Just Because You’re Paranoid About Gun Control Doesn’t Mean They Aren’t Really Out to Grab ‘Em

I’m really really getting tired of the whole “gun nuts are paranoid about President Obama” meme that the antis are pushing. And pushing. And pushing. The latest culprit is Timothy Egan of The New York Times, author of ‘Gun Nuts in a Rut’, published Thursday:

When it became clear in the early fall of 2008 that Barack Obama, son of a Kansan and a Kenyan, would be the 44th President of the United States, many citizens rushed to their gun shops, stocked up on ammo and camo, and tried to fortify their nests with all manner of lethal weapons.

Though he had said nothing about gun control in the campaign, Obama, to a certain kind of person, appeared to be a grave threat to the Second Amendment. …

That “certain kind of person” would be anyone with an I.Q. above room temperature who had been paying the slightest bit of attention, because Obama’s actions as a legislator spoke volumes about his feelings on the gun issue. Senator Obama’s statements on the campaign trail weren’t any more reassuring. For example:

  • Obama opposed a bill in the Illinois legislature which would have protected homeowners from weapons charges if they used an “illegal” gun in self-defense.
  • In a primary debate in 2008, Obama the candidate stated that the second amendment confers an individual right, BUT (there’s always but where the second amendment is concerned) the fact that it is an individual right “does not mean that the state or local government can’t constrain the exercise of that right”. In addition, for a supposed constitutional scholar to state that the Bill of Rights confers rights, rather than protects pre-existing rights is also worrisome.
  • When running for the Illinois senate in 1996, Obama most assuredly did fill out a questionnaire (despite his later claims that a staffer did it) in which he unequivocally supported a ban on the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns, a ban on the possession of ‘assault weapons’ and waiting periods before purchasing a firearm.
  • Need I mention the whole “bitter clingers” episode?
  • Although he claimed to respect the second amendment, he also said that the D.C. gun ban (banning all handguns and operable long guns) was constitutional. When pressed for his rationale, he said there was nothing wrong with a community establishing their own “reasonable, thoughtful gun control measure[s]” while still respecting the second amendment. Did you catch that? A complete ban is his idea of a reasonable gun control measure.
  • In the Illinois legislature, he supported licensing and registering gun owners as a measure to keep unlawful guns off the street. This purported constitutional scholar was apparently unaware that the supreme court has ruled that criminals don’t need to register (and can’t be punished for failing to register) their guns because it would be a violation of their right against self-incrimination.
  • In 2000 Obama cosponsored a bill to limit gun purchases to one per month and in 2003 he voted in favor of HB 2579 which had the same one gun per month provision.
  • According to a Chicago Defender article in December of 1999, “Obama is proposing to make it a felony for a gun owner whose firearm was stolen from his residence which causes harm to another person if that weapon was not securely stored in that home.”
  • At an NAACP forum in 2007 Obama stated “We’ve got to make sure that unscrupulous gun dealers aren’t loading up vans and dumping guns in our communities, because we know they’re not made in our communities.” What?!? Is that what he really thinks? That federally licensed gun dealers are loading up vehicles and selling guns out of the back in inner cities?
  • In the Illinois senate he supported a confiscatory ‘assault weapons’ ban which would have included semi-auto shotguns and even some pump, double and single barrel shotguns.
  • As a Presidential candidate he called for passage of H.R. 6257, deceptively titled “Assault Weapons Ban Reauthorization Act of 2008″ which would have explicitly banned far more weapons than the Clinton AWB.
  • As a Senator, Obama voted against prohibiting lawsuits against gun manufacturers and voted in favor of an amendment to that bill which would have banned most rifle ammunition, under the guise of banning ‘armor-piercing’ ammunition.
  • As a Senator Obama did not sign the amicus brief supporting the individual rights view in Heller v. DC.
  • Obama voted to ban gun stores within five miles of a school or park, which would have eliminated most gun stores in America.
  • He supported legislation to “close the gun show loophole” which would have imprisoned show organizers if a single person at a show offered a gun for sale privately.
  • As a Senator, Obama stated he supported a federal ban on concealed carry laws and as a Presidential candidate he told the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review “‘I am not in favor of concealed weapons,’ Obama said. ‘I think that creates a potential atmosphere where more innocent people could (get shot during) altercations.’”

Barack Obama’s actions as President have done nothing to change our perceptions, either. On his first day in office, on the White House website, under “Urban Policy” we found this gem posted:

Obama and Biden 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. 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.

See above regarding how little the Obama AWB resembed the Clinton-era AWB. When he talks about keeping guns away from children, what he’s really talking about are various blue-sky proposals to make guns “childproof.”

And who can forget the Obama Administration’s employment questionnaire Question 59: “Do you or any members of your immediate family own a gun? If so, provide complete ownership and registration information. Has the registration ever lapsed? Please also describe how and by whom it is used and whether it has been the cause of any personal injuries or property damage.”

Once Obama had settled into power, there were more ‘indicators’ of his anti-gun feelings:

  • In March, 2009 the DoD ‘revised’ its policy on the disposal of once-fired brass. Instead of selling it to consumers and domestic agencies for reloading, all once-fired brass from the military would be shredded and sold as scrap. This policy was reversed fairly quickly after outraged shooters contacted their legislators and Senators Tester and Baucus (both D-MT) faxed a letter to the DoD asking them to change the policy. The fact that Senator Tester was Chairman of the Senate Finance Committee might have had something to do with the quick volte-face.
  • The DHS report, Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment [.pdf] which cited as a key finding: “The possible passage of new restrictions on firearms and the return of military veterans facing significant challenges reintegrating into their communities could lead to the potential emergence of terrorist groups or lone wolf extremists capable of carrying out violent attacks.”
  • In April of 2009, President Obama announced he wanted the Senate to ratify the Inter-American Convention Against The Illicit Manufacturing Of And Trafficking In Firearms, Ammunition, Explosives, And Other Related Materials (called by its Spanish acronym of CIFTA for obvious reasons). A close look at the Definitions  section of the treaty reveals that it would require a government license for “the manufacture or assembly of firearms, ammunition, explosives, and other related materials”. That doesn’t sound too bad, right? I mean we sort of have that now, don’t we? But the devil, as they say, is in the details. Or, in this case, the definitions, because the way they’re written, you could be required to get a government license to reload ammo, add or change out a scope on a rifle, replace a factory trigger with an upgraded one, or even so much as load a weapon. Preposterous you say? Look at how they define “other related materials.” Go ahead, I’ll wait. Back? Okay, when they say “any component, part, or replacement part of a firearm, or an accessory which can be attached to a firearm” you think an anti-gun administration wouldn’t say that applies to magazines and ammo? So – technically – putting rounds in a mag or a mag in a weapon would constitute “assembly” which would require a license. So how much will the license cost? What will the application process be? Will it be “shall-issue” or “may-issue”? How long will it be good for? How much will it cost to renew? All of these details could be used to drastically reduce gun ownership.
  • The Obama administration reversed a decision to import over 800,000 surplus M-1 rifles and carbines from South Korea. Not only are these weapons of some historical significance, but their arrival on the market would reduce prices on these sorts of weapons, at least in the relatively short term. The rationale (or perhaps rationalization would be a better term) given to the South Korean government for the decision was that the administration “was also worried the weapons could be smuggled to terrorists, gangs or other people with bad intentions.” Well that tells us something interesting. Since all of these rifles would have been sold through FFLs, the Obama administration is saying they believe every firearm sale in the country could put guns in the hands of “terrorists, gangs or other people with bad intentions.” And they call us paranoid.
  • Under the Obama administration, the CDC did an end-run around the decade-old prohibition on performing research on gun control issues by maintaining they were not researching the gun issue, “rather they deal with the surrounding web of circumstances.” When Republicans in Congress questioned why money was being spent on these sorts of studies, an NIH spokesman replied “Gun-related violence is a public health problem – it diverts considerable health care resources away from other problems and, therefore, is of interest to NIH.” But wait, aren’t you supposed to do the studies before you come to the conclusion that guns have a net negative impact on public health? See, coming to conclusions and then ginning up research to support them is what got Congress to implement the ban in the first place.
  • Fast & Furious and the whole “90% of illegal weapons in Mexico come from the U.S.” with the subsequent unlawful and unconstitutional long gun sales reporting requirement implemented by the ATF via bureaucratic fiat. And please, don’t even try to say “But Bush did it first!” Under oath, Attorney General Holder stated that he would not equate F&F with Operation Wide Receiver. Among other things, under OWR the ATF informed the Mexicans when, where and in what kind of car guns were crossing the border while under F&F not only were the Mexicans kept in the dark, the ATF liaison officers in Mexico were kept in the dark.
  • Under the Obama administration the ATF suddenly reversed a forty-two year old ruling, stating that “[t]he temporary assignment of a firearm by an FFL to its unlicensed agents, contractors, volunteers, or any other person who is not an employee of the FFL, even for bona fide business purposes, is a transfer or disposition for purposes of the Gun Control Act” which then requires that the transfer be processed by an FFL, complete with NICS check and a 4473, lengthening the transfer process considerably.
  • In an op-ed for the Arizona Star, Obama capitalized on the Tucson shooting, calling for more gun control. Except he didn’t call it ‘gun control’, he called it “sound and effective steps that will actually keep those irresponsible, law-breaking few from getting their hands on a gun in the first place”.
  • Then there was this piece in the Huffington Post in which Obama admitted that he could not achieve gun control through legislation, so “only executive orders or administrative actions — and not an actual bill — are expected to be handed to Congress.” What was it Bill Clinton’s aide said? “Stroke of the pen. Law of the land. Kinda cool.” Yeah, who needs that whole “work within constitutional limits” stuff anyway, right?

