Posts Tagged ‘National Rifle Association’

Shameless Vultures

September 17, 2013

There has been another terrible crime committed and once again the vultures are circling overhead to take advantage of this crime to further their political objectives. I am referring to this article in the Washington Times which highlights the disgraceful push for gun control by President Obama and Senator Feinstein measures not twenty-four hours after the event occurred. It is as if they were waiting for some tragedy or crisis to take advantage of.

Just hours after the deadly shooting rampage at the Washington Navy Yard, gun control advocates tried to reignite the national debate over gun laws that had only just subsided.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein, California Democrat and a longtime gun control advocate, denounced “the litany of massacres” over the past few years and asked rhetorically, “When will enough be enough?”

Mrs. Feinstein, who was first thrust into the national spotlight as president of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors announcing the shooting deaths of Mayor George Moscone and Supervisor Harvey Milk, said, “Congress must stop shirking its responsibility and resume a thoughtful debate on gun violence in this country. We must do more to stop this endless loss of life.”

President Obama was one of the first to link Monday’s incident to the larger issue of gun violence and the legislative effort to curb it, though he did so without explicitly calling, as he has done repeatedly, for gun control measures.

“So we are confronting yet another mass shooting, and today it happened on a military installation in our nation’s capital,” Mr. Obama said as he opened an economic speech at the White House.

“Obviously, we’re going to be investigating thoroughly what happened, as we do so many of these shootings, sadly, that have happened, and do everything that we can to prevent them,” the president said.

The National Rifle Association had no comment on Monday, and pro-gun groups generally take the stance that days of particularly shocking crimes are not the time to discuss policy. Popular conservative blogger and former CNN commentator Erick Erickson admonished the rush to politicize the shooting, saying “seriously people, grow up.”

“I would not dare step in the way of America’s national pastime of bitching about the politics of everything on Twitter, but there has to be a better time for it than as the temperature of bodies on the ground in the Navy Yard are not even yet cold,” he said. “If you don’t have the judgment and good sense to understand that now is not the time to say it, you have no capacity to understand why.”

I compared these people to vultures but that is really not fair to vultures. After all, vultures play an important role in the environment. I cannot say the same for the likes of Obama and Feinstein.

 

 

Advertisements

Sore Loser

September 13, 2013

Two Democratic State Senators in Colorado were recalled this week. They had supported tougher gun control laws for Colorado and their constituents didn’t like it. At least that is the explanation that seems most likely. Naturally the Democrats have a different take on the matter. Naturally their policy on gun control couldn’t possibly be unpopular in a state like Colorado, especially in the rural parts of the state. Their defeat has to be the results of the nefarious NRA which spends millions of dollars to prevent popular gun control measures from being enacted. This couldn’t be the results of a fair election. It must be massive voter suppression.

I got an e-mail from Debbie Wasserman Schultz on this very subject yesterday.

Friend–

Yesterday, I tweeted about how people had a hard time voting in the Colorado recall election, and wow did the Republicans blow up my Twitter feed. They think that Democrats are angry because “dead people and illegal aliens” weren’t allowed to vote.

I’m not angry, I’m disappointed. Voting is a basic American right — maybe the basic American right — and right-wing special interests like the NRA and the Koch brothers poured a lot of time, effort, and money into this race as court battles made it harder for (very much alive) Coloradans to cast a ballot in this week’s election. We know that when voting is made harder, Democratic turnout is driven down.

We’re not going to let this stand. That’s why we’ve launched the new National Voter Registration Project to ensure that what happened in Colorado doesn’t happen again, and why I want you to be a part of it. Add your name today.

The Colorado recall was defined by blatant attacks on our democratic principles. Colorado voting laws allow mail-in ballots to be automatically sent to voters, and in the election last November, 74 percent of Coloradans used mail-in ballots. For the recall, due to obstruction, voters weren’t allowed to vote by mail and didn’t even know where to vote in person until two weeks before the election.

These efforts were able to depress voter turnout. Now they’re saying that what happened in this election is a preview of what’s to come in 2014.

I don’t know about you, but I’m taking them at their word.

Add your name today, and together, let’s stand up for the right to vote:

http://my.democrats.org/Right-To-Vote

Thanks,

Debbie

Debbie Wasserman Schultz
Chair
Democratic National Committee

Read the sentence I put in italics. I wonder if Debbie Wasserman Schultz really understands the implications of what she wrote. If making voting harder causes fewer Democrats to get out and vote, what does that say about the people who generally vote for Democrats? Are they too lazy to get off their couches and travel to a polling place to vote? Are they too stupid to find the polling places?

Well if that is what Debbie Wasserman Schultz believes about their base, I won’t argue the matter with her. Personally, I think voting should be made harder. I don’t think that it is too much to ask for voters to vote at polling places where their actual physical presence is required along with an ID to prove that they are who they say they are. Voting by mail or through the Internet so obviously facilitates fraud that I have to believe that that is the intention of anyone who supports such measures.

