View Full Version : Dennis Hennigan is a Sad Panda

08-06-2010, 3:21 PM
Apparently, his (and the rest of the fascists at the Brady Campaign's) I will link to a post-script by the author where hopes for a bright new day of draconian gun confiscation schemes (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/paul-helmke/jim-and-sarah-brady-brady_b_134096.html) haven't worked out.

Obama Gun Policy: Fear and Fallacy

Is the Obama Administration serious about enforcing our gun laws?

It is now beyond doubt that the Administration is determined to say as little as possible about the plague of gun violence that inflicts death and injury on 300 Americans every day. When forced to comment on proposals to strengthen our anemic federal gun laws, the President and his representatives typically fall back on the gun lobby's canard, "We don't need new gun laws. We need to enforce the laws on the books."

Last year, for example, when President Obama was asked by Bob Schieffer on Face the Nation whether he plans to ask Congress to enact an assault weapon ban to address the torrent of guns flowing from American gun dealers to Mexican drug cartels, the President replied, "I think the main thing we need is better enforcement."

There is no question that we need to devote far more resources to enforcing federal gun laws. But it is a transparent fallacy to argue that deficiencies in enforcing current laws justify inaction to strengthen those laws.

According to the "just enforce current laws" argument, we should, for instance, tolerate the "gun show loophole" in federal law that allows criminals to buy guns from private sellers at gun shows without background checks, because we can always hire more federal agents to track down the criminals after they get the guns. Doesn't it make more sense to require background checks to block gun sales to criminals in the first place?

There also now is reason to doubt the sincerity of the Obama Administration's asserted commitment to better enforcement. It is indefensible, for example, that the President has been in office for eighteen months without appointing a permanent Director for the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, the federal agency responsible for enforcement of our nation's gun laws.

In June, Brady Center President Paul Helmke wrote to President Obama, urging him to nominate a Director for ATF. After the press began to notice the Administration's inaction, rumors of an impending appointment began to circulate, with Al Kamen of the Washington Post reporting yesterday that the Administration may be on the verge of nominating the current Special Agent in Charge of ATF's Chicago office. But the question remains: How could the Obama Administration allow such a vital position to be unfilled for so long?

Incredibly, ATF has not had a permanent Director since 2006. President George W. Bush at least sent a nominee to Congress, but a vote on his candidate, Michael Sullivan, was reportedly blocked by then-Senator Larry Craig (R-Idaho), an NRA Board Member who apparently took issue with ATF's treatment of gun dealers during Sullivan's term as Acting ATF Director. The Bureau has had a succession of Interim and Acting Directors, with the last Acting Director occupying that position so long that he exhausted the statutory time limit on his tenure.

As the Brady Center points out in its new report, Leadership Vacuum, the ATF vacancy is particularly conspicuous, since 83% of the appointments that require Senate approval have been confirmed or nominated since President Obama took office. The Administrator of the Federal Motor Carrier Administration has been nominated and confirmed, but no one has even been nominated for the job of running the agency responsible for fighting gun trafficking.

This is a serious matter. In the words of James Pasco, a former ATF Assistant Director, "I am absolutely confident that because of the lack of a confirmed director, crimes are being committed and innocent people are dying." How can the Administration continue to maintain it has a policy to fight gun violence by improving enforcement of current law, when it has been willing to allow the federal gun enforcement agency to remain leaderless? How can it say that it is "doing all that we can" -- as Secretary of State Clinton claimed -- to curb the arming of Mexican cartels with guns trafficked from American gun shops?

A headless ATF is but the latest symptom of a paralyzing disease -- the Obama Administration's fear of the gun lobby. The National Rifle Association long has dedicated itself to the ATF's destruction -- even stooping, during the Clinton Administration, to calling ATF agents "jack-booted government thugs." It is easy to imagine the express or implied threats being made by the gun lobby and its friends in Congress to oppose any nominee for Director who will aggressively pursue the corrupt gun dealers who aid and abet gun trafficking. As Washington Post columnist David Ignatius wrote about the Administration's ATF inaction, "it's the kind of situation that makes you wonder if good governance has taken a holiday."

