Washington Post admits: Stopping Criminals not Goal of Gun Bill

[Dean Weingarten]

An interesting admission in the Washington Post:

Moments after clearing the first procedural hurdle, Democrats and gun control groups began readying themselves for a potentially more difficult fight: Weeks of Senate debate defending their carefully crafted legislation against possible amendments — particularly a plan to allow gun owners to carry concealed weapons from one state to another — that would kill the bill’s underlying goal.

If the underlying goal of the "universal background check" bill is not to "keep guns out of the hands of criminals and the mentaly ill", both of which are prevented from obtaining concealed carry permits, one must ask what the underlying goal is.

Could the underlying goal be an attack against the gun culture, to obtain registration, then gradual reduction of the number of people allowed to have guns, and eventually gun confiscation?

If not, why not allow universal reciprocity for those who have shown themselves to be at least as responsible as police officers?

Link to Washington Post article here:

©2013 by Dean Weingarten Permission to share granted as long as this notice is included.

http://gunwatch.blogspot.com/2013/04/washington-post-admits-stopping.html

 

[jackdaddycustoms]

Could the underlying goal be an attack against the gun culture, to obtain registration, then gradual reduction of the number of people allowed to have guns, and eventually gun confiscation?

i think thats is exactly the case.

 

[medalguy]

Fromn numerous posts from last September and October: "Oh don't worry, Obama has never done anything to indicate he wants to restrict our second amendment rights in any manner." Yeah, right.

 

[BigBore44]

I hope the senate hearings are going to be televised live. Would love to watch the debates to see how many cases of "foot in mouth" come out of this.

 

[baz]

I hope the senate hearings are going to be televised live. Would love to watch the debates to see how many cases of "foot in mouth" come out of this.

What hearings? Debating on the floor is not the same. There should be printed bills for markup in committee before there is debate on the floor. The Senate is corrupt when it rushes "bills" to the floor that haven't even been printed for markup. How can one completely evaluate, let alone debate, a bill where the details are not yet known?

 

[Dean Weingarten]

Yes, that is the modus operendi of the statist. Rush bills through the legislative process, because they never could have made it otherwise.

Legislating *against* the will of the people. Just like Obamacare.

 

[beatledog7]

What hearings? Debating on the floor is not the same. There should be printed bills for markup in committee before there is debate on the floor. The Senate is corrupt when it rushes "bills" to the floor that haven't even been printed for markup. How can one completely evaluate, let alone debate, a bill where the details are not yet known?

Excellent point.

The process of making legislation is supposed to deliberate, thoughtful, and most importantly, rarely exercised.

The problem lawmakers face is partly of their own making and partly of ours: They want to be able to say they're doing something to make things better, and they want to be able to say it a lot. Most voters want to look in the direction of DC and see things moving, not standing still. Both parties like to accuse the other of standing in the way of getting this or that done.

Which takes us back to my opening statement: The process of making laws that will have power over people's lives and impose limits on freedom was never meant to be rushed, and it still should not be.

We live in a world of instant gratification, where we can microwave a full meal while the evening's entertainment downloads. We hit the drive-through for coffee on the way to work and can't stand it when a light turns yellow and the guy in front of us slows to avoid running it. We get perturbed when a THR search takes more than .5 seconds to load.

As long as most of the population looks to DC for solutions to everything from hangnails and noisy neighbors, and expects new laws to pop out of Congress like their morning pastry from the toaster, we will get bad laws.

It has often been said that anything worth having is worth waiting for. I would add, "You want it bad, you get it bad."

 

[orionengnr]

"We have to pass the bill, to find out what's in the bill." Remember that quote from Queen Nancy?
It may have been a slip, but it is an eerily accurate insight into the legislative process as it exists today.

If you don't find that both terrifying and infuriating...you haven't been paying attention for a long time.

It has gotten to the point where many politicians are absolutely brazen, and no longer attempt to disguise their agendas. Why should they? Most of the public is oblivious and the media is complicit.

 

[rodinal220]

Make no mistake they want your Daisy Red Ryder and Winchester 21 too.

