How Obama Silenced Gun Control Groups


PDA






Bartholomew Roberts
March 8, 2013, 11:14 AM
http://www.politico.com/story/2013/03/how-white-house-quieted-gun-control-groups-88546.html

An interesting story from Politico. A few points I thought many members here would find interesting:

1. Apparently after our national conversation on guns led by Biden in which they at least pretended to be interested in the opinions of the NRA, NSSF, etc., the President has been having regular meetings with gun control groups and allowing them input on policy.

2. In return, the gun control groups have pledged to keep silent about the meetings and allow the President to control the message and campaigning behind recent attempts. The one group that would not play along (VPC) essentially got cut out of the process. This ban on going off message not only effects the groups but extends to individual Congress members as well (Carolyn McCarthy being an example).

3. Registration (background checks with all sales records retained) is the prime goal of the Administration and these groups. This may explain why Schumer recently filed a background check bill in the Senate that even NRA F-rated Mark Kirk would not sponsor.

If you enjoyed reading about "How Obama Silenced Gun Control Groups" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Yo Mama
March 8, 2013, 11:28 AM
Let them keep putting out the most extreme bills they can. They think 2 years is enough for this to be forgotten they are crazy. We know which races will be important.

Phatty
March 8, 2013, 12:30 PM
Let them keep putting out the most extreme bills they can. They think 2 years is enough for this to be forgotten they are crazy. We know which races will be important.
I guess their plan is to put out numerous extreme gun control bills so that the other side will be more likely to agree to their "less extreme" registration/background check bill. I think that's a bad strategy and will backfire.

They would have been much better off with a very focused push on the registration/background check front.

Old Fuff
March 8, 2013, 12:54 PM
It should be clear that if the expected political retaliation doesn't happen in the 2014 election (as it did in 1994) they would make a major push for additional legislation between 2014 and 2016 - and then onward if they were still in power.

Fortunately we have almost 2 years to get organized, and we'd had better do it.

mljdeckard
March 8, 2013, 01:01 PM
I read this too and I thought it was quite interesting. I had wondered why we we were hearing ONLY from the white house, and not directly from the Brady Bunch. It actually makes a lot of sense.

Carl N. Brown
March 8, 2013, 01:34 PM
http://www.politico.com/story/2013/03/how-white-house-quieted-gun-control-groups-88546.html
Reid J. Epstein, "How the White House silenced gun control groups ", Politico, Mar 2013.

Worth a few quotes:
.... So the White House offered a simple arrangement: the groups could have access and involvement, but they’d have to offer silence and support in exchange. The implied rules, according to conversations with many of those involved: No infighting. No second-guessing in the press. Support whatever the president and Vice President Joe Biden propose. And most of all, don’t make waves or get ahead of the White House. In exchange: a voice in the discussions, a role in whatever final agreement is made and weekly meetings at the White House with Biden’s chief of staff, Bruce Reed — provided they don’t discuss what happens there. .....

Anti-gun groups used to see Obama as a disappointment — he got an “F” for his first year from the Brady Campaign, and then after they gave him no grades at all. But advocates have reason to support Obama’s gun control proposals: they essentially helped write them. ....

The White House has also decided to ignore both NRA and VPC.

Good read on the source, Politico: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politico

cfullgraf
March 8, 2013, 03:28 PM
erased

JRH6856
March 8, 2013, 04:02 PM
I believe Obama's original plan for gun control was always to keep quiet for his first term and address gun control in the second term. For the second term, the plan was to hammer the Republicans on the budget and the fiscal cliff and use that to win control of the House and a filibuster proof Senate in 2014. By then, the probability is that there would be the opportunity to make one or more appointments to SCOTUS that could swing the court to the left (Scalia isn't getting any younger). Then, with the Senate control in hand to confirm the SCOTUS appointments, the 2A could be safely gutted by the type of legislation we are seeing now.

We are seeing it now because Sandy Hook created "the crisis that could not be wasted" and several Senators jumped the gun and the legislation was introduced early. Obama isn't really ready for that to be happening right now but it is and he is trying to make the best of it.

If he moves too far, too fast, he could lose it all in 2014. If he can keep the lid on until then, the original strategy can still work. If he gets nothing passed this time around, he may actually be in better shape for 2014 because there is a danger that many gun owners will think we have won and go back to complacency on 2A issues while the antis will have continued incentive to push forward with the original strategy.

This will not be over, ever. "Eternal vigilance is the price of freedom."

76shuvlinoff
March 8, 2013, 04:27 PM
Whatever, the anti gun groups.are doomed. They'll.slowly.die,one cut at a time. Believe it.
Americans are never gonna give up their guns and freedom. Never,Comprende? Capiche? Never.

