Quote of the Day: Obama’s Executive Action on Guns a Damp Squib? Edition

President Obama (courtesy usnews.com)

“Obama administration officials said they had no specific plans to increase investigations, arrests or prosecutions of gun sellers who do not comply with the law. No task forces have been assembled. No agents or prosecutors have been specifically reassigned to such cases. And no funding has been reallocated to accelerate gun sale investigations in Washington.” – Obama’s Lofty Plans on Gun Violence Amount to Little Action [via nytimes.com]

[h/t AM]

comments

  1. avatar C.Rogers says:

    He sure sold a lot of guns and ammunition, though.
    Coincidence?

    1. avatar Martin Gomez says:

      He did, I’m sure there’s some twisted reason for that.

      However, while to the Red Lady’s chagrin, Obama has not started forcible confiscation, he has killed appeals by destaffing them, and then issued a directive for physicians to screen for mental health issues at yearly checkups, which might out a lot of people with mild, treatable depression on the denial list.

    2. avatar William says:

      Say what companies does Obama own stock in anyway?

  2. avatar John L. says:

    First thought: Yay!

    Second thought: trying to establish a conceptual framework for successors’ attempts?

  3. avatar Don says:

    Still raising Jimmy Carter’s Presidential ranking off the floor. Even the lefties are disappointed.

    1. avatar Omer Baker says:

      I heard a pundit over the weekend talk about how Carter’s administration ushered in what could be argued as the best president of the last fifty years. I thought that sample was mighty weak, kinda like being the tallest midget.

      1. avatar 16V says:

        As I recall, Carter was before Reagan. You know, the guy who raised taxes 7 of 8 years, grew the National Debt from around $900B to around $2.7T, grew the Fed workforce by over 300K, and signed off on taking away our right to buy new auto-guns? Just for starters? That “hero”?

        1. avatar Pascal says:

          You are correct on the guns part, you are wrong on the taxes part
          http://dailycaller.com/2012/06/06/ronald-reagan-raised-taxes-11-times-the-real-story/

        2. avatar Erik says:

          What 20th century presidents do you like? To say none of them is not an answer. Think of it as flying on a plane and your thinking I hope that guy doesn’t sit next to me.

        3. avatar JasonM says:

          Deficit spending is basically a stealthy tax. Most of the dollars (I won’t use the term money, because Fed-printed dollars don’t meet the economics definition of money) of deficit spending come from the Fed physically printing them up or adding numbers to a digital ledger. That leads to an inflation of the M2 monetary supply, devaluing the dollars that everyone else is holding. If the government devalues your dollars, making the $100 you have only have the buying power of $72, how is that any different than a 28% tax?

          Reagan was not the paragon of smaller government that modern conservatives pretend he was. But I think we’d have to set the Wayback machine to April 1929 or earlier to find somebody better.

        4. avatar Omer Baker says:

          To Erik: Harding, in the aspect of his role as president.

        5. avatar 16V says:

          pascal, Regardless of his overall ‘tax cuts’ the raises were very much regressive, and the National Deficit and National Debt are proof of those falsehoods.

          DC can spout whatever shit they want, the ends (numbers) are the obviatons of that actually, well, working.

  4. avatar James says:

    He got the headlines. He appears to be doing something so mission accomplished.

    For the lefty press and activists, cue The Price is Right you lose tuba.

    1. avatar CTstooge says:

      Allow me:

  5. avatar jwm says:

    At this point they’d need a majority in the house and senate and do away with that pesky constitution thing. A tall order for the gang that couldn’t shoot straight.

    1. avatar TomVonKY says:

      Nope – all they need is a couple of new Supremes, and then we’re f’ed.

      1. avatar Pascal says:

        WHICH is why voting in a D will Doom us all. The SCOTUS has taken to creating law versus upholding the Constitution and if Hillary or Bernie become POTUS we will have far left judges not only at the SCOTUS but all the Federal Districts as well. Obama has done a good job of stacking the courts thus far.

  6. avatar jans says:

    “And then is heard no more: it is a tale
    Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
    Signifying nothing.”

  7. avatar Mk10108 says:

    Dog and pony show which much is made to do something about nothing.

    When they decide how many guns one sells in a day, month or year, then we’ll have something to discuss.

  8. avatar James69 says:

    TTAG needs to give the Prez “Gun Salesman of the Year” award……. Do it!!!

    1. avatar Mk10108 says:

      I’ll poke the bear. TTAG DO IT. Bask in the warm glow of rejection. It would be a badge of honor.

  9. avatar WedelJ says:

    Perfect.
    1. Enact new laws to make it look like you are doing something
    2. Purposefully fail to enforce new laws so crime is unaffected 3. Go on TV and say “We don’t have enough laws!”
    3. Enact more laws
    4. …
    5. Profit!

  10. avatar BLAMMO says:

    But he got a lot of attention for “doing SOMETHING“.

    1. avatar Pascal says:

      ….and for that fleeting moment, it felt good so that is all that mattered to the base. Details, details, who needs details we all feel wonderful.

  11. avatar John Thomas says:

    just laying groundwork.

    “this form of government no longer works.”
    “we need stronger executive federal powers.”
    “the legislature is corrupt, weak, and no longer serves the people. get rid of it.”

    you watch. were living in an age where people are lazy and no longer want self rule. they want a king, and theyll probably get one.

    1. avatar pod says:

      Indeed. A statistically significant number of people I know are more than willing to turn over a lot of their lives to the government in exchange for a (false) sense of security and/or more leisure time. They don’t see the long-term danger of entrusting the government with such things, i.e. what the government gives, they can take away. Sure, today you can be relaxing in your home learning to do cross-stitching while rough men stand ready to do violence on your behalf, but tomorrow, those same men on the behest of the government can be cracking down on you for any number of reasons. I prefer dangerous freedom to peaceful slavery. If it means I don’t have time to learn how to cross-stitch or play the violin, then so be it.

  12. avatar Jonathan - Houston says:

    Sounds like somebody wants to let the issue of firearms freedom cool off in an election year so as not to foment a backlash against their party in November. Winning elections is as much about motivating your base as it is not inciting the oppposition’s base.

    1. avatar Stinkeye says:

      I think that horse has already left the barn for this election cycle. Sanders and Clinton keep tripping over each other trying to sound “tougher on guns”.

      1. avatar Jonathan - Houston says:

        That’s just the Dem nominating base, who are already anti 2A. I’m talking about the general electorate.

        These are people who don’t participate in or pay much attention to the primaries. Many don’t even start following the general election until after the conventions and well into October.

        Look at the GOP. In 2008 and 2012, you had 20 million and 18.7 million primary votes cast, respectively. Yet, the GOP nominees in those years received 60 and 61 million votes in the general election. So only about 1/3 of Republican voters actually vote to nominate their candidate. The Dem candidates can say whatever they want, but a president talking gun control could rile people up to go vote for a more conservative candidate. Dems don’t want that because they know what Republicans never figure out: conservatism wins elections.

        On the Dem side, their anti gun talk doesn’t matter because only hardcore Dems are listening. Look at 2008 (last year with a contested nomination). There were 35.4 million Dem primary voters versus 69.5 million Dem voters in November.. That’s roughly half, which leaves a whole other half; some of whom might be turned off by anti gun stridency.

        Keep in mind, many of these people have short attention spans. People can spout off in Dem primaries and go unnoticed. If the president does so, though, that catches attention and can linger. So he’s going into zipped lip, lie by ommision mode, to let this issue quiet down for a while.

        Really the bottom line us that everything this president does or doesn’t do is for accumulating more government power. If he’s backing off for now, assume it’s a calculated decision for political purposes.

