Blood on Our Hands

The Senate Democrats are in high dudgeon ... they just had a 15 hour filibuster demanding that our government should get tougher on our immigration enforcement so that Muslim  terrorists cannot slip into our country among the thousands of unvetted migrants from the strife-ridden Middle East ... and kill dozens of innocent Americans.

They didn't do this? ... What? They instead were jumping and screaming about what these terrorists were using to kill Americans ... the so-called  Rambo-style weapons ... or the weapons of war ... or the assault rifles ... or "guns designed to kill people". (Don't liberals really manipulate language well?) See: New York Times Story. Now assault rifles are semi-automatic (each shot takes a finger-pull) but both Bernie Sanders and The View's Joy Behar have called them "automatic" weapons or machine guns (a single finger pull dispenses dozens of bullets). And, according to our professed American Indian Senator from Massachusetts, Elizabeth Warren, if we don't outlaw these evil guns, we "will have blood on our hands."

This anger is clearly misplaced ... it's like blaming the big scary automobile if its drunk driver kills someone.

OK ... but  if the media won't stop exorcising and Democrat Senators won't listen to reason, Therefore, I think that Republicans should bend and pass this Democrat's feel-good legislation. However, there should be a number of Republican provisos attached to this Second Amendment stricture. They are:

- The guns to be outlawed MUST be actual military weapons of war using military ammunition which are actually designed to kill people.

- All current gun laws MUST be fully enforced. Obummer and Hellery cannot wave away any statute that offends them or for their political advantage. And absolutely no existing compulsory gun charges can be plea-bargained out of any felony prosecution.

- If any government lists are used to exclude the purchase of any such firearms, such persons excluded MUST have the right of judicial appeal of their placement on such a list. This due process MUST be concluded within 30 days.

- The vetting process for Muslim immigrants MUST be at least as vigorous as the vetting process for such gun purchasers ... and any BS statements by Obummer about how this process now takes six months needs to be independently verified. If this turns out not to be the case, then this law is automatically null and void.

Then, if another Islamic terrorist finds it necessary in Allah's name to kill multiple Americans, I would hope that the main stream media will point out those who really have blood on THEIR hands ... Obummer and Hellery.

Feel-Good Laws

Today the Senate is considering a series of proposals to deal with guns, ammunition and the purchasing of same.  The only new constraint that seems to have a chance of passage is the expansion of background checks for the purchase of guns … particularly over the Internet ... see: Washington Post Story. 

This legislation is obviously in response to the slaughter of 20 children and six adults in Newtown, Connecticut over four months ago by Adam Lanza, an emotionally disturbed teenage loner.  One sponsor of these new restrictions, Senator Joe Manchin of West Virginia, has even admitted that these new constraints would not have stopped the Newtown massacre.  And, it is possible that this new legislation might also infringe on some Constitutional rights of Americans … see: Policy Mic Story. (And if you want to see what I think are the real issues coming out of Newtown killings are, please reference: Assault Weapons).

So why pass such laws?  It seems to me that it all has to do with our politicians trying to strike poses that demonstrate their heart-felt concerns … however rushed and inconclusive.  I think the appropriate term for such legislation might be “feel-good laws.”  They end up treating the symptoms and not the disease.  To me, the road to despotism is paved with thousands upon thousands of such feel-good laws.  My reasoning is, after these laws are passed (and, too often, not enforced), lawmakers strut around as though they have fixed things  … at least in the eyes of the voters … and push the real problem(s) to a back burner … until the next time such a heinous act occurs.  

To me, this all seems so vacuous, futile ... and dangerous.

Afterward: The expanded-background-check legislation failed yesterday in the Senate to the indignant consternation of President Obama and the Morning Joe cast.  Although this specific restriction might have had some merit, what is not generally being discussed is that it was an amendment to the larger gun law that included many more controversial items (assault weapon ban, large ammunition clips ban, etc.).  It would seem to me that, even had the expanded-background-check amendment passed muster, the omnibus bill never had a chance. Thus, this specific issue, in my mind, is moot ... and all the heated rhetoric surrounding yesterday's Senate rejection vote is phony and a public-relations stunt ... designed for political purpose ... and not to save "one child's life."  Perhaps this specific constraint can be introduced and passed as a stand-alone law?  Wouldn't that be special ...