Tweet
In addition to the lack of discussion of the economic crisis, particularly the forgotten foreclosure crisis, one thing that struck many observers of the State of the Union address was no mention of gun safety, just a couple weeks after the Tucson shooting rampage and the assassination attempt on Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (who has thankfully been upgraded to good condition and moved to a rehab center). Despite several proposals and a national outcry over how Jared Loughner was able to legally purchase a gun despite suspicions of mental illness, and how he could fire 31 shots before reloading, using a clip that was banned under the assault weapons legislation which ran out in 2004, the President stood mute on the issue.
But David Plouffe, now a senior adviser to the President, promised last night that he would tackle the issue sometime in the future.
Plouffe said Obama’s speech on Tuesday was focused on the economy. He added that the president has been clear on his views on gun control, citing Obama’s position of reinstating the expired assault weapons ban.
“He’s going to address this,” Plouffe said. “It’s a very important issue and I know there’s going to be a lot of debate on the Hill.”
It’s not clear what legislation Obama will urge Congress to pass. Despite his support for reauthorizing the assault weapons ban, he has not made the issue a priority and has been lambasted by gun-control groups during the first two years of his presidency.
Gun control legislation faces an almost impossible climb in a Republican House. It would certainly be completely impossible without the President weighing in. But what we saw generally in the State of the Union speech, and the President’s general demeanor during his term in office, is that he doesn’t like to take a stand unless the issue is on a clear path to victory. He shied away from gun control, in this reading, because his preferences aren’t likely to pass Congress. That plays it safe, but I’m not sure it does much else. It certainly doesn’t show to the public your principles. And it creates a credibility gap between the President and those expected to support him.
38 Comments
Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About FDL News Desk
Sure. Right after EFCA is passed.
Lol He will comment, it will be something along the lines of: Sorry people your right to a long and happy life is less important than me sucking NRA cock.
I have a credit card and a paypal account. Can I buy a military tank on Ebay? Rocket launcher? Howitzer? rocket propelled grenade launcher? grenades? C-4? napalm? Is it legal to buy these or other “defensive” weapons?
Fixed it.
More change we can pray for!™
To be pronounced “fluffer”, right?
Fluffer.
Assumes facts not in evidence.
That’s why he gets paid the big bucks…
I would’ve gone with “that’s why he makes the intermediate money.”. Big bucks works better :)
“Despite his support for _________________, he has not made the issue a priority . . .”
How many of Obama’s supposed agenda items could fit in the blank? This sentence could be the best description of his presidency.
Some folks have suggested that Obama is a status quo-enforcing, care taker President. Some have compared him to Hoover. I think the comparison is insulting to Hoover. Recently, sombody else suggested he was most like Ford. I don’t think Obama is going to trip and fall in public. Obama seems brighter than Ford and probably harbors less delusional ideas. Perhaps not. I’m thinking the comparison to Reagan is most apt: looks good on TeeVee; plays the President very well; terrific job of spouting empty rhetoric in pretty, mythic prose while 90% of the citizens of the US get fucked by corporations. He is the good cop to George W.’s bad cop but without the personal wealth and power.
I just broke my shoehorn trying to fit the entire country into that space :(
If Obama were a football coach, he would run, run, run, ignoring the pass as too dangerous. He wouldn’t want his running backs to hit too hard, though, lest it anger the other side, or run through holes too small to wiggle through without a fight.
His personal aversion to conflict, his obsession with agreeing with what the other side wants before they want it – except in the case of dealing with his own or getting his patrons the political offices they most want to hold – are totally at odds with accepted notions of leadership. He is revealing himself as a man without political courage or principals he holds dearly enough to fight for. Shrub will not long be alone in his race to be regarded as the worst, the most disappointing president ever.
Gee, that date wouldn’t be after Election Day next year, would it?
We’re all aware that the number of non-accidental, non-suicide, non-Drug War related gun deaths each year that result from legally obtained firearms in the United States is really tiny right?
