All quiet on the gun control front ahead of midterms


WASHINGTON October 28, 2014 — Today, if you type the words “gun control” into Google, you will yield scant results. The main story is a CNN article from three days ago about Chrissy Teigan, followed by gun control pieces by the Chicago Sun-Times, and the New York Times but that is hardly news. Today, gun control is eerily quiet in the media.

This comes as somewhat of a surprise. In the last six weeks there has been plenty to write about for those groups and individuals whose job it is to put pen to paper over the gun control debate. In Pennsylvania a man shot and killed a police officer, and there were no shouts for gun control. In Washington State, a high school Homecoming prince shot and killed two fellow students. In California, two deputies were shot, one killed, by a man during a suspicious vehicle stop outside of a hotel.

These are high profile cases, the type of high profile cases which usually calls down the thunder of Liberal, ant-gun pundits in the media who call for change. These are usually the cases where you would hear the media thundering from above for reform. These are cases where you would hear politicians getting up on their soap boxes and demanding action.

But all we are hearing is crickets.

In a time when the President and the Liberals in Congress should be butting up against efforts from the Conservative right to block any attempt at legislating the problem away, we are hearing the same thing over and over again from both potential and incumbent politicians.

Middle class, jobs, America, together.

So is it that Wayne Lapierre is not suffering from another onslaught from Sen. Feinstein? Why is it that President Obama has not come out to publicly condemn all forms of gun violence in the country and promise action? Why is it that Hillary Clinton has not made a statement?

This is an election year, one which could swing the balance of power significantly in the favor of the Republicans in Washington as well as in several key governors’ races. One of the most toxic and divisive issues in recent memory is the gun issue. Those mentioned above, Feinstein, Obama, Clinton, are among the chief proponents of gun control. This time last year they would not have missed a chance to speak out against illegal gun use by condemning legal gun owners. They happen to be particularly skilled at blaming law abiding citizens for the actions of murders and drug dealers, however recently they are silent, and they are silent for a simple reason.

You can’t stay a rising Republican tide with the gun issue.

Democrats are scared. As it stands now, President Obama could be looking at a two year lame duck Congress and a Democratic party slowly backing away from him like the smelly kid on the playground. Democrats are trying to make the race about the gains they have made in healthcare, and about keeping up work on the economy. Republicans are doing their best not to step on their own toes by hammering the Democrats on the arguments that healthcare is a mess, and the economy is and has been weak. The last thing that the Democrats want to do is bring up the gun issue.

In a country where around forty percent of homes are armed, where firearms owners are represented heavily by several special interest groups, going after legal gun owners has not proven to be a particularly lucrative political endeavor. The last round of gun control legislation to come to the floor was so politically toxic that Harry Reid would not even touch it. The most major of the pieces, an “assault weapon” ban, did not even make it to the floor.

However those efforts took a sincere amount of political clout to even attempt. Favors had to be called in, backs had to be scratched and so on. We were told that without these new laws the declining crime rate would continue to climb to apocalyptic levels. However as we have seen that is not the case. Crime continues to fall despite the best wishes of gun control proponents.

What does all of this tell us? What does it mean that after several high profile cases of gun violence, the national gun control proponents are not pushing gun control politicians to pass gun control in Congress?

It tells us that gun control, when it comes down to it, is not a popular endeavor. All of the doomsday preaching and hell raising that gun control advocates cry whenever a high profile case comes around seems to fall eerily silent within sight of an election. If politicians and pundits really thought that the people wanted gun control, they would be demanding action on the issue no matter the proximity to Election Day.

If the Republicans take the Senate then it is possible we won’t hear the phrase “gun control” for a while. If they don’t, then expect another go at gun control within the first year after elections. The Democrats will see the push back against Republicans as a sort of sign to move against gun control despite never having mentioned it during the campaigns. The issue of gun control is there, but we just can’t see it.

Read, follow, share @bckprchpolitics on Twitter and Back Porch Politics on Facebook.

Click here for reuse options!
Copyright 2014 Communities Digital News

• The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views of the editors or management of Communities Digital News.

