It’s a shame they don’t teach civics anymore. Maybe then kids my age, and younger, would understand a thing or two about how the world actually works.
Without getting into scholarly debates on this, I just want to know where the current presidential nominees stand on the issue and interpretation of the second amendment. I’m very fond of gun rights and a nominee who protects my right to self determination is more dear to me than a nominee who volunteers to be my nanny. I don’t want a nanny.
In the interest of keeping these posts shorter, we’ll examine each candidate separately. Let’s begin with Mrs. Clinton’s stance.
Mrs. Clinton has said many conflicting things over the last few decades on this topic so I will focus only on her recent statements and voting history.
According to ontheissues.org her voting history on this issue is limited but skews toward controlling the industry and ownership...so do her statements.
I’ve been hearing her promising things like “common sense gun reform” and “comprehensive background checks” and I have no idea what those mean... they kinda sound like buzzwords with flexible definitions depending on the audience. For the sake of clarity, I visited her website to see if I can get a better idea. I’m just going to examine her points.
(All highlighted lines are taken directly from https://www.hillaryclinton.com/briefing/factsheets/2015/10/04/clinton-believes-its-time-to-tackle-gun-violence/)
America simply cannot accept as “normal” about 33,000 gun deaths every year.
So this is a misleading piece of Clintonese. While technically true, over a third of these people had actually killed themselves and a slim minority were accidentally shot by some other idiot they were playing with.
Conclusion: suicidal people have many means to kill themselves and there’s nothing we can do to stop them. Shall we ban belts and bridges? Also, stupidity cannot be policed nor legislated.
But as a nation we can no longer allow guns to fall into the hands of domestic abusers, other violent criminals, and the seriously mentally ill.
We do the best we can to balance privacy and rights with public safety. The fact is we can’t have a police officer following everybody everywhere so everything else is grey area and each state and municipality needs to find what works for them. Public safety is the responsibility of the public more than the government.
It is estimated that 20 to 40 percent of all gun purchases in America are conducted with no background check because federal law fails to cover unlicensed transfers online, at gun shows, and between anonymous strangers.
OK this is patently false. Yes, I can buy a gun online and the seller at the other end has no idea who I am...that's why he sends it to my local FFL, who will administer the necessary background check before the final transfer. If I can’t pass the background check, he cannot hand me the firearm. Also the law as it stands prohibits the sale of firearms to strangers without the mediation of an FFL and background check, anybody who fails to do this is a felon and can be prosecuted. Have you ever tried purchasing a firearm at a gun show? There is still the requisite forms and background check before the transfer can be complete.
If a crime is committed with a weapon, they can track the serial number from the manufacturer to the legal buyer. If they show up at his door asking about it and he says he sold it independently and not through an FFL, guess who’s going to jail? The answer isn’t more legislation, it’s enforcement.
Yet, more than 90 percent of Americans support background checks because they work.
Well duh. We are living in the Age of Information and there are laws prohibiting felons and mentally unfit individuals from these transactions. So yes, background checks are a good idea.
Since President Clinton signed the Brady background check bill into law, more than 2.4 million prohibited gun purchases have been blocked.
I’m not even going to bother fact checking this because it’s irrelevant, but I’m sure very little credit actually goes to Clinton. Yayyy Chuck Schumer!
More than one million of those attempted purchases were by felons.
Same as above
Advocate for comprehensive federal background check legislation.
Finally! Please tell me what this mumbo-jumbo actually means!
Laws prohibiting dangerous individuals from buying guns are only as effective as our background check system is comprehensive. Background checks reduce gun trafficking, reduce the lethality of domestic violence, and reduce unlawful gun transfers to dangerous individuals. It is reprehensible that bipartisan legislation supporting background checks failed in Congress after the shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School.
OK, OK, maybe, maybe, probably not...WTF! Sandy Hook? Are you kidding me?! In the words of Ben Shapiro, you are standing on the graves of little children to make your political point. The guns used in the Sandy Hook massacre were all purchased legally but then the parent failed secure the weapons….which, I believe, is a punishable crime. So we see, it actually has nothing to do with background checks because the child who stole those guns couldn’t have been stopped by any police or regulatory agency. Again, less emphasis on legislation, let’s focus on enforcing the laws already there.
