Jan 6, 2016

Obama Inadvertently Promotes Gun Frenzy

Obama's televised speech on gun control from the White House was wrought with emotion. I don't believe that there is anybody not profoundly saddened by children being shot.  However, the relationship between such revulsion and his proposals is very vague. Virtually all guns bought and sold through various venues, ultimately involve a FFL dealer, and a background check of the buyer. I don't know what tiny loophole Obama really closed yesterday by executive order, but I'm sure that it will result in a buying frenzy, that will profoundly outweigh the few sales it curtails. Worse yet, I'm sure that the White House knew that while his action would affect only a few dozen transactions, it would foster the sale of a few hundred thousand more guns. This is a pattern that has repeated itself, over and over again. I'm not advocating a gun policy, but know that grandstanding on the issue serves no good end.

15 comments:

Anonymous said...

Morganelli just inadvertently promoted a heroin frenzy. Things always amp up before they wane, but they still need to be addressed. I think most people in this country would agree that there are way too many shootings, but while everyone has critiques of everyone else's proposals, no one is offering anything new or innovative. The shootings happen, the horrified onlookers turn to the gun community, the NRA, for answers, and they say 'it's a mental health issue' and deflect the entire thing upon that community. Mental health practitioners chime in with the obvious, "how about mandatory mental health assessment for anyone looking to purchase a firearm?", to which the horrified gun lobby adamantly screeches "oh, hell no".

And so it continues and will continue, and while one could offer that Obama's newest 'plan' is not new, and not likely to be effective, this approach, 'tightening the loopholes' seems to be the last card in the deck, and has been played by previous Presidents, Democrat and Republican over the years

Shootings, just like drug abuse are symptoms of a larger disease, and while it's usually a good idea to assuage symptoms, the disease still needs to be dealt with.

Dave said...

Mr Molovinsky

Can you imagine government requiring a background check on you before you post your opinion on your blog? Before you publish a newspaper article? Before you preach a sermon? Before you hire a lawyer? Of course not.

Obama's emphasis on background checks is merely a foot-in-the-door enabling the government to steadily expand the criterion by which it may preemptively suspend the right of a citizen to purchace a firearm, just as it would suspend your right to freedom of speech as I mentioned above.

The government has absolutely no right to require a "background check" before an individual exercises their constitutional rights. Not just on purchasing firearms, but exercising any of the freedoms in the Bill of Rights.

This is precisely the danger posed by Obama's plan to conscript physicians into agents of the government for the purpose of entering your medical diagnoses into the background check system.

Obama's real plan is to ultimately ban all private sales (including between family members) so that a paper trail exists on as many firearms as possible to facilitate government confiscation. He even cited Communist China's gun laws as a model to emulate.

Anonymous said...

What Obama has proposed in terms of qualifying those permitted to own a gun is completely unworkable. First of all, it is so vague, a case can be made under his proposal to disqualify 90% of ALL citizens, and excessively delay the other 10%.

I also don't approve provisions to make one's family doctor an agent for the government in creating a more thorough firearms registry.

Even if well-intended, his proposal is poorly done.

Fred Windish

Anonymous said...

Mike,

Something Anything was a great album by Todd Rundgren. It is not a plan for "gun control". Clearly the president is frustrated,who isn't? His solution however continues his recent pattern of trampling on the constitution. Those applauding Barry's latest move should consider the danger of this precedent as the next president will likely follow suit and make congress even more irrelevant.
Imagine future presidents signing executive orders that end all Affirmative Action programs, restrict abortions after 12 weeks,places time limits on public assistance, make English the official language and forbids the use of any other language for all government related business,eliminate the EPA, Department of Education, and the civil rights division of the Justice Department.One could go on and on with other examples, and thanks to the general acquiescence of the media and Democrats in general to Obama's abuse of power look forward to the next president/presidents acting like tyrants rather than executives.

Scott Armstrong

Jamie Kelton said...

The President cannot strike down evil with an Executive Order. Congress cannot outlaw evil.

We have gone down this road before. In 1920, Congress passed the Eighteenth Amendment to the Constitution that outlawed alcohol. After all, it was because of whiskey that prostitution existed, because of gambling, because of drunkenness, Alcohol was an evil of our society and if we simply got rid of it, all would be better and we would all have better lives. Well the prohibitionists got the Eighteenth Amendment passed and what happened ?

Prohibition led to the rise of organized crime, the modern gangster movment: Capone, Lucky Luciano, Gotti, it is still with us in terms of illegal drugs. Things were so bad that in 1933, President Franklin Roosevelt led the effort to repeal it. The only constitutional amendment ever repealed in our history.

Now, if banning alcohol didn't work, what are the chances that gun bans will?

Bad people want to do bad things. And typically, to achieve those nefarious deeds, they need to impose their will by force. Hence the need or demand for weapons. We ban firearms, well, we still have knives. A steak knife can cut a porterhouse steak just as easily as it can be used as a weapon to harm and kill people. Ok so then we ban knives. So then someone gets into a car and runs over people on a sidewalk. Do we ban cars also? It goes on and on. We can ban objects, but we can't eliminate evil from our society. We can regulate and regulate and regulate and regulate more.

