NYT: The Gun Lobby's Loss

[blueclown]

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/02/opinion/02tue3.html?ref=opinion

The gun lobby has long intimidated politicians with its war chest and its trumpeted ability to deliver single-issue voters, especially in tight races. After this year’s election, those politicians should be far less afraid and far more willing to vote for sensible gun-control laws.

The National Rifle Association directed much money and bile against Barack Obama. In false, misleading and, fortunately, ineffective ads, fliers, mailers and Web postings, the group said that Mr. Obama posed a “clear and present danger” to Second Amendment rights and that his election would mean a gun ban.

Despite that harsh barrage, Mr. Obama won states with heavy gun ownership, including Virginia, Ohio and Pennsylvania. That success should send a signal to other politicians: consistency matters.

In fact, Mr. Obama has long been a supporter of the argument, disputed by this page, that the Second Amendment bestows an individual right to bear arms unrelated to raising a militia. But Mr. Obama did not abandon his support for reasonable gun-control laws. “Don’t tell me we can’t uphold the Second Amendment while keeping AK-47s out of the hands of criminals,” he declared at the Democratic convention.



I disagree with the NYTimes' lofty assertion. The NRA has already won this dialogue in the political realm. It's becoming near impossible for a strict gun control advocate to run on a major national party ticket. Obama won in spite of the NRA and its vast noise machine.

[Captain Hilts]

1. Obama changed 180 on the DC gun ban and used NRA language in the General Election.

In other words, he buckled to the NRA.

In February for the primary, he supported the DC gun ban and when he won the nomination, he did a 180 on it.

[slackmaster]

2. It would be nice if just once in a while the people advocating "sensible" measures would be specific

I haven't any idea what the author of this NYT piece is blathering about.

I consider myself to be a sensible person, as do most of us. Surely we would all agree with a sensible proposal, if only somebody had one.

[aikoaiko]

3. I remember reading this editorial before, when it was Brady Campaign press release. .

Its too bad the NYT appears to be mere mouthpieces for the Brady Campaign folks.

[derby378]

4. "It's the economy, stupid"

The Brady Campaign has been hemorrhaging money over the past few years. Financially, they're on the ropes. All Paul Helmke can do right now is keep talking and hope the money flows in.

[gratuitous]

5. A sensible gun law

Based on the text of the Second Amendment (quoted in full, because some of it seems to get forgotten for some reason):

"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."

Guns should be manufactured to the same exacting standards as, say, children's teddy bear toys, which must undergo a strict process to be certified as safe for public sale. As for "well regulated," since certain folks are so fond of the "Militia" word, I propose that for every gun a person owns, he or she submits to two weeks of residential camp training and drilling with each firearm annually. Own ten guns? Set aside twenty weeks every years so that the public can be sure you are proficient with your weapon. Anyone failing to be well regulated is subject to having their weapon confiscated, because they are violating the security of the free State.

No infringement (as opposed to abridgement). Simple regulation for every weapon owner. Every gun owner we can then be sure is certified as a responsible, law-abiding gun owner. And that their gun is manufactured to exact specifications and standards.

[slackmaster]

7. The gun industry has done an excellent job of policing itself on safety

How often do you hear about someone being injured or killed because a firearm fell apart during use, or the owner choked on a gun part? When product defects are discovered, gun manufacturers are quick to implement recalls and offer free repairs. They are much more responsive than the auto industry, which usually stalls until someone dies before they do a recall.

Own ten guns? Set aside twenty weeks every years so that the public can be sure you are proficient with your weapon.

I own seven Swedish Mausers that are functionally identical. Would you make me do 14 weeks of training with them, or would two suffice?

[JonQ]

9. Your standards are stricter than

those needed to operate a car in public (not a guaranteed right). You take a test, once, a 16 then never again.

Why should cars, which kill far more people every year, be less regulated than guns, which are a constitutionally guaranteed right?

I'd like to see more classes available, possibly public funded, for people who want to learn how to use firearms properly, and I don't have a problem with background checks, or preventing violent felons from owning a firearm, or sticter punishments for criminals that use a deadly weapon in the commission of a crime. But a week a year, per weapon is excessive.

[questinglib]

6. But is it true?

Obama says he wants laws to keep AK47s out of the hands of criminals, but he supports the reinstatement of a new AWB. While this wouldn't, presumably, take guns away from anyone, it would prevent anyone, law-abiding as well as criminals, from purchasing a so-called AW from a legally licensed firearms dealer. This would include not only AK47s, but a whole host of other firearms and so-called high capacity magazines. It would not prevent criminals from obtaining weapons from the criminal black market, or even from a private seller. So, once again, the criminal is only slightly inconvenienced while the honest Joe is penalized. BTW, criminals don't buy guns from licensed dealers since they have to undergo the instantaneous background check.

ql

[underpants]

8. The great problem is that the NRA has been established as *THE* voice of gun owners

the NRA is a like professional wrestling. They promise results and conclusions but never come close to achieving any but you know if they ONLY HAD MORE MONEY

:eyes:

Serial numbers were against their "Core beliefs" at one point but when law enforcement, public opinion, and common sense rebuked them they pulled back and it is never mentioned any more.

Background checks, OH HOW HORRIBLE THEY WOULD BE!! that just ripped at the heart of their core beliefs...... same events caused the same result and the same ignoring of how wrong they were.

The NRA basically owns WV TN and ARK in Presidential elections. Any money they spent was wasted because Obama didn't even bother with those states-although he did add to the "it's okay to like him" factor by highlighting how close the WV vote was getting close to the election.

The NRA are a bunch of schiesters.