Guns, guns, guns...

I haven't been blogging for a while, as you may have noticed. My car is down (no brakes) and I don't have the money to have them fixed professionally but I've got an old friend of my brother's working on them, as and when he can, so they're coming along slowly. In the mean time, I am going stir-crazy just sitting in the house staring at the TV all day. Or sleeping all day, which is what I've been doing since noon. I didn't hear about the President's proposed gun-control measures until just now (almost midnight) so I only just saw what he'd proposed. (Thanks to Chris Simmons for posting to Facebook a piece from the Wall Street Journal outlining what Obama has called for.) (Damn, that was an awkward sentence...)

I haven't heard any comment on this, from either side, but here's a couple of thoughts. (The synopsis of any of the President's proposals comes directly from the Wall Street Journal article.)

Mostly, it's nothing much beyond common sense, and centered mostly on making background checks easier and more uniform. I don't have a problem with background checks, but most of the Right seems to. They believe that any background checking will only lead to more information in their secret government file, which will be used eventually to take their guns away. Oddly, the Right has called for keeping guns out of the hands of the mentally ill; how they expect us to identify the mentally ill without checking the mental health background of gun buyers I haven't heard explained.

This I like: "Launch a national safe and responsible gun ownership campaign." I remember when I was a boy (nine or ten I think) I attended a gun safety course held at a local high school. It centered on resoponsibility, both for the gun user and the gun owner (though everyone in the class was far too young to buy a gun). It was informative, fun and not in the least anti-gun. Doing something like this on a national scale strikes me as a very good idea. I expect the Right to scream, "Political indoctrination!" at this proposal, but having been through such a class I don't feel the least bit politically indoctrinated. Since the idea has only just been proposed, their fears are as yet unjustified. It seems to me that the best way for the Right to keep this campaign from becoming overly political would be for them to become involved in the process, having some say in what the proposed campaign eventually becomes, but they appear to be more interested in knee-jerk condemnation than participation.

Something that I also expect the Right to object to: "Issue a Presidential Memorandum to require federal law enforcement to trace guns recovered in criminal investigations." I expect the Right to object to increased Police interest in their guns' histories. Even if the government is only interested in the guns recovered after they've been used in a crime; I think that the Right will claim that we should all fear what the government will learn about the movement of guns in our society. They're right, of course; that's the whole point. I don't have a problem with that.

One thing is sure to cause problems: "Nominate an ATF director." Even with the Republicans blocking every Presidential appointment as a matter of policy, blocking the appointment of an ATF director at this juncture will be hard to justify. The matter is made worse by the general distrust of the ATF that exists in the public mind (and that distrust has been well and truly earned, it must be admitted). But it seems to me that the ATF cannot be controlled without a director who can be held accountable to the legislature and the people; how can the lack of a director possible accomplish that kind of control?

This brings us to the most interesting point: "Provide incentives for schools to hire resource officers." I'm expect one of two things to happen because of this; either the Right will rise up in defiance over this unwarranted intrusion of the government into the lives of our children, or they'll rise up in celebration of their winning this point since armed-guards-in-schools was what they wanted all along. But rather than embrace their victory, I expect most of them to adopt the former stance. They're like that.

(While we're on the subject of the Right, does it bother anyone that I seem to be increasingly referring to the Right--and note the capitol R--as a monolithic entity? It bothers me.)

There's also a lot in this about mental health. I don't really have a problem with any of this; I think that mental health, like the mentally ill themselves, is a topic too much ignored by American society and I applaud the effort to alter this.

But the elephant in the room is the call to return the assault weapons ban to American law (also large capacity magazines and such). This is the thing that the Right seems most afraid of. They claim all sorts of evil and frightening things that this ban will bring on. But we had such a ban from 1994 until 2004; essentially the same ban Obama is now supporting but with a few more enforcement teeth. What I have to ask the Right is this: which of those "evils" came about after the 1994 ban? How was the nation damaged by it? Didn't the previous ban prove that such a thing is something we can live with? Until the Right addresses these questions, I don't see how their position can be taken seriously.

(On an historically correct note, it must be said that the previous assault weapons ban, while not as terrible as the Right claims, wasn't terribly effective either. It didn't do all that much to make such weapons unavailable, and it didn't do all that much to stem crime, according to most sources. That's why I don't much care if this part of the bill doesn't get through the House, as it may not. I think the rest of Obama's proposals are far more important. I do support such a ban, as I don't see any legitimate reason for ownership of them, but realistically I cannot expect great wonders to be performed buy it.)

One item that I have a problem with: "Issue a Presidential Memorandum directing the Centers for Disease Control to research the causes and prevention of gun violence." I'm not sure that this is a proper  use for the CDC. I'm not sure that the CDC's resources should be expended in this fashion. Nor do I think that they're the proper entity to perform such a task.

What I really do like is the speed of all this. Obama had originally called for a report from Vice President Biden outlining the situation and position options, to be delivered no later than the end of January; last week Biden promised something no later than the fifteenth. This took the Right by surprise; their anti-Obama media blitz was barely rolling. But then Biden beat that new deadline and delivered his report yesterday. The Right was caught off guard again. Obama could have taken a few days to mull it over, but he didn't. He delivered his position today.

Predictably, the Right is fuming, screaming "Tyranny!" to anyone who'll listen. But since most of this screaming is being done through their standard media outlets, Fox News and their legion of bloggers and paranoid web sites, they're mostly screaming at each other and not acheiving much. Most of the rest of us are saying, "Look at those people screaming!" without taking much note of what they're screaming about.

Like I said, I expect the reaction to the President's gun proposals to be downright nasty and not a little unreasonable. I have come to expect this of any gun proposal, and of any proposal made by Obama. I do note that every Right-wing site or blog that I've checked says that the more "controversial" of these proposals, like the assault weapons ban, will never get through the Republican-controlled House. But these are the same people who said Obama would never win a second term, so they can hardly be considered authoritative. In spite of my doubts, however, they may be right. In any case, it's going to be a fight.

The Blues Viking
The opinions here expressed are mine and if you don't like them you can get your own damn blog.


List: Obama's 23 Executive Actions on Gun Violence (Wall Street Journal)

Why gun groups say 'no way' to assault weapons ban (U.S. News)

Pushback on Obama's plan to stem gun violence (CNN)

Was the last assault weapons ban effective? (U.S. News)

The Big Lie of the Assault Weapons Ban (Los Angeles Times, 2005)