But Clinton is not giving up – she will continue to fight for legislation to build on the Brady bill’s success.
OK...if that means upgrading the technology that operate the checks then great!
Close the “Charleston Loophole.”
Another buzzword...what does it mean?
Clinton will push Congress to close the “Charleston Loophole” that allows a gun sale to proceed without a completed background check if that check is not complete within three days. The alleged Charleston shooter had a federal criminal record but was able to purchase a gun precisely because of this loophole. This same loophole allowed over 2,500 prohibited gun purchases in 2014. Clinton will support congressional efforts to close the “Charleston Loophole” and provide sufficient time and resources to complete a background check before a sale is approved.
Sounds scary...but is it true? Turns out a quick Google search will tell you the “Charleston loophole” is a Clinton hoax. The reason the Charleston shooter was able to procure his firearm is because the above referenced Brady Act specifically didn’t prohibit it. It goes like this: When our shooter went to purchase a firearm, the NICS check came back as neither Proceed nor Deny so a 3 day comprehensive FBI check was ordered...which mistakenly gave the green light, which then gave him the right to the firearm by default. Refer to above comment about updating the technology.
Tighten the gun show and Internet sales loophole if Congress won’t.
Really now? How?
If Congress refuses to act, Clinton will take administrative action to require that any person attempting to sell a significant number of guns be deemed “in the business” of selling firearms. This would ensure that high-volume gun sellers are covered by the same common sense rules that apply to gun stores—including requiring background checks on gun sales.
Aaah yes, your buddy Barry must’ve taught you well. So you plan to break the law and flagrantly violate the constitution? Ladies and Gentlemen, executive orders are not legal legislative tools. They are merely directives to members of the Executive branch on how to act, say a mobilization of the armed forces (who can only legally go to war by an act of Congress), or how a diplomat to a foreign power should proceed, or how to type up memos in the Pentagon. They are not there to push unpopular legislation through...AHEM!
Hold dealers and manufacturers fully accountable if they endanger Americans.
I assume legislation will also include car dealers whose customers drive drunk or smuggle weapons and drugs. Also belt manufacturers for when people hang themselves. Maybe even include cell phone companies and service providers for every time a murder plot is coordinated by phone. I think if we can do all that then we will finally be SAFE.
While the vast majority of gun dealers and manufacturers operate safely and responsibly, the select few that do not should be held accountable.
We live in a country of laws and when there is evidence of wrongdoing, we prosecute. If there is a failure to prosecute then maybe there was no evidence [GASP]. Again...the point is: more laws won’t solve this miniscule issue, let’s get back to enforcement.
However, due to lobbying efforts by the NRA, these bad actors are granted unique protections in our laws, and the country’s law enforcement agencies often face barriers when attempting to hold them accountable.
False. There are unique protections to the gun industry because politicians such as yourself see easy votes in going after them. So yes, a special protection of their constitutional right to manufacture and distribute their products without interference is very much in order.
Repeal the gun industry’s unique immunity protection. The NRA lobbied Congress to pass the so-called “Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act,” a dangerous law which prevents victims of gun violence from holding negligent manufacturers and dealers accountable for violence perpetrated with their guns. It is past time to repeal this law and hold the gun industry accountable just like everyone else. Clinton voted against this law in 2005 and will lead the charge to repeal it as president.
I would love to see this special protection go away, I don’t like over-legislation. But let’s go back to the last point. Are you going to allow victims of drunk drivers to sue alcohol and car manufacturers? We already allow them to sue the bar that served them but that’s ONLY if the plaintiffs can prove the bartender did something wrong. We all agree no fault lies with Coors or Honda so why would we not apply the same logic to Smith & Wesson?
