The wording of the question also reveals some interesting things about Obama and the attitudes of the people he has surrounded himself with. Whoever wrote the question has a profound ignorance about guns and gun ownership. First, he assumes that guns must be registered, something which is not true in most states. Does this mean that they aren't expecting or even considering applications from the two thirds of the nation where guns aren't registered? It certainly indicates a mindset in which gun registration is the default standard, which might reflect future policy. Second, that last sentence is profoundly ignorant. It assumes that guns have the ability to cause "injuries or property damage" on their own, a common fallacious belief of those who revile guns and cannot understand that they are incapable of harm without some person consciously using them to do harm.
If this question is a litmus test to keep those who believe in gun rights out of office, I wonder if VP-elect Joe Biden is filling out the questionnaire and if there's going to be a problem with his well-known affection for his Beretta shotgun. If it is a do-or-die question, what does it say about Obama's loyalty to the Constitution which he will soon swear to uphold and protect that he sees the exercise of this particular constitutionally protected right as possible grounds for disqualification from employment by his administration?
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Clavos
Imagine!
All I've been worrying about was his stated intention to raise corporate taxes, but suddenly here he comes, slithering out of the miasma of Chicago politics, Constitution in one hand and blowtorch in the other.
And all those people jamming the gun stores are paranoid nutcases?
Prescient, more likely.
2 - Dave Nalle
Don't worry, Clavos, it gets worse. Tomorrow I'll have an article on future Attorney General Eric Holder who makes Janet Reno look like a nice little old lady.
Dave
3 - Ruvy
At this point, Janet Reno is a nice little old lady, having progressed some from her "prime", when WACO was destroyed.
Time and aging happens to us all, Dave.
From what you describe in your article above, the whole damned vetting process is a litmus test. Shouldn't it be? Aren't these jobs Obama's plums, the Christmas pies he gets to hand out to supporters for having supported him?
Little Jack Horner
Sat in his corner
Eating a Christmas pie.
He put in this thumb
And pulled out a plum
And said, "What a good boy am I"
4 - Matthew T. Sussman
Maybe he just wants to have a record of handguns and abolish MySpace. Ever think of that?
5 - zingzing
my god, dave. i was expecting something completely different. but this is far more idiotic than i could have imagined.
he's looking for skeletons in the closet, yeah? so he asks if you own a gun, and if so, is it legally held. (so you aren't breaking any laws.) then he asks if it has been involved in any property damage, personal injury, etc. (so you aren't pulling a dick cheney.)
that's how simple this is. it's not a conspiracy. it's just a damn question. as innocent as "have you ever been convicted of a misdemeanor?"
"Second, that last sentence is profoundly ignorant. It assumes that guns have the ability to cause "injuries or property damage" on their own, a common fallacious belief of those who revile guns and cannot understand that they are incapable of harm without some person consciously using them to do harm."
stop being so ridiculous. you know that's not what he's saying. what, are you imagining a gun jumping out of a holster and shooting up a barn or lunchbox? no, you aren't, so stop acting like it.
as for your last bit, you answered your own question, didn't you? obviously, if he gives biden, a gun owner, his second in command position, then he's not going to disqualify someone from a position if he/she owns a gun. he may disqualify them if it isn't legally registered or if that person used it to shoot up someone's house or face.
this is particularly pathetic and paranoid, even coming from you, dave. if you labeled this as satire, it would take all of its unexpected comedic affects away, leaving you only with this strange sadness. thanks for the laugh. and the tears.
6 - Dave Nalle
Zing, you can try to dismiss it all you want, but the evidence of the gun-hostile attitude of the coming administration is mounting.
Your scoffing here is based on the same assumption as Obama's question, that there is something wrong with owning a gun and that it's something which could be used against a person or as a sign of bad character.
So long as that attitude prevails on the left, those who own guns have a reason to be concerned.
