I asked if he knew why, and got a response from @txsarge and from @winkydo talking about how Obama plans to ban guns and ammo, and how Clinton did, respectively.
So, before putting my foot in my mouth, I asked for proof, and then did a Google Search for "obama proposed tax on ammo" and the first link was for a Washington Post article: "NRA Ads are off target about Obama and Guns"
While it is true that Obama favors tighter gun laws, it is a huge stretch to argue that he wants to take away the guns and ammunition most commonly used by hunters. The claim that he favors "a huge new tax on guns and ammo" rests on a confusingly worded nine-year-old newspaper article that has little relevance for Obama's platform as a presidential candidate.Without enumerating the list of all the things the WP cited as being inaccurate about the NRA's Ad, essentially the article is saying the NRA is claiming Obama wants to do away with all handguns - when their research shows that in 1999...
...Obama, then an Illinois state senator, supported a "500 percent" increase in the federal tax on the sale of "weapons he says are most commonly used in firearm deaths."Personally, I have no problem with that; why not discourage people from buying the guns that are the cause of unnecessary deaths? That doesn't infringe on hunters and their rifles. I then went and found an article by the New York Times: "Clinton proposes ban on armor-piercing ammunition"
"If a bullet can rip through a bulletproof vest like a knife through hot butter, then it ought to be history," Mr. Clinton said in accepting an award from the Illinois Council Against Handgun Violence at a police station house accompanied by Chicago's mayor, Richard M. Daley.Again, I have no problem with that. Why would we want to allow irresponsible people to have the ability (legally) to shoot through armor? Shouldn't the police have the ability to be protected from incursions, and have superior firepower than who they are going up against? (Granted, there is another side of the conversation - the sale of full-body armor to criminals.)
I passed those two links on, and clicked on another link from FOX News, criticizing the Washington Post article for being incomplete, saying:
The Washington Post analysis only discusses two issues: the Kennedy ammunition ban and the 500 percent ammunition tax. On the Kennedy bill, the Post makes the same mistake as FactCheck.org. Regarding the tax, the Post doesn’t deny that Obama held that position, but points out that the legislation Obama supported was in 1999 and that it is not clear what guns would have their ammunition taxed. CNN’s discussion appears unwilling to admit that Obama has supported large-scale bans on gun ownership.and enumerates all the points it makes from FactCheck.org. It is at this point that it is, once again clear, depending on who your sources are, the perspective of the article will be skewed to the agenda.
Having settled on that, I decided the only place to get valid, legitimate information is from the actual source, and I went to the WhiteHouse.gov site, did a search for "gun ban", which returned one result: an article to Obama's Agenda on Urban Policy. A CTRL + F find for "gun" takes you to this bullet point:
Address Gun Violence in Cities: Obama and Biden 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. 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.Again, I have no problem releasing the information on who registered a gun so they can be held responsible for its misuse; and I have no problem banning assault weapons for the greater good of the rest of the people.
Meanwhile, I got 4 responses from @winkydo:
- ABC News: "Obama to seek new assault weapons ban"
- The Volokh Conspiracy Weblog: "FactCheck flubs Obama gun fact check"
- The Sean Hannity Forums: a post from alias die hard republican "Obama supports a 500% tax increase on firearms and ammo"
- The Connecticut Tristates News Channel website: "IL gun insurance proposal"
It's been my view that the major difference between the two parties, Republican and Democratic, is boiled down to two perspectives:
- Republican: personal rights, guided by conservative morals imposed on others.
- Democratic: civil rights, guided by the populous imposed on everyone.
That's not to say I don't still have apathy for a lot of things, but it is to say that I can now see it from the other perspective. Maybe I'll write more on what my perspective is and why it's changed, and hit the main talking points that both political parties touch on.
That's all for now.
7 comments:
"weapons he says are most commonly used in firearm deaths"
in past examples of this phrase, means almost any firearm. because there are more handguns on the streets in urban areas than rifles, this would mean that handguns are the most commonly weapon in firearm deaths, thus the banned item.
