White House muzzled down gun control groups?

        On Friday, March 8, 2013 John Aravois, posted on AmericaBlog, about how the White House did a negotiation with the gun control groups. John Aravois states that “The White House reportedly got the gun control groups to agree to hold their fire, as it were, in exchange for the groups being permitted a seat at the negotiating table”.  Now the question is, was this a good idea or a bad one? I believe and also John Aravois, that it was a bad idea. It makes it seem that the White House has all power. This shouldn’t be like that way because people have the right to speak and should be “muzzled” down. People from the gun control groups will believe that they don’t have a word in anything. Sure they might be in the meeting but there are not allowed to speak, just hear the conversation and agree to it. Further into the article, we see that Aravois used examples as to why it was a bad idea in the past. One of the examples that John Aravois states is “ Fast forward to 2009, the first year of the administration. Again, the Obama administration made clear to outside groups that they’d better toe the line, or they wouldn’t be welcome in the Obama White House. Groups like SLDN, then the lead gays in the military group, were cut off by the White House for daring to speak up against the President’s seeming-reticence about moving forward on his promise to repeal DADT.

         Now with all that said, gun controls have been one of the main topics lately in America, after many shootings that happened in the last couple of months. It’s obvious that the author’s audience is anybody that is concerned with the gun control topic. He uses past examples of groups that have made an agreement with the white house, to lure the audience. It’s his credibility and evidence that how the white house is being unfair with all of these groups. He argues that it isn’t fair and that there should be something done about it. John says “I’m all for working with the Obama administration and Democrats generally, and a number of us have proven our ability to do just that, time and again, all the way back to when Barack Obama was still battling Hillary Clinton in the primaries. But that doesn’t mean we’re always going to be on the same page with the administration, and it doesn’t always mean that the White House is going to be doing what they should be doing on any given issue.” I agree with what the author is saying. They should recognize that the people’s voice matters as well. At least they are taking accounted for that the people should have a vote about the back ground check.