Posts Tagged ‘Michael Graham’

White House Misfire?

January 10, 2013
Summer's End. Lexington Green, 11 September 20...

Lexington Will history repeat itself?

I found this editorial by Michael Graham in the Boston Herald courtesy of Instapundit.

The position of pro-Second Amendment Americans is that gun ownership is part of the fundamental human right to self-defense, explicitly stated in the Constitution by the Founding Fathers due to an overarching political philosophy regarding the balance of power between the individual and the state.

The position of the anti-gun activists in the Obama administration is “guns are icky.”

The media consider them the intellectuals in this debate.

And so Fox News reports “White House In Gun Control Sprint.” President Obama wants to fast-track a stack of new gun laws before the lingering pain and horror of the Newtown, Conn., massacre fades.

According to the Washington Post, Obama’s task force has already blown past the return of the so-called “assault weapons” ban and a ban on high-capacity magazines. They’ve moved on to “regulations that would require universal background checks for firearm buyers, track the movement and sale of weapons through a national database, strengthen mental health checks, and stiffen penalties for carrying guns near schools or giving them to minors.”

I thought the point of this White House task force was to “prevent more tragedies” like Newtown, as the president said when he announced it. If so, please re-read the last paragraph. Am I missing something?

“Universal background checks” — whatever that means — might or might not be a good thing. They certainly sound reasonable to me. But how would they have prevented Adam Lanza from shooting up that elementary school? He took a rifle that belonged to his mother.

The same with “tracking the sale and movement” of guns. I’m not sure about the constitutionality of forcing me to report to the government when I pass down my father’s shotgun to my son one day, but once again — this prevents another Newtown … how?

And sure, I’m all for “strengthening mental health checks,” but unless you’re going to make your local gun store owner a licensed therapist, how does he stop a guy like Lanza — with no diagnosis of mental illness — from buying a gun?

Most laughable (and this is no laughing matter, which makes the White House’s position even more angering) is the “stiffened penalties for carrying guns near schools.”

So Joe Biden’s telling me that Lanza, overcome by his mental condition to the point that he’s murdered his mother and is headed to an elementary school on a killing spree, is going to stop 1,000 yards from the playground and think, “Hey — I don’t want Obama to take away my student loan subsidy. I better keep these guns away from school!”

These are the thoughtful, well-reasoned ideas from the Obama brain trust?

And we haven’t even mentioned the fact that gun laws are utterly meaningless to criminals, anyway. Don’t believe me? Ask the families of the 506 people fatally shot in Obama’s “gun-controlled” hometown of Chicago last year.

I’m not one of the knee-jerk pro-gun types who oppose all laws. I don’t think of gun ownership as the highest form of patriotism. Show me a law on law-abiding gun owners that will have a meaningful impact on gun violence, and I’m all ears.

But that’s not what the White House is offering. In the face of undeniable evidence that, for 20 years, gun ownership rates have gone up while gun deaths have plunged (the lowest since at least 1981, according to FactCheck.org), Obama’s pushing for a large-scale “punish-all-gun-owners” approach.

So much so that some Senate Democrats are already backing away from the task force’s work.

If the White House would stop playing on emotions for the sake of far-left politics, we could actually get something done about gun crime in the U.S.

I don’t quite agree with Mr. Graham. I do not think that the Obama administration has misfired at all.They know exactly what they are doing.

The long term goal of the Democrats has been to disarm the American people. I do not know whether this is because they consider guns to be icky or whether the conspiracy theorists are right and they want to inaugurate a one-world Socialist dictatorship and really it doesn’t matter. With that in mind and considering Obama’s ambition to be a transformative President who brings fundamental change to this country, it is unlikely that Obama is interested in compromising with anyone or in introducing the sort of do-nothing but pretend to do something policies like an assault rifle or high capacity magazine ban. Obama can take pride in the fact that he achieved the long standing Democratic goal of socializing health care in his first term and I don’t doubt that he would like to be the one who achieved comprehensive gun control in his second term.