So the next time some ignorant anti says “But Obama hasn’t done anything on gun control . . . why are you so paranoid?” give them chapter and verse. Not that facts ever make much of an impression on hoplophobes.

avatar

About Bruce W. Krafft

I am a bit of a Johnny-come-lately to the civil rights (firearms flavor) movement, having not really gotten involved until after I hit 40. I am not really a "gun guy"; I can generally hit what I aim at, but I'm not a competitive shooter. I enjoy the craftsmanship of a fine pistol or rifle, but I am not particularly knowledgeable about firearms in general nor am I a Glock guy, or 1911 guy, I'm just a guy. What I am is passionate about civil rights, especially those of the firearm flavor.

31 Responses to Just Because You’re Paranoid About Gun Control Doesn’t Mean They Aren’t Really Out to Grab ‘Em

  1. avatarmatt says:

    “We’ve got to make sure that unscrupulous gun dealers aren’t loading up vans and dumping guns in our communities, because we know they’re not made in our communities.”
    Where can I find one of those vans? I’ve lived in Chicago my entire life and i’ve never seen one. Do they only visit the Englewood neighborhood?

    On a side note, why does the NAACP still exist? it seems like it is a anachronism. According to DoJ statistics for 2003-2009, the #1 race of hate crime victims is white at 61%, compared to blacks at 13%. I wonder what the media would say if the NAAWP was formed? On page 7:
    http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/hc0309.pdf

    • avatardanial says:

      i say lets start it but wouldnt be but a handfull of people due to the fact the majority of white people seem to follow the lead of the black that would be voted out by the white along with the black

  2. avatarRalph says:

    Brilliant article, Bruce.

    Gun rights and Second Amendment support is my litmus test for politicians. If they don’t trust me, then I can’t trust them. End of story.

    • avatarRuffRidr says:

      I agree. Great job Bruce!

    • avatarTom says:

      I agree with you Ralph. Why should we trust and respect people who want to restrict our rights?

    • avatarTSgt B says:

      EXCELLENT RESPONSE, Ralph. I’ve been saying the same thing for a LONG time. These “lower orifices of the alimentary canal” have forgotten who they work for and what their place is in the scheme of things.

