“Like the majority of Americans, I believe that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to bear arms,” Obama wrote in a guest editorial that appeared in the Arizona Daily Star.

“And, in fact, my administration has not curtailed the rights of gun owners — it has expanded them, including allowing people to carry their guns in national parks and wildlife refuges.”

Those who advocate for gun safety, he said, need to recognize that “almost all gun owners in America are highly responsible,” and go to great lengths to obtain and use their weapons legally.

“Likewise, advocates for gun owners should accept the awful reality that gun violence affects Americans everywhere, whether on the streets of Chicago or at a supermarket in Tuscon,” Obama said.

The column offered by Obama comes on the heels of an open microphone at the Iowa Statehouse that revealed an embarrassing exchange between Republican lawmakers.

Iowa Rep. Jeff Kaufmann (R-Wilton) characterized proposed legislation that would allow Iowans to carry weapons without a background check or permits as a “crazy, give-a-handgun-to-a-schizophrenic-bill.” Kaufmann has since described his comment as an ill-timed joke, and has said he hopes the unintended public exchange will spark further discussion on the intersection of mental health issues and public safety.

Despite his now open assessment of the proposed bill, however, Kaufmann has not signaled that his support has waned for the measure. And, Iowa gun advocates believe he will continue to back the bill he summarized as “crazy.”

“We don’t believe he is in anyway backing down from his support for any of the gun bills currently being heard,” Sean McClanahan, president of the Iowa Firearms Coaltion told KCRG. “Our lobbyist as well as the NRA lobbyist works with Kaufmann on a daily basis at the capitol. He is one of our biggest supporters.”

The compromise envisioned by Obama contains three key steps, all related to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System:

1. Enforcement of existing laws, which would include timely and complete transfer of data by states to the national system
2. Rewards for states that provide the best data
3. Enhancements to the existing system to make it “faster and nimbler”

If Iowa lawmakers decide to pass the proposed legislation referenced by Kaufmann, Obama’s changes wouldn’t matter to the state. Under the bill, any Iowan of legal age would be able to carry a weapon, and no background check would be required.

“Most gun-control advocates know that most gun owners are responsible citizens. Most gun owners know that the word “commonsense” isn’t a code word for “confiscation.” And none of us should be willing to remain passive in the face of violence or resigned to watching helplessly as another rampage unfolds on television,” Obama said.

Mexican President Felipe Calderon called for the reinstatement of a ban on the sale of assault weapons in the U.S. while reiterating his opposition to a controversial Arizona immigration law during an address to a joint session of Congress on Thursday.

Calderon, citing his administration’s efforts to address the growing violence on the border related to the drug trade, argued that the spike in violence resulted in part from the end of the assault weapons ban in 2004.

Some Democrats on Capitol Hill, as well as Attorney General Eric Holder, have floated the idea of proposing a renewal of the assault weapons ban. But in the face of opposition from the gun lobby — not to mention the conservative Democrats who represent most of the party’s gains in recent elections — that idea has gone precisely nowhere.

“This just in — a poll conducted on a handful of Cubans by The Castro polling group finds that democracy is bad,” one commenter wrote.

Fair enough.

Yesterday, Rasmussen — a conservative polling shop — released the results of a similar survey. Strangely enough, they came up with similar numbers.

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 41% of Adults are at least somewhat concerned about their safety in the presence of those who have “concealed carry” gun permits. Fifty-eight percent (58%) don’t share that concern.

But 47% oppose so-called “open carry” laws that would allow citizens to openly wear their guns in public. Forty-one percent (41%) favor laws. Several states are currently wrestling with this issue.

Comments?

“Politicians who are doing the bidding of the gun lobby, and businesses who worry about offending gun rights extremists, should look at this data and be aware that there is potentially a large price to pay with voters and customers alike,” said Paul Helmke, President of the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence. “Having more guns in public places not only puts more people at risk, it clearly makes people feel less safe.”

The key results:

• Fifty-two percent oppose allowing people in general, not just those connected to law enforcement, to carry loaded guns openly in public;

• Fifty percent feel less safe knowing that people not connected to law enforcement can carry guns in public, while 38 percent feel more safe.

