In my "Welcome to the White House" post (which is below this one), I said I wished President Obama success. With some caveats:
I wish you great success as President, Mr. Obama, although there are some specific issues that I admit I wish you less success, and in fact, failure, as I believe our definitions of what constitutes a successful endstate differ somewhat dramatically.
What follows would be one of those caveats.
I wish you great success as President, Mr. Obama, although there are some specific issues that I admit I wish you less success, and in fact, failure, as I believe our definitions of what constitutes a successful endstate differ somewhat dramatically.
What follows would be one of those caveats.
Brady Sends Obama Its Pre-Inauguration Wish List
Friday, January 16, 2009
No one, including the Brady Campaign, seriously believes that Barack Obama was elected president because of his support for gun control. But Brady is pretending that it provided Obama the margin of victory in November, and has provided him with a very long list of gun bans and other restrictions that it expects from him in return.
If for no other reason, Obama might want to tell Brady "no," because if he were to do their bidding, they would be sure to demand that he do even more. That's demonstrated by Brady's statement that their current request "is not intended to present an exhaustive list . . . but does provide a starting point." It includes:
A California-style "assault weapons" ban. For several years, Brady has referred to California's ban--which is far more restrictive than the federal ban of 1994-2004--as the "model" for the rest of the nation. Brady doesn't say so, but it clearly supports--as does the Violence Policy Center--the California--like ban that Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D-N.Y.) has proposed in Congress since before the 1994 semi-automatic firearm ban expired. Among its differences from the 1994 ban, the McCarthy bill would ban rifles like the AR-15, even if they do not have a flash suppressor, bayonet mount, or adjustable-position stock. It would ban the M1, the M1 Carbine, the Ruger Mini-14 series, the SKS, and many other semi-automatic rifles not previously labeled as "assault weapons." And it would ban every semi-automatic shotgun, by banning its receiver. Brady wants .50 caliber rifles banned as well.
A ban on standard magazines designed for self-defense. Brady calls them "high-capacity," but magazines that hold more than 10 rounds are designed for self-defense, as demonstrated by the fact that most guns that use standard defensive magazines (those holding more than 10 rounds) are handguns designed for self-defense, and used for that purpose by private citizens, law enforcement officers, and military personnel alike.
Now's as good a time as any to dispel one blatant lie that Brady includes with its wish list. Brady says, "Beginning with the Brady Law in 1993, the assault weapon ban in 1994, and other Clinton Administration policies, our nation experienced an historic decline in gun crime and violence," adding, "during the Bush years, gun crime increased as the Administration and Congress . . . allowed the assault weapons ban to expire [and] gave the gun industry special legal protection."
The truth is, violent crime began declining in 1991, three years before the Brady Act and the semi-automatic firearm ban, and more than a year before Bill Clinton took office. And, the nation's violent crime rate has declined another eight percent since President Bush took office.
Moreover, in 1998, the Brady Act's waiting period on gun sales ceased, because it was replaced by the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS), which the Brady Campaign has always opposed (though they try to take credit for it today, inappropriately referring to NICS checks as "Brady checks.") And, contrary to Brady's prediction that crime rates would soar if the semi-automatic firearm ban expired, the ban expired in 2004, and since then violent crime rates have been lower than anytime in the last 31 years.
Repeal the recent Department of the Interior rule allowing state law to determine how firearms may be carried in National Parks and wildlife refuges. Brady offers no evidence to support its hunch that allowing permit-holders to carry concealed firearms "would increase the risk of gun crime, injury and death in the parks and wildlife refuges." But as for Brady's hunches, for the last 20 years it has predicted that allowing people to carry guns for protection will cause murder rates to soar, but people now carry guns for protection in 40 states and since 1999, murder rates have been lower than anytime since the mid-1960s.
Repeal the Tiahrt Amendment and the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA). Brady complains that the Tiahrt Amendment "restricts disclosure of the data to law enforcement," and prevents the BATFE from disclosing firearm-tracing data to the public. The first claim is a lie. The amendment allows BATFE to provide the data to any law enforcement agency involved in a bona fide investigation related to a traced firearm.
Tracing data is not released to the public so that, among other reasons, criminals won't know that the police are investigating them. Brady should just tell the truth, for once: even though the BATFE and Congressional Research Service repeatedly state that tracing data are not reliable enough to draw conclusions about the criminal use of guns generally, Brady wants the data so it can concoct bogus claims to use in lawsuits against firearm manufacturers who comply with every applicable firearm law. These lawsuits are currently prohibited by the PLCAA, which Brady hopes to overturn.
Require all firearm sales to go through NICS (advocated by Mr. Obama's choice for Attorney General, Eric Holder), and allow the FBI to retain the records of all NICS-approved firearm transfers. It used to be that Brady claimed that the only private transfers that it wanted run through NICS were those taking place at gun shows. Now, it's all private transfers, including gifts between family members and sales or trades between friends. And, it wants the FBI to record all transfers. Translation: Gun and gun owner registration, no two ways about it.
Allow a NICS check to reject someone whose name is on an FBI watch list. This is yet another idea recommended by prospective Attorney General Holder and Obama adviser Rahm Emanuel. The obvious problem with it is that you can get on one of these lists by having the same name as a suspected criminal or terrorist, and if you are on a list, you may not be able to determine which one you are on, much less get yourself removed. Sen. Ted Kennedy even ended up on a "no fly" list, for reasons that have not been made public.
Prohibit the sale of more than one handgun to a single individual in a 30-day period, in order to thwart "large-volume" illegal gun traffickers. Federal law already requires a dealer to report to law enforcement authorities whenever a person buys more than one handgun in a five-day period. This proposal amounts to the rationing of a constitutional right with no crime-reduction benefit.
Require all new guns to micro-stamp ammunition with serial numbers linking the owner in a federal gun-owner registration database. Most crimes are solved by other means, not by ammunition markings, and criminals could easily deface the firearm parts that would bear the serial numbers. Brady's agenda isn't about solving crimes; for them micro-stamping is another way of achieving gun and gun owner registration.
Require consumer safety standards for firearms. Even the vehemently anti-gun Violence Policy Center has said this would lead to standards too difficult for firearm manufacturers to achieve, thus ending firearm production.
We close with yet another Brady lie, "These proposals are clearly constitutional under the U.S. Supreme Court's recent Second Amendment decision in District of Columbia v. Heller and they pose no threat to the interests of law-abiding gun owners." Heller clearly said that laws cannot deprive people of the Right to Keep and Bear Arms for defensive purposes. As for "the interests of gun owners," we'll follow the Supreme Court's example, and let gun owners speak for themselves. The Court declared D.C.'s handgun ban unconstitutional because gun owners consider handguns to be the type of firearm best suited for self-defense.
Copyright 2009, National Rifle Association of America, Institute for Legislative Action.
This may be reproduced. It may not be reproduced for commercial purposes.
I hope he miserably fails, and I'm praying he changes his mind on that one.
Armorer=squish
SWWBO≠squish.
yeah, he's going to do things we don't like. There's a couple of bedrock stuff in there for all of us at one point or another.
But here's something else me thinks people who are contemplating making pacts with Down Below to make the President fail should consider: his failure screws us all. If he's seen as a total failure and not representing the people how'll it go over in FP, eh? You want people to come back whole and alive from Iraq and 'Stan(and the plethora of little missions that don't get the attention they deserve), right? How likely is that with him being crippled at home? It isn't just Obama who's got skin in this. I for one want Unka Bill and Honan and Sgt. B to come home(and a Santa's-list--for-all-children-sized list of others too). Are they worth Obama failing? Not to me, not ever.
Fine, the other side are whinny babies. Do we have to be? I say no. Fight him and his zealots on bedrock principles, but just wanting him to fail across the board? That's just the stupidest of partisanship. Sure, I'd luuurve for a little payback over the last 8 years. But, with the stakes that're involved to get it, it simply isn't worth it.
Ry,
I hear you, but is letting our nation fall into the hands of a Socialist, with zero respect for our military or the job they've done overseas, worth it? Do you really think that Obama's squish factor is going to help B or Bill get home safe? I don't. I believe it's going to HURT their chances. I know we believe the war in Iraq is basically over, but now that we have a softie for a president, AQ isn't going to have a problem stepping back over that border and destroying everything our military (any many other countries too) has done. He wants to pull them out too quickly, which will not help. He's squeamish and soft, and the world will see that there's no substance in the words that flow from his stern face.
He's had 2 miserable years in Congress to prove that there's substance behind his words, but yet he's done NOTHING. NOTHING.
And all the while, our Democratic-lead House and Senate have lead us down a path of destruction, while blaming a single man- President Bush.
Now that we have a completely Democratic-lead government, I shudder to think what they'll do to us all.
So yes, I want him to fail. QUICKLY.
I want him to fail so that we can get a real leader, a real warrior, a real MAN in the White House.
AH, but baring impeachment, we've got four years to wait until a warrior-president(is that like a philosopher-king?) to get elected. Good luck on that impeachment, especially since you can't be impeached for poor performance, just high crimes and misdemeanors. SO, adults are left with one real option, don't do anything stupid to sabotague the current Pres' FP(like the nonsense we saw from the left). Period. That's all we, the avg moe, can do beyond voting in 2010 for a more conservative Congress to tie his hands.
So, there you are. Hate the cards you've been dealt all you want, it doesn't change the fact that this is the path the country is going on. Accept it, change it, or get out. You've not the power to change it, not in any realistic time frame, and so you're stuck with the other two.
Impeachment??
Never mentioned it, Ry.
I said I want him out as soon as possible- which is most likely in 4 years. I'm really not that naive or stupid.
Sabotage?? Never mentioned that either.
What I *did* say is that I won't stand by and just watch him run our country into the ground without a peep and with complete submission. There's NOTHING American about that. NOTHING.
Maybe you're ok with being walked on, trampled, and flattened by this man and the policies he wants to put in place, but I'm not.
Personally, that's the outcome I would most like to see. I don't simply want him out. I want to see him beaten. I want to see him live out a very long and healthy life, with every day, every hour, every minute of it spent in the sure and certain knowledge that given the most power and the greatest opportunity it's possible for someone in his line of work to have, he failed more completely than anybody else ever has or ever will. I want that to be the last thing he thinks of every night, and the first thing he thinks of every morning.
Yes, I'm a vindictive son of a bitch. What was your first clue?
LOL.... I can just see you as Bugs Bunny, sitting up against a tree, munching on a carrot, winking at the camera and saying "Naughty, ain't I??" and laughing....
Wow. So accepting the votes of a couple million and the Constituional order for change of gov't means I'm milquetoast? Yeah, um hum.
really, AFSis, you might want to go take a look at a Daily Kos post from 2006, becaue you'll see the same rhetoric and passion mirrored there. You're going into the same agrieved, '"I'm oppressed"(queue music, what happened to the boom box? BCR, dang, if you need parts can't you just throw me over the walls with a list using the Catapult like everyone else? Jeez.) victimhood stuff as the Kosites.
He'll jack stuff up. Fine. We'll fix it. We did before----Reagan undid a bunch of prior Administrations' crap. Bush 2 did others. There's no real point to get soooo worked up over it, to turn him into Kruschev, and your own gov't into the Politburo that must, MUST!, be taken down because they've killed once and you know they'll kill again! I mean, really.
For me, today was just another day. "Black man as President, ho-hum. Okay, RBBH, where's the mustard for my chilli-dog?"
But, AFSis, I'm calling BS on your feigned niavete. Didn't we just spend 6 years complaining that the dems by how they were going about their disagreement were sabotaguing the President, when the President was named Bush? That didn't magically change just because Obama became President nor were we given ad hoc absolution for doing the same BS. Live what you preach. IIF it was true 4 years ago it's still true today.
Ergo, what you're teaching your kids is that when their side loses an election it's okay to throw a tantrum and work to undermine a legitimately elected gov't because it isn't going to do what they want. When our guy won we told them, hey, we won we get to have our policy. Well, they felt much of that was 'ruinging the country'. Now it's our turn. Chitsandwhiches don't taste very good, but, yes, it's our turn.
As John says, it's the social compact. You bought into it. You went to public schools, you keep your AMerican citizenship, and ergo it's your duty, as an American, to take a bite o' that 'which because in a few years you're going to expect someone else to do the same thing when they're just as angry and passionate as you when they've lost. Do as you would have other's do onto you, not as other's have done onto you.
But, ultimately, I'm not as scared as the rest of you that he's going to radically change the country. Look at everything FDR did, including trying to pack SCOTUS to get his way, and we're still who we are. You mean to tell me this guy with little clout and hamstrung by a Senate that has some dems from conservative districts is a bigger threat than the New Deal? A funny looking guy from Hawaii is a bigger problem, is more likely to really succeed, than the guy who had a massive and invisible political machine and a much more complicit press? I'd like to see your work on that one because it has me confused. 'Saint' FDR couldn't dramatically change the country, or ruin it, but you're worried about Obama succeeding? Mountians of molehills.
He's just a man. It's just a day. Anything he does we can undo.
1) The Jackass Party has already demonstrated that "when their side loses an election it's okay to throw a tantrum and work to undermine a legitimately elected gov't because it isn't going to do what they want." By destroying Bush's presidency and then winning this election with a campaign built entirely on lies, they've proven for all time that savagery works. It's an example of the Universe's cruel, malignant sense of humor that the party which repudiates war with people who really want to kill us, actively embraces the concepts of total war when it comes to domestic politics.
2) FDR did in fact "dramatically change the country" in a lot of ways. Two Supreme Court decisions form the core of the expansion of federal power, Griswold v. Connecticut (1928) and West Coast Hotel v. Parrish (1937) with the second being arguably the more damaging one. Parrish overturned fifty years of precedents that said the Constitution did not allow the federal government to regulate businesses. By a 5-4 majority, the Court validated a federal minimum-wage law, using unbelievably specious reasoning that could be extended to virtually any business regulation, and soon was. Before Parrish, almost no New Deal laws passed court muster; after Parrish, almost none were struck down. The consensus among Court historians is that Justice Roberts switched his vote on Parrish, after voting the other way on at least one similar case, entirely because of political pressure being exerted by FDR against the "nine old men" of the Court.
The Parrish decision was the catalyst for the explosive expansion of the federal regulatory power. It's spread like a fungus ever since, gradually forcing its way into virtually every aspect of our lives. All thanks to FDR.
Oh and I'm COMPLETELY in favor of abortion...and even I don't want us using foreign aid money to pay for abortions in other countries. Let them pay for their own abortions, damnit!
There is NO reason our tax money should be funding abortions- not in our country, and certainly not outside our country.
I dont' deny that FDR did change things? But DESTROY? Oh, hell no. And we're changing what he broke. The mentality that we're facing as serious a threat as serious as the Soviet Bear, out to so radically change us that we'll never be the same, is just so much fear mongering and hyperbole.
In my mind the greatest damage FDR did was apopointing his SCOTUS. He did that by intimidating SCOTUS by threatening to add judges so he'd get his way, because the public loved him so the jurists walked away rather than make him do it, but that's not possible now. So acting like it is, yelling, 'I'll never be civil, I'll spit on every thing Obama does', just reduces your impact as you can be spun, easily, as a loon.(I.e. I know my history, homeboy. What I'm surprised is that people are saying, well, he almost destroyed the nation so lets repeat his methods.)
The point is to be loyal opposition, equal emphasis. Just opposition is stupid as you ruin what you want to protect(see the last 8 years). being overly loyal means you watch what you love errode. YOu have to walk a fine line, and some people 'round here don't wanna walk a fine line. They want to grab the claymore over the mantle and play Braveheart. That's just so arrogant and selfcentered.
Believe me, I'm a great fan of WT. Sherman. But the lesson from the man is two and not one. He stood for order, and he'd be brutal, if necessary, to maintain it. If you devolved to savagery without any limits(the democrats of the last 8 years) then you destroy the order, THe REpublic with it, that you claim to love.
Of course our job is harder. What's you're point? Are we too scared to try to do it the way that actually leaves us with a functional Republic? Yeah, suck it up a little bit, and do it the right way or you've doubled down on the damage the democrats have done.