April 20, 2009
Obama: Lying about American guns and Mexican violence
A friend said to me the other day, "Why are you so worried about Obama banning guns? He said he wasn't going to, and besides, the Supreme Court said gun ownership is an individual right."
I reminded him that everything Obama says, every promise he makes, comes with an expiration date. And, notwithstanding the pro-Second Amendment Heller decision from the Supreme Court, and today's good news out of the Ninth Circuit, the rights of Americans to keep and bear arms is at risk with Obama in the White House and Pelosi running the House.
Obama has been quick to blame the narcotics-related violence in Mexico on American guns, and has indicated a willingness to sign an international treaty banning the sale of small arms, something that would inevitably result in limiting the gun rights of Americans.
The problem is, however, that the numbers spouted by the president are pure, unadulterated bunk.
The Washington Times took the president to task in today's editorial for his snake-oil gun control salesmanship.
[W]hen it comes to guns, President Obama is lying through his teeth.
On Thursday, while on a visit to Mexico, the president continued his Blame America First tour. "This war is being waged with guns purchased not here but in the United States," he said, referring to the drug wars that are tearing apart our neighbor to the south. "More than 90 percent of the guns recovered in Mexico come from the United States, many from gun shops that lay in our shared border."
It is completely untrue that 90 percent of guns recovered in Mexico are from America. The Mexican government separates guns it confiscates that were made in the United States and sends them here to be traced. U.S. weapons are easy to identify because of clear markings.
Of the ones sent here to be traced, 90 percent turn out to be from America, but most guns recovered in Mexico are not sent here so are not included in the count. Fox News reported that 17 percent is a more accurate number.
Democrats aren't alone in repeating phony gun statistics. The New York Times, CNN and numerous networks continue to repeat the 90 percent figure with no reporting to back it up. The hysteria is used to create the notion that a major problem exists with American guns - and Mr. Obama is anxious to step in to solve that problem with a $400 million program to stop U.S. guns from going to Mexico. That initiative would include clampdowns on U.S. gun shops.
It is ridiculous for Mr. Obama to blame Mexico's lawlessness on Americans as if the longstanding corruption of Mexican elected officials, judges and law-enforcement officers has nothing to do with it.
One of the root causes of corruption is low pay. Mexican police earn $460 a month, sometimes less, which makes bribes hard to resist. There are about 350,000 policemen in Mexico. The $400 million Mr. Obama has promised for his anti-gun program could raise the annual salary of every Mexican cop by $1,143, a 21 percent increase. But the president wouldn't be interested in that because his real agenda is to pursue gun control here at home.
And that, my friends, is why I'm not reassured by Obama's insistence that he's uninterested in going after guns "right now," because every indication is that he'll be quite interested soon enough. And when that time comes, it'll be couched in dulcet, teleprompter-fed lines about shared sacrifice on behalf of our Mexican neighbors, and how we must "think of the children."
What about that pro-Second Amendment Supreme Court? With a number of retirements a sure thing during this presidential term, the nominees certain to get the nod from Obama will not, I promise you, be interested in expanding upon Heller. We'll be lucky if the Obama Court -- God help us! -- doesn't quickly move to erase Heller from the books, ridding us of the inconvenient and embarrassing Second Amendment.
Posted by Mike Lief at April 20, 2009 11:43 PM
| TrackBack
Comments
Nordyke is good news, but not dance-in-the-street news. The court agreed with incorporation, but failed to articulate a strict-scrutiny standard of review, and left the gun-show ban in place. I don't see a good appellate mechanism to test the issues in the U.S. Supreme Court, the way the case turned out. While I would happily defer to more able Con Law scholars than I (a large group which includes anybody who passed Con Law in school) on that point, it looks to me like we will have to wait for a different case to get an opinion from the Supremes, either about incorporation or about the standard of review.
Posted by: The Little Coach at April 21, 2009 09:09 AM
And if you doubt Mike's theory of the Obama administration's disinterest in the Second Amendment, see the news (also 20 April) that the U.S. will not challenge the federal court ruling that the administrative regulation allowing concealed carry in national parks violated environmental regulations.
Because concealed weapons contribute to global warming? Make the lines longer at the park commissary? Disrupt the flow of the rivers more than the twelvers in a river fridge? Create the appalling litter in the climbers' base camp? Rouse the hundreds of untrained barking dogs to disrupt the night? Build the scores of cheezy souvenir shops at the park border? Send hordes of screaming children running through your campsite while their parents engage in loud drinking games? Light campfires so inordinately large they can be seen from space and boil water two campsites away? Inspire talentless wanna-be musicians to energetically perform "Cumbaya" and "This Land" all night?
Oh please, the environmental destruction caused by the concealed .38 revolver . . . shocking . . . beyond measurement and human understanding . . . words fail me.
Posted by: The Little Coach at April 21, 2009 10:58 AM