Rep. Joe Sanfelippo: The hypocrisy of gun control

Madison.com ^ | 28 aug 2019 | Rep. Joe Sanfelippo

[rellimpank]

Over the years, my dad had many wise sayings. One that always stuck with me was that “all fences do is keep honest people honest.”

This meant that an honorable person with good intentions will respect the fence and leave the property alone, while a dishonest person up to no good will simply ignore the fence, rendering it useless.

I could not help but be reminded of this life lesson as Gov. Tony Evers and legislative Democrats turned the recent mass shootings in El Paso, Texas, and Dayton, Ohio, into a political opportunity to prey on the emotions of Wisconsinites sympathetic to the victims and their families. They did so by recycling worn-out ideas they knew would have little chance of preventing similar tragedies in the future.

So why, you might ask, would Democrats propose solutions that they know would not work? The answer is simple: They are trying to hide their culpability for the erosion of public safety that we are experiencing

[rellimpank]

---at last , a sane voice is heard in the Craptimes--

[momincombatboots]

Democrats? I quit reading right there. The loudest voice I heard was trump calling for red flag rules. He banned bump-stocks, and got away with it. We are in trouble... worse than that, generations of our children are in trouble.

[rellimpank]

---you might learn something if you read the article---

another quote-- "Democrats are advocating for greater protections for criminals at the expense of the rights of law-abiding citizens. Ask yourself who is more likely to undergo a background check prior to purchasing a gun: a person who goes through legal channels or one of the 3,600 felons arrested for possessing a firearm that they already were not allowed to have? Which one is the real threat to public safety?"

[precisionshootist]

"Democrats? I quit reading right there. The loudest voice I heard was trump calling for red flag rules. He banned bump-stocks, and got away with it. We are in trouble... worse than that, generations of our children are in trouble."

I agree it was Trump and red flag laws that got the attention. Worse yet is the President did not get away with the bump stock ban as he is going to lose a half a million votes that he got in 2016. The half a million people that owned bump stocks either had to turn them in to the government with zero compensation or they are now in possession of an unregistered machine gun (a very serious felony). Imagine being a firearms enthusiast who spent a significant amount of money on a bump stock, clearly voted for President Trump in 2016 based on his support for the 2nd amendment and now they are forced to turn their property in to the government or commit a felony. Those people will NOT be voting for President Trump in 2020. The best case and most likely outcome is bumpstock ownners who clearly helped elect President Trump in 2016 will be staying home in 2020. Worst case they will relate to other like minded people and the vote loss will be even greater.

So the President is already in the hole by 500,000 votes at the minimum. An amount sufficient to have given the Presidency to Hillary if the votes were in the right areas.

So no, the President did not get away with the ban. It's just the people affected have not had the chance to voice their opinion by voting or in this case not voting. If the election is close the bumpstock ban may ultimately be the reason Trump does not get a second term. So all that being said the President has zero room for more gun control on any level and to any degree if he is to have a chance at a second term.

[Ghost of Philip Marlowe]

Trump said he was open to talking about any proposals the Dems brought to him.

He is already fighting back against their proposals. The idea was to force them to prove they are anti-2nd Amendment, pro confiscation so that he could use it against them politically.

Both sides are trying to gain political advantage using the 2nd Amendment.

[momincombatboots]

Are you certain about those numbers. I get a lot of his ardent supporters telling me on FR that his red flag rules call was political genius.
They go silent when challenged about the real gun grab he already signed. He is trending anti 2A..
He signed more gun control than Obama. He is hinting at more. Wouldn’t it be wiser to lose the Republic under a Democrat?

[rellimpank]

—my mistake—you are correct—(I go to Madison.com for both)

[BobL]

“He signed more gun control than Obama. He is hinting at more. Wouldn’t it be wiser to lose the Republic under a Democrat?”

Maybe I’m on the wrong site this morning, but I’d still rather have a president who’s placing CONSERVATIVES on the courts, people who have a MUCH BETTER RECORD on the Second Amendment than Leftists.

...then again, perhaps I didn’t sleep well last night?

