prev
next
Obama vs. the NRA
President Obama gives a news conference on gun control alongside Vice President Joe Biden at the White House, Dec. 19, 2012. / Getty
This post originally appeared on Slate.
There are two ways to kill a policy idea in Washington: Broaden it to include every interested person with an opinion, or appoint a commission. If you broaden it, it quickly becomes a cacophonous mess, and everyone throws up his or her hands. Commissions, almost by design, are where action goes for a nap. So when President Obama unveiled his preliminary response to the Newtown, Conn., massacre in his news conference on Wednesday -- a commission headed by Vice President Joe Biden to drum up some wide-ranging recommendations -- you might have had reason to worry that Obama wasn't serious about committing himself to gun control.
Obama ready to take on gun control
But not so fast. Obama might have sensed your pessimism, and he is very aware of the dreary history of Washington commissions. Indeed, he spoke directly to that point. "This is not some Washington commission," he said. "This is not something where folks are going to be studying the issue for six months and publishing a report that gets read and then pushed aside." Instead, he called for quick action and then more action, backed up by the power of his office.
Still, who wouldn't be doubtful? After all, Obama has done that before. Why won't he wimp out or drift away in frustration as he did with his promise to close Guantanamo Bay or push for comprehensive immigration reform? Of course, he might. But in the five days between the shooting and Wednesday's news conference, the president has raised the moral bar for himself. If he waffles now, he will forever stain his second term with an embarrassing show of public weakness and defeat.
- Obama sets up gun violence task force
- Complete coverage: Elementary school rampage
- Gun sales spike as NRA breaks silence
If a presidency has one tool that has not corroded, it is the power to set the agenda. To keep gun control from slipping away into the commission fog, Obama put forward a set of clear benchmarks. Usually he might say he doesn't want to "pre-judge" a group's work. Today he said he expected Congress to vote on at least three pieces of legislation: the assault-weapons ban, a ban on high-capacity ammunition clips, and background checks on all gun purchases. Public opinion supports all of these measures, and the president made clear he intends to use his office to fight for their passage.
The National Rifle Association opposes all three of the measures. In the ongoing "fiscal cliff" negotiations, the president has leverage over Republicans, but he's still finding it difficult to wield. The NRA is a much more effective organization than the GOP. We're about to learn whether the Newtown massacre (along with all the others before it) has changed the dynamic for the NRA. Obama is squaring off against them in a policy struggle that traces back to the core of his presidential mission. He ran for office in 2008 promising to defeat the entrenched interests that had learned to work the system at the expense of the greater good. Now he has put himself to this task again, staring down what is perhaps the most entrenched interest.
The president also promised to address the cluster of issues raised by the shooting in his State of the Union address next month. The speech is usually a laundry list of items, but it's hard to imagine that a brief mention will suffice now that he's talked about this issue in such strong moral terms. In retrospect, he also no doubt feels the sting of not mentioning gun control in his 2011 State of the Union just weeks after the attempted assassination of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords.
Obama promises action on gun control "no later than January"
The president is also putting at stake his own theory of governing. It has always irritated him that the public and the press demand immediate action on complicated issues. It makes bad policy, and it forces him to act in phony ways, mostly by putting posturing ahead of things he thinks are more important. That was the thinking behind his initial response on the day of the shooting: Focus on the families, and talk about action later. Now he is fulfilling that promise to act, and again he is doing it at a pace he thinks wisest. The approach may not work, but if Obama were to ultimately do nothing or only offer half-hearted measures, he would prove that the Washington skeptics are right. "The idea that we would say: 'This is terrible. This is a tragedy. Never again,' and we don't have the sustained attention span to be able to get this done over the next several months doesn't make sense," said Obama on Wednesday. "I have more confidence in the American people than that."