Unless the President’s gun control proposal is:
1) End the War on Drugs
2) Provide tax funded gun safety classes
Then he’s doing it wrong. The same goes for any proposal coming out of the left or right for that matter.
Like the were going to fix
Health Care ReformThe Health Insurance Company and Pharmaceutical Welfare and Giveaway Act? Don’t expect me to hold my breath.… his preferences aren’t likely to pass Congress.
Another example, I think, of assuming a fact not in evidence.
In breeding pacers & trotters, the fluffer is called a teaser, an old stallion, usually with scars to show for his job. First he sniffs around the female (already made breeding-ready thru injection of drugs, some 10-days after she has foaled) to juice her up (pacers & trotters bred thru artificial insemination), who is confined to a small 3-sided stall. Then the breeding stallion is led over to the mare to get him juiced up. They he is led to an artificial mare to jerk off. It’s caught in a bucket & then injected into the mare.
Somehow that relatively complicated procedure reminds me more of the U.S. political system.
How about ‘Phlouffer’? This guy is gonna need a new name now that we’ll be hearing from him again (more’s the pity).
He would punt on second down.
HA! :)
The only thing I can think of that he said he supported during the election that he has made a priority was something about troop levels in Afghanistan. My memory may be poor.
Would certainly run in the wrong direction, making sure the other side wracked up an invincible lead.
Obama is not a leader. He just plays one on TV. Indeed, his job is not to be a leader at all. His job is to be the image of a leader projected on the screen, indistinguishable from any other corporate advertising image whose function it is to create brand loyalty and the consumption of identity all the while hiding the fact that the tangible product is something the citizen doesn’t need and is now made in China.
Does his makeup include lead?
I don’t see why not? :)
Very popular in colonial America.
Really, President Obama could have dispensed with last night’s speech and brought out the cast of “Annie” to sing, “The sun will come out… tomorrow!”
The horse is out of the barn. There are an estimated 280 million firearms in the US. Any legislation that does not deal with existing weapons is tinkering around the edges while riling up the gun lobby. Any legislation that deals with existing weapons has to figure out how to ensure that the owners of all of those 280 million weapons comply. A much better approach is to start actually enforcing the laws that currently exist, and they are still pretty stringent. The ease of getting small arms and light weapons in the US is about the same as that of Italy or Greece (or interestingly, Angola and Bangladesh).
Both the folks who buy guns “for protection” and the folks who want to ban guns entirely are reacting to what are essentially low probability/high risk events.
Maybe we should reduce our overseas “forward positioned” military and concentrate on creating a national security organization like that of the Swiss. I would think the 280 million firearms and a modicum of a chain of command would be something of a deterrent to any potential threat. It would also have the benefit of reducing the sources of threats.
If the assault weapons ban is reintroduced, someone better be pretty knowledgeable about how to write it so that gun manufacturers can’t engineer around the regulations. And how to deal with black market gunsmithing, something that is much more likely now that there are so many parts suppliers and distributors.
One thing about it. If there is serious gun control legislation introduced, you might as well prepare for a President substantially more gun-loving than Mitt Romney. Might even be Wayne LaPierre himself.
I hope the later date is around 2015. Methinks Plouffe is pandering.
Sheee-it. Well gun control is officially DOA and going nowhere. Not that I expected otherwise, mind you, with a Republican POTUS and Republican House and virtually Republican Senate. But still: those words “the White House promises…” is the kiss of death to whatever it is Barry Zero is claiming to “do.”
Fahgeddaboud it. Not gonna happen. Done like a dinner. The end.
ptoui!
Noooooo, no shit?? Ya think? How amazing. /s
Actually, Plouffe’s statement is carefully crafted. Obama is going to “address” the issue. On second thought, that doesn’t rise to even pandering.
Regardless of the difficulties of getting a law through Congress, the fundamental problem is the technical aspects of effective legislation given 40 years of neglect. You just don’t disarm the owners of 280 million weapons easily.
Actually, he’d give the coach of the opposing team his game plan. Then, after the loss, he’d tell his team that he’ll be ready for the next game.