The urgency of a strong ATF Director grows every day, as the gun lobby pushes its latest legislative abomination, a bill that would further weaken ATF's existing enforcement powers, that carries the Orwellian name "ATF Reform and Firearms Modernization Act." The bill (S.941/H.R. 2296) would make it virtually impossible for ATF to revoke the licenses of law-breaking gun dealers. If names attached to legislation had to pass a "truth-in-advertising" test, the bill would be called the "ATF Deform and Destruction Act."

It is bad enough to witness President Obama resorting to the "enforcement fallacy" to justify his failure to support strengthening our gun laws. It is beyond the pale that his Administration would be so fearful of the gun lobby that it would leave ATF without a leader and stand silently as the gun lobby pushes legislation to emasculate the agency for decades to come.

For more information, see Dennis Henigan's Lethal Logic: Exploding the Myths that Paralyze American Gun Policy (Potomac Books 2009)

Sad Panda.... :(

08-06-2010, 3:28 PM
Sour grapes.

Too bad it's written in our Constitution, for over 230 years, taht we have this right. It's about time they joined the 21st Century and allowed us Americans to enjoy that enumerated right unfettered by personal politics.

08-06-2010, 4:50 PM
They are starting to eat their own.

08-06-2010, 5:19 PM
If he's really all that torn up about the ATF, how about just get rid of them altogether so there's nothing to complain about?

08-06-2010, 5:49 PM
Apparently, his (and the rest of the fascists at the Brady Campaign's) I will link to a post-script by the author where hopes for a bright new day of draconian gun confiscation schemes (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/paul-helmke/jim-and-sarah-brady-brady_b_134096.html) haven't worked out.

Sad Panda.... :(

I was thinking more along the line of "Sad, sorry, lying, worthless sack of (Darned filter)."

08-06-2010, 6:10 PM
Innocent people are dying, he says.

Shall Issue in California might save quite a few lives every year.

08-06-2010, 6:33 PM
Wow, now the radical left is blaming Obama for everything...hummm! Lenin would turn over in his grave!

08-06-2010, 6:38 PM
Innocent people are dying, he says.

Shall Issue in California might save quite a few lives every year.

The "innocent people" he's refering to are the criminals who cant sleep in the day knowing that tonight when they break into a house someone might shoot them for something as simple as attempted murder.

08-06-2010, 7:02 PM
Anything which comforts my enemy is my enemy and anything which vexes my enemy is my friend. +1 for Obama though he's got a lot of minuses in his column for other reasons.

08-06-2010, 7:15 PM
ATF and NFA need to go. The brady bunch can go down in flames with them! :D

08-06-2010, 7:44 PM
Sad (sexual harassment) panda is one of my all-time favorite South Park episodes. Points for the panda ref on top of those for the cite and commentary.

08-06-2010, 7:58 PM
I was thinking more along the line of "Sad, sorry, lying, worthless sack of (Darned filter)."

Took the words outta my (Darned filter)ing mouth.
(Darned filter) those (Darned filter)s that are weeping over the "emasculation" of the ATF and the gun control (Darned filter)s. About (Darned filter)ing time those (Darned filter)ing liars and (Darned filter) spreading (Darned filters) got a taste of their own (Darned filter)!

08-12-2010, 7:42 AM
Ha ha ha ha ha....


Maestro Pistolero
08-12-2010, 8:54 AM
OH my GAWD that was funny!

08-12-2010, 8:58 AM
Ha ha ha ha ha....


That's friggin' hilarious. I love the dig at Frank Luntz.

<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/If9EWDB_zK4?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/If9EWDB_zK4?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

08-12-2010, 9:25 AM
A weapons ban here to keep weapons from entering Mexico? Seems to me Mexico should do something about weapons illegally entering their country, from any source...

08-12-2010, 9:57 AM
Who is stricter gun control really going to help? Criminals are criminals for a reason, they are going to do and take what they want regardless of what some silly law says. Law abiding citizens however, jump the loopholes, wait the time, and deal with the technicalities just to have a bit of protection for themselves, family, and property. Stricter gun control is not the answer, an armed and capable public is.

08-12-2010, 10:23 AM
You gotta love the "death and injury on 300 Americans every day" quote, since that number includes

1. Law-abiding, unconstitutionally disarmed victims, and

2. Criminals who are legally shot in self-defense.