Washington D.C. (The Gaslmap Post) – Yesterday President Obama addressed the nation with a press conference in which he laid out his plans for what he is calling, “common sense” gun control. In his speech, prior to publicly signing his 23 executive orders, he used obvious emotional language in an attempt to sell the American people on the notion that it was not only good for us, but it was what we wanted.
In typical tyrant fashion, one could not overlook the fact that he had brought children up onto the stage set, used as props for his agenda. Within minutes of the president’s address, Matt Drudge over at the Drudge Report quickly implemented his keen wit to illustrate that dictators and tyrants alike, have used children as visual props in order to further their agendas.
During his oration, the running theme seemed to be that we have to do this, there’s not a moment to lose, more will die if we don’t do this, we have to act now, something must be done right away. President Obama would express urgency and then the camera would pan from him to the children and then back again, him to the children.
“…these are our kids. This is what they are thinking about.
And so what we should be thinking about is our responsibility to care for them and shield them from harm. And give them the tools they need to grow up and do everything that they are capable of doing, not only to pursue their own dreams, but to help build this country. This is our first task as a society, keeping our children safe.
This is how we will be judged. And their voices should compel us to change.”
This coming from a guy who’s all about abortion and has no problem with thousands of babies being slaughtered in the womb everyday, go figure. He’s absolutely right, this is how we will be judged. God’s judgement is coming, make no mistake.
The children, the children, it’s all for the good of the children, what about the children?
Also interesting is that while he laid out what were going to be his executive orders, he kept pointing over to Congress and urging them “to act” on legislation. That always seems to be the way tyrants operate, isn’t it? There is a tragedy, we have to do this thing, do it right now before the dust settles.
It was especially ridiculous when the president took a swipe at Congress, and once again pointed at them as the real reason we have the problems that we’re having, and school shootings are just a sign of their ineptitude. Nevermind the failed policies brought forth from poor logic, it’s those darn guys in Congress.
“Congress needs to help rather than hinder law enforcement as it does its job. We should get tougher on people who buy guns with the express purpose of turning around and selling them to criminals. And we should severely punish anybody that helps them do this.
Since Congress hasn’t confirmed the director of the bureau of alcohol, tobacco and firearms in six years, they should confirm Todd Jones who has been acting and I will be nominating for the post.”
Oh yeah, since Congress hasn’t confirmed…
According to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives website, that isn’t up to Congress; it is a decision made by the Secretary of Treasury. The position of Secretary of Treasury is a cabinet position, and the president appoints individuals to his cabinet, does he not?
Moving on, what propagandist rhetoric laced speech would be complete without a few statistics to put things into perspective for you? Statistics are funny things, as they give the listener something to gauge something else by.
They don’t have to be, and often times aren’t factual or true, but they sure can make someone feel smarter when they toss them around, can’t they?
The law already requires licensed gun dealers to run background checks and over the last 14 years that has kept 1.5 million of the wrong people from getting their hands on a gun. But it’s hard to enforce that law when as many as 40% of all gun purchases are conducted without a background check.
That’s not safe. That’s not smart. That’s not fair to responsible gun buyers or sellers.
Wow… 40% huh? That’s alot of guns out there being bought and sold without a background check, e.g. no government involvement. 40% is an awfully big number. According to CNN, in April of last year there was an estimated 310 million non-military, non-police owned firearms in the United States. 40% of that would be 124 million firearms.
Wow, that is alot, yes sir! Well that brings me to my next question; if there are supposedly no background checks performed during these sales, therefore cutting the government completely out of the picture on said transactions, then how does the president know that 40% of those sales are occurring?
How is it that with no record of a sale, the federal government knows about it? Food for thought…
So taking a side-step from the president’s speech, we can get down to the meat and potatoes of his intentions. According to Fox News Insider (not actually Fox News), the 23 executive orders are as follows:
1. Issue a Presidential Memorandum to require federal agencies to make relevant data available to the federal background check system.
2. Address unnecessary legal barriers, particularly relating to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, that may prevent states from making information available to the background check system.
3. Improve incentives for states to share information with the background check system.
4. Direct the Attorney General to review categories of individuals prohibited from having a gun to make sure dangerous people are not slipping through the cracks.
5. Propose rulemaking to give law enforcement the ability to run a full background check on an individual before returning a seized gun.
6. Publish a letter from ATF to federally licensed gun dealers providing guidance on how to run background checks for private sellers.
7. Launch a national safe and responsible gun ownership campaign.
8. Review safety standards for gun locks and gun safes (Consumer Product Safety Commission).
9. Issue a Presidential Memorandum to require federal law enforcement to trace guns recovered in criminal investigations.