He has put a lot of moral weight on this project. Friday, after the massacre, Obama rightly put the human woe at the forefront of his remarks. Now, with today's remarks, he has twice used the emotional human toll in the service of future action. He's saying he'll act in the name of the Newtown victims and families, calling on politicians to show the courage of Sandy Hook's principal and teachers. To call on those ghosts and then shrink from the fight would dishonor those memories he has purposefully conjured.
Washington is stuck in the mirthless fiscal-cliff grind because lawmakers assigned themselves tough penalties to spur them to action. The thinking was that by making the spending cuts and tax increases so onerous lawmakers would be forced to find a solution. It hasn't really worked because individual politicians can find ways to wriggle out of the political consequences. In his news conference, President Obama set himself up for a similar long-term penalty: "I will use all the powers of this office to help advance efforts aimed at preventing more tragedies like this." That's a bold promise, and it can be checked. Will he use executive orders, public cajoling, new legislation, and his vast campaign organization to advance the cause of gun control and level the playing field against the NRA? Obama has tools. If he doesn't use them, he told everyone today that there is only one person to blame.
Popular in Politics
- Officials on Benghazi: "We made mistakes, but without malice"
- Top IRS official to invoke 5th Amendment at congressional testimony 126 Comments
- Major immigration overhaul passes first big test
- U.S. IDs several men possibly responsible for Benghazi attack
- Va. GOP candidate: Planned Parenthood "more lethal" for blacks than KKK 1200 Comments
- Obama: "Full focus" is on recovery from Oklahoma tornado 86 Comments
- Poll: Most think IRS targeting was deliberate 172 Comments
- Anthony Weiner comeback try begins: Running for NYC mayor
Most Popular
-
01
-
02
-
03
-
04
-
05
Most Shared
Most Discussed
BOB I'm not an expert on assault rifles and I don't claim to be! I don't know exactly how many bullets they can fire or how fast. My point is there is absolutely NO reason that ANYONE outside of the military or law enforcement should own a assault rifle! I repeat, the only thing they are good for is killing people!
--------------------------------------------------------
You Just stated, you have now idea what an assault rifle is or what it does, but it should be banned. You are the epitome of the average American, reactionary and ignorant.
Even though it was small, it was still capable of firing a bullet and killing. It was all the protection I needed. I don't understand why anyone would need a assault rifle for protection. A smaller and less powerful gun will get the job done.
Assault rifles aren't good for hunting either. There is no reason why anyone would need to take a gun that sprays 100 bullets per second hunting. That would be poor sportsmanship! My father was a hunter and a good one. All he ever owned was a 12 gauge double barreled shotgun and 22 caliber semi-automatic rifle. That was all he ever needed.
It's just nonsense for an individual to own an assault rifle! The only thing they are good for is killing people!
Guns that hold no more than nine or ten bullets in the clip should be enough for most people.
However, I differ with the NRA on one point. I've never thought that individuals should be able to own assault rifles. There is simply no reason for an individual to own an assault rifle. They should be sold only to the military and law enforcement agencies and that's all.
I'm a staunch conservative Christian Republican and I don't usually agree with the president about anything. However, I DO agree with him about strengthening the gun laws and about stopping the sales of assault rifles.
In this day of computers there is no reason why ANY legitimate gun seller, including individuals and sheriff's auctions, can't run a background check on anyone who wants to buy a gun from them! If they have the right software or programs downloaded in their computers it shouldn't take them more than a few minutes to run a background check and if they don't have the right software or programs downloaded that they would need then they shouldn't be selling guns!
DJ.... Dictators are the dudes who fractured several constitutional amendments and gave us the PATRIOT act.
--------------------------------------
In that regard there really is no difference in Bush and Obama. Although Obama is supposed to be a constitutional lawyer so his reign of tyranny is inexcusable.
I guess if your going to kill babys with a knife or gun you need to be a doctor for the democrats to be good with it. Oh yes, your employers insurance must pay the bills also.
Just this past year there was legislation in some state legislatures that, if passed, would have allowed students to carry concealed weapons on their college campuses. I'm not sure if any of it passed.
