Nothing makes clearer the complete intellectual bankruptcy of the NRA and its acolytes quite like the reaction earlier this week to Obama's beyond-milquetoast executive order about background checks at gun shows and for internet gun sales. As far as "gun control" goes, that is just about the least you could possibly do and still qualify. That makes it about one tenth of one percent more difficult to buy a gun. I am going to be accused of hyperbole here so click the link if you don't believe me: everybody supports this. 85% of Republicans support it. In public opinion terms, when one in ten people will support or oppose literally anything you can put on a survey because of measurement error, not reading the question, or just trying to be cute/funny, 89% of Americans supporting something is the functional if not statistical equivalent of "everybody." The reason it enjoys universal appeal is that it is basic common sense, it is merely an extension of an existing law, and it is such a diminutive baby step that even the most lunatic gun nuts would have a hard time calling it "gun control" with a straight face.
If anything, the fact that this is the extent of the regulation our political process can successfully enact against the firearm industry shows how completely pro-2nd Amendment forces have won this debate. This guy had to fight and eventually circumvent Congress to do something that literally no person, gun owners included, in their right mind opposes or considers onerous. It's like he passed an executive order saying people have to be 21 to buy alcohol in a bar as well as in stores.
buy zoloft online buy zoloft no prescription
This is the biggest non-event in the history of government regulation.
So leave it to Ted Cruz, an hour after the announcement, to claim that Obama is in tactical gear and arriving at your home shortly to take your guns. The same Obama who has been in the process of coming to take your guns – It's gonna happen any second now, be prepared! Better stock up! – for seven full years now. Because he issued an order that an existing law governing in-store gun sales should also apply to internet sales.
The reality, as we've said so many times that it makes me feel weary even to think about typing it out again, is that the NRA is the marketing arm of the gun industry, not a legitimate "interest group." Their job is to drum up fear so that people will run out and buy more guns.
buy xenical online buy xenical no prescription
They represent gun manufacturers, not gun owners. That they represent the latter is an illusion.
The only rhetorical tool they have in light of the overwhelming meagerness of the amount of regulating the government does to firearms – in reality, not in the fever dreams of the Bundy Militia – is the constant recourse to the slippery slope. Oh sure, this might not be much but it's the first step in a chain of events that ends with Bill Clinton and the ACLU and Liberal Professors and Feminists and Welfare Queens kicking down your door and pulling your guns out of your hands. These weak, nearly futile efforts at regulating gun sales are always, in right wing rhetoric, the tip of an iceberg nobody can see and that we never seem to hit.
Actually, this isn't their only rhetorical tactic. There's also lying. They use that one a lot.
Mo says:
So … now wadda we do? Where are all those behavioral psychologists and economists when you need them?
duquesne_pdx says:
I feel certain that if Obama were to introduce a resolution to Congress to affirm that the sun rises in the east, certain members of the stupid party would not only stand in opposition, but loudly announce a resolution of their own that not only does the sun rise in the west, but any statement otherwise is an indication of the jihadist sympathies of the east loving commie symp gay libruls.
Mark says:
Mr. Obama's EO does exactly nothing to curb the purchase of a gun by any eligible person. With that being said, we all know that if he had his way he would repeal the 2nd Amendment and send his government goons to confiscate every gun in the country. He made a splash with his crocodile tears but made no real difference. He certainly is, though, anti gun and against American citizens owning them.
Katydid says:
What's with this "Mr. Obama" stuff? I noticed on the national news, not one but two spokesmodels called him "Mr. Obama". What ever happened to the ceaseless whining about how we're to "RESPECT THE POSITION" that certain people kept repeating through the Bush era?
Chautauqua says:
We have a live one, folks.
Dave Dell says:
Katydid – My wife is tired of me correcting those reading the copy on NPR when I say, "That's President Obama, who the hell edits this copy".
c u n d gulag says:
And the socio/psycho-pathic chickenshits at the NRA, turned down a debate request from Mr. PRESIDENT Obama.
What a bunch of whining little-dicked titty-asses baby cowards!
They know that in any debate with President Obama, he'd hand their asses to them!
So much so, that they' need large bags for their butts, which can be hung from the rifle-racks on their pick-ups, until they could find some doctors to stich them back on! Of ourse, how they drive standing-up with their asses in proverbial sacks in slings until then, will be left to them.
The only way they could win a debate with President Obama, would be to shoot him first.
Strike that!
Maybe I shouldn't give them any ideas, huh?
Mark says:
@c u n d gulag – I have read opinion pieces from liberal mouthpieces saying that Barry should debate the NRA, but no where have I seen said debate requested by Barry and the NRA refusing. Please provide a link to this statement. And by the way the only answer Wayne LaPierre has to give is "Read the 2nd Amendment, Sir."
Totoro says:
Don't feed the troll, folks.
Skipper says:
@Totoro
Whaddaya mean? Even trolls need snacks.
Zak44 says:
If this isn't the very definition of "blood money" I don't know what is:
http://tinyurl.com/zzf6d2t
Jestbill says:
I never heard of a debate….but Mr. Google says http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/06/politics/nra-obama-gun-town-hall/index.html
Robert M. says:
It's always worth pointing out that the only actual laws passed on gun control during the Obama administration were to permit (1) loaded firearms in national parks and (2) in checked baggage on Amtrak.