Dave
7 - zingzing
my god.
dave: "Your scoffing here is based on the same assumption as Obama's question, that there is something wrong with owning a gun and that it's something which could be used against a person or as a sign of bad character."
no it doesn't! there is nothing "wrong" with owning a gun. it's not illegal. obama's vice president owns guns! obviously, you're putting words in his mouth. and mine. look at what i said.
he wants to make sure that if a person owns a gun, they are following applicable laws and haven't done anything with that gun that could be used against that person or the administration.
it's just that simple. you're paranoid and delusional. you're seeing threats that aren't there. there is nothing in that question that should have you worried.
yes, there are some of us on the left (myself included) that would have more strict gun control laws written. and, obviously, all guns should be registered. but there's nothing in that question that suggests anything more than what it is: they just want to know if this potential hire has gotten into any mischief or illegally owns a gun.
you can certainly see the point in asking such a question, right? say you were going to hire someone to work in your house. a person that you didn't know everything about. would you ask them if they had a gun on them? in your house? yes, you would. just to know. it's a totally fair question to ask, and doesn't make any judgments, moral or otherwise, on the simple act of owning a gun.
8 - Lee Richards
Obama has a constitutional right to keep and bear as many questionnaires as he chooses.
If the government(or Dave) tries to take away our right to collect questionnaires, or to use them for hunting or any legal way we choose, we should all get up in arms.
Questionnaires don't hurt people;writers like Dave bent on making mischief hurt people.
9 - Dave Nalle
Zing. If what you assert were true, other questions about whether the applicant had committed any crime already cover anything that's in the gun question except for the simple act of owning a gun, but the truth is that the first thing the question asks is not whether you've ever shot anyone or committed a crime, but simply whether you or anyone related to you even owns a gun.
Does Obama ask whenther you or any of your relatives owns a car? Hell, there's not even a specific question about DUI convictions.
Your argument doesn't wash, Zing. Obama wants to know about gun ownership as an issue of concern in and of itself.
Dave
10 - zingzing
dave! is it a "crime" or is someone "convicted" of anything every time a gun goes off and strikes a person or a bit of property? nope. ask cheney.
is it a crime to let your registration drop for a little while? probably, but not really. it's kinda like jaywalking, and it won't result in a criminal conviction or anything that will show up in a public records search (at least not after a few years).
and it's not "anyone related to you," it's "immediate family."
look, you can question what obama is really asking here. that's fine. but there's nothing here that absolutely screams "he's gonna take away our guns!" or "he'll never give a job to a person who owns a gun!" (because he already has...) and if he ONLY wanted to know if someone in the family owns a gun, he would have ONLY needed to include that first bit of the question.
you're completely overstating your case. it's a long step between wanting to know if there are any illegal firearms or misuse of a firearm in a person's past and wanting to take away everyone's guns and deny people jobs based on said ownership.
11 - Baronius
This really doesn't tell us anything about Obama. It tells us about the state of mind of his transition team, though. There probably aren't a lot of questions about whether you've allowed an infant to die after a failed abortion.
Maybe the application should ask if you've ever arranged a pardon for a criminal without consulting the Office of the Pardon Attorney. If Obama is serious about diminishing the corrupting power of money and influence-peddling, he shouldn't be considering Holder for Attorney General.
12 - Glenn Contrarian
FEAR!
FEAR!
FEAR!
(Sorry - just wanted to parrot the anti-gun-control crowd since all they seem to think about is their guns. "Pro-life! Pro-War! Pro guns!" - such a hypocrisy!)
13 - Dave Nalle
Ah, Glenn. Is it that much easier for you to think in stereotypes than to actually think?
Dave
14 - Glenn Contrarian
Yeah, Dave - I never think. That's why when you make statements like "the concealed-carry law in Florida lead to a big drop in crime" and give no reference for it, I post numbers like the Florida government statistics to show how false your claims are.
Yeah, I never think. And all this time I thought I was letting the facts determine my belief, rather than allowing my beliefs to determine the facts. Gee, Dave - thanks for showing us all how false and misleading are my reliance on facts and reliable statistics!
