Profile image
By AmmoLand (Reporter)
Contributor profile | More stories
Story Views

Now:
Last Hour:
Last 24 Hours:
Total:

Democrats Propose More Gun Bans & Where are the Republicans?

Monday, November 20, 2017 9:01
% of readers think this story is Fact. Add your two cents.

Headline: Bitcoin & Blockchain Searches Exceed Trump! Blockchain Stocks Are Next!

Gun Banner Dianne FeinsteinGun Banner Dianne Feinstein, finger on the trigger.

Ammoland Shooting SportsFayetteville, Arkansas -(Ammoland.com)-  Dianne Feinstein has introduced a new ban on what she labels “assault weapons.”

This comes as no surprise to anyone who is aware of her virulent attack on gun ownership over the decades.

It’s a recycling of her efforts in the past, listing features that she regards as icky—threaded barrels, magazines that require her to take off her shoes to count the number of rounds held, and on and on—and listing by name the firearms that she wants to be explicitly forbidden and the firearms that she’s gracious enough to let us keep buying and selling for the time being.

Predictably, law enforcement officers are exempted [only ones], including those who have “retired in good standing.” Facilities under the authority of the Atomic Energy Commission would also be allowed to have such weapons. But ordinary Americans would not be able to acquire a new one legally or transfer the ones that they legally own at present to anyone who isn’t licensed to have them.

As I said, all of that is nothing new. She knows that it would be impossible to round up millions of guns by force, so she isn’t going to insist that we turn ours in—though she includes a program funded by Byrne grants to buy these weapons from their owners.

However, there is one line added to the title that is new: “to ensure that the right to keep and bear arms is not unlimited.”

She is, of course, quoting Antonin Scalia’s comments in the Heller decision here, but the attitude displayed is worth critiquing.

I understand that in society, some things cannot be permitted. When the light turns red, I have to stop to allow other to go through the intersection.

I used to believe that I’m not allowed to spill toxic chemicals on the land of others, though I don’t own the Keystone pipeline. The general principle is that we don’t get to bumble around causing harm at will.

But we should always be cautious and never gleeful about restricting the private behavior of citizens. This is especially the case when we’re asking good people to give up their rights because of what bad people have done. Feinstein might have said that the goal is to prevent mass shootings or to reduce violence. What she chose is instead a rare exercise in honesty—she just wants to restrict rights.

Lest anyone think that she is alone in this, the bill has numerous co-sponsors. And regarding the general idea of preventing as many people as possible from legally owning firearms, a state representative in Massachusetts, Marjorie Decker, declared in a Public Safety Committee hearing on the state’s gun laws that “it is a privilege that we allow individuals to hold onto something that causes harm and death. It is a privilege to have a car license; it is a privilege to have a gun license.”

Are we supposed to feel gratitude toward such politicians who will condescend to allow some of us to own a list of approved guns? The gun control freaks would likely say yes. Nothing in what they declare or propose comes as a revelation at this point. The question that I have is where are the Republicans? That party has been in control of Congress and the White House since the start of the year. The Supreme Court in Heller and McDonald—even with Scalia’s musings—provided a solid basis for action. And while advocates for gun control tend to be Democrats, there are enough members of that party who are in purple states or districts to make overcoming a filibuster possible.

Each One, Teach One: Preserving and protecting the Second Amendment in the 21st centuryEach One, Teach One: Preserving and protecting the Second Amendment in the 21st century

And yet, suppressors are still heavily restricted. Carry licenses are still burdened by the whims of reciprocity agreements. Importation of guns is again caught in a web of requirements to demonstrate a “sporting purpose.” Add whatever infringement on gun rights is of particular interest to you. But what are our elected representatives waiting for?

The answer is that they’re waiting on their jobs being at stake. Their donors can afford to pay security companies to protect them and can, shall we say, persuade law enforcement to authorize them to possess whatever they want. If the rest of us want our government to be responsive to us, we have to make it clear that our votes depend on our rights being respected.

About Greg Camp

Greg Camp has taught English composition and literature since 1998 and is the author of six books, including a western, The Willing Spirit, and Each One, Teach One, with Ranjit Singh on gun politics in America. His books can be found on Amazon. He tweets @gregcampnc.

This post Democrats Propose More Gun Bans & Where are the Republicans? appeared first on AmmoLand.com Shooting Sports News .



Source: https://www.ammoland.com/2017/11/with-bans-proposed-where-are-the-republicans/

Report abuse

Comments

Your Comments
Question   Razz  Sad   Evil  Exclaim  Smile  Redface  Biggrin  Surprised  Eek   Confused   Cool  LOL   Mad   Twisted  Rolleyes   Wink  Idea  Arrow  Neutral  Cry   Mr. Green

Total 1 comment
  • raburgeson

    They can holler ban all they want to but, collecting them will be another story. Keeping control of gun free cities will be about a three week story. Keeping control of Norad will be a three day story. Do I make my point.

Top Stories
Recent Stories
 

Featured

 

Top Global

 

Top Alternative

 

Register

Newsletter

Email this story
Email this story

If you really want to ban this commenter, please write down the reason:

If you really want to disable all recommended stories, click on OK button. After that, you will be redirect to your options page.