Monday, October 12, 2015

Washington Post Totally Enthused For Incremental Executive Action On Gun Control

By William Teach

Remember when the liberal media was very upset over President Bush's use of executive orders, calling him a unilateral executive? Good times, good times. Now, they're all in for any possible gun control, no matter how little of a difference it will make in restricting people with ill intent from having a gun

What the president can do on gun laws
GUN CONTROL is being debated again. After the latest mass shooting in Roseburg, Ore., several Democrats in Congress renewed their push for legislation to tighten gun sale regulation and crack down on gun traffickers. Separately, the Democrat with the best shot at striking a bipartisan deal, Sen. Joe Manchin III (W.Va.), has also signaled interest in reviving his efforts. Hillary Clinton proposed reforms also: shoring up the background check system to cover gun transfers that now occur off the books, extending the time limits placed on background check investigations and barring domestic abusers from owning guns, among other things. 
In a more rational Washington, these proposals would be on Congress’s agenda. So would requiring gunmakers to install “smart” technology that would allow only authorized users to shoot. If your iPhone can require your thumbprint, so could your pistol. Reality hasn’t changed, however: A GOP Congress isn’t likely to approve any gun control bill any time soon. 

 Any domestic abuser convicted of a felony is already barred. If you want this for those convicted of misdemeanors, the law itself would have to be changed. Or, would it? Even Think Progress notes that "restraining orders and misdemeanor abuse convictions bar gun ownership in federal background checks," though "some 35 states don’t enforce their own laws against these major categories of abusers, according to Everytown for Gun Safety." Oh, look, law that was passed in 1996.

Your iPhone doesn't "require your thumbprint": it is a feature that can be turned on and off at the will of the user. Besides, the so called smart guns are not reliant on a thumbprint, but a watch that has to be near the gun. At least now. Smartphones can be hacked. Surprisingly, by criminals. Tests show 1 in 10 shots fail. Your gun would be dependent by a battery. What happens when a women pulls the gun to defend herself and the battery is dead? Why do Democrat gun grabbers hate women? Furthermore, this dramatically increases the cost of purchasing a gun. And, what if the tech goes bad? More costly repairs or purchases. This isn't to say we should not look into technology solutions: we should. We shouldn't simply require things that may not work and certainly aren't ready.

Anyhow, the Washington Post Editorial Board really wants Obama to push to close the "gun show loophole" and restrict small dealers and family members from transferring/selling guns below a certain threshold

 The Post’s Greg Sargent reports that the Obama administration has been considering this sort of move but hasn’t figured out how to make it work — for example, how many guns can one sell before it becomes a “regular course of trade”? Yet that’s no excuse not to try. 
It would, like most of the other notions, require new law. Why not write something up and submit it to Congress? Why not convene a meeting with Congress to hammer out some measures that would pass?
 Ms. Clinton’s administrative action would at best offer incremental improvement, and even that would be limited without giving ATF more resources for enforcement. But while working for broader change, the country shouldn’t turn up its nose at incremental progress. 
 By "incremental", they mean this will barely be a drop in the bucket, if it makes any difference at all. It is the appearance of Doing Something, rather than actually doing something. And this mostly effects those not intent on using the guns for crime. How about some ideas that would effect the criminals?

 Crossed at Pirate's Cove. Follow me on Twitter @WilliamTeach.


Anonymous said...

Liberalism is where reality is plastic and malleable to the needs of The Agenda of the moment. Their god in this world is government, which exists only to enable their power to advance The Agenda. In the case at hand, it appears that the law is the law until it isn't, in which case they feel free to make it up as they go along. They relish the power rush when they can break the chains of the Presidential Oath to faithfully execute the law.

This is doubly shameful because the Republicans in the House have the power of the purse, but they cannot bring themselves to use it, and thus allow the Republic to be eroded and corroded.

-- the Buckwheat enjoys being anonymous

Anonymous said...

Actually ANY DV conviction, felony or misdemeanor, precludes you from owning a weapon. This law was passed and it went back in time to include anyone, anytime ever convicted of DV from owning a weapon. I believe that is called an ex post facto law and is unConstitutional but WhoTF is paying any attention to that dusty old piece of paper.

I had a woman make unsubstantiated charges against me, her word v mine and without anything but what she said, the court believed her even though I had no record of any kind of violence. After $35K in legal bills, my business in dire straights and about to lose my commercial buildings, I plead to a misdemeanor DV. 4 years later, Clinton and the Republican Congress passed that law barring me from owning a weapon. Had I known that was coming I never would have taken the deal but would have taken my chances at a trial.

If you remember, it played havoc with PDs across the nation as many cops could no longer own a weapon.

Fucking bullshit.

Anonymous said...

OT (Daily Caller via Lucianne)

Hospital struck in Afghanistan, not flying hospital flag/banner/red cross/crescent. Nor rooftop markings.

Sumtim stinks. All round.


Kay Lea said...

This administration and the far-left loons that support it, are not the least bit interested in disarming criminals...hell most of their advocates ARE criminals.

They do however, want to disarm mainstream Americans. I don't think they want us to be able defend ourselves from their third world invaders.

LOL, we'll see how that plays out for them. Democrats don't seem to realize how many of their voters are gun owners.