"why would we want to allow irresponsible people to have the ability (legally) to shoot through armor?"
nearly any hunting rifle that is big enough to take down a game animal larger than a texas whitetail deer, is able to pierce the average foot officer's body armor.
so now you must also include the banning hunting rifles?
what weapons are left?
i do agree that we should allow the law enforcement agencies across the country to cross reference firearm registrations. the problem is that the bill's that have addressed this in the past included the ability for credit reporting agencies and other people not in the law enforcement community to view this database as well, and have cleverly been included with more firearm banning. you cant have your cake and eat it too.
"...and I have no problem banning assault weapons for the greater good of the rest of the people."
the problem that the majority of those related to fighting the AWB have with the policy, is that politicians like to call any rifle that hold more than 4 bullets at a time, and are semi-automatic, an ‘assault rifle’. sometimes they do like the throw in an overall firearm length. However, this includes a great portion of all hunting rifles available today, even at your local walmart.
in the US today, the average person cannot legally own any fully auto firearm without having a license issued by the ATF. Fully auto means that the gun will fire as many bullets as you feed into the receiver during each single pull of the trigger. the alternative to this idea is called semi-automatic, which means that for each pull of the trigger, one single bullet will be fired. the majority of handguns available today, work in this manner.
if joe the plumber walks into the local gun shop to buy a rifle, he will not be allowed to purchase a full auto version of the gun without first showing proof of the ATF license. if joe wants to purchase a semi auto rifle to hunt west texas caribou, who have thick hide and are typically hunted from 500 yards or more in the desert plains of the pan handle, he will no longer be able to.
i disagree with a lot of the democratic ideas on gun control policies. however, i do believe that there is a need for stronger gun control in some areas; as i stated before, the need for tracking guns that have been found to be used in violent crimes (think proven guilty by a court of law, the evidence is turned over to next of kin) is indeed a reasonable act to work on. also; the need for being sure that not anyone can walk into a gun show and purchase a perfectly working 'collector gun' without a federal background check is there. the state of texas has enforced local laws that pertain to this case; but there are still loopholes even in the local laws. that being the case, i think that the idea of banning guns simply because the bad guys use them from time to time, is not reason enough for me; however, that's the reason i own guns.
an important thing to keep in mind is that laws only affect those who follow them, and only enforce their policies by those who choose to abide by them. for instance, switch blade knifes have been banned for many years, but i guarantee there have been numerous deaths caused by the misuse of those knifes, since the ban was put into place. if you take away your citizens ability to reasonably defend themselves, you might as well take away their right to free speech.
I noticed a few flaws in your tought process. First of all pistols kill more people in America then any other weapon. Second democrats are all ready trying to tighten resteictions on all firearm's and ammunition. Third once you start to ban or restrict one type of firearm or ammunition, then there is no stopping it. Once that is done only the criminals will have them.
Guns and Ammo Enthusiast Blog
You seem to be pretty objective about this subject and genuinely interested in finding the truth.
The problem with "getting it from the source" is that anti-gunners know that their positions are unpopular and can cost them elections, so they generally try to disguise those positions when in national politics. Obama only carried the popular vote by four percent...he very well may owe the outcome of the election to the fact that he was able to successfully convince enough gun owners that he didn't intend to "take their guns".
The best barometer of Obama's stances on gun control is not his current rhetoric, but his past record, which is where the NRA got the basis for their charges.
I will be the first to admit that the NRA used (and uses) a lot of hyperbole to try to stir up a reaction from the lethargic masses; and that some of the conclusions to which they jumped, based upon the evidence that they presented, were a bit of a stretch. But the basic facts that they presented in backing up their claims are true.
The Factcheck.org "rebuttal" upon which the Washington Post article was based, was written by a staunch anti-gun advocate and basically didn't disprove any of the basic facts presented by the NRA, it only dismissed the conclusions dawn. One of the major planks of the factcheck rebuttal is that Obama NOW doesn't say that he supports the things that he CLEARLY voiced support for in the past.
