The Obama-Romney 'Assault Weapons' Duel

Gun control, assault weapons, and the Second Amendment all surfaced in the lively second presidential debate. Unfortunately for devotees of the firearm issue, fireworks were also exploding on Libya, immigration, energy, binders of women, and the size of the candidates respective retirement plans.

Lets go back and take a look at the gun exchange, because, like the rest of the debate, it was pretty darned interesting.A town hall attendee named Nina Gonzalez got things rolling with an admirably concise question. (You can find the complete transcript, courtesy of Politico, here.)

President Obama, during the Democratic National Convention in 2008, you stated you wanted to keep AK-47s out of the hands of criminals, Gonzalez asked. What has your administration done or planned to do to limit the availability of assault weapons?

The simplest answer would have been, Nothing. Or perhaps, Nothing beyond enforcing existing criminal and civil laws as I found them when I took office. Obama has signed no new federal gun control legislation of any significance, much to the despair of a gun-control movement that has been politically marginalized over the past dozen years. (Ive addressed that marginalization and its causeshere and here.)

Obama did not give the simplest answer. Instead he began this way:

Were a nation that believes in the Second Amendment, and I believe in the Second Amendment. Weve got a long tradition of hunting and sportsmen and people who want to make sure they can protect themselves.

This is the same answer that Mitt Romney could have offered. For that matter, it is the same answer that Wayne LaPierre, the top gun at the National Rifle Association, might have volunteered. Its an indisputable statement about the deep-seated American attachment to firearms. It does not say anything about AK-47s in the hands of criminals. What it does reveal is Obamas determination to steer clear of the gun issue at all costs. He and most other Democrats in Washington long ago decided that popular support for gun ownership and the political acumen of the NRA make this issue a loser. In an era of declining gun homicide rates, there simply is no widespread demand among voters for stiffened federal gun control. This reality is unaffected by the periodic and horrific mass shootings in movie theaters or shopping malls.

Obama continued his answer with an irrelevant anecdote about meeting one of the survivors of the July, 2012, multiplex massacre in Aurora, Colo. Then he said this:

I also share your belief that weapons that were designed for soldiers in war theaters dont belong on our streets. And so what Im trying to do is to get a broader conversation about how do we reduce the violence generally. Part of it is seeing if we can get an assault weapons ban reintroduced. But part of it is also looking at other sources of the violence. Because frankly, in my hometown of Chicago, theres an awful lot of violence and theyre not using AK-47s. Theyre using cheap handguns.

The president thus made a vague commitment to think about, maybe, one day, talking about a renewed assault weapons ban. If I were a gun control activist, I would not hold my breath. In a second Obama administration, the White House might say that an assault weapons ban would be nice in theory. Obamas tepid remark, however, did not sound like a promise that hed make it a priority.

Read the original:
The Obama-Romney 'Assault Weapons' Duel