Two days ago, the National Rifle Association told President Obama to pound sand. Now that it’s clear that gun rights groups aren’t going to heed the Commander-in-Chief’s call for a “commonsense” consensus on strengthening existing gun laws, gun control advocates are turning on the Prez. This morning’s New York Times upbraids Obama for his gun control op ed‘s weasel words . . .

It was a promising start toward a sensible discussion of gun violence, even though the president stopped short of offering a specific legislative proposal or endorsing one already in the Congressional hopper. His to-do list omitted banning the big volume ammunition magazines that figured in the Tucson massacre and a long line of other mass shootings. The magazines have no defensible use outside of combat and law enforcement. Mr. Obama owes the country [i.e. East Coast intellectuals] muscular White House leadership to make sure his reforms happen.

Note: “reforms.” Not “initiatives” or “legislation.” Gun control advocates are engaged in an Orwellian campaign to throw a cloak of invisibility around their cause. So even as they attack the Prez they’re trying to fly beneath the radar.

Check this from the Washington Post editorial “Why Won’t President Obama Stand Up to the NRA Bullies?” . . .

Gun-safety advocates don’t “need” to accept that most gun owners are responsible. We always have, as the president sort of acknowledges later in his piece. How can repeating NRA propaganda against advocates of sane gun laws be helpful to this debate? It was a bolder Obama who said in 2001: “I know that the NRA believes people should be unimpeded and unregulated on gun ownership. I disagree.” Crisp, clear, and right. “Assault weapons are not for hunting,” Obama said in 2004. “They are the weapons of choice for gang-bangers, drug dealers and terrorists.” Right again. Yet in his op-ed, the president wrote: “Some will say that anything short of the most sweeping anti-gun legislation is a capitulation to the gun lobby. Others will predictably cast any discussion as the opening salvo in a wild-eyed scheme to take away everybody’s guns.” The first statement is a wild distortion of the position of actual advocates of sane gun laws. They are not seeking “sweeping anti-gun legislation.” They are pushing tame steps that LaPierre and his lobbyists reject — thorough background checks and a ban on those big magazines. Yes, restoring the highly effective ban on assault weapons would also be good. But that’s Obama’s own position. Isn’t it? Obama said last week that “bullying can have destructive consequences for our young people.” It can also have destructive consequences for politicians. The president could set a good example by standing up to the bullies of the NRA.

Was E.J. That was his position. I guess Washington Post editorialist E.J. Dionne Jr. has just woken up to the fact that President Obama is, like most people in his profession, ready to sacrifice anyone and anything to achieve his goals, whatever they may be, at any given moment. A list at the top of which you’ll find the word “Maintain power. Get Reelected.”

At least E.J. got the memo from Newsweek re: gun grabbers’ rebranding exercise: swapping “gun safety advocates” for “gun control advocates.” We’ll be keeping a watch out to see if this obfuscatory linguistic jujitsu catches on.

After much contemplation (another cup of coffee), I’m in favor of it. When Americans hear “gun safety,” they hear safe gun handling. Nothing more and nothing less. By dropping the word “control” from “gun control,” gun control advocates are shooting themselves in the foot.

For example, there’s a disconnect between “gun safety” and “closing the gun show loophole.” How does that make guns safer? It doesn’t. Even where the term does apply, it doesn’t. For example, how does limiting magazine capacity to 10 rounds make a gun safer? Answer: it doesn’t. Not really. And that’s a debate gun rights groups should be fighting, right now.