Posted on 04/08/2013 5:59:39 PM PDT by neverdem
The details of a gun control bill being written by Senator Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) are now coming to light. As first reported by Politico, Grassley is crafting a Republican alternative to Democrats’ proposals, which are centered on expanding background checks, including information-sharing and record-keeping. In a follow-up piece this morning, Politico suggests that Grassley’s effort could draw moderates of both parties away from the Democrats’ main proposal.
Previously Grassley’s office has declined to comment on the bill being authored, but in an interview today Press Secretary Beth Levine laid out the Iowa Republican’s legislative priorities. She said Grassley is considering five main points: addressing mental health challenges; reining in gun trafficking; preventing school violence and ensuring student safety; protecting veterans from false mental health accusations (e.g. of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder); and improving enforcement of existing laws regarding state information-sharing for the background check database. (On the latter point Levine added that only “13 states do it.”)...
(Excerpt) Read more at spectator.org ...
Referring to this...
Feinstein: All Vets Are Mentally Ill And Government Should Prevent Them From Owning Firearms
The only suitable alternative would drive the libs bat-$hit crazy... so we'll know how "good" it is by how loud they scream.
Personally, I think they should $hitcan the whole idea and take the rest of the year off.
Hey Chuck. There are no alternatives but this one:
“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
You swore to Almighty God Himself to support that. So did every single one of your colleagues.
Period.
Did you read what his bill is about?
I’m simply reminding my Senator what the boundaries of his legitimate authority to legislate are.
“Among the natural rights of the Colonists are these: First, a right to life; Secondly, to liberty; Thirdly, to property; together with the right to support and defend them in the best manner they can. These are evident branches of, rather than deductions from, the duty of self-preservation, commonly called the first law of nature...”
– Samuel Adams, The Rights of the Colonists, The Report of the Committee of Correspondence to the Boston Town Meeting, Nov. 20, 1772
So, again, there is only one “alternative” to the Democrat bills: Keep your oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States.
IOWs, no, you didn’t.
Actually, I did.
“The said Constitution [shall] be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press, or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms; or to raise standing armies, unless necessary for the defense of the United States, or of some one or more of them.”
– Samuel Adams, Debates & Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts (February 6, 1788)
“... whereas, to preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them...” – Samuel Adams, Constitutional Debates of the Massachusetts Convention of 1788
No “record keeping” Chuck.
Stick to pricing toilet seats...
Riddle me this: If Grassley’s proposals are constitutionally-compliant, why in the world would there be an expectation that he can draw “moderates of both parties” to support it?
Is there such a thing as “moderately” violating an amendment which clearly says SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED”?
It seems odd that asking someone to show an ID to vote even if and ID can be provided freely is an infringement of voting rights but requiring a firearm owner to register pay CCW fees and limit magazine capacity isn’t.
That isn’t Grassley’s bill. I would say you probably knew that but that would be giving you more credit than you have earned.
You seem more like The Joker than The Riddler.
I already have an alternative to the Democrat gun control proposals. It’s the word “NO!”
Suppose we insist that any provisions applied to gun rights be equally applied to voting rights.
What will happen to background checks then?
Your statement has no relation to the post that you replied to.
Oh, thanks.
Personally, I think the joke is the idea of a "moderate" plan to limit my most important God-given rights.
The old joke is that in Washington the Democrats propose to tear down the Washington Monument, and the Republicans respond with a plan to do it in three stages.
It’s not really funny, but it’s true. We’ve seen it again and again, and lately, more and more.
And this smells an awful lot like it once again.
I’ve known Chuck Grassley for a couple of decades. He’s my Senator. And again, my message to him is that there is only one possible “alternative” to the Democrat attempts to deprive me and mine of our unalienable rights. SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED means SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.
Not. One. Word.
The Senate is rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic. My congressman just said tonight that gun control legislation is going nowhere in the House.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.