More on Obama’s Gun Ban Policy
Welcome! If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to our RSS feed. You can also sign up for free e-mail updates. Also, feel free to check out the front page for all the latest posts. Thanks for visiting!
Recently, I talked about Barack Obama and his fraudulent “support” of the Second Amendment during the 2008 presidential campaign. As promised, let’s take a look at the things he’s got in store for us during his time in the Oval Office.
Once again, here’s his stated policy on gun control:
Address Gun Violence in Cities: As president, Barack Obama 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 who shouldn’t have them. 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, as such weapons belong on foreign battlefields and not on our streets.
Let’s break down each part and see why 68 million Americans made a huge mistake on election day.
The Tiahrt Amendment
The Tiahrt Amendment is actually a series of riders included on the yearly appropriations bill that funds the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (BATFE). Since 2003, the language has existed in the appropriations bill to protect the confidentiality of gun owners.
Cities and anti-gun groups have tried to gain access to confidential law enforcement data on firearms traces run through the BATFE. Click here to read the NRA fact sheet on the Tiahrt Amendment and some of the reasons that it makes sense to keep it confidential.
Contrary to popular belief, the data remains available for law enforcement use, but the Brady Campaign and other gun grabbing organizations would have us believe otherwise.
It may be difficult to see the need for such a degree of privacy. Gun registration is often another “common sense” measure brought up by the anti-gun crowd, and it seems logical enough - if you don’t understand the meaning of the Second Amendment.
Plain and simple, the Second Amendment has nothing to do with hunting or target shooting. The Second Amendment is about making sure the citizen militia (that’s you and me, not just the National Guard) has the tools it needs to resist tyranny, both in the form of foreign invaders and in the unthinkable event that our own government grows too big for its britches.
If our government was to assume a tyrannical posture, the Second Amendment is our last resort. If that were to happen, the first persons that would be targeted would be gun owners, based on registration lists and trace data.
Keeping Guns Away from Children
While I highly encourage parents to ensure that children be taught responsibility when it comes to firearms, I also recognize that the measures that Obama suggests are ineffective and, in fact, do more harm than good.
Most of the time, when the anti-gunners bring up this issue, it only takes them a few seconds to demand that guns be kept unloaded and locked, that guns be manufactured with built-in (including biometric) locking mechanisms, and that gun owners and manufacturers be prosecuted when they fail to do so.
The fact is, guns are involved in less than 1% of deaths on a national level. This fact is often twisted by anti-gun groups, who choose to include gang-bangers up to age 19 in their statistics of child deaths caused by guns.
Gun locks are typically ineffective and can often be disabled easily. Also, gun locks nullify a person’s ability to defend himself and his family in his own home, because while he fumbles around trying to unlock his firearm, a home invader is already well into his evil deeds.
Then, there’s always the case where a child has been taught to properly use a weapon and how to handle it safely.
Consider the case of Jessica Lynne Carpenter. In 2000, she was 14 years old. Her father taught her how to shoot the revolver that he kept in their home. On August 23rd, 2000 she and her siblings were at home when a naked man burst in, armed with a pitchfork.
She tried to dial 911, but the phone was dead. She ran to get her father’s gun but remembered that it was inaccessible as a result of the new (at the time) California “safe storage law” that required firearms to be locked up so no one under the age of 18 has access to them.
Out of options, she ran to a neighbor’s house for help. By the time the sheriff’s deputies arrived, the man had stabbed her brother John (age 7) and sister Ashley (age 9) to death with the pitchfork. Her sister Anna was wounded. The man charged the deputies and they shot and killed him.
Gun banners will often use the phrase, “If only one life is saved…” Well, here are two lives that were lost as a direct result of their actions. Do their lives not matter?
The Gun Show Loophole
I don’t know any other way to state this: the “gun show loophole” is complete fiction.
It is illegal for any individual to “engage in the business” of “dealing in firearms” without being licensed by BATFE. All regulations apply the same for dealers whether they’re at a gun show or at their store. That includes paperwork, background checks, etc.
Then there’s the myth that criminals and terrorists supply themselves at gun shows. Recent figures from a federal study puts the number of criminals acquiring guns at gun shows at 0.7%. Hardly an epidemic.
The Federal Assault Weapons Ban
This sham was enacted by Congress and signed into law by Bill Clinton in 1994. Whole classes of weapons were banned based on cosmetic characteristics.
The big misconception is that Assault Weapons Ban kept “dangerous” machine guns off the streets. Fully-automatic weapons have been highly controlled in the United States since 1934. In fact, no new automatic weapons (manufactured after 1986) can be purchased by citizens. As a result, automatic weapons are relatively rare and are tremendously expensive. We’re often bombarded with the idea that gang members are running around with fully-automatic AK-47 rifles. Sure, there are bound to be a few, but legal ones cost many thousands of dollars, cost prohibitive for most street thugs.
In fact, the Federal Assault Weapons ban actually covered semi-automatic weapons. Cosmetic characteristics like folding stocks, pistol grips, detachable magazines, flash suppressors, bayonet lugs, and so on. Pistols and shotguns were covered with similarly random limits on features and specifications.
