Because guess who else passed those mandatory background checks the president is stumping for here?Today's Gun Rights Examiner commentary urges the president to "Close the Gunwalker Loophole. "
Jaime Avila.
And Otilio Osario. [More]
Monday, March 14, 2011
Obama’s latest ‘gun control’ proposal will not close ‘Gunwalker loophole’
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Why is Barry more concerned with destroying our right to keep and bear arms than with what his administration is doing sending guns over the border?
Okay, so maybe that question answered itself.
One more thing: Did the people doing the gunrunner project do improved background checks on the people sending those guns over the border?
Yep Anon has it right. "Gunwalker's not about controlling the cartels; it's about justifying the latest "commonsense" attacks on our rights.
"Most gun owners know that the word 'commonsense' isn't a code word for 'confiscation'".
Cacadetoro! That's exactly what it is!
Interesting that the folks who have all this figured out can’t seem to understand and refuse to acknowledge that the act of just passing another law in an attempt to control violence is not the answer.
There is not a stop sign or red light signal in existence that will stop a car. There has never been a protective order issued that would protect a probable victim from violence. Additionally, there is not one single so-called arm control law on the books that will prevent a person inclined to use a firearm, or any other object, from attempting to injure or kill his intended victim.
In order for one to feel secure that a law will protect one from another, the one has to rely upon the other to conform to the law. Most of the time the accompanying feeling of security that depends upon the other’s compliance with the law is based upon an illusion, as the only reason the antagonist conforms to law is due to the threat of force implied by government.
Case in point; penal laws in the State of Texas, contrary to popular belief, do not exist to protect people or property, the good intentions of legislators notwithstanding. The laws serve only to punish those who would commit an offense against the state by acting adversely to conduct proscribed by the State of Texas. That is to say criminal acts have been determined to be actions against the state rather than against the victim, who is considered by law to be merely a complaining witness. From what I have seen of federal law and the laws of other states, the forgoing would seem to be true in all other jurisdictions as well.
Is there any question as to why the framers of the Constitution worded it as they did, and further, insisted upon protection from government of certain unalienable rights?
[W3]
Post a Comment