Monday, March 14, 2011

Political seppuku

The Obama administration has apparently decided to jump aboard the gun control train and see what kind of wreck they can make of it. I am surprised at this; I expected that they would light the torches around the gun control altar after President Obama's re-election is determined. Either way, I don't see how there can even be an agreement when the vast majority sees gun ownership as being a basic human right, and not a political gemstone that needs to be placed on a political party's ring.

There's some good stuff in there, like here where President Obama lashes out at Congress for slacking on their duties to the American people:

"Every single day, America is robbed of more futures. It has awful consequences for our society. And as a society, we have a responsibility to do everything we can to put a stop to it," he wrote.
Oh, wait, actually he was directing that statement at firearms, and not necessarily firearms used against Americans by evil people. Silly me. Here's a catch-all statement that can mean so many things as to be virtually useless:

"I'm willing to bet that responsible, law-abiding gun owners agree that we should be able to keep an irresponsible, law-breaking few -- dangerous criminals and fugitives, for example -- from getting their hands on a gun."
I would offer that I could agree with that statement as long as "dangerous criminals" is strictly defined as criminals that have committed the most serious of an act such as violent rape, murder, or attempted murder, and not someone who verbally distrusts the government and has faded Reagan stickers on their bumper; and I would also add that the mechanism for keeping these dangerous criminals from getting their hands on a gun is by placing them in prison forever, and not delaying millions of non-dangerous people from buying guns at Wal-Mart. I think we may have something there. Sadly, I don't believe that that's the conclusion that President Obama and his administration is shooting for:
Obama called for "sound and effective" steps to prevent lawbreakers from obtaining guns. A system of criminal background checks must be better implemented and made more efficient, he said.
Hmmmmm. Preventing violent criminals from ever seeing the light of day again would qualify as "sound and effective," no? I'm thinking his intent though is to delay the purchase of a Colt at Gander Mountain by five-time serial rapist murderers on parole to the tune of a week or so, and not finding a way to keep them behind bars.
"Most gun-control advocates know that most gun owners are responsible citizens. Most gun owners know that the word 'commonsense' isn't a code word for 'confiscation,'" he wrote.
He doesn't read gun blogs very much. This line here shows me that he doesn't have his finger on the pulse of gun owners these days. I would also add that congress has not made it apparent that confiscation is not on the top of their list, not even by a long shot. And in case you're wondering what type of people President Obama considers "dangerous criminals:"
"A man our Army rejected as unfit for service; a man one of our colleges deemed too unstable for studies; a man apparently bent on violence, was able to walk into a store and buy a gun," Obama wrote.
The Army rejects amputees, paraplegics, and people who sleepwalk as being unfit for Service, so they should be barred from buying a gun? Is that where you're heading? Sounds like it's going to be an epic train wreck.




Post a Comment