Column: Is Obama's Gun Policy The Change We Need?
This story was written by Seth Stern, Rocky Mountain Collegian
The President-elect won on his platform of change. Now, his first opportunity to prove that he meant what he said is already in front of him, but will he capitalize?
Within 24-hours of his victory speech just one month ago, President-elect Obama's policy Web site change.gov, went up outlining his visions and plans for the new administration.
Gun rights activists immediately identified three areas of major concern, which demonstrates the shrewd tactics used by the Democratic ticket to avoid mentioning their true views of gun control. The new administration states several goals I'd like to address individually.
They "would repeal the Tiahrt amendment," which keeps confidential the information used in criminal investigations involving firearms.
Not only would repeal inevitably result in lawsuits against legitimate firearms dealers, but nothing would prevent the information regarding firearms used in crimes from ending up in the hands of criminals seeking retribution against potential witnesses. What's worse about the discussion of the repeal, is that there is no indication that it would provide any form of positive impact whatsoever, except giving gun control activists seeking exorbitant lawsuits against the firearms industry a new angle.
The new administration also states they "favor commonsense measures that respect the Second Amendment rights of gun owners, while keeping firearms away from children and criminals." This particular claim serves only to appeal to those who somehow believe that it's legal for either children or criminals to either possess or purchase firearms. The reality of the situation is as simple as the typical Democrat solution to all problems societal -- more laws equal a better, safer society.
"Support closing the gun show loophole and making guns in this country childproof." The supposed "loophole" doesn't exist, period.
What gun control activists claim as the loophole, in actuality is nothing more than private gun sales. Federal law requires any person purchasing from a Federal Firearms License holder to pass a criminal background check, and guess what sports fans, this includes sales taking place at a gun show.
Now, let's say you were a legislator and you wanted to close the "gun show loophole." The only way to actually ensure this requires a background check for every firearm purchased, including personal sales.
Anyone have any ideas how to ensure every firearms sale includes a background check? Childproofing of every firearm in America? Do some simple research if you think this is a good idea. Laws do not take the place of parenting dear reader, and secure storage laws result in an immediate and disturbing increase in crime.
Lastly, the Obama "supports making the expired Assault Weapons Ban permanent."
Take a look at the statistics, the previous edition of the AWB had the expected zero impact on crime, a new ban serves only to further a far-left objective goal of restricting firearms ownership nationwide.
There's certainly enough information out there on both sides of the gun control debate, if you want it, so why write on the subject? India's restrictive gun laws just enhanced one of the most terrifying events of the year.
Compare the terror attacks last weekend to the terror taking place on a regular basis in Israel. While terrorist suicide bombings certainly take place, it took only a few failed attempts at attacks with firearms for the enemies of the Zionist state to realize that everyone has a gun!
Now you may think I'm obviously the new resident right wing nut job at the Collegian, alas that's not the case. I am a firm and staunch believer in limited federal govrnment, as the Constitution designed, Republicans and Democrats ignore, and which we no longer have.
I encourage you all to take a look at the wording of the Constitution, afterward ask, does my federal government incarnate represent the federal government as it was designed? The Constitution is a limit on federal power, not a loose guideline for the parties at power to eternally attempt to redefine.
If Obama sticks to his pledge, he will consult his cabinet, realize that armed citizens can and do prevent these types of attacks, and will back off these promises. Is he willing to change?