Oppose the McCarthy/Dingell/NRA Gun Control Axis

On Friday, The Washington Post reported on the strange coalition. "With the Virginia Tech shootings resurrecting calls for tighter gun controls," the Post said, "the National Rifle Association has begun negotiations with senior Democrats over legislation to bolster the national background-check system."

Rep. John Dingell (D-MI), who was once on the NRA Board of Directors but resigned when he supported and voted for the Clinton semi-auto ban in 1994, is reported to be "leading talks with the powerful gun lobby in hopes of producing a deal [soon]," Democratic aides and lawmakers told the newspaper.

Rep. McCarthy admitted to the Post that her "crusades" for more gun control have made her voice "toxic" in gun circles. "So Dingell is handling negotiations with the NRA," the newspaper reported. "Dingell is also in talks with Sens. Orrin G. Hatch (R-Utah) and Ted Stevens (R-Alaska), House Minority Leader John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) and Rep. F. James Sensenbrenner (Wis.), the senior Republican on the House Judiciary Committee."

I was on my way out the door on Friday when I first heard about the "mental health background check" proposal. All I really had time to post was this:

Four days after the fact--when the whole country is furiously debating the impact of the Virginia tech shootings on the Second Amendment--there's still no leadership from our self-proclaimed leaders? All we get are plausibly deniable signals sent through seconds that they'd endorse an expansion of NICS if only there were some way to work around privacy protections?

It's hard to argue with the general public about background checks, particularly where mental health questions are involved. Deep-rooted prejudice and an inclination to discriminate is tough to overcome, and people are skeptical when you tell them the mentally ill are no more inclined toward violence than the general population.

Likewise, most of our countrymen are oblivious to the concept of enumerated Constitutional powers for the federal government. Perhaps National Rifle Control, Inc./The LaPierre Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence would be kind enough to show us the section of this document that authorizes their bright new idea for applying prior restraint.

So what am I arguing? Crazy people and psychopaths should be able to walk into the hardware store and walk out with a grenade launcher? Look, I've said this before, many times: Anyone who can't be trusted with a gun can't be trusted without a custodian.

Here's something else I've pointed out numerous times: If we are to believe official reports, the single biggest act of mass murder in our nation's history was committed with mail room tools. The second largest death toll was created with gardening chemicals. The third utilized about a buck's worth of gasoline.

And here's another concern that has been left unsaid in this bill, but you can bet your guns (and you will be if this thing passes) that those behind it will be back with Phase 2. After all, if it makes sense to keep people with questionable mental health backgrounds from buying guns, wouldn't it make even more sense to remove existing guns from their homes? And how will the government know who has guns, unless NICS has the capability to keep records if only the political will existed to do so?

And why stop with your mental health, or make allowances that we all have periods of tragedy and trauma in our lives that tax--and sometimes overcome--our ability to cope? How about if your spouse is being treated for depression, or your child has been diagnosed with "ADHD" by a school with a government grant money incentive to get him on Ritalin? How can we possibly allow dangerous guns to be brought into such households, and it follows, how can we allow existing guns to remain?

Also, will there be an "Only Ones" loophole? That may be a way to help stifle enthusiasm for this bill--start insisting on an amendment that gores their ox.

Unfortunately, this is the kind of cynical posturing I've come to expect from current NRA management. I don't know if a campaign to call or write them will make any difference--perhaps it will if you include a copy of a donation check made out to GOA.

The other thing to do is contact the Republicans named in the GOA release. I agree with activist Andy Barniskis, who suggests adding the following text to GOA's pre-written letter:

[Insert after 1st paragraph] I DO NOT AGREE WITH NATIONAL RIFLE ASSOCIATION, WHICH HAS GIVEN ITS APPROVAL TO THIS TERRIBLE LEGISLATION.

[Insert as last paragraph] PLEASE DON'T BELIEVE THAT SUPPORT BY THE NRA WILL PROVIDE SUFFICIENT COVER FOR YOU IF YOU VOTE FOR THIS LEGISLATION. GUN OWNERS WILL NOT FORGET HOW YOU VOTE.