One of the many arguments put forth by fans of then-candidate Barack Obama was that we had no need to fear his stance on guns. He put up a statement on his Web site saying that he “believes” in the Second Amendment, right? He took down statements from his Web site saying he wanted to make permanent the so-called “assault weapons ban” and close the so-called “gun-show loophole,” right? (Both since put back up. Surprise, surprise.)
We also weren’t supposed to be concerned that he had ardently supported every single gun control measure ever put before him. Plus, Obama is supposed to be post-partisan (whatever that means) and was going to shy away from the classic red-blue culture war hot button topics.
We were also told that the problems facing this country were much bigger than quibbling over issues like gun control and that it wouldn’t even come up in the early part of his first term.
I never bought that argument mostly because the politicians who control the legislative agenda in Washington are also the most ideologically driven. They are the folks, like House Speaker Pelosi, who come from “safe” districts that are overwhelmingly liberal or conservative where reelection is a given, resulting in seniority, resulting in leadership positions in Congress.
In December, the New York Times wrote an editorial saying that the NRA were a bunch of no-good meanies who had said all kinds of nasty and false things about Obama during the campain.
The National Rifle Association directed much money and bile against Barack Obama. In false, misleading and, fortunately, ineffective ads, fliers, mailers and Web postings, the group said that Mr. Obama posed a “clear and present danger” to Second Amendment rights and that his election would mean a gun ban.
So it would be false to assume Obama’s election would mean a gun ban, according the Times. And yet in an editorial today the paper is calling for a…wait for it…gun ban!
Do these “smart” people even read their own paper? Or are they just comfortable with their intellectual dishonesty?