• Fifty-one percent said they were less likely to vote for a candidate who makes it easier for people to carry loaded guns in public, compared to 27 percent who were more likely to support such a candidate. Fully 63 percent of women said they were less likely to vote for a candidate who loosens laws on carrying guns in public.

The numbers are based on a survey of 600 registered voters in late April. The poll was conducted by Lake Research Partners, a Democratic polling firm.

Here, for example, is a video of Alabama militiaman Mike Vanderboegh telling reporters that there will be “consequences” if policymakers try to restrict gun rights.

Vanderboegh: I’m calling on the government to understand that there are going to be consequences to pushing people like us any farther back.

Questioner: More Ruby Ridges? More Wacos?

Vanderboegh: Precisely.

From comments like that, you’d think that the House was about to tighten D.C.’s gun laws, rather than gutting them.

There were calls to close it in the wake of the 1999 shootings at Columbine High School, and there were more calls to close it in 2007, following the shooting massacre at Virginia Tech. But so far, Congress has done nothing to address the gun show loophole, which allows unlicensed gun vendors to sell firearms without performing background checks on the buyers. And the inaction hasn’t gone unnoticed by some of the victims’ families.

Take Tom Mauser, whose son Daniel was killed 11 years ago tomorrow at Columbine. He’s got a letter running today in both the the Denver Post and Boulder Daily Camera urging Sen. Mark Udall (D-Colo.) to put his weight behind the Senate proposal that would close the gun show loophole.

[Congress1] “Shortly after the tragedy at Columbine, 70% of Coloradans voted to close this dangerous loophole, but in many other states the loophole remains — including every state surrounding Colorado,” Mauser writes. “That means that Coloradans can still easily be victimized by guns brought here from other states. We need a federal law to close the Gun Show Loophole for good, just like we have in Colorado.”

Sen. Michael Bennet, Colorado’s other upper-chamber Democrat, has endorsed the proposal, but Udall has so far resisted. A call to Udall’s office requesting comment was not immediately returned.

He’s not the only Democrat being targeted today. Six voices related to the Virginia Tech tragedy — including a survivor, and parents of both survivors and those killed — have a letter of their own in today’s Richmond Times Dispatch, calling on Sens. Jim Webb and Mark Warner, both Democrats of Virginia, to sign on to the same bill.

“Everyday in the United States, 35 people are murdered with guns — that’s a Virginia Tech sized massacre every single day,” the parents write. “We have seen first hand the incredible toll that gaps in the federal background check system have on public safety … Don’t let another day go by.”

Calls and emails to Webb’s and Warner’s offices were not immediately returned.

Under current law, licensed gun dealers are required to do background checks to ensure that prospective buyers are legally eligible to own firearms. Felons, illegal immigrants and the severely mentally ill, for example, are prohibited from owning guns. These guidelines apply to licensed dealers in all contexts, including gun shows. But unlicensed dealers at gun shows — or anywhere else — are under no obligation to follow them.

The Columbine shooters bought three of their guns by exploiting the loophole. More recently, last month’s Pentagon shooter did the same, purchasing at least one of his firearms at a Nevada gun show despite a history of severe mental illness that might have prevented the sale had the vendor done a background check.

Gun reform has been a thorny issue for the White House and Democratic leaders in Congress. And the reason is clear. Although Democrats hold significant majorities in both chambers, they owe those gains largely to more moderate members, who in recent elections have won seats in a number of conservative-leaning, historically Republican districts. Indeed, when Attorney General Eric Holder last year announced his support for renewal of the assault weapons ban, 65 House Democrats wrote to the White House attacking the proposal. And that was in a non-election year.

“Law-abiding Americans use these guns for all the same reasons they use any other kind of gun — competitive shooting, hunting and defending their homes and families,” the Democrats wrote.

But don’t accuse Congress of doing nothing in the area of gun reform. This week, the House is expected to pass a D.C. voting rights bill that also includes language gutting the District’s strict gun control laws.

Law enforcement officials say Bedell, a man with a history of severe psychiatric problems, had been sent a letter by California authorities Jan. 10 telling him he was prohibited from buying a gun because of his mental history.

