Don G. Dinsdale Loc: El Cajon, CA (San Diego County)

Daily Digest

The Patriot Post -- J****** 6, 2016

THE FOUNDATION

"A fondness for power is implanted, in most men, and it is natural to abuse it, when acquired." —Alexander Hamilton, 1775

Don't Cry for Me, Gun Controller

During his Tuesday press conference rolling out his over-hyped executive actions on guns, Barack Obama even shed a "tear" for the children. "Every time I think about those kids [k**led at Sandy Hook Elementary], it gets me mad," he said, wiping away a tear. "Our unalienable right to life and liberty and the pursuit of happiness — those rights were stripped from college kids in B****sburg and Santa Barbara," Obama said. "And from high schoolers at Columbine. And from first graders in Newtown. First graders. And from every family who never imagined that their loved one would be taken by a bullet from a gun." He continued, "We do have to feel a sense of urgency about it, because people are dying and the constant excuses for inaction no longer suffice."

And to think, Obama once said, "Part of this job is also the theater of it" and that's "not something that always comes naturally to me." Please.

He then proceeded to introduce measures that would do absolutely nothing to reduce crime or so-called "gun violence." He'll target only the law-abiding, and he will likely continue the lax enforcement for which his administration has grown so infamous. Every American should be incensed when lives are taken senselessly, but also when craven politicians stand on the coffins of innocent victims to trumpet their preferred gun control policy. If Obama really wanted to save lives, he'd work with Congress to push for things like fewer "gun free zones," which just happen to be where nearly every mass shooting takes place.

Instead, he lectured: "I believe in the Second Amendment. It's there written on the paper. It guarantees a right to bear arms. No matter how many times people try to twist my words around, I taught constitutional law, [so] I know a little bit about this. I get it. But I also believe that we can find ways to reduce gun violence consistent with the Second Amendment." He's just not interested in those ways. And the Constitution is far more than just a piece of paper, however much Obama seeks to shred it.


["Over - Hyped Ex. Action!"]

Obama's Gun Control Agenda Sets a Dangerous Precedent

By Nate Jackson · Jan. 5, 2016


One of the cardinal lessons of shooting a firearm is to be aware of what’s behind your target. In other words, don’t fire down range if there’s anything there you don’t want to hit. It’s clear from newly announced executive actions that Barack Obama knows exactly what’s down range, and he’s aiming for it — that would be you, law-abiding gun owner, as well as the constitutional restraints on his office. But take heart; it’s not all bad news, and even the bad isn’t as awful as it could be. Obama just needs to prove he’s not a lame duck by doing something — anything — about those dreaded guns.

As we noted yesterday, the Gun Salesman of the Decade has resolved to spend much of this year focused on “sensible gun control measures,” thus perpetuating the trend of more Americans buying firearms. His focus could also turn out to be very bad for his own side, both at the b****t box in November and for the advancement of more stringent gun restrictions, such as magazine capacity limits, outright bans and the like, none of which he actually tries to achieve with this series of actions.

That isn’t to say there’s nothing to see here. Two items in his list bear particular focus: Mental health considerations and expanded background checks.

Obama plans to allow healthcare providers to provide information about mentally ill patients to the FBI for its background check system. No one wants a mentally ill and potentially violent person to be able to buy a firearm in order to hurt or k**l people, but we expect that Obama telling states and agencies to violate HIPAA and snitch on patients isn’t going to survive in court. The sticking point has always been who defines “mental competence” in order to withhold Second Amendment rights. Furthermore, Obama’s implied assertion that this will deter “gun violence” is dubious.

The background check provision is both worrisome and peculiar, in that it could have some interesting effects that Obama didn’t' intend.

Obama will direct the ATF to focus on what it means to be “engaged in the business” of selling firearms. “Quantity and frequency of sales are relevant indicators,” the White House fact sheet says. “There is no specific threshold number of firearms purchased or sold that triggers the licensure requirement.”

In other words, Obama took a vague requirement and … did nothing to make it more specific. Instead, it will be left to the ATF to look for people “engaged in the business.” As The T***h About Guns' Nick Leghorn put it, “Either the Executive Action is simply Obama paying lip service to ‘closing the gun show loophole’ by appearing tough on private gun sales while actually doing nothing, or this is Obama being purposefully vague to allow his ATF to go after as many people as possible.”