What this means is that that President Obama is going to try to enact the most sweeping and draconian gun control measures that he can get away with. If he cannot get what he wants through legislative action, he is perfectly prepared to issue executive orders. Nor is Obama reluctant to get into a confrontation with gun rights groups such as the NRA. Indeed, he seems to be deliberately provoking gun owners. Obama has shown a preference for attacking and demonizing people who oppose his policies, rather than working with them in the past. Since he can count on the support of the main stream media in labeling his opponents as unreasonable extremists, he has a record of winning these confrontations and forcing his opponents to back down. In this way, Obama has often got everything he has wanted rather than having to settle for only a portion. Of course, this has embittered his opponents and cause more division and polarization in the country, but I don’t think Obama minds that at all.

I think, then, that we can expect sweeping and unprecedented gun control proposals to come out of Biden’s task force. We can expect continuing demonization of gun owners as crazed extremists in the media and the NRA getting the full Alinsky treatment. Don’t be too surprised if major retailers such as WalMart “voluntarily” remove objectionable firearms from their shelves. We are in for some interesting times ahead.

Advertisements

Not Everyone is Grateful

November 11, 2011

I would like to think that the sentiments of gratitude that I expressed on the previous post would be shared by all Americans who have benefited from the sacrifices made by our veterans. I know that an overwhelming percentage of my fellow Americans do but then there are those like Suffolk Law School professor Michael Avery. I found this gem from Michael Graham through Instapundit. I do not think Michael Avery will be doing anything on Veteran’s Day.

On Wednesday a member of the Suffolk Law School staff sent out an email soliciting “much needed supplies to put in care packages to be sent to deployed troops.”  You know, stuff like beef jerky, instant coffee, trail mix, etc? Scout troops do stuff like this all the time.  In fact, the email specifically mentioned that one Suffolk Law student deployed to Afghanistan would be a recipient.

Pretty basic, patriotic stuff, right?  Well, read this response from one of the Suffolk Law professors who received it, a (ahem) “gentleman” named Michael Avery:

I think it is shameful that it is perceived as legitimate to solicit in an academic institution for support for men and women who have gone overseas to kill other human beings.  I understand that there is a residual sympathy for service members, perhaps engendered by support for troops in World War II, or perhaps from when there was a draft and people with few resources to resist were involuntarily sent to battle. That sympathy is not particularly rational in today’s world, however.  

The United States may well be the most war prone country in the history of civilization.  We have been at war two years out of three since the Cold War ended.  We have 700 overseas military bases.  What other country has any?  In the last ten years we have squandered hundreds of billions of dollars in unnecessary foreign invasions.  Those are dollars that could have been used for people who are losing their homes due to the economic collapse, for education, to repair our infrastructure, or for any of a thousand better purposes than making war.  And of course those hundreds of billions of dollars have gone for death and destruction. 

Perhaps some of my colleagues will consider this to be an inappropriate political statement.  But of course the solicitation email was a political statement, although cast as support for student activities. The politics of that solicitation are that war is legitimate, perhaps inevitable, and that patriotic Americans should get behind our troops.

We need to be more mindful of what message we are sending as a school. Since Sept. 11 we have had perhaps the largest flag in New England hanging in our atrium.  This is not a politically neutral act. Excessive patriotic zeal is a hallmark of national security states.  It permits, indeed encourages, excesses in the name of national security, as we saw during the Bush administration, and which continue during the Obama administration.  

Why do we continue to have this oversized flag in our lobby?  Why are we sending support to the military instead of Americans who are losing their homes, malnourished, unable to get necessary medical care, and suffering from other consequences of poverty?  As a university community, we should debate these questions, not remain on automatic pilot in support of the war agenda.  [all emphasis added]

 

There is so much wrong with this that I really don’t know where to begin. I think that it would be a good idea for Professor Avery to visit an actual “national security state” such as North Korea or Cuba. Maybe, though I doubt it, he might gain some appreciation for the freedoms he has and gratitude for those who have fought to defend it.

And here are the responses that Michael Graham received on his blog. I don’t think that Professor Avery is likely to be very popular off the Suffolk Law School campus. In the school, however, he will probably end up being regarded as a hero.


%d bloggers like this: