So Close Yet So Far Away

7/29/2019 So Close Yet So Far Away

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/so-close-yet-so-far-away 1/4

So Close, Yet So Far Away: My thoughts on President Obama’s gun control plan.

In the past week, President Obama unveiled a list of proposed executive orders as

well as a plan he would like to take place aimed at curbing gun violence in theUnited States. He has received both praise and criticism for this, from all sides of theaisle. After taking a little time to research just what all this means, I wanted tooutline my thoughts about the issue. Take a look – it might surprise you…

It is important to this discussion to understand that there is a difference betweenthe executive actions that Obama has released and the plan that he has proposed.The executive actions are Obama’s personal actions as President, whereas his

proposed plan is a collection of laws that he would like to see Congress pass on theirown. These two are NOT the same thing, and therefore must be discussed, criticized,or praised separately.

The Executive Actions

First, I will tackle the 23 executive actions (which you should note are not ALLexecutive orders as some are memorandums, etc.). For reference, you can see themall in a list here under one of the updates:http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2013/01/16/obama-to-announce-gun-control-proposals-shortly/

From what I have seen, all of these actions deal with background checks, mentalhealth issues, and providing education for those who need it. Despite what I was

expecting, these actions do not limit the rights of gun owners and do not limit what types of guns or gun accessories citizens can purchase/posses. In my opinion, all of these actions are within the President’s power and are even good for the country.

Many of these actions increase the time it takes people to obtain firearms, which isdone in an effort to keep people from making rash decisions. This will beparticularly effective in preventing suicides, as many suicides involve a legallypurchased handgun. By increasing the time it takes between applying to get afirearm and actually being able to purchase one, you may reduce the amount of suicides that are committed “on the fly.” Other actions include sharing backgroundcheck information between the federal government and the states as well asanalyzing and tracking information on guns that are stolen or used in a crime.

Romans 13:7 directs us to give honor where honor is due, and I must say that agreewith the majority of the President’s 23 actions (although I do NOT agree with hisdecision to use children in his announcement ceremony). But don’t get comfortable,

liberals, as I have plenty to be unhappy about.



The Plan for Congress

Now, I will tackle the President’s proposed plan that he has called on Congress toenact. Following is a list of my criticisms. For reference, you can see Obama’s

complete proposed plan published here:

http://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/556943/white-house-now-is-the-time.pdf

First Criticism: Obama’s call to require background checks for all gun sales - I do think this makes sense on a logical level, however I have a smallreservation. While the plan includes exemptions for sales of firearmsbetween family members, I think that requiring a background check in non-gun show private sales puts undue burden on the citizen selling the firearmsimply because of the cost that a background check incurs. If a freebackground check system was implemented for this purpose, I wouldprobably be ok with this idea. Until then, I am reluctant to support it

(although I do support closing the gun show loop hole).

Second Criticism: the call to reinstate the assault weapons ban and tolimit magazine sizes - Assault rifles are rarely used in gun violence and areresponsible for fewer deaths per year than a hammer. We cannot ban anobject simply because it has the potential to cause harm, especially whencitizens have the constitutional right to own such object. We should insteadprevent the harm from occurring by getting to the root source of the harm.

Now I know there are some who would say, “The Constitution does not say

anything about assault rifles,” and this is, in fact true. But it also does not say

anything about Muslims, Buddhists, Christians, or Atheists, yet all of thesegroups get protection under the first amendment because the first amendment applies to all religions. Why would the second amendment not apply to many types of arms?

I believe that citizens have the right to own assault rifles to protect themselves against the tyranny of a government (should that occasion everarise). That being said, it is obvious that criminals are attaining these gunswhen they should not be, and we need to fix that issue. We need to come upwith a good, permanent solution, but until that is achieved, a temporarymeasure COULD be considered. I could only support the assault weapons ban

being reinstated IF (and only IF): the ban only applied to military-styleassault rifles, the ban would be temporary (10 years or less), AND it would“grandfather” in those who currently own such firearms. I would not support a ban under any other circumstances. I DO think, however, I can support ameasure to limit magazine sizes (again, providing that current owners aregrandfathered in, yet prohibited from selling them).



