Diary

The NRA has this one wrong as does Paul Ryan but for different reasons

First Ryan:

Politico wrote today, January 5, 2016, that “the GOP’s best chance to overturn (Obama’s gun control executive orders) is to elect a Republican president in 2016.” They were quoting House Speaker Paul Ryan.

Yep, that’s Paul Ryan speaking. Seems to be the Republican mantra: Surrender first, then call for a fight later.

Ryan and others argue that passing legislation to nullify parts of Obama’s EO would be senseless since Obama would veto whatever the Republicans sent him anyway. Hence, Ryan’s urgent appeal to elect a new Republican president and then things will be fixed, good and proper.

Message to Paul Ryan, this was former speaker John Boehner’s reason d’être too for doing nothing. Actually, I suspect most Republicans can see right through your purposeful evasion. Just as you did with the budget. Just as you did with immigration legislation. Just as you did by agreeing to raise the national debt level. Just as you did funding Obamacare. Just as you did agreeing to slash military spending. Just as you did when you funded the slaughter house known as Planned Parenthood. Just as you did when you cut the NSA’s meta data collection program — and on and on.

Note to Republican RINO’s: your days as members of congress are numbered.

The very reason why Republicans should be fighting to force a presidential veto on his gun control measures is because — and this may be new to some of them — forcing an override among Democrats in the Senate would smoke out Democrats precisely so that constituents would be able to see exactly where they stand on issues. As it stands right now, the Republican House and Senate leadership are actually covering up for their Democratic “colleagues” in both houses. A POX on both your houses! It’s time for a thorough house cleaning.

So, while I agree in part with what Obama is proposing, not with the “how” to get it done, I repudiate the House and Senate leadership for not forcing the issue to smoke out the Democrats.

Oh, and one last not to the leadership in both the House and Senate: by not smoking out where the Democrats stand, as they remain silent on this issue, you are exposing your own troops to hostile fire. Now that’s leadership.

Second: the NRA

Now, as for the NRA and that part of the president’s proposal to mandate background checks on prospective buyers at gun shows. I wrote about this in a previous Diary titled: “One gun owner who thinks Obama may have it right, this time.” This is one issue on which I suspect the vast majority of Americans would agree with the president. Why not?

It’s stance on this issue is one reason why the NRA risks losing a lot of good will among the large number of Americans who are not gun owners, but who believe a simple check before one buys a gun is a good way to ensure that those who buy guns are both American citizens and not felons.

As a public relations gaff, this one is at the top of the NRA’s list, and I am sorry to say it is my NRA that is in deep do-do with the public over this one. As I noted in my previous column I am a forty-five year concealed carry permit holder who strongly believes in the Second Amendment. No one, however, not even Mark Levin, whom I listen to regularly and whose views I share almost completely, except for his view on this issue, could convince me why this proposal is a threat to my Second Amendment rights.

Mark was brilliant, as usual, when he pointed out the hypocrisy of Obama over this issue, given that Obama has been freeing known traffickers in drugs and those jailed for gun related crimes. He mentioned two such criminals in his most recent radio program as well as mentioning that congress passed and the president just signed a new gun act reducing prison time for a whole variety of felons. This is what the NRA should be criticizing, not a reasoned background check requirement.

It’ s not just that the NRA is on the losing end of this issue, as far as this issue is concerned — not the way Obama is going about it — but the organization risking the career of every elected official who endorses them and their views on this subject, as well as alienating the affections of millions of Americans who believe, like me, that while owning a gun is a constitutional right, the state has just enough interest in the issue to require that sellers run background checks on those who seek to purchase.

This is neither gun confiscation nor gun registration; it’s common sense. Two questions: (1) is the buyer an American citizen?; and (2) is the buyer a felon?