By David Petlansky
If you haven't read the first two installments you can do so here:
The Origin Of Evil
The Origin Of Evil II
Yesterday, the United States Senate rejected the Manchin-Toomey bill. And, tensions are high.
A lot of rhetoric has been tossed around from all sides regarding the gun debate. It's easy to get caught up in the emotion and drama and lose sight of the facts and what is at stake. So, in a third installment of The Origin Of Evil, let's break down what's happening in the seemingly colluding world of gun legislation.
If you haven't read the first two installments you can do so here:
The Origin Of Evil
The Origin Of Evil II
Yesterday, the United States Senate rejected the Manchin-Toomey bill. And, tensions are high.
A lot of rhetoric has been tossed around from all sides regarding the gun debate. It's easy to get caught up in the emotion and drama and lose sight of the facts and what is at stake. So, in a third installment of The Origin Of Evil, let's break down what's happening in the seemingly colluding world of gun legislation.
I became interested in writing this when I heard Conneticut Senator Richard Blumenthal talking about the decision on Manchin-Toomey yesterday on NPR. At first, everything he was saying sounded like it was coming from a pure and honest place. As if he is just passionate about getting this legislation passed to make Americans safer, and for no other reason. But, then I started to hear trigger words and familiar speech tactics and it made me wonder if there were agendas or schemes behind the inspiring interview he gave. I couldn't find the interview I heard, but hear is a piece with him talking about it on a local news program:
And then, last night I was emailed an article about Obama's blunt response to the decision. Which, at first glance, was very inspiring and motivating. But, I noticed the same tactics being used again. The children are mentioned in the first few lines of his remarks. I wondered again, why are they so passionate about this? History shows that the federal government's overall attitude towards existing gun laws has been lax and complacent, leaving one to assume that they don't truly consider the issue to be a threat. So, what is at stake in this for them that they are going after it so aggressively? It could be exactly what we are told for the reasons we are told, but it is one of the most important debates in history so we owe it to ourselves to at least get our facts in order.
A good map, if you will, to guide us through fact checking this would be Obama's speech. I think that would provide the simplest, straight-forward path to truth, regarding the gun control debate.
(Read the full transcript)
First of all, what a lovely backdrop. It opens up with a father of one of the Sandy Hook victims giving an introduction as Obama, Biden and others stand behind behind him with exaggerated circus clown frowns. By the time Obama reaches the mic, any person with a soul has turned their brain totally off and is thinking with his/her heart.
The first fact I'd like to look into is the one that they hit on at least six times in an eighteen minute presentation: 90% of American's support the idea of background checks.
(Read the full transcript)
First of all, what a lovely backdrop. It opens up with a father of one of the Sandy Hook victims giving an introduction as Obama, Biden and others stand behind behind him with exaggerated circus clown frowns. By the time Obama reaches the mic, any person with a soul has turned their brain totally off and is thinking with his/her heart.
The first fact I'd like to look into is the one that they hit on at least six times in an eighteen minute presentation: 90% of American's support the idea of background checks.
"By now, it's well known that 90 percent of the American people support universal background checks that make it harder for a dangerous person to buy a gun. We're talking about convicted felons, people convicted of domestic violence, people with a severe mental illness. Ninety percent of Americans support that idea. Most Americans think that's already the law." -President Obama
First of all, anyone who watched Pen & Teller's show on Showtime knows that polls and statistics are bullshit. But, they are throwing it out there, and quite a lot, so I want to know where the information is coming from.
Turns out, it's from a from a Quinnipiac University poll:
Turns out, it's from a from a Quinnipiac University poll:
"American voters say 48 - 38 percent that the government could use the information from universal background checks to confiscate legally-owned guns, but voters still support universal gun background checks 91 - 8 percent, including 88 - 11 percent among voters in households with guns, according to a Quinnipiac University poll released today.
Gun owners believe 53 - 34 percent that universal background checks could lead to confiscation of legal guns, the independent Quinnipiac (KWIN-uh-pe-ack) University poll finds.
