Panicky Senate Republicans, spooked by a filibuster into allowing votes on using a so-called “terror watchlist” as an excuse to ban gun sales, is expected to offer up legislation today to compete with Democrat demands, in a wholly unnecessary, election year “compromise” on the right to keep and bear arms.
Even Donald Trump has indicated his willingness to consider such a ban (not surprising considering past statements in support of such a measure), and cited his meeting with the National Rifle Association on the matter as proof of solidarity with gun owners.
For its part, NRA issued the following statement:
We are happy to meet with Donald Trump. The NRA’s position on this issue has not changed. The NRA believes that terrorists should not be allowed to purchase or possess firearms, period. Anyone on a terror watchlist who tries to buy a gun should be thoroughly investigated by the FBI and the sale delayed while the investigation is ongoing. If an investigation uncovers evidence of terrorist activity or involvement, the government should be allowed to immediately go to court, block the sale, and arrest the terrorist. At the same time, due process protections should be put in place that allow law-abiding Americans who are wrongly put on a watchlist to be removed. That has been the position of Sen. John Cornyn (R.-Tex.) and a majority of the U.S. Senate. Sadly, President Obama and his allies would prefer to play politics with this issue.
That “go to court [and] arrest the terrorist” part seem to be OK. The concern here is, what do they mean by “due process” (the thing Joe Manchin says “is killing us”) for those who aren’t arrested? A jury trial? A panel with personal political debts and sympathies? A judge with predilections of his own? And explain again how quickly and easily people wrongly on the list can be removed, and what recourse they’ll have for being denied a right…?
We run into many of the same unanswered questions outlined when Cornyn was pushing another NRA-backed disarmament bill on mental health. It’s fair to wonder why both seem so eager to prove that “gun control” works – especially since the most credible study on the matter observed:
In 2004, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences released its evaluation from a review of 253 journal articles, 99 books, 43 government publications, and some original empirical research. It failed to identify any gun control that had reduced violent crime, suicide, or gun accidents. The same conclusion was reached in 2003 by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control’s review of then‐ extant studies.
Does anyone actually believe committed ISIS operatives will be stopped from their missions of maximum casualty carnage by a new “gun control” law that further tramples fundamental and civil liberties?
Also inexplicable: While stumping for kinder, gentler “gun control,” NRA has remained deliberately indifferent to immigration, both legal and illegal, ignoring the “pathway to citizenship” threat to continued legal recognition of the right to keep and bear arms by falling back on the “single issue” excuse. In the Orlando killer’s case, there’s still no explanation on why admitting his Taliban-supporting father to this country in the first place was in furtherance of one of government’s fundamental reasons for existing, “to secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.”
Speaking of that Democrat Islamic State loyalist (and evidently a self-loathing gay), it’s not like the ball wasn’t dropped on him time and again for threatening statements and conduct.The latest reported development: The shrink who was supposed to give him a psych evaluation for his security employment position says she never did.
So the “solution” to all this is to further infringe on the right to keep and bear arms against those who have done nothing wrong? By putting our names on classified lists that are compiled without oversight under the banner of “national security”? And to — as FBI Director James Comey maintains (and naturally, Loretta Lynch denies) — tip a suspect off that he’s been made? And the Republican “solution” is to offer secret mini-lists?
After Sandy Hook, there was a cadre of insiders discussing appeasement measures to help quell the gun ban feeding frenzy, operating on the assumption that “we have to give them something—we can’t offer nothing!” Some colleagues and I were privy to those discussions, and we did our best to make it clear that any sign of weakness or surrender would be loudly condemned. Instead, our unequivocal warning to politicians was:
WE WON’T STAND FOR SCAPEGOATING
NO NEW GUN LAWS
DENY SUCCESS TO MASS MURDERERS BY ABOLISHING PHONY ‘GUN-FREE’ VICTIM / KILLER-ENABLING ZONES NOW
WORK WITH US OR WE WILL WORK TO RETIRE YOU
That’s because any concession allows those playing the long game to advance and establish a beachhead from which to launch their next incursion. Thinking they will then be appeased and let up makes as much sense as throwing a scrap of flesh to a pack of circling jackals and assuming they’ll be satisfied and leave you alone.
Look at what’s happening to prove that: Before the Orlando shooting, the big issue gun owners considered the front-and-center threat (it still is) was so-called “universal background checks,” in reality the first step toward universal registration. Now it turns out that’s not good enough, and the gun-grabbers need to expand prior restraints on rights with this “terror watchlist” nonsense rather than be held to account for policies they demanded that have embedded terrorists among us in the first place. And even that won’t be good enough, as there’s a new move to add “progressive”-defined “haters” to the banned list.
It’ll never be enough for those who would control everything. That’s why they’re called “totalitarians.”
Barring another convenient blood dancing opportunity, it doesn’t look like either Democrats or Republicans will reach agreement to pass anything. What we’re seeing now is posturing, sound and fury signifying nothing but jockeying for position.
Don’t think for a second that means the threat isn’t imminent. It wouldn’t be the first time Obama has expressed frustration with the lack of “bipartisan” legislation and acted on his own through imperial executive order decrees that receive full and enthusiastic media backing.
Read the Original Article at Ammo-Land