creators.com opinion web
Liberal Opinion Conservative Opinion
Chuck Norris
Chuck Norris
22 May 2012
IRS Gives Billions in Tax Refunds to Illegals

WTHR, the NBC affiliate in Indianapolis, recently reported about how millions of illegal aliens are getting … Read More.

15 May 2012
The Feds' Intrusions Into American Farms and Families

With Mother's Day right at our back, I want to address one of the most extreme overreaches by the federal … Read More.

8 May 2012
How Romney and Our Republic Can Win (Part 2)

Last week, I showed how the Republican Party likely would lose the presidential election in November if it … Read More.

Obama Triangulates on Gun Control

Share Comment

Loyal readers will recall that I warned last year of the perfect storm approaching on gun control. Now, with the Tucson, Ariz., tragedy as a steppingstone and with eyes firmly focused on his re-election, President Barack Obama has opened a campaign to appease his base on the polarizing issue.

Let me completely disclose my position: I am a strong Second Amendment advocate. I believe in protecting our fundamental rights, including our Second Amendment rights, through the political process. To that end, I serve as honorary chairman of the "Trigger The Vote" voter registration campaign.

That campaign is funded by the National Rifle Association's Freedom Action Foundation. We work in every election cycle to register gun owners and hunters to vote and add them to the ranks of millions of grass-roots voters who have established Second Amendment issues as the new "third rail" of American politics. Those voters and the newly registered voters we can add to their ranks between now and November 2012 will have their job cut out for them in the next election cycle.

The 2012 election now looms large for this administration. Even while the president's top aides are deserting the White House to staff up his campaign office, those left behind seem to be working from a mandate to begin patrolling the divided Democratic base.

Up until now, the Obama White House had given a wide berth to the gun control debate, abandoning campaign promises to pursue new restrictions on our gun rights. This avoidance does not reflect any shift in position; it is merely recognition of the political reality that most members of his party have no interest in having yet another political loser of an issue crammed down their throats.

At the same time, those in Obama's liberal base have grown restless and rancorous over his first two years in office because he hasn't done everything they've wanted, at least regarding more restrictions on our Second Amendment rights. They resent the president's avoidance of fulfilling his campaign rhetoric.

Gun control groups have thrown tantrums for months that Obama wouldn't champion their agenda, with one group resentfully awarding him an F. So only now is Obama sticking his toes into the swirling currents of the Second Amendment debate.

His campaign kicked off in the Arizona Daily Star, with a subtle op-ed that was intentionally vague.

The words could be read as a broad endorsement of proposed gun control measures; they also could be read as embracing the NRA mantra that enforcement of current laws is what's needed. But Obama's attempt to place himself at the center of an ideological divide over guns is pure political positioning, and it comes with the rank odor of cold, crass calculation. One can almost hear the tearing of another page from the Clinton playbook.

One thing he definitely got wrong, however, was his arrogant statement that he had "expanded" the rights of gun owners. The Bill of Rights is guaranteed and can't be "expanded" by government, as it contains fundamental natural rights. Those rights can, however, be restricted by illegitimate government fiat, which is why the clear language of the Second Amendment prohibits even "infringement" upon it. But infringement is clearly on the agenda, despite Obama's rhetorical vacillations.

Implementation of the goals set out in his article came via phone calls from Justice Department operatives seeking to arrange a series of "active listening" meetings for groups on both sides of the gun control debate, as well as industry companies and groups. The proposed meetings were intended to develop an agenda of new legislative and regulatory proposals for the White House to embrace and push in Congress.

Let's tally the results thus far.

First, my friends Wayne LaPierre and Chris Cox at the NRA not only declined the invitation but did so in the form of a strong letter that gave lie to many of the article's core assertions.

Second, gun control groups eagerly attended their meeting, reporting on the process in glowing tones, which must have brought a rosy glow to the White House operatives assigned to the realignment of the political base. They continue their private muttering about a "lack of leadership" from the White House.

Third, the media panned the Obama strategy and operation. The White House must have been particularly stung by criticism from the editorial board of the Arizona Daily Star itself.

The meetings with other groups will continue. You can bet that we haven't heard the last of this issue. But so far, all that Obama has proved is this old political adage: The only thing accomplished by sitting in the middle of the road is that you can be hit from both sides.

To find out more about Chuck Norris and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com.

