U.S. Senator Cindy Hyde-Smith (R-Miss.) and U.S. Representative Paul A. Gosar, D.D.S. (R-Ariz.) today introduced the Gun-owner Registration Information Protection Act (GRIP Act) to prohibit states, localities, or any other organization from using federal funding to maintain gun registries. [More]
That none of the registries list criminals with guns and are therefore useless for that purpose doesn't occur to any Democrats or "commonsense gun safety" groups? Or of course it does, and that's not why they're doing it...
[Via Henry Bowman]
2 comments:
When they have the power to pass some pro-Second Amendment legislation, they don't try. When the don't have the power they make a big show of trying. I think I've seen this before.
'“There was only one catch and that was Catch-22, which specified that a concern for one's safety in the face of dangers that were real and immediate was the process of a rational mind. Orr was crazy and could be grounded. All he had to do was ask; and as soon as he did, he would no longer be crazy and would have to fly more missions. Orr would be crazy to fly more missions and sane if he didn't, but if he was sane he had to fly them. If he flew them he was crazy and didn't have to; but if he didn't want to he was sane and had to. Yossarian was moved very deeply by the absolute simplicity of this clause of Catch-22 and let out a respectful whistle.
"That's some catch, that Catch-22," he observed.
"It's the best there is," Doc Daneeka agreed.”' ― Joseph Heller, Catch-22
I feel like there's a Thomas Pynchon line to quote here.
These two are putting this out as if gun owners are objecting to how their information is used once collected, and not that the information is collected in the first place.
Here's an idea:
U.S. Senator Cindy Hyde-Smith (R-Miss.) and U.S. Representative Paul A. Gosar, D.D.S. (R-Ariz.) today introduced the Gun-owner Registration Information Protection Act (GRIP Act) to prohibit ... gun registries.
There. Fixed it.
"Prohibiting the use of federal funds for [activity]" is B.S. There's nothing saying states and localities can't use their own funds for [activity] and get reimbursed by the feds other ways.
It's how Planned Parenthood can continue to provide abortion services while being barred from using federal funds for that; they shift the federal funds to education and other medical services, and fund abortion services from their donations pool and corporate accounts.
(Really, anyone with experience using different "buckets" of paid time off knows how to juggle sick time and vacation time to keep getting paid. It's not that hard.)
If they were serious about prohibiting an activity, they wouldn't fudge around with where the funding comes from; they'd prohibit the activity and mandate personal civil and criminal liability for doing it. Simple...
... which makes me think they're not really serious.
Post a Comment