I hope this isn't our future!
While trying to write an opinion on the new Obama administration and their agenda items week before last, I was stunned when their entire agenda on the “change†page suddenly vanished. What the …? After hitting refresh many times, even rebooting my machine, I came back to the same relatively blank agenda page with no links to items on the Obama agenda. So why is this happening? What’s up with the Obama transition team and why can’t we now see where this is going? Well now lo and behold it’s back up. So, what can we expect?
Well here’s a run down of what I think we will see on one subject. While some of his other items are pretty standard political fair this one small item is just full of pitfalls and problems. Can you say, The Brady’s are back in the White House?
I am admittedly starting with those things that concern me the most, the Second Amendment being one of my top priorities.
From http://www.change.gov/agenda/urbanpolicy_agenda/
• Address Gun Violence in Cities: Obama and Biden would repeal the Tiahrt Amendment, which restricts the ability of local law enforcement to access important gun trace information, and give police officers across the nation the tools they need to solve gun crimes and fight the illegal arms trade. Obama and Biden also favor commonsense measures that respect the Second Amendment rights of gun owners, while keeping guns away from children and from criminals. They support closing the gun show loophole and making guns in this country childproof. They also support making the expired federal Assault Weapons Ban permanent.
First off the Tiahrt Amendment was supported by BATFE, Fraternal Order of Police, Sothern State Police Benevolent Organization and other law enforcement groups. The assertion that the Amendment precludes investigations in criminal traces is patently a lie. It is not now, nor has it ever been a hurdle for an investigation of crime. It has been about keeping political witch hunts from unfettered access to confidential information on firearms buyers that, was always intended by Congress to be confidential. In fact BATFE has fought for years to keep this information confidential. It in NO WAY restricts local law enforcement agencies from investigative powers in pursuit of criminals. That is simply a flat out lie.
Commonsense measures that keep guns away from children and criminals.
So we all agree that common sense gun laws are needed, we have way more than enough right now! How many laws do we need? Criminal activity with firearms is already illegal. There are more gun laws than any reasonable person could be expected to understand and that number is growing every year. There are already countless traps for both those unaware and even those who are very educated. Because new laws only tend to affect those honest individuals not criminals, decent people object to new laws since they don’t reduce crime and they hate trying to learn what new requirements they came up with this year. They also hate being entrapped by new and increasingly complex hoops to jump through in an attempt to comply with already innumerable laws. The commonsense laws were written long ago, now they just want to add confusing junk law and traps for honest folks.
Think about this, the Brady Bill was over 3,000 words long, the unabridged federal law is over 400 pages, Texas unabridged version is over 300 pages. That’s over 130,000 words in the federal and just one state, Texas alone. An average novel has 40,000 words, need I say more? Well, ok, California has 158,643 words on the subject in 1998 and they have added a few since that last count too. California and federal law combined is over 247,000 words. (those counts are a few years old now, and no, I am not going to count them all to confirm that number) Commonsense, are you kidding me?
They are talking about making “child proof firearms†Ok, think about it rationally can a child get into an aspirin bottle? Can you if you’re 55? I hand my naproxen sodium bottles to my kid to open for me all the time when my hands hurt. She also shoots pretty well too. If they make it so that there are “childproof guns†all the public services will be compelled to use them in service as well. Ask your local cops or sheriffs if they want to carry “childproof firearms†it will reduce the reliability of the firearm to work correctly every time it’s called upon, as you complicate any mechanical device it has more parts and ways to malfunction. In a life or death situation that’s not going to be good. Biometrics are just a dream as is the already passed marking requirements for cartridges in California, political pipedreams.
They are also talking about making a 5 mile perimeter exclusion zone around ANY school for any firearms dealers. Now take any map of your local area and draw a 5 mile circle around all the schools in your area. See any blank spaces where you could legally place a gun store? It a legal product and it’s an enumerated Right to own, and bear, but I have to go where to buy it? This is supposed to reduce crime, how?
Closing the gun show loophole
The “gun show loophole” is a myth created by anti-gun activists to advance their political agenda. There is no loophole. All gun sales or transfers are subject to state and federal laws. All licensed firearm dealers must complete the process provided for by state and federal law–a process that includes completion of forms and a background check on the buyer–before a gun can be sold. This is true no matter where the sale takes place, at a gun store or at a gun show.
Federal law also regulates sales of firearms between private individuals. It is a serious crime to sell a firearm to someone who is not a resident of the same state as the seller.
Making the Assault Weapons ban permanent. Well let’s see how effective it was the first time around for 10 years. BTW FBI stats say they are used in only 2% of crimes.
