Where Is The Liberal Outrage Over Government Tyranny?

Gun edicts put personal liberty under fire


January 16, 2013

ANALYSIS/OPINION:

Where is the liberal outrage? Where is the liberal suspicion about powerful, unchecked governments? Where is the liberal unflinching devotion to individual liberty?

We have a president who has radically reshaped the landscape of American government so that it is more of a behemoth than at any time in history and more involved in every aspect of our lives. It is also more unanswerable than ever before.
Now this president is issuing 19 new edicts aimed at curbing individuals’ gun rights. At the same time, his federal agencies are stockpiling more and more weapons and ammunition.

And for what, exactly? To go hunting? To shoot the Chinese when they come to collect their debts? To shoot Mexicans tumbling over the Southern border? To shoot the Canadians?

What does the Department of “Homeland Security” suddenly need 1.4 billion more rounds of ammunition at the very point the same government is making it harder for citizens to arm themselves?

There are only 300 million of us. How many bullets do you need? That’s more than four bullets for every American man, woman and child. Is your aim really that bad? I mean, have you seen us lately? We are too fat to run very far.

You can say these concerns are some sort of Alex Jones, wack-nut, black helicopter paranoia or you can simply ask, “Why does the government need a billion more rounds of ammo just as it is trying to disarm citizens?”

And the lists. The lists of people who are deemed too mentally unstable to own a gun.
A principled liberal would be horrified at the notion that the government is going to keep giant lists of people who are criminals or who are deemed crazy or dangerous. And even more breathtaking is that these lists will be used to determine the degree of freedom those individuals will be granted by the government.

Do you remember the liberal outrage over the huge government list to keep people deemed dangerous from flying on airplanes? Ted Kennedy is turning over in his grave.
Now, of course, no one rightly objects to finding reasonable ways to keep criminals and wackos from getting their hands on guns. But it is shocking how easily and freely liberals have gone along with the notion of more giant government lists of crazy and bad people.

Then there is the debt-ceiling debate where we have a president who refuses to conduct an open debate over raising it. President Obama orders Congress to simply authorize the government to borrow for him a ton more money. And if they don’t comply with his wishes, then he will seek to take that power away from them.

The power of the purse in the hands of Congress has always been the check that keeps the president in balance. Only a lover of tyranny — not a liberal — would want to see that check removed.

Yet, most shocking of all, we have a Senate right now that is led by a cabal that wants to do just that. Literally, they are begging Mr. Obama to take that authority away from them. And, yet, not a peep from liberals.

And so, Wednesday dawns and Obama will reveal his 19 new gun-control edicts. He will, we are told, surround himself with children for the announcement.

Where is the liberal outrage?

• Charles Hurt can be reached at charleshurt@live.com.


Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/jan/16/hurt-gun-edicts-put-personal-liberty-under-fire/#ixzz2IANkWqrl
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter

 

Executive Actions on 'Gun Violence Reduction
Wednesday, 16 Jan 2013 12:30 PM
President Barack Obama said Wednesday he will take these actions by Executive Order:

1. Issue a Presidential Memorandum to require federal agencies to make relevant data available to the federal background-check system. (Oh no! How will my liberties survive this?)

2. Address unnecessary legal barriers, particularly relating to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, that may prevent states from making information available to the background-check system. (Oh no! My liberties!)

3. Improve incentives for states to share information with the background- check system. (The audacity!)

4. Direct the attorney general to review categories of individuals prohibited from having a gun to make sure dangerous people are not slipping through the cracks. (Oh no! My liberties…Again!)

5. Propose rulemaking to give law enforcement the ability to run a full background check on an individual before returning a seized gun. (Oh no! My liberties!)

6. Publish a letter from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms and Explosives (ATF) to federally licensed gun dealers providing guidance on how to run background checks for private sellers. (Oh no! My liberties…I’m so scared!)

7. Launch a national safe and responsible gun ownership campaign. (Oh no! My liberties!)

8. Review safety standards for gun locks and gun safes (Consumer Product Safety Commission). (Oh no! My liberties! The sky is falling)

9. Issue a Presidential Memorandum to require federal law enforcement to trace guns recovered in criminal investigations. (The damn tyranny!)

10. Release a Department of Justice report analyzing information on lost and stolen guns and make it widely available to law enforcement. (Oh no! My liberties!)

11. Nominate an ATF director. (Oh no! My liberties! Hasn’t happened in 6 years! )

12. Provide law enforcement, first responders, and school officials with proper training for active shooter situations. (Oh no! Not proper training. My liberties!)

13. Maximize enforcement efforts to prevent gun violence and prosecute gun crime. (Enforcing those laws! My liberties!)

14. Issue a Presidential Memorandum directing the Centers for Disease Control to research the causes and prevention of gun violence. (Research?! My liberties!)

15. Direct the attorney general to issue a report on the availability and most effective use of new gun-safety technologies and challenge the private sector to develop innovative technologies. (Innovation?! My liberties!)

16. Clarify that the Affordable Care Act does not prohibit doctors asking their patients about guns in their homes. (Prevention?! My liberties!)

17. Release a letter to healthcare providers clarifying that no federal law prohibits them from reporting threats of violence to law enforcement authorities. (Dr. Protection?! My liberties!)

18. Provide incentives for schools to hire school resource officers. (Not schools too?! My liberties!)

19. Develop model emergency-response plans for schools, houses of worship and institutions of higher education. (Preparedness?! My liberties!)

