They are clearly after law abiding gun owners and I believe they don't prosecute these illegal attempted buyers because they really want killings to occur so they can advance their agenda. How else would you explain it? He keeps telling us that we need his new restrictions if it will only save a few lives. So why this glaring sin of omission King?
Keith, I'd suggest that "they really want killings to occur" puts you in the same tinfoil hat crowd as those who believe Bush knew about 9/11 in advance, or that our own govt did it, or that FDR knew about Pearl Harbor in advance. I would explain "it"--the non-prosecution of those prohibited who attempt to buy guns and are stopped by the background check--as nothing all that unusual if you look at the legal system as a whole. Plea bargains. Back in Iowa, where I used to live, they just had a trial for a man who scammed investors out of 200 million plus. Guilty, maximum penalty: 50 years, no parole. It got a lot of publicity both because of the extent of the scam and because the perp got the max penalty. What that says is that others, who don't scam to the same degree, maybe get no prison time (plea bargain) or a significantly reduced sentence. Happens all the time in the legal world.
What can be done, in the case of further gun laws, is to point out--as is being pointed out in the suggested immigration reform--that enforcing existing laws needs to come first. Put pressure on prosecutors to place more emphasis on people trying to buy guns illegally than, say, on those who get busted for one marijuana joint. But I don't think we should assume that this administration wants to see more killings so they can promote an anti-gun agenda, any more than the left should have assumed that Bush was in on 9/11 so he could go invade Iraq.
L.Brown, it sounds as though you are OK with Obama's backdoor approach to what amounts to a Federal Gun Registry of all guns. In 2009, the F.B.I. referred over 71,000 cases where someone who was legally prohibited from buying a firearm attempted to do so to the Justice Department. Only 77 of those cases were prosecuted. You say it's tinfoil hat talk to accuse the Obama Administration of underhandedness here, but what the hell do you call it? Your explanation about the number of cases which are plea bargained is silly. Why then, bother pushing for universal backround checks where you would have to do a transfer through an FFL even to pass a gun to your son or daughter? Are you agreeing with Obama that a new requirement like that will stop the next massacre while they are allowing over 70,000 real criminals a year to go on searching for a gun? What's the real purpose of passing new laws that will affect only the law-abiding gun-owners then?
I think it's crazy that more gun-owners aren't asking these questions. Do you think it's paranoid tinfoil-hat talk to notice that Obama did not pursue new Gun Control Laws after the shootings in Tucson or Aurora? Is it a conspiracy theory to suggest that he allowed more carnage to occur because he was more concerned with being re-elected? I'm not saying that Obama had Psy-Ops teams program and drug crazies and send them heavily armed into schools. But I'll say out loud that Obama/Holder committed numerous Federal felonies by gun-walking so-called assault rifles into Mexico to create the illusion that guns from U.S. sources were the cause of cartel violence in Mexico. Also, it's liars and liberals who say Bush went into Iraq because of 9-11. That's why we went to Afghanistan, but going into Iraq was because Saddam had been blatantly violating U.N. sanctions ever since the first gulf war.
Obama went from saying that we need to go along with the Biden Task Force proposals if it will save even one life to saying that we need to act now if only to save a few lives. Well, nearly 71,000 convicted felons, stalkers, drug abusers, etc. walked out of gun stores in 2009 while the BATF continued to compile a database of guns purchased legally by law abiding gun owners. Does anyone really think that felons who attempted to buy guns through legal sources stopped trying after the Instant Check turned them down? How many more illegal attempts occur that the F.B.I. doesn't refer to D.O.J.? I recently talked to a dealer who has a sign prominantly posted informing potential buyers that his charge for a failed backround check is $1000.00 because of all the time he wastes. He told me he used to get a lot of folks simply walking out and refusing to pay his $30.00 fee after being rejected.
If you wish to make excuses for the Obama Administration not prosecuting violations of existing laws while they advance their life long agenda to undermine our rights, go right ahead. I think that's why the framers drafted a Constitution and Bill of Rights. I'll bet those guys all wore tinfoil hats.