On the other hand, Obama, already Gun Salesman of the Decade, might also become “kitchen table FFL dealer” creator of the decade. If he’s going to blur the line around what constitutes “engaged in the business” of selling firearms, then more Americans than ever could soon become not only gun owners but licensed firearms dealers.

Complicating the process by which trusts obtain items regulated by the National Firearms Act (NFA) targets already law-abiding gun owners, not criminals. If you try to find examples of NFA-regulated items being used in crimes, you’ll have to go back at least a decade. Even then there’s some disagreement since the federal government doesn’t track those crimes, likely because then they’d have to admit crime with such items isn’t a real problem.

In short, there is absolutely no rationale for Obama changing anything related to NFA items. It’s just a way to say “screw you” to the most enthusiastic gun owners — the “bitter clingers,” if you will. Most people can’t afford a $30,000 fully automatic M16, but most of the people who can are likely Republicans who donate heavily to the NRA.

Obama has done nothing to deter crime. Does anyone expect the gang bangers of Chicago, for example, to suddenly engage in only lawful firearms t***sactions? Murder is against the law, no matter the weapon used. Criminals won’t comply or be deterred by this new hoop.

It’s also worth reiterating that these measures wouldn’t have stopped a single recent mass shooting, from Newtown to San Bernardino. Obama knows that, which simply means he’s aiming for what’s beyond the target.

Meanwhile, one positive change is that people will no longer need permission from their local Chief Law Enforcement Officer to obtain an item regulated under the NFA, like suppressors. In some states, that’s a big deal, because individuals can’t procure NFA items when their sheriff or police chief refuses to approve any and all NFA applications.

Obama wants to appropriate “funding for 200 new ATF agents and investigators to help enforce our gun laws.” As we have noted previously, enforcement under Obama has become lax. We’re hardly in favor of expanding bureaucracy, but if enforcing the laws already on the books becomes a focus, then it might be a welcome change.

Far more worrisome than the specific proposals themselves, Obama’s actions continue a tyrannical trend: He demands his ideological preferences be passed into law, and when Congress declines, he takes action to do it anyway. As House Speaker Paul Ryan put it, Obama “is at minimum subverting the legislative branch, and potentially overturning its will.” Ryan added, “This is a dangerous level of executive overreach.”

Specifics aside, this lawlessness not only is a grossly unconstitutional executive overreach in itself, but it sets a precedent and a legacy that is dangerous to our Republic.


[GUN SALES UP, UP AND AWAY!]

Obama's New Year Resolution: Targets Guns

By Dan Gilmore · Jan. 4, 2016


Entering the New Year, Barack Obama is scheduled to meet with Attorney General Loretta Lynch to discuss how his administration can take executive action to create more gun control. In his weekly address Jan. 2, Obama pulled out all the rhetorical stops, evoking the Sandy Hook massacre and the shooting of former Rep. Gabby Giffords to say that he would make it a priority to use his phone and pen to enact more gun control regulation against the American people because Congress wouldn’t. “We know that we can’t stop every act of violence,” Obama said. “But what if we tried to stop even one? What if Congress did something — anything — to protect our kids from gun violence? A few months ago, I directed my team at the White House to look into any new actions I can take to help reduce gun violence.”

While Obama’s cronies guesstimate out how far he can go, the office of House Speaker Paul Ryan said the executive branch hasn’t communicated its specific gun control aspirations to Congress.


Seems like that would have been a prerequisite before Obama declared that the legislative body refused to act. Such a move from Obama guarantees that he will push Americans to continue purchasing firearms in record numbers before the feds descend with their regulations.


Obama opined that he received letters from “responsible gun owners” (as if the only gun owners that are responsible are the ones who agree with Obama) asking him to take action on gun violence. But the person acting irresponsibly is Obama.


The federal government has all the tools necessary to curb gun violence, all the laws already on the books to crack down on straw purchases, but Obama’s administration refuses to act. And because of that, criminals are allowed to walk free while gun-toting lovers of Liberty are viewed with deep suspicion. But Obama cares nothing of the law; he only has his ideology to push.

73STNGLKABEE

Obola, put armed gaurds at all schools like we do with banks and our money and you wont have to cry like a little b---h and embarrass us all. Also, I have studied long an hard on Sandy Hook and it appears as if it was an anti 2nd amendment stunt pulled of by homeland security, much more than an actual shooting. Look at how evasive all parties involved are when you inquire about the subject. Look into the facts of the case with impartiality.