COPYRIGHT 2011 CHUCK NORRIS

DISTRIBUTED BY CREATORS.COM


Comments

11 Comments | Post Comment
Chuck's gun nut cred is untouched. Mention guns and government and he locks and loads, after disconnecting his brain. His primary objection to Obama on this issue seems to be that, in wake of a horrific tragedy, Obama is willing to explore the issue in public discussion - something that is done in a democracy from time to time.
.
Our right to bear arms is already "infringed". Just to try to buy a fully automatic hand gun. So the issue is not one of purity. It is one of degree. I suspect that the most exciting new "infringements" that could reasonably be proposed would be to restrict the availability of 30 shot clips for hand guns or perhaps restrict the ability of criminals and mental patients to bypass normally required background checks by buying guns at gun shows, where no background checks are required in many states. The first would be mostly symbolic, as it probably would not prevent the next nut with a gun from doing nasty things. The second, however, might reduce that availability of guns to criminals and mental cases. Not a bad thing.
.
If you want a good look at where brain free "thinking" can take you on the gun issue, you need look no farther that the Bush administration. In the wake of the horrific attacks on our nation on 9/11, it was proposed that we look at the back ground check forms to see if any suspected terrorists had bought guns. Attorney general Ashcroft not only would not permit such a record search, he actually ordered the records destroyed. This was at a time when we had no idea of how big a terrorist cell problem we had. A time when our constitutional rights were being eviscerated by big brother with such vial laws as the USA PATRIOT act. Think about it. It was OK for the government to, for example, listen in on your calls without following the law on wiretaps or demand a secret list of every book you checked out from the library, to threaten your librarian with prison for ever revealing that such a request had been delivered, but a simple check of gun records for suspected terrorists arming themselves for an attack was such a horror that the records had to be destroyed. Apparently, Bush feared the NRA more than he did the terrorists - perhaps not unreasonably.
Comment: #1
Posted by: Mark
Mon Mar 28, 2011 11:01 PM
God, guts and guns, way to go, Chuck. In June last year in the northwest of England, we had an incident where a gunman named Derek Bird went on the rampage and shot and killed 12 victims before shooting himself. A month later, in the northeast of England, another gunman, Raoul Moat, shot and killed his ex-girldfriend's then current boyfriend, shot and seriously wounded the young woman and shot and blinded a police officer. Eventually cornered by police after a massive manhunt, he shot and killed himself (some reports say it was the police's fault because they tasered him, causing muscle spasm that triggered the weapon he had pointed at his head; either way, he died and went to hell). What is significant is that most folk over here do not have ready access to firearms, not even the police, usually. The victims were therefore unable to defend themselves. It would be argued, of course that these were exceptional, if tragic, circumstances. That is true but it is also cold comfort to the surviving victims and their families.
Comment: #2
Posted by: Alan O'Reilly
Tue Mar 29, 2011 6:30 AM
@Mark - America is NOT a democracy... she is a Constitutional Republic... BIG difference!
Comment: #3
Posted by: James
Tue Mar 29, 2011 12:55 PM
Great job, Chuck. You rock...
Comment: #4
Posted by: G
Tue Mar 29, 2011 2:39 PM
Allen,
Gun deaths per 100,000 population, international comparisons:
United States (2001): Homicide: 3.98, Suicide 5.92, Other (including accidents): 0.36
England/Wales (2002): Homicide 0.15, Suicide 0.2, Other (including accident): 0.03
Source: gun-control-network.org
There may be some good arguments to be made for why our laws on gun ownership are superior to those of England, but citizen safety from death by gun clearly isn't one of them. The data clearly show that, as the % of households with guns goes up, so do the deaths from guns. This, by the way, includes Switzerland, which has both lots of guns and more restrictive gun control laws than we have. Their death gun death rate is still well below ours, however. Perhaps we should look at their laws and see if any might be useful for us. One of those issues worth exploring in public discussion?.
James,
I stand corrected. In this case, however, it is a distinction without a difference, unless you are arguing that, in a republic, public discussion of issues is not a good thing.
Comment: #5
Posted by: Mark
Tue Mar 29, 2011 5:06 PM
Re: Mark
Unfortunately for your position, you have chosen to use a number of invalid arguments. You have selectively chosen other nations and cultures to compare to the United States, a technique long known to academics such as Rossi, Wright, Kleck, and Lott to be inapplicable to scientific study. Great Britain, including England, Scotland, Wales, and Ireland, for example, has a lower gun violence rate, but a higher non-gun violence rate, and even then their statistical tallies are different from ours. Japan's violent crime rate is very low, with a gun ban, yet their suicide rate is 40 times ours. You don't mention Jamaica, which has a total gun ban in effect, yet has the highest violent crime rate in the western hemisphere. Switzerland has a lower crime rate than all of Europe and the US, gun and non-gun, even though they keep their military machine guns at home. Comparing gun violence and violent crime between cultures is not a valid statistical way to make realistic arguments for or against gun control. Another argument that you fail to consider is the fact that between one and two million times a year, American citizens (not police officers) prevent or stop violent crime with privately owned weapons. What you have done is a gun ownership vs gun prohibition cost/benefit analysis without factoring in the benefits. Not valid at all.
