Senior Democrats have reached agreement with the National Rifle Association on what could be the first federal gun-control legislation since 1994, a measure to strengthen significantly the national system that checks the backgrounds of gun buyers.I certainly don't recall authorizing NRA to negotiate on my behalf in this matter. Anybody else?
The sensitive talks began in April, days after a mentally ill gunman killed 32 students and teachers at Virginia Tech University.
"Sensitive talks"? Does that mean public policy determination meetings--with agreements that will bind those of us neither aware of them nor in attendance--were held and not open for scrutiny or input?
The political left wants to convince everyone via their "authorized journalist" co-conspirators that NRA was instrumental in exploiting the Virginia Tech tragedy.
They apparently have been--but not in the way they've been accused. Kind of a cynical game having the Bradys bitch and moan about having their water carried for them by their supposed opponents.
In fact, "days after" the VT incident, Wayne LaPierre was blogging on everybody to cool it and "Stop Exploiting Tragedy":
We've been debating gun control in this country for decades now. What does it hurt to pause for a few days in the midst of a tragedy to let the families of the victims grieve in peace, without being turned into a poster child either for gun rights or gun control? The answer, frankly, is it doesn't hurt anyone.
What it hurts, Wayne, is people who are being prosecuted right now, every day, for perceived infractions of citizen disarmament laws. Businesses are being closed down. Patriots with health problems are all but forgotten in jail. And people's lives are being endangered every day, right now, and will continue to be, until these unconstitutional infringements are repealed, not strengthened.
Someone's right to grieve may not exact a requirement that puts the rest of us at risk. And if we're going to stop the train every time there's a new outrage--one only made possible by these stupid and evil "existing gun laws" you seem so keen on enforcing--we will never get anywhere. Why does that suggest an agenda?
Have you had enough time, Wayne? Or does NRA under your reign still advocate that places like Virginia Tech should be Second Amendment-Free/Seung-Hui Cho Empowerment Zones?
6 comments:
"I certainly don't recall authorizing NRA to negotiate on my behalf in this matter. Anybody else?"
I am the owner and sole arbiter of my individual liberties.
Also: Someone needs to ask LaPierre how he feels about the fact that this bureaucratic monstrosity he is considering could be nullified if the relevant events leading up to the VT mass murders happened in a different order, i.e. weapons purchase before psych exam.
I'm still trying to figure out what the "significant concessions" supposedly won by the NRA are. Let's see--people who committed minor crimes long ago can now "petition" to have their gun rights restored--I certainly don't see anything about a government obligation to grant the request. Same for all the veterans--they can ask to get their rights back--nothing seems to require that the answer be "yes." The guarantee of no charge for the background check--give me a break--every taxpayer will be charged for it (a quarter billion per year, supposedly). Oh, I almost forgot--felonies that have been expunged have to be . . . expunged from this list, too. Isn't that how it's already supposed to work?
Anyone know if LaPierre is related to Neville Chamberlain?
Let's also pick on the editorialist from the Washington Compost:
"The shooter, Seung Hui Cho, had been ordered judicially to submit to a psychiatric evaluation, which should have disqualified him from buying handguns."
Factually incorrect. Jonathan Weisman likes to print factually incorrect information. Now the test is "evaluation". Yet another slippery slope predicted by the (unfortunately) unusually knowledgeable regulars on this blog.
The law actually specifies:
GCA of '68:
" (g) It shall be unlawful for any person...
(4) who has been adjudicated as a mental defective or who has been committed to a mental institution;"
Brady Law:
"(B) a statement that the transferee...
(iv) has not been adjudicated as a mental defective or been committed to a mental institution;"
Cho Seung-Hui (we're in America, Mr. Weisman, it's okay to anglicize his name) was ordered an evaluation by the court, he obviously was not institutionalized, but the test is "adjudicated mentally defective", not whether an evaluation is done. It's a lot like how an arrest is not proof of a crime, but a verdict from a jury after a trial of facts.
If it happens that I am factually incorrect, and being ordered to take a psychiatric evaluation is the equivalent of being found "mentally defective", God help us all, the left will suddenly be intensely interested in the health of every person who has filled out a 4473.
"the massacre exposed a loophole in the 13-year-old background-check program."
It's not a "loophole", the federal government already granted itself the power to question anyone's mental health as it pertains to firearms transfers. Since then, U.S. citizens have been given greater privacy with respect to health records, so wouldn't that be the "loophole"?
Regardless, individual liberties are always loopholes to absolute authority.
Regardless, individual liberties are always loopholes to absolute authority.
I hope you haven't copyrighted that line, Tjh--because I plan to plagiarize it shamelessly.
Be my guest. Even if I did copyright it, just say you "sampled" it.
I only wish publishers of school textbooks were so eager share the concept.
Post a Comment