Thursday, April 11, 2013

HERE WE GO AGAIN

Today the Senate voted cloture in order to open debate on new gun control legislation.   In a concerted effort, gun control advocates have tried to rebrand gun control.  Gun registration isn't gun control, it's a common sense approach toward keeping guns out of the hands of those who shouldn't have them.  Sounds good, right?  After all, gun control, by definition, the control of the amount of guns sold and to whom, isn't popular with Americans.  We have a tendency to be jealous of our constitutional rights and our freedom.  I don't want to reargue the Second Amendment.  That argument has been won.  How's that?  Every gun control advocate always prefaces their gun control solutions by saying that they don't want take away our guns.  Why else would they say this if wasn't to disguise their intentions? 

To say gun registration and more intrusive background checks will save lives is an evil lie.  Making law-abiding citizens submit to gun registration hasn't and won't stop one shooting from occurring.  That's the big lie.  It's all about politicians rushing to do something, anything to gain votes.  That's their currency and it allows them to keep their power and that's what it's all about.  Control is power.  Those who are in positions of power are prone to taking measures to keep their power.  And those measures often take the form of legislation that focuses not on action that ameliorates a bad situation but measures that exercise control of citizens. Surely they know better than us.  Of course, wouldn't it make sense to keep criminals and mentally people from getting guns?  Instead, we subject law-abiding citizens to intrusive background checks and give them a permanent place on a registry that is kept on file for who knows how long. 

This is another in a long line of actions by the government to maintain its control over its citizens.  Whether you argue that these useless laws and government programs are well meaning or they are an organized attempt to deprive citizens of their rights, at the end of the day they do deprive us of our rights, either by long-term erosion or outright oppression. 

Another example of this tactic is "hate crime" legislation.  I object to this legislation because it criminalizes thought.  It makes absolutely no difference why someone commits a crime.  A suspect's motive may help prove that the suspect had a reason to commit the crime, it doesn't make it a crime worthy of stiffer punishment because the suspect may have harbored feelings of hate toward the victim.  If a person commits a crime against another person the law should be adjudicated and the suspect given the proper punishment.  To attach the term "hate crime" to criminal act does nothing to further justice for anyone.  It is an attempt by politicians to glorify themselves to voters and solidify their hold on power. 

We need to pay attention.               

9 comments:

Average American said...

Yeah, I always figured that if someone murders someone else, it's a good bet that hate was involved, no matter what the skin color. This whole bullshit thing about "hate crimes" and stiffer penalties to go with them is crap. All it does is tie up EXPENSIVE prison beds for a longer period of time.

Law and Order Teacher said...

AA,
Thanks for the visit. I agree that hate crimes are crap and the law should be enforced as written.

Law and Order Teacher said...

AA,
Thanks for the visit. I agree that hate crimes are crap and the law should be enforced as written.

Z said...

good point about gun registration really registering the OWNER's information, etc...background checks more for the Feds than for anything to do with guns?

And I agree about hate crimes.

We are in BIG trouble, Law and Order; how the heck did this happen?
Saul Alinsky's Rules comes to mind; somehow, the far left twists everything via his 'rules' and it's working like a charm.
I don't know how we survive this and be the American you and I grew up in.

Law and Order Teacher said...

Z,
I think it goes to what I said about the people. We have become a country of citizens who don't pay attention to what's going on. What a bunch of sheep to listen to this loser and his ridiculous minions.

Ayatolla Truthmeni 101 said...

What other entity than government has the scope and authority to keep guns out of the hands of kooks and crooks?

The real fact is it's more important for some people that they not be inconvenienced by having to wait a few days or weeks for a background check than doing things to keep bad guys from getting guns.

I can't buy a box of sudafed without filling out a form which is provided to whatever law enforcement agency wants it.

To call a background check before being allowed to buy a gun some kind of gross government intrusion is silly at best. It's government's job first and foremost to keep us safe. Once someone is qualified through a background check verifying he/she is mentally and morally responsible, plus has the ability to hit what he aims at, I know of nobody who has a problem with that person owning however many guns he wants.

And c'mon Law Teacher. No doubt in your career you've told countless subjects if they have nothing to hide then they have nothing to worry about.

Law and Order Teacher said...

Truth,
Welcome. My point was that the government makes no effort to check mental stability. To me that's the important part. I don't care for gun registries because I am now in a database that is in the hands of who knows who.

As for felons and mental patients being on a no-sell list, I can get there. This system, as proposed is merely a feel-good solution that doesn't address the problem. In other words, a typical government solution.

As usual, your faith in government is, I feel, misplaced.

Good day sir.

Ayatolla Truthmeni 101 said...

We both are or were government employees Law Teacher. Despite our differences philosophically, which in reality we're aren't that far apart. Just a matter of a few degrees, I have faith that people like you in government understand and can and do make a difference.

I don;t ask for overreach. Simply that government does it's job and those who benefit from less government, the people wanting to cut IRS auditors, food inspectors, etc. look in the mirror and ask themselves if they're interested in jobs and growth and all the things they say less government will provide, or if they're just being selfish and greedy.

Law and Order Teacher said...

Truth,
As usual, I respect your point of view. I've been a long-time government employee. That's a fact. I do, however, respect the fact that government is capable of overreach. I applaud the military, the police, FD, teachers etc. There is a place for government. My problem is that government has went into areas of our lives that are totally beyond its ability to successfully handle. That's the problem.

Good day, sir.