Third Criticism: the call to more severely punish those responsible for guntrafficking - While I am not opposed to this, I cannot help but wonder whythe President did not feel the need to propose this change in the wake of the“fast and furious” scandal. It was relevant back then, why wait until now to

fix this problem? Perhaps we should also stop trafficking guns into other

countries to be used against our own citizens…

Fourth Criticism: the call for Congress to pump $4 billion into paying15,000 cops’ salaries for a year - While I would love to see more security,this is just another mini-stimulus. At $16 Trillion in debt, this country cannot afford to continue to pump billions into programs that cause only temporaryrelief. A year from now, these same 15,000 cops will be without a job unlessanother $4 billion is granted. So, instead of creating more expensive short-term plans that kick the can down the road, perhaps a more long-termsolution (say, reduce the debt and fix the economy?) is in order.

Fifth Criticism: the repeated call for Congress to grant money to a variety of programs, whether it is in new funds or in increases of existing funds -Again: $16 Trillion. I would like to see more money go to these programs asmuch as anyone else, but what part of $16 Trillion are people having a hardtime understanding? We MUST STOP SPENDING more money than we have.Every minute that ticks by, our national debt increases. Yet every day that goes by, someone is proposing a new way for us to spend money. Goodintentions, but it’s just not something we can afford right now, as much as weall may dislike it.

General Points

I would like to address a couple points on gun control in general. Guns do not commit crimes; people commit crimes. Guns are not weapons by nature; they onlybecome a weapon when used maliciously. I’m sure you’re tired of hearing this one,

but: cars, hammers, fists, and baseball bats can all be used as malicious weapons, but you aren’t proposing a ban on those. Criminals, by definition, break the law andtherefore no manner of gun control laws will stop them from committing crimes.Despite all of this, we can’t sit idly by and do nothing, and we must work together to

find solutions that prevent violence, yet promote freedom for all. Being opposed toany solution that the other side suggests is not productive in any sense, so pleasekeep your mind open!



Hitler and Gun Control

Lastly, I’ve heard a lot of mentions lately about Hitler and gun control. There are a

lot of misconceptions about this from both sides, so I want to try and dispel somerumors and give some facts. Keep in mind that I am a history major with an

emphasis in WW2, Nazi Germany, and the Holocaust. I’m not necessarily anauthority on the subject, but I do know more about it than the average person.

One of the most-used quotes when the question of gun control comes up isattributed to Adolf Hitler, “To conquer a nation, one must first disarm its citizens.”

There is actually not any concrete evidence that Hitler uttered or wrote these words.Although he did vaguely express these sentiments in some of his conversations andwriting, there is no real record of him saying these words as quoted.

Contrary to popular belief, the Nazis in Hitler’s era were actually proponents of gun freedom. Some of Germany’s most lax gun laws were implemented under the Hitler

regime. This was likely because Hitler believed Germans were the master race andwould eventually conquer Europe. He wanted German citizens to be able to defendthe motherland if necessary, from enemies both foreign and domestic. It is alsolikely that this was motivated by a desire to allow his network of spies to be able tolegally and efficiently carry weapons without raising suspicion (but that is just myown assertion).

However, there is one critical thing that Hitler believed: to conquer the Jewishpeople (and other “inferior” races), they had to be stripped of their right to beararms. The same law that gave German citizens such unrestricted freedom on gunrights simultaneously banned Jews from possessing, owning, carrying, purchasing,

or producing firearms of ANY kind. Hitler expressly admitted that disarming thepeople who he wanted to conquer was imperative, and his secretary recorded himas having expressed this sentiment in conversation.

So, for those of you who say that Hitler wanted to ban guns for everyone in an effort to control Germany, you are wrong. But for those of you who say that Hitler didn’t

want to ban guns and that he gave everyone even more guns, you are even morewrong. Hitler was clever – he disarmed those that posed a threat while rewardingthose that were on his side.

In Conclusion…

If you’ve actually read this far, then you’ve no doubt found something to be offended

about and/or disagree with me on. I’ve probably managed to anger both liberals and

Conservatives in this, but these are my own researched and reasoned opinions.These opinions do not reflect the opinions of any other person, party, religiousgroup, or philosophic group. If you’d like to discuss any of my points or share your

opinions, feel free, but please keep it civil and refrain from using hateful language orattacking me/each other.

Documents

So Close Yet So Far Away