Dionne : Obama’s Audacity Deficit on Guns

[Mass]

Now, Dionne has been highly supportive of Obama's policies and he is far from being a 0wild-eyed liberal" or " the professional left".

However, here, he points out at what seems to be a MO in the way he handles bi-partisanship: wanting to show we are as irresponsible as the right, so that there seems to be a balance. It is really getting old, particularly when he is getting nothing for this.

http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/obamas_audacity_deficit_on_guns_20110316/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+Truthdig+Truthdig%3A+Drilling+Beneath+the+Headlines

Here is the president in his Op-Ed:

“The fact is, almost all gun owners in America are highly responsible. ... They buy their guns legally and use them safely, whether for hunting or target shooting, collection or protection. And that’s something that gun-safety advocates need to accept. Likewise, advocates for gun owners should accept the awful reality that gun violence affects Americans everywhere, whether on the streets of Chicago or at a supermarket in Tucson.”

Excuse me, but gun-safety advocates don’t “need” to accept that most gun owners are responsible. We always have, as the president sort of acknowledges later in his piece. How can repeating NRA propaganda against advocates of sane gun laws be helpful to this debate? It was a bolder Obama who said in 2001: “I know that the NRA believes people should be unimpeded and unregulated on gun ownership. I disagree.” Crisp, clear, and right.

“Assault weapons are not for hunting,” Obama said in 2004. “They are the weapons of choice for gang-bangers, drug dealers and terrorists.” Right again.

Yet in his Op-Ed the president wrote: “Some will say that anything short of the most sweeping anti-gun legislation is a capitulation to the gun lobby. Others will predictably cast any discussion as the opening salvo in a wild-eyed scheme to take away everybody’s guns.”

The first statement is a wild distortion of the position of actual advocates of sane gun laws. They are not seeking “sweeping anti-gun legislation.” They are pushing tame steps LaPierre and his lobbyists reject—thorough background checks and a ban on those big magazines. Yes, restoring the highly effective ban on assault weapons would also be good. But that’s Obama’s own position. Isn’t it?

Obama observed last week that “bullying can have destructive consequences for our young people.” It can also have destructive consequences for politicians. The president could set a good example by standing up to the bullies of the NRA.