“We must seek agreement on gun reforms,” a guest editorial in the Arizona Daily Star by President Barack Obama declares.
“Every single day, America is robbed of more futures,” he writes, citing statistics and arguments straight from the Brady Center playbook, all of which completely ignore the other side of the equation, that is, lives saved by armed citizens defending themselves and others, and that the overwhelming number of those doing the robbing do not let “gun control” laws stop them.
“[M]y administration has not curtailed the rights of gun owners,” the President declares. “It has expanded them, including allowing people to carry their guns in national parks and wildlife refuges.”
That our rights are not his administration’s to expand escapes the man—or at least, he hopes, most readers. What happened there was he was unwilling to derail a credit card bill where that provision was slipped in. Had the national parks bill been a standalone deal, it would have never reached the president’s desk. And while he takes great pains to make the case that he’s gun owner-friendly, his administration was content to help an activist judge deny those rights by refusing to appeal a ruling requiring an environmental impact study, opting instead to relegate the issue to bureaucratic limbo.
But once he’s set the stage for some to believe he’s benign, he can begin introducing the old fall back for those who wish to take what is not theirs and paint those who would resist as unreasonable: “Common sense.” Obama says he believes it will prevail.
Let us hope so, but not in the way he intends.
“I’m willing to bet,” he says, “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 in the first place.”
If by that he means take people who have been adjudicated menaces to society and segregating them from those they would harm, not many would argue.
But that’s not what he means.
He wants to end private transfers.
He wants to require everyone in the country, regardless of state laws, to go through the federal system. As in mandate. As in force. As in “or else.”
How this squares with “What works in Chicago may not work in Cheyenne” is left unsaid. Maybe they’re still trying to figure out what works in Chicago.
“Most gun owners know that the word ‘commonsense’ isn’t a code word for ‘confiscation’,” he declares, withholding the fact that the system, with its requisite forms, sets up a capability to do just that.
And here’s the thing:
If we’re serious about keeping guns away from someone who’s made up his mind to kill, then we can’t allow a situation where a responsible seller denies him a weapon at one store, but he effortlessly buys the same gun someplace else.
How about a situation where responsible sellers reported suspicious sales but were instructed by the administration’s enforcers to allow them to proceed anyway? Are we serious about that?
Because guess who else passed those mandatory background checks the president is stumping for here?
And Otilio Osario.
“Clearly, there’s more we can do to prevent gun violence,” the president opines. “But I want this to at least be the beginning of a new discussion on how we can keep America safe for all our people.”
Before we begin a new discussion, Mr. President, how about we finish one that’s already underway?
What do you know about “Project Gunwalker,” when did you find out about it, and what direction have you given Attorney General Holder, DHS Secretary Napolitano and Secretary of State Clinton?
I feel compelled to ask since most “Authorized Journalists” seem inclined to not even raise the point, but to instead give your administration a forum for assuming even more power without answering for how existing authority has been misused and investigations into that stonewalled.
Don’t you think–before considering anything new–we ought to first close the “Gunwalker loophole” by having complete and open hearings into all of the allegations to identify who in your administration did what, and how high up culpability goes?
You know, “to prevent gun violence”? Because “clearly, there’s more we can do.”
ATF agent John Dobson and former ATF Mexico City attaché Rene Jaquez appeared on Mexico’s Univision over the weekend. Sipsey Street Irregulars has the details.
Mike Vanderboegh is going to discuss the latest “Project Gunwalker” developments with Barbara L. Espinosa on AMERICAN FREEDOM, Hair on Fire, http://1100KFNX.com, at 8:00-9:00 pm Arizona time.
A journalist’s guide to ‘Project Gunwalker’ Part One and Part Two for a complete list with links of independent investigative reporting and commentary done to date by Sipsey Street Irregulars and Gun Rights Examiner.
Note to newcomers to this story: “Project Gunrunner” is the name ATF assigned to its Southwest Border Initiative to interdict gun smuggling to Mexico. “Project Gunwalker” is the name I assigned to the scandal after allegations by agents that monitored guns were allowed to fall into criminal hands on both sides of the border through a surveillance process termed “walking” surfaced.
Help wanted–inquire within
Regular readers: If you agree that mainstream press coverage of the gun rights issue demands a counter-balance, please help me spread the word by sharing Gun Rights Examiner links with your friends via emails, and in online discussion boards, blogs, etc. (Also note “Share” options, below.) Then get more commentary at The War on Guns: Notes from the Resistance.