Support for same-sex marriage has reached a 50 percent milestone, with American voters in favor 50 - 41 percent, compared to 47 - 43 percent in a March 8 Quinnipiac University survey and a dramatic shift in public attitudes on the subject from July, 2008, when voters opposed such unions 55 - 36 percent." -http://www.quinnipiac.edu
So, techniqually, what the president and mainstream media are saying is true. It could be considered intentionally misleading, but it can't be argued. However, Kurt Nimmo, of Infowars, put it perfectly:
"...the liberal chorus call echoed by the establishment media demanding the Senate legislate by the result of public surveys – specifically, the Quinnipiac University poll showing 90 percent of Americans believe in background checks – runs counter to the fact America was not established as a democracy. The founders intended the United States to be a constitutional republic. Liberals and socialists, of course, prefer a democracy where opinion can be manipulated and a majority can impose its will on a minority. "
"Democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where 51% of the people may take away the rights of the other 49%.” said Thomas Jefferson.
"...the liberal chorus call echoed by the establishment media demanding the Senate legislate by the result of public surveys – specifically, the Quinnipiac University poll showing 90 percent of Americans believe in background checks – runs counter to the fact America was not established as a democracy. The founders intended the United States to be a constitutional republic. Liberals and socialists, of course, prefer a democracy where opinion can be manipulated and a majority can impose its will on a minority. "
"Democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where 51% of the people may take away the rights of the other 49%.” said Thomas Jefferson.
"Families that know unspeakable grief summoned the courage to petition their elected leaders -- not just to honor the memory of their children, but to protect the lives of all our children. And a few minutes ago, a minority in the United States Senate decided it wasn't worth it. They blocked common-sense gun reforms even while these families looked on from the Senate gallery." -President Obama
Another interesting tactic that I noticed was used in the quote above. One of the first statements Obama made.
Do you see what was done in that statement? In a few sentences, without actually saying it, he heavily suggested that because the Senate did not agree with the bill, that meant they did not care about the victims. Which, sends a subliminal message to all of us that if we do not support the president and the measures he thinks we should take, we also do not care about the victims, the poor innocent children.
Do you see what was done in that statement? In a few sentences, without actually saying it, he heavily suggested that because the Senate did not agree with the bill, that meant they did not care about the victims. Which, sends a subliminal message to all of us that if we do not support the president and the measures he thinks we should take, we also do not care about the victims, the poor innocent children.
"As they said, nobody could honestly claim that the package they put together infringed on our Second Amendment rights. All it did was extend the same background check rules that already apply to guns purchased from a dealer to guns purchased at gun shows or over the Internet. So 60 percent of guns are already purchased through a background check system; this would have covered a lot of the guns that are currently outside that system." -President Obama
That sounds good, right? Why wouldn't anyone go for that? I think its worth trying to see things from that perspective and also to look into the validity of the claim that "that" (quoted above) is really all Manchin-Toomey could have done.
Sen. Kelly Ayotte, a Republican from New Hampshire, said Wednesday morning that the existing background-check system should be improved but that she wouldn’t support the amendment because it would put “unnecessary burdens on law-abiding gun owners.”
Five Democrats also voted against the amendment: Mark Begich of Alaska; Max Baucus of Montana; Mark Pryor of Arkansas; Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota; and — for procedural reasons — Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada. Reid’s “no” vote allows him to bring up the legislation later. Pryor, Baucus and Begich are up for re-election next year in conservative states.
According to Obama, this is due, mainly to the fact that they represent areas where voters have been misguided by gun lobbyists and fear losing votes in elections. But, how misguided is the information?
Opponents of expanded background checks say that they would violate the Constitution’s right to bear arms. The National Rifle Association strongly opposes background checks, as well as a separate amendment to ban assault weapons offered Wednesday by Sen. Diane Feinstein, which received 40 yes votes.
Appearing on NBC’s Meet the Press on Sunday, Utah Republican Senator Mike Lee said he will not support the Toomey-Manchin bill.
