Chicago Tribune All But Accuses NRA of Stabbing Obama in the Back

This is beyond the pale:

When he ran in 2008, Barack Obama sang from the National Rifle Association hymnal: “I believe in the Second Amendment. I believe in people’s lawful right to bear arms. I will not take your shotgun away. I will not take your rifle away. I won’t take your handgun away.”

It’s not surprising to see an interest group oppose a politician who breaks a promise. But the NRA is punishing one who kept his. This week, the group endorsed Mitt Romney.

So Obama never threatened to re-impose the ban on semi-automatic rifles disingenuously known as the “assault weapons ban?” He didn’t jeopardize the most important project we face right now, to define the scope of the Second Amendment in the courts, by appointing one justice who already voted to redact the Second Amendment from the Constitution, and another who likely will follow along as well? And the Obama Administration has certainly not worked with the UN to lay the groundwork for UN control over international trade in small arms? The Tribune acts like we’re insane to think anything other than confiscation matters.

OK, so Obama promised not to start a bloody civil war over by promising not to unlawfully confiscate private arms. That was never even on the table as a possibility, and it’s not a promise that was remotely hard for the President to keep. This is a straw man. It’s not the issue. The issue is that, objectively, Obama has put the Second Amendment in grave jeopardy though his court appointments, and is still on record as supporting banning the sale of a broad category of popular and common firearms. The case could be made that perhaps Romney didn’t deserve an endorsement either (given the Court risks, it’s not one I’d make this election cycle, but the case can be made), but that’s not what the Tribune has argued here. Sometimes I wonder if the media are just so many fools, or whether they think we’re fools.

9 thoughts on “Chicago Tribune All But Accuses NRA of Stabbing Obama in the Back”

  1. “Sometimes I wonder if the media are just so many fools, or whether they think we’re fools.”

    Me too. I’m sure that some of them are so firmly committed to a thin and shallow philosophical framework as to be, predictably, functionally stupid relative regarding various topics.

    I’ve never bought that this explains all of it though. No, I think a lot of them, overtly or subconsciously, just believe we’re all dumber than rocks. That’s probably in line with human nature; Lord know it’s what I tend to think of them!

    1. Crap. …functionally stupid regarding… not … relative regarding…

      Gah! …Lord know’s… Sheesh.

      Weren’t that ironic?

  2. I didn’t know Obama was seeking an NRA endorsement. I must have missed his speech at the convention.

  3. Media echo chamber…echo…echo…echo.

    Yup, we have confirmed that all Americans want gun control.

  4. At the same time, how can the NRA endorse Mitt? This guy signed the AWB for Mass, didn’t even make em go back for a 2/3rds vote! Seriously?

    1. I’ll reproduce here what I wrote at Uncle’s earlier:

      The bill was not about making the ban permanent. Massachusetts’ ban never had any expiration. What it was about is bringing in the list of exempted guns from the federal ban, which was about to expire, into Massachusetts law so that that exceptions were preserved. The bill also eased a few other things. It was supported by GOAL.

      And then the signing statement happened, apparently because he was mis-advised by one of his handlers about the bill and about the signing statement, and so you got the now infamous signing statement about:

      “Deadly assault weapons have no place in Massachusetts. These guns are not made for recreation or self-defense. They are instruments of destruction with the sole purpose of hunting down and killing people.”

      And the media, who never bothered to read the bill either, ran with it. GOAL was thrown under the bus because their members read the media’s account, which was entirely inaccurate, and assumed they were supporting an anti-gun bill.

      So there’s plenty of reason to be unhappy that Romney didn’t care enough about the gun issue to try to understand it in the early days of his governorship, which lead to the signing statement. But the bill was not a bill to make the MA ban permanent — it was already permanent. The bill added nothing to the ban, and preserved the guns that were exempted from it by name (like the Mini-14, for example).

      Mitt most definitely blows with the wind, and I don’t blame anyone for not liking him on guns. But I think it’s important we not spread the media fallacies about the bill he signed. His signing statement alone is plenty of grounds for being wary.

      1. Which brings me back to the main point. When the candidate sucks on gun rights, the NRA should keep their trap shut, OR pick a true gun friendly candidate.

        Living in Montana, I have the luxury of voting Libertarian this year. At least I don’t have to give my vote to either of the big spending, anti-gun liberals this year.

        1. If the only thing Mitt does is replace Ginsburg with a pro-2A justice, that will be enough for me. I don’t think Mitt is going to govern as President like he was Governor of Massachusetts.

  5. Sebastian … this is not the “Chicago Tribune” making an argument. It’s one of their writers, Steve Chapman. And for the record, Steve Chapman has a long history of defending gun rights (quite often in direct opposition to the editorial position of the Chicago Tribune).

    But I will agree that Chapman is WAY off the mark here, as if he’s wearing blinders in regard to Obama’s history. And if anyone understands Obama’s history of gun control, it is surely Steve Chapman.

Comments are closed.