  13. avatar PeterK says:

    It’s hard to believe people are just now figuring this out.

    1. avatar Another Robert says:

      There ya’ go. The only people who were/should have been fooled were the kind of uninformed Kim Kardashian types who believe there really is a “gun show loophole” in the first place. I’m afraid I saw a lot of uncalled-for hyperventilating among conservative commentators who should have known better.

  14. avatar Bob321 says:

    Obama and his staff are uninformed true believers, so I am sure they thought the orders did something. The people in the BATFE are not true believers, however. In a year, Obama will be old news, but many who work for the BATFE will still be here…which they know. If you are sitting in the BATFE, you are probably going to avoid pi$$Ing off the next administration. When I first read the presidential orders on this, my first thought was that the BATFE pulled a fast one on Obama. The orders sounded onerous to the uninformed, but in reality, they pretty much reiterated existing policy and laws…except the BATFE did get a head-count increase. This sounds like a smart bureaucrat gamed the politicians.

  15. avatar LarryinTX says:

    “more gun sellers to register as dealers, who then must conduct background checks.”

    That’s from the article, and seems like it misses the point. You have to be a registered dealer before you CAN conduct background checks. If it is such a big deal, why not allow (means ALLOW, not require/force/threaten prison, etc) anyone at all to conduct background checks? Answer I suspect is that it’s too expensive, accomplishes nothing, and surrenders precious control. May also have to do with the possibility of assembling an illegal registry.

    1. avatar Andrew Lias says:

      Yeah, all fluff and little to no substance. What’s new?

    2. avatar Jim Bullock says:

      That’s it, right there. “Everything not compulsory is forbidden.” And “We want to see everything.”

      Let people anonomously check whether this guy here is cleared, “we” don’t know who tried to do what, where, when. Have a simple endorsement on I D that says “not forbidden”, and “we” aren’t in the flow, building up.that dossier.

      The Blogfather’s “insufficient opportunity for graft” is incomplete. Insufficient opportunity for surveilance. Which in the small is just nosing in other people’s business.

      Really, how can they know if somebody is doing something wrong, and fix them, if they dont know every single thing.

    3. avatar Jonathan - Houston says:

      That idea of open access to the NICS system was offered up back during the Brady Bill debates in the 90s and again in the 2013 post-Sandy Hook hysteria. It was rejected both times.

      The Democrats have no interest in preventing crime or in preventing prohibited possessors from acquiring firearms. Their interest is in expanding the ranks of prohibited possessors and in making firearms purchases as costly and inconvenient as possible for everyone else.

      They don’t allow public access to the NICS system, instead reserving it for federal firearms license holders, because they and the ATF can control the FFLs. They can disapprove applications, impose burdensome recordkeeping and physical location requirements, and even harass FFLs into departing the business.

      In short, keep NICS for FFLs only, throttle the FFLs, then they can choke off the legal firearms trade.

  16. avatar DerryM says:

    He got the optics he wanted and they were about making it look like the Republican controlled Congress is obstructing his vision of “progress” in “transforming America” with “change we can believe in” (as Barak Hussein Obama defines it). He and Congress are in a neither faction can win standoff. He wants to break that stalemate because he believes a Democrat will succeed him and as long as a Republican controlled Congress stands in the way, even to the basically ineffectual extent it has, his Progressive Vision will not move forward. America will just rot in place, as it has the past seven years plus. The only way this stalemate will break is when both POTUS and COTUS are in the hands of the same party. Time to be very careful of what we wish for and what we allow to happen.

  17. avatar EJQ says:

    Somebody needs to tell The NYT to be quiet. This might get back to Obama

    1. avatar PNG says:

      He’s already writing for that rag, he knows.

  18. avatar Former Water Walker says:

    Meh…anyone surprised?

  19. avatar Ralph says:

    A damp squib? Damp? With that flood of bitter POTUS tears, it’s more like a sopping squib.