Either Obama changed his mind, or there's some subterfuge going on here.
One of the major things that the anti-gun lobby depends upon is that the average citizen simply doesn't know enough about the issues to make an informed decision.
Therefore, they couch their proposals in subjective terms like "common sense" and "rational" to lend the impression that opposing their proposals means you lack common sense or are irrational. Furthermore, they use emotion laden, intentionally misleading terms to describe their proposals to make them sound reasonable. Most of their proposals are based on lies, plain and simple.
The Tiahrt amendment DOES NOT prevent law enforcement agencies from accessing trace data. What it does is prevent the disclosure of trace data through Freedom of Information Act requests to NON LAW ENFORCEMENT. What it prevents is organizations like the Brady Campaign or Mayor Bloomberg's Illegal Mayors Against Guns...er...Mayors Against Illegal Guns...from obtaining that data for use in frivolous lawsuits or propaganda purposes. The trace data is routinely and readily provided to actual Police Agencies during the course of investigations.
What they don't tell you is that both the ATF and the Fraternal Order of Police SUPPORT the Tiahrt amendment because releasing the raw data to groups who will use it for propaganda can compromise ongoing investigations and place law enforcement officers lives in danger.
Contrary to what the anti's would have you believe, The ATF publishes annual summaries of the Trace Data for public consumption. They aren't trying to "hide" the data, they are only trying to prevent sensitive information from being released prematurely for political purposes. Incidentally, open up any one of those reports and check out the disclaimer on the second page that clearly states the data cannot be reliably used for the exact purposes that the anti-gunners try to use it.
In short, the Tiarht amdendment does NOT hinder bone fide law enforcement investigations, it only hinders the abuse of that data by those organizations who would exploit it for propaganda purposes.
Obama, then an Illinois state senator, supported a "500 percent" increase in the federal tax on the sale of "weapons he says are most commonly used in firearm deaths."Personally, I have no problem with that; why not discourage people from buying the guns that are the cause of unnecessary deaths? That doesn't infringe on hunters and their rifles.
Why should gun ownership only be restricted to hunters? Is recreation more important than life? The vast majority of lawful handgun owners in this country don't hunt...they own handguns for self defense.
The very same characteristics that make handguns useful to criminals, make them useful to law abiding citizens to defend against criminals.
Guns are not the cause of unnecessary death, the operator of the gun is the cause. Yes, the ability of a gun to project force beyond the reach of the operator makes them more efficient...but that is true both for the aggressor and the defender...which is why Police carry them.
What would be the consequences of a 500% tax increase on handguns? The people who live in the poorest, most violent places...those in the most dire need of effective self defense...would be unable to afford to provide for their own defense and that of their families.
What about a 500% tax increase on ammunition? If the cost of ammunition were made prohibitive, how much incentive would there be to take a couple of boxes to the range and shoot pieces of paper with it?
Not much. Practice would be cost prohibitive. Most people would buy one box for self defense and never shoot it.
Is it really a benefit to society to have untold numbers of law abiding citizens keeping and carrying self defensive arms that they are not proficient with?
And would it really help cut down on crime? Criminals generally don't concern themselves about how much the person they are stealing from paid in taxes.
"If a bullet can rip through a bulletproof vest like a knife through hot butter, then it ought to be history," Mr. Clinton said...Again, I have no problem with that. Why would we want to allow irresponsible people to have the ability (legally) to shoot through armor?
Title 18, US Code Chapter 44, Section 922:
(a) It shall be unlawful-
(7) for any person to manufacture or import armor piercing ammunition...
(8) for any manufacturer or importer to sell or deliver armor piercing ammunition...
In other words, it is already illegal to make, sell or distribute armor piercing ammunition.
So what are the anti's talking about?
They're talking about non-armor piercing ammunition that can defeat soft body armor.
Basically, their talking about the higher end hunting handguns like the .460 Ruger, the .500 S&W, the .454 Casull...things like that...and ALL rifle ammunition.