The LA Times, “The Big Lie of the Assault Weapon Ban†By John Lott
It’s instructive to remember just how passionately the media hyped the dangers of “sunsetting†the ban. Associated Press headlines warned “Gun shops and police officers brace for end of assault weapons ban.†It was even part of the presidential campaign: “Kerry blasts lapse of assault weapons ban.†An Internet search turned up more than 560 news stories in the first two weeks of September that expressed fear about ending the ban. Yet the news that murder and other violent crime declined last year produced just one very brief paragraph in an insider political newsletter, the Hotline.The fact that the end of the assault weapons ban didn’t create a crime wave should not have surprised anyone. After all, there is not a single published academic study showing that these bans have reduced any type of violent crime.
Gun controllers’ fears that the end of the assault weapons ban would mean the sky would fall were simply not true. How much longer can the media take such hysteria seriously when it is so at odds with the facts?
While this is an old article it’s pretty relevant to where the new “change†is pointing at least when it comes to gun control in America and the agenda of this new administration. “Gun Control’s Twisted Outcome†Since this article was written things haven’t gotten better over there either.
On the same subject, but not on his agenda pages is the question of the US policy in regards to the UN objective of limiting small arms to the rest of the world. While we really don’t know what he has in mind for that, it should be very clear that other folks in the world will very probably not enjoy the protections of the US Supreme Court and Heller. It should be noted that when a populace has no way to defend themselves, they generally become slaves to whoever does control the national defense forces. It’s not a new story and I have no idea why it needs to be repeated over and over again for people to understand that there is evil in the world that if left unchecked will attempt to enslave us all.
One final note, if you’re a firearms owners, I guess you’re not what the new team is looking for on the staff for change.
Application for Employment for the Obama Administration
Making a list of firearms owners even among his own potential employees? Lists have historically been used for only one purpose, confiscation.
Item 59 page 7,Do you or any members of your immediate family own a gun? If so, provide complete ownership and registration information. Has the registration ever lapsed? Please describe how and by whom it is used and whether it has been the cause of any personal injuries or property damage.
I was asked who scared me more, prior to the election, Obama or McCain? Without hesitation I said Obama and these are but a few of the reasons why.
Can we just find some commonsense politicians? Please…
More on the “Agenda for Change†coming soon!
If you enjoyed this article, please consider sharing it!
7 Responses to Agenda for Change? Sounds More like Clinton 2 to Me
Leave a Reply
Readership
Whoa! Umm. Ok, well if you say that automatic weapons crimes increased only 2% since the ban expired I certainly believe you. That’s insignificant! The margin of error on something as simple as a poll is usually THREE percent!
At the time Clinton signed the ban, the inner-cities, many right here in SoCal, were erupting with violence. Remember Rodney King, OJ Simpson, Gangsta Rap, etc. I think we needed the ban at that point to control a problem that apparently was only temporary, hence the sunset clause. Making the ban permanent is political suicide for our supposedly-centrist President-elect.
However, a large part of the reason the violence subsided a few years back was not because of the weapons ban, since as you say, only law-abiding citizens got caught in that net, but because the economy improved. If there’s plenty of money and power to go around, why have gang wars? I’m honestly shocked, however, that automatic weapons violence hasn’t increased over the last few years of the Bush Depression, but I’m certainly not complaining.
And I’ve always said there were too many gun laws on the books. The idea that many people aren’t even aware of that because they don’t affect the typical gun buying experience is ridiculous. Ignorance of the law is no excuse? How do you figure?
Still though, due to other issues, especially economic, I was much more frightened at the prospect at the idea of President McCain and his self-admitted lack of knowledge of basic economic principals (‘I’ve got Greenspan’s book’) and the fact a 72-year old, three-time cancer patient chose Sarah Palin as his running mate.
SMS
Well Sarah, not to pick nits or get all facty here but . . .
An assault weapon is not the same as an automatic weapon. An assault weapon is typically a single shot, semi-automatic, non-politically correct “Ugly Black Rifleâ€, currently regulated in California under Roberti-Roos et.al. While an automatic weapon, a.k.a. “machine gunâ€, is already highly regulated under the National Firearms Act, one of the first gun control laws dating back nearly 80 years in Federal Law.
As to your eruption of violence. Rodney King – beaten by police officers, no guns. OJ Simpson – the bloody knife attack on two others, no gun. Then Gansta Rap (not my personal favorite) – words don’t kill people, criminals do.
