Posted on 03/15/2011 9:28:33 AM PDT by alan8228
In an op-ed to the Arizona Daily Star President Barack Obama once again lived up to the mantra of "never let a crisis go to waste" by calling for new gun control measures. Seeking to capitalize off the shooting that killed six people and wounded 19, including Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-AZ), Obama decided to blame society for the acts of a a lone whackjob lunatic.
His op-ed is very slick, seeking to acknowledge no desire to take away guns or to repeal the 2nd Amendment:
"Now, like the majority of Americans, I believe that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to bear arms. And the courts have settled that as the law of the land. In this country, we have a strong tradition of gun ownership that's handed from generation to generation. Hunting and shooting are part of our national heritage. 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."
He also tries to allay fears by gunowners that will undoubtedly come from this op-ed:
"The fact is, almost all gun owners in America are highly responsible. They're our friends and neighbors. They buy their guns legally and use them safely, whether for hunting or target shooting, collection or protection. And that's something that gun-safety advocates need to accept."
Ok, I'm with you so far PBO. But you start to stray off the reservation here:
"The National Instant Criminal Background Check System is the filter that's supposed to stop the wrong people from getting their hands on a gun. Bipartisan legislation four years ago was supposed to strengthen this system, but it hasn't been properly implemented. It relies on data supplied by states - but that data is often incomplete and inadequate. We must do better."
What's wrong with states handling gun laws? Define "inadequate;" does that mean inadequate to the President? Inadequate to Congress, what does that mean exactly? Next point:
"Second, we should in fact reward the states that provide the best data - and therefore do the most to protect our citizens."
Ok, now I'm really confused. What does this mean? States that fork over gun ownership data to the federal government get a gold star? Maybe an "atta boy" from Barack Obama? PBO brings it all home with this last point:
"Third, we should make the system faster and nimbler. We should provide an instant, accurate, comprehensive and consistent system for background checks to sellers who want to do the right thing, and make sure that criminals can't escape it."
I'm ok with background checks to buy guns. I don't think you can really argue against that. However, I am absolutely opposed to a federal database for the purpose of background checks. This gives the government information on who bought a gun, where they live, and what they bought. I know this may sound conspiratorial in nature but I just don't feel comfortable giving the government that kind of information.
Realistically, I don't think the federal government would ever try to take guns away from people. It just isn't practical or smart to do. However, there are other potential issues. For instance, if a gun is used in a crime there is potential that law enforcement would single out gun owners in the area regardless of criminal history. That kind of harassment is not necessary. Not that I don't have faith in law enforcement to do the right thing, but if faced with a given situation, it could happen. Secondly, where does this database information stop? What's next? What prevents the federal government from restricting people further from purchasing guns? If you open this door then the consequences could be disastrous. I like the gun laws in Virginia, I think for the most part they are fair. I sure don't want to be subject to the gun laws of DC or New York. What is deemed adequate?
In any event a federal database is a tremendously bad idea. Do not let Barack Obama use the Tucson tragedy to play on the emotions of our country to implement some radical new gun control system.
Read more commentary at Moore Common Sense
“Shall Not Be Infringed”
Could not be more clear.
His op-ed is very slick, seeking to acknowledge no desire to take away guns or to repeal the 2nd AmendmentThis basic MO of BO, of claiming to be a conservative while actual being a communist, is made possible by the lickspittle, step'n'fetch-it "media".
They are not journalists.
Journalism is dead.
Try and register my firearms. I fricken dare you...
They don’t need to know how many cans of peas I have in my pantry and they don’t need to know how many guns i have either.
I resent the info I have to give them now....
Has he been right on anything?
“They can’t even keep the NFA registry up to date and they think they can monitor a database of over 300 million personally owned firearms?”
They won’t concern themselves with their voting constituency. It will be their political enemies that are tracked and monitored.
“I’m ok with background checks to buy guns. I don’t think you can really argue against that. However, I am absolutely opposed to a federal database for the purpose of background checks. This gives the government information on who bought a gun, where they live, and what they bought.”
There is a huge leap there from “info in a database” to “info in a database about gun ownership”. The info in the database could (and should) be nothing more than things that would be useful in a background check, like records of committing violent crimes or hanging out with Charlie Sheen.
I’m not saying I trust the (make that ANY) administration not to be doing things they shouldn’t be (either now or in the future), just that the article needs some evidence before making such a leap.
Barry really wants our guns so he can arm his private militia. Not gonna happen, Barry, no how, no way.
Yes!!!
It’s time to put an end to the BATFE. It’s these criminals that have been facilitating guns leaving the US in the hands of Mexican drug cartel killers. The BATFE heads that authorized the “fast and furious” operation and other completely illegal activities need to be sent to prison.
This is all being run out of the DOJ through the ATF office in Phoenix.
Time for the House to ask some very hard questions!
“Realistically, I don’t think the federal government would ever try to take guns away from people. It just isn’t practical or smart to do.”
Since when have Democrats ever done anything that was practical OR smart?
Canada with population of 33 million failed miserable to implement this even after trying for decades and spending hundreds of millions.
I'll argue against it simply because every time a liberal gets in power they try to turn that “background check” system into a defacto registration scheme. The left was apoplectic when John Ashcroft took the ATF to the woodshed for not destroying background check records, even though the law that established the “instant check” system specifically requires that no records of who the checks are run on is maintained.
You can't trust them, ever.
I can...
pitiful attempts to trade FReedom for a lil security result in the loss of both...
how about if you are walkin the streets, youre assumed to be a Citizen...and if you 'infringe' on another citizens person or property, you are locked up, for a term, until released to resume your Citizenship ???
fair enuff???
Unfortunately, he also thinks that it is perfectly reasonable that Americans have to ask permission to exericse that right, AND to demonstrate to the government why permission should be granted.
“There is a huge leap there from “info in a database” to “info in a database about gun ownership”.”
You are being naive if you think the purpose of this legislation is anything other than to create a national registration database.
The concept that the government could or should only “allow” certain people to have guns stands the very concept of American jurisprudence on its head. It presumes that the government knows all, controls all, and should be doing so. It is wrong and ineffective.
It is crazy to set up a huge expensive bureaucratic system, require everyone to jump though hoops and prove that they are *not* criminals in order to try, ineffectively, to prevent the few individuals who are not responsible, from having legal access to guns. This is a failed paradigm, and it should be abandoned. To accept the idea that the all gun sales should be monitored by the government, and only allowed to those it deems satisfactory is fundamentally wrong.
The entire idea of the enterprise has always been the death of a thousand cuts, where the restrictions on who can buy, and where, and how and what are continually increased until the number of gun owners is reduced to political insignificance.
Mark
I don't think the author has really thought this line through to its logical conclusions.
What about background checks to buy a car? Car accidents kill far more people than shootings each year. If you have too many at-fault accidents, you simply aren't allowed to buy a car or even drive any more.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.