Among the many groups that opposed Barack Obama's presidential race, few were more certain or vehement than gun-rights organizations. "Barack Obama would be the most anti-gun president in American history," the National Rifle Association announced. "Obama is a committed anti-gunner," warned Gun Owners of America.
So it's no stunner that after a year in office, the president is getting hammered by people who have no use for his policy on firearms. The surprise is that the people attacking him are those who favor gun control, not those who oppose it.
Obama's record on this issue has been largely overlooked — except by the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, which recently issued a report card flunking Obama on all seven issues it deems important. Said President Paul Helmke, "If I had been told, in the days before Barack Obama's inauguration, that his record on gun violence prevention would be this poor, I would not have believed it."
What can explain the grave miscalculation, admittedly a happy one in retrospect, on the part of the gun rights groups? The article blames it on Obama being a slick politician who doesn't want to fight losing battles over guns. But didn't his critics in the NRA and the GOA realize he was a slick politician even before he was elected? Why didn't they admit back then that no president, regardless of his record on the issue, would have the support necessary to fight them? Didn't they know that back then?
Of course they did. I think what explains it is the peculiar character trait of the gun owners, who are after all the folks who make up these organizations. For reasons that partly elude me, these guys cannot help exaggerating and blowing things out of proportion. Take for example the oft-used phrase, "god-given right." What could be more grandiose than that?
Another example came up just yesterday in my post entitled "Gun Nuts vs. Constitution Nuts." I referenced a quote by one of the leaders of the pro-gun internet movement.
David Hardy said, "They're going into the fight of their lives, no OUR lives, and don't need the distractions."
I ask why would he refer to the McDonald vs. Chicago case in such exaggerated language? It's obviously not the "fight of your lives" any more than the happenings in Seattle are truly significant, as Zorro rightly pointed out. I like what someone said the other day, that what's coming up in the Supreme Court is like winning a football game by a touchdown or a field goal, either way it's a sure win.
What's your opinion? Do gun rights people tend to exaggerate? Do you think like I do that they do this as a self-aggrandizing trick of rhetoric? I mean, the higher the stakes the greater their victory, right? And let's not forgot those with fantasies of fighting to the death against incredible governmental odds. It's all part of the same mental quirk.
Please leave a comment.
Ever consider that the reason Obama has backed away from his own record on gun control is because we are as vigilant as we are?
ReplyDeleteOnce we win McDonald, gun control will be an albatros and we still won't let up.
We will never capitulate. The only reason we win is because we are still willing to fight.
You will see.
"and concluded he's not the threat to gun rights that everyone thought one year ago."
ReplyDeleteHe's still a threat. Just one that's smart enough to know he'd be on the losing side of the fight.
"Why didn't they admit back then that no president, regardless of his record on the issue, would have the support necessary to fight them? "
Because that would make people apathetic. He wouldn't have been watched nearly as closely.
You see, the higher the stakes, the greater the support. One reason the anti-gunners aren't nearly as effective or great in numbers as the pro-gunners is because they haven't yet mastered the art of language.
"God given right" and "fight of our lives" is what fills up hearing chambers and empties ammunition shelves. The language conjures up images of not just a political battle, but a cultural battle, spiritual battle, and even a physical battle. The pro-gun groups have learned how to inspire people.
The anti-gunners, despite having a position based on the raw emotionality of hoplophobia have yet to come up with language that inspires. In fact, they do quite the opposite. If you've received any of the e-mails of the Brady Campaign, you'll notice they come off as a nagging wife, rather than an inspirer. Constantly begging for money and attention, while offering nothing in exchange. They fail at creating that warm, fuzzy "American Hero" feeling that the pro-gun organizations create.
Steve Chapman is a good columnist, and a smart guy, but he's wrong to think that just because this administration and Congress haven't moved against guns yet, they're never going to. One really huge massacre (scores of victims), perhaps by a veteran with PTSD, and we'll be seeing them put Rahm Emanuel's "you never want a serious crisis go to waste" advice into action.
ReplyDeleteSpeaking personally, I have been surprised that there's been so little serious movement at the federal level against gun owners. In retrospect, I underestimated the effect of "blue dog" Democrats, new (and thus vulnerable, by virtue of not being well established) to Congressional seats representing areas whose constituencies aren't going to tolerate attacks on gun rights.
Besides, guns in National Parks, and guns in checked Amtrak baggage, are very minor "victories" for gun rights. The fact that he signed those measures, as parts of bills that he wasn't going to give up, is pretty small potatoes.
As for "God-given right"--that's not only applied to the right to keep and bear arms. It's simply one way of referring to a natural, or fundamental, right. I actually prefer either one of those terms, because I'm not into religion, and don't want to depend on the person to whom I'm making my case being religious--but in the end, the meaning is the same--a right that is so fundamental that it depends on no government sanction for its existence.
Finally, McDonald does have enormous implications, and I'm not convinced it's as in the bag as conventional wisdom has it. I think I saw somewhere that Scalia himself has in the past expressed doubt about the 2nd Amendment being incorporated against the states (or maybe the claim was simply that for Scalia to agree with incorporation now would be a seeming contradiction with some things he has said in the past--don't hold me to any of this--I'm going on vague memories here).
Have there been some exaggerations made in the name of gun rights advocacy? Yeah, I suspect so. I also remember the Brady Campaign handing out brochures at Miami International Airport, when Florida's "Stand Your Ground Law" went into effect, warning visitors that they were now in grave danger.
Gun rights advocates certainly don't hold a monopoly on exaggeration.
Mikeb: "What can explain the grave miscalculation, admittedly a happy one in retrospect, on the part of the gun rights groups?"
ReplyDeleteMikeb: "I ask why would he (Hardy) refer to the McDonald vs. Chicago case in such exaggerated language?
Others have already said what I will say but here goes anyway:
Obama is anti-gunowner. His past statements, past record, and recent appointments all indicate that.What he has done lately has been dictated by political reality, not because he is pro-gunowner.
However it is my theory that one reason Obama has run away from anti-gunowner positions is that so many gunowners DO react to attacks upon gun ownership as the "fight of their lives."
What happens is this: Gunowners say say "Obama will take away our guns! Donate! Demonstrate! Register to vote!" Obama hears that and thinks: "Wow, these guys are single-minded and politically energetic. If I want to get anything else done, I'd better not mess with their guns."
I think what gunowners are doing could be called a "self-defeating prophecy."
I agree McDonald will have enormous implications, but "a fight for our lives" is a bit melodramatic, no?
ReplyDeleteMikeb says:
ReplyDeleteI agree McDonald will have enormous implications, but "a fight for our lives" is a bit melodramatic, no?
Perhaps, if your quote were accurate--but it's not. Mr. Hardy said " . . . the fight of their lives, no OUR lives . . .." The difference between your "for" and Mr. Hardy's "of" is quite significant. If your version correctly quoted him, the implication would be that losing the fight would be fatal.
That, perhaps, would be a little strong (although I think the genocides throughout the 20th century make a case for that claim defensible).
By saying that it's the fight of our lives, though, Mr. Hardy is saying that it's the biggest gun rights case we're likely to see in our lifetimes (bigger than Heller, and I agree).
Mikeb: I agree McDonald will have enormous implications, but "a fight for our lives" is a bit melodramatic, no?
ReplyDeletePerhaps, but...
Anti-gunowner proposal + "measured" gunowner response = politicians try to pass proposal and gunowners must then fight it
However...
Anti-gunowner proposal + "melodramatic" (etc) gunowner response = politicians run away from anti-gunowner proposal
So, do you see anything that might make "melodramatic" gunowner responses more likely?
Anti-gunowner advocates try it, too (Guns in parks! Death! Destruction!)...
Except that it doesn't seem to work for them very well. I would guess that's because they have cried wolf too many times, whereas there are many real local and international examples of the kind of gun bans that US gunowners fear.
Zorro, Your eagle-eye is right. I mixed up the "of" and the "for" whcih indeed makes a big difference in the meaning, as you said.
ReplyDeleteBut, it was inadvertent and does not change my point. This kind of talk is exaggerated grandiose nonsense.
Mikeb, I wasn't accusing you of deliberate distortion in your misquote of Mr. Hardy--I have no doubt that it was inadvertent--but, like you said, it "indeed makes a big difference in the meaning."
ReplyDeleteThat being the case, I don't see how you can also state that it "does not change your point."