And the “Bush Depression†potentially causing automatic weapon violence to rise . . . If you can afford an automatic weapon (often costing in the thousands of dollars), then you can afford to give your kids sandwich for dinner.
All that said, thanks for helping to further the rational debate.
Michael -
Whoops! I always confuse ‘automatic’ with ‘assault.’ Sorry. I’m still learning from you and Carl!
The Rodney King reference was to the riots, where there were not many guns involved but were still a volatile situation that easily could have turned that way. Same goes for the racial tension regarding the OJ verdict, and the Gansta Rap thing was ‘art imitates life,’ where many gangbangers were using AK-47′s and Mac-10′s to make damn sure they hit their target. Of course, practice may have been prudent in their case as well!
I like the comment about Bush. Funny shit! My point however, is that street violence tends to increase as there are fewer opportunities in already impoverished neighborhoods.
Nice to see you by the way! Thanks for joining us! NOW TAKE ME SHOOTING!
SMS
I am totally agnostic on the 2nd amendment and the ownership of the guns. Even when I was in the old communist Czechoslovakia, as a military officer, I had permission to own and carry the gun. I never did. Many of my fellow officers purchased one and it was burning them in the packet. They were playing with it often. Many ended up injured by it and some accidentally killed.
Well, you not gone shoot one in the fist fight, are you?… I thought.
Than, I had an opportunity to really need a gun when I decided that I want to bust trough the iron curtain. I knew that there will be a border guard armed with the AK40. Even than, I decide not to carry one because if I would kill a border guard I may be still prosecuted on the other side because such shooting would spark an international incident and who knows what would happen.
So my first attempt to bust through was in 1968 following the Prague spring uprising. It was dark, I got confused so I made a fatal mistake and have run into the patrol. If I would have a gun I could shoot all of them because I have saw them before they have seen me. It was a dog which sniffed me out. So they got me, beat a crap out of me and than let the dog play with me as her reword for finding me.
I was a mess, covered in blood, half naked because my clothe was totally torn. Without any medical help, I was thrown into a medieval dungeons over the night. In the morning, I was taken by the police to near town for medical checkup. This happened between the Yugoslavia and Italy near Trieste.
Thanks to the beating and dog bites the police freaked out, fixed my clothe and same day released me under a condition that I will not file any international complaint as Czech.
If I would carry I would probably shoot the guard and spent about 10 years in Italian jail for murder or would avoided beating by surrendering with a gun in my hand.
If I wouldn’t be badly beaten, I would be returned back to Czechoslovakia, tried and sentenced for desertion to 5 years in uranium mines with high mortality rate and would be long time dead.
So, ironically not having a gun saved my ass.
I have question for you Carol: Allegedly the 2nd amendment was designed to protect people against the government abuse. In such case a first contact with the government would be the police going door to door arresting patriots. FAQ, would you shoot the COP?….. or in self defense when he starts puling the gun on you?
Look we are living in the era when the government can lunch a drone with the hellfire missile and kill you during your fishing trip where your gun would be totally meaningless.
“I was asked who scared me more, prior to the election, Obama or McCain?”
It must really suck living your life in fear.
Sarah –
People with little to no experience in the shooting sports (and I’m talking informal shooting at tin cans and paper targets, here, not Olympic Biathalon) often confuse SEMI-automatic firearms that were banned under the now-expired Clinton “Ugly-Gun” Ban (and are still banned in California under Roberti-Roos, et. al.) with FULLY-automatic firearms that are essentially banned in California and are severely restricted (though not banned) under Federal law in other states. Gun ban proponents LOVE that kind of confusion, because it gets them support from the un-experienced for each successive step in banning ALL legal gun ownership. The gun ban crowd likes to call whatever firearm they are trying to ban at the moment “the criminals’ gun-of-choice”. Keep banning various types of firearms, and the pool of “guns-of-choice” that’s ripe for banning eventually becomes non-existent. That’s the gun-banners’ strategy — one brick at a time until the whole 2nd Amendment house is destroyed and they FEEL safer, while not actually BEING safer.
Regarding the Rodney King riots, you may recall there were news photos of store roofs where store owners and employees were standing watch with some of those “Ugly Black Guns”. You may also recall that those particular stores and the surrounding streets were not on fire or experiencing looting. The intimidation factor of law-abiding citizens merely holding these firearms in plain sight was enough to reduce or eliminate crime in the immediate area — WITHOUT A SHOT BEING FIRED, as best we can tell. The problem is not which guns are being carried. The problem is who is doing the carrying. And unfortunately under our current laws, more often than not it’s the bad guys who are carrying the guns, not the good guys.
