How does one evaluate a candidate or elected official? Are they crooks? Dishonest? Or just plain stupid? Maybe worse?
A pair of “sniff tests” might help to find the answer.
It is rather easy to detect corruption. Look at the change in net worth during their time in office. Compare this with the cumulative salary paid by the taxpayers minus reasonable living expenses. How does one explain the disparity that makes an elected official a millionaire? A few moderately wealthy men became president but more than a few of our presidents needed a form of ‘bailout’ in their later years. The first president who became a multimillionaire during a political career was LBJ. Bill Clinton has done well and the deal with Tony Rezko might have been ‘bone headed’ for Obama but he did make out financially. The real theft tends to be at the local and state level where fewer public eyes are focused on the action.
Public records are available to facilitate such evaluations.
The ‘ABScam’ investigation caught a number of congressmen on the take but some are still in office. “Cold Cash” Jefferson was finally ousted and convicted. Republican Representative Cunningham was using kickbacks from contractors benefiting from ‘earmarks’ to live a bit high on the hog. His living quarters have gone a bit downhill. Yet there are more than a few who have used politics as a path to relative wealth.
For those with a traditional understanding of the scope of the Second Amendment, one issue that is convenient to gauge stupidity or dishonesty (or sinister intent) is the treatment of ‘gun shows’. Any politician who voices grave opposition to these rather benign events is stupid, ignorant, or has a sinister intent. Any of these qualities should be cause for concern.
Just what is the problem with such events? If one were to believe some editorial opinions (and cartoons) these shows are a virtual arms bazaar where all sorts of weaponry (including machine guns and rocket launchers) are available with no questions asked and where all manner of thugs gather to acquire the tools of their trade. Yet how many of those promulgating such scare stories have ever attended such an event? A few years ago, C-SPAN did a live show from a gun show in the Washington suburbs and could find no examples of the outrageous activity that some legislators (and would-be legislators) claim is present. No one was seen wearing ‘gang colors’.
Personal observations provide a better point of reference than second- and third-hand tales. Most of the exhibitors do not sell firearms. Some sell books, military and historical memorabilia, gun parts and accessories, and even craft items. Those who do sell functioning firearms are obliged to comply with all Federal, state, and local laws. The appropriate forms are filled out and positive proof of identification is required.
So what is this ‘gun show loophole’ that some political hacks yap about? When pressed for details, the ‘loophole’ is defined as the undocumented sale of firearms by ‘unlicensed dealers’. Federal law is rather strict in defining ‘gun dealer’ and the numerical threshold is rather low. One might call a person in the illegal trade in narcotics an ‘unlicensed pharmacist’ but that rather euphemistic phrase is not in common use among reporters and editorialists.
When further pushed (most politicians with a negative view of the right to keep and bear arms will have changed the subject) the following scenario will be defined: An exhibitor will sell a firearm ‘under the table’ to an ‘unqualified’ purchaser. A person with a Federal Firearms License (FFL) who engages in such activity would knowingly be breaking the law and would be foolish to do so. But what of an exhibitor whose merchandise does not require an FFL? It is possible that such a person might happen to have a firearm to sell but this is seldom the case.
We might also ask why a criminal eager to purchase a gun would be in a venue where a lot of law enforcement personnel (mostly purchasers but sometimes investigators) are around? Why not make illicit purchases in the same places where narcotics and other illicit drugs are bought and sold?
So why do some politicians and candidates for office make such statements? Some may just be not that bright. Politics has long been a form of ‘sheltered workshop’ that offers a nice living to law school graduates who cannot earn a living in the ‘slip and fall’ trade. Some may simply spread lies to appeal to mindless emotion. When asked to ‘do something’ about violent crime, effective remedies might be a problem with criminals in the constituency so using guns as a scapegoat creates a convenient diversion. This may even make life safer for armed criminals who prefer unarmed victims. Some politicians may take a ‘progressive’ viewpoint regarding the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. They dare not sway from the ‘Party Line’ that makes incremental victim disarmament (under the guise of ‘gun control’) an article of political faith.
Check out the views of your elected officials (and candidates for office) and see if they pass these two ‘sniff tests’.