So, between the two provisions you support so far, we've increased the cost of self defense handguns and ammo to the point that they are unaffordable, and we've banned all hunting ammo.
Anything we haven't covered yet?
These proposals may not constitute outright "bans" on gun ownership, but, taken together, that is the practical result.
A few other things you mentioned:
"Gun Show Loophole"...one of those misleading and inaccurate terms invented by the gun ban lobby to make their proposals appear more "reasonable" and "common sense".
There is no "loophole". A loophole is defined as a way to exploit a flaw in the law in order to avoid the spirit without breaking the letter. Sales of personal property between private individuals is an intentional provision in the law. It is not a "loophole". It was designed to protect the property rights and privacy of individuals and to prevent the possibility of federal record keeping of retail sales from becoming a de-facto gun registration.
Furthermore, that intentional provision in the law applies everywhere equally, it is not restricted to gun shows.
The gun banners know both of these things, they intentionally created that misleading term in an effort to confuse the issue.
"assault weapons". Another misleading and nebulous term ginned up by the gun banners. Basically, they are railing against firearms that look scary. Let me allow the founder of the Violence Policy Center, Josh Sugarmann, to explain:
The weapons' menacing looks, coupled with the public's confusion over fully automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons—anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun—can only increase the chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons.
A semi-automatic rifle that has a cosmetic appearance similar to that of their military counterparts is still a semi-automatic rifle...no different in function than the semi-automatic rifles that have been around for almost 100 years and are used regularly for hunting.
The AR-15 platform (similar to the military M-16 rifle) is the single most popular rifle in the United States. They are used for target shooting, varmint hunting, deer hunting, home defense...pretty much anything that a rifle can be used for the AR-15 IS used for. It is this very versatility that makes them so popular.
Furthermore, these types of weapons are used in a statistically insignificant number of crimes. Rifles of ANY type are rarely used in crime because they simply are not practical for it. It's a bit difficult for a thug to be unobtrusive when walking around with a 2 1/2 to 3 foot rifle.
Again, the gun banners use misleading terms and hyperbole to focus their attack on one segment of the shooting sports that they sense are vulnerable and easily maligned. It has nothing to do with crime, it has nothing to do with safety, it has only to do with eliminating the civilian ownership of guns, one bite at a time.
Finally, gun control and gun rights are less and less a Democrat/Republican issue. There are many pro-gun Democrats in office, at the national level and at the state and local levels. Democrats are increasingly realizing that gun rights are an important issue to a large cross section of the American people, that it has little to do with hunting and that they will be held responsible for infringing upon those rights. This is why the gun banners have gotten little traction in recent years and it is why they celebrated the election of a person with such a long history of supporting their agenda.
Make no mistake about it. The goal of gun banners like Obama, Nancy Pelosi, Barbera Boxer et al is, ultimately, total civilian disarmament. Gun control is not about guns. It's about control.
We the People are the ultimate authority in our society. As long as we remain armed, we will remain so. As soon as we allow ourselves to be disarmed, we cede that authority to those who would rule us.
Not on my watch.
"How a politician stands on the Second Amendment tells you how he or she views you as an individual... as a trustworthy and productive citizen, or as part of an unruly crowd that needs to be lorded over, controlled, supervised, and taken care of."
~Texas State Rep. Suzanna Gratia-Hupp
"It's quite simple - if a candidate does not trust me to own & carry my guns then why the hell should I trust him to exercise any sort of authority? What is there to make me think he'll respect any of my other Rights if he wants to take away the last ditch method I have of defending them?"
--Publicola
Nicely researched, I haven't read enough, nor do I care to atm to really comment on the issue at hand, but I liked this observation and readily agree with it:
Republican: personal rights, guided by conservative morals imposed on others.
Democratic: civil rights, guided by the populous imposed on everyone.
