Obama Not to Push Gun Control

Expect to see a lot of article like this over the next few months as we get into the silly season:

Harry Wilson, author of a book on gun politics and director of the Institute for Policy and Opinion Research at Roanoke College in Virginia, summed up the landscape, telling Werner: “Gun control is a fight that the administration is not willing to pick. They’re not likely to win it. They certainly would not win it in Congress, and it’s not likely to be a winner at the polls. … It comes down to one pretty simple word: Politics.”

I agree that Obama is not likely to push gun control overtly, but the best thing he can do for our opponents is to keep putting people on the Supreme Court who will vote against the Second Amendment every time. I know there’s a lot of skepticism out there if Romney is the eventual nominee, but also keep in mind Romney is going to be beholden to very different interests than Obama is. When it comes to judicial nominations, he will be expected by the GOP to pick from the pool of conservative judges. Presidents don’t have as much leeway as you might think on these matters, which is why Harriet Meyers is not currently a Supreme Court justice. In the pool of folks any GOP President is going to have to choose from, there’s a much stronger likelihood of finding a justice who will back the Second Amendment than the almost non-existent likelihood that will be the case in the pool Obama has to choose from.

Remember, for higher court positions, Obama will have to choose pretty exclusively from Clinton appointed judges. His own choices for the lower courts are not likely to be much better, given the pressures he faces to put left-leaning urbanites on the Court. Any GOP candidate, even if it’s Romney, is going to be facing a vastly different political calculus when it comes to court nominations.

7 thoughts on “Obama Not to Push Gun Control”

  1. Well, except for that whole Fast and Furious thing….

    He won’t fight for it though. He’s too much of a political coward to take a stand on anything. Remember, he supports Cass Sunstein. He wants to “nudge” us toward more gun control by setting the battlefield.

    He’s a sad panda now that he’s getting heat for trying it that way with F&F.

    However, he won’t have anything to lose next time.

    1. However, he won’t have anything to lose next time.

      One of my arguments against programmed term limits. If he wins in 2012m he has 4 years of being POTUS with no electoral pressure.

  2. Actually … he or an adviser or some group inside the party (who can keep their mouths shut???) might be clever. Making up dependent on the government (and therefore the current primary party of the government) by disarming us just didn’t work and was a disaster for the party at the national level. And something that could have lost him the 2008 election as it did Gore in 2000.

    Making us dependent by taking over so much of the economy and most especially nationalizing health care, which Mark Steyn says is a one way transformetive step, would presumably make it easier to disarm us some time from now.

  3. Don’t bet on this. They are going to use every evil trick in the book to squirm out of this. For me? I want Holder in chains – arrested, charged, tried and put in prison for the rest of his life for crimes against the state. I want his boss in there, too – in stripes, pounding rocks or whatever the full sentence for
    treason is.

    Trouble is, no one is arresting him, Obama, or anyone else – not even the military who are happily taking orders.

Comments are closed.