Skip to comments.
Washington Post admits: Stopping Criminals not Goal of Gun Bill
Gun Watch ^
| 13 April, 2013
| Dean Weingarten
Posted on 04/12/2013 6:37:04 PM PDT by marktwain
>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 bills 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 univeral 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.
TOPICS: Business/Economy; Government; Politics; Society
KEYWORDS: banglist; ccw; guncontrol; its1939; reciprocity; secondamendment; wakethefup
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21 next last
1
posted on
04/12/2013 6:37:04 PM PDT
by
marktwain
To: marktwain
...one must ask what the underlying goal is."registration today followed by confiscation tomorrow.
2
posted on
04/12/2013 6:39:08 PM PDT
by
RC one
(The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money.)
To: marktwain
Extra-Constitutional actions.
3
posted on
04/12/2013 6:39:24 PM PDT
by
Paladin2
To: marktwain
It is ultimately about Confiscation. The price of that action would be denominated in blood.
To: marktwain
“Massacres” and “school shootings” have nothing to do with what the commie and Nazi libs are trying to pull right now. They couldn’t care less about those kids. It’s all about their dream of taking firearms away from Americans. To them it’s, “IN YOUR FACE AMERICA!” That’s all it is.
5
posted on
04/12/2013 6:42:16 PM PDT
by
FlingWingFlyer
(Dude! Where's my Bill of Rights?)
To: marktwain
6
posted on
04/12/2013 6:43:18 PM PDT
by
Travis McGee
(www.EnemiesForeignAndDomestic.com)
To: marktwain
Here is a question: If the Rats intend universal background check, even between two private citizens within the borders of a state, how does the “interstate commerce clause” hold any weight at all? It is not interstate commerce by any stretch of the imagination, is it?
7
posted on
04/12/2013 6:48:36 PM PDT
by
Blood of Tyrants
(The founding fathers didn't form this country by compromising.)
To: marktwain

Like we have seen before, we are walking up the planks and into the cars quietly and in an ordely fashion.
WAKE THE F UP!
8
posted on
04/12/2013 6:56:24 PM PDT
by
NoLibZone
(None here can be puzzled by why Jews walked into the cars so quietly- we are walking up the planks.)
To: Blood of Tyrants; et al
I will not comply. Will you? Will any of you who read this? If you allow another man to determine what rights you have and how, when and where you may exercise them, then you have none.
9
posted on
04/12/2013 7:00:40 PM PDT
by
chulaivn66
(Semper Fidelis in Extremis)
To: NoLibZone
I am not walking anywhere I do not intend to go.
10
posted on
04/12/2013 7:02:36 PM PDT
by
chulaivn66
(Semper Fidelis in Extremis)
To: chulaivn66
They way I see it, if the Senate can vote to modify, tweak, augment, or otherwise adjust and an amendment to Constitution in collusion with the House ( and introducing the separate bills as bi- partisan for “cover”), the Bill of Rights doesn’t mean a damn thing..
11
posted on
04/12/2013 7:29:23 PM PDT
by
cardinal4
(Constitution? What Constitution?)
To: AdmSmith; AnonymousConservative; Berosus; bigheadfred; Bockscar; ColdOne; Convert from ECUSA; ...
12
posted on
04/12/2013 7:29:25 PM PDT
by
SunkenCiv
(Romney would have been worse, if you're a dumb ass.)
To: Blood of Tyrants; All
Here is a question: If the Rats intend universal background check, even between two private citizens within the borders of a state, how does the interstate commerce clause hold any weight at all? It is not interstate commerce by any stretch of the imagination, is it? You could ask Justice Scalia about that. In his decision in Raich, he made the claim that private citizens, growing marijuana in their basement for their own use, was “interstate commerce”, because it might affect the illegal commerce in marijuana in other states, somehow.
In this decision, he invalidated the Lopez decision, and continued the march to federal tyranny.
13
posted on
04/12/2013 7:29:29 PM PDT
by
marktwain
(The MSM must die for the Republic to live. Long live the new media!)
To: marktwain
14
posted on
04/12/2013 7:40:20 PM PDT
by
tomkat
To: marktwain
...particularly a plan to allow gun owners to carry concealed weapons from one state to another that would kill the bills underlying goal.Seems they're going after lawful honest gun owners - just lie we thought.
15
posted on
04/12/2013 7:49:31 PM PDT
by
GOPJ
(New AP term for Illegal Aliens IS Undocumented Democrats.... Jay Leno)
To: marktwain
I caught CNN (only because it was a captive audience situation) giving the other side of the gun control debate the other day. Someone said there are hundreds of legal guns for every one used to murder someone. Which is true, as far as it goes - but I tried to work out how many legal gun owners there were for every murder (in a given year), and (tho the numbers were squishy) I came out comfortable that there are thousands of legal gun owners (at least 2000) for each annual gun murder.
There is a difference, though, between a tentative maybe hundreds and thousands - quite a different sound to it, dont you think?
16
posted on
04/12/2013 9:02:40 PM PDT
by
conservatism_IS_compassion
(“Liberalism” is a conspiracy against the public by wire-service journalism.)
To: conservatism_IS_compassion
300 million legal guns in the United States. 9000 murders with guns in a year. Round it up to 10,000 gun murders in a year.
30,000 legal guns for each murder per year.
17
posted on
04/12/2013 9:17:24 PM PDT
by
marktwain
(The MSM must die for the Republic to live. Long live the new media!)
To: cardinal4
They way I see it, if the Senate can vote to modify, tweak, augment, or otherwise adjust and an amendment to Constitution in collusion with the House ( and introducing the separate bills as bi- partisan for cover), the Bill of Rights doesnt mean a damn thing..The Constitution gives them certain powers and certain areas of responsibility. It's basically a contract that establishes their legitimacy as a government. If they breach the contract, their authority is imaginary. They no longer have any authority, just force.
18
posted on
04/12/2013 9:24:29 PM PDT
by
Still Thinking
(Freedom is NOT a loophole!)
To: Still Thinking; cardinal4
Correct ST. Cardinal4 we are dealing with a form of oclocracy, mob rule, where that results in intimidation of our representatives. (Ignoring for the moment any other factors.) Honorable men would not yield to that intimidation. Rather, they would adhere to their oaths to “support and defend” the Constitution as written. The first ten amendments can only be changed as prescribed in the Constitution itself which proscribes any other legislative, judicial or executive effort. Anything resulting from actions short of those methods are null and void. The rights listed in the Bill of Rights are not negotiable. They were recognized as being preexistent and inherent in man. Removal or amendment of governments written recognition in the Bill of Rights does negate the existance of the rights listed. I will not comply with the edicts of less than honorable men who would rule over me. That way leads ignominy and ruin. The use of force by government agents to enforce an unlawful edict, where the continuance of life and liberty is concerned, may well warrant the use of force in resistance. If I were a member of a government agency, charged with enforcing a clearly unconstutional edict, such as the confiscation of firearms from the populace, I would refuse and oppose in any manner necessary, that government’s continued efforts. As some would say at this point, “Just sayin’.”
19
posted on
04/13/2013 12:47:00 AM PDT
by
chulaivn66
(Semper Fidelis in Extremis)
To: marktwain
People will not comply, they will hide their guns.
20
posted on
04/13/2013 3:34:54 AM PDT
by
Biggirl
("Jesus talked to us as individuals"-Jim Vicevich/Thanks JimV!)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson