Obama the other day spoke, and as usual, that means he either lied, distorted or made mistakes (that multiple people have corrected him on, many times, and he chose to ignore).
His tear inducing speech (from a man who uses robots to bomb thousands on foreign soil), he mentioned Fort Hood, SandyHook, Binghamton, Aurora (long before he was President), Oak Creek, Newtown, The Navy Yard, Santa Barbara, Charleston, San Bernardino, Gabby Giffords. All with guns that his new proposals wouldn’t have addressed.
His biggest complaint (and deception) was in this whole Gun-show/Internet “loophole”. There is no real gun-show or Internet "loophole". There are a few transactions happening that aren’t as regulated as the left would like — but this is like saying that we need to block all the commerce tax/regulation loopholes like:
- garage sales
- getting given a drink/cigarette at a friends house
- freecycling (where you sell/trade items you don’t need/want)
- neighbor kid washing your car, selling lemonadeor mowing your lawn:
Where are the W-2 or 10-99’s? Technically, the government isn’t getting it’s pound of flesh, but the problem is more in them wanting their zombie-chow than in failing to get it.
Fraud #1: He claimed,
"30,000 die because of guns".
Which is a fraud spread by polemicists. We know the 22,000 suicides might use guns for suicide, but they didn’t die because of guns (they died because they’re suicidal) — unless he’s honestly trying to imply that millions die by going to the hospital or seeing doctors (and not from their actual diseases). What we know is that, our suicide rates are LOWER than many countries with gun-control like Japan, Finland, and so on.
So if you have to start with a fraud, you’re not very honest, and going to polarize the informed against you. His base cheered, everyone else groaned.
"But we are the only advanced country on Earth that sees this kind of mass violence erupt with this kind of frequency. It doesn’t happen in other advanced countries. It’s not even close. "
Even if he was right, that would just say, "liberty comes with a price”. We are also the only advanced country that’s put a man on the moon, invented the Internet, or that does over half the world’s medical R&D, and subsidizes other countries national defenses, and so on. So we could correlate unlike things, as he does. But I’ll ignore the big stupidity, and just pick nits with the little ones.
No, we’re not the worst. We’re actually fairly low on the list even in OECD countries, but that’s cherry picking data. We’re very low for countries in the American hemisphere (where we exist, and that have more blacks/latinos/diversity), thus is probably a more valid comparison. When you adjust for population, there are far worse shootings globally — he just tried to exclude "severity" of mass shootings, and limit his statement to frequency, to hide the scale of the problem. Though frequency has spiked under his administration, and because he keeps drawing attention to them. Still, the biggest mass shootings happen in places with gun control (Norway, Russia, Germany, etc).
What we’ve known for 40 years, is that when you televise mass shootings and draw attention to them, you get more of them. Which is why his administration has gotten more than the last 2 or 4 combined (depending on where you put the thresholds). Thus, Obama is crying crocodile tears and giving as much attention as he can, knowing this will invoke more of them, so he can get more face time pretending to care, when any expert will point out the way he’s handling it, only makes it worse. But his base isn’t bright enough to care about that. So he’ll keep doing it.
"we’re here today. Not to debate the last mass shooting, but to do something to try to prevent the next one"….
… and that’s why he’s announcing gun control laws that would not have stopped ANY of the past mass shooters he mentioned? How does that make sense to anyone that’s informed on the topic?
"We all believe in the First Amendment, the guarantee of free speech, but we accept that you can’t yell “fire” in a theater. We understand there are some constraints on our freedom in order to protect innocent people."
Comparing 1st and 2nd Amendment dishonestly? Sure, yelling fire (and trying to hurt people / incite pandemonium) is against the law, so is murdering someone with a gun. His implication is that those who oppose him on this, would have a problem with the “Oliver Wendel Holmes invented ‘fire’ standard”. It might help to remember that construct was created in order to rationalize bigotry and the racism the progressives gave us with the Espionage Act of 1917, and imprison anti-war protestors against WWI. (It made the Patriot act look like something the ACLU wrote).
However, in the real world (not Obama’s fake-land where gun-rights folks oppose common-sense legislation), we already have more laws/restrictions “constraints" against the 2nd, to the tune of 30,000+ gun regulations — far more than we ever will against speech (I hope). So we’re not debating a common-sense standard like that, we’re discussing whether we need 30,000+1 gun regulations by questioning what good it will do.
Not every new constraint is a good one, and pretending that those opposing him are against ANY constraints, or ones as basic as "fire in a crowded theater” is not honest/fair. It is the tool of either the ignorant or the propagandist. A lie of omission, or a misleading comparison at best.
" A majority of gun owners agree that we can respect the Second Amendment while keeping an irresponsible, law-breaking feud from inflicting harm on a massive scale."
Yes, gun owners believe that, they just don’t believe the regulations he’s proposing will do anything to stop/slow that. So he’s misleading people that even gun owners agree with him, and the gross majority polled regularly do not. Most of us don’t like being lectured to by hypocrites with armed guards, who want to make legislation that harasses law abiding gun owners for the actions of few criminals (that he doesn’t want to do anything about).
"[background checks are] not seen as an infringement on the Second Amendment"
So let’s have background checks on voters, illegal immigrants, welfare recipients, those getting medical care, etc? Close the sanctuary city loophole? The left would consider all those things unnecessary intrusions on liberty, and definitely stretching into voter suppression (or other suppressions) and their rights.
The rational see these things as infringements on the 2nd… the question is whether they are tolerable infringements or not. Another mis-framing of the issue. He’s such a polarizing “community organizer” (see activist disruptor) that every speech is filled with false dichotomy fallacies — his way, or you’re an idiot/radical.
"Contrary to the claims of what some gun rights proponents have suggested, this hasn’t been the first step in some slippery slope to mass confiscation… this is not a plot to take away everybody’s guns."
We all know that he and the democrats would do far more to take away guns, if they could. So their intent is clear (they often get caught saying so). Obama kept comparing us to Australia and the success of their gun confiscation there, while ignoring the failure and increases in crime, etc., that it actually brought. Why do that, if your ultimate goal isn’t heading towards that ideal? To those paying attention, in one breath he’s saying he’d LIKE to follow in their footsteps — in the next he’s claiming, “why would you think we want to follow in their footsteps and take your guns — this is a completely new innocent intrusion into your rights”.
So he’s not being honest. He’s either lying to us when he says he doesn’t want us to be more like Australia, or he’s lying to us now when he says he doesn’t want gun confiscation — but it can’t be both. If he doesn’t want us to be like Oz, then maybe he should stop bringing up? Or stop being surprised that if he keeps bringing it up, that people might think that’s what he actually wants.
To those that remember his past comments about Oz (Australia), this is just as much as they can get away with, for now. So baby steps towards what he really wants. But the argument most make against these things isn’t about his ultimate goals. It’s that these laws are usually an ineffective annoyance (not just slippery slope).
There are virtually NO (zero) criminals stopped from getting a gun through these means — at best, a few dozen a year might be slowed down, and have to get them through the readily available black market. But you can’t stop mass shooters in places with absolute gun bans, so what makes you think a little regulation like this could do so?
However, there are many legal gun owners that are harassed by these regulations that fail to stop real criminals. There are fees and delays that annoy anyone whose wanted to buy a gun. There is the criminalization of the parent that gifts or loans a gun to their child or spouse (or other family member). These laws don’t stop the criminals, but they make the otherwise law abiding into criminals.
So the complaint is, “if you have a bad law, that isn’t enforced well, and that doesn’t work, and annoys the innocent, and gives the potential for abuse and corruption”, what should we do in that case? Expand the bad laws, or repeal and fix them? (Focus on something else?)
"The problem is some gun sellers have been operating under a different set of rules. A violent felon can buy the exact same weapon over the Internet with no background check, no questions asked."
This is the one that caused the twittersphere to become all atwitter with tweets on the tweet:
With responses such as:
If the truth is on your side, then you don’t have to lie. Someday, it’s going to be on Obama’s side. Today is not that day. Tomorrow isn’t looking good either.
This is so false, that anyone informed would admit it is a lie.
Even Liberal-Politifact begrudgingly admitted it wasn’t completely true. (Which is the closest they come to objectivity). It was funny watching the exchanges of people wondering how Politifact could spin this one (and then laughing and their yoga poses they had to stretch the truth into):
Here’s what that means:
- You can’t legally buy guns on the Internet without going through a dealer and background check
- You can’t legally ship guns, without going through a dealer (FFL)
- It is a felony (and violation of parole) for that felon to do any such thing
- It is a felony, if you knowing sell to that felon without asking questions (and filling out paperwork of transfer), so this almost never happens
- What you can do, is advertise a gun, and if someone lives near you, make an arrangement to meet face-to-face and sell them that gun, under the table, which is violating the law in many states. You can do the same exact thing for prostitution, drug deals, and even hiring a hitman — but no one honest would claim that it’s a “prostitution/hitman loophole”.
- You can advertise those services in Newspapers, bulletin boards, leaving flyers around, word of mouth with your friends — but it’s still illegal to advertise for illegal activity (which is also illegal). So what is another regulation going to do, but make it double-secret illegal, because the first 5 classes of laws you’re breaking by doing this activity aren’t illegal enough?
This is the exact same as saying there’s no law against selling fakeID’s on the Internet. True, but there’s a law against buying/selling fake ID’s in the first place, the Internet didn’t change anything. So they’re not "operating under a different set of rules" — these are the same sets of rules for all illegal transactions, and in fact stricter when dealing with guns.
FactChecker by far-left WaPo admitted it was worthy of 2 Pinocchio’s. Admitting the meat of the claim was highly deceptive at best:
"There is nothing unique about the Internet; the laws governing private transactions and interstate sales are exactly the same… Obama erred in saying the rules are different for Internet sellers. They face the same rules as other sellers — rules that the administration now says it will enforce better."
What they ignored is that this isn’t the first time he made these fallacious claims, so the lie can’t be a slip of the tongue, or something he can feign ignorance on — since he’s been tone deaf to the corrections for about 8 years so far. How many times do you have to repeat the same lie before FactChecker admits that it was more than just accidentally “misleading” of 2 Pinocchio’s and worthy of outright deception that 4 would mean?
Even Politifact admits one of many studies that shows very few are ever transacted this was (<3%), and of those, the gross majority are legal sales — you’d have to align up 2 criminals (a buyer and a seller) that are both willing to violate the law, before there would be an illegal transaction. If you dive deeper into the research, it’s worse than that — virtually all the mass shooters bought guns that passed background checks. A couple (Dylann Roof, John Houser), shouldn’t have gotten past them — but that shows the incompetence of government failing to do it’s job (not the need for more laws). No mass shooter has ever gotten them through the "internet loophole" (called meeting people on a social network and creating a black market face-to-face transaction).
And it gets worse for the meme — less than 0.7% of all criminals get their guns through the "Gun show loophole" that administration whines about. (People meeting at a gun-show and agreeing to do a parking-lot, or home exchange sale). The parking-lot exchange being against the rules of almost every gun show. Logic implies that the Internet Loophole would be much less frequent than the better anonymity and less electronic traceability of a gun-show.
Frankly, I got bored going through all the frauds and lies in his speech. That’s about 25% through it, and the rest goes off on silliness that has nothing to do with the mass shooting epidemic fed by daft speeches and free TV time. And his do-nothing proposals were mostly yawn-worthy, unless there’s some overreach (something he’s known for).
- Hire more people to do background checks: this is something he could have done on day-1 and no one cares about. In fact, it goes back to the Brady bill in 1994, and the promise that background checks would be point-of-sale (and not require long waits), that the gun-controllers have failed to deliver on for 22 years. The fact that they’ll now to try to do it, isn’t something that bug most gun owners — just the lies he’ll use to justify finally doing it.
- We’re going to try to enforce the laws we have: now that’s novel. Gun rights folks have been saying that all along too. A little better reporting on the laws we have isn’t likely to help anything (since most of the guns by mass shooters are legally gotten), but it isn’t going to hurt anything either. So it won’t do anything but convince the gullible that Obama cares enough to do something 7 years in, that he could have done on day-1 if he really cared.
- Help with mental illness: again, gun rights folks have been saying that for 30+ years. Most of the mass shooters seem to have, "taking anti-depressents" in common. The gun-suicide correlation is a fraud, and annoying. And his misleading comments about how ACA brought mental health treatment to the masses (when it was covered under almost all insurance already) is misleading at best. But good for him — address something now, 7+ years into your administration that you could have done on day-1. Good for you. Why didn’t you do this earlier?
- Gun safety technology – "safe guns" have been proposed and supported by the ignorant for 20+ years. The problem is nobody wants or would use them. These guns have existed for a decade or so, and no police force, military, or home shooter wants them — which is why they never sold. Heck, if he wants to lead by example, I’d say fine — arm the secret service with them, and we’ll go from there. (Others will probably start collecting them at that point, for comedic effect — take them to the range and show your friends how poorly they work in real-life situations — when seconds count, a dead battery only takes a few minutes to change).
The man is incapable of representing any topic in an intelligent and informed way (without misrepresenting the other side and the facts). Which is good enough for Democrats, but annoys the crap out of everyone else.
He blathered about how he taught constitutional law, but not how he’s had more Supreme Court Unanimous decisions against him than any other President (including FDR for God’s sake). The amount of dumb-fuckery in his speeches makes Carter look like a competent President.
Here’s the point — the President made many grotesque mistakes that were likely to offend anyone with a basic clue of the topic discussed.
He said the goal was to make a difference on the types of crimes that his very proposals would do absolutely nothing to address. Not one of the prior shootings he mentioned had gotten weapons in the ways that his new regulations would catch. Thus this will do nothing.
Even the AP (short for Administration’s Press: when a Democrat is in office) admits it would have never made a difference in any of the cases offered.
Summary: So to stop mass shootings, the President does nothing, but pretend to close an imaginary loophole (called the black market), by harassing the white market with some theoretical regulations that won’t make a difference on those either. Broke wind about safe-guns that no one cares about, or will use or buy. And cried crocodile tears that either demonstrated his hypocrisy, or the gullibility of those that bought his ridiculous gesture.