10. Release a DOJ report analyzing information on lost and stolen guns and make it widely available to law enforcement.
11. Nominate an ATF director.
12. Provide law enforcement, first responders, and school officials with proper training for active shooter situations.
13. Maximize enforcement efforts to prevent gun violence and prosecute gun crime.
14. Issue a Presidential Memorandum directing the Centers for Disease Control to research the causes and prevention of gun violence.
15. Direct the Attorney General to issue a report on the availability and most effective use of new gun safety technologies and challenge the private sector to develop innovative technologies.
16. Clarify that the Affordable Care Act does not prohibit doctors asking their patients about guns in their homes.
17. Release a letter to health care providers clarifying that no federal law prohibits them from reporting threats of violence to law enforcement authorities.
18. Provide incentives for schools to hire school resource officers.
19. Develop model emergency response plans for schools, houses of worship and institutions of higher education.
20. Release a letter to state health officials clarifying the scope of mental health services that Medicaid plans must cover.
21. Finalize regulations clarifying essential health benefits and parity requirements within ACA exchanges.
22. Commit to finalizing mental health parity regulations.
23. Launch a national dialogue led by Secretaries Sebelius and Duncan on mental health.
That is quite a list is it not? And it’s curious to see how any of the above listed executive orders would have prevented what happened at Sandy Hook, Oak Creek Temple, or the movie theater in Aurora, Colorado.
Let us take a closer look at them and see if anything jumps out. Number 1 on the list was, “issue a Presidential Memorandum to require federal agencies to make relevant data available to the federal background check system.”
What is relevant data as it pertains to federal background checks, and who makes the determination as to what is relevant and what is not? What further data is to be included in a federal background check?
Sandy Hook shooter Adam Lanza was reportedly flagged by a background check when he attempted to purchase a rifle months before the shooting, and was denied. If the system worked as it stood then, what more needs to be done to it now in order to improve it?
What is meant by “relevant data”? How would more information available to a background check system have prevented the Sandy Hook shooting? The firearms used were obtained by someone other than the shooter.
Next we have, “address unnecessary legal barriers, particularly relating to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, that may prevent states from making information available to the background check system.” This is referring to HIPPA laws regarding patient privacy. In other words, the laws which are enforced by the president’s Office of Civil Rights should be side-stepped, and the right to privacy should be forgone, in favor of the greater good of public safety.
Your freedom is a “barrier” that is keeping someone else from feeling safe. It’s for the children…
Number 3, “improve incentives for states to share information with the background check system.” Improve incentives? What information do states not share now that would be relevant on a background check? The Department of Justice is already keeping track of who is on what drug, all felons are on record with both state and federal authorities, and sex offenders are on state and national databases.
Next, number 4 says, “direct the Attorney General to review categories of individuals prohibited from having a gun to make sure dangerous people are not slipping through the cracks.” I wonder if Mexican drug cartels will ever end up on that list of individuals prohibited from having a gun, or will they just continue to slip through the cracks? Fast and Furious anyone?
Number 5 says to “propose rulemaking to give law enforcement the ability to run a full background check on an individual before returning a seized gun.” Propose RULEMAKING to give law enforcement the ability to run a full background check?
First of all, that is not the role of local law enforcement and secondly, under what circumstances does law enforcement “seize” a privately owned firearm where it should have to be returned? If law enforcement has to seize a private citizens firearm, it had better be for a damn good reason. If they are in a position where they must return it to the owner, then what was the reason it had to be seized in the first place?
Executive order number 6; “Publish a letter from ATF to federally licensed gun dealers providing guidance on how to run background checks for private sellers.” If a FFL is involved, they are obligated to contact the NICS in order to transfer a firearm, period.
Involving a FFL would therefore make the sale not private, not to be confused with private sale. How does the federal government regulate how I sell something of mine? That is called tyranny.
Onto number 7, “launch a national safe and responsible gun ownership campaign.” Is that anything like the Good Nutrition campaign that the first lady launched? That was a flop as well.
Order number 8, “review safety standards for gun locks and gun safes (Consumer Product Safety Commission).” Safes and locks only work when they’re used. Even still, how is that going to be enforced?
Number 9, “issue a Presidential Memorandum to require federal law enforcement to trace guns recovered in criminal investigations.” Require the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT to trace guns recovered in criminal investigations? Lots of luck with that, you can start with Chicago.
Wait… Come to think of it, if the federal government were to trace say, all of the guns found at crime scenes in Mexico, would that result in a certain Attorney General landing his butt in prison? Just a thought…
Number 10, “release a DOJ report analyzing information on lost and stolen guns and make it widely available to law enforcement.” Why aren’t they doing that already? The next question is, what happens when they capture a firearm with no serial number?
Executive order number 11, “nominate an ATF director.” As was established earlier, that is the job of the Treasury Secretary, not the president. Why this hasn’t been done since the last one stepped down is mind-boggling.
