After a town hall meeting for PBS NewsHour in Elkhart, Indiana, Obama took questions from the audience.
A gun store owner, Doug Rhude, mentioned how people that drive drunk are held responsible for their actions without affecting good drivers. He did this to relate to his next point, “why then do you and Hillary want to control and restrict and limit gun manufacturers, gun owners and responsible use of guns and ammunition to the rest of us, the good guys, instead of holding the bad guys accountable for their actions?”
Obama’s first reply, “First of all, the notion that I or Hillary or Democrats or whoever you want to choose are hell-bent on taking away folks’ guns is just not true.”
He goes on to say that he has never proposed a confiscation from responsible gun owners. He also talks about how driving accidents used to be much worse until studies were done and laws were put in place for better roads, seat belt restrictions, and air bag requirements. Obama then says that any attempt to do the same for guns is immediately seen as destruction of the second amendment.
So, what immediately caught my eye was Obama’s first reaction was to focus on confiscation when Rhude asked about why gun rights are being restricted. He did it to make a point. He compared cars to guns, which is a slippery slope. “When we talked about background checks: if you buy a car, if you want to get a license- first of all you have to license, you have to take a test. People have to know that you know how to drive. You don’t have to do any of that with respect to having a gun.” Comparing licensing with background checks, sure, I can hang with that for a moments discussion. But to say that background checks aren’t done is terribly false. NICS reports that 11,698,006 checks have been done this year. So maybe I misunderstood what he said, but I don’t see what else he could be saying.
Obama’s next talking point is the no-fly list. He claims the government has found people who often visits ISIL/ISIS sites and is a sympathizer. These people is on the no fly list but is allowed to buy a gun, ” ’cause the NRA won’t let me.” Now, most of us here know why this is a weak argument (lack of due process, no official list of people, many people on the list don’t actually belong on the list, etc.). I’m sure he does it to make it seem outrageous to people not familiar with how messed up the system is.
He ends the talk with saying that there is way for common sense gun laws that will not restrict lawful citizens from having guns to use for hunting, sporting, and protection.
Personally, it feels like an empty speech to me. I’ve heard these same things over and over. Obama even called gun violence a public health issue, even though gun homicides are around .4% of U.S.A. deaths each year. I would be open to hear about “common sense” ways to lessen deaths by guns. However, many proposed gun laws just restrict law abiding citizens. Magazine restrictions, gun free zones, and banning certain firearms does not stop a shooting or robbery from happening. Those do negatively affect citizens that wish to have better protection. Even demanding individual sales to have background checks won’t stop strawman purchases. It just places a burden on lawful people wishing to sell a firearm.
That’s about all I have to say about that. The topic was highlighted since the president spoke about it, and I don’t believe much will come from his speech other than more misinformation about the no-fly list.
Actions speak louder than words, isn’t that what folks like to say?
He might as well have said we’re not for censorship, but we like the Nazi use of book burning to reduce unwanted ideas.
Equivalent to their praise of Australian mandatory gun buy back confiscation.
Democrats lie and lie.
…what? What sort of analogy is that?
Since when do you need a license before purchasing a car?
I know plenty of kids that worked hard and bought their first car before they actually had a driver’s license. A license is specific to a specific action in a specific place concerning that car. It’s far more analogous to one having to get a hunting license to specifically use their firearm to hunt a specific type of game.
Also Bryan, as you know, driving is not identified in the BOR as a right, unlike our Second Amendment rights.
No license is needed, ever, if you restrict your driving activities to private lands. It is only when you go on public roads that the state steps in to tax you for their use. You do not need a license, registration, insurance, or safety inspections. It’s called freedom when the state has no involvement in the conduct of our affairs.
I’d add one more unique thing. It is seemingly the reality that horrible drivers that have numerous infractions and legal encounters (e.g. reckless driving, driving under the influence) can often retain their ability to drive. We have all heard the stories of the drunk who was pulled over for DUIs a dozen times and still has a probationary license when they finally kill a whole family in an accident.
Try to abuse most any firearms law and you lose your right to own a firearm for life! This could quite literally contribute to the end of your life if you meet a murderous criminal. This is after you have paid all fines and possibly served prison time and so where is the justice in that? Are we not supposed to be done paying the price of misdeeds when leaving a prison? Sigh.
I agree. We all know gun free zones don’t work because criminals don’t care about gun laws. It doesn’t stop them from getting a gun or going where they please with it. So my question is, why have a law that pertains to who can carry a gun at all? Why do we put a lesser value on someones life and the lives of their loved ones living in their household? Saying they cannot defend themselves with a gun? If a crime was committed with a gun or without one and that person has severed their time. Why should they not have their american rights back? Do we not believe in rehabilitation at all?
I bought my first car before I had a license. My brother had to chauffeur me around. It’s easier to buy a car than a gun!
But, Laredo, you have to push back on the phrase “gun violence.” It has become a mainstream cliche, and it is a totally bogus, made-up term coined by the anti-gun crowd. If you defend yourself, legally, with a gun, and shoot your assailant, well, that is by definition a violent act. But is it bad violence or good violence? Your violent act saved your life or your loved one’s life. It is justified violence. But to the anti-gunners, all “gun violence” is a horrible thing to contemplate, and must be abolished. When the anti-gunners trot out “gun violence” numbers, they include legal self-defense shootings, accidental shootings, police shootings, suicides, etc., as well as criminal acts.
You see how this works? They have coined a phrase, “gun violence,” that they can trot out like shorthand, and attach a large number to, and the mainstream press, and even some gun bloggers, are using this phony, made-up phrase.
Please, please, do not fall for the “gun violence” cliche, except to point it out for the propaganda newspeak that it is.
Thanks!
D. Fosdick
I absolutely agree with you D. Fosdick. I usually quote that term, because it is a phrase to push propaganda. In the future I will certainly be make that a clear point when it is relevant to. Thanks you for the feedback!