Saturday, June 20, 2009

Murders mean it's time to set the record straight: There's no evidence Obama wants to ban guns

We think it's time for rural newspapers and broadcast stations to disabuse their readers, listeners and viewers of the notion that President Barack Obama plans to take their guns away. There is absolutely no evidence of that, despite commercials you may hear from gun shows or the assertions you hear and read from Second Amendment advocates on talk radio and Web sites. Generally, Democrats have learned that gun control is politically problematic. "Gun control advocates are, frankly, disappointed in the president’s unwillingness to move ahead on even the mildest of gun control measures," which he endorsed in his campaign, Bob Herbert writes in The New York Times.

It's time to set the record straight because the mistaken belief appears to be driving some to commit murder. The man who killed a guard at the Holocaust museum left a note in his car saying “You want my weapons — this is how you’ll get them,” Herbert notes. He reports that the man who "used a high-powered rifle to kill three Pittsburgh police officers in April, reportedly believed that Zionists were running the world and that, yes, Obama was planning to crack down on gun ownership." A friend of the shooter said he “feared the Obama gun ban that’s on the way.”

Hebert writes, "Even with the murders that have already occurred, Americans are not paying enough attention to the frightening connection between the right-wing hate-mongers who continue to slither among us and the gun crazies who believe a well-aimed bullet is the ticket to all their dreams."

Hebert's column is normally available only to newspapers that buy it, but we bet the Times would grant permission for a one-time publication. If you don't want to do that, or Herbert or the Times are too liberal for your taste, plenty of online material is available to help you write a story or commmentary from whatever point of view you have. Two of the best sources are FactCheck.org and PolitiFact.com, which have been debunking these tales since the National Rifle Association started distorting Obama's record and platform when he was running for president.

Obama said during his campaign that he would reinstate the assault weapons ban, "go back after kitchen-table dealers, and work to end the gun-show and Internet sales loopholes. In the first year, I intend to work with Congress on a national no-carry law, one-gun-a-month purchase limits, and bans on all semi-automatic guns." To some people, that's heavy gun control. But it's not taking away people's guns. Let's give them the facts.

2 comments:

Chris said...

Thanks for that post -- the second amendment is here to stay, like it or not. This notion that the "gun police" are coming to town to round up all firearms is ridiculous. I have no problem with anyone who owns a rifle or a handgun (why anyone would need a semi-automatic machine gun is beyond me, but hey, this is America)... I personally chose not to own a gun. But you're right on; the fear speak about the banning of guns is being used to ignite a fire where there is no need for one...

Anonymous said...

And I guess the fear was unfounded the first time that firearms with evil looking features were banned too. No, in 1994 they were banned for 10 years. They were banned because they looked scary.

A semi-automatic is by definition NOT a machine gun. The banned guns were mechanically no different from any semi automatic hunting rifle.

Look at states like California, they usually lead the way. That is a direction a lot of us do not want to go in.

I bet the parents killed by the 7 guys in Florida a couple weeks ago would have loved a nice semi-automatic "assault weapon" the day they were killed.


The 2nd amendment has already went largely away. If the federal government had put as many restrictions and regulations on the first amendment as they have the 2nd, there would be a lot of mad liberals around.