15 - zingzing
glenn: "And all this time I thought I was letting the facts determine my belief, rather than allowing my beliefs to determine the facts."
about as succinct a criticism of dave as i've seen.
dave, you must at least admit that you've heard this before. maybe you should listen to it.
16 - Dave Nalle
Glenn, we already went over the difference between your florida 'facts' and mine, and you did nothing to show my statements to be incorrect.
You're the one who tried to reduce the genuine concerns over civil rights expressed in this article - which are shared by millions in this country - to some trite jingoistic slogans and shouting 'FEAR'.
Thanks for raising the level of discourse.
Dave
17 - Lee Richards
Dave: a perfect spokesman for the current Christian Conservative Strawman Republican Party.
Motto: Irrelevant By Choice!
18 - Glenn Contrarian
Dave, Dave, DAVE -
WRONG!
Did you see my rebuttal of your reply? Let me start with your quote:
Now read the REST of my rebuttal:
"In Florida in 1987 there were 123,030 violent crimes committed, or 1,021.50 violent crimes per 100,000. In 1992 there were 161,137, or 1,200.30 per 100,000. That's an INCREASE IN VIOLENT CRIME where you claimed there was a 26% DECREASE.
Now, if you look at ALL crime in Florida during that time frame, there WAS a decrease - about 2.3%.
These are all Florida Department of Law Enforcement stats.
So would you care to tell us where YOU got YOUR stats? It's quite obvious that 'concealed carry' did NOT help the crime rate and may well have HURT it."
NEXT TIME, Dave, perhaps you should check again before being too dismissive. You should ALSO check the rest of my post that clearly shows - in rebuttal to your reply - how states with weak gun laws have significantly more cops killed in the line of duty than in states with gun laws... e.g. how is it possible that Louisiana could have more cops killed than New York (when New York has over five times the population)?
It's just like with Universal Health Care and Republican voter fraud, Dave - the numbers are strongly against you.
19 - Dave Nalle
Glenn, you're confusing your threads. My response is over on the other thread.
And because I didn't mention it over there, your own source doesn't support your claims.
Might it be because you aren't adjusting for the increase in population?
Dave
20 - Glenn Contrarian
Dave -
You tried to refute my first statement concerning Florida, but you have not tried to refute my second. In this thread you claimed you had already done so, so it was apparent that you weren't paying attention to the other thread I brought the argument over to this one.
But I'll happily take it back over to the other one.
And when it comes to your point on population increase, look again so you can see that the statistics were given for crimes PER THOUSAND, meaning that the increase in population WAS taken into account.
And I just checked - the Florida population increased 10.012% over that period...which could in no way account for the discrepancy between the statistic you claim and the statistic published by the Florida Department of Law Enforcement.
Dave - give it up. Just as the facts and numbers are against the Dems when it comes to nuclear power, and just as the facts and numbers are against Cindy when it comes to anarchism, the facts and numbers are against you on gun control.
21 - Brunelleschi
Maybe Obama just wants to know who is safe to go hunting with.
All BS aside, Obama is asking the right question. Who wants a bunch of gun kooks in the government?
22 - bliffle
The gun question in the transition team questionnaire may have a more innocent purpose than to exclude gun folk. For example, the intention may be simply to know who the gun people are, in the future administration, in order to highlight them politically to appeal to gun owners.
23 - Dave Nalle
Your explanation is a good one, Bliffle, but I have no reason to believe that Obama or his crew are thinking about anything they do in that kind of a subtle and clever way.
Dave
24 - zingzing
"I have no reason to believe that Obama or his crew are thinking about anything they do in that kind of a subtle and clever way."
so he's only sneaky when he's doing stuff you don't like? which is it, man? is he hiding his intentions, or not? you can't have it both ways.
25 - Clavos
Who wants a bunch of gun kooks in the government?
I do.