This article is the copyrighted property of the writer and Communities Digital News, LLC. Written permission must be obtained before reprint in online or print media. REPRINTING CONTENT WITHOUT PERMISSION AND/OR PAYMENT IS THEFT AND PUNISHABLE BY LAW.

Correspondingly, Communities Digital News, LLC uses its best efforts to operate in accordance with the Fair Use Doctrine under US Copyright Law and always tries to provide proper attribution. If you have reason to believe that any written material or image has been innocently infringed, please bring it to the immediate attention of CDN via the e-mail address or phone number listed on the Contact page so that it can be resolved expeditiously.

  • salmonhair

    “If they don’t, then expect another go at gun control within the first year after elections.”

    That is the strategy in a nutshell. Avoid the issue like the plague just long enough to be elected.

  • ThoughtProvoking

    “If politicians and pundits really thought that the people wanted gun control, they would be demanding action on the issue no matter the proximity to Election Day.”

    On all the comments sections of gun-control articles there are still the strident voices proclaiming “We the People” are overwhelmingly for gun-control, and if it wasn’t for the “blood money from the EVIL NRA buying the spineless politicians” the wishes of “the majority” would be realized.
    As this article reinforces and as so many have been telling these anti-gun zealots, they AREN’T the majority they think they are!
    It also proves it isn’t about “gun safety” it’s about “gun CONTROL”!

  • guest

    Yes, the gun control issue is avoidance at election time. You are right that it will be pushed, hard, after elections. What does that tell us? Politicians want gun control? Well, yeah, of course, and it is us vs them, we the PoliticiansGovernement people can have OUR GUNS AND OUR GUNNED BODYGUARDS, BUT YOU PEONS CANNOT. ALWAYS BEEN THAT WAY. THUS THE 2ND AMENDMENT.
    No law ever stopped any crime. Laws only allow occasional prosecution of offenders. Never stopped murder, larceny, prostitution, drugs, assault and battery, drunks, gangs, on and on.

    • Tim Pearce

      I do think laws prevent crimes. If there were no laws against murder, I suspect there would be many more people willing to kill each other due to the absence of penalties. I.E. “some people are alive only because it’s illegal to kill them.”
      Further, when actually enforced, a law against murder puts a convicted murderer in a controlled environment where they are less capable of committing the crime again. The longer that killer is kept behind bars, the fewer potential victims he’ll have access to.
      But, it’s true that no law can ever be a total solution to a problem.

  • tom2

    Scant coverage is what’s going on. Nuts and felons are still doing their thing. Last night, a 36 year old thug in Northwest Dallas assaulted a couple exiting a grocery store, knocked the elderly wife to the concrete, ripped her gold necklace from her neck and ran. Her 71 year old husband, licensed to carry, pulled his piece and shot the criminal as he fled to his car. The criminal, continuing his escape, apparently died at the wheel and hit another car in the parking lot. Of course the liberal media reveal just what they want you to know. Television coverage screech that the old man may be guilty but that he’ll doubtlessly be no-billed. They’re whining that this elderly victim may have pulled the trigger a second or two too late to constitute “self defense” and perhaps he should be tried and punished. The media splashed the victim’s names widely but no primary outlet named the felon. Generally, in that part of town, ethnicity and politics are cast aside and everyone agrees the law is not grey. Victims no longer have to stand aside while nuts and felons waltz into their lives, take what they want, harm their families and stroll away with no one giving chase. Criminals deserve whatever the victims dish out during the proximate period of time when the crime occurs. Many believe the proximate period of the crime includes the next day. Regardless I’m hopeful that others will learn from his expensive lesson.

  • Tim Pearce

    Remember that, in their own eyes, a politician has two jobs: get elected, stay elected. It doesn’t matter if their actions lead to thousands of deaths, as long as they stay in power. They’d sell their own mothers into slavery to get enough votes to stay in office.
    So, yes, they’re avoiding toxic topics like gun control like the plague. It’s not a matter of if they believe gun control is right, nor if they believe that the people support it. Anything they can do to get more votes is what they’ll do.