  20. avatar DaveL says:

    Back when he announced his new executive actions I kept trying to point this out, against a tsunami of fawning media gushing about how Obama had “expanded background checks and licensing requirements”. I felt like Will Ferrell’s character in Zoolander: “He’s just restating existing law and regulations! Doesn’t anybody notice this? I feel like I’m taking crazy pills! ”

    The only thing that does surprise me is that, after weeks of slurping up Obamas gene juice on the subject, the NY Times has actually decided to wake up and call BS.

  21. avatar Stoopid1 says:

    Charlie Reese, a retired reporter for the Orlando Sentinel, has hit the nail directly on the head, defining clearly who it is that in the final analysis must assume responsibility for the judgments made that impact each one of us every day.

    545 vs. 300,000,000 People
    -By Charlie Reese

    Politicians are the only people in the world who create problems and then campaign against them.

    Have you ever wondered, if both the Democrats and the Republicans are against deficits, WHY do we have deficits?

    Have you ever wondered, if all the politicians are against inflation and high taxes, WHY do we have inflation and high taxes?

    You and I don’t propose a federal budget. The President does .

    You and I don’t have the Constitutional authority to vote on appropriations. The House of Representatives does .

    You and I don’t write the tax code, Congress does .

    You and I don’t set fiscal policy, Congress does .

    You and I don’t control monetary policy, the Federal Reserve Bank does .

    One hundred senators, 435 congressmen, one President, and nine Supreme Court justices equates to 545 human beings out of the 300 million are directly, legally, morally, and individually responsible for the domestic problems that plague this country.

    I excluded the members of the Federal Reserve Board because that problem was created by the Congress. In 1913, Congress delegated its Constitutional duty to provide a sound currency to a federally chartered, but private, central bank.

    I excluded all the special interests and lobbyists for a sound reason. They have no legal authority. They have no ability to coerce a senator, a congressman, or a President to do one cotton-picking thing. I don’t care if they offer a politician $1 million dollars in cash. The politician has the power to accept or reject it. No matter what the lobbyist promises, it is the legislator’s responsibility to determine how he votes.

    Those 545 human beings spend much of their energy convincing you that what they did is not their fault. They cooperate in this common con regardless of party.

    What separates a politician from a normal human being is an excessive amount of gall. No normal human being would have the gall of a Speaker, who stood up and criticized the President for creating deficits. The President can only propose a budget. He cannot force the Congress to accept it.

    The Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land, gives sole responsibility to the House of Representatives for originating and approving appropriations and taxes . Who is the speaker of the House? John Boehner. He is the leader of the majority party. He and fellow House members, not the President , can approve any budget they want . If the President vetoes it, they can pass it over his veto if they agree to.

    It seems inconceivable to me that a nation of 300 million cannot replace 545 people who stand convicted — by present facts — of incompetence and irresponsibility. I can’t think of a single domestic problem that is not traceable directly to those 545 people. When you fully grasp the plain truth that 545 people exercise the power of the federal government, then it must follow that what exists is what they want to exist.

    If the tax code is unfair, it’s because they want it unfair.

    If the budget is in the red, it’s because they want it in the red.

    If the Army & Marines are in Iraq and Afghanistan it’s because they want them in Iraq and Afghanistan …

    If they do not receive social security but are on an elite retirement plan not available to the people, it’s because they want it that way.

    There are no insoluble government problems.

    Do not let these 545 people shift the blame to bureaucrats, whom they hire and whose jobs they can abolish; to lobbyists, whose gifts and advice they can reject; to regulators, to whom they give the power to regulate and from whom they can take this power. Above all, do not let them con you into the belief that there exists disembodied mystical forces like “the economy,” “inflation,” or “politics” that prevent them from doing what they take an oath to do.

    Those 545 people, and they alone, are responsible.

    They, and they alone, have the power.

    They, and they alone, should be held accountable by the people who are their bosses.

