![\"Terror2\"](\"https:\/\/hcsblogdotorg.files.wordpress.com\/2016\/06\/terror2.jpg?w=620\")
<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
Panicky Senate Republicans, spooked by a filibuster into allowing votes on using a so-called \u201cterror watchlist\u201d as an excuse to ban gun sales, is expected to offer up legislation today<\/a> to compete with Democrat demands, in a wholly unnecessary, election year \u201ccompromise\u201d on the right to keep and bear arms.<\/p>\n Even Donald Trump has indicated his willingness to consider such a ban<\/a> (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.<\/p>\n For its part, NRA issued the following statement<\/a>:<\/p>\n We are happy to meet with Donald Trump. \u00a0The NRA\u2019s position on this issue has not changed. \u00a0The NRA believes that terrorists should not be allowed to purchase or possess firearms, period.\u00a0 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. \u00a0If 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.\u00a0 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.\u00a0 That has been the position of Sen. John Cornyn (R.-Tex.) and a majority of the U.S. Senate.\u00a0 Sadly, President Obama and his allies would prefer to play politics with this issue.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n That \u201cgo to court [and] arrest the terrorist\u201d part seem to be OK.\u00a0 The concern here is, what do they mean by \u201cdue process\u201d (the thing Joe Manchin says \u201cis killing us\u201d<\/a>) for those who aren\u2019t 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\u2019ll have for being denied a right\u2026?<\/p>\n We run into many of the same unanswered questions<\/a> outlined when Cornyn was pushing another NRA-backed disarmament bill on mental health. It\u2019s fair to wonder why both seem so eager to prove that \u201cgun control\u201d works \u2013 especially since the most credible study<\/a> on the matter observed:<\/p>\n 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\u2019s review of then\u2010 extant studies.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Does anyone actually believe committed ISIS operatives will be stopped from their missions of maximum casualty carnage by a new \u201cgun control\u201d law that further tramples fundamental and civil liberties?<\/p>\n Also inexplicable: While stumping for kinder, gentler \u201cgun control,\u201d NRA has remained deliberately indifferent to immigration, both legal and illegal, ignoring the \u201cpathway to citizenship\u201d<\/a> threat to continued legal recognition of the right to keep and bear arms by falling back on the \u201csingle issue\u201d excuse. In the Orlando killer\u2019s case, there\u2019s still no explanation on why admitting his Taliban-supporting father to this country in the first place was in furtherance of one of government\u2019s fundamental reasons for existing, \u201cto secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.\u201d<\/p>\n Speaking of that Democrat Islamic State loyalist (and evidently a self-loathing gay), it\u2019s not like the ball wasn\u2019t dropped on him time and again for threatening statements and conduct.<\/a>The latest reported development: The shrink who was supposed to give him a psych evaluation for his security employment position says she never did<\/a>.<\/p>\n So the \u201csolution\u201d 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 \u201cnational security\u201d? And to \u2014 as FBI Director James Comey maintains (and naturally, Loretta Lynch denies) \u2014 tip a suspect off that he\u2019s been made<\/a>? And the Republican \u201csolution\u201d is to offer secret mini-lists<\/a>?<\/p>\n 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 \u201cwe have to give them something\u2014we can\u2019t offer nothing!\u201d 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<\/a> to politicians was:<\/p>\n WE WON\u2019T STAND FOR SCAPEGOATING<\/strong><\/p>\n NO NEW GUN LAWS<\/strong><\/p>\n DENY SUCCESS TO MASS MURDERERS BY ABOLISHING PHONY \u2018GUN-FREE\u2019 VICTIM \/ KILLER-ENABLING ZONES NOW<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n WORK WITH US OR WE WILL WORK TO RETIRE YOU<\/strong><\/p><\/blockquote>\n That\u2019s 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\u2019ll be satisfied and leave you alone.<\/em><\/p>\n Look at what\u2019s happening to prove that: \u00a0Before the Orlando shooting, the big issue gun owners considered the front-and-center\u00a0threat (it still is) was so-called \u201cuniversal background checks,\u201d in reality the first step toward universal registration.\u00a0 Now it turns out that\u2019s not good enough, and the gun-grabbers need to expand prior restraints on rights with this \u201cterror watchlist\u201d nonsense rather than be held to account\u00a0for policies they demanded that have embedded terrorists among us in the first place. And even that won\u2019t be good enough, as there\u2019s a new move to add \u201cprogressive\u201d-defined \u201chaters\u201d to the banned list<\/a>.<\/p>\n It\u2019ll never be enough for those who would control everything. That\u2019s why they\u2019re called \u201ctotalitarians.\u201d<\/p>\n Barring another convenient blood dancing opportunity, it doesn\u2019t look like either Democrats or Republicans will reach agreement to pass anything. What we\u2019re seeing now is posturing, sound and fury signifying nothing but jockeying for position.<\/p>\n Don\u2019t think for a second that means the threat isn\u2019t imminent. It wouldn\u2019t be the first time Obama has expressed frustration with the lack of \u201cbipartisan\u201d legislation and acted on his own through imperial executive order decrees that receive full and enthusiastic media backing.<\/p>\n