Newsweek has a story that indicates the Obama administration may start pushing gun control. Apparently, gun control groups were not one bit happy that the President failed to mention anything about guns during the SOTU, which the White House says was intentional to avoid the appearance of trying to capitalize on the Tucson tragedy.

But not to worry. The administration’s “never let a crisis go to waste” mentality could get the better of them.

Reading the Newsweek piece, you can tell it was written by someone who is for gun control [emphasis mine]:

But throughout the hourlong speech, he never addressed the issue at the core of the Giffords tragedy—gun control—and what lawmakers would, or should, do to reform American firearm-access laws.

Gun control is the core issue regarding the shootings in Tucson? Well, I suppose after flailing around trying to blame tough conservative rhetoric for several weeks was getting stale for the Democrat media, especially since the American saw through that in no time. They were bound to get around to another issue Democrats want implemented, gun control.

But Newsweek’s rank dishonesty doesn’t end there [emphasis mine]:

But in the next two weeks, the White House will unveil a new gun-control effort in which it will urge Congress to strengthen current laws, which now allow some mentally unstable people, such as alleged Arizona shooter Jared Loughner, to obtain certain assault weapons, in some cases without even a background check.

I have to ask, who at Newsweek knew Loughner was mentally unstable before he went on his spree? Who at Newsweek knew about Loughner at all before January 8, 2011? We’ve learned since the shooting that there had been problems with Loughner, problems that even Democratic Pima County Sheriff Clarence Dupnik knew about. According to county officials, these issues didn’t warrant prosecution (maybe they should have, but I’m not going to second-guess them). The community college Loughner attended kicked him out until such time as a psychiatric evaluation determined he could return to school, but it doesn’t appear to have been done. So there was nothing on the record, a criminal conviction or forced psychiatric care, to tell officials Loughner shouldn’t be allowed to buy a gun, even the one he used for the shooting. But somehow the people at Newsweek knew? Well if that’s the case, then Newsweek has a lot to answer for, don’t they? In an article full of stupid sentences, this one takes the cake.

As I mentioned, the administration looks like it will reprise former Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel’s credo to do something really dumb and really sleazy:

The White House said that to avoid being accused of capitalizing on the Arizona shootings for political gain, Obama will address the gun issue in a separate speech, likely early next month. He’s also expected to use Arizona as a starting point, but make the case that America’s gun laws have been too loose for much longer than just the past few weeks.

Let me give the White House a clue: the American people will know the administration is trying to capitalize on the shootings for political gain if they announce some sort of gun control proposal, and the American people will know it will be a sleazy attempt because it will be done in Arizona where the shootings occurred. If Obama really wants to make sure he isn’t re-elected in 2012, then by all means the administration should move full speed ahead on this. Same with any other Democrat who is moronic enough to take this on.

We’ll see what happens. At this point, the article states the administration hasn’t sought out any of the gun control groups to consult on legislative suggestions. For all we know, the Obama administration could very well be paying lip service to the gun control activists and Newsweek, just like he did to Republicans during the SOTU. Obama isn’t stupid; he knows gun control is a loser issue for him, at least he should know. He may make a token reference to gun control soon, but I’d be surprised if he presses for anything.

As an aside, I’ve been getting Newsweek mailed to my house. I don’t know why; I didn’t want it. I better not be paying for it. The one issue that had a George Will piece within was an article I had read already, so it was useless. I’ve already told my wife that if she wants to read them, fine; after that, they’ll get used to fuel fires for the fireplace. That is all they’re good for. Especially when they hire people to write articles like the one I linked to.