20. Release a letter to state health officials clarifying the scope of mental health services that Medicaid plans must cover. (A letter?! My liberties!)

21. Finalize regulations clarifying essential health benefits and parity requirements within Affordable Care Act exchanges. (Clarify essential health benefits?! My liberties!)

22. Commit to finalizing mental-health parity regulations. (Mental health?! My liberties!)

23. Launch a national dialogue led by Secretaries Sebelius and Duncan on mental health. (Talk about mental health?! My liberties!)

(Oh no! I’m practically living in a police state now!)

 

Problem is that almost none of them would have help in most any of the shooting except #23 (and, unlikely but possibly, #21).

 

But you'd have to admit that none of them really drag us to the edge of tyanny by any stretch of the imagination.

 

Here's a link to some reproductions of weapons available in the 18th century:

http://www.militaryheritage.com/muskets.htm

There is no way in hell that the "founding-fathers" could have anticipated that, one day in the distant future, a mentally-impaired person would be able to walk into a school with a semi-automatic rifle (and pistols) and kill 20 young children in a manner of seconds. There is no way in hell that they would approve of that, just to allow any and all types of specialized weapons to be placed into the hands of any citizen who wished them.

There is no doubt in my mind that they would be awe-struck by the sheer numbers and varieties of guns available to citizens today. There is no doubt in my mind that they would say "No Stu, you may not use a bazooka to signal a right turn at the intersection of Oak Street and Wholly Shit, He Has a @#$%^&* Bazooka! Avenue." (Sorry Stu, but I just don't see it) There is no doubt in my mind that they would put limitations on who may own what specific types of guns, ammunition, and explosives...especially since they themselves already had.

 

So you admit the they are making laws/rules/regulations that would accomplish nothing except to satiate some of the public and upset the rest.

FWIW, I just ran into an interesting statistic. There were more school shooting in Europe than America. And there were more school shooting in South America than America.

 

I wouldn't say that at all. I don't think that these executive orders go far enough but an executive order can't really make or change law. Executive orders really only enable the Executive branch to enforce the law.

So even though you couldn't directly answer my question, are these executive orders really such an infringement of our liberties? Honestly? Just give me a yes or no.

 

That can only be answered when I know how they are to be enforced, but there is nothing earth-shattering there except that they take my money to enforce a bunch of window dressing.

#1 and #5 I agree with, but the net of most all of that is to keep guns from the law abiding citizen. The criminals will not be affected significantly by them. The school shootings will continue unabated until they take care in the mental problems - not accomplish by his dream world nor yours.

 

This one is enough to set off alarm bells:

4. Direct the Attorney General to review categories of individuals prohibited from having a gun to make sure dangerous people are not slipping through the cracks.​

​

OK, on the surface it sound innocuous enough. But, I have to ask who is determining the "categories"? What are the prohibitions? Who determines who a "dangerous person" is? The Attorney General? Local law enforcement? Health care officials? What criteria are they using to determine a "dangerous person", i.e. a history of violence, threats or domestic abuse? The term "dangerous person" will need to be defined. This could potentially open a big can of worms. Doesn't it seem like more governmental control?

More Government = Less Liberty

 

I don't see anything particularly troublesome there from my viewpoint. Nor anything particularly powerful or game changing. And that is rightfully so. That is why we have the separation of powers and the checks and balances we have.

 

Yeah, we don't want to bother checking to see if there are ex-convicts, mental patients, violent spouses, or illegal aliens owning weapons. We should just trust that they know better. Geesh!

MY LIBERTY! MY LIBERTY!

 

Just like you do not "trust that they know better" when it was Bush, we don't "trust that they know better" with Holder. Need I remind you of the Black Panthers and Fast and Furious. And then there is this litle matter of his indictment.

 

Question:

You talk a lot about treating the mentally ill, how do you actually propose to do such a thing? Wouldn't that cost taxpayers, thus = loss of liberty by your overly simplistic pseudo-logic? Are you proposing a return to the 19th century mental hospital system? I haven't really seen anything from the Right crowd except lofty rhetoric and vague generalities about mental health.

 

I'm also concerned about YOUR LIBERTY! YOUR LIBERTY! After all, your liberty is as important as mine.

 

Except that Eric Holder was cleared, the Black Panthers do not exist, however, there are 3 gentlemen that call themselves the New Black Panthers, and I never trusted Bush on many things but even he called for an assault weapons ban. So apparently, you can't export Right-wing paranoia.

 

Cleared of what?
There are more than 3 "new Black Panthers".
Bush nor any of his administration never said that he wanted to "brainwash" the people. "We need to do this every day of the week, and just really brainwash people into thinking about guns in a vastly different way."

 

"Nough said...

 

Well bless your heart. I feel so much better. If I can reciprocate, I am concerned about your sanity.

 

Hum.
Holder is still indicted.

1, 2, 3, 4, ........
You really don't know why I included Holder's statement wanting to "brainwash" the people? I guess that went over YOUR head.

BTW, you keep throwing around the term "assault weapon". Yet, you can't even define one. BO/Holder's definition says that if you put a pistol grip on a legal rifle, it becomes an "assault weapon". If you put a thumb hole in the stock of a legal rifle stock, it becomes an "assault weapon". That is exactly why I said that you needed to define "assault weapon" previously - and I think any definition that includes cosmetic changes to a gun can turn a legal weapon into an "assault weapon" is beyond reality.