Gun owners need not apply to the Obama Administration for work

reference

As if I am even surprised about this. Are you?

it's nice seeing the NRA scared.

Obviously anyone who may have access to a gun, particularly an unregistered or unlicensed one, poses a security risk. Even more so if the weapon may have been used at some point.
Equally obvious is that "complete ownership and registration information" does not include registration information from a state where there is no registry. Inclusion of data that cannot possibly exist is not required for the information to be complete.

Now that I've pointed out the obvious feel free to derail your own thread in whatever way you see fit.

OBAMA STAFFER ACCIDENTALLY SHOOTS WIFE IN THE LEG!!!!
FOX NEWS ASKS: WAS IT REALLY AN ACCIDENT?

In which case the complete registration information would be "It is not registered, in accordance with local statewide registration requirements."

In related news, the NRA are a charming pack of demagogues.

Most US states do not have gun registration. Federal gun registration does not exist.

All BS aside, how many guns a person owns is none of his employers business.

Hell no.

Was expecting this and more.

really? shouldn't an employer be free to set any criteria he or she pleases?
someone is free to seek employment elsewhere.

Being employed by the Federal Government is very different than being employed by a private entity, especially when security clearance is involved.

Oh shit, free market infinite loop! Careful the Libertarian collective might implode.

See, I think a person having a gun that is illegal (i.e. not registered in their state of residence). Would be a bit of a black mark on the President.

i think it's possible that this question could be used to filter gun owners (and therefore gun advocates) out of the administration. but given that it's only one question out of at least 59, i have a hard time leaping to the conclusion that it must be there for that purpose. why is it there? no idea. maybe it's standard on all such questionnaires. maybe it's there to make sure there's an even mix of gun advocates and gun control advocates on staff. maybe it's there because they felt you can never have too much information on the people you employ. the fact of its existence is not, in and of itself, damning.

I'm pretty sure this is just a standard job application question. Many retail chains do the same thing. Have you ever seen the questions asked on that Blockbuster job application machine thing? It's basically a psychological profile.

I'm sure this is one of many very personal questions anyone wanting to work around the president is asked, regardless of the administration.

So, what's the problem with making sure your potential employees are following the law? Your thread title is a total crock of shit. Nowhere in the question you quoted does it in any way imply that gun ownership will preclude someone from employment. Your constant desire to make the world fit into your incredibly distorted view is mind blowingly pathetic.

The federal government gets to put up a requirement that you have to waive basic constitutional rights to be employed by the government?

Hell, a major employer gets to put up a requirement that you have to waive basic constitutional rights to be employed by them?

I don't think so!

Only five US states have statewide registration requirements at all.

Off with their heads!

How do you read this as anti-gun? And for the record, I hope they are anti people with guns. I just don't see where you see that.

Petepolly, have you ever held a security clearance?

If you think asking for gun ownership information is intrusive and ridiculous, I strongly advise you never to try getting a clearance of any sort. I've held one, and I'm still in awe of the amount of info they required of me and the depth of their investigation into my entire life history.

Shalome, how in the world did you beat me to this.

Do you know how hard I had to work to get a top secret clearance? It took me four and half months of investigation on top of the prior investigation for my secret clearance. Talk about a reference check.

This is such a non-issue.

Except that they do not require them to waive anything, only to disclose. Which you know, but that doesn't fit into your agenda of nonsensical hysteria.

Your title, your premise, and the NRA's interpretation are beyond ridiculous. They need to make sure everything is on the up and up in all aspects of a candidate's life. Obviously gun ownership is a non-issue beyond making sure such ownership is legal and without incident.

The Obama administration is thoroughly vetting all candidates for cabinet and higher positions. Every incoming administration has done the same thing, and the process gets more involved as time goes by due to the introduction of new technology.

The Obama camp is being very careful because they know that any slip-up will be pounced on by the Republican smear machine (drudge, coulter, hannity, limbaugh etc).

As Shalome correctly mentioned, even getting a routine security clearance - which lots of government employees have - is highly invasive. Major administration positions demand and receive more attention, which is as it should be.


So really, take your overblown fear-mongering elsewhere.