It requires an impressive level of delusion to believe that, after seven years, it's still always 11:59 and Obama is showing up to take your guns at midnight.
Chautauqua says:
Once we dispense with the nonsensical prohibitions on Public Health research into gun violence, I'm looking forward to seeing an entire chapter on Gun Derangement Syndrome in the upcoming DSM-6. Only then will tortured and deluded souls like Mark finally receive a clinical diagnosis and the treatment they so desperately need. Under Obamacare.
Totoro says:
Gary Wills many years ago did a textual analysis of the 2nd Amendment:
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/1995/09/21/to-keep-and-bear-arms/
sluggo says:
If Andy Griffith hadn't enforced gun control and made Barney Fife keep that bullet in his pocket, Mayberry would have looked like a Tarantino flick.
chopper says:
OK, here's the 2nd Amendment:
As passed by the Congress and preserved in the National Archives, with the rest of the original hand-written copy of the Bill of Rights prepared by scribe William Lambert:[29]
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
As ratified by the States and authenticated by Thomas Jefferson, then-Secretary of State:[30]
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
I'm guessing Mr. LaPierre maybe has a little trouble understanding "regulated"???
Mo says:
As Troll du Jour so nicely demonstrates, what to do with the Eric Cartmans of the world? They'll never get it.
Bill says:
Speaking of the Bundys and guns, I had to complete my Stayin' Alive parody lyrics from the earlier thread.
The Bundy Gang (Live @ Malheur) – Stayin' Inside:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xAkT5m3cNR8
Safety Man! says:
@chopper,
There are several Supreme Court interpretations that would have to be considered as well.
In general to the forum, I can confirm that the NRA has been pushing the narrative that the government is comming for your guns since at least Bill Clinton, tl;dr some of these guys have literally been hearing it their entire lives.
Major Kong says:
Gun violence in the US: We've tried nothing and we're all out of ideas.
jon says:
I got a junkmail offer to join the NRA. Included was a survey with some of the most twisted questions I can ever imagine. I'll be returning it, since they're kind enough to pay the postage.
I was a tiny bit tempted to join just so I could get the cool pocketknife, but remembered I already have a bunch of those. And that's more than enough.
Carter Adams says:
Has anyone else noticed that the 2nd Amendment contains a grammatical error? That "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State" clause is just kind of dangling, acting as a modifier in a way that isn't really grammatical in English. They were probably going for the equivalent of an ablative absolute from Latin, but to do that in English, you kind of need more helping words, "with x having been y" or similar.
Anyway, the account of the 2nd Amendment that I've read that rings truest is that the idea of taking away guns from citizens was so alien to the founders that they really wouldn't have considered it a big concern – the nation was mostly forest at that time and a lot of communities weren't even linked up by roads, of course individual people had guns.
The issue at stake at the time of ratification was militias and specifically if they would be under the control of state or federal authority. And on this issue the Constitution and Bill of Rights just sort of… punts. It gives a non-answer of "hey, we all know militias are important" and then leaves in that "well-regulated" bit as an opening for Washington (the guy, not the city) to take control if the states get rowdy.
And it was all a moot point because the militias performed so terribly in the war of 1812 that they were phased out and replaced with a permanent standing army, which the founders hated and the authority to create is found nowhere in the Constitution.
Michael says:
Oh, white people.
Nick says:
Considering most of the new executive order plan is focused on enforcement of existing laws–eg more followup on rejected purchases, more staffing at the NICS, etc.–which you might recognize as exactly what gun advocates (including myself) propose in lieu of new laws, amyone who's against those provisions is pretty fucking stupid, and I say that as someone who's probably in the top three most pro-gun commenters on this blog.
Some of the provisions (eg restrictions on purchases of NFA weapons by trusts; I don't believe a trust-owned NFA weapon has ever once been used in a crime because they're extremely expensive collectors' items and because generally speaking you don't join a trust to pay thousands of dollars to become a registered owner of a registered firearm before shooting someone) are useless at best, but overall the actions Obama is taking here is not exactly world-shattering.
B-iLL says:
My conspiracy theory mind thinks that Obama was secretly backed by gun manufacturers and has successfully created numbers like the 180% in sales increases for Smith and Wesson alone in 2015.
I wonder what would happen if a white guy or a republican wins the white house this year…gun manufacturers will surely take a hit in productivity and increased earnings with a safe white man, right?
Chicagojon says:
Well, if we move away from the threat of BARACK HUSSEIN taking away guns we can always move to their 2nd biggest fear: IRANIAN NUKES.
They've been our threatiest threat for nearly a decade: http://fafblog.blogspot.com/2009/10/q-our-threatiest-threat.html
democommie says:
Lost, somewhere in the fog of bulls hit is the fact that the folks in the POSSouth (People Owning Southern States or Pieces Of Shirt Slavers) were quite concerned about having the niggras rise up and murder them en masse.
Jason says:
"Actually, this isn't their only rhetorical tactic. There's also lying. They use that one a lot."
