQ

      Your statement could also apply to the drug war.

      • nolan

        Did you misspell “genius” on purpose? Do you think it’s ironic?

  • oc in nc

    “The beauty of the second amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it” Thomas Jefferson.

  • chuck in st paul

    This is just a fund raiser with the leftard base combined with some misdirection to get folks’ minds off the healthcare disaster.

    If public safety was REALLY the goal then they would get rid of the populist BS, assist the general public in arming itself while learning and practicing the safety and shooting skills. Firearms are used over a million times a year to stop a serious crime or defend a life. It gets tossed down the memory hole by the LSM because it doesn’t fit the meme that the government will protect you – which, of course, is pure nonsense. Self defense comes hand in hand with self reliance and personal responsibility – conceptual anathema to statists.

  • K.C. Sollers

    One of the main reasons Japan did not try to invade the U.S. was “behind every blade of grass is an American with a gun”.

  • flips

    God, Guns, and Gays. (as usual)

    Just don’t ever ask about the Tea Bagger’s plan to create jobs.

    They don’t have one, it was all a just big lie to fool voters.

    • chuck in st paul

      Nice try troll, but you should go back to Kos or Huff N Puff and get some fresh silliness to post.

      Lowering taxes and lowering the burden of complying with heaps of government mandates, paperwork, and the time wasted are what stimulates job growth. The conservatives elected in a landslide this past election are trying to get that agenda through but the assclowns in the Senate and the chief clown in the White House are doing a full court press to prevent it. Then, ‘useful idiots’ such as yourself going around spouting populist propaganda lines which are then echoed in the Lame Stream Media, confusing the folks who think they are getting ‘the truth’ on the 10 o’clock news.

      The government can only create government jobs. The only other thing they can do is destroy jobs in the private sector. Currently they are being quite successful at both.

      • flips

        “Lowering taxes and lowering the burden of complying with heaps of government mandates, paperwork, and the time wasted are what stimulates job growth.”

        Yes, we know the right wing mantra. But where is the data to prove that?

        Where was the robust job growth during the Bush era of derregulation and tax cuts? It never happened. It just make the rich, richer and helped push the middle class off the cliff.

        Time to try something new.

        • nolan

          “…never happened.”???
          It was just about the only time in our nation’s history when we had what is called “full employment”, which is 5%, and the rate back then was actually lower than that. I’ll let you do the research to tell me what it was.

          • flips

            Job creation:
            George W. Bush 3.0 million
            Bill Clinton 23.1 million

            Source: Wall Street Journal (a noted communist newspaper)
            http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2009/01/09/bush-on-jobs-the-worst-track-record-on-record/

          • johnanderson

            Flips, you make me laugh.

            G.W. Bush inherited an economy at the height of the dot com bubble, which coincidentally is where Clinton is credited with job creation. So when Bush took office the U.S. was a full employment, so how does one employ more people when full employment is already attained? So if I took office at full employment and the country remained fully employed for my entire tenure, would I be credited with “creating” no jobs at all? Then the dot com bubble burst, the 9/11 recession, etc.

            What’s funny though is that you think presidents or the party in power “creates” jobs. That’s the real laugh. All politicians can do is either keep the government out of the way so entrepreneurs can create jobs, or they can trample the entrepreneurs. Those are the only two options government has. Obama has taken option B.

    • GeniousIQ

      God, guns and gays is a huge reason that I’m no longer a registered republican. The party has become a joke (not that the dems aren’t as well). The way that the right gets a hard on over the most mundane BS is insane. The banking industry is stealing money from taxpayers hand over fist, yet the right is worried about teachers unions, planned parenthood and NPR.

      • flips

        You and many others.

        They are hemoraging independent voters with all this right wing stuff that has nothing to do with getting Americans back to work.

        • johnanderson

          Do you live in some alternate reality? The Democrats lost their independent base in 2010, and continue to score poorly with independents in every poll. The president’s approval rating has been dropping steadily since he took office. If you really think 2012 is going to be some revolution which will sweep Democrats back into power, do me a favor and post often after the election. I can’t wait to see you implode.

      • johnanderson

        The teacher’s unions are local to certain areas and impacting the lives of people in those areas. Should the governor of Wisconsin stop focusing on the things that is directly affecting his constituents and focus on the national banking industry? Furthermore what could a republican Governor and Legislature of a State do with a Federal issue such as banking regulation? I understand the statement was an attempt at misleading readers into thinking that republicans were dropping the ball on the economy, but that isn’t the case.

        Planned parenthood and NPR spend the public’s money. That is, they spend money which has been taken from the public. The public has a say in how their money is spent, and if November 2010 didn’t teach you this, the public is not happy in that regard. The Republicans is focused on things like NPR and PP because their constituents, the majority, are focused on those things. Federal spending was the top reason for the Democrat rout that occurred in 2010, and fighting spending on NPR and PP is right in line with what Republicans were elected to do. I’m sorry you don’t find that to be important, but most of America does.