Obama-isms: 40%: Presidential Clue-Bat on "Universial Background Checks"

I spent last Christmas (December 25, 2013) with my son the Squid Kid and his family.  I gave cash to my grandchildren, family heirlooms (Edison Lamp, Crystal Pitcher) to my daughter-in-law), and firearms (revolver and rifle) to my son.  All of my gifts were part of my inheritance which I received from my mother; I wanted my children to benefit from my progeny.

I could do this, because there were no laws which restricted my freedom.

Yet.




Remarks by the President on Gun Safety | The White House:
(March 23, 2013)

The President on "Universal Background Checks":

 Why wouldn’t we want to close the loophole that allows as many as 40 percent of all gun purchases to take place without a background check?  Why wouldn’t we do that? And if you ask most Americans outside of Washington -- including many gun owners -- some of these ideas, they don't consider them controversial.  Right now, 90 percent of Americans -- 90 percent -- support background checks that will keep criminals and people who have been found to be a danger to themselves or others from buying a gun.  More than 80 percent of Republicans agree.  More than 80 percent of gun owners agree.  Think about that.  How often do 90 percent of Americans agree on anything? It never happens. 

This IS "old news" but it reflects on the state of mind of our president who made a point of saying that "we're not going to take your guns away from you" during his campaign(s).

Obama's "40%" figure has been widely criticized since he made that statement:  WaPo , and John Lot at National Review,  and Dr. John Lott at Fox news on April 09, 2013 and June 14, 2014.

Conservative websites have been jumping all over The Prez for over a year, and why?

Obama was criticized because the whole thing about "Universal Background Checks" was a POLITICAL issue, not a PUBLIC SAFETY issue ... and the Presidential Failure to do his own 'background checks' on the issue was so obviously lame that it was another Presidential Embarassment.

That reflected poorly on the Presidential Competence.  Not surprising in itself, but his  attitude on public addresses, especially policy statements sounds less like 'shoot from the hip' and more like 'devil may care' with each carefully prompted, prescripted speach.

Bengazi, IRS, NSA, Guantanamo, yadda yadda yadda.  We tend to turn a blank face to Obama-isms:

Until he hits on the Constitutional Issues, such as the Second Amendment.

"Universal Background Checks" sounds reasonable ... and when a Liberal talks about "Reasonable Issues", we need to wake up and listen for a few hisses in the perking coffee.


When Americans were polled on whether they favored "Universal Background Checks", they were handed a rubber check.  The term was not defined .. that' SO awkward when you're running a poll ... and most respondants assumed that it meant whatever they chose it to mean.

The Obama administration, however, applied an interpretation Ex Post Facto to mean whatever THEY chose it to mean.

Essentially, most Americans assumed that if you buy a gun from a dealer, you should go through a background check.   And the same criteria should apply at a Gun Show (viz: "Gun Show Loophole").

But if you "gift" a firearm to a family member, or if you die and your family inherits your firearms?

  That has historically been something that your family works out between themselves.  In other circumstances, if a gunowner hands a gun to his/her son/daughter and says "Merry Christmas!", it's a family matter.

No more, if Obama had his way.

A Winchester '73' which hasn't been shot in twenty years is treated like a fully-automatic AK47 under Obama Rules.

The government which treats heirloom gifts the same as it treats machine guns is poking its nose into business which it has no RIGHT to enter into.  And by the way, the Constitution acknowledes (not 'gives', but 'acknowledges) RIGHTS to THE PEOPLE, not to the government.  It properly imposes restrictions on the government.

We seem to have forgotten that.

Which suggests that the tentative Obama "Gun Safety Proposals" from the Obama administration were rejected by The People in the real polls, not just because people who are somewhere between "teantative" and "leery" about any proposal from the White house automatically voted NO, but because the "80% - 90% supportive" poll numbers were either bogus, or based on an unclear understanding of what the poll question suggested.

Bottom line: Americans may love their country, but they fear their government.

Whether you want guns to disappear from private hands or not, nobody wants to give Dear Leader with the power to aribitrarily confiscate guns.

Because if you can do that, you can 'infringe" on the OTHER nine articles in the Bill of Rights.

(Even in repose, the 2nd Amendment continues to protest the rest of the Constitution.)