That is not the United States I grew up in. When do we stop regulating and banning?

Just as there was a black market for alcohol, there would be a black market for firearms. With a widespread ban in place, the black market would balloon in size and those existing traffickers running guns would be greatly empowered.

The point to be made about prohibition is that it never works. Drug bans, gun bans, and booze bans don’t work.

Why? Because they focus on supply instead of addressing the key part of the equation: demand.

For the record, they’ve tried this in Europe. And lo and behold it doesn’t work! The attacks in Paris proved that in spades. Doesn’t matter how tight the gun laws are, evildoers will find a way to carry out their evil deeds.

Sorry I have gone on for so long. I don't usually write long essays, but seeing Obama with his Crocodile tears in his eyes yesterday just made me sick.

Anonymous said...

Mike,

Isn't it true that in PA and other states, the only background checks being done are on handguns? If I'm wrong, please say so.

See this: http://journalstar.com/news/interactive-a-state-by-state-comparison-of-gun-laws-sales/html_5827330b-cbcb-58dd-9e6c-cd0816e0002c.html

Anonymous said...

Here are some facts:

An Executive Order, is simply not the law. An Executive Order cannot rewrite existing law..

An Executive Order does NOT, ever, have to be complied with by private citizens. Executive Orders can only instruct executive branch government workers.

The Gun Control Act of 1968 provides that persons “engaged in the business” of dealing in firearms must be licensed.

Although Congress did not originally define the term “engaged in the business,” it did so in 1986 as part of the McClure-Volkmer Act (also known as the “Firearms Owners’ Protection Act”). That Act defined the term “engaged in the business,” as applied to a firearms dealer, as “a person who devotes time, attention, and labor to dealing in firearms as a regular course of trade or business with the principal objective of livelihood and profit through the repetitive purchase and resale of firearms.”

Significantly, however, the term was defined to exclude a person who “makes occasional sales, exchanges, or purchases of firearms for the enhancement of a personal collection or for a hobby, or who sells all or part of his personal collection of firearms.”

Consequently, unlicensed sellers may sell firearms without conducting background checks or documenting the transaction in any way.

That is the law.

Anything else, including an Executive Order, is simply not the law and cannot be enforced as law against private citizens.

Nor should it EVER be complied with, by anyone. Executive Orders can only instruct executive branch government workers. Period.

doug_b said...

The Shooting Capitols of the US: Chicago, LA, St Louis, Philly, NY, Newark, Camden, Oakland, etc, etc are all Democrat run cites, with the toughest gun laws. For Chicago in 2015: 2995 shot and 499 killed (forgive the name of the link http://heyjackass.com/ - it's a Chicago crime site).

These people don't purchase firearms, they are stolen, black market. Obviously, gun laws do not affect this situation.

The FBI counted 172 cases of mass killings between 2006 and 2011. That's about 30 a year. Assume 10 people were killed - that's only 1,720 murders in 6 years - for the entire US - compared to 3,000 murders - just in Chicago alone.

Something to consider: The only thing that fully backs up the 2nd Amendment is the 2nd Amendment.

People need to start taking this far more seriously if they want to keep it.


michael molovinsky said...

@10:20, per http://smartgunlaws.org/background-checks-in-pennsylvania/ i believe that you're wrong in regard to pa. however, that's not the topic here, which is; will Obama's conservations this week result in a spike in gun sales, and I know from past observation that it will.

i should also note that generally i do not host questions in the comment section, or chats between those whose comments do appear.

for the record, I support the 2nd Amendment.

Anonymous said...

From a liberal (or progressive) perspective, President Obama’s gun proposals are perfect:

1. By his own admission, the proposals would not have stopped any of the recent shootings that he claims are moving him to action. So there is no accountability or expectation for success from these new regulations.

2. And because they won’t solve the problem that Obama supposedly wants to solve, there will of course be the need for more government regulation in the future.

It’s a liberal’s dream.

Anonymous said...

10:55,

You can write what you want regarding executive orders, the point is they have the same effect as a law and an administration willing to abuse the intent of such orders will likely not hesitate to enforce them as they see fit.

Scott Armstrong

ironpigpen said...

Obama, often alleged to be THE smartest President in the history of the Untied States, in many cases, even before he was ever elected to his first term, seems to have no clue that criminals, by definition, do NOT follow laws.

Anonymous said...

The trouble with this executive order as far as I can tell, what has been placed in writing is vague at best.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2013/01/16/here-are-the-23-executive-orders-on-gun-safety-signed-today-by-the-president/

It is full of holes as to how states will even begin to comply with any of it. As far as I can tell it just political fodder, and will either be overturned by the Supreme Court, or over ridden by a future executive order of another President.

Ted Yost

Anonymous said...

The Items in the proposed order that should bother everyone the most, are the ones linking the Affordable Health Care act to gun control. Every communist, and socialist society knew that once they could control the actions of the people through false health care declarations, real freedoms would be gone.



Ted Yost

Anonymous said...

After hearing the speech I am prompted to buy another gun. Apparently the other guns that I have are defective as they have failed to engage in mass shootings of innocent people.

Laws mean nothing to those who break the law as casually as normal people eat a meal.