PhillyTrib.com

Switch to desktop

Gun lobby fires up Obama fear

Rate this item
(0 votes)

As with other mass shootings, the killings at a movie theater in Aurora, Colo., triggered a familiar chain of reactions: horror, remorse, rage and a call for new restrictions on guns.

And in the recent past, at least, that call for action has been followed by little or no legislative action at all.

For example, after the January 2011 shooting of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords in Tucson, Ariz., that left six people dead and 13 others injured, President Barack Obama delivered a moving nationally televised address but a call for new gun laws was conspicuous in its absence.

Instead, in an Arizona Daily Star op-ed he repeated his support for the Second Amendment and called for stricter enforcement of gun laws that are already on the books. That stance perfectly matches the position of the National Rifle Association, the nation’s leading gun owners’ advocacy group. But if NRA leaders were pleased, they are not about to show it.

Quite the opposite, there are too many votes to be won, money to be raised and new members to be enlisted by tagging Obama as “anti-gun” for the NRA or other gun lobbyists to be deterred by mere facts.

Remember the dramatic surge in gun and ammunition sales that immediately followed Obama’s election? They’re surging again, according to the National Shooting Sports Foundation, a firearms industry trade group, as owners fear the weapons won’t be available if Obama is re-elected.

“He’s his own stimulus plan for the gun industry,” said Arkansas Democratic Sen. Mark Pryor, according to Politico.

Fear of what Obama might do is being fed by NRA leaders like Wayne LaPierre, who warned in February that Obama’s plan is to “get re-elected and, with no more elections to worry about, get busy dismantling and destroying our firearms freedom.”

The organization’s 2008 website, gunbanobama.com, is up and running with its headline, “Obama Would Be The Most Anti-Gun President in History” and a link touting, “If Obama Is Pro-Gun, Why Are Leading Anti-Gun and Anti-Hunting Groups Endorsing Him?”

One might just as easily ask, if Obama is so anti-gun, why did one of those endorsers, the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, give Obama an “F” for his gun record the following year? The Brady Campaign and other gun control advocates continue to express frustration over actions and inaction by Obama that should bring the NRA delight.

Obama has signed a law that permits Amtrak passengers to carry guns in their checked baggage and another that allows visitors to national parks and wildlife refuges to possess concealed guns. He has not pushed for actions he supported in his 2008 campaign, including closing the so-called “gun show loophole” that allows unlicensed private firearm sellers to sell weapons at gun shows without conducting the background checks and reporting required of registered gun dealers.

Yet the NRA, which went after Obama with a $40 million advertising and direct-mail campaign last time around, has set aside at least that much for this go-round, Politico reports. Their biggest hot-button issue is Fast and Furious, the Republican-promoted controversy in which Obama invoked executive privilege to block the disclosure of some Justice Department documents to a House committee involving a botched gun-running investigation. If the operation was really part of an Obama plot to ban guns, as some of his critics charge, it would be a far-fetched way to do it.

In this way, the NRA, which likes to call itself the nation’s oldest “oldest continuously operating civil rights organization,” exhibits one of the worst attributes that critics often attribute to conventional civil rights organizations: manufactured outrage. If they don’t have a real enemy of gun rights in the White House, they hammer the administration with inflated accusations and unfounded predictions anyway.

But activist gun owners tend to come from the same demographic that gives the least support to Obama: older white men from rural or outer suburban communities. Even unfounded accusations carry convincing weight with people who already are inclined to believe them.

 

Email Clarence Page at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. .

2 comments

  • Theodore Haskins

    Thank you so much Clarence Page for that insightful analysis of this fear mongering issue on guns. I asked the question, “Why is it that nobody wants to talk about the fear mongering among white males of a tyrannical government taking away their guns? The only people that buy these guns are people who are afraid to live a life free of violence. I've observed that it is white males who profit from these guns sales and it is white males who profess and spread the lie of the threat of a tyrannical government somehow taking away our rights to keep and bear arms is the reason we should allow these assault weapons to be purchased like we buy popcorn in a theatre. The NRA would lose its status if it were not for these profiteers selling the propaganda of hate and fear, that's the source of their power. The NRA continues to spread the lie that President Obama has a secret plan to take away their guns in his second term which is of course a lie. This lie is what they spread in campaigns against those who would profess to limit through gun laws the sale and use of these very dangerous, destructive weapons in our society. Throughout our history it's been the source of wealth building used by white males to control and perpetrate their influence in our culture that has led to this disastrous situation that we're facing today. But nobody wants to talk about that, dare we suggest that the NRA isn't as pure as apple pie and mother's milk because to do that would mean that we’re against the second amendment and that would be Un-American.

    Theodore Haskins Friday, 03 August 2012 09:37 Comment Link
  • deedee mao

    There are outright lies, and then there are lies of ommission. The recent UN gun treaty was personally pushed through by Obama. It's wasn't as though it was the UN's idea this time around and Obama was just an innocent by-stander.

    LAST time, though, it was the UN's idea but when if came to a vote in 2006, Bush refused to sign it. But in October 2009, the Obama administration reversed the Bush administration's position and supported an assembly resolution to hold four preparatory meetings and a four-week U.N. conference in 2012 to draft an arms trade treaty.

    And so the fact is that the renewal of this UN Gun ban was entirely the result of Obama's efforts. However, with the election so close, the Adminstration kept a very low profile. But in october of 2O11, Obama's secretary of state Hillary Clinton announced that she would sign it, and she would have if it were not narrowly blocked by a voice vote in the Senate.

    deedee mao Wednesday, 01 August 2012 16:40 Comment Link

Leave a comment

Make sure you enter the (*) required information where indicated.Basic HTML code is allowed.

PhillyTrib.com - The Philadelphia Tribune © All rights reserved. 520 S. 16th Street | Philadelphia, PA 19146 | 215.893.4050 | info@phillytrib.com

Top Desktop version

penguinMail Are you sure that you want to switch to desktop version?