The local paper has a blog on blogger. It's called The Bayou. One of their recent posts was about a question on an application for a position, possibly a Cabinet position or at the very least a high profile position, since that is what they are currently trying to fill. The question was:
"Do you or any members of your immediate family own a gun? If so, provide complete ownership and registration information. Has the registration ever lapsed? Please also describe how and by whom it is used and whether it has been the cause of any personal injuries or property damage."
Well, of course, since this is Southeast Texas, it was automatically assumed that this question was meant to be a precursor to Obama's gun control position and was pointed out that questionairres Bush put out did not have that particular question. Ok, let's look at this situation:
First of all, the Bayou did not quote the rest of the article from where this information was taken. Read amongst yourselves...Ok? Good. I am going to go to personal experience on this one. I don't know how many of my (few) readers have ever been screened for a security clearance (secret, top secret), but my husband has. Now, his clearance is only a secret clearance, so the questions were limited to "have you ever travelled to a foreign country", "have you ever been issued a passport by a foreign country", "were you born in a foreign country" and "have you ever served in the military". Stuff like that. But, they also had us give them information on all of James' siblings, his parents, my parents, where we had lived in the previous years, where he worked. And, the went to talk to those people and checked their background. This is normal. Now, if they did that just so my husband could sit around the Strategic Petroleum Reserve in an obscure location and look at cameras all night, then why shouldn't a potential Cabinet member be subject to a much greater inquiry?
If the Secret Service did not make sure that all those around the President were not a threat, would they be doing their job? I don't think so. If they didn't ask, and someone came out of the woodwork to shoot the President, what would you think then? The security of the President is of the utmost importance. It should be asked if anyone related to a potential Cabinet member has had a history with the law in gun related matters.
Second, who would expect the Bush administration to have asked that question? Cheney goes around shooting those he hunts with. He knows all those friends and family have guns, they have to protect themselves from Cheney.
So, to all those out there who might think this question has to do with gun control, stop and think about the security issues. A top secret security clearance is not easy to obtain. And the questions have to be asked.
2 years ago
Posts
1 comment:
Kim, in all fairness to Southeast Texans, it looks like - from the article you linked to - that the concern might be nationwide. It looks like the concern is that Obama might base his hiring decisions on gun-ownership (thus the unprecedented questions).
I can only base my comments on the one article you linked to since I hadn't heard anything else about this.
I see your point about the necessity of making certain that high level advisors are safe, but gun-ownership and the history of such gun really has nothing to do with a person's capability to serve. Nothing in the gun-question can not be answered by the investigations that are already done.
As a for instance, let's just say that you have a gun and you are up for some advisory position. You are already going to have the most thorough high-level security check imaginable. If you've ever committed a firearm-related crime, it WILL come up in that investigation. Whether or not you OWN the gun is irrelevant.
Do you see how the gun lobby could look at this question as just a way to find out who's got a gun and who don't? ;)
I'm not saying it is or it isn't. Like I said, I don't know enough about it to say for sure. Just my initial thoughts on the matter.
I will say that there seems to be some alarm out there. Cabela's did not have one piece of ammunition in stock last week. I mean, seriously, NOTHING. Not one piece of ammo. EVERYTHING was backordered. We just got a new Mossberg 500 JIC, and we got the last of 5 left at this one supplier. And they were the 8th major supplier we'd checked. Everyone was out and could not even get any on backorder. We weren't buying out of panic. We'd already budgeted earlier in the year to buy this gun in November. We couldn't believe the difficulty we've had in finding it. The new handgun we have budgeted for January is completely out of stock as well. HOpefully that won't be the case come January.
I hope the panic will subside. We do have a constitutional right to bear arms. We have guns for protection, and it's a right we'd be willing to fight for.
You know me. I don't go around talking about guns or have them displayed in my home. I am careful almost to the point of obsession. But I will tell you this, if someone ever tries to come into my home and harm anyone in my family - the sound of my shotgun will be the last sound he ever hears.
So IF Obama is attempting to discriminate in hiring based on gun-ownership, than that is not right. On the other hand, if he is simply being lawyerly and cautious and trying to dot his I's and cross his T's and has no designs on making his decisions based on gun ownership, then what's the big deal? ;)
Hopefully, we'll hear more about this and Obama will clarify it for us. I am determined to give him the benefit of the doubt on every issue unless he gives me a reason not to. So far, I have seen no proof here that he's done anything wrong.
I think you're right in that people quite easily jump to conclusions. I think in this time we need to be really careful about that. We need to open our minds and really just listen to each other. In Washington and on Main Street, too. :)
leisa
Post a Comment