By the way, I notice you talk a lot about what you see as "exaggerations" from the pro-rights side, but don't seem to want to talk about Paul Helmke's "We Win, They Lose. Now, Let's Get To Work" (excerpt):
President-elect Obama has consistently supported common sense gun laws in the U.S. Senate and in the Illinois State Senate, along with supporting an individual right to own a gun for self-defense in the home. Vice President-Elect Biden, one of the original authors of the 1994 Federal Assault Weapons Ban, has been a leader in gun violence prevention throughout his distinguished career.
Or, how 'bout:
The 2008 election marked a major victory for common sense gun laws. Never in
our nation’s history have we had an incoming President and Vice President more
supportive of strong gun laws.
If the pro-rights side is "guilty" of exaggerating the threat to gun ownership posed by the Obama administration, isn't the anti-rights side just as guilty?
The rest of us have stopped caring enough to support either side, and in a republic that means representatives will avoid the issue like the plague.
ReplyDeleteWing-nuts on both sides are to blame for our lack of interest, so everyone give yourselves a pat on the back.
Zorro said "If the pro-rights side is "guilty" of exaggerating the threat to gun ownership posed by the Obama administration, isn't the anti-rights side just as guilty?"
ReplyDeleteWell, I agree that everybody exaggerates, but the above is not a good illustration. Pro-gun folks exaggerated the threat of Obama coming in. Some to sell more bullets, others to justify their expensive hobby, and everything in between.
Gun control folks just turned out to be wrong about Obama, that's all.
Mikeb says:
ReplyDeletePro-gun folks exaggerated the threat of Obama coming in. Some to sell more bullets, others to justify their expensive hobby, and everything in between.
Gun control folks just turned out to be wrong about Obama, that's all.
What?!! So the anti-rights folks were wrong about Obama, but the pro-rights folks knew that his citizen disarmament agenda would go nowhere (so far), but pretended not to, for some sinister reason (like profit motive)? That's just silly, Mikeb.
I very much thought that federal legislation to close the mythical "gun show loophole" would have been passed by now--there's no shortage of Republicans who have expressed an interest in such an abomination. Hell, even McCain himself was so keen on passing a bill with his "gun show loophole" closing amendment, that he voted for a bill that also would have continued the heinous ban on so-called "assault weapons."
Even John McCain is now in favor of, or in the past voted to, close the gun show loophole, oppose the Tiahrt crime gun tracing restrictions, oppose the 24-hour destruction rule of Brady background check records, and oppose restrictions on ATF gun store audits.
In 2004, as part of the final Senate bill S. 1805 as amended, Sen. McCain also once voted to extend the assault weapons ban for 10 years (though he has since said he is against such a ban).
So yeah--I thought a gun show bill would have been signed into law by now.
But let's go back to your bizarre idea, apparently, that gun rights advocates have a much clearer crystal ball than you guys do--where do you come off telling us we're delusional to think we need the firepower we're putting together?
All right, everybody was wrong about Obama.
ReplyDeleteMikeb says:
ReplyDeleteAll right, everybody was wrong about Obama.
Very good, Mikeb. The next step, now, is for you to acknowledge that this admission brings your entire premise crashing down--you know:
Didn't they know that back then?
Of course they did. I think what explains it is the peculiar character trait of the gun owners, who are after all the folks who make up these organizations. For reasons that partly elude me, these guys cannot help exaggerating and blowing things out of proportion.
Surprise me, Mikeb, and acknowledge that the entire theory on which this blog post was based has now been debunked.
Zorro, I don't know if I can comply. The admission that "everybody was wrong" doesn't necessarily "debunk" my original premise, "these guys cannot help exaggerating and blowing things out of proportion."
ReplyDeleteC'mon, your own rhetoric is a perfect illustration.
Mikeb says:
ReplyDeleteZorro, I don't know if I can comply. The admission that "everybody was wrong" doesn't necessarily "debunk" my original premise, "these guys cannot help exaggerating and blowing things out of proportion."
C'mon, your own rhetoric is a perfect illustration.
OK, Mikeb, if it's "these guys" (meaning gun rights advocates) who "cannot help exaggerating and blowing things out of proportion," how would you describe this guy (you know him well), who says:
Legitimate gun owners need to be prepared for serious inconvenience in the future. When their star begins its descend, common sense restrictions will be put in place. Gun registration, background checks on every transfer, closer scrutiny of FFL dealers, to name just a few of the needed changes, will be implemented as soon as the country gets fed up enough with what's going on.
Sounds like a pretty clear cut declaration that gun rights are an endangered species--the exact kind of "rhetoric" that you would, had it been spouted by someone on my side, have characterized as "exaggeration," that was being "blown out of proportion."
Or how about the guy (you know him well) who posted a pic of a ludicrous sculpture in front of the U.N.'s lair, of a revolver with a barrel that was either extremely poorly designed, or horribly damaged, under the title "The Future of Gun Rights"? Sounds very much like "the government whose unlimited power I worship is coming to disarm you."
Want more? Well, there's this guy (you know him well), saying:
Gun registration is coming. It's an inevitable part of any comprehensive gun control agenda.
Note that this is the same guy who very recently (here and here) documented plans to use registration for the logical next step in tyranny--the only logical purpose of gun registration--confiscation.
Confiscation--on a massive scale--is clearly what you have in mind, as evidenced by:
. . . we tighten up the gun laws to the point that over say, a decade or so, we have about half the number of guns.
Obviously, you're not getting 10 million guns a year (assuming 200 million guns in private hands in the U.S.--likely a lowball estimate) without massive confiscation.
That's why we sound the alarm, and that's why we'll fight to the death (lots of deaths) before we submit to registration.
By the way, let's expand on my reference to your "strategy" for reducing "gun violence"--namely, your idea to reduce the number of guns in the U.S. by half, over a period of 10 years. Time for Fun With Arithmetic!
ReplyDeleteGoing with the conservative estimate ("conservative" not in the sense of any political ideology, but in that the estimate is likely low--I've seen estimates well over 50% higher) of 200 million privately owned guns in the U.S., we see that your plan calls for confiscating 100 million guns over the next 10 years.
Before you object, I realize that a few guns will simply wear out, become irreparably damaged, or given up in "gun buy-backs" and destroyed, but those numbers aren't likely to be high, and will certainly be more than compensated for by purchases of new guns (which even you haven't proposed to stop entirely, and in the wake of Heller, know cannot be legally stopped entirely).
So, we're talking about 10 million per year over the next 10 years. 10 million per year comes to over 27 thousand per day--every day, for 10 years. Taking that further, that's over 1140 guns per hour--every hour, for 10 years. That's over 19 gun confiscations per minute--every minute, for the next 10 years. Finally, that's a gun confiscation rate exceeding 1 every 3.16 seconds, for the next 10 years.
You're going to need more cops--a lot more--and they'd best be heavily armed. That's going to require bringing in a lot more guns. Granted, they'll be in government hands, rather than private hands--well, until the the government's hired muscle "loses" them.
And you call us ("us" being 2nd Amendment advocates who maintain that the 2nd Amendment's guarantee of the right to keep and bear arms poses--still poses--the last bulwark against tyranny) delusional.
Zorro, My ideas of reducing the overall number of guns in America may be too optimistic, but you're the one who keeps talking about confiscation as the only means of doing it. I'm not suggesting that. I would imagine there are other ways. For example with proper gun laws in place and an extensive public awareness campaign, I'd bet we could get enough voluntary cooperation to accomplish the goal, which would leave only you and the other hard liners with guns.
ReplyDeleteThat's just one idea. Had you thought of it?
Mikeb says:
ReplyDeleteFor example with proper gun laws in place and an extensive public awareness campaign, I'd bet we could get enough voluntary cooperation to accomplish the goal, which would leave only you and the other hard liners with guns.
Has it occurred to you (apparently not) that your "proper gun laws," combined with you public awareness campaign to demonize gun ownership (taxpayer funded, I presume?), would create a bunch of new hardliners? Didn't the Great Obama-Inspired Gun Buying Spree give you some clue about the reaction to an even more direct attack on gun ownership?
The Brady Campaign, the VPC, individual gun hatred cheerleaders like Doctors Hemenway and Wintemute, and a host of others have--with the help of millions of dollars from the Joyce Campaign--been trying to demonize guns for years. Who pays attention to them? Mostly gun rights advocates who appreciate having something to debunk, and some members of the anti-gun media (and big media is itself scrambling for relevance).
Nope--Americans won't be disarmed without a bloodbath that will make you nostalgic for the wonderfully low levels of "gun violence" of today.
Whose daughters and sons are you prepared to conscript into that war, Mikeb, and what do you plan to bulldoze in order to make enough cemetery space for them?