Mission statement:

Armed and Safe is a gun rights advocacy blog, with the mission of debunking the "logic" of the enemies of the Constitutionally guaranteed, fundamental human right of the individual to keep and bear arms.

I can be reached at 45superman@gmail.com.You can follow me on Twitter at http://twitter.com/45superman.

Monday, May 11, 2009

Helmke's 'middle ground'--somewhere between total citizen disarmament, and near-total citizen disarmament

According to the Fort Wayne (has Paul mentioned--recently--that he was mayor there?) News-Sentinel, "Helmke strives for middle ground on gun rights, control."

“Gun control is a topic that people don't like to talk about in any sort of rational way,” he said, noting some favor outlawing all private gun ownership, while others say there should be no gun laws. Helmke favors a middle ground. He would limit how many guns people can buy at one time, ban sales of semiautomatic rifles and increase law oversight of gun sales.
That's the newspeak version of "middle ground"--rationing of Constitutional rights, banning the most popular (and useful) rifles made, and inserting the government's intrusive proboscis into what we euphemistically refer to as "private" commerce.

In other words, anything short of a total ban, on all guns, is "middle ground."

That ground isn't in the middle of anywhere I want to go.

As Days of Our Trailers reminds us, according to Helmke's Brady Campaign, even restrictions on completely passive defensive gear (body armor), would fall in the "middle ground."
"There are no background checks, no federal regulations unless you are a violent offender—and even then you can buy them at gun shows or online," says Daniel Vice, senior attorney at the Brady Center To Prevent Gun Violence.
Speaking of Helmke--he and the VPC's Josh Sugarmann are apparently not the only contestants for the "Saddest Clown" title--The Philadelphia Inquirer editorial staff is going to make an effort, as well.
Big-city mayors and handgun-safety advocates have every right to be fed up with President Obama's track record so far on initiatives to help end the carnage from gun violence on the nation's streets.

Even in the aftermath of a number of grisly mass murders, the president made clear that his administration would not push to reinstate the assault-weapons ban that Congress and former President George W. Bush allowed to expire in 2004.

Now, Obama has taken a pass on repealing the Bush-era laws that shield gun traffickers and their suppliers. In cities such as Philadelphia and Camden, that's like reaffirming a death sentence for the hundreds of people slain each year by gunfire.
How, I wonder, does one "reaffirm a death sentence" for people who have already been slain--is Obama mandating that corpses be given lethal injections?

Like Helmke and Sugarmann, the Inquirer's editors apparently want the president to retain legislative power, in addition to his executive powers, judging from their insistence that he ban "assault weapons," restrict gun shows, and repeal the Tiahrt Amendment.
The Tiahrt Amendment doesn't need to be tweaked; it needs to be scrapped - if the nation has any hope of stemming the flow of illegal guns. An updated assault-weapons ban should accompany that move, along with a federal ban on gun-show weapons sales without background checks. In New Jersey and Pennsylvania, monthly limits on legal handgun purchases should be enacted.
In a bizarre new twist, though, the Inquirer apparently wants him to control state policies, as well. Rather a lot of power to just hand over to a president--especially one whose track record supposedly leaves them "fed up."