That's today's St. Louis Gun Rights Examiner. Please give it a look, and tell a friend--and Facebook "likes" and "shares" are hugely appreciated.A Constitutionally guaranteed, fundamental human right of the individual, and these people demand the power to take it away without a conviction, without an indictment, without an arrest or formal charges, and now
without "concrete facts" or "irrefutable evidence." They seem more than a little confused as to who the "terrorists" here are--perhaps a mirror would help. [More]
Stumble it!
2 comments:
In itself, I have no objection to laws prohibiting convicted felons and diagnosed psychotics from owning weapons. As a matter of fact, though, there is already such a law: the Gun Control Act of 1968. Since it is a federal law, it applies in all fifty states.
That said, one might ask, if a person is a criminal, why is he wandering around loose in society instead of being locked up in prison? And if a person is dangerously mentally ill, why is he wandering around loose instead of being confined in a secure mental hospital?
The answer is, because civil libertarians (i.e., "progressives") have given us a revolving-door legal system that releases violent criminals before the police have time to finish writing the arrest reports. And a mental health system that releases severely mentally ill people even though they have not been cured. Then, when these criminals and psychotics commit violent crimes, the same "progressives" who released them blame the "gun lobby."
Another problem is that anyone can accuse anyone of anything. Anyone could be designated a "suspected terrorist" (without a trial or any kind of due process) and therefore prohibited from owning a gun.
And, of course, the current government has its own ideas about defining "terrorism." The attack at Benghazi was a "spontaneous protest," the Ft. Hood hospital rampage was "workplace violence," but a dispute over grazing fees is "terrorism."
The same with definitions of "mental illness" and a "felony." The powers-that-be could have their own in-house psychiatrists diagnose someone as psychotic, simply because the person wants to buy a gun. (Leftists consider wanting to own a weapon as a symptom of mental illness in and of itself.) For that matter, any political dissent (you can't see Emperor Obama's new clothes) could be designated a symptom of a severe psychiatric disorder. (That was a common tactic in the Soviet Union.)
And a minor (and unintentional) misdemeanor could become a felony if the legislature chooses to increase the penalty to a year or more in prison. So you could be barred from owning a gun because you are "guilty" of "felony overtime parking," "felony failure to remove your garbage cans from the curb within one hour after the garbage pick-up," and so on.
When the Terror Watch List and its subsidiary, the No-Fly List, were first implemented, liberals denounced them, and with considerable justification. Editorials in the Atlantic and New York Times pointed out that anyone could be put on the list, for any reason, or for no reason. They also pointed out that innocent people were put on the list, and remained on it even after they were investigated and exonerated.
Then Obama got elected, and, after the San Bernardino massacre, sought to ban the sale of guns to people on the No-Fly List. Then the liberal media did an about-face. Editorials in those same publications complained that "even" suspects on the list could buy weapons.
With Obama in office, the left suddenly learned to Stop Worrying and Love the List.
BTW, Syed Farook and Tashfeen Malik were never on the No Fly List, or any other anti-terror watch list. (Not surprising, since Obama pretty much ordered the FBI and Department of Homeland Security not to spy on Muslims.) So "no fly=no buy" would not have prevented the San Bernardino massacre. Immigration reform could have.
Post a Comment