What they didn’t tell you is, in many cases, banned weapons are functionally identical to weapons which were not banned. This includes rifles of the same caliber that fire rounds over the same range at the same muzzle velocity.
Before the Assault Weapons Ban, these banned classes of weapons were used in relatively few crimes. Figures ranged from two to eight percent of gun crime. This ban was supposed to be critical to keep us safe, but it addressed classes of firearms which were rarely used in crimes, relatively speaking. Skip to the last sentence if you want to know why.
Evidence as to whether the ban, which expired in 2004, was effective is inconclusive. A look at the murder rate before, during, and after the ban (all murders, not just those committed with guns) seems to indicate that there is no correlation. In fact, in 1997, during the height of the ban, the murder rate was higher than it was in 2007, three years after the ban expired.
Assault on Freedom
Gun banners use scare tactics to confuse people thinking that guns actually commit crimes. They like to spout off about saving lives. John Lott’s book, More Guns, Less Crime showed compelling evidence that increased gun ownership actually results in decreased crime in most cases.
Obama and Biden want to ban the weapons that “belong on foreign battlefields and not on our streets.” Someone may want to fill them in on the fact that street crime in America and foreign battlefields bear little to no resemblance.
Obama was not effectively challenged on his Second Amendment beliefs and now we’re left hoping that he doesn’t further dismantle the Constitution. If it were up to him, he’d ban what guns he could and impose unreasonable limitations and registrations on the rest. Maybe he’d like to have us register for our First Amendment rights. I know some people would be happy if Michael Moore had to. Maybe we should limit our freedom from unreasonable search and seizure and maybe we should pre-register for that while we’re at it.
These gun banners aren’t interested in saving lives. They’re interested in control. An armed populace that refuses to be integrated into the “One World Government” master plan is a danger to them. Gun control is a death by a thousand cuts and by my count, we already have about 862.
Comments
By John Calla on November 25th, 2008 at 10:27 pm
Good read. One interesting thing I’ve noticed about the Democrats is how they twist the language of the debate. As soon as we accept their language, we end up playing on their field, by their terms and, therefore, play at a disadvantage. For example, “Assault Weapons Ban”. OMG… Assault Weapons?!? Who wouldn’t want those banned?
And the media falls right into it… “Republicans are discussing whether to allow the Assault Weapons Ban to expire this year…” Wow, those Republicans — they’re pro-Assault Weapons!
The Democrats could come up with a bill to force communism on the country and they would dress it up as something like the “Freedom to End Poverty Act” and people would go right along with it.
By The Happy Rock on November 26th, 2008 at 12:38 am
I think you might be going a little overboard with your last paragraph. I don’t think most ‘gun-banners’ want anything other than people’s safety. Gun banning rally does seem like a logical step, although the evidence is mostly to the contrary.
Articles like this need to try and change the discourse, since most people don’t own guns and haven’t thought these issues through. Instead of smearing we need to be growing the dialogue in a way that opens people up to the facts.
By Mike Gray on November 26th, 2008 at 12:49 am
Gun banners feed into people’s fears. The general public is concerned about safety. The gun banning politicians give them what they think they want. Except if safety was the concern, they would have not concentrated all their efforts on guns that account for between 2% and 8% of gun crime in the AWB.
By Mr. Incognito on November 26th, 2008 at 10:05 am
Most people do not understand the basic premise behind the second amendment. That is because we’ve done a lousy job educating the people regarding the spirit behind our bill of rights. I’d love to blame the schools; however it is everyone’s job to educate.
Simply put, people most often get confused with the fundamental difference between a right and a privilege. Our founding fathers saw it this way:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
Capital R for rights, as these rights are better defined in the Bill of Rights. Makes sense right? Jefferson was a pretty bright guy, while drafting the Declaration of Independence he new Rights would need to be further defined. Our Bill of Rights is just that document. Our rights are not privileges to be regulated, mitigated or diminished by the federal government.
Regarding the second amendment, our founding fathers felt that it was a man’s unalienable, God given right to defend himself, his family, his friends and his country by all means at his disposal. The government has no Right to fetter his means to protect these articles. Nowhere in section 1 article 8 does the Constitution empower congress to establish regulations restricting the Bill of Rights.
I’ve heard all kinds of arguments; from “we don’t need guns because we have cops to defend us”, to citing statistics from gun control countries like England, and arguing that the framers were protecting gun rights for hunting, which is the most ridiculous one of all. In the quote below, Jefferson was not making a hunting reference.
The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. Thomas Jefferson
We keep electing officials who swear to defend and uphold the Constitution, but the first thing they do is hurry to make a mark for themselves in history by attempting to change the document.
By Dagny Taggart on November 26th, 2008 at 11:36 am
They have changed the language we use and turned the focus onto society, the community, and not the individual. Extremely successful at their endeavor to modify the words we use it has only emboldened them to speak openly about their agenda. Generations of Americans have been manipulated to believe that feeling with their hearts and not thinking with their rational minds is the appropriate existence in this modern age.