[precisionshootist]

"Are you certain about those numbers. I get a lot of his ardent supporters telling me on FR that his red flag rules call was political genius. They go silent when challenged about the real gun grab he already signed. He is trending anti 2A.. He signed more gun control than Obama. He is hinting at more. Wouldn’t it be wiser to lose the Republic under a Democrat?"

Yes I'm confident in those numbers. In fact I think the numbers were very likely low balled in order to make it appear less risky for the President to push for the ban. In other words deep staters advising the President low balled the effect in order to push the President to implement the ban and thus hurting him politically. Bumpstocks have been manufactured for almost ten years. They were even available in big box retail stores like Cablelas. It's very likely the actual numbers exceeded half a million. Keep in mind, no one knows for sure how many have been sold but knowledge of the industry tells us that there was at least a half a million sold. (my personal opinion is the number is much higher)

I agree with you. We are in very serious trouble. If the President signs any gun control measure in any way shape or form he will not get reelected. Red flag laws are so dangerous I can't even understand the President even mentioning them much less floating the idea he would sign a bill implementing them. Background check bills are just backdoor registration. There is no room for gun control for the President yet he is plowing forward instead of putting and end to the debate. He should say congress is wasting time and that he will not sign any gun control measure but like you said he is trending anti 2nd. I'm very concerned he is about to go from being one of our greatest Presidents to a one term flash in the pan joke.

[precisionshootist]

I agreed with you up until this

"As for bump stocks, anyone owning one is a rube. All natural rights have reasonable limitations. Gun rights advocates must acknowledge this and decide what hill they are willing to die on. Hill Bump Stock is not where I will take my stand. If you really want to bump fire, you can lawfully (and moronically) do so with your belt loop."

If we were actually following the 2nd Amendment as the founders intended bump stocks would have never even been invented because the people do absolutely have the right to possess machine guns. Bump stocks only came into being because we have allowed the federal government to nullify the true intent of the second amendment and that is to guarantee the people have the ability to possess military arms. In fact the 2nd Amendment is primarily concerned with our rights to military weapons not firearms for hunting or sporting purposes.

If you think this sounds unreasonable I can assure you it's not. The founders would never have accepted banning the people from arms equal to those carried by the standing army.

Now if you want an example of unreasonable and unconstitutional how about dozens of non military government agencies possessing thousands of machine guns and millions of rounds of ammunition. Can you explain to me why agents for the environmental protection agency have H&K MP5 Sub machine guns? How about agents for the Bureau of Land Management, they have machine guns also. How about the department of education? I could go on for several pages. Now the Constitution clearly provides the people to be armed and for the central government to establish the military but there is NO, NONE, NOT ANY constitutional authority given to the federal government to create non military federal agencies armed to the teeth with military weapons. In fact there is not authorization for any government agent to be armed in any capacity much less with machine guns.

[precisionshootist]

" I’ll buy into the public being able, to a point, own arms that police have access to. But, you need to identify where you draw a reasonable limit to the right to keep and bear arms. After all, no one has the right to yell “Fire!” in a crowded theater, unless the cry is truthful. This reasonable limitation to free speech needs to be extended such that any persuasive speech that is unwarranted as truthful is not protected. I, for example, think it is reasonable to ban citizens from possessing nuclear weapons, so I cannot agree we should all have the right to any and all weapons our military has. In our Founding Era citizens could own cannons, but I might take offense if my neighbor sported a functional howitzer in his front lawn. I think federal gun controls dating back to the ‘30s have infringed too much upon our right, and I’d like to see many of these infringements rolled back; but, as a responsible citizen I must ponder where a reasonable line can be drawn. “No line at all” is irresponsible. "

Over 230 years and about the only example that can be given on the limits of free speech(1st amendment) is "you can't yell fire in a crowded theater". Yet where the 2nd amendment is concerned we have literally thousands of laws on the books. Yes of course like the first amendment there could be limitations on the 2nd, and the example that everyone always comes up with is nuclear weapons. The people clearly have the protected right to the same weapons of the standing army and yes there might be a limit when it comes to nuclear arms however the limit is way way beyond where we are today.

Clearly we should not have non military government agents and local police with access to military weapons yet ban them from the people. The founders would have never accepted this for our society.