Wigwam Jones

I got yet another email from my sister this morning. I often trash the "Obama is a fink" emails she likes to send without reading them, but this one caught my eye, as it had a link to the National Rifle Association's ILA website, and referred to President-Elect Obama's apparent (?) early agenda to revert to Democratic type and try to take my guns away. Here's the link:

http://www.nraila.org/legislation/read.aspx?id=4227

Now, I know that Barack has been through the mill on the issue of private possession of firearms. He was quoted as saying, "…it's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."

Remember that? It was back in April of 2008 - long ago, in political terms. And I knew he just blew the line, I did not hold with those who thought he was taking an anti-gun stance. He's amazingly in control of his message, this was one of the few public-speaking gaffes that he made during the campaign. I did not hold it against him, but I did remember it.

After that, Barack and Biden had to do some damage control. Here is what Barack said in answer to several specific questions about gun control:

Q: Is the D.C. law prohibiting ownership of handguns consistent with an individual's right to bear arms?

A: As a general principle, I believe that the Constitution confers an individual right to bear arms. But just because you have an individual right does not mean that the state or local government can't constrain the exercise of that right, in the same way that we have a right to private property but local governments can establish zoning ordinances that determine how you can use it.

Q: But do you still favor the registration & licensing of guns?

A: I think we can provide common-sense approaches to the issue of illegal guns that are ending up on the streets. We can make sure that criminals don't have guns in their hands. We can make certain that those who are mentally deranged are not getting a hold of handguns. We can trace guns that have been used in crimes to unscrupulous gun dealers that may be selling to straw purchasers and dumping them on the streets.

That's from the April, 2008 Presidential debates.

According to VoteSmart.org, however, Barack did answer a 1996 questionnaire when he was an Illinois state Senator and he gave these answers to his stance on gun control:

35. Do you support state legislation to:
a. ban the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns? Yes.
b. ban assault weapons? Yes.
c. mandatory waiting periods and background checks? Yes.

During the election, Obama's spokespersons stated that his staffers answered those questions, not him, and that they were incorrectly representing his views.

I could go on, but I'll leave it at that. I think the point is clear - President-Elect Obama is not a fan of guns. I get it. He had to move to the center during his candidacy, in order to get votes. That's no crime, it happens every election cycle. Vice-President-Elect Biden said that no way would President Obama ever take his guns away, haw, haw.

But let's examine something a bit more recent, and a bit more urgent.

The NRA-ILA email my sister sent me said that Obama had issued an agenda on his new web page, Change.gov. Here is the link:

http://change.gov/agenda/urbanpolicy/

Oh, look! "The page you requested is not available right now."

Fortunately for everyone, Google has it cached:

http://74.125.95.104/search?q=cache:IcYml6GIwSAJ:change.gov/agenda/urban...

Address Gun Violence in Cities: As president, Barack Obama 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 who shouldn't have them. 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, as such weapons belong on foreign battlefields and not on our streets.

Interesting. Just like the NRA said - only now, it appears President-Elect Obama doesn't want anyone to know about it. That seems strange to me, doesn't it seem strange to you?

Well, anyway, let's take a look at the policies that he does (or does not) want to make as President...

1) "repeal the Tiahrt Amendment"

From Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Todd_Tiahrt

Tiahrt is the author of the Tiahrt Amendment, which prohibits the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (BATFE) from releasing information from its firearms trace database to anyone other than a law enforcement agency or prosecutor in connection with a criminal investigation. Additionally, any data so released is inadmissible in a civil lawsuit. Some groups, including the Mayors Against Illegal Guns Coalition, believe that having further access to the BATFE database would help municipal police departments track down sellers of illegal guns and curb crime. These groups are trying to undo the Tiahrt Amendment.

What the Tiahrt Amendment does is stop the police from obtaining information from the BATFE on gun owners without a valid reason. If they have a valid reason, like a criminal investigation, they get it. It's that simple. No fishing expeditions.

Now listen up, Democrats. Most of you are against the Patriot Act and it's fishing trips against citizens who have not been accused of a crime and are not even suspects - things like the government accessing libraries to see what books you've checked out, and listening to your private phone calls and reading your email. Well, this is no different. The Tiahrt Amendment says that if local law enforcement wants access to, say, how many guns Wigwam Jones has, they have to have a legitimate reason to know, such as a criminal investigation. This is a no-brainer.