Number 12, “provide law enforcement, first responders, and school officials with proper training for active shooter situations.” Why is this a function of the Office of the President? This sort of training has been going on since Columbine, and should be a function of the states individually. This is beyond the scope of responsibility of the federal executive branch.
Next we have number 13, “maximize enforcement efforts to prevent gun violence and prosecute gun crime.” Are there minimized efforts in enforcing or preventing gun violence? What is meant by “maximize”? Does this also include law enforcement raiding the wrong home and shooting at innocent people? How about their dogs? If this isn’t government oppression under the guise of public safety, where is the reproach?
Number 14, “issue a Presidential Memorandum directing the Centers for Disease Control to research the causes and prevention of gun violence.” Apparently the president has a poor memory, the CDC did this very study and concluded 10 YEARS AGO when they found that there was NO CORRELATION between gun ownership and HOMICIDE/SUICIDE rates.
How did this guy get reelected again?
Next is number 15, “direct the Attorney General to issue a report on the availability and most effective use of new gun safety technologies and challenge the private sector to develop innovative technologies.” Here we are back to directing the AG again. Considering that AG Holder has yet to be forthcoming with his involvement with the guns to Mexico scandal, i.e. The Fast and Furious debacle, one shouldn’t hold their breath.
Safe is good, don’t get me wrong, but what kind of “gun safety technologies” would have prevented Sandy Hook? Technology isn’t there yet.
Order number 16, “Clarify that the Affordable Care Act does not prohibit doctors asking their patients about guns in their homes.” So are doctors the next layer of government intrusion into our private lives? My question would be, why would that even be in drafted legislation from over 3 years ago, pertaining to affordable healthcare? Was this something planned?
Executive order number 17, “release a letter to health care providers clarifying that no federal law prohibits them from reporting threats of violence to law enforcement authorities.” One would think that this would be a given. A doctor is obligated to take action if a patient is at risk of harming themselves or others, are they not? Why would this have to be an executive order? How would this have prevented Sandy Hook?
Number 18, “provide incentives for schools to hire school resource officers.” So cops in schools then? That could be a good idea, but who is going to pay for it? Does the word “incentive” elude to a tax something-or-other? Either way, why is this something withing the scope of the Office of the President? It’s not!
Number 19, “develop model emergency response plans for schools, houses of worship and institutions of higher education.” Who is supposed to do that? How is that to be done? There are too many different situations and locations to even begin considering this from a central-planning mindset. If a particular facility wanted to do this or believed it necessary, they would do it.
Or is this coded, government-speak for the fed is going to throw more money around and whatever makes it to the ground is what makes it to the ground?
Next is executive order number 20, “release a letter to state health officials clarifying the scope of mental health services that Medicaid plans must cover.” Release a letter…? How does what mental health services are covered by Medicaid fall into preventing future gun violence? Is that like how funding Planned Parenthood and abortions is women’s healthcare? Boy, that’s a scarey thought!
Number 21, “finalize regulations clarifying essential health benefits and parity requirements within ACA exchanges.” How does defining “essential health benefits” reduce gun violence and how would it have prevented any of the recent mass-shootings?
Number 22, “commit to finalizing mental health parity regulations.” This is curious, because this was supposed to have been done under a law passed in 2008, called the Paul Wellstone and Pete Domenici Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act. What it basically said is that insurance providers must give equal coverage for mental illness and addiction, as it would in all other instances of coverage. If the law has been on the books for over 4 years now, why has it not been finalized?
And finally executive order number 23, “launch a national dialogue led by Secretaries Sebelius and Duncan on mental health.” Is this anything like the “national discussion” that the president said we had to have about guns, which in turn made just about every American run out and buy one? With whom would the Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius and Secretary of Education Arne Duncan hold a “national dialog” on mental health? Is this going to parallel with doctors “turning in” their patients to the federal government? Would this be paralleled with the Department of Justice database which monitors the medications that you are prescribed?
Is there a chance that you the private citizen would have your constitutional rights suspended because of what a doctor could potentially say about you? Furthermore, how does the Secretary of Education fit into all of this?
There you have it, America; the approach that our president is taking in terms of issuing executive orders with the intention of curbing gun violence and keeping children safe in American schools. There are many questions based on the vagueness of his orders, but if history has taught us anything about this man, it’s that he likes to candy-coat things.
So far, two congressmen have put the president on notice with their intention to begin impeachment proceedings should the president decide that any of his executive orders gives him the authority to begin usurping the constitutional rights of Americans. This issue is far from over and more will come out in the days and weeks ahead, but with the president’s statements so far, nothing he has proposed will do a thing to curb the problems we as a society face when it comes to gun crime.