I fought long and hard to get Obama elected, and I have been steadfast in my support of him. That isn't going to stop now -- he's on a roll, at the top of his game, and putting the pieces into place for even further and more expansive reforms. Reforms we desperately need. When I see former Republicans cautiously admit that maybe the time has come for nationalized health care, you know the man has had an effect.
But I solomenly believe that the Obama Administration is in danger of alienating pro 2nd Ammendment Democrats and Independents with the ill-conceived reintroduction of the "Assault Weapons Ban". More on the flip.
The original article I came across was from ABC News detailing new Attorney General Eric Holder's recent news conference in the wake of an impressive 700 people bust in conjunction with Mexican authorities. AG Holder is quoted as saying:
"As President Obama indicated during the campaign, there are just a few gun-related changes that we would like to make, and among them would be to reinstitute the ban on the sale of assault weapons," Holder told reporters. "I think that will have a positive impact in Mexico, at a minimum."
Unlikely.
The argument goes that the Mexican border gangs who make their money by smuggling drugs and people across the border, as well as lucretive side-lines like murder-for-hire, are piling up a body count because they have access to sophisticated US assault rifles. While they no doubt do purchase many of their weapons in the US, it is highly unlikely that they are doing so through legitimate outlets, with proper documentation. Instituting a ban on "assault weapons" a la the Clinton-era ban would be an inadequate and ineffective tool to deal with this problem -- and while it might have short-term benefits for the immediate crime crisis on the border, it would have the longer and possibly more damaging effect of profoundly alienating an otherwise loyal constituancy from the Obama Administration.
I won't argue that the border gangs aren't a big problem, but since they derive the lion's share of their revenue through marijuana smuggling, a more effective means of reducing their power would be to legitimize the market they supply through legalization, not banning the pretty toys they like. Remove the impetus for violent crime and the crime will decline. Banning assault weapons isn't going to deter CRIMINAL gangs one bit -- at most, it will make those toys that much more of a desirable status symbol. The poor thugs will have to get by on the AK-47s that are cheap and plentiful South of the Border.
But the Administration risks alienating the otherwise-liberal Southern Democrats and Western Democrats who view the 2nd Amm. as being just as sacred as the others, and who will choose that one issue to determine their selection of elected officials. One of the things I assured my more skittish friends was that Obama wasn't going to take away their guns. This undermines that pledge.
The original Assault Weapons Ban did nothing to stop gun violence in this country, and it made criminals out of hundreds of thousands of otherwise law-abiding Americans. It did, however, make a lot of urban liberals feel better about themselves. But things have changed. After Katrina, and the chaos of the aftermath, many of my liberal friends have quietly purchased firearms of one sort or another, including Assault Weapons. Perhaps they heard the stories of Blackwater mercs firing indiscriminantly at people of color in New Orleans, or perhaps they're finally taking their civic responsibility as being part of the milita seriously, but they've bought guns. My more conservative friends largely already owned them, and the few I could convince to vote for Obama would never vote for someone who tried to ban Assault Weapons.
This is a bad move. Obama's smart. I can only pray that it's part of a larger strategy -- but to continue with this line of policy will ultimately lose him the tenuous gains made in North Carolina, Virginia and the West.
Just sayin'.