My household has recently joined the estimated 50% of households in America that own at least one firearm. A majority of others, upon learning this information, have not responded with indifference or a congratulatory phrase but rather with the same aggressive question, “Why?” I have now decided to keep this information a secret, having been confronted numerous times with a look that implies I am a criminal extremist or delusional.
By Mike Gray on November 26th, 2008 at 12:40 pm
Dagny,
I’m sorry it’s come to the point where you feel the need to keep gun ownership secret, though many would argue that a good stance to take, given the possibility for theft by criminals who know you own a gun. However, the principle of the situation leaves a sour taste.
Living in NJ, I face similar situations. However, I can’t let myself keep support for the Second Amendment secret. Naturally, I’m not going to broadcast that I own guns X and Y and I keep them in such and such locations at home. But when it comes to gun rights, I refuse to keep quiet and I refuse to accept “compromise” (which never, ever is actual compromise). When the good people keep quiet, we end up with situations like the AWB in 1994 and the current gun control nightmare in NJ and other liberal states.
I highly recommend every person that supports the Second Amendment join the NRA or GOA or both. With 4 million members, the NRA is a voice that will speak for you when you feel like you can’t speak for yourself. Some have criticized their action on a few choice issues, but the game of politics is a tricky one. The GOA prides itself on being a no-compromise organization and that might suit you better. Either way, the louder our voice, the better the odds that we will protect what we believe in.
By Henry on January 4th, 2009 at 4:57 pm
This is a great article however I did notice one mistake.
“The big misconception is that Assault Weapons Ban kept “dangerous” machine guns off the streets. Fully-automatic weapons have been highly controlled in the United States since 1986. In fact, no new automatic weapons (manufactured after 1986) can be purchased by citizens”
Fully-automatic weapons have been highly controlled since the 1934 National Firearms Act
By Mike Gray on January 4th, 2009 at 5:09 pm
Good point, Henry. I was only intending to refer to the Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986 in that context but the wording is misleading if I do not point out that control of machine guns has been in effect since the NFA of 1934. I have made the correction.
By rossthefrogboy on January 5th, 2009 at 4:22 pm
I’m pretty sure that Obama isn’t trying to quash gun owners- he just doesn’t fully understand what guns are for, and what they are not for. People see kids playing GTA 4 and think, that’s what our country is like. But that’s bollocks. People don’t go running around gunning each other down on the streets all the time. At least, The ones who follow the law don’t. And the Obama Administration want to constrict THEM? The thing with gun-toting gangsters is they tend not to follow laws like this whether you pass them or not. We are trying to fix the wrong issue.
By rossthefrogboy on January 5th, 2009 at 4:27 pm
And Mr. Incognito, you are living by the assumption that everyone follows Christian doctrine. Sadly, this is not the case.
The interesting part about gun control, is its unquestioned effectiveness. No-one on the liberal side of the argument seems to realise that India, with one of the strictest gun-control laws in the world, just recovered from a five-hundred-man butchering. All carried out with banned weapons.
By Dillon on January 6th, 2009 at 12:56 am
The second amendment is extremely important, both for the personal security of individuals and for the defense of the nation. However, while I agree that Obama will likely implement some bans, you do have to realize that this is one in a sea of issues. Obama will be good for our nation, even if he drops the ball on this. The Republicans would have set us back in far to many issues to allow them another term in office.
By Mike Gray on January 6th, 2009 at 12:33 pm
Dillon, you recognize the importance of the Second Amendment, and yet you’re OK with “some bans”. Would you be OK with “some bans” on free speech or your right to a speedy trial? In fact, the Second Amendment is the one which keeps the others secure.
Whether John McCain would have set us back and by how much is a matter for academic debate. Willingly giving up rights is unacceptable in any circumstance. If we can’t fix the problems in this nation without giving up rights then we have truly stopped caring and have lost the ability for reason.
By yelkram on January 8th, 2009 at 1:52 am
I personally own several guns, some for hunting,some for home defence, some for nothing more than the thrill of shooting them and i have taught several people how to properly use,store,and most importantly shoot them and several of them have found it something they want to do for themselves and as a result more than a few of them have purchased their own firearms, some of these people were opposed to firearms before shooting with me, I believe a lot of Americans need to have the opportunity to use them in appropriate manner so they too will understand what it is to be a responsible firearm owner/user. I believe that the government is looking at the wrong side of thing when it comes to firearms, it is not the legal owners that are the problem, its those who steal them in the first place who don’t care what the law says in the first place, so these laws on firearms just punishes law abiding citizens. and maybe they ought to start making laws that punish the illegal use of firearms and less laws on legal owners/users
By Mark on January 26th, 2009 at 4:44 pm
Until the masses return to the idea of personal responsibility for ones own health and welfare, that for every action on their part there is a consequence, (in a phrase “rugged individualism”) they will not appreciate the importance of the 2nd Amendment nor recognize the moment of it’s necessity.
The whole of this latest election is somewhat lamentable. I hope and pray we, as a nation, come to our senses before we are too far down the primrose path.