Bans on weapons, in my opinion, do not help a citizen as much as it hurts them. If a law banning a certain firearm helps anyone, it helps the criminals. Criminals already break the law, so they'll have no problem breaking another by using an "illegal" firearm. By taking these weapons out of the hands of citizens, they are further made defenseless against those that break the law and intend harm against them. I constantly argue that the first line of defense against an attacker in an event in such as a robbery is not the police or a swat team, but yourself. If their first line of defense (a firearm) is taken away, then they have to rely on the no-so-often-quick-to-act police force to hopefully show up before an innocent life is snuffed out. In 1995, the average response time for police response was 8 minutes, which is more than enough time for the altercation to already conclude by the time the police force arrives. Getting one's gun in defense of one's-self is more than 8 times faster than police response, and those precious minutes can mean the difference between the life and death of the innocent citizen.
Taxing the ammo or guns do not help the citizen either, much like DRM only hurting the honest consumer. Hackers already know how to bypass DRM technologies, but honest users do not. Criminals already know how and where to get ammo and guns cheaper than the more expensive and taxed kind, while the everyday citizen does not. Placing the burden on the citizen and making it more expensive for them to protect themselves only hurts the citizen, making it harder for them to acquire the protection they need legally.
I'm all for tracking guns, but taxes do nothing but generate revenue for the government. They do not "deter crime" by making it more expensive for criminals to get firearms, because they already know how to acquire them illegally and for cheaper, nonetheless.
@Jeromy - I hear what you're saying, and I agree (probably shocking, I know). I don't think the answer is to ban all guns, or to ban all ammo for guns. I do realize that there are some handguns that use the same ammo that some popular hunting rifles use, which would end up lumping the ability to use those hunting rifles into the ban simply because the ammo they require would not be permitted.
That being said, there is no need to use a handgun during hunting. I realize that some people consider it a challenge to use a high-powered handgun, just like some enjoy the challenge of bow-hunting.
Bans never work, no matter who imposes them, nor on what they are imposed. But I don't think a ban is the answer - I think it something beyond that, which would make it excessively difficult to acquire a gun, and to hold the current registered user of such a gun accountable for anything done with that gun.
As an example, perhaps implementing that 500% tax or whatever, on the ammunition unless you have the license you spoke of, and then it would be much cheaper. Raising the age to get such a license from 21 to 25, and then performing an arduous background check. And ensuring that the current registered user is accurately entered in the database, with the individual knowing that they will be held responsible if they don't contact such an authority to update their gun's serial number, like a title to a vehicle, would hopefully deter gun show dealers from simply putting guns up for purchase (or whatever goes on there that has become the loophole).
I don't have all (or any of) the answers, but I also don't have a gun. (It's kinda like being a congress-man making rules on abortion having never been pregnant :-p). I do think there is a solution somewhere that would allow people to maintain their ability to use a gun for sport, as well as defense; but that reduces the number of accidental or intentional deaths caused by their misuse.
______________________
@800 Real Estate Services Blog: With all due respect, you shouldn't start out with accusing someone of having a "flawed thought process." The process by which my thoughts arrive at conclusions works just fine - I just reached different conclusions than you did. Next time, start with "I disagree." You're allowed to disagree - but not to assume your thought process has reached some level of perfection beyond the person you're communicating with.
Now, I never said pistols weren't a cause of people's deaths, nor did I rank their impact. (Yes, my title implies that guns don't kill people, but if that's the basis of your statement, then the title is accurate that it is the bullet from the gun that is more likely to kill people.) However, for simplicity, I would agree that the use of pistols does kill more people (as compared to, say, rifles and shotguns), because that's what they are for - self-defense, not hunting.
Second, Democrats have always been trying to tighten restrictions on firearms. This is nothing new - and even after all these years and debates, you're still able to own a gun.
Third, I refer you to the 18th Amendment on the ban of alcohol in America, and it's repeal in the 21st Amendment...only to say the "slipery slope" argument never works, and shouldn't be used during a debate-like discussion.
___________________
@Sailorcurt: Thank you for your detailed response.
