" . . . a little too punitive to the law-abiding citizens"

I have previously made passing reference to this abomination currently festering in the Pennsylvania legislature. Pennsylvania House Bill 760 would require, among other things, registration of every gun (aside from antiques, and guns belonging to the "Only Ones"), at a cost of $10 per gun, per year, fingerprinting, background checks, mandatory "safe-storage" (the language on that would seem to render Pennsylvania's concealed carry licenses meaningless, because all guns would have to be unloaded and locked up, except for "recreational purposes"--unless defending one's life is now to be considered a game), etc.

To be honest, I'm not especially worried that this bill will pass--Pennsylvania seems still to be blessed with enough honorable officials like Sheriff Jozwiak and State Rep. Cox to stop it. The reason that such officials are in office, of course, is that the state's population is concerned enough about liberty to put them there. According to this article, the objections from the citizens who would suffer under this proposed tyranny have been heard loud and clear.

"People from Philadelphia and Pittsburgh support it, but people from the rural western part of the state say I'm a Nazi and that I should go back to my country," said state Rep. Angel Cruz, who represents Philadelphia County's 180th District.

Well, Angel, if the jackboots fit . . .

Cruz said he proposed the measure as a means to install a tracking system to determine where criminals responsible for gun violence are obtaining their weapons.

"I'm not in favor of taking away people's right to bear arms," he insisted. "They would just have to register them -- like they register a vehicle every year. I want to make it safe for all people across the state."

Good thinking, Angel! I think people should have to register their means of exercising their First Amendment rights, as well--we all know that hate speech is a toxic, corrosive influence on our society--let's require registration for every computer, every pen and pencil, and every can of spray paint (I'm sure you can think of more) in the state.

In fact, the outrage from Pennsylvanians who still value liberty has been so intense that two of the bill's sponsors have withdrawn their support. One of them kindly provided me the title for today's topic.

Wheatley believes the bill "goes a little too far."

"I have some concerns because this is more punitive than it needs to be," Wheatley said. "There are too many senseless deaths. We all struggle with gun violence in the city streets and in rural areas, and there is a black market in which someone legally buys a gun and then gives it to a criminal, but this is a little too punitive to the law-abiding citizens."

"Goes a little too far," eh? I'm glad Jake now seems not to be pushing this monstrosity on the people he claims to "represent," but I have some questions and concerns about " . . . a little too punitive to the law-abiding citizens." What degree of punitiveness to law-abiding citizens would be acceptable? How can it possibly be argued that inflicting any degree of punishment on the law-abiding is acceptable?

It seems to me that supporters of this legislation are traitors to the Constitution, and should be tried for treason. I don't wish to be "too punitive" to the law-abiding legislators (those who do not support it), so I don't propose putting them on trial. I'm open to suggestions on what to do about those who initially supported it, but have since withdrawn their support.