Washington Post admits: Stopping Criminals not Goal of Gun Bill

Gun Watch ^ | 13 April, 2013 | Dean Weingarten

[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 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 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.

[RC one]

...one must ask what the underlying goal is."

registration today followed by confiscation tomorrow.

[Paladin2]

Extra-Constitutional actions.

[Texas Fossil]

It is ultimately about Confiscation. The price of that action would be denominated in blood.

[FlingWingFlyer]

“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.

[Travis McGee]

[Blood of Tyrants]

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?

[NoLibZone]

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!

[chulaivn66]

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.

[chulaivn66]

I am not walking anywhere I do not intend to go.

[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 doesn’t mean a damn thing..

[SunkenCiv]

Thanks marktwain.

[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? 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.

[tomkat]

             

[GOPJ]

...particularly a plan to allow gun owners to carry concealed weapons from one state to another — that would kill the bill’s underlying goal.

Seems they're going after lawful honest gun owners - just lie we thought.

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

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, don’t you think?

[marktwain]

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.

[Still Thinking]

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..

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.

[chulaivn66]

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’.”

[Biggirl]

People will not comply, they will hide their guns.