Gun Control Is A Distraction


Is it going too far to say that President Obama has seized on the Sandy Hook Elementary shooting as an opportunity to push an always-controversial gun control fight to distract from much more pressing issues, such as the nation’s horrendous fiscal position? President Obama has shown himself to be nothing if not the consummate opportunist.

“Never let a good crisis go to waste,” and all that.

“President Obama, the Democrats, and plenty of Republicans in Congress, would like it if you’d spend the next few weeks talking about gun control,” writes Glenn Reynolds for USA Today. “That’s because when you are, you’re not talking about the country’s financial situation.”

And, according to Gallup, Americans rank gun control pretty low on their list of priorities. It ranked a four-way tie in 6th place in the list of Americans’ top priorities, along with health care, taxes and ethics.

Americans’ concerns about the federal budget deficit and government dysfunction rose high enough in January to knock unemployment out of the top two slots on Gallup’s “most important problem” list for the first time since 2009.

The poll finds 20% of Americans mentioning the federal budget deficit as the top problem, compared with 18% mentioning dissatisfaction with some aspect of government or government leaders, and 16% naming jobs or unemployment.

This distribution of open-ended responses to the “most important problem” question underscores a general shift from the dominance of concerns about the economy and unemployment to an increasing focus on problems more directly associated with government. The economy and unemployment had ranked as the top two problems each month since December 2009.

Now, the “dissatisfaction with government” percentage is as high as it has been since the Watergate days of 1974, although the precise ways in which these open-ended questions have been coded has changed somewhat during that time. The percentage mentioning the deficit as the top problem is as high as it has been since 1996.

So why is Obama picking a fight on gun control? Probably because he’s spent his political capital on fiscal matters. He got his tax hikes, now he’s in the position of needing to explain why even more tax hikes are what the country needs to reduce deficits instead of spending cuts.

And he’d rather talk gun control.

Rob Port is the editor of In 2011 he was a finalist for the Watch Dog of the Year from the Sam Adams Alliance and winner of the Americans For Prosperity Award for Online Excellence. In 2013 the Washington Post named SAB one of the nation's top state-based political blogs, and named Rob one of the state's best political reporters.

Related posts

  • $8194357

    Waggin the tail?
    No…Waggin the whole dog…
    What about Bengazi and Fast and Furious?
    Old news, huh.
    The Art of propaganda includes “mis direction”
    and slight of hand, no..

  • schreib

    Yup, president zero has nothing to offer, the country is in deep financial doo doo and he talks about an issue which is not the problem he says it is. Never let a crisis go to waste. Work up your base and quickly push your agenda before most folks have time enough to come up for air. Obama is a communist . Even Pravda has said this.

    • LastBestHope

      NYTimes has said this?

  • camsaure

    Recentley a man had to shoot his neighbor in Phoenix because the neighbor threw gas on him and was going for a lighter, so he shot him. I suppose Obama will now want to ban gas also as he is continually trying to make it harder to get anyway.

    • $8194357

      Alinskys rules…
      Push to radicalize and always go for the extreme..

    • joeb

      He was lucky the muzzle blast didn’t light the gas…

      • camsaure

        Ya know I thought about that too. but I guess he made the right decision, didn’the? Better then letting him get away with it. And actually it worked in his favor in the end anyhow, without help from the govt.

  • HideFromObama

    This discussion is absolutley smoke screen for the spending issues.

  • sbark

    I cant call it a distraction……more like a damn’d if you do…….damn’d if you dont situation.
    We are damn’d if we cant give enough attention and fight the fight on what Obama is purposely doing to the economy……………..and we are damn’d if we dont call him for what is is in trying to circumvent our Govt systems of checks and balances in gun control via Exec orders…….
    ………and then under the 3rd shell that he is getting a free ride on because of the above 2 shells……is simple Rule of Law. Fast and Furious is on the back burner, Deaths of American Citizens on American dirt is now almost a lost thought. ObamaCare continues to make headway in getting established—and once it is, the private Ins. Industry is gone, there is no turning back.
    We are being forced to play the 3 shell game………….but this time they are all loaded with IED’s no matter what we choose.

    • $8194357

      Rule of elitist olagarch agenda under a soviet system of central planners and buerocrats…Far far far down the road from equal Constitutional Rule of Law.
      By design grass hoppers…By design…Global central planning design…

    • PK

      I agree it’s not a distraction. It’s called “attacking on all fronts.”

  • LastBestHope

    That’s a big 10-4 Rob. It’s also a twisted and cynical ploy to use the dead children of Newtown for political theater.
    Guns don’t matter to The One. Hell, he’s from Chicago, one of the gun murder capitals in the world and guns have Never been one of his big issues. But come March, during our “new” fiscal cliff debate, Obama will “give in” on guns (oh he’s sooo reasonable)…in exchange, he’ll demand the House give up on Their spending cuts aimed at the poor, the sick, the lame, the old and of course…the children. (the GOP will be called absolutist, obstructionist, hostage taking Nazis unless they accept the deal)

    Cue the media to push Obama’s strategem Forward.

  • mickey_moussaoui

    ” Probably because he’s spent his political capital on fiscal matters.”

    Probably because he’s spent his political capital on FECAL matters.
    (there, fixed it for you)

  • $8194357


    Americans have been conditioned to use this term. It’s not an accurate term and it never has been a correct term to describe our form of government. The truth is that the United States of America is a constitutional republic. This is similar to a democracy because our representatives are selected by democratic elections, but ultimately our representatives are required to work within the framework of our constitution. In other words, even if 90% of Americans want something that goes against our founding principles, they have no right to call for a violation of constitutional rights.
    If you are religious you might choose to think of it this way… Say that members of your congregation decide that mass fornication is a good thing. Do they have the right to change the teachings of your God? The truth is the truth. It doesn’t matter how many people try to stray from it. Did I just compare our founders to God? In a way I did, but please note that I am not trying to insult anyone. For the purpose of the American Government our constitution and founders who wrote it are much like God is to believers. It is the law. It is indisputable.
    Our founders did not want a “democracy” for they feared a true democracy was just as dangerous as a monarchy. The founders were highly educated people who were experienced in defending themselves against tyranny. They understood that the constitution could protect the people by limiting the power of anyone to work outside of it much better than a pure system of popularity. A system of checks and balances was set up to help limit corruption of government and also the potential for an “immoral majority” developing within the American People. We have forgotten in this country that we are ultimately ruled by a constitution.

    Read more:

    • PK

      The problem with your analogy is that we can amend the Constitution. A Christian, as i am, can’t amend the Commandments of God. Likewise with other faiths. I do get what you’re saying though. The majority can’t vote to take away the rights of the minority in a republic. It’s good to point out that difference.

      • $8194357

        And the ammendments process has been creating the central planning usurptions of tyranical power, huh…Not what the Founders intended.

  • $8194357

    But if we could even save one child,
    it is worth giving up your Constitutional rights?

    History proves this a lie………..

    For the sake of the children thru history..
    Wrapping itself in “false moral cause” evil decieves.

    Funny how lucifer has had these folks doing the same
    thing thru out history.huh.

    Read and learn grasshoppers?

    Other Tyrants Who Have Used Children As Props
    January 16, 2013

    Obama’s shameless exploitation of children as set pieces is hardly new or original. In fact, tyrants and dictators have used kids as props down through the ages.
    Here are a few more recent examples: