Sunday, July 22, 2012


A question besides the "economy" will haunt the debate this November . Gun control,  who will have the better solution .

After the Colorado , Aurora theater massacre a lingering question rises that is probably the key question on who will get elected .   Mayor Michael Bloomberg called on President Obama and former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney to explain what they would do about gun violence. President Barack Obama and Republican challenger Mitt Romney both have softened their positions on gun restrictions over the years. As they expressed shock and sorrow over the bloodshed at a Colorado movie theater, neither suggested that tougher gun control could make a difference, a notion that has faded from political debate.Romney signed a ban on assault weapons as Massachusetts governor. But as the presumptive Republican nominee, he now bills himself as the candidate who will protect gun owners' rights.While running for Senate in Massachusetts in 1994, Romney supported background checks and a ban on some assault weapons. “That’s not going to make me the hero of the NRA,” he said. Running for governor in 2002, he said, “We do have tough gun laws in Massachusetts — I support them. I won’t chip away at them. I believe they help protect us, and provide for our safety.” You can say that the issue of gun control has been swept aside by the politicians . Piratically  the Democrats over the years have toyed with having laws on the book . I have found that almost every state in the Union along with the Federal laws have enough measures to deal with guns . I am also a bit aghast that regardless of how many laws our nation has it does no good to the effect of gun violence . Obama him self along with Romney both have flipped and flopped about guns , all politicians evolve...they evolve, according to the polls, or there base or the lobbyists or donators...then they evolve back to their beliefs. some just hide their agenda, belief's & plans for change, a little better than others...and then some just out right lie about it!  


Forgetting for a moment scandals such as Fast and Furious, there are four individuals that define Obama’s views of firearms and the second amendment.  Again, true enough. Romney has some explaining to do on the campaign trail.  But understanding why Romney is speaking before the NRA and Obama is not requires only that one understand the people with whom Obama has surrounded himself.  The President cannot pass laws, but the President can do two things that are unique to the office.  He can appoint judges, and he can fill positions in the executive branch of government.Next, consider Obama’s nominee for head of the ATF, Andrew Traver.  John Richardson does a good job of examining the larger aspects of the Traver nomination within the context of his history.  But the single most telling thing about Andrew Traver is his work with the Joyce Foundation, and specifically, his positions in the report entitled Taking A Stand: Reducing Gun Violence In Our Communities.  Among the other onerous regulations on firearms manufacturers and owners, they would require ballistic fingerprinting of all firearms, otherwise called “microstamping.”  But the single most bracing position taken by this study group has to do with federal oversight of the firearms manufacturing industry.This oversight and regulation would involve the Centers for Disease Control, ATF, Justice Department and other federal organizations.  However controlling and oppressive this would be, the third example that should interest us involves Obama nominee for the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, Caitlin J. Halligan, who in her tenure as Solicitor General of the State of New York, attempted to hold firearms manufactures and retailers responsible for crimes committed with guns. In 2006, Halligan also filed a brief arguing that handgun manufacturers were guilty of creating a public nuisance.  This caused an almost incredulous rejection by the New York Court of Appeals.

Here is a bit more to this NOTE :
Fast and Furious. Hundreds dead due directly to ATF allowing firearms to be smuggled to Mexico without (1) informing the Mexican government or (2) having any way to track them once they crossed the border. Best guesses why this was allowed range from complete and utter ineptitude at the highest levels of ATF and DOJ and DEA and DHS, to a conspiracy designed to subvert 2nd Amendment rights “under the radar” with bad publicity about US guns getting to Mexico, to covert support for one drug gang against others, to complete corruption of many of those involved.


How Holmes acquired weapons . Here is one last antidote .   Holmes, just last May, walked into the Bass Pro Shops store in Northfield and walked out with a glock handgun and 870 Winchester shotgun, no one thought much of it.The guns are commonly sold over the counter to anyone who passes a CBI and FBI background check, as Holmes, who has just a traffic offense on an otherwise spotless criminal record, did.
“Based on the records we have reviewed, personnel in our Denver store correctly and fully followed all Federal requirements with respect to the sale of one shotgun and one handgun to the individual identified in this incident,” said a statement released by Bass Pro Shops. “Background checks, as required by Federal law, were properly conducted, and he was approved.”Holmes purchased a third weapon, a semi-automatic AR-15 assault rifle, at the Gander Mountain store in Aurora just a mile from the movie theater where he allegedly mowed down dozens of unsuspecting moviegoers.That, too, was bought over the counter, after Holmes passed a background check.

No comments:

Post a Comment