The problem with "getting it from the source" is that...
I would agree people do pad their words (if they take the time to do so, I generally do not), to get their point received more readily. (As for popular vote stats, Bush didn't even get the popular vote against Gore in 2000, and he only got 51% against Kerry in 2004. So, winning the popular vote isn't required for becoming president, and I'm sure Gun Control stance was on the backburner of a good portion (not all, though) of the 66 million that voted for Obama. I digress...moving forward...
I have no intentions of addressing everything you've written, line by line - though I did read all of it, and I understand your point of view. However, I will say, in summary that I can agree with much of what was said, taking the broad talking points...
I agree that gun ownership shouldn't be limited to just hunters - I understand that raising the cost of bullets/guns would have some effects on the responsible (I will say though that if the responsible people can't afford to purchase firearms and the like, than neither can the irresponsible - and the problem could potentially resolve itself.) - I agree the word "Loophole" is rhetoric, but I have also not looked into the specifics behind the "Gun Show Loophole" phrase; I used it as a naming convention for that particular issue because it is widely understood by those who are involved in this issue.
There are few other things in there that I agree with, but for brevity and common interest I won't bother with them.
I will say though, for the record, that my "support" is not as you might think. I did not vote in any of the Bush elections, nor did I vote in the Obama election. I do not entirely agree with either McCain or Obama - and thus I was not willing to attach my name to either candidate 100%.
Having said that, my leaning changes based on the current major issues the nation faces, and if we were not in an economic slump/downturn/depression, I would have possibly gone with McCain. However, because of history, I am aware that Democrats are the most productive when it comes to matters of the economy. So I take the good with the bad, when it is necessary to answer the issues of the times, knowing full well that in the next 4 years, anything the previous president did can be undone - as we saw this week with Obama overturning President Bush's ban on Government-funded Stem Cell Research.
In all, I try to avoid getting too bogged down with one issue that it prevents seeing what else is going on - so I'm only interested in the facts, like you said, "going off past record," and whether or not I can accept the consequences of the projected path those facts point to.
Personally, I don't own a gun - I have no intentions of owning a gun. However, I have no problem using a gun for self defense or for hunting. At the same time, I'm also a fan of not being killed by a gun, so my personal right to be able to hunt or defend myself with a gun is waived in lieu of removing all guns from all people. However, that won't happen (neither removing them all, nor waiving all personal rights to them), so I don't worry much about the subject.
@Kitteh:
Thank you. I thought that was the most conscise way of stating the observation placing both accuracy and unbias on both sides - and am readily willing to accept the responsibility of anyone who decides to call me out for being one or those other by that description.
___________________
@Frankli:
I had thoughts about your first point, earlier this morning before you called (just as I had thoughts about Sailorcurt's point about making gang members walk around with shotguns because pistols were banned. In my mind, if an armed robber breaks into your house - and you're home - I would think that the chances of you being permitted to make your way to your closet (say, from the living room) to retrieve your cleverly hidden (for child protection) gun, and the separately hidden bullets, and then load the gun would be vastly small. The only benefit of having a gun in the home is if you had enough time before the incident to retrieve and prepare your weapon, or if you CHL'd it around the house all the time. Just my thoughts though...as I keep my loaded airsoft gun readily available from the backside of a 2-level end-table or stashed in the shadows between an electronic device and its shelving, so it is readily available.
I agree with your analogy comparing taxes on firearms/accessories to DRM on music. The concept of bans only works when it is absolute, and very strictly enforced everywhere. However, that doesn't work anywhere, even in the electronic world. Being banned from a server is easily circumvented by gaining access from another source. Being banned from guns in America is easily circumvented by concealing it into the country from another.
That's why I also agree, and mentioned earlier in my note to @Jeromy that a ban is not the answer - and simply charging more is not the answer. There has to be something beyond that - a global attitude shift that removes any of the criminal's selfish desires...but that's border-line utopia.
(It's also the society of Star Trek's Earth.)
Post a Comment