Bang / Guns
See other Bang / Guns Articles
Title: On Gun Control, Obama Looks like Reagan and Bush
Source:
Mises Institute
URL Source: https://mises.org/blog/gun-control-obama-looks-reagan-and-bush
Published: Jan 6, 2016
Author: Ryan McMaken
Post Date: 2016-01-06 14:03:51 by Hondo68
Ping List: *The Two Parties ARE the Same* Subscribe to *The Two Parties ARE the Same*
Keywords: None
Views: 1541
Comments: 8
The Obama Administration is planning new gun restrictions to be implemented by executive order. In response, the Conservative media has expressed the expected outrage, with Donald Trump declaring that "pretty soon, you won’t be able to get guns." With these new measures, however, Obama isn't supporting anything that hasn't been supported by Republicans in the past. Both Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush have supported closing the so-called "gun show loophole," and both supported an "assault weapons" ban, which goes beyond what Obama is currently attempting. Here's George W. Bush in 2004 saying "my view is clear. I do think we ought to extend the assault weapons ban...I believe in background checks at gun shows or anywhere." Bush even attempts to portray himself as the "sensible" person in the room who supports more gun restrictions while others in both parties refused to support Bush's call for more restrictions. Ronald Reagan also supported national background checks and in 1991 wrote a column in The New York Times calling for sweeping changes in federal law on handguns that would greatly restrict access. Remembering the assassination attempt against him, Reagan wrote: This nightmare might never have happened if legislation that is before Congress now — the Brady bill — had been law back in 1981. Named for Jim Brady, this legislation would establish a national seven-day waiting period before a handgun purchaser could take delivery. It would allow local law enforcement officials to do background checks for criminal records or known histories of mental disturbances. Those with such records would be prohibited from buying the handguns. Reagan went on to bemoan the fact that there were not strong enough provisions for federal agents to punish gun dealers who are not thorough enough in their background checks. Naturally, we should not expect anything less from Reagan, who as governor of California supported some of the most draconian gun laws ever passed in the state's history (up to that time.) The right wing would have us believe that Obama is somehow unique in his animosity to guns, but if that's true it's only a small matter of degree. The fact is that every president during (at least) the past thirty years has been quite fond of restricting firearms ownership in the United States. This makes perfect sense, of course, since restricting gun ownership is the same thing as expanding the government's monopoly over the means of coercion. Dreaming of a larger and more powerful government — something every president does — goes hand in hand with wanting to centralize and expand government power over weaponry. Politicians like Obama, Bush, and Reagan have all decried the problem of gun violence one minute while advocating for more guns in the hands of government and its friends, whether it's selling military surplus to local police, or shipping guns to Central American, Syrian, or Iraqi death squads. It's hard to know what a future Republican, if elected would suddenly decide he supports among gun control measures. But we can guess. Chris Christie, the rapidly rising establishment darling among GOP candidates, has called Obama a petulant child for his gun control measures, but it's unclear that Christie would take a more gun-friendly position as president. Christie has rightly criticized Obama's threatened use of executive orders to get around Congress, but in terms of gun control, Christie — the latest darling of the establishment GOP — supports some of the most restrictive gun laws in the nation, and instructed his spokesperson in 2014 to note that Christie “supports New Jersey’s already tough gun laws.’’ New Jersey is perhaps the most restrictive state in the nation on guns. Ultimately, however, Obama may not even need executive orders to expand background checks. After all, four Republicans, including Rep. Steve King of NY were sponsoring new legislation to expand them and close the "gun show loophole" in 2015. No Evidence New Measures Would Work Most important, though, is the fact that there's simply no evidence that new restrictions such as these would actually work. Gun ownership is a simple matter of property rights. Owning a gun is no different from owning a computer or a car or real estate. All of these can be used for nefarious means, but with the exception of guns, people generally recognize that restriction of ownership in these cases should be determined on a case-by-case basis subject to due process. Few advocate for a nationwide ban on fast cars or alcoholic beverages even though the items annually are involved in thousands of fatalities. Unfortunately, the public can be easily swayed to abandon basic property rights if it thinks that gun control "works." There is no evidence, however, that it does work, since some of the states with the lowest homicide rates in the nation (lower even than Canada) also have some of the most unrestricted access to guns. Many states with highly restrictive gun laws, on the other hand, can have very homicide rates. Moreover, there's no historical evidence that gun control has led to lower homicide rates in numerous foreign countries as well, including England, where homicide rates are higher now than they were before gun control became fashionable in that country. At the same time, expanded background checks would have done little to nothing in restricting access to the famous mass shooters in recent years who have become the poster boys for the need for more gun control. Background checks only work on people with existing criminal records. One might argue then, that this proves that total disarmament (of non-government agents) is the only answer. But even leftists admit that a "zero-gun America" is an "impossible dream." And, in the end, gun control advocates are left explaining how the number of guns in the US has exploded over the past 20 years while homicides have been cut in half. Poster Comment: It's one big global gun grabbing, totalitarian nanny state party... D&R. 
According to gun industry insiders and others familiar with the proposals, the changes include requiring an expanded number of small-scale gun sellers to be licensed — and therefore conduct background checks — whenever selling a weapon. This wouldn’t close the so-called gun show loophole, though it has the potential to narrow it.
(2 images)
Subscribe to *The Two Parties ARE the Same*
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: hondo68 (#0)
(Edited)
That asshole Obama is shaking hands with in the photo sure as hell doesn't look like Reagan.
The emperor's dicates would've made no difference in the murders he cried about .
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
Reagan signed the Firearms Owner's Protection Act (1986), banning manufacture of automatic weapons for/by "civilians". doesn't look like Reagan. California Governor Ronald Reagan also signed the Mulford Act, banning open carry in the State. Governor Mitt Romney signed the semi-auto ban in Massachusetts. If you've seen one tyrannical gun grabber, you've seen 'em all. Yeah, it sure does not. But it does look like one asshole shaking hands with another asshole ! Si vis pacem, para bellum Those who beat their swords into plowshares will plow for those who don't Rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God. There are no Carthaginian terrorists.
100 Ways Republicans Are Just Like Democrats In a Cop Culture, the Bill of Rights Doesn’t Amount to Much California Governor Ronald Reagan also signed the Mulford Act, banning open carry in the State. Are you saying Reagan was like Obama because he was reluctant to have a population of California psychotics openly carrying home made machine guns on the streets?
a population of California psychotics Yes Are you saying that if someone calls you a psycho, you have to give them your guns? Freedom means that someone you don't like might have a gun, but you get to have as many as you like as well. "Shall not be infringed" means just that. I completed my first NRA training course in 1948. I later shot pistol at 100 yards that's yards,not feet, and have a CCW permit which I exercise. But I don't want to live in a state notorious for its high proportion of mentally unstable population with a collection of goofs openly brandishing home made machine guns and bristling with distorted hostility looking for someone to take it out on. There must be a sane limit.
#2. To: hondo68 (#0)
#3. To: rlk, *The Two Parties ARE the Same*, D 'n R gun grabbing tyrants (#1)
"We (government) need to do a lot less, a lot sooner" ~Ron Paul
#4. To: rlk (#1)
" That asshole Obama is shaking hands with in the photo sure as hell doesn't look like Reagan. "
#5. To: hondo68 (#0)
“Truth is treason in the empire of lies.” - Ron Paul
Americans who have no experience with, or knowledge of, tyranny believe that only terrorists will experience the unchecked power of the state. They will believe this until it happens to them, or their children, or their friends.
Paul Craig Roberts
#6. To: hondo68 (#3)
Reagan signed the Firearms Owner's Protection Act (1986), banning manufacture of automatic weapons for/by "civilians".
#7. To: rlk (#6)
Are you saying Reagan was like Obama
"We (government) need to do a lot less, a lot sooner" ~Ron Paul
#8. To: hondo68 (#7)
Are you saying that if someone calls you a psycho, you have to give them your guns?
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]