When an Oregon paper editorializes that Obama’s pro-gun moves have been sensible, it really has to chap hides over at the Brady Campaign. That’s partially because the paper otherwise supports the anti-gun agenda and is willing to give a pass on some issues, but also because even when they take our side, the facts are wrong. It’s rather funny, actually.
The anti-Second Amendment group last week criticized Obama for â€œcontinuing concessions to the â€˜guns anywhereâ€™ mentality of the gun lobby.â€
The restriction in national parks was unenforceable, and lifting it has caused no harm as far as has been reported.
Likewise, the Amtrak ban on transporting guns in checked baggage was nonsensical on its face, considering that the only people it affected were legitimate hunters and competitive shooters traveling to marksmanship matches. It forced these people to transport their equipment on the highways instead of taking the train. Criminals, on the other hand, if any were taking Amtrak trains, could carry their handguns concealed as they got on the train.
By signing acts of Congress that got rid of these restrictions, Obama did the sensible thing.
So now they’ve been called out on their Chicken Little response to everything we support by a sympathetic group, and that can’t be fun. But the knife has got to hurt a little more since the support for the national park carry is justified by the fact that it hasn’t caused any notable problems. While I doubt it ever will cause problems when it actually takes effect, I’m sure that Peter Hamm is writing a swift response to claim the end of civilization in and around national parks won’t happen until next month. Just wait, that sky will fall soon!
Maybe now the Brady staffers will get a very small dose of what it’s like when the media grandstands on the issue without actually knowing what the hell they are talking about. We’ve been dealing with the problem for years.
4 thoughts on “Missing Important Facts, Even When They Take Our Side”
“The anti-Second Amendment group”
Instead of “gun safety advocates”? We’re winning.
I’m too busy laughing about how scared you guys are of Obama to write a swift response to the Oregon paper. But thanks for thinking of me.
You never know, Peter. Obama may only be laying off guns because he needs moderate Dems to pass the important parts of his agenda. If his whole agenda ends up in shambles after the midterms, maybe you’ll get that bully pulpit back. At least that’s what I would keep telling myself if I were in your shoes.
He’s no Bill Clinton, that’s for sure. On this issue that’s good (for us). But I don’t see Obama, after the midterms are over, saying “Well, OK… so I guess it’s balanced budgets and blow jobs from here on out.” and continuing to spend political capital waging culture wars.
Maybe Hillary will primary him in 2012 if he gets unpopular enough, kind of like RFK did with Johnson. That could be the kind of change you can believe in, right? Until then, Montezuma… I’m telling you. It works!
Why do I have a hard time believing there’s a whole lot of laughter going on over at the Brady Bunch right now?
Nice try, Petey.
Comments are closed.