In the wake of last week’s violence in New York and Pittsburg, it’s not unwise to expect calls for new gun restrictions. Couple that with this administration’s published stance regarding gun rights, and we all have reason to be worried.
However, it looks like the current administration is learning from history, and they’re not salivating over gun control as rabidly as they were fifteen years ago.
In an interview with Katie Couric, Eric Holder quickly backpedaled on his prior support for a new Assault Weapons Ban, stating,
I don’t think it has and in fact, I look forward to working with the NRA to come up with ways in which we can use common-sense approaches to reduce the level of violence that we see in our streets and make the American people as safe as they can possibly be.
When prodded further, all the elaboration he’d give about his support for gun control was,
These are issues that we’ll have to discuss. The president will be the one who will ultimately set policy – things that are politically saleable and things that will ultimately be effective.
The Left is realizing that gun control isn’t as “politically saleable” as they thought going into this election. Holder’s muzzling was echoed by the ever-articulate Robert Gibbs in Thursday’s press briefing.
Helen Thomas, who’s now back to sitting in the front row, asked,
Thomas: All right. Is the President concerned over the epidemic of killings by guns in this country? And is he willing to move towards reinstating the ban on assault weapons?
Gibbs: Well, obviously we, while we were overseas last week, were surprised and shocked at the news at what had happened in New York. And obviously anytime you see violence on the scale and the magnitude of something like that it’s shocking to the system.
I think the President is looking for a coordinated strategy to deal with violence. I think one of the reasons that — violence and public safety, that’s one of the reasons that increased money to hire more police officers was in the Recovery Act. I was asked specifically about assault weapons. I think the President would — the President believes particularly that there are other strategies that we can take to enforce the laws that are already on our books, and that’s not something that —
Thomas: The New York Times says he lacks courage to go ahead with this.
Gibbs: I’m sure The New York Times is going to say a lot of things over the course of the new few years.
Thomas: I mean, why isn’t he taking a stand against these weapons?
Gibbs: Well, I — the President is concerned about violence, and that’s — again, that’s one of the reasons —
Thomas: We’re all concerned about violence. What’s he going to do about it?
Gibbs: Well, he asked the Congress to put in the Recovery Act to put more police officers on the street to keep us safe, and we’re happy that that — that that happened.
She’s obviously pushing as hard as she can. Of course, she’s not calling the President a coward; she wouldn’t want to be excluded from press conferences again. No, it’s the New York Times saying he “lacks the courage,” but she’s more than happy to throw out the insult by proxy.
After all, it’s not the first time she’s openly insulted a sitting president. Back in 2003, she called George W. Bush “the worst president in all of American history” and takes no pains to mask her political leanings
It’s obvious that she’s been given her talking points by the Brady Campaign, but the administration isn’t taking the bait.
So, what we’re left with this week is the following policy picture from the administration:
- A new Assault Weapons ban isn’t “politically saleable,”
- we need to enforce our existing laws rather than passing new ones, and
- violent crime is better stemmed by providing greater support to law enforcement.
Sound familiar? You betcha. If the Obama administration is not already working with the NRA, they’re certainly gearing up for it. I’m still not turning my back on them, but they’re showing enough common sense to realize that this isn’t 1992, and gun control doesn’t fly anymore as a policy issue.