2) "gun show loophole"

There is no 'gun show loophole'. There used to be, true. But it was closed years ago. See, when background checks became the law of the land, many got around them by going to local gun shows, where dealers would sell them guns without doing a background check. This was addressed, and now if you go to a gun show and buy from a licensed firearms dealer, you have to have a background check, just as if you bought the gun in that dealer's store.

The 'loophole' they are referring to this time around is the collector, the private party who does not do business in guns - he or she has a collection, and they buy, sell, and trade parts of their collection at gun shows. If it sounds like they're just dealers trying to skirt the law, they're not. First the BATFE would be all over them like white on rice if they were making their living doing this, and second, as private individuals, they are free to buy and sell guns anywhere - like at a garage sale or from their home if they want. That's how private sales are handled in this country, like it or not.

3) "making guns in this country childproof"

Someone tell me exactly how you go about doing that. We have trigger locks. We have gun safes. We have laws that allow jurisdictions to punish parents who allow their children access to loaded guns unsupervised. What else can you do to make a gun 'childproof'? Oh, I know. You can ban them. Right.

4) "They also support making the expired federal Assault Weapons Ban permanent, as such weapons belong on foreign battlefields and not on our streets."

OK, here this comes again. This is an old one. Let's go through it.

First, what is an 'assault weapon'? It is a gun that looks like a military gun. It generally has a synthetic stock and not a wooden one. It generally has a detachable clip for ammunition that holds more rounds than a common 'hunting' rifle. It has a sling, it has a distinct military 'look'. It is scary.

Photo by joelogon on Flickr, Licensed under Creative Commons License

How is it similar to a 'hunting' rifle? Well, it fires the same ammunition. Yes, it fires ammunition in calibers such as .223 and .380, both common hunting cartridges used in non-scary wooden-stocked guns. It is also not a machine gun. Let me repeat that, because many do not get it. It is not a machine gun. Machine guns (which the military uses) fire more than one round of ammunition for every press of the trigger. The so-called 'assault' rifle does not. It is just like a common hunting rifle in that sense - one trigger press, one bang.

Which brings me to my second point - so-called 'assault' weapons do not "belong on foreign battlefields" because they are not automatic weapons. No modern military uses semi-automatic main battle rifles anymore, not since WWII. We use automatic weapons. So-called 'assault weapons' are not that.

So what did Obama say they "belong on foreign battlefields," then? Well, kiddies, I hate to say this, but he said it because he is lying. See, that's a weasel statement. You set up the premise and let scared people draw the conclusion.

Premise: Do you want ASSAULT RIFLES ON YOUR STREET or do they BELONG ON FOREIGN BATTLEFIELDS? Well, you put it that way, the answer seems clear. But you forgot to say that 'assault rifles' aren't in use on any foreign battlefield, and you also make it seem that if your old pal Wiggy buys an AK-47 look-alike semi-automatic 'assault weapon', that's the same as that scary long metal shiny black gun running amok down your street, spraying bullets at kids on playgrounds, blood everywhere, oh my God!

Now let's face it. We do not have a huge problem with people using so-called 'assault weapons' in crimes across our nation. We did not have a problem with it when the first federal ban on assault weaposn was enacted, nor did we have a spike when it expired. Blood did not run in the streets due to 'assault weapons' in the hands of every convenience store stick up artist - in fact, they don't prefer those types of guns, they like pistols you can stick in your pocket.

We do not have a huge problem with the police in this country being unable to obtain federal data on gun ownership if they are investigating a crime. The only thing the police are prohibited from doing is prying into government records on who owns what guns when they do not have a reason to do so.

We also don't have a problem with criminals buying guns from private parties at gun shows and using them to commit crimes. In fact, go to a gun show (it's not that scary). It is like a big craft show with guns instead of crochet stuff. You will see it populated with hundreds of bubbas, hunters, and Ted Nugents. What you won't see is a bunch of gangsters. They don't go to these shows. Bubbas and gang-bangers are pretty much natural enemies.

These are solutions in search of a problem. Which is typical 1970's gun-grabberese for 'we want your guns'.

And what really bothers me is not that Barack Obama is for them. Not even that he is lying about what they are for or what they do or what problem they address. What really bothers me is that when the NRA-ILA discovered them and made it public, he took down that web page.

Oh, President-Elect Obama. I want to give you my support. I really do, and I'm not joking. I can't do it if you're going to try to take my guns away. That one is not up for debate.