?

Log in

No account? Create an account

Obama administration plans to make national gun ban permanent - Open Knowledge — LiveJournal

Nov. 7th, 2008

10:19 am - Obama administration plans to make national gun ban permanent

Previous Entry Share Next Entry

Via On Concerns Over Gun Control, Gun Sales Are Up

“We’re not really sure who is promoting the concept that a change in federal administrations might affect firearms possession rights,” said an agency spokesman, Lance Clem…

Um, how about Obama’s stated plans to ban guns?:

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.

Original: craschworks - comments

Tags: ,

Comments:

[User Picture]
From:waitingforoct
Date:November 7th, 2008 05:22 pm (UTC)
(Link)
Yeah, well, good luck with that. Just as the world didn't end when the assault weapons ban ended, neither did DC spiral into anarchy after "Heller". I don't see how he's going to have the time to address this at all. It certainly isn't a priority right now for citizens, even lefties.
(Reply) (Thread)
(Deleted comment)
[User Picture]
From:waitingforoct
Date:November 7th, 2008 06:52 pm (UTC)
(Link)
Oh no,no,no, he clearly says that it is "Universal, voluntary service" You misunderstood.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
(Deleted comment)
[User Picture]
From:waitingforoct
Date:November 7th, 2008 10:42 pm (UTC)
(Link)
oh. I actually did miss this. I just read his header about "service" which doesn't mention any forced servitude.
The funny thing about that page is the quote with which he begins, ""When you choose to serve..."
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]
From:crasch
Date:November 7th, 2008 05:49 pm (UTC)
(Link)
I hope you're right.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]
From:madbard
Date:November 7th, 2008 05:34 pm (UTC)
(Link)
Why don't they just legislate that children have to be gunproof?
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]
From:crasch
Date:November 7th, 2008 07:49 pm (UTC)
(Link)
Early clinical trials of the GMO gunproof kids went tragically, if hilariously, awry.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]
From:madbard
Date:November 7th, 2008 07:52 pm (UTC)
(Link)
You can't let a few setbacks stop science! Keep lining up those kids, I'm sure we'll get there.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]
From:crasch
Date:November 8th, 2008 12:40 am (UTC)
(Link)
Damn FDA!
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]
From:pjammer
Date:November 7th, 2008 06:40 pm (UTC)
(Link)
So here's the real question - did you stock up on guns and get the ammo you expect to need for the next few years? :)
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]
From:crabbyolbastard
Date:November 7th, 2008 11:59 pm (UTC)
(Link)
You are all chicken littles on this.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]
From:pjammer
Date:November 8th, 2008 12:07 am (UTC)

(Link)
I'll take it from crasch's silence to my question that in spite of reading the likes of ernunnos and kitiara, our friend hasn't pulled the trigger (so to speak). :)
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]
From:girlvinyl
Date:November 7th, 2008 06:53 pm (UTC)
(Link)
I really don't want to go buy guns, but this is sort of making me feel like I should.

I am concerned and uneasy about our new "change" overlords.
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]
From:science_vixen
Date:November 7th, 2008 11:42 pm (UTC)
(Link)
What I find interesting is: People buy their guns now before they become traceable again.
If it was really home defense people were worried about, traceability of the gun shouldn't matter.

Thus I conclude that they are really worried about the idea that keeps guns out of the hands of kids, plan to field they own artillery, or have other nefarious plans (or some combination of these).
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]
From:lds
Date:November 8th, 2008 12:23 am (UTC)
(Link)
I think this is quite a strawman argument. We're all quite well aware that all guns are traceable by the marks left on a bullet fired from them, and it doesn't influence anyone's purchase that I know.

The explicitly-stated reason for allowing individuals to buy guns, according to the Constitution, though was not for home defense totally. It was "for the security of a free state." The Heller case showed that home defense is indeed one component of that, but it's not the only component. Watch the Penn & Teller Bullshit episode on gun control if you need it stated more plainly, what people buying guns now are worried about.

What you might consider to be a "nefarious plan" is actually the very reason why gun ownership as an individual right was written into the bill of rights.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]
From:crasch
Date:November 8th, 2008 12:25 am (UTC)
(Link)
People are buying guns out of fear that they will become unpurchaseable at all. Gun databases are precursors to confiscation--they can't confiscate your guns unless they know where they are.

So-called "assault" rifes are identical to rifles used for hunting and self-defense, aside from minor cosmetic differences.

Finally, the second amendment was intended to protect the right to self-defense against tyrannical government, not just criminals. Semi-automatic weapons are standard weapon for field troops, and thus, anything less in the hands of civilians would put them at a significant disadvantage in the case of conflict.

I consider this an important check on government abuse, and therefore oppose attempts to weaken or eliminate it.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]
From:cramer
Date:November 8th, 2008 05:53 am (UTC)
(Link)
Step one of the process is knowing you have guns in the first place. After that, they confiscate either your guns or you. I see the logic on both sides of "gun registration", but this negative is enough of a reason to campaign against it.

What is so horrible with going to a dealer to broker a private party transfer? Cost, check. Hassle, check.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]
From:drewkitty
Date:November 8th, 2008 02:58 am (UTC)
(Link)
I fail to see how a handful of SKS are going to matter a damn against a fire team of US Marines with M4 rifles and Tasers on the rail for the kiddies.

The ultimate safeguard for the Republic is the beliefs of the men and women who make up our standing army, our organized militias, and our disorganized militias. If these beliefs cause people to obtain basic rifle skills, great. Stockpile gear, whatever. Argue endlessly over daddy's deer rifle versus black plastic death toys, so what.