  3. avatarMartin Albright says:

    As Obama himself would say, “Let me be clear.” It is not my intention to defend Obama or to claim he is a supporter of 2nd amendment causes…

    However, the mere fact that he failed to sign an amicus brief supporting Heller doesn’t make him an anti-gunner, unless your definition of an “anti-gunner” is someone whose opinion is anything less than full throated advocacy and vigorous activism in support of gun ownership.

    If that’s the case, then the majority of US politicians, and even American gun owners, would probably also be classified as “anti gunners” as well which sort of renders the term meaningless.

    While Obama is certainly no gun supporter, he is not an anti-gunner in the way Clinton was. Clinton had a personal vendetta against gun owners in general and the NRA in particular (an animosity that, oddly enough, seemed to benefit both Clinton and the NRA.)

    Seems to me that Obama’s gun control support was more in the nature of gun control being one of the many liberal or left-of-center policies he supported, and gun control was neither less nor more important than any other. IOW, he was “ticket punching” his leftist/liberal/democrat cred, the way Republican politicians do by kowtowing to veterans, church groups, anti-abortionists, etc.

    Obama is, first and foremost, a politician. And he knows that in this country, the quickest way to lose political power is to push for gun control. The AW ban cost democrats the control of Congress in 1994 and the white house in 2000, and if there’s one thing democrats hate more than guns, it’s not having power.

    • avatarTom Fox says:

      You sir are correct.
      The only thing I’m upset about is not letting those 800,000 m1s back in the country.

      • avatarMartin Albright says:

        They allowed some of them in back in the 1990′s IIRC. Just FYI, they were thrashed. You can still get much, much nicer Garands through DCM and if the ones I saw in the 90′s are representative of the ones that would be coming in, it would cost more than the $400 DCM will charge you to bring one of those Korean surplus guns to a decent condition.

        Of course, the Carbines would be nice. DCM has been out of those for decades, sadly.

  4. avatarFrank says:

    Damn, that whole deal with buying M1 Garands and M1 Carbines from South Korea still pisses me off. I get angry every time I see it, hopefully if we get a new president, we can finally get those old warhorses over here and give them a new lease on life. I certainly wouldn’t mind a M1 Carbine or Garand in my growing collection.

    • avatarWilliam says:

      I still fume over that too. i was really looking forward to getting one for myself and another for my son.

    • avatarTotenglocke says:

      Yea, that kills me that a gun made in the US, paid for by US tax dollars, and used by the US military is illegal to return to the US.

  5. avatarSteve Elber says:

    You forgot to mention (unless I missed it), his appointment of two known anti-gun supporters to the position of Supreme Court Justice, not to mention anti-gun nut Rahm Emmanuel as chief of staff, and finally Secretary of State Hillary Clinton trying to do an end run around the 2nd Amendment with the U.N gun ban treaty.

    • avatarmatt says:

      Rahm isnt his Chief of Staff anymore, he became the mayor here in Chicago. Continuing to make life difficult for us locally for not only guns post Heller/McDonald, but also for cars, right light cameras are now going to be speed cameras as well.

  6. avatarSilver says:

    Give the article some credit, he didn’t call the Glock an AK47.

    Otherwise, what is there to say? It’s a NYT piece from a drooling gun-grabber nut. Is it even worth discussing when we’ve already covered this ground?

  7. avatarO.N. says:

    Those Pennsylvania “bitter clingers” with their guns and bibles weren’t just holding on to the aformentioned objects. Instead they clung to the last vestiges of their heritage. Seems like “postracial America” really translates into wealth redistribution and a desire to phase out firearms.

    Our taxes subsidize the dregs of society and the System doesn’t want us capable of autonomy and self-defense. We don’t fit into the totalitarian humanist narrative of history. We, the White gentile working class, are the new Ukrainians. We are the new Kulaks. Our Holodomor is on the horizon.

    Act accordingly.

    • avatarmatt says:

      Everyone knows what the holocaust was, but this is the first time i’ve ever seen someone else who knew what holodomor was. People love to call you crazy or anti-semitic if you ever say the jews control the media.