Also, if you want to be taken seriously, completely eliminate the ad hominem and sarcasm. It is juvenile and destroys the credibility of anyone who uses it, since it reveals that the person who deals in it is ideologically driven rather than a independent, rational thinker.
Comment: #6
Posted by: Gaviota
Tue Mar 29, 2011 6:41 PM
Gaviota,
My arguments were in response to the anecdotal argument offered by Allen. Clearly, the topic is complex and cross cultural comparisons are not a perfect tool, but the cross cultural comparison is an appropriate response to the "some bad guys with guns did nasty things in England. If they had a lot more guns this would not have happened" argument. By the way, my quick Google check of the comparative suicide rates of the the US and Japan find a difference of about 3 times, not 40 times. What is your source for the higher figure?
.
My Google search of your "one to two million times a year...citizens...stop violent crime with privately owned weapons." argument found that the statistical validity of Gary Kleck's study was very weak - not the sort of thing that one would want to base public policy on and certainly not what I would label "fact". Conjecture, perhaps. (An article published in the Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology (Northwestern)87 (1997): 1430 revealed that using similar statistical methods, it could be concluded that one million Americans have had contact with aliens.)
.
Switzerland is an interesting case. I would be in favor of implementing the Swiss system here. Reasonable access to guns, reasonable regulation of guns. Something about a "well regulated militia" comes to mind.
.
What I find interesting is that in the middle of the GOP's attack on unions across the country, Chuck chooses this moment to say "Look out!!! GATHERING STORM!!! Obama wants to have "active listening" meetings in the wake of the Tuscon shootings! Can the Jack-booted, gun-grabbing government liberal hordes be far behind? To the ramparts"! OK, I exaggerate, but not much. Is he perhaps trying to distract attention from real destruction of the middle class by the GOP? "Dude, forget about your vanishing jobs and benefits, there are gun grabbers just over the horizon". Crushing the last strong unions so the corporations have an uninterrupted voice is a great threat to our nation. Tossing an "active listening meeting" bone to the liberal base of the Democratic Party is not. We all know what the chances of any significant changes in the gun control laws are: zero. It is time to stand up for America and gun control ain't the issue.
Comment: #7
Posted by: Mark
Tue Mar 29, 2011 10:35 PM
Re: James Now we are two. Apologies to Yul Brynner.
Comment: #8
Posted by: David Henricks
Tue Mar 29, 2011 11:01 PM
Re: Mark Then move to Switzerland if you think it's so great.
Comment: #9
Posted by: David Henricks
Tue Mar 29, 2011 11:04 PM
Mark, I guess you have read Lethal Laws, so I won't go down that route. I wonder how reassured the families of those killed in the incidents I mentioned plus those of the Hungerford and Dunblane shootings would be by your set of stat's? One thing for sure, any robber, rapist, terrorist etc. who breaks into a suburban home over here will be reassured by the knowledge that whatever else happens, he will not be confronted by a homeowner with a firearm. (Farmers with shotguns are an exception.) Another stat: Well over 90% of firearms offences over here are committed using illegally possessed firearms i.e. "If guns are outlawed, only the outlaws will have the guns." Still, I guess for one committed to disarming the populace, none of the above will be deemed significant, so I really have nothing more to say.
Comment: #10
Posted by: Alan O'Reilly
Sat Apr 2, 2011 3:13 PM
Whats crazy is that people for taking guns away don't realize that people are still going to smuggle guns and go on shooting rampages with or without the right to have arms. Think about when alchohol was illegal. There were mobsters and many rampages even the valentines day massacre. So without the right to bare arms the bad guys will still smuggle guns but the difference is we want have guns for protections against them because we follow the law and they will not. So if the government takes guns away they would only be making it worse.
Comment: #11
Posted by: Josh Copeland
Wed Aug 24, 2011 7:28 AM
Already have an account? Log in.
New Account  
Your Name:
Your E-mail:
Your Password:
Confirm Your Password:

Please allow a few minutes for your comment to be posted.

Enter the numbers to the right:  
Creators.com comments policy
More
Chuck Norris
May. `12
Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa
29 30 1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 10 11 12
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
20 21 22 23 24 25 26
27 28 29 30 31 1 2
About the author About the author
Write the author Write the author
Printer friendly format Printer friendly format
Email to friend Email to friend
View by Month
Roland Martin
Roland S. MartinUpdated 20 Jun 2012
Marc Dion
Marc DionUpdated 28 May 2012
Steve Chapman
Steve ChapmanUpdated 27 May 2012

18 Mar 2008 A Patriot's Prayer

30 Sep 2008 Clandestine Conservatives in Hollywood

28 Apr 2009 The Decline and Fall of Private Education