President Obama Bails on Gun Control – Larry Mendte

This is an archived article and the information in the article may be outdated. Please look at the time stamp on the story to see when it was last updated.

Gun Control advocates had such high hopes when President Obama made gun control the high point of his State of the Union Speech.

barack-obama-state-of-the-union

Since then the White House has kept a distance from gun control legislation because they don’t want to have anything to do with failure and the legislation is going to fail.  Even New York mayor Michael Bloomberg, the nation’s leading advocate, has to now admit that he has lost the fight.  This after claiming the NRA did not have the power they once had.  He was wrong.

The ban on assault weapons and bullet heavy magazine won’t even be put up for a vote.  A bill will pass the senate, but it will be watered down and probably will not include universal background checks.

Even democrats in the senate are running away from the legislation, especially the seven senators in red states where gun ownership is considered sacred.  When President Obama gave the State of the Union, he knew he didn’t have to run for re-election again, which gave him the luxury of conviction.  Those seven democratic senators don’t have that luxury.

3 comments

  • Orion Karl Daley

    One of the issues I have with most politicians as well as the Supreme Court is their interpretation(s) of the US Constitution. Perhaps my interpretations are always just as inaccurate. But what I see is confusion as a reaction to other confusion. An example is in this video:

    The Right to Bear Arms in the Second Amendment is one such example; where the right for personal gun ownership for me applies to Amendment Ten only.

    In Amendment Two, the very notion of what constitutes a militia should be further accounted for. The term militia is actually mentioned four times in the constitution. For example, in Article I it is noted for Congress's responsibility to fund militia's and in Article Two, that the President is the Commander and Chief of all militia's. When accounting for Militia in all of the constitution affords a better understanding of what a militia is supposed to be as opposed to how interpreted as we see fit solely from Amendment two.

    The right to bear arms also implies the right to not bear arms. If read for the latter, amendment's three and four then have a logical order with it.

    I use to get questionnaires from groups from different states where inquiring if I would add 'this or that' such as a marriage act to the constitution. Hucklby and other candidates had spoken how they would have things changed in the constitution.

    My response to such questionnaires was A – the US President upon the oath of office swears to protect and preserve the constitution. This oath is not intended to give power to one to make paper dolls of it. B – For the marriage act, I noted that this was the state's responsibility as in Amendment Ten, as not noted already in the constitution. Further I see that the supreme court has no business deciding what marriage is and that no leadership has the right to determine itself what it is or not.

    I feel that the ignorance of the US Constitution by any level of leadership in government simply does a disservice to the people while demonstrates incompetence at the cost of the people.

    Thanks for reading this,

    Orion –

Comments are closed.