    Provided the voters have the gumption to manage their own employees…

    We should vote all of them out of office and clean up their mess!

    Tax his land,
    Tax his bed,
    Tax the table,
    At which he’s fed.

    Tax his tractor,
    Tax his mule,
    Teach him taxes
    Are the rule.

    Tax his work,
    Tax his pay,
    He works for
    peanuts anyway!

    Tax his cow,
    Tax his goat,
    Tax his pants,
    Tax his coat.

    Tax his ties,
    Tax his shirt,
    Tax his work,
    Tax his dirt.

    Tax his tobacco,
    Tax his drink,
    Tax him if he
    Tries to think.

    Tax his cigars,
    Tax his beers,
    If he cries
    Tax his tears.

    Tax his car,
    Tax his gas,
    Find other ways
    To tax his ass.

    Tax all he has
    Then let him know
    That you won’t be done
    Till he has no dough.

    When he screams and hollers;
    Then tax him some more,
    Tax him till
    He’s good and sore.

    Then tax his coffin,
    Tax his grave,
    Tax the sod in
    Which he’s laid…

    Put these words
    Upon his tomb,
    ‘Taxes drove me
    to my doom…’

    When he’s gone,
    Do not relax,
    Its time to apply
    The inheritance tax.

    Accounts Receivable Tax
    Building Permit Tax
    CDL license Tax
    Cigarette Tax
    Corporate Income Tax
    Dog License Tax
    Excise Taxes
    Federal Income Tax
    Federal Unemployment Tax (FUTA)
    Fishing License Tax
    Food License Tax
    Fuel Permit Tax
    Gasoline Tax (currently 44.75 cents per gallon)
    Gross Receipts Tax
    Hunting License Tax
    Inheritance Tax
    Inventory Tax
    IRS Interest Charges IRS Penalties (tax on top of tax)
    Liquor Tax
    Luxury Taxes
    Marriage License Tax
    Medicare Tax
    Personal Property Tax
    Property Tax
    Real Estate Tax
    Service Charge Tax
    Social Security Tax
    Road Usage Tax
    Recreational Vehicle Tax
    Sales Tax
    School Tax
    State Income Tax
    State Unemployment Tax (SUTA)
    Telephone Federal Excise Tax
    Telephone Federal Universal Service Fee Tax
    Telephone Federal, State and Local Surcharge Taxes
    Telephone Minimum Usage Surcharge Tax
    Telephone Recurring and Nonrecurring Charges Tax
    Telephone State and Local Tax
    Telephone Usage Charge Tax
    Utility Taxes
    Vehicle License Registration Tax
    Vehicle Sales Tax
    Watercraft Registration Tax
    Well Permit Tax
    Workers Compensation Tax

    STILL THINK THIS IS FUNNY?

    Not one of these taxes existed 100 years ago, & our nation was the most prosperous in the world.
    We had absolutely no national debt, had the largest middle class in the world, and Mom stayed home to raise the kids.

    What in the heck happened? Can you spell ‘politicians?’

    1. avatar 16V says:

      Seriously, the US has always been a debtor nation – it’s just varied as a percentage of GDP…

      http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/11/the-long-story-of-us-debt-from-1790-to-2011-in-1-little-chart/265185/

      Get a grip, we owed money 100 years ago. We just owe an untenable amount now.

    2. avatar Ronald Pottol says:

      A bunch of those things didn’t exist 100 years ago either. And some of those are just plain wrong, for example, what was the whiskey rebellion about? (Tax on booze, if you don’t know your history). 100 years ago, most people worked until they died, retirement was not for ordinary folks.

  22. avatar Ronald Pottol says:

    On January 20, 2017, right after the inauguration, Barak Obama need to get on an airplane, and fly to Las Vegas for the last hours of the SHOT show, where they will give him a special “salesman of the past 8 years” award.

    Who deserves it more? He’s made them a ton of money.

    😉

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email