A political miscalculation by the president


Many believe that the high point in the State of the Union came when the President called attention to the victims of gun violence. The repeated call for action on their behalf was leveraged as a strong emotional appeal for changes in gun legislation.

While I’ve always been uneasy about seeing people used in political settings to make a case for policy changes, on this issue, I believe that democrats are also making a serious political mistake.  

Before exposing the political miscalculation, I affirm concern about gun related violence and finding reasonable steps for stopping it. But there are valid reasons for doubting that changes in gun law will stop the violence.

As a licensed gun holder, I welcome informed discussions about changes in gun law. In particular, I would support some form of mandatory training for carrying a gun and required periodic re-training. If we ask this of law enforcement, why wouldn’t we require it from citizens who carry guns? In saying this, however, I am deeply hesitant about letting the government oversee such a program. Whenever the government is involved it typically costs too much and operates less efficiently.

As to the political side, I am frankly amazed at the intense focus on this issue among the Democrats. I believe that pushing for changes in laws on gun ownership and use is a significant political miscalculation for the President and his party. Not only is it unlikely that significant changes will be made, the democrats seem to have underestimated the sleeping giant they may have aroused in large numbers of people who likely didn’t vote in the last election. These are not people who typically side with the democrats. 

It’s likely that many members of the NRA and private gun owners are among those who didn’t vote in the last election. Although these individuals are often disgusted with politics in general, I am certain that if they had voted, it would not have been for a democratic candidate. 
Since the president won the election on a small margin of the popular vote, shouldn’t his party think twice before alarming hundreds of thousands of people who will likely vote against them?

Those who currently feel that their second amendment rights are at risk will show up in large numbers to vote against any politician who favors taking away their liberties. Many of these folks already believe that the government is largely corrupt and intent on controlling their lives. Many of them are also suspicious about President Obama’s agenda.

Don’t be surprised if this issue becomes pivotal at the mid-term election. I am perplexed as to why the President and his party would not recognize this possibility. Have they underestimated the potential political awakening this could create? 

Do they believe that most people think the way they do? Some of the radical members arrogantly assume that only idiots would see things differently from them. Is it possible that they really believe that the last election gave them some kind of mandate?

Whatever drives the focus on gun control, the democrats are making a serious political miscalculation. Since it’s easy to understand that the proposed changes will make little to no difference in gun violence, is it possible that the President is just continuing his appeal to a narrow, more radical part of his base. 


Steve Cornell

 

About Wisdomforlife

Just another worker in God's field.
This entry was posted in 44th President, Barack Obama, Democracy, Democrats, Gun Control, Liberal, MSNBC, Obama, Piers Morgan, Political Correctness, Politics, Rachel Maddow, Republican. Bookmark the permalink.

5 Responses to A political miscalculation by the president

  1. Steve. I think he did it because he thought it was the right thing to do. Choices based on morality can have negative political consequences, but he also has many supporters who felt just the way Gabby Giffords said it, that Congress must do something.

  2. Aaron Sullivan says:

    Computers spread child pornography. Child pornography is wrong. Restrict the sale of computers to all people so that child pornography is eradicated….

    Cars accidents is one of the leading killers of people. Killing people is wrong. Restrict the sales of cars to all people to save the lives of accident victims….

    Hammers smash thumbs. Smashing your thumb hurts. Stop the sale of hammers to end the thumb violence….

    I am so sick of the political talk about “gun” violence it makes me sick. It only brings to light that our government is inept and politicizes all things for their own agenda. Obama isn’t doing the “right” thing, he is doing “his” thing.

