WSJ: The Gun Rights Consensus

[ipser]

'A pretty shameful day for Washington," President Obama called it, with "pretty" being the only remnant of his famous cool. In the Rose Garden, he blamed the failure of gun control in the Senate Wednesday on three causes: "The gun lobby and its allies willfully lied about the bill." The Senators who voted against it are cowardly and had "no coherent arguments as to why we wouldn't do this. It came down to politics." And finally "a minority was able to block it from moving forward" through "this continuing distortion of Senate rules."

The media are amplifying Mr. Obama's themes with less subtlety, amid a collective aneurysm in Washington and New York. Yet this combination of animus and overreach explains why the post-Newtown gun debate has been such a lost opportunity.

The President might have forged a compromise from the political center out that reduced gun violence at the margins while respecting Second Amendment rights. Instead, liberals cleaned out their ideological cupboards in favor of gun restrictions that would have little practical effect but would have notched a symbolic victory over the National Rifle Association and those benighted rubes in the provinces. By so overreaching, Mr. Obama couldn't even steamroll moderate members of his own party.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324493704578430672176449846.html

[Untamed1972]

In the Rose Garden, he blamed the failure of gun control in the Senate Wednesday on three causes: "The gun lobby and its allies willfully lied about the bill." The Senators who voted against it are cowardly and had "no coherent arguments as to why we wouldn't do this. It came down to politics." And finally "a minority was able to block it from moving forward" through "this continuing distortion of Senate rules."

Sounds like basically all the same tactics that were used to get ObamaCare thru.....but that was OK. Guess they hate having their own game used against them.

[Frito Bandido]

The debate never should've been about guns... it should've been about the chronic neglect and lack of funding for mental health services in this country, and a culture of denial that mental illnesses are actual illnesses that deserve consideration.

Both parties have failed in this regard, but I would argue that the Republican Party is the worst offender of the two in gutting mental health services. There will be no discussion on getting these sick people the medical attention they need, and we will continue to see more shootings. Lawful gun owners will keep paying the price with further infringement on our rights, being convenient scapegoats and all.

[Whiterabbit]

This isnt about health services and you know it.

[Frito Bandido]

You don't think mental illness has anything to do with the shooting sprees we've seen? You must think the guns are to blame then. Or maybe all those shooters were government agents sent on suicide missions to advance the cause of taking your gun?

Sorry, fact is you just confirmed what I posted. You're in denial that there is a serious problem in this country in regards to mental health. Guns are just a convenient scapegoat used by the political class and the media.

[speedrrracer]

The debate never should've been about guns... it should've been about the chronic neglect and lack of funding for mental health services in this country, and a culture of denial that mental illnesses are actual illnesses that deserve consideration.

Agreed that the only commonality among these shooters is mental problems, and that should have been the focus.

Loved this quote from the article:

In other words, keeping guns away from dangerous or unstable people was less important than defeating the NRA.

A petulant White House is a less-effective White House, which is better for us.

The whole NRA-as-bogeyman is a very interesting topic to me. On the one hand, the NRA will now never be anything but evil to a large portion of America. Also, we lose the truth that there are many gun owners in this country, and the 2A is worthy of the protections enjoyed by the 1A because the mediots gloss over all that, and write how the NRA is doing this all by itself, as if it can magically make legislation vanish without the support of a single voter.

OTOH, we gain in having our opponents holding on to irrational beliefs in a magical NRA with mythical powers (at least at the national level, here in CA the NRA is obviously at the very least greatly overwhelmed).

[Mulay El Raisuli]

People who cling to their guns, or merely to the Constitution, aren't part of the coalition that Mr. Obama believes re-elected him, and his mistake was thinking they would simply dissolve into history's rearview mirror in his new progressive era. Mr. Obama was routed this week because he tried to govern from the left and thus played into the hands of the NRA. If the Newtown families want someone to blame, they can start with the President.

No foolin'!

The only surprise is that this is from the WSJ.


The Raisuli

[Baja_Traveler]

Actually, the WSJ has published plenty of balanced articles on the subject. In my opinion, it is the only remaining rag left in the country that is not out on a leftist agenda.

[steamerjames]

As John Wayne said in one of his movies "I hope he gets mad, the madder he gets the better i like it".Mad people do not think good.

[DTOM CA!]

Shouldn't the Federal Government protect the Constitution not weaken it under the guise of safety.

[Mulay El Raisuli]

Actually, the WSJ has published plenty of balanced articles on the subject. In my opinion, it is the only remaining rag left in the country that is not out on a leftist agenda.

I'll have to pay more attention to them.


The Raisuli

[LuvLRBs]

Actually, the WSJ has published plenty of balanced articles on the subject. In my opinion, it is the only remaining rag left in the country that is not out on a leftist agenda.

I actually cancelled our local paper and now just get the WSJ. Got to the point I would be done in five minutes with the local there was so little of interest to read any more.

[lasbrg]

Actually, the WSJ has published plenty of balanced articles on the subject. In my opinion, it is the only remaining rag left in the country that is not out on a leftist agenda.

I read the WSJ. Once you learn how to get past their paywall (Google the headline), they're one of the best Internet news sources.

It's important to keep in mind that Wall Street is New York City. Republicans that would be called RINOs anywhere else (Bloomberg being a prime example) are there considered to be strong fiscal conservatives.

From the OP editorial:

The President might have forged a compromise from the political center out that reduced gun violence ...

This is a very telling statement of what they actually believe. If you read between the lines, the criticism here is that Obama failed to get something passed.

Yes, they hate Obama, but their reasons are different than our reasons. Don't expect a passionate defense of 2A from anyone from New York.

[ipser]

I read the WSJ. Once you learn how to get past their paywall (Google the headline), they're one of the best Internet news sources.

It's important to keep in mind that Wall Street is New York City. Republicans that would be called RINOs anywhere else (Bloomberg being a prime example) are there considered to be strong fiscal conservatives.

...
Yes, they hate Obama, but their reasons are different than our reasons. Don't expect a passionate defense of 2A from anyone from New York.

Also, draw a big distinction between the main article journalists and the editorials. They hold very different points of view.

[Dave A]

Thanks for the link to the article.

Agree with some others, the WSJ is more or less in the center on the news coverage, but the editorial page leans right. It is a good news source, but the online subscription got pretty expensive in the last year or so.