Naturally, there are people who may be unable to actually vote at a polling place, either because of some handicap or their schedule does not permit. Exceptions should be made in such cases, but in general, if you are able to go to a polling place to vote but choose not to, then you are not taking the matter seriously enough and your vote should be suppressed.

 

Emails from the Democrats

January 17, 2013

I had thought that my friends in the Democratic Party had forgotten all about me since I have hardly gotten an email from them since the election. I am happy to say that this is not this case. They need me to stand with Barack Obama in his fight against the nefarious NRA.

Breaking Washington Post Headline: “NRA planning ‘the fight of the century’”

friend — Today, we have the momentum to take monumental steps toward reducing gun violence.

But the NRA and their army of lobbyists are working to tear any proposal to shreds. If we don’t stand up to the NRA immediately, they will destroy our chance to stop gun brutality. But the window of opportunity is so small that I need you to act right now so it doesn’t slip away.

Sign the petition and denounce the NRA immediately. Stand with Democrats who want to reduce gun violence. Let’s get 100,000 signatures by midnight tonight!

The NRA will do anything to demolish common-sense gun laws. They even released a repulsive ad that calls President Obama an “elitist hypocrite,” and uses his children as political pawns.

If we want to reduce gun violence, we must stand united against the NRA. Add your name right away so we can reach 100,000 grassroots supporters by midnight tonight.

Thanks for your support,
Guy Cecil

I can think of many other groups that have armies of lobbyists and at least the NRA doesn’t pay for their political action by taking money from people who are compelled to be members as the labor unions do. In any case the reason the NRA is so politically powerful is not so much because they hire so many lobbyists but because so many Americans happen to agree with their position on the second amendment.

I have not seen the NRA ad, so I do not know if it is repulsive or not. President Obama is using other people’s children as political pawns so he is hardly in a position to complain. He does indeed come across as a elitist hypocrite by denying parents the same right to protect their children as he enjoys. The president’s children are in more danger than others of having some harm come to them because of who their father is and I am sure that no one begrudges them their protective detail from the Secret Service. However, other people’s children are in danger and if parents feel that their children would be safer with armed guards in their schools, the same privilege that all the students at Sidwell Friends School and other elite private schools enjoy, why shouldn’t they be permitted to have armed guards?

I also got a message from Jim Messina.

David —

Yesterday, President Obama announced his plan to protect our children and our communities by helping reduce gun violence.

We won’t stop every violent act like the one in Newtown, Connecticut. But if we can save the life of even one child, the President believes each of us has a responsibility to take action.

People like you spoke out and demanded action. Your input, along with ideas from leaders and policymakers across the political spectrum, went into the President’s plan.

Learn more about the plan, and say you stand with President Obama in tackling this critical issue.

Most gun owners use their guns safely and responsibly, and the President believes firmly in protecting our Second Amendment rights.

But common-sense changes can go a long way in keeping our streets and our schools safer — and there’s too much at stake to stand by and wait for action.

The President will not wait. Yesterday, he signed 23 executive actions to start moving our country in the right direction. And he’s calling on Congress to act on four legislative measures — closing background check loopholes, banning military-style assault weapons, making our schools safer, and increasing access to mental health services — right away.

Take a look at the President’s plan to reduce gun violence, and stand with him in support:

http://my.barackobama.com/Gun-Reform

More soon,

Messina

Jim Messina
Campaign Manager

Obama for America

I thought the campaign was over. This idea that if we can just can just save one life we should do it is truly dumb. There is no consideration here of any sort of cost/benefit analysis. The question to ask  is what benefits we gain from an action at what cost and if the benefits are worth the cost. There are a great many things we could do that would save lives. We could pass a national speed limit of 20 miles per hour. We could outlaw, not only all guns, but knives, clubs, and every sharp object. Setting up a North Korean style police state could save many lives. None of these measures would be worth the cost in freedom and difficulty of enforcing them.

This may seem like a cold, hard hearted way of looking at things, but each individual human life is not of infinite value. Anyone who has been responsible for creating safety measures knows that you have to balance the number of lives potentially saved against the increased costs that such measures will produce. Environmental regulations cannot be designed to remove all traces of pollutions but can only reduce the amount of pollution in the environment to acceptable levels. A policy that saves only one life is probably not the most effective policy.

Now, of course, to every parent, their children are of infinite value. That is understandable. Policies, however, ought not to made by emotional appeals and quick action but by carefully considering what works best with the most acceptable costs, in other words, the exact opposite of what President Obama and his supporters are doing.

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.

Moving on Gun Control

January 7, 2013

It would seem that President Obama is going to move ahead with some form of gun control policy in the next few months. Now, there are two way in which he could go about this. One would be to meet with Congressional leaders of both parties and even with gun rights advocates such as the NRA and craft legislation that would be acceptable to a broad base of the American public. Such legislation wouldn’t amount to much and would probably have no real effect on gun ownership or gun crimes, but he, or a future Democratic president, could use such legislation as a precedent for the more draconian anti-gun laws they really want. This would be gun control and eventual confiscation by slow degrees, and would have a good chance of succeeding. The other option would be for Obama to propose a series of wide ranging restrictions on gun ownership, which would be certain to arouse opposition in Congress from all the Republicans and many Democrats. He could demonize the NRA and gun owners generally as fiends who want to see children murdered and, when it became obvious that his proposals had little chance of getting through Congress, simply enact as much as he could through executive orders.

