If this is what Democrats look like when they are "supporters of the Second Amendment":

Address Gun Violence in Cities: As president, Barack Obama would repeal the Tiahrt Amendment, which restricts the ability of local law enforcement to access important gun trace information, and give police officers across the nation the tools they need to solve gun crimes and fight the illegal arms trade. Obama and Biden also favor commonsense measures that respect the Second Amendment rights of gun owners, while keeping guns away from children and from criminals who shouldn't have them. They support closing the gun show loophole and making guns in this country childproof. They also support making the expired federal Assault Weapons Ban permanent, as such weapons belong on foreign battlefields and not on our streets.

... I shudder to think what an antagonist of the Second Amendment would look like.

So let us take it point by point. First, the Tiahrt Amendment does not restrict law enforcement types from using gun trace information to solve crimes. Period. In fact, it helps ensure that the relevant information is still available for use "in connection with and for use in a bona fide criminal investigation or prosecution". What it does restrict is people running firearm trace data just for the shits and giggles of it... or, for, say, enforcing a gun "registration" system (or even a firearm find-and-remove-for-your-safety system). Furthermore, both the BATFE and the Fraternal Order of Police oppose releasing any more trace data than there already is... so why does the upcoming administration support it?

Second, criminals already are not allowed to possess firearms. This is pretty much a no-brainer, and the National Instant Check System helps keep firearms out of criminals' hands... at least if criminals purchase their firearms from legal sources (which, of course, we know they do not). Regardless, a felon in possession of a firearm is already committing a crime - what are we going to do, make it doubly illegal? As for children, this is simply another realm where additional laws will not help, and the government has no business or place. What will help is responsible adults who talk to their children about firearms, and ensure their firearms are not accessible by those children. Ah, crap, but I just said the "r" word, did I not...?

Third... There. Is. No. Gun. Show. Loophole. Never was, never will be. Now, if they want to refer to it as a "reality loophole", I might actually agree with them... except for the "loophole" part. The fact is, I could go next door and sell one of my new lowers to my neighbor over there, and I would not have to do any background checks or anything of the nature on him/her. And, you know what? There is absolutely nothing wrong with that. Firearms are private property, folks, and, last I checked, I could sell my car, my computer, and other hardware that could potentially do a lot more damage than a firearm with no background checks, and without asking for permission. Of course, in the next four years, that might just change...

Fourth, making firearms childproof is a frakking joke. "Childproof" bottles are not childproof... possibly seniorproof, but they sure as hell are not childproof. And, what, exactly, can you do to a firearm to make it "childproof"? Well, first off, the responsible adult owning it can secure it in a manner that is not accessible to the child. And secondly, the child can be repeatedly taught never to touch firearms, never to go near firearms, and to get an adult if it finds a firearm unattended. But when it comes to a mechanical system to "childproof" a firearm... give me a break. No such thing exists, and any addition of such a "feature" would only serve to make lawfully using the firearm that much more difficult... which, when someone is breaking into your home at 3am, is not exactly something you want.

Last, and far from least, read the final sentence of that quote one more time: "They also support making the expired federal Assault Weapons Ban permanent, as such weapons belong on foreign battlefields and not on our streets." Permanent. Eternal. Everlasting. No time limit. No "sunset". Nothing. The previous Assault Weapon Ban was a joke, but one without hope of reprive... that might be a little different. And, just remember... the politican's definition of an "assault weapon" basically boils down to "it looks scary", as opposed to, say, the actual definition - a firearm capable of firing automatically or semi-automatically, depending on its setting. And guess what? Those firearms are already strictly regulated by the National Firearms Act of 1934. Throw in the fact that "assault weapons" are used in less than 1% of crimes, and you really have to wonder about the need for the ban, eh? As an aside, if "assault weapons" have no place "on our streets", then why do the police, the FBI, and the President's own guards carry them? And, in most of those cases, they really are fully-automatic assault weapons. Interesting double standard, that.

What you will find sorely missing from the "Crime and Law Enforcement" section of the first-linked webpage is any mention of stronger, mandatory sentencing for crimes executed with the assistance of a firearm, reduction in parole chances, a stronger judicial system, actually prosecuting for the gun-related laws already on the books, or anything of the nature. Once again, this has nothing to do with criminals... and everything to do with the law-abiding citizen.

Trackposted to The Virtuous Republic, Rosemary's Thoughts, Right Truth, DragonLady's World, Big Dog's Weblog, Leaning Straight Up, The Amboy Times, Cao's Blog, nn&v, Democrat=Socialist, Conservative Cat, , third world county, McCain Blogs, Woman Honor Thyself, The World According to Carl, Pirate's Cove, , The Pink Flamingo, A Newt One, CORSARI D'ITALIA, Right Voices, and Gone Hollywood, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.