Friday, March 08, 2013

How the White House silenced gun control groups - Reid J. Epstein -

How the White House silenced gun control groups - Reid J. Epstein -

President Barack Obama’s gun control agenda is looking more doomed by the day, but gun control advocates still haven’t said a word to complain. That’s no accident.

The White House knew its post-Newtown effort would require bringing key gun control groups into the fold. So the White House offered a simple arrangement: the groups could have access and involvement, but they’d have to offer silence and support in exchange.

The implied rules, according to conversations with many of those involved: No infighting. No second-guessing in the press. Support whatever the president and Vice President Joe Biden propose. And most of all, don’t make waves or get ahead of the White House.

In exchange: a voice in the discussions, a role in whatever final agreement is made and weekly meetings at the White House with Biden’s chief of staff, Bruce Reed — provided they don’t discuss what happens there.
“The implication is very, very strong when they are calling these meetings and we are all sitting there,” said one regular attendee, who like the others, would only speak about them anonymously. “It’s not like they’re being bullies, it’s them bringing everybody together, not being one-off meetings with groups that might be interested in things other than the bottom line, not providing the forum for that kind of stuff.”

“You’re glad to be in the room,” another participant in the Reed meetings said. “Because this issue has been dead for a long time and now there’s a real opportunity there.”
POLITICO is a very left-wing, Liberal website. And they're telling us that anti-Second-Amendment representatives are being "allowed" to be 'part of the process' in the effort to  determine a rational approach to interpreting the Second Amendment .. as long as they don't disagree with the President.

Sounds like a bull in the room, without any horns.

But this isn't the kind of mums-the-word tacit support that the Southern Policy Law Center is reporting, according to a March 5, 2013 report from the Democratic Underground:

The number of anti-government, far-right extremist groups has soared to record levels since 2008 and they are becoming increasingly militant, according to a report by the Southern Poverty Law Center.
It says the number of groups in the “Patriot” movement stood at 1,360 in 2012, up from 149 in 2008 when Barack Obama was first elected president, an increase of 813%. The report said the rise was driven by opposition to Obama and the “spluttering rage” over federal attempts at gun control.

Those who were identified as “militia” groups or the paramilitary wing of the Patriot movement, numbered 321, up from 42 in 2008, the SPLC said in its report.

Concern over a “truly explosive growth” of groups on the radical right, along with a rise in domestic terrorist plots, has prompted the SPLC to write to US attorney general Eric Holder and Homeland Security secretary Janet Napolitano, warning of the potential for domestic terrorism and urging them create a new, inter-agency task force to assess whether it has adequate resources to deal with it.
Who ARE these lap-dog groups which are being reported by Politoco?

But he’s forced a major change on some of Washington’s noisiest advocates: the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, Third Way, Michael Bloomberg’s Mayors Against Illegal Guns and Americans for Responsible Solutions, the organization founded by former Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-Ariz.) and her husband, Mark Kelly. In past fights, gun control groups sparred with each other and got used to dictating the agenda to allies in Congress.
Now they’re just happy to be included in the discussion, and still holding out hope that something might happen.
[emphasis added]
So, we're NOT talking about the NRA, or the CRKBA, or any other pro-gun rights groups.  We're hearing here that the president is including some of the most virulent anti-gun groups in the country sitting in on what we can only assume to be policy making decisions.  
Are there any pro-gun, pro-second amendment groups represented in these deliberations?  So far, no word.
The original quote specifically said the "gun control" groups, not "gun rights" groups, are included.  But they're forbidden to "make waves".  Does this mean that the President is laying down the law to these "gun control" groups?
Is the president getting tough on anti-gunners?
We don't know. I haven't yet been able to find any reference to the inclusion of gun-rights in these discussions.  Are they there?  If so, when will we hear about them?  If not .. why not?  The Internet is not the ultimate reference source .. at best, all we read there is what the Main Stream Media and the occasional blogger have to report.

We will continue to research this issue;  we can hope that non-governmental agencies which are "part of the process" will eventually include RKBA groups.  Although, it's difficult to tell what influence they might make of presidential decisions.    And I'm leary about only anti-gun groups being included, if they are not (as the article implies, but does not specifically state) permitted to have a voice.

If the anti-s are not given a voice, will the pro-gun guys get to have their say?  Personally, I would prefer a situation when both pro- and anti- gun groups have at least a voice.  I don't agree with the anti-gun folks, but I do think that their voice should be heard.

Let the arguments be decided on their merits.  And let both sides be heard.

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

Watching the current adminstration at work is a rare and wonderous thing. That also applies to our DOJ and HLS.