As a concept, I'm not opposed to background checks for those wishing to purchase firearms. I see it as a necessary evil to ferret out the mentally disabled and the criminal element who shouldn't be allowed to own and operate firearms. The biggest criticism of background checks is that it allows the federal government to compile a database that will allow it to seize weapons more easily when it feels the need to do so. Proponents of proposed legislation expanding background checks point to the fact that the legislation up for consideration states specifically that it will not establish a database. Critics of the legislation say that it's a short step from that legislation for the government to override that, citing national emergency as its excuse for seizure.
Until this past week, I was in favor of the background checks. Then came the latest hearings on Benghazi, where diplomats on the ground stated that they informed the State department in real time that the consulate was under attack and that there was no spontaneous demonstration. Unknown and nameless government functionaries, for lack of more specific identification, changed this information for public dissemination. That is the heart of the debate now fueling expanded congressional hearings.
Then last week one of the Secret Service agents embroiled in prostitution scandal from a presidential trip to Cartagena, Colombia, is making noise about not getting due process with his case. In his interview with CBS News, he mentions that one of the investigators looking into the case was placed on administrative leave because he refused to redact a portion of his report detailing two other Secret Service higher-ups who were not implicated in the scandal but who could have been. The report and the resolution of the case remain in limbo.
Now news breaks about the IRS scrutinizing conservative groups, examining their tax-exempt status more closely. What's more, this news breaks after an IRS official testified before Congress two years ago claiming that this wasn't going on, which was an absolute lie. At best, this was either a misunderstanding or a mistake; at worst, this is a violation of rights that is sanctionable under the law.
The trouble is that this undermines the people's confidence in government at a time when it's being asked to support even more government. On the one hand it's being told that more government is needed to protect it from private interests that threaten its freedoms, yet government itself is restricting its freedoms either directly by attacking those groups not allied with the government or indirectly by whitewashing or hiding information that the public has a right to know. If in fact this is a government by the people and for the people, the government should not be keeping it at arms length unless there's a serious issue of national security involved. Conservative groups, Secret Service agents' misfeasance and motivations for attacks on American consulates are not things about which the public should be kept in the dark.
One of the unintended consequences of this governmental behavior is that it undercuts the notion that gun control can be bought by having expanded background checks with the promise of no database being created. Given the IRS's malfeasance, the whitewashing of news stories for political considerations and the failure to include politically-connected people in a report critical about misdeeds by the very agency responsible to protect the President, why would anyone believe the government when it says it's not interested in seizing weapons? Constitutions arguments aside, the public is right to be wary that the government is looking for ways to seize guns in support of its gun control initiative. To think otherwise is naive.
Perhaps as I get older I become more cynical. To be sure, as I age I feel more emboldened to speak my mind. I just think that with these three examples, there is every reason to distrust the government when it tries to assure the public that it's only looking out for the public weal and not its own.
(c) 2013 The Truxton Spangler Chronicles
No comments:
Post a Comment