Regarding the reduction in gang violence in the recent past, economic factors certainly may have played a role, but the fact that tougher enforcement and tougher laws (e.g., 3-strikes) were passed may have played an equal or even larger role. Maybe the fact that lots of the hoodlums are already locked up is the reason you’re not seeing the upturn in crime that you expect in our current economy!
With regard to the potential for an increase in street violence in a bad economy, what better reason to provide law-abiding citizens the opportunity to CHOOSE whether to have the means to defend themselves against armed criminals anywhere they go? I’m talking “shall-issue concealed carry permits”, wherein the local cops are required to either issue the permit or show good cause for denying a carry permit to somebody who is willing to jump through all the hoops one is required to jump through to get that permit.
Under our current laws, we get situations like former-Sheriff Carona’s alleged “pay to play” scenario or our new sheriff’s complete misunderstanding of the law. OC Sheriff Hutchens is quoted in the OC Register (Tuesday, October 7, 2008 Supervisors ask sheriff about restricting concealed weapons) telling OC Supervisors “the state law is clear that concealed weapons are not legal. Exceptions are just that.”
No, current California law does not say that concealed weapons are illegal any more than it says driving a car on public roads is illegal. The law says you must get a state license to drive a car on public highways and you must get a permit to carrry a concealed weapon in public. The only difference is that issuance of concealed carry permits is currently at the discretion of local law enforcement.
We get a good idea about where Hutchens is coming from on this issue in an LA Times story (November 12, 2008 Orange County sheriff’s crackdown on gun permits comes under fire) wherein she spews the same irrational fear-mongering that always comes from the gun ban crowd “What if someone who had been issued a [concealed carry permit] by Carona went out and hurt someone? It certainly wouldn’t look good for the county,” Hutchens said. This kind of “bloodbaths in the streets” prediction was used by gun banners when Florida implemented a “shall-issue” concealed weapon permit system way back in 1987.
Guess what? The gun banners were wrong. No bloodbaths, no Wild West shootouts. Instead, there was a reduction in crime that can be at least partially attributed to the fact that criminals had a new problem to consider — the potential that a victim or bystander might be armed. This is a much greater problem for the criminal than the potential that a cop might show up 5 minutes after the fact to take a report on the crime. Now 39 states have “shall-issue” laws and there is virtually ZERO problem with permit-holders breaking the law. Sheriff Hutchens is completely out of touch with reality on this issue and, like most government bureaucrats in positions of power, is taking precautions where none are needed, solely on the basis of fear-mongering.
Stanley –
Glad to hear you finally made it to freedom, but anecdotal evidence is a poor basis for government policy. You could have just as easily been unlucky and shot or mauled to death.
And yes, our government could certainly kill us with a Hellfire missile if they chose to do so. But if you’ve been watching the news about Iraq and Afghanistan over the past several years, you’ll have to agree that the use of such weapons has not led to the complete and utter defeat of Al Qaeda and the Taliban. They are still able to wreak havoc on our troops with small arms fire and improvised explosive devices. So there is certainly still a role for small arms to play in the defense of a citizenry against a government run amok. History repeatedly shows that unarmed citizens eventually become slaves. Take, for example, Czechoslovakia under the Soviets….
All –
It’s clear that our presidential choices this election cycle were, as usual, to pick the lesser of two bad choices. But on the firearms and Second Amendment issue, our only hope now is that either the Democrats will remember Bill Clinton’s attributing the NRA to the Republican takeover of Congress immediately after his “Ugly Gun” ban passed and wise-up OR they show their true colors by passing another stupid gun ban and lose control of Congress again as a result.
Paul V.,
Notwithstanding US revolution, historically no arm revolution against the government brought any improvements and eventually diet out. Only so called velvet revolutions brought significant improvements because the people spontaneously acted.
Obama is a clear example that people want socialism, they want free health care, affordable housing and retirement. They are willing to gave up private ownership of their homes for the collective one by joining HOAs.
Essentially, the People are willing to trade their freedom for temporary security.
So the cliché goes – “they deserve neither and will lose both”
However, I see prudent use of the arms in the local mayhem like riots.
In the Santa Ana there is about 4000 gang bangers armed with guns. Soon there will be food riots which will be out of hands of police to handle.
As mayoral candidate, and I am still doing so in city council meetings, I am proposing to organize about 4000 citizens strong Civil Defense Patrol armed with automatic weapons to defend their neighborhoods and could be deployed virtually in minutes around the city.