Johnny Dollar
I imagine the gun control groups are saying the same, they will keep coming for our guns and will never quit. As our country's political power shifts more and more to the left this could easily become reality.

Jim K
March 8, 2013, 05:04 PM
Well, if I understand, the adminstration claims it has the right to kill any Americans, anywhere, any time, in any numbers, for any reason or no reason. All it takes is a presidential whim. Of course administration "spokespersons" say that won't happen. Of course not.

So, "never"?

Jim

JRH6856
March 8, 2013, 05:05 PM
Some won't give up their guns and freedom, ever.

But a great many already have given up both, and have joined those who never wanted either.

And the second group won't feel safe and won't stop as long as the first group exists.

Believe it. As Colion Noir said, "Ostriches with their head in the sand get their necks cut off."

joeschmoe
March 8, 2013, 05:08 PM
I don't like it. I prefer the anti's foaming at the mouth, ranting outrageous claims and threats of extreme measures.
Calm, limited, focused and unified is dangerous for us.

Although I agree we will never be "disarmed", there is lot of ways to make it difficult, expensive and harass us over time. Slow incremental chipping away is what I fear most. Not broad sweeping extreme changes. Those aren't as likely and would be easier to reverse if they did happen.

joeschmoe
March 8, 2013, 05:12 PM
Well, if I understand, the adminstration claims it has the right to kill any Americans, anywhere, any time, in any numbers, for any reason or no reason. All it takes is a presidential whim. Of course administration "spokespersons" say that won't happen. Of course not.

So, "never"?

Jim
Then you understand wrong. Maybe that's what you "heard" somewhere, that's not what they "said". If that is the basis of your position, then you're mistaken.

joeschmoe
March 8, 2013, 05:21 PM
Whatever . Some are gonna go down with me. Hopefully.a lotta some, believe that. :evil:

May the Schmoes be with me! :D
No need. Not going to happen. There are too many of us.
I have always said that simply because the people are armed limits tyranny and external threats. Without firing a shot. We have repeatedly dissuaded external invaders and internal tyrants simply because they know we are armed and they would fail if they tried.

It would be physically impossible to "disarm" America in just 2 years. No matter how draconian they get or how compliant we get. 300 million guns is big pile of steel. Just knocking on every door takes a lot of time and energy. Certainly the refusal of some to surrender and some refusing to enforce would slow that down to a crawl.

"Disarmed"? Not within this life time. Harassed into an ever shrinking minority so that maybe 50 years from now they can finally go for "it"? Maybe.

ETA; No, I would never surrender my arms. I don't care what laws they pass.

strugatsky
March 8, 2013, 05:28 PM
Americans have already given up most of the freedoms. We are not free economically, with most of what we produce and earn being taken away and "redistributed," we are not free socially, with thousands of laws telling us what we cannot do; we cannot even think freely as the thoughts may not be politically correct. Taking away the arms is just the last step in codifying the slavery. Perhaps even just a half step.

Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence ... The very atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference - they deserve a place of honor with all that is good" -- George Washington

Salmoneye
March 8, 2013, 05:55 PM
Bogus Washington 'quote':

http://message.snopes.com/showthread.php?t=33357

Dave Workman
March 8, 2013, 05:58 PM
It's easy to form an opinion when all you hear is one side of a debate.

I wrote about this in my Examiner.com column. These people....sheesh.


:banghead: :banghead: :banghead:

ccsniper
March 8, 2013, 06:14 PM
Is Obama's "tell us your story" site still up? The one that has people tell their stories of how family members have been killed by people with guns. I ask because I don't even know what it is called and would like to see if they are still censoring it.

Twmaster
March 8, 2013, 06:45 PM
Pretty good read. Thanks for the link.

Nickel Plated
March 8, 2013, 09:50 PM
Americans will never give up their rights? Really?

NY gave up their rights, Chicago gave up their rights. California, DC, and many more are lining up.
Despite the jokes we make here, those places are still part of America and they gave up their rights without a peep.
You may not give up your guns for your own sake. What about when the threat of prison or cold blooded execution by the police (as has happened several times when people said "Come and get them") threatens your family with not having a father or husband and no way to make their way in the world. And possibly imprisonment themselves. Will you give up your guns for their sake.
When thinking in terms of just yourself, it's an easy decision to make to be a patriot. However the government has no intentions to make any of your decisions easy.

abajaj11
March 8, 2013, 10:03 PM
I believe Obama's original plan for gun control was always to keep quiet for his first term and address gun control in the second term. For the second term, the plan was to hammer the Republicans on the budget and the fiscal cliff and use that to win control of the House and a filibuster proof Senate in 2014. By then, the probability is that there would be the opportunity to make one or more appointments to SCOTUS that could swing the court to the left (Scalia isn't getting any younger). Then, with the Senate control in hand to confirm the SCOTUS appointments, the 2A could be safely gutted by the type of legislation we are seeing now.

