President Obama's Opening Shot to Appear "Reasonable "

President Obama has finally spoken out on gun control. He wants "common sense" regulations that no one could "reasonably" disagree with. He assures us that he SUPPORTS the individual right to keep and bear arms. BUT.......he is advocating the "common sense" pancea du jour, background checks on private sales. Of course, he doesn't describe it that way. He says "gun sellers" vs "gun dealers." Its the "gun show loophole" yet again. Gun control groups are STILL describing private sellers as unlicensed dealers.

He quietly placed his op-ed in the Arizona Daily Star. It was very well written, very smooth, in fact. Unless you were familiar with the language of gun control you would miss his carefully worded phrases that changes gun-control groups into "gun safety" groups, mentions "reasonable" restrictions without giving details on what's reasonable about his ideas, and implies that its those "unreasonable" gun owners that might be the problem.

First he scares you and reminds you of tragedy - the recent shooting in Tuscon. And, of course he outright lies. That's par for the course.....

...Americans by and large rightly refrained from finger-pointing, assigning blame or playing politics with other people's pain.

Apparently he was playing golf those days when a madman's actions were blamed on "rightwing rhetoric" or Sarah Palin, or talk radio, or any number of conservative elements by the liberal media and political class. In other words, his side of the aisle.

He describes Loughner as "a man our Army rejected as unfit for service," "unstable" and "bent on violence" and that he was able to easily buy a gun. Yet, he leaves out that the background check failed because the local law enforcement did not do THEIR job nor the Army theirs. The Sheriff's department knew of his propensity for violence and the Army knew that Loughner admitted to using drugs. Neither passed that information to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System. There was nothing to report. His panacea of background checks failed. In Virginia, we had a similar problem with Cho, the Virginia Tech killer. He was even sent before a judge but they were unwilling to commit him. And yet he wants more of them.....

President Obama, though trying to appear as a neutral participant, subtlety drives a point that gun owners are the obstructionists to preventing more killings.

The fact is, almost all gun owners in America are highly responsible. They're our friends and neighbors. They buy their guns legally and use them safely, whether for hunting or target shooting, collection or protection. And that's something that gun-safety advocates need to accept. Likewise, advocates for gun owners should accept the awful reality that gun violence affects Americans everywhere, whether on the streets of Chicago or at a supermarket in Tucson.

He paints gun owners as either being ignorant or insensitive to the reality of gun violence immediately after stating that protection is a viable need to own weapons. That reality is, of course, why 2nd Amendment supporters advocate the easing of gun restrictions across the nation so that law abiding citizens are able to arm themselves.

I know that every time we try to talk about guns, it can reinforce stark divides. People shout at one another, which makes it impossible to listen. We mire ourselves in stalemate, which makes it impossible to get to where we need to go as a country.

The only stalemate in regards to 2nd Amendment rights and true commonsense gun laws is in the minds of gun control groups. It is they that feel its "impossible to get to where we need to go as a country." Freedom is expanding across the nation. Gun carry laws are easing everywhere. Citizens are again being treated as free people, not subjects. It is the gun control groups, defeated by the Heller case of their dream to ban firearms, that have turned to the shibboleth of "commonsense gun laws" without stating who determines the meaning of "commonsense."

I'm willing to bet that responsible, law-abiding gun owners agree that we should be able to keep an irresponsible, law-breaking few - dangerous criminals and fugitives, for example - from getting their hands on a gun in the first place.

I'm willing to bet they don't think that using a gun and using common sense are incompatible ideas - that we should check someone's criminal record before he can check out at a gun seller; that an unbalanced man shouldn't be able to buy a gun so easily; that there's room for us to have reasonable laws that uphold liberty, ensure citizen safety and are fully compatible with a robust Second Amendment.

Again, he implies that its the gun owners that need to change OUR outlook, that WE might not agree that criminals and guns shouldn't mix. He implies that HIS ideas are the "common sense" ideas. Neither Cho nor Loughner had a record of any sort. What does he propose to do to improve the background check to stop them from getting guns? Privacy laws restrict mental health records from being used. If law enforcement agencies and the judiciary don't do what is necessary, dangerous people will not be put on the list. Remember, to deprive someone of a right, there must be due process.

The President seeks to drive a wedge between the 2nd Amendment advocates and the general populace that don't get into the trenches fighting the gun control crowd. His statements are posed in such a way as to imply that only "unreasonable" people would disagree with his stated improvements on the background check.

Most gun owners know that the word "commonsense" isn't a code word for "confiscation." And none of us should be willing to remain passive in the face of violence or resigned to watching helplessly as another rampage unfolds on television.

Those "most gun owners" don't follow 2nd Amendment politics. They don't follow the propaganda put out by the Violence Policy Center, The Brady Campaign, etc. They ALL advocate "commonsense" gun laws. Yet they can't define a commonsense gun in debate without losing the argument. The Brady Campaign's idea of "commonsense" gun restrictions include licensing and registration of firearms, useless magazine size restrictions, etc. And where there is registration, there is ALWAYS confiscation. So, no President Obama, we do know that "commonsense" is a code word for confiscation. These comments at Common Gunsense, a blog run by Joan Peterson, Brady Campaign board member, are the perfect example of the evasiveness of the gun control crowd and the attempts by 2nd Amendment supporters to shed light on the subject. Some quotes by Joan Peterson, who has stated that gun control groups don't want to take our guns, just enact some common sense laws. There is, apparently, no 2nd Amendment restriction that she does not like.

In answer to this comment:

If I may point out, in the UK where handguns are banned, semi automatics are banned, private gun owners are licensed and registered, purchase of a firearm must require "proof of need" and permission from the govt, they are still calling for more restrictions. And they always call those restrictions "reasonable" and "common sense." Are there any gun laws which some on your side wish for that you, personally, would find unreasonable?

she replied: (emphasis mine)

Good for the UK. I'm all for it. I find the gun laws passed allowing guns in National Parks and on Amtrak unreasonable. I find Shall Issue CCW laws unreasonable. I find state laws that do not require background checks or training in order to get a permit unreasonable. I find the legal sale of guns to anyone without a background check unreasonable- that is a part of the Brady Law that is unreasonable.

And that's just one reply to a comment on one post.

Sound familiar? This op-ed is just the ....opening shot......of President Obama's attempt to appear a moderate on gun control and to advance his agenda without ruing his chances for 2012.