Tom Dempsey is a passionate supporter of the 2nd Amendment to the United States Constitution. Tom has sponsored legislation allowing law-abiding citizens to obtain a license in order to carry a concealed weapon and ensuring Missourians have the freedom to protect themselves in their own home, resulting in an “A” rating from the National Rifle Association (NRA).And then there's this guy:
Ron Richard has been endorsed by … National Rifle Association of AmericaSo how come they did this?
Senate President Pro Tem Tom Dempsey and Majority Leader Ron Richard split from the rest of the GOP caucus that they lead to instead sustain Democratic Gov. Jay Nixon's veto.And will there be any repercussions?
Not unless Missouri gun owners want there to be badly enough to make them happen.
Yeah, I know, some will point to Montana and argue the measure never would have withstood legal challenge and that it was just symbolic. Even were that true, what does this betrayal symbolize? That we have just rolled over and accepted such corruption from the courts and perversion of founding intent, and that the Second and Tenth Amendments aren't worth fighting the feds on every step of the way...?
David, I have to disagree. The bill was about pandering. It is about the legislators thinking their Missouri constituents are stupid. It is a way of claiming to support "gun rights" while actually doing nothing of substance. It is legal for legislators to carry in the capitol, but not regular citizens visiting the capitol. Hey, don't look at that, look at this other symbolic bill! It is a felony to carry on a bus. Hey, don't look at that, look at this other symbolic bill! Firearms on colleges? Oh, don't look at that! Look at this other symbolic bill! They can pass a bill that they have no intention of enforcing and do absolutely nothing whatsoever of substance and then placate you and me by telling us they "did something." The symbolic bill is worse than useless. It is a distraction from the real fight on the right to bear arms. Ed Stone
ReplyDeleteEd, I don't disagree with the crux of your assessment, but here's where we diverge: it's the same argument used by those who say we will use up our political capital if we demand too much, as if gun owners can't multi-task or walk and chew gum at the same time, or as if expecting consistent loyalty is some kind of great sacrifice that's too much to ask of any politician. By all means insist on fidelity for all those needed areas you mention, hold the bastards accountable for not showing leadership on them, and do not let them get away with the transparent tactic of using support for one bill as indisputable proof of their bona fides.
ReplyDelete