The next time your left leaning friends decide to lecture you about how you are a terrible gun fetishist, feel free to refer to this well written piece:
I’m still pretty incensed from Tuesday’s press conference, where President Obama mentioned background checks 22 times:
The problem is some gun sellers have been operating under a different set of rules. A violent felon can buy the exact same weapon over the Internet with no background check, no questions asked. A recent study found that about one in 30 people looking to buy guns on one website had criminal records — one out of 30 had a criminal record. We’re talking about individuals convicted of serious crimes — aggravated assault, domestic violence, robbery, illegal gun possession. People with lengthy criminal histories buying deadly weapons all too easily. And this was just one website within the span of a few months.
So we’ve created a system in which dangerous people are allowed to play by a different set of rules than a responsible gun owner who buys his or her gun the right way and subjects themselves to a background check. That doesn’t make sense. Everybody should have to abide by the same rules. Most Americans and gun owners agree. And that’s what we tried to change three years ago, after 26 Americans -– including 20 children -– were murdered at Sandy Hook Elementary.
Ignoring that no background check in the world would have stopped Adam Lanza from killing those kids at Sandy Hook, President Obama lied outright when saying that violent felons can get weapons over the internet, as if shopping online suddenly removes federal firearms regulations.
It doesn’t. Violent felons are always considered prohibited persons under US code and therefore it is illegal for them to purchase firearms, online or otherwise. There’s no magical exemption from background checks for them, whether they are trying to buy a gun online, face to face, or in a store. Well, unless they are getting their guns from the Feds via Operation Fast and Furious as some gleefully pointed out.
Politifact rated this claim as “mostly true” because, for some reason, they think that because the possibility exists, it’s a fact – as if the President was referring to DarkNet Market sales of firearms when he was talking about background checks. Here’s a clue for Politifact – background checks aren’t ever going to be put in place on these sorts of sales, so why on earth would you think that remotely applies to what the President was talking about? “But but but ARMSLIST!” they go on to say, ignoring that Armslist is not a site that accepts transactions. If the money doesn’t change hands online, it’s not an online sale.
Lack of Consequences
This is all a sideline though, because the main problem isn’t about lack of background checks – that’s not the elephant in the room. The issue is that firearms violations aren’t being prosecuted and have never been a priority for this administration.
All the laws in the world don’t matter if you fail to enforce them. I’ve mentioned previously that firearms violation prosecutions have fallen during President Obama’s tenure, despite his “tough” talk on firearms crime, but it seems like the media is content to let this issue slide while giving him fawning adoration over his crocodile tears.
Here’s two rather notable examples that should be brought up each and every time that the President screams for more background checks: Dontray Mills and Jalita Johnson
Dontray Mills, 24, purchased a total of 27 firearms, mostly handguns, between December 2012 and April 2014 and pleaded guilty to one of the charges on April 22, 2014, after an ATF investigation. As a result of the conviction, Mills will never again be able to buy firearms legally.
On Wednesday, he was sentenced. As part of the plea bargain, prosecutors agreed with the one year of probation.
Randa said he recognized the seriousness of the offense and acknowledged the problem of guns winding up in the hands of people who use them to commit violence.
Wow. Probation. For providing 27 firearms to gang members. 55 counts of firearms violations, from buying guns with fake IDs to selling without a license. His sentence: probation with no jail time.
Johnson bought her boyfriend, Marcus Wheeler, a Glock pistol. Wheeler happened to be a convicted felon, and was wanted in connection for another shooting when he turned around and used that same pistol to murder a cop.
However, she confirmed that the firearms transaction record the agents had acquired from Arrowhead Pawn Shop looked like a copy of the one she had filled out when she bought the gun.
Johnson, from Jonesboro, replied ‘yes’ to a question on the form asking whether she was the actual buyer of the gun, according to a sworn statement by an agent from the ATF, filed in court last week.
However, Wheeler had actually given her the money to buy the gun for him, it is alleged.
Wheeler, who was not legally able to own or buy a firearm himself, also sent his girlfriend several text messages while she was in the pawn shop indicating what she should buy, the statement said.
After she bought the gun, Johnson allegedly gave it to Wheeler, who occasionally visited her.
Orozco, who lived in Council Bluffs, Iowa, and was a native of nearby Walnut, Iowa, was shot dead after Wheeler opened fire on officers trying to arrest him in connection with another shooting
This is a textbook example of a straw purchase that ended with a dead cop. Clearly they threw the book at her, right? Wrong.
A Clayton County woman was sentenced to a year of probation for lying about the gun she purchased for her boyfriend, a convicted felon who used the Glock to kill a Nebraska police officer.
Jalita Jenera Johnson, 26, must also complete 40 hours of community service and serve 180 days of home confinement, U.S. Attorney John Horn’s office said Monday.Johnson pleaded guilty in August.
Johnson got caught with texts from Wheeler specifying what gun to buy. She lied on the ATF Form 4473. which is punishable by up to 10 years imprisonment and / or up to a $250,000 fine. She gave the gun to a convicted felon who was already wanted for another shooting, effectively enabling him to murder a police officer. She then lied to the feds who questioned her after the gun was traced.
She got a slap on the wrist for it.
If you can’t muster the intestinal fortitude to put someone behind bars after they straw purchased a firearm that is used to kill a police officer, why should we take you seriously when you call for more background checks?
Those of you who read this blog should be familiar with my use of the term “security theater” and how most gun control proposals are little more than soundbites. Thomas Sowell, noted economist, wrote an article covering yesterday’s Presidential address and reminded me of the flip side; political theater.
Those who have been marveling at Donald Trump’s political showmanship were given a reminder of who is the top showman of them all, when President Obama went on television to make a pitch for his unilateral actions to restrict gun sales and make a more general case for tighter gun-control laws.
It was beautifully choreographed, like a great ballet, and performed with consummate skill and understated eloquence.
First of all, the scene was set with a room full of people who have lost loved ones to gun violence. A father whose son had been gunned down made a long introduction before the president showed up, walked down the aisle and up onto the stage to growing applause.
As political theater, it put Donald Trump’s rantings in the shade.
As for the substance of what Obama said, there was very little substance, and much of it false, but one of the signs of great artistry was that the presentation overshadowed the substance.
None of the things proposed by the president is likely to reduce gun violence. Like other restrictions on people’s ability to defend themselves, or to deter attacks by showing that they are armed, these new restrictions can cost more lives on net balance.
I’m always glad to read when my point of view is the same as others that I respect.
People who are prepared to defy the laws against murder are not very likely to be stopped by laws against guns. Only law-abiding citizens are likely to be stopped by gun-control laws, and to become sitting ducks.
As for facts and statistics, the only ones likely to be mentioned by gun-control zealots, including the media, are those on how many people were killed by guns. How many lives were saved by guns will never make it through the ideological filters of the media, the political establishment or our educational institutions.
Yet factual data on how many threats or attacks were deterred in a given year by displaying a firearm have long been available. Seldom is it necessary to actually pull the trigger to get some thug or criminal to back off and go elsewhere, often in some haste.
Are the only lives that matter those that are lost, usually because there is no gun immediately available to protect them, but not the lives saved because they did have a gun at hand to protect them?
Gun-control zealots seem especially opposed to people being allowed to carry their guns concealed. But concealed weapons protect not only those who carry them, but also to some extent those who do not, because criminals have no way of knowing in advance who does and does not have a gun.
Muggings and rapes become much more dangerous activities for criminals where many law-abiding people are allowed to carry concealed guns. It can take a lot of the fun out of being a thug.
Obama said that we are the only “advanced” nation with so much gun violence. But there are a number of countries with higher murder rates than ours and stronger gun-control laws. But that leaves the definition of “advanced” to Obama — and makes for clever political theater.
Damn straight. Thank you Dr. Sowell, for seeing through the bullshit.
This afternoon, President Obama showed a stunning display of dishonesty, idiocy, and emotional blackmail during a press conference covering his executive orders on gun control. Here’s a transcript of his remarks: http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2016/01/05/transcript-president-obamas-remarks-on-gun-violence/
President Obama started with a statement about the shooting of Gabby Giffords, and
That’s why we’re here today. Not to debate the last mass shooting, but to do something to try to prevent the next one.
Strange, I can’t think of any mass shootings that would have been prevented by a background check. In fact:
Each time this comes up, we are fed the excuse that common-sense reforms like background checks might not have stopped the last massacre, or the one before that, or the one before that, so why bother trying. I reject that thinking. (Applause.) We know we can’t stop every act of violence, every act of evil in the world. But maybe we could try to stop one act of evil, one act of violence.
Some of you may recall, at the same time that Sandy Hook happened, a disturbed person in China took a knife and tried to kill — with a knife — a bunch of children in China. But most of them survived because he didn’t have access to a powerful weapon. We maybe can’t save everybody, but we could save some. Just as we don’t prevent all traffic accidents but we take steps to try to reduce traffic accidents.
Seriously? The President said background checks were “common sense” and then segued into Sandy Hook, a mass shooting that background checks singularly wouldn’t have prevented. You know, because Adam Lanza murdered his mother to get her guns (which she was background checked on, and duly registered). Jared Loughner, perpetrator of the Giffords shooting in Tuscon was background checked too. Later on he states:
Our right to peaceful assembly -– that right was robbed from moviegoers in Aurora and Lafayette. Our unalienable right to life, and liberty, and the pursuit of happiness -– those rights were stripped from college students in Blacksburg and Santa Barbara, and from high schoolers at Columbine, and from first-graders in Newtown. First-graders. And from every family who never imagined that their loved one would be taken from our lives by a bullet from a gun.
With the exception of Newtown, each of these perpetrators were background checked. How on earth can he use these to justify background checks? How? Even CNN knows that background checks probably won’t stop mass shootings. It’s not like the White House hasn’t been asked these questions before either – watch them duck and weave when asked whether their proposals would actually stop mass shootings back in December, 2015:
Yes, the gun lobby is loud and it is organized in defense of making it effortless for guns to be available for anybody, any time. Well, you know what, the rest of us, we all have to be just as passionate.
Seriously? Wow, let me just rush right out and pick up a new M4 at 7-11. He made this statement just seven sentences after talking about the gun lobby lying. He then went on to make this claim:
A violent felon can buy the exact same weapon over the Internet with no background check, no questions asked.
This right here is complete unvarnished bullshit. It’s got no basis in fact, guns aren’t shipped to your door from an internet sale, especially from gun dealers. There’s no exemption for background check requirements if a sale is done online. This is just an updated version of the so-called “gun show loophole” (which also doesn’t exist)
But what really galls me is this statement:
And, yes, it will be hard, and it won’t happen overnight. It won’t happen during this Congress. It won’t happen during my presidency. But a lot of things don’t happen overnight. A woman’s right to vote didn’t happen overnight. The liberation of African Americans didn’t happen overnight. LGBT rights — that was decades’ worth of work. So just because it’s hard, that’s no excuse not to try.
Gun control is not in any way comparable to women voting, or civil rights, or LGBT rights. Each of those empowered people who were previously denied constitutional protections. What the President wants, instead, is to make sure that people are victims at the whim of the state.
That’s terrible. It didn’t save Carol Browne, nor will it protect anyone else.