“Following the tragedy at Sandy Hook, Americans have been rightfully focused on how to prevent such tragedies from occurring in the future,” he said. “But unfortunately, the proposals we’ve seen would serve primarily to limit the rights of law-abiding citizens while doing little, if anything, to actually prevent tragedies like this from occurring in the future. Toomey-Manchin does contain some carve outs, but we know that today’s carve outs are tomorrow’s loopholes, and that’s of concern to us."
Sen. Kelly Ayotte, a Republican from New Hampshire, said Wednesday morning that the existing background-check system should be improved but that she wouldn’t support the amendment because it would put “unnecessary burdens on law-abiding gun owners.”
Five Democrats also voted against the amendment: Mark Begich of Alaska; Max Baucus of Montana; Mark Pryor of Arkansas; Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota; and — for procedural reasons — Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada. Reid’s “no” vote allows him to bring up the legislation later. Pryor, Baucus and Begich are up for re-election next year in conservative states.
According to Obama, this is due, mainly to the fact that they represent areas where voters have been misguided by gun lobbyists and fear losing votes in elections. But, how misguided is the information?
Opponents of expanded background checks say that they would violate the Constitution’s right to bear arms. The National Rifle Association strongly opposes background checks, as well as a separate amendment to ban assault weapons offered Wednesday by Sen. Diane Feinstein, which received 40 yes votes.
Appearing on NBC’s Meet the Press on Sunday, Utah Republican Senator Mike Lee said he will not support the Toomey-Manchin bill.
“Following the tragedy at Sandy Hook, Americans have been rightfully focused on how to prevent such tragedies from occurring in the future,” he said. “But unfortunately, the proposals we’ve seen would serve primarily to limit the rights of law-abiding citizens while doing little, if anything, to actually prevent tragedies like this from occurring in the future. Toomey-Manchin does contain some carve outs, but we know that today’s carve outs are tomorrow’s loopholes, and that’s of concern to us."
David B. Kopel, of The National Review broke down those loopholes and argued his points quite well:
"The Toomey-Manchin Amendment which may be offered as soon as Tuesday to Senator Reid’s gun control bill are billed as a “compromise” which contain a variety of provisions for gun control, and other provisions to enhance gun rights. Some of the latter, however, are not what they seem. They are badly miswritten, and are in fact major advancements for gun control. In particular, the provision which claims to outlaw national gun registration in fact authorizes a national gun registry. Here’s the Machin-Toomey text:
(c) Prohibition of National Gun Registry.-Section 923 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
“(m) The Attorney General may not consolidate or centralize the records of the
“(1) acquisition or disposition of firearms, or any portion thereof, maintained by
“(A) a person with a valid, current license under this chapter;
“(B) an unlicensed transferor under section 922(t); or
“(2) possession or ownership of a firearm, maintained by any medical or health insurance entity.”.
The limit on creating a registry applies only to the Attorney General (and thus to entities under his direct control, such as the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives). By a straightforward application of inclusio unius exclusio alterius it is permissible for entities other than the Attorney General to create gun registries, using whatever information they can acquire from their own operations. For example, the Secretary of HHS may consolidate and centralize whatever firearms records are maintained by any medical or health insurance entity. The Secretary of the Army may consolidate and centralize records about personal guns owned by military personnel and their families."
Read the full article: http://www.volokh.com/author/davek/
According to that statement, Obama's next quote is very false:
"The Toomey-Manchin Amendment which may be offered as soon as Tuesday to Senator Reid’s gun control bill are billed as a “compromise” which contain a variety of provisions for gun control, and other provisions to enhance gun rights. Some of the latter, however, are not what they seem. They are badly miswritten, and are in fact major advancements for gun control. In particular, the provision which claims to outlaw national gun registration in fact authorizes a national gun registry. Here’s the Machin-Toomey text:
(c) Prohibition of National Gun Registry.-Section 923 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
“(m) The Attorney General may not consolidate or centralize the records of the
“(1) acquisition or disposition of firearms, or any portion thereof, maintained by
“(A) a person with a valid, current license under this chapter;
“(B) an unlicensed transferor under section 922(t); or
“(2) possession or ownership of a firearm, maintained by any medical or health insurance entity.”.
The limit on creating a registry applies only to the Attorney General (and thus to entities under his direct control, such as the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives). By a straightforward application of inclusio unius exclusio alterius it is permissible for entities other than the Attorney General to create gun registries, using whatever information they can acquire from their own operations. For example, the Secretary of HHS may consolidate and centralize whatever firearms records are maintained by any medical or health insurance entity. The Secretary of the Army may consolidate and centralize records about personal guns owned by military personnel and their families."
Read the full article: http://www.volokh.com/author/davek/
According to that statement, Obama's next quote is very false:
"...instead of supporting this compromise, the gun lobby and its allies willfully lied about the bill. They claimed that it would create some sort of "big brother" gun registry, even though the bill did the opposite. This legislation, in fact, outlawed any registry. Plain and simple, right there in the text. But that didn't matter." -President Obama
Another thing I noticed was the high level of passive aggression displayed by President Obama, Senator Blumenthal, and others when discussing this. I've heard statements like "We will not be defeated" and "We are not going away." Obama said, in his speech:
"I want to make it clear to the American people we can still bring about meaningful changes that reduce gun violence, so long as the American people don't give up on it...
I believe we're going to be able to get this done. Sooner or later, we are going to get this right."
There is this cocky certainty in all of the rhetoric that makes me uneasy. As if, they know something we don't.
Lastly, I'd like to sum this up with the president's own words:
"I want to make it clear to the American people we can still bring about meaningful changes that reduce gun violence, so long as the American people don't give up on it...
I believe we're going to be able to get this done. Sooner or later, we are going to get this right."
There is this cocky certainty in all of the rhetoric that makes me uneasy. As if, they know something we don't.
Lastly, I'd like to sum this up with the president's own words:
"I've heard some say that blocking this step would be a victory. And my question is, a victory for who? A victory for what? All that happened today was the preservation of the loophole that lets dangerous criminals buy guns without a background check. That didn't make our kids safer. Victory for not doing something that 90 percent of Americans, 80 percent of Republicans, the vast majority of your constituents wanted to get done? It begs the question, who are we here to represent?"
That is an excellent question, Mr. President.
Sources:
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/04/17/senate-gun-bill-votes-defeated-background-checks/2091131/
http://www.wtnh.com/dpp/news/politics/blumenthal-talks-about-gun-vote
http://www.whitehouse.gov/issues/preventing-gun-violence/action?utm_source=email209&utm_medium=text1&utm_campaign=nowisthetime
http://www.examiner.com/article/nra-controlled-senators-reject-background-checks-supported-by-90-of-america
http://www.infowars.com/gun-grabbers-react-with-outrage-as-second-amendment-is-upheld-in-senate/
http://www.quinnipiac.edu/institutes--centers/polling-institute/national/release-detail?ReleaseID=1877
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/gun-bill-dealt-setback-as-amendment-fails-2013-04-17?link=MW_pulse
http://www.volokh.com/author/davek/
Sources:
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/04/17/senate-gun-bill-votes-defeated-background-checks/2091131/
http://www.wtnh.com/dpp/news/politics/blumenthal-talks-about-gun-vote
http://www.whitehouse.gov/issues/preventing-gun-violence/action?utm_source=email209&utm_medium=text1&utm_campaign=nowisthetime
http://www.examiner.com/article/nra-controlled-senators-reject-background-checks-supported-by-90-of-america
http://www.infowars.com/gun-grabbers-react-with-outrage-as-second-amendment-is-upheld-in-senate/
http://www.quinnipiac.edu/institutes--centers/polling-institute/national/release-detail?ReleaseID=1877
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/gun-bill-dealt-setback-as-amendment-fails-2013-04-17?link=MW_pulse
http://www.volokh.com/author/davek/