      Anyways just make sure you have enough ammo and you can survive just like our ancestors did. Its supposed to taste like pork, right?

      • avatarRalph says:

        People love to call you crazy or anti-semitic if you ever say the jews control the media.

        I’d never say that about you, matt. But I’m putting it on the eleven o’clock news that I control.

    • avatarBruce W. Krafft says:

      My impression of the Holodomor was not that it was deliberate, but that (like the peasants in China after Mao took power) food production was completely divorced from food consumption. That is, the farmers did not eat what they grew or traded for, they ate from the communal kitchen/mess hall. Since food was coming from somewhere else, why work so hard?
      Likewise there was always the temptation/pressure on the commisars to inflate their production reports which seemed like a great idea until harvest came and Moscow told you to ship half your corn out for redistribution. Since the commisar had *reported* 50 tons of grain produced that meant that he had to ship out 25 tons. Which caused big problems when only 30 tons had actually been produced.

  8. avatarFred says:

    Great article Bruce. Another example of TTAG as a resource and daily read.

  9. avatarTom says:

    OK guys, load up your van with guns, so we can sell them in an inner city neighborhood! Uh-huh. Happens all the time; caravans of them everywhere.

  10. avatarMark says:

    It’s all rather self-congratulatory here, but honestly, given what was predicted when he first came to office over what actually came to pass? It’s like a 2 out of 10. Guns remain un-grabbed, the usual amount of legislative BS has continued, nothing has changed much at all.

    Of all the things people blame presidents for, the claim of excessive gun control is unsupportable. What’s wrong with you people? I don’ t care much for Republicans, Democrats or Libertarians (or politicians in general), but given that the guy is a Democrat, he’s done nothing in the way of gun control by those standards.

    I love guns, but do any of you ever question the groupthink that surrounds them?

    • avatarGWR says:

      Mark:
      What is the matter with you? Have you not read the above? The illegal rejection of the re-importation of the US MADE, Korean possessed, M1′s alone at least makes it 80,002 out of 80,010!
      What do you think’s likely to happen should the big-(0) get reelected?

  11. avatarJoe Doakes` says:

    But for Obama as President millions of fire arms and tens of millions of cartridges would never have been produced, and hundreds of thousands of brand new fire arms owners would never have been provoked into defending themselves, and by extension their nation, if push came to Communist Chinese shove.

    Sometimes what you fight against most you provoke.

    The anti-gun-freedom movement is doing just that.

    . . . and that is good.

  12. avatarTom D. says:

    Let’s not forget what happened when Sarah Brady was at the White House to discuss anti-gun issues, ” Obama dropped in and, according to Sarah Brady, brought up the issue of gun control, “to fill us in that it was very much on his agenda,” she said. “I just want you to know that we are working on it,” Brady recalled the president telling them. “We have to go through a few processes, but under the radar.” ” http://nation.foxnews.com/guns/2011/05/25/obama-were-working-gun-control-under-radar#ixzz1g3ndnJ00Funny how, most recently, documents released from the BATF relating to Fast and Furious discuss how the program could be used as a gun control measure. CBS News reports, ” http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-31727_162-57338546-10391695/documents-atf-used-fast-and-furious-to-make-the-case-for-gun-regulations/ ” For those who say Obama knew nothing of Fast and Furious are kidding themselves. I believe he knew either from the start or shortly thereafter.

  13. avatarRich says:

    The largest threat we face is Obama being able to appoint 2-3 more anti-gun Supreme court Justices. That will destroy the 2nd amendment for at least 30 yrs and probably forever. Vote your guns, vote your freedoms or we are done as a free country. If you have not been paying attention Obama has been wiping his axe with the Constitution. Thus when there is no law of the land anything is possible from a Marxist Revolutionary. If you do your homework that is the only possible conclusion one can reach. Don’t look at what he says, look at what he does. If re-elected we are done as a free country. We may be done already.