Revoke the licenses of bad-actor dealers. Clinton believes that because gun violence is the leading cause of death for black males aged 15-24 – responsible for more deaths than the nine other leading causes combined (is that really true?) – we must do more to crack down on gun stores that flood our communities with illegal guns. Due to the NRA and their Republican allies, the agency responsible for ensuring gun dealers are following the law and keeping our communities safe has been underfunded and attacked. If, big if. IF this is true, it sounds pretty bad. Right off the top, the NRA is a nonpartisan organization which represent millions of Americans of all faiths, sexes, sexual orientations, races etc and they have allies in all parties notably Bernie Sanders (maybe not anymore). As a result, 58 percent of gun stores have not been inspected within the past five years. Further, while 38 percent of dealers that were inspected in 2011 were non-compliant with federal law, FALSE AND MISLEADING. Politifact asked her campaign how they got this number and they replied they got it from the 2013 Justice Department audit of the ATF following the Sandy Hook shooting. It’s too bad it doesn’t say that. The audit found that the ATF did in fact inspect over 10,000 gun dealers and found that 62% of them had not broken a single law! If that’s not testament to how reputable the gun industry is then I don’t know what is. Do you think 62% of Mrs. Clinton’s banker buddies never break a banking law? What about car dealers breaking trade laws? Almost all gun dealers take the law seriously and are trying to be compliant but humans make mistakes and the ATF has to prove the mistake was willful, which is why they revoke so few licenses only 0.68 percent of inspected dealers had their licenses revoked. Yayyy! Read this to understand better As president, Clinton will provide funding to increase inspections and aggressively enforce current law by revoking the licenses of dealers that knowingly supply straw purchasers and traffickers. Fine by me. I’ve been saying this all along, focus on enforcement. Be wary of harassment tactics though, they’re unAmerican and we will hold you accountable.
Keep guns out of the hands of domestic abusers, other violent criminals, and the severely mentally ill.
It makes no sense that in America dangerous and unstable individuals can obtain deadly weapons. As president, Clinton will:
Support legislation to prohibit all domestic abusers from buying and possessing guns. Women are 11 times more likely to be murdered with guns in the United States than women in other high-income countries, and more than half of them are murdered by intimate partners or family members. While federal law generally prohibits domestic abusers from purchasing or possessing guns, this protection does not apply to people in dating relationships or convicted stalkers. Clinton will fight for legislation to prohibit all of these domestic abusers and stalkers from buying guns. Bla bla bla, laws are already on the books.
Make straw purchasing a federal crime. When an individual with a clean record buys a gun with the intention of giving it to a violent felon – only so that felon can avoid a background check – it should be a crime. Currently, “straw purchasing” is a paperwork violation. This needs to change. Legally speaking, and you’re a lawyer so you should know. The purchaser in such a case would be committing a felony if they’re giving the gun to a felon. Also, there may not be enough evidence to convict the parties because we’d be judging people’s intentions, which is why it would be nice if more of our laws relied on facts and observable evidence.
Improve existing law prohibiting persons suffering from severe mental illness from purchasing or possessing a gun. The ATF should finalize its rulemaking to close loopholes in our laws and clarify that people involuntarily committed to outpatient treatment, such as the Virginia Tech shooter, are prohibited from buying guns. I knew there was time for another lie in here! The Virginia Tech shooter was NEVER committed voluntarily nor involuntarily to any mental health facility which is why no red flags were raised when he picked up his guns at his local FFL. The problem herein was the failure of the counselor he spoke to, who very strongly believed he was a danger, to report the findings. Again, legislation wouldn’t have averted this disaster, maybe an upgrade or expansion to the NICS itself but that’s it.
Keep military-style weapons off our streets. Military-style assault weapons do not belong on our streets. They are a danger to law enforcement and to our communities. Clinton supports keeping assault weapons off our streets. ‘Assault weapon’ is not a legal term. Anything used to assault another person becomes a weapon, that may include a machete or a car. The first weapons ban came in 1934 when the federal government decided to pass a ridiculous piece of legislation as a response to gang violence. To own a machine guns or selective fire weapons you now have to get federal clearance and pay a tax. Very few crimes are committed with selective fire weapons and probably none were legally procured. If by ‘assault weapon’ you mean a semiautomatic rifle, then why single those out? Just ban all guns. The fact is you can’t because you know you have to slowly erode individual rights so as to not spark violent uprising but somewhere down the line you want to see all guns to disappear, then finally we can live in Wonderland...as long as your Secret Service gets to keep their guns.
FACT: almost every single gun crime is committed with guns obtained illegally (ie stolen, trafficked etc). So why are we focusing on more legislation? Let’s invest in NICS and talk about the lack of border protection which allows most guns used in crimes to enter our country.
God Bless America!
No comments:
Post a Comment