How about how the ATF suddenly, by stroke of the acting director's pen, changed 40 years of law to make it a Transfer to move a gun around a store. Really? Why? Why now? To quote Codrea's excellent piece:
I know the perceived intent here involves shipping guns to contractors, evaluators and the like, but if I just read these words on their own as written, I can see it being interpreted that such transfers could even include renting guns at shooting ranges. I find the timing curious, because the antis have recently begun referring to this as a "federal loophole" and using anecdotes to stir up the hysteria to close it.It's a "federal loophole" for a gun maker to send a copy to a laboratory to measure its performance? Really? Even if the ruling was to make it harder for the gun companies to send an evaluation sample to a magazine or TV show for review, why? There are no records of any crime being caused this way. Note that this is a regulatory nudge, Cass Sunstein's favorite term, that never went in front of Congress. No way to write your representative or senator to try and head it off. (Hat Tip to Dave Codrea)
How did Clinton aide Paul Begala put it? "Stroke of the pen, law of the land. Kinda cool!"If you're not a "gun person" you may not know there is no such thing as "gun show loophole". The same laws exist for sales at a gun show as anywhere else. In fact, they can be more restrictive. Mrs. Graybeard and I spent the afternoon at a gun show in West Palm Beach yesterday, and while I can buy any gun from anyone in my home county in a private sale by just plunking down an agreed upon price, at yesterday's gun show attendees needed to find an FFL, do a full transfer and wait 5 days. There is an exception for state concealed carry licensees, as there should be, but they've made it harder to buy a gun at a show than when there isn't a show. Stupid. Criminals get guns by stealing them, not from gun shows. How would they like a 5 day cooling off period and a Federal licensee to siphon $50 off every political contribution?
How about a takeover of the financial industry? Put together with health care, the big 3 automakers, and all the rest, I've heard from various sources that we're looking at 60% of the economy being in the government's control. All your financial data are belong to us. There will no longer such a thing as a private life. May I add that every market follower I can find who has read the law says it will have no effect on the piracy that caused our financial mess, and will probably help the bad guys? You knew that already?
How about our abandonment of the fight against Islamofascism? Deputy National Security Adviser John Brennan is a man who refers to Jerusalem by its Arabic name, Al-Quds, and who peppered a speech recently with a minute of Arabic. I don't have a problem with him speaking Arabic, I have a problem with how he runs his office. With three attacks in a few months, we appear to be dropping the ball.
We've seen the enemy and it's not just the jihadists. It's also our own government, which refuses to see this very real enemy. How can we fight and defeat what we refuse to see?Allowing the construction and dedication of an in-your-face mosque at ground zero on September 11? As Gates of Vienna puts it, this is a new battle in a very old war.
We have essentially pre-surrendered in Afghanistan, by giving an "out-by" date. If the enemy had any sense, they would lay low, and the peace would encourage us to leave earlier. Once we're gone, it would take a completely different America to go back. The way I see it, our current administration wouldn't go back into Afghanistan if a 9/11 level attack happened again, and it could be proven it came from there.
How about securing the border? Citizens shut down the capitol phone system a couple of years ago under GW Bush, when a repugnant amnesty bill almost floated. Looking at the status of the southern border, it's hard not to conclude the Fed.gov has given up on enforcement. The people, on the other hand, support stricter immigration controls by large measures. The support in Arizona is so strong, it's hard to imagine a scenario that backs the "racism" card.
Need I go on?
The administration is attacking the people on every front. It is requiring not just resistance, contacting our representatives and all of the usual things, it's getting to where citizens are going to need to split up the work: "I'll go fight my representative about gun things if you fight the financial takeovers". The problem is that there are no lobbyists for us.
Wasn't this supposed to be a government "of the people, by the people and for the people"?