“He’s going to address this.”
What horseshit.
The time to bring up gun control was in the Tucson memorial service AND in the SOTU. With the massacre on everyone’s mind, the situation cried out for a president with the courage to go right at the NRA and the gun-nuts. Instead, as he’s done with every tough issue that he’s faced, he was too chickenshit to square up to them.
Exactly as is the case with his entire administration, he’s gone AWOL at crunch-time. :o(
Next!
‘Dem, I don’t think anyone wants to disarm gun owners. What we want, and need, are complete bans on:
High capacity magazine and banana clips
the availability of “Cop killer” bullets to the public.
the availability of body-armor to the public.
We also need:
a FEDERAL requirement on a 48 hour waiting period for firearm purchase.
Mandatory backgroud checks.
A FEDERAL law making it a felony to carry a firearm to a political gathering.
Instant and permanent stripping of sales licenses for dealers convicted of violating gun laws.
There is nothing in that list that would disarm gun owners.
The first gun control laws were Jim Crow laws designed to prevent blacks from owning guns because you can’t very well have a linching if your target has the ability to defend themselves. Some of these laws left it up to the discretion of the sheriff to decide who could and could not purchase a firearm and others required signatures from prominent business owners and one went so far as only allow the sale of the more expensive brands to prevent not just blacks but the poor as well from owning firearms.
I am not arguing that anyone wants to disarm gun owners; I just see that vague promises about “gun control” might lead folks to that impression.
All of the items that you list are reasonable (to me). However, there are a lot of technical issues that need to be done right (and the number of technical experts in gun engineering who would help legislators get it right is likely small). For example, how do you define “cop-killer bullet” in such a way as to clearly be enforceable and to cut off the possibility of engineering around the law?
Who decides whether the sale of body armor goes through, and who among the public (there are all sorts of informal law enforcement officers) should be able to purchase body armor?
Can you document that fact that the current waiting periods on background checks are working for those cases in which information is received within the period? How frequently does the absence of a 48-hour waiting period cause a firearm to be sold to someone who should not get one. What do you do about the firearms that are not acquired through gun shops, pawn shops, or licensed gun shows? What liability does someone have who supplies a gun to a friend or family member who later uses it in a crime? What efforts are going to be made to shut down fences?
How are you going to do background checks on the 280 million firearms already in circulation?
What constitutes a political gathering?
How do you deal with the fact that stripping dealers of sales licenses does not get them out of the gun business necessarily? And that if there is massive civil disobedience of the gun sales laws, there will not be enough resources to enforce such punishment?
My opinion is changing to seeing strategies that reduce all crime as being more helpful to rapidly reducing gun violence. People who are secure are less likely to think they need firearms to defend themselves. That raises the issue of police abuse of authority in establishing that security. And reducing police corruption.
The question that I have is which things in that list can actually have results, what will those results actually be, and will the results be worth the political heavy lifting that it will take to get something passed.
bloomberg is better with guns than snow…
Bloomberg: “We’re Killing Ourselves”
New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg is leading the charge against what he is calling insufficient gun laws. He has gathered families and friends of victims of gun violence from around the country. http://www.newslook.com/videos/285974-bloomberg-we-re-killing-ourselves?autoplay=true
Actually the so called cop killer bullet is largely a myth. When the law banning Armor Piercing ammo was passed no cop properly wearing a bullet proof vest had been killed by AP ammo fired from a handgun, except for on Miami Vice. The definition of “Cop Killer” or “Armor piercing” (AP) is nothing more than ammunition that can penetrate a “bullet proof” vest and can be fired from a handgun. All ammunition used in center fire hunting rifles can pierce a bullet proof vest but is not classified as AP since there is no handgun made to shoot it. If one were manufactured then that ammo would be considered AP. While some projectile designs require less velocity to penetrate all are capable with enough velocity. Ever see those boards and trees with pine needles stuck in them after a tornado? Same concept.
Oh and you can buy body armor on amazon.com if you are a 42R