Posted on 04/08/2013 5:59:39 PM PDT by neverdem
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.
This depends on how these points are addressed.
”Addressing mental health challenges” could include a wide range of initiatives with potential for abuse. The definition of what is and isn’t a mental disorder seems subject to change, from being a normal energetic youth to being doped up by the end of school years. Will those who have been so medicated be automatically disqualified? Even if it is determined later that the diagnosis was incorrect?
”Reining in gun trafficking” might include finally getting some hard information on who thought the “fast and furious” operation was a good idea, but likely will mean that private sales without the requirement for NICS checks and dealer records will be over. Not being able to give my now adult grandson a rifle, for instance is an infringement.
”Preventing school violence and ensuring student safety” While a noble aim, the question is “How?” Only enabling the presence of trained individuals with firearms on campus will deter such violence, nothing will prevent the determined from engaging in or attempting it. The expansion of “Gun Free School Zones” will only infringe on the Rights of those who live in the area or unwittingly drive within the proscribed radius from a school.
I have no issue with protecting veterans from false PTSD disqualifications (see the first part of my reply)—that needs to be done, especially now.
Improving information sharing between state felon and disqualified individual databases with NICS databases might improve the rejection of disqualified purchasers at FFL dealers, but in the end, the determined individual will obtain firearms through other means, including private sales. For that to be even marginally effective, private sales (without a background check, 4473, dealer intervention) will have to be made illegal as well.
Then, in all likelihood, someone will be ‘stung’ and made an example of in order to give the law real teeth in the public mindset. Those happen. For instance, the Kenyon Ballew Raid shortly after the ’68 GCA became law, which occurred not far from where I lived at the time, and frankly, sparked my awareness of BATF excesses.
Opening the door, once again, to that sort of abuse or another Randy Weaver situation (which also began with a ‘sting’) is counterproductive to anything firearm owners want. The idea that I could not, knowing someone and their character and background—or otherwise—sell them my property without having the Government intervene and record a transaction that is none of the Government’s business is an infringement, as is the necessity to pay any fee for any such transaction.
So those are my misgivings. Gun owners have compromised in the past on issues, and it has never been enough. the slice between the line and where the anti-gun people stand has grown thin in most places, been crossed in others. Although I do not regard Grassley as anti-gun, any compromise will have to fall into a very small area to be even palatable.
With the stated aims of the ringleaders on the Left, no ground can be given.
That is a nice list of ‘ifs’ but until I see something substantive I will give him and his bill the benefit of the doubt.
I don’t know why “SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED” doesn’t rate as “substantial” in your eyes. Oh well.
Nice red herring. You should run for office. /s lol
It’s funny, but most here seem to understand that “moderate” gun bills are not what is needed.
What is needed is for millions of Americans to stand forward and loudly remind their “representatives” that SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED” means exactly that.
Which is exactly what I’ve been saying for forty years. I don’t have to be an idiot and see boogie men where they don’t exist. If you could have found something substantive showing an infringement of rights in Grassley’s bill you would have done it by now. But you’ve got squat. Which is more than you had as a candidate. LOL
I listed out the problems. You ignored them.
Actually, it’s your personal attacks that show you don’t have an actual argument.
You listed nothing at all you just cut and pasted some quotes from the Constitution and Founding Fathers, all non-sequitur to my posts, which is something any computer could be programmed to do. You never responded once to the points in Grassley’s bill with any substantive clarification of what is or isn’t in it. Pointing out your utter lack of substance is an observation not a personal attack.
The problems with the parts of the bill that are listed in the article, which I reiterated, are pregnant with obvious infringements on the RKBA.
I can’t help it if you can’t see the obvious.
It’s time to quit giving one inch on any of the things listed in my new tagline.
If it were so obvious you could have rationally and clearly elucidated them instead of cut&pasting extraneous quotes. Better, you could have given recognition to my own admonition of ‘trust but verify’ and found something substantive in his bill to criticize rather than putting up your suspicions as straw men to try and leverage a point out of nothing.
I have seen that posted all day long but that doesn’t prove any point.
Actually, it does make a very salient point, in that it provides at least a strong whiff of what we all know is going on. Our most important rights are being wheeled and dealed once again in the cloakrooms of the Senate.
Again, no “moderate” counter-proposals. SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. That’s the line. No compromise.
They're not extraneous. They are intrinsic to this conversation.
That’s irrelevant to the specific discussion of what is or is not in Grassley’s bill. This suffices to answer your following post as well. You seem incapable of focusing on the subject.
The subject is obvious. It’s right in the article.
It’s a “moderate” “gun control” bill.
Thank you for pointing out the obvious superficiality of your argument.
There’s your problem right there. You think simple advocacy for our most important rights are “superficial.”
No, I think superficial kneejerk responses are no substitute for knowledgeable discussion of a subject. You’re not engaging in simple advocacy you’re purposely obfuscating in an effort to demagogue your position. I share your position on the 2nd Amendment just not your lowbrow political tactics.
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.