The important point is that the soldiers and police who would hypothetically be asked to go door-to-door would look at their officers and sergeants and say, "With respect, NO SIR." Better if the officers know better than to ask in the first place, and tell the politicals "I'm sorry, it ain't happening." Best if the officers look the politicals in the eye and offer their resignations one after another, to make the point that we just don't do that.
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]
From:crasch
Date:November 8th, 2008 03:51 am (UTC)
(Link)
I fail to see how a handful of SKS are going to matter a damn against a fire team of US Marines with M4 rifles and Tasers on the rail for the kiddies.

Yes, the Viet Cong rolled right over. As did the Afghanis. And the Iraq war has been a cakewalk. The possession of small arms made no difference in their ability to put up a resistance.

The important point is that the soldiers and police who would hypothetically be asked to go door-to-door would look at their officers and sergeants and say, "With respect, NO SIR."

Soldiers and police are indoctrinated to obey orders and uphold the law no matter how asinine that law may be. They didn't balk when ordered to seize all privately held gold, they didn't balk when ordered to round up Americans of Japanese descent, and they don't balk when ordered to round up consumers of unpopular drugs. They're not going to balk if ordered to seize our guns either.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]
From:drewkitty
Date:November 8th, 2008 06:16 am (UTC)
(Link)
Let's talk about the Viet Cong, the fabled peasants of the rice paddies. In the early stages of the war, they did great damage, not least of which was to American morale. However they were not trying to run a country, but to destroy one. True story: a SF medical team visited a village and vaccinated the children. Another team reported later that a Viet Cong cell visited the same village and lopped off all the arms of the children who had been vaccinated. The next village the medical team visited was empty: afraid of the Americans and of the VC, they had run to the hills.

The VC were armed and equipped by not merely North Vietnam, but China and Russia. They did not buy their AKs at the local gun store, nor did they use M-14s and M-16s taken from the American invaders.

The VC were largely ineffective after the disastrous Tet offensive. They used up much of their reserves and resources to achieve little in military terms, but a crushing defeat in terms of propaganda and American troop and civilian morale.

Immediately after the NVA victory, the surviving Viet Cong were immediately rounded up as threats to the regime and sent to re-education camps. Some of them ended up as boat people and a trickle of these made it here to the USA; many more died.

We trained and equipped (and funded) the Afghanis, much of the reason why that area is still such a mess. The arms networks we built are still in use, and not to our benefit. But when Russia started using helicopter gunships to clean house, only Stinger manpack SAMs evened the score -- provided by the US of A. Much work has gone into getting these back, at least the ones the Afghanis didn't use to take down Russian transport aircraft to kill two hundred at a time instead of six. I will add that banditry has been a national sport since Kipling wrote his poem ending in, "If you're wounded and left on Afghanistani plains, and the women come out to cut up your remains, just roll to your rifle and blow out your brains, and go to your Gawd like a soldier."

As for the Iraq war, this is a war of IEDs and not AKs. In case you missed the memo, automatic AKs are more lawful in civilian hands in Iraq than they are here in the USA. Pistols are more tightly controlled. In any case, the enormous numbers of small arms purchased by Saddam make external support moot. The Iraq insurgency is still in being, barely, but again easier to tear down a nation than build up.

I refer you to the excellent US Army manual on counterinsurgency, which is a far more important tool than any number of magazine rifles.

As for the indoctrination of soldiers and police, you are most dangerously mistaken. I am honored to know a number of both. Only the IACP ("Chiefs of Police") support gun bans; rank and file officers and their organizations are strongly opposed.

To the extent that our soldiers and police are American citizens and see themselves as part of us, we are safe from internally imposed tyranny. If an "us-versus-them" mentality is allowed to develop, one of the important checks and balances of the Constitution begins to fray. This is one reason why a standing army was not contemplated by the Framers.

We have a strong tradition in our nation of soldiers and officers disobeying unlawful orders at great risk to themselves. The weakening of this tradition is sadly unfortunate.

I will note that neither gold "hoarders" nor drug dealers generally choose to shoot back, and that Japanese Americans (despite their arms) proudly chose not to resist despite the loss of nearly all they owned.

Local police, National Guard units, and reservists would not conduct a gun sweep. They is us, in the most literal sense. Any such sweep would need to be Federal special police or Regular Army. (Marines would do it, if directly ordered by the President, but most reluctantly and with strong foot dragging.) The "special police" do not yet exist (don't worry, they'll be along . . . TSA is the precedent) and the Regular Army has been forbidden to operate in that way domestically, until very recently.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]
From:drewkitty
Date:November 8th, 2008 06:16 am (UTC)
(Link)

Please do not imagine, even for an instant, that armed civilians would successfully resist even police special tactics teams more than briefly. Any such civil war, and that is what it would be, would be fought between professionals: Regular Army and political mercenaries on one side, and reserve and Guard units augmented by disorganized militia on the other. Rifles would be the least of the issues. The modern battlefield is a horrifying place, the most devastating weapons are not at the local gun store (or even milled in your friendly local machine shop), and the best description I can give is "hurricane of steel."

Iraq is a great example, actually. During the invasion, Saddam called on loyalists to assemble at Baath Party headquarters buildings. Predator UAVs kept on station waiting for enough would-be shooters to arrive, then vectored in air strikes as needed. The volunteers mostly never knew what hit them.

I don't disagree that rifles are a strong part of America's freedoms, whether plastic or wooden stocks. In fact this is a great time to take advantage of programs such as the Civilian Marksmanship Program, where you can buy a California legal M1 for about half of list.

I simply caution against buying into the more paranoid fantasies of the Right. Their guns will not be collected . . . their ammo will stop being distributed. :)
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)