I can't stand the NRA and this is one of several reasons. Make no mistake though, the anti-gun side, including the President, are more than willing to rape the facts. In this round of proposals, the White House has been really really misleading, if not lying, about getting guns online without background checks.
chopper-
"I'm guessing Mr. LaPierre maybe has a little trouble understanding "regulated"???"
If you are going by the most common modern definition rather than the way it was used in the Constitution and contemporaneous documents, neither do you. It didn't mean, "controlled or governed by rules or laws" like today. It meant more along the lines of, "well drilled, prepared, having the qualities of a professional, etc."
That raises the natural question, "How does every doofus with an AR-15 constitute a militia that is well drilled or professional?" Alexander Hamilton addressed that (and showed what "well regulated" meant):
"To oblige the great body of the yeomanry and of the other classes of the citizens to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people and a serious public inconvenience and loss."
So at least from his perspective, it wasn't realistic to expect regular people to constantly drill and train. So the point of the 2A was to say, "We can't have our citizens be professional soldiers, so the least we can do is make sure they are armed."
Back to the proposals. The background checks aren't the least bit offensive to me. They also will have no measurable effect on gun crime. The NFA stuff might be a net gain for gun owners. The point of the trust loophole was to get around local LEO arbitrarily refusing to sign off on a transfer. Now, it's more like most states are with concealed carry, that is, shall issue rather than may issue. LEOs can't just say, "Nope, I don't want anyone in my county/city owning a short-barreled rifle or suppressor." If you meet the qualifications, he can't do anything to stop the transfer.
I remain baffled why Obama doesn't look at obviously better ideas that are staring him in the face, ideas that would likely get bi-partisan support. Straw purchases are one of the biggest avenues for criminals to get guns. Background checks have no impact on that. Straw purchases are rarely prosecuted and when they are, the punishments are minimal. Just yesterday I read a story about a woman who bought a gun for her felon boyfriend who went on to kill a cop with the gun she got him. Her sentence? One year probation. If the president campaigned hard for localities to aggressively pursue straw purchasers and maybe even throw in some federal incentive money to help, he'd both not offend the non-insane GOP members (yes, their existence is still in question, but sometimes I try to be optimistic), and do something that directly addresses one of the prime sources of crime guns. But for whatever reason, no one is talking about that. And that's not the only thing he could push for but I've gone on long enough.
HoosierPoli says:
Jason:
There are NO ideas that get bipartisan support on this issue. We've got to stop looking for common ground and start the hard, necessary work of politically annihilating the Republican party by any means necessary.
waspuppet says:
"Oh sure, this might not be much but it's the first step in a chain of events that ends with Bill Clinton and the ACLU and Liberal Professors and Feminists and Welfare Queens kicking down your door and pulling your guns out of your hands."
Actually, that sounds pretty damned good to me. And while it's probably still not a majority position, thanks to the NRA probably more Americans would like that than ever before.
GunstarGreen says:
It turns out that most, if not all, interest groups are really about the industry rather than the consumers.
It's the same deal with the American Motorcyclist Association. They claim to represent me, as a member of the motorcycling public. But in reality, the AMA constantly fights against helmet laws and other common-sense measures that government takes to help protect the poor clueless bastards out there that think being a biker is cool but don't know anything about proper safety. There's not a single biker I know that thinks riding without a helmet is anything but the most stupid form of suicide, yet the AMA will oppose helmet laws on the off chance that they can help the industry sell a couple more bikes to some yahoos who think helmets make them look gay, or whatever.
Always follow the money. It is NEVER about helping the average person. It is always about more money for the industry.
Greg says:
Carter, the first phrase is an adverbial phrase modifying the verb "infringed" by describing the reason for the ban on infringement. It is perfectly grammatical English, but the archaic phrasing makes it I ritually confusing. Much more British English than American.
Scout says:
"I remain baffled why Obama doesn't look at obviously better ideas that are staring him in the face, ideas that would likely get bi-partisan support."
Bi-partisan support? Hahahahahahaha!!! That's a knee slapper. President Obama couldn't get bi-partisan support for the idea that we need air to breathe.
Kelley says:
Hey this is Kelley. I love your blog and have done so for a while. Hit me back.
S M McBean says:
Totoro, thanks for the link to Garry Wills. Surprised I never saw it before.
Bill, so awesome all I can say is "Derp!"
Kevin nyc says:
Interesting story
http://www.rawstory.com/2016/01/white-mans-pathology-inside-the-popularity-of-bernie-sanders-and-donald-trump/
"Rich" says:
Yes, Totoro thanks for the link. Towards the end it mentions "simple-minded literalism". That's what passes for conservative thought these days, all the way from Scalia to these lunatics in Oregon with their primary school understanding of the principles of the constitution to the right-wing stooges I have to deal with here in KS everywhere I go. I am so sick to fucking death of it.
So, in the interest of increasing the wealth of gun industry shareholders, we see a rise in extremism that just may cost us our country sometime in the coming decades. Our politics and the level of ignorance and misinformation among the general population is unsustainable. I see many parallels today in the current republican arguments to those of the 1850s that were made by the advocates of slavery.