Less than three weeks later, Bedell bought a 9 mm Ruger at a Las Vegas gun show by exploiting one of the largest loopholes in the nation’s gun control laws: While federal law requires licensed gun dealers to perform background checks on all prospective gun buyers, unlicensed sellers — like those who often set up shop at roaming gun shows — are exempt. The background checks are designed to prevent sales to those legally ineligible to own guns, including felons, illegal immigrants and, like Bedell, the severely mentally ill.

Several bills floating around Congress would subject unlicensed vendors to the same background check rules as licensed sellers. Considering the political environment on Capitol Hill in recent years, however, even sponsors of those proposals concede that they’ve got no chance of passing anytime soon.

In preview, the Coalition of National Park Service Retirees has released examples of some of the activities soon to be permitted under the new statute.

In Wyoming’s Yellowstone Park, for example, backcountry hikers will be free to openly carry firearms. At Virginia’s Wolf Trap Foundation for the Performing Arts, concertgoers — including those picnicking on the lawn —  will have the same opportunity. In Alaska’s Denali and Colorado’s Mesa Verde parks, handguns in holsters might soon be in fashion. Visitors to Pennsylvania’s Gettysburg National Park — a popular field-trip destination for the area’s public schools — will be able to carry rifles across those battlefields. The list goes on.

For it’s part, CNPSR opposes the changes, citing the heightened risk for rangers and the increased likelihood that wildlife — as well as natural and historical monuments — will become irresistible targets.

“A feeling of safety and security will be replaced by wariness and suspicion,” Bill Wade, chair of CNPSR’s executive council and former head of Virginia’s Shenandoah National Park, said in a statement. “This diminishes some of the ‘specialness and reverence’ our citizens have long accorded to their national parks.”

Too bad for Wade that his voice doesn’t carry quite so far on Capitol Hill as that of the National Rifle Association.

Senate Republicans, led by Sen. Tom Coburn (Okla.), are readying a number of gun-friendly amendments they intend to offer this year on must-pass appropriations bills, Roll Call’s John Stanton reports today.

Coburn “believes it’s important to stay on offense, so he wants to have a Pattonesque approach to amendments,” a veteran Senate GOP operative said.

This operative said that in the wake of Sen.-elect Scott Brown’s (R-Mass.) win in last month’s special election, Republicans believe it is critical that they try to make Democrats appear out of step with the public. They believe amendments on guns and spending in particular will help GOP Senators achieve that goal.

Among the provisions Coburn is eying, Stanton writes, is a proposal allowing veterans deemed “mentally defective” to own firearms, and another extending concealed-carry permits across state lines. The latter failed in the Senate last summer by just two votes. GOP strategists think that Brown’s arrival could tip the scales in favor of the provision the next time around.

You might remember that the proposal came as close as it’s ever come last year, passing the Senate in February, but not before conservatives attached an amendment scrapping most of Washington’s gun-control laws, which are among the strictest in the nation. That provision created a dilemma for the liberal Democratic leaders in the House, who supported the underlying bill but not the gun amendment. As a result, the bill has been sitting idle for almost a year.

But Davis, Roll Call reports today, says Democrats should hold their noses and pass the whole package this year — or else.

“This window closes at the end of this session and probably well before that,” said Davis, who now works at Deloitte Consulting. “I would take the medicine if that’s what you have to do. It’s not the way it should be done, but given the reality, I would take it with the gun language.”

The reason for the urgency is this: The bill also creates another House seat for conservative Utah — a provision that won the support of some Senate Republicans, who likely wouldn’t have voted for the bill otherwise. Trouble is, the 2010 Census is expected to yield Utah another lawmaker without congressional intervention. Take the Utah chip away, and Democrats are left without much leverage to gather GOP support — leverage they might need considering that two Senate Democrats voted against the bill the first time around.

Roll Call again:

“The Utah seat is important,” conceded Ilir Zherka, executive director of DC Vote. “We are very aware of the need to act as quickly as we can so that we can enact a law that fulfills the vision all of us had.”

Of course, while this political skirmish continues, the roughly 600,000 folks living in the nation’s capital have no true voice in Congress. How’s that for democracy?