We are seeing it now because Sandy Hook created "the crisis that could not be wasted" and several Senators jumped the gun and the legislation was introduced early. Obama isn't really ready for that to be happening right now but it is and he is trying to make the best of it.

If he moves too far, too fast, he could lose it all in 2014. If he can keep the lid on until then, the original strategy can still work. If he gets nothing passed this time around, he may actually be in better shape for 2014 because there is a danger that many gun owners will think we have won and go back to complacency on 2A issues while the antis will have continued incentive to push forward with the original strategy.

This will not be over, ever. "Eternal vigilance is the price of freedom."
Amen to the price of freedom being eternal vigilance.
Last time (1994), the anti-2as got hammered when they tried to take our guns away. We need to punish the anti-2As in the 2014 elections. In state elections like NY and Colorado, and also at the national level.
To do this, all my political contributions are going to the NRA, the GOA and SAF.
Please Consider contributing the price of a 100 round box of 9mm to each of these organizations (around $40 each).
:)

GeneCC
March 9, 2013, 12:28 AM
I don't think that the President cares about gun control one way or the other.

I think he's trying to get the "Bubbas" riled up so he can slip something past us. Probably a tax increase or some other sort of "I want this" rule.

He might also be trying to "wedge" the GOP. Get the urban Elitists like Bloomberg angry at the "Rubes" who are represented by Senator Paul, Senator Cruz and the rest.

Might also be that he has no plan at all. There is a lot of amateur thinking at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. right now.

Hacker15E
March 9, 2013, 10:45 AM
It should be clear that if the expected political retaliation doesn't happen in the 2014 election (as it did in 1994) they would make a major push for additional legislation between 2014 and 2016 - and then onward if they were still in power.

This is the key.

The negative political fallout from the 1994 AWB (or the perception of negative fallout, at least) is what has kept the lid on gun control legislation for a decade or more.

If there isn't a similar reaction in 2014 -- or perception/fear of one -- then the push will be on for more and more and more until the next elections.

Hacker15E
March 9, 2013, 10:47 AM
Whatever, the anti gun groups.are doomed. They'll.slowly.die,one cut at a time. Believe it.

Unfortunately, if current demographic shift trends continue, the opposite will be true.

joeschmoe
March 9, 2013, 02:51 PM
Unfortunately, if current demographic shift trends continue, the opposite will be true.
What demographic shift? That the country is getting older? Or browner? Both should lead to more conservative trends in the future. Not less.
I also don't buy into all the doom and gloom claims/predictions. About the past, present or the future. The anti's are making some gains, but in the end they will lose.

JRH6856
March 9, 2013, 03:17 PM
And then, from the NYTimes, comes this tidbit:

For Some, Owning Guns Doesn’t Necessarily Mean Liking Them (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/10/us/gun-owners-arent-always-gun-lovers.html)

Xelera
March 9, 2013, 03:25 PM
I personally think now is the best time for Republicans to push the Senate on a gun control vote. Let the Senate vote on every gun control bill they can imagine...

Right now, they would be dead-on-arrival in the House anyways, so best time to try it because they won't pass the House.

AND THEN we then have the vote of every leftists progressive Senator on record of where they stand. Can't talk themselves out of a recorded vote come 2014 election cycle.

JRH6856
March 9, 2013, 03:55 PM
...now is the best time for Republicans to push the Senate on a gun control vote. Let the Senate vote on every gun control bill they can imagine...

Right now, they would be dead-on-arrival in the House anyways, so best time to try it because they won't pass the House.

The Dems know that and they control the Senate calendar. There will only be Senate votes when and if the Dems want them. Right now, Obama is making noises like he want to get Republicans on the record for 2014 so there may be a vote or several.

As for gun control being DOA in the House, I don't like to count unhatched chickens.

joeschmoe
March 9, 2013, 04:09 PM
I personally think now is the best time for Republicans to push the Senate on a gun control vote. Let the Senate vote on every gun control bill they can imagine...

Right now, they would be dead-on-arrival in the House anyways, so best time to try it because they won't pass the House.

AND THEN we then have the vote of every leftists progressive Senator on record of where they stand. Can't talk themselves out of a recorded vote come 2014 election cycle.

I disagree. Fight them every step of the way. Congressmen who don't want their vote on record can actually help us by working behind the scenes to prevent such a vote. Harry Reid for example. He's a Democratic leader, but has personally killed most anti bills in the last decade. I wouldn't want to test his loyalty to party versus his, so far, favorable stance on the 2nd. If you push him to a narrow tie breaking vote on the issue he could go either way. Let him, and others, help us from preventing a vote and not challenge his party loyalty. He's our friend now. There's no reason to make him choose sides, when he's already on our side.

In 2014 only vote for those who are openly pro-2nd amendment.

316SS
March 9, 2013, 05:05 PM
Fight them every step of the way. Congressmen who don't want their vote on record can actually help us by working behind the scenes to prevent such a vote. Harry Reid for example. He's a Democratic leader, but has personally killed most anti bills in the last decade. I wouldn't want to test his loyalty to party versus his, so far, favorable stance on the 2nd. If you push him to a narrow tie breaking vote on the issue he could go either way. Let him, and others, help us from preventing a vote and not challenge his party loyalty. He's our friend now. There's no reason to make him choose sides, when he's already on our side.


This makes sense. Remember that there was a heavy price paid for those that supported the '94 AWB, but there was also ... well, the '94 AWB. If they pass garbage now with no sunset, it will be very difficult to get rid of it.

Nickel Plated
March 9, 2013, 07:58 PM
Another hapless defeatist.. Go far,far away. As far as you can go. Very far.

It's not being defeatist. I did not give up my guns when the bills passed. I am pointing out how it often tends to go.
I am emphasizing that we must fight like our backs are against the wall. Assuming that Americans by and large will not give up their guns is expecting an awful lot of most of them. Which is why we must deal with it now, because things don't always turn out alright in the end.
Many here may stand and disobey, however the membership of this forum is hardly an accurate representation of the country's gun owning community as a whole.

joeschmoe
March 9, 2013, 08:25 PM
People who are not willing to fight for their rights do not deserve them. We have many peaceful means before it gets to your example of death or surrender. We have over 200 years of history of fighting for our rights, and winning.

Eternal Vigilance is the price of Liberty.

Bill4282
March 10, 2013, 12:26 AM
Let me understand - if I register my guns, they'll know where to go to get the guns. If I never register my guns, they"ll never know where or how many I have. If I register one gun and turn in that one gun, then I've complied as they see it while the rest are somewhere safe. Where do I sign up?

JRH6856
March 10, 2013, 03:33 AM
If I register one gun and turn in that one gun, then I've complied as they see it while the rest are somewhere safe.

Just know that under the scenario I think you are describing, wherever the rest are, safe or not, there they must stay because if you are ever caught with them and they aren't registered... :eek:

Hacker15E
March 10, 2013, 10:22 AM
Let me understand - if I register my guns, they'll know where to go to get the guns. If I never register my guns, they"ll never know where or how many I have. If I register one gun and turn in that one gun, then I've complied as they see it while the rest are somewhere safe. Where do I sign up?

Don't forget that under this scenario you have also made yourself a criminal.

That if you are ever burglarized, or if your house catches on fire, or if there is ever any other reason for government officials to enter your home and they discover your unregistered stash, you are now going to jail.

coloradokevin
March 10, 2013, 02:18 PM
The more I think about this issue, the more I think Magpul had it best in their approach. I'll paraphrase as best I can:

'The police need these items, but we'll require police and government agents to reaffirm their support for the 2nd Amendment and constitution before selling to them'. It's a ceremonial issue when worked like that, but it gets officers who buy their products thinking about the importance of the 2nd Amendment.


I am a police officer, and a strong supporter of 2nd Amendment rights, as you guys know. The legislators who are passing these laws are not speaking for us, and many of us in uniform spoke out against these laws. In fact, the only "officers" I saw speak in favor of these laws were members of the association of chiefs of police. Frankly, those guys are not cops, they're politicians with uniforms. They don't speak for the line officers on most subjects, even if they do have more authority over the department.

As police officers, our need for these items is not reduced anymore than the needs of all of the other citizens. We still need access to semi-automatic rifles, standard capacity magazines, and so on. In fact, while some folks don't want to acknowledge this reality, we generally need to use these tools in actual engagements more often than the average citizen.

I'd definitely never advocate for restricting the rights of any of the rest of you, and I'm not sure that trying to restrict my ability to carry what I need at work will make things any better for 2nd Amendment rights. I just don't think that the anti-gun politicians care if this stuff is also restricted for the police... they just simply hate guns, and want them gone.

If you enjoyed reading about "How Obama Silenced Gun Control Groups" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!