  14. avatarRich says:

    That certain kind of person would be anyone with an I.Q. above room
    temperature who had been paying the slightest bit of attention, because
    Obamas actions as a legislator spoke volumes about his feelings on the gun
    issue. Senator Obamas statements on the campaign trail werent any more
    reassuring. For example:
    Obama opposed a bill in the Illinois legislature which would have protected
    homeowners from weapons charges if they used an illegal gun in self-defense.
    In a primary debate in 2008, Obama the candidate stated that the second
    amendment confers an individual right, BUT (theres always but where the
    second amendment is concerned) the fact that it is an individual right does
    not mean that the state or local government cant constrain the exercise of
    that right. In addition, for a supposed constitutional scholar to state that
    the Bill of Rights confers rights, rather than protects pre-existing rights
    is also worrisome.
    When running for the Illinois senate in 1996, Obama most assuredly did fill
    out a questionnaire (despite his later claims that a staffer did it) in
    which he unequivocally supported a ban on the manufacture, sale and
    possession of handguns, a ban on the possession of assault weapons and
    waiting periods before purchasing a firearm.
    Need I mention the whole bitter clingers episode?
    Although he claimed to respect the second amendment, he also said that the
    D.C. gun ban (banning all handguns and operable long guns) was
    constitutional. When pressed for his rationale, he said there was nothing
    wrong with a community establishing their own reasonable, thoughtful gun
    control measure[s] while still respecting the second amendment. Did you
    catch that? A complete ban is his idea of a reasonable gun control measure.
    In the Illinois legislature, he supported licensing and registering gun
    owners as a measure to keep unlawful guns off the street. This purported
    constitutional scholar was apparently unaware that the supreme court has
    ruled that criminals dont need to register (and cant be punished for failing
    to register) their guns because it would be a violation of their right
    against self-incrimination.
    In 2000 Obama cosponsored a bill to limit gun purchases to one per month
    and in 2003 he voted in favor of HB 2579 which had the same one gun per
    month provision.
    According to a Chicago Defender article in December of 1999, Obama is
    proposing to make it a felony for a gun owner whose firearm was stolen from
    his residence which causes harm to another person if that weapon was not
    securely stored in that home.
    At an NAACP forum in 2007 Obama stated Weve got to make sure that
    unscrupulous gun dealers arent loading up vans and dumping guns in our
    communities, because we know theyre not made in our communities. What?!? Is
    that what he really thinks? That federally licensed gun dealers are loading
    up vehicles and selling guns out of the back in inner cities?
    In the Illinois senate he supported a confiscatory assault weapons ban
    which would have included semi-auto shotguns and even some pump, double and
    single barrel shotguns.
    As a Presidential candidate he called for passage of H.R. 6257, deceptively
    titled Assault Weapons Ban Reauthorization Act of 2008 which would have
    explicitly banned far more weapons than the Clinton AWB.
    As a Senator, Obama voted against prohibiting lawsuits against gun
    manufacturers and voted in favor of an amendment to that bill which would
    have banned most rifle ammunition, under the guise of banning armor-piercing
    ammunition.
    As a Senator Obama did not sign the amicus brief supporting the individual
    rights view in Heller v. DC.
    Obama voted to ban gun stores within five miles of a school or park, which
    would have eliminated most gun stores in America.
    He supported legislation to close the gun show loophole which would have
    imprisoned show organizers if a single person at a show offered a gun for
    sale privately.
    As a Senator, Obama stated he supported a federal ban on concealed carry
    laws and as a Presidential candidate he told the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review I
    am not in favor of concealed weapons, Obama said. I think that creates a
    potential atmosphere where more innocent people could (get shot during)
    altercations. There is only one reason to vote for Obama the Anti-American who left 2 seals an Ambassador and another to die in an 8 hr fight. Then he lied about it to cover it up for 15 days. Vote freedom, vote to save the Republic.

  15. avatarRobert C. Hall says:

    Great article that is a useful resource. Thanks.

    One quick fact check: Max Baucus was and is the Chairman of the Senate Finance Committee. Does not change your point.

Leave a Reply

Please use your real name instead of you company name or keyword spam.