  3. Steve, I am once again flabbergasted that you, as a alleged minister of the Christian Gospel, could take any position other than a strong denunciation of the sickening carnage being inflicted upon our society through the malevolent gun lobby. The NRA has become nothing more than a shill for the gun industry, which is making billions of dollars by preying upon the paranoid delusions of people like you and your ilk. The “Chickenhawk” LaPierre and his minions do not speak for me, a person who owns a handgun, and who does not believe that the “Second Amendment” gives us carte blanche to own every type of weapon available. General Stanley McChrystal, who recently retired from a long and illustrious military career, stated on January 8th of this year: “I spent a career carrying typically either an M16 or an M4 Carbine. An M4 Carbine fires a .223 caliber round which is 5.56 mm at about 3000 feet per second. When it hits a human body, the effects are devastating. It’s designed for that,” McChrystal explained. “That’s what our soldiers ought to carry. I personally don’t think there’s any need for that kind of weaponry on the streets and particularly around the schools in America.” Pastor, in case you didn’t know, the AR-15, which has been the weapon of choice in the last four mass killings in the good old U.S.A., is the civilian version of the M16 or the M4.
    What would the Son of God have to say about this issue? By defending those who advocate for the unchecked access to such weapons, are you instructing your flock to disregard Christ’s admonition about “turning the other cheek”? What parts of the Bible are you selectively choosing to obey, and which ones are you ignoring? Do you think that the “Prince of Peace” would approve of weapons that deprived twenty families of their innocent children, whose bodies were literally torn apart by multiple rounds being fired into them? Noah Pozner, one of the 20 child victims from last year’s Sandy Hook elementary shooting, was laid in an open casket for his wake, which conjures memories of Emmett Till, the innocent African-American boy murdered by two white men in 1950’s Mississippi. Pozner’s mother, Veronique, told the Jewish Daily Forward that she made the painful decision to have an open casket for his wake in order to show people the “ugliness” of gun violence. “We all saw how beautiful he was. He had thick, shiny hair, beautiful long eyelashes that rested on his cheeks. He looked like he was sleeping. But the reality of it was under the cloth he had covering his mouth there was no mouth left. His jaw was blown away,” she said.
    As far as the Second Amendment goes, civilian access to automatic weapons is restricted, and not even the maniac LaPierre is arguing for that to be undone. Justice Antonin Scalia, one of the Supreme Court’s most vocal and conservative justices, said on Fox News on July 29, 2012, that the Second Amendment leaves room for U.S. legislatures to regulate guns, including menacing hand-held weapons.”It will have to be decided in future cases,” Scalia said on Fox News Sunday. But there were legal precedents from the days of the Founding Fathers that banned frightening weapons which a constitutional originalist like himself must recognize. There were also “locational limitations” on where weapons could be carried, the justice noted. When asked if that kind of precedent would apply to assault weapons, or 100-round ammunition magazines like those used in the recent Colorado movie theater massacre, Scalia declined to speculate. “We’ll see,” he said. ‘”It will have to be decided.” As an originalist scholar, Scalia looks to the text of the Constitution—which confirms the right to bear arms—but also the context of 18th-century history. “They had some limitations on the nature of arms that could be borne,” he told host Chris Wallace.

    For those who get all crazy about our “God-given” Second Amendment rights, and don’t think that the Founding Fathers were concerned about a society in which the main weapon available to the citizenry was a single-shot musket and therefore is now obsolete, I urge you to take a strong position on defending the Third Amendment. What’s that, you don’t remember the Third Amendment? You know the one that states “No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.” Now that’s a God-given liberty worth defending! I can hear Fox News viewers screaming, “By God, no Kenyan-Socialist-Atheist-Muslim President is going to make me quarter soldiers in my house!”
    Steve, in conclusion, I am dismayed that on a blog that is purportedly a forum offering Christian “Wisdom for Life,” the main focus of your blog post is to critique ” A political miscalculation by the president.” As I stated in a previous blog post, it again occurs to me that the type of religion being practiced by many in our country is not Christianity, but what I term to be “American Right-Wingianity.” I would assume that you as a Christian would be more concerned about trying to instead awaken “the sleeping giant” of morally-conflicted Americans who are fed up with being told that the government is “taking away our rights” while they allow this senseless slaughter to go on and on. We are the only so-called “civilized” society on Earth that has such unbelievably high murder-by-gun rates. Unless you consider that we almost cracked the top ten of the list of 75 countries by firearm-related death-rate per 100,000 population in one year to be a good thing, please reconsider the purpose of your blog, and “”Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s.”

    • Aaron Sullivan says:

      well lets see what Jesus said about arming yourself.

      He said to them, “But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don’t have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one.”
      Luke 22:36

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s