 

[jackdaddycustoms]

heck why stop with red ryders? they may even come after our sling shots... or at least make you register it if it has surgical tubing more than 12 inches long

 

[mokin]

+1
beatledog7

 

[we are not amused]

Read the Washington Post article. Could it be possible to turn this proposed anti-gun Legislation into a pro-gun Bill?

Remember the Concealed Carry in National Parks? After Obama killed the Bush rules change, the Congress overrode Obama and actually extended the concealed carry rights in National Parks. And that was with a Democratic dominated House and Senate, whose National Party Platform supports restrictive gun control laws.

 

[larryh1108]

How can one completely evaluate, let alone debate, a bill where the details are not yet known?

This has proven to point out that the lawmakers don't really care what they pass as long as it's anti-gun. In NY, CO and CT the bills were pushed thru so fast that the people voting on them hadn't even read them. NYS has admitted several blunders in the wording. Many CT law makers admitted they only had time to skim the bill before they voted. The people had no chance to voice their thoughts on what was proposed. They had "emergency sessions" to pass these bills late into the night. They made a sham of the system in place so they can force these laws down our throats. When the rank and file admit they didn't read the bill, what does that tell you? How can they vote if they don't know what they are voting for? They did anyways.

 

[btg3]

ould it be possible to turn this proposed anti-gun Legislation into a pro-gun Bill?

Gun legislation reform! Remove existing regulation that penalizes the good guys and does nothing to prevent crime with guns.

 

[ngnrd]

Legislating *against* the will of the people. Just like Obamacare.

I'm sorry, but that comment shows a common misunderstanding of how our system is supposed to work. In our Constitutional Republic, legislating against the will of the people is actually required, provided such legislation is Constitutional. There is only a problem when unconstitutional laws are passed because the public demands them, or worse, because a few legislators ram them through without due process because they know they are unconstitutional.

For instance, it shouldn't matter if 90% of the people actually believe that guns should be outlawed. The Constitution is supposed to protect the natural rights of the other 10%, and our legislators shouldn't pass anti-gun laws just because their constituents are calling screaming that "something be done". The same would hold true if a majority felt that practicing Islam should be outlawed, or that slavery should be legal. Still, if enough people really think our Constitution needs changed, there is a built in procedure to do that.

But, contrary to popular belief, and to the dismay of the mob, the US is not a "mob rule" Democracy. Sure, the system isn't perfect, and bad laws sometimes get passed. When that happens, our courts are supposed to identify those bad laws and overturn them. If they don't, the people ultimately have the power to nullify those unconstitutional laws through civil disobedience.

 

[Dean Weingarten]

Your comment leaves out the possibility for something like Obamacare, where you have the legislature passing something clearly unconstitutonal, and the people clamoring to stop it.

In that case the legislators *are* legislating against the will of the people *and* against the Constitution.

It is where we are today.

 

[Yo Mama]

Could the underlying goal be an attack against the gun culture, to obtain registration, then gradual reduction of the number of people allowed to have guns, and eventually gun confiscation?

I know it's easy to make that connection, but I'm much more concerned about the state level garbage that has gone through. Federally, we have an election in 2014 that is just a little important. We saw that POTUS doesn't have the power he thought he did. Those 23 EO did little to nothing vs. the possible effects of legislation from Congress.

 

[larryh1108]

Can the president put in place an EO to ban the import of ammo? If he did that it would create a lot of issues. Something tells me that is already on his radar and he's waiting to do it when the timing is right.

 

[ngnrd]

Your comment leaves out the possibility for something like Obamacare, where you have the legislature passing something clearly unconstitutonal, and the people clamoring to stop it.

In that case the legislators *are* legislating against the will of the people *and* against the Constitution.

It is where we are today.

I covered that.

There is only a problem when unconstitutional laws are passed because the public demands them, or worse, because a few legislators ram them through without due process because they know they are unconstitutional.

I suppose I could have included the phrase "against the will of the people" to that. But I thought that "ramming it through" implied that. Either way, that's a pretty small nit to pick.

 

[zorro45]

As much as I would like recognition of carry permits between states, the combination of a national ccw database, effectively a nationwide electronic medical record/database of prescribing information, and laws state-by-state trying for Universal Background Checks on even intergenerational or family gift transfers, well, it makes it a lot easier for NYS-like unconstitutional activity to happen.