But this whole thing is just another example of Wall Street corporations having more rights than We the People. An example of how Wall Street essentially runs America for profit above the people's needs. It's sad and tragic.
We should hear and analyze the positions taken by these groups and those who oppose them, research their respective proposals and then legislate (or not) based upon the objective results of the research.
Before any action is taken we should:
-- Prepare an accurate description of the problem to be solved. How many incidents like Sandy Hook occur? While tragic, are they statistically significant? Who perpetrates these acts? Who is likely to fall victim to them?
-- Would gun control of some kind be effective? How do we measure effectiveness?
-- Would greater freedom to carry concealed weapons or placement of more armed security help, or might it create more serious dangers?
-- Do the legislative proposals pass constitutional muster? Would an amendment be better than the status quo?
My $0.02.
IN AN EFFORT TO DO THE RIGHT THING IS NOT A WEAKNESS..IT IS A STRENGTH AND A ATTRIBUTE OF "A STRONG LEADER" IT TAKES GREAT STRENGTH TO COMPROMISE FOR THE GOOD OF THE COUNTRY, NOT THYSELF...
"AMERI-CAN-DO"
WE CAN AND WE MUST DO..
Combine a few letters from the words REPUBLICAN DEMOCRAT and they Could Spell..AMERI-CAN-DO & ABSOLUTELY ABSOLUTELY ABSOLUTELY SHOULD..SPELL..AMERI-CAN-DO ! ! !
"WHERE COMPROMISING WITH AMERICA'S LEADER OUR PRESIDENT THAT "WE THE PEOPLE" PUT IN OFFICE SHOULD ALWAYS COME FIRST..BECAUSE WE THE PEOPLE..THE MAJORITY OF AMERICA PUT HIM IN OFFICE TO LEAD OUR COUNTRY ! ! !
WE THE PEOPLE DID NOT PUT PARTIES IN OFFICE WE PUT "MR. BARACK OBAMA IN OFFICE AS OUR LEADER ! !
As PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA..NOT DIVIDED STATES OF AMERICA ! !
.. SO LET HIM LEAD..NO ONE HAS TO AGREE WITH HIM BUT IF YOU ARE WORKING FOR HIM YOU SHOULD ALWAYS DO YOUR BEST TO WORK WITH HIM "AT ALL TIMES
NEITHER OF THESE WORDS (REPUBLICAN,DEMOCRAT) SPELLED SEPARATELY CAN SPELL.. "AMERI-CAN-DO" It Takes Both To Spell AMERI-CAN-DO and it will take BOTH PARTIES TO BUILD A BETTER FUTURE FOR ALL OF AMERICA'S CHILDREN & THEIR CHILDREN.
"UNITED WE STAND" and "TEAM WORK WORKS"
(these statements aren't just words they are facts)
STAND BY OUR PRESIDENT/EVERYONE'S PRESIDENT YOUR PRESIDENT AND WORK WITH HIM ! !
Mr. Obama Is NOT just the Democrats President he is "THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES" ALL PARTIES SHOULD FOLLOW HIS LEAD.. MR. OBAMA.. IS AMERICA'S LEADER YOUR LEADER/OUR LEADER, HE WAS ELECTED BY AMERICA TO LEAD OUR NATION. "SO LET HIM LEAD" "STAND BY HIM"
"THIS IS WHY "WE THE PEOPLE PUT HIM IN OFFICE" SO FOCUS ON THE BALL ONLY, COMPROMISE WITH THE PRESIDENT AT ALL TIMES & WORK WITH HIM..THIS IS YOUR JOB..YOUR JOB IS NOT TO WORRY ABOUT WHAT YOUR PARTY THINKS ABOUT YOU ! !
" AND IT CERTAINLY IS NOT PRODUCTIVE TO ANY PARTY OR AMERICA TO HURT AMERICA BY NOT WORKING WITH AMERICA'S LEADER THAT "WE THE PEOPLE VOTED FOR TO LEAD OUR COUNTRY"