Knowing President Obama, which course do you think he will follow? My guess would that he will pursue option two. Obama does not seem to be interested in any sort of incremental action. He wants to be a transformative president. Obamacare could have passed a whole lot more easily as a series of small acts than as the unpopular monstrosity it became, but that is not Obama’s style.

This story in ABCNews suggests that I might be right.

US president Barack Obama is reportedly considering implementing the most comprehensive gun control measures seen in decades.

A task force led by vice-president Joe Biden is reportedly considering wide-ranging proposals going well beyond simply reinstating a ban on assault weapons and high capacity ammunition.

The Washington Post reports that a national data base tracking gun sales, mental health checks, and background checks are all on the table.

And in a move that is set to anger opponents of gun control, the taskforce is reportedly looking at measures that can be implemented by the president’s order without the approval of Congress.

The White House is understood to want swift action while the public remains outraged over the deaths of 20 children and six adults in the Newtown school shooting in Connecticut last month.

Some reports suggest Mr Obama will have the proposals on his table within weeks.

Democrat congressman Chris Van Hollen says any approach the Obama administration takes must be comprehensive.

“The argument against gun safety provisions is always because it doesn’t solve everything we shouldn’t do anything and I don’t subscribe to that,” he said.

“I believe we need a comprehensive approach, we need to look at all the different elements here and just because a particular effort won’t prevent something in one particular incident, doesn’t mean you shouldn’t do anything that might help in other incidents.

“Right now you can be on the terrorist watch list, you can be prevented from boarding an aeroplane, but you can go down the street and buy a semiautomatic assault weapon.”

With the new Congress sworn in just days ago, 10 different bills are already on the table dealing with gun laws separate to Mr Obama’s working group.

So, he is going to move fast and he is not going to pay to much attention to the what the law or constitution says about the matter. Now might be a good time to stock up on ammunition. It is probably a terrific time to invest in gun manufacturers’ stocks. And, if things keep going the way they have been, it might be a good idea to prepare for another Civil War.

Arms Trade Fact Check

July 27, 2012

 

I read this fact check article in the AP concerning the controversial Arms Trade Treaty. It would seem that we have nothing to worry about. If the US signs this treaty, it absolutely will not be used to enact gun control here.

Negotiators at the United Nations are working to put final touches on a treaty cracking down on the global, $60 billion business of illicit trading in small arms, a move aimed at curbing violence in some of the most troubled corners of the world. In the United States, gun activists denounce it as an end run around their constitutional right to bear arms.

“Without apology, the NRA wants no part of any treaty that infringes on the precious right of lawful Americans to keep and bear arms,” National Rifle Association Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre told the U.N. this month. “Any treaty that includes civilian firearms ownership in its scope will be met with the NRA’s greatest force of opposition.”

 

The Constitution’s Second Amendment offers broad protection for weapons ownership by civilians. As recently as 2008, the Supreme Court affirmed this when it struck down a ban on handguns in the District of Columbia, ruling that individuals have a constitutional right to keep guns for self-defense and other purposes. Period.

The court also has ruled separately that treaty obligations may not infringe on individual constitutional protections and rights within U.S. borders. This goes back at least to a 1920 ruling that a migratory bird treaty with Canada, which prohibited the hunting or capturing of certain birds, was an unconstitutional interference with states’ rights under the 10th Amendment.

Treaties are government-to-government agreements and do not subject citizens of one nation to laws of another or to those of an outside body.

Also, the U.N. resolution that authorized drafting of the small arms treaty recognizes the clear-cut right of nations “to regulate internal transfers of arms” and says nothing in the treaty that emerges will affect “constitutional protections on private ownership” of firearms.

Beyond that, there are many court rulings spelling out the limits of treaties. And if an act of Congress is inconsistent with a treaty obligation, the law passed by Congress prevails. Legal scholars say this has been well-established, including a long history of cases involving Indian treaties. Various international treaties with Indian tribes were abrogated by Congress – and courts ruled in favor of Congress, much to the displeasure of the tribes.

They are right, in that no treaty can override any law enacted by Congress and still less the constitution.  Somehow, given the Obama administration’s penchant for simply ignoring the law and the constitution, I feel less than reassured, especially when some Supreme Court Justices believe that foreign laws may be used to establish precedents here.

 

I actually have not paid very much attention to this issue and I can’t comment very much on it. I suspect that the fears of the NRA and others may be exaggerated. I have a feeling, though, that this treaty will be as effective at reducing the international trade in small arms as the Kellog-Briand treaty was in outlawing war.

 

 


%d bloggers like this: