What the election means for gun control

From the Daily Beast (somehow this gets classified as news on Yahoo):

As the Tea Party gears up for big wins on Tuesday, Adam Winkler sounds the alarm on an overlooked part of their radical agenda to overturn gun control laws in America—and their ties to revolutionary militia.
A traditionally hot topic in election season, gun control has been conspicuously absent from the recent candidate debates. This would not be of note if the candidates themselves had no designs on changing the nation’s gun laws. Yet many of the Tea Party candidates, who portray themselves as focused on economic issues like excessive government bailouts and lower taxes, have a radical gun agenda. They seek an extreme roll back of the nation’s gun laws.
In state after state, Tea Party candidates like Rand Paul in Kentucky and Joe Miller in Alaska advocate for the adoption of radical “Firearms Freedom Acts.” These laws, which declare that the federal government has exceeded its constitutional authority by regulating gun sales, are intended to nullify the federal Brady Act, which requires background checks for most gun purchases. Eight states in the throes of Tea Party fervor, including Arizona, Utah, and South Dakota, have already enacted such laws—even though, as a federal court held last month, these laws are clearly unconstitutional. . . .

The NY Times is pushing for more gun control without any mention that tracing reduces crime rates.

As a new Congress looms, we suggest lawmakers travel to Washington by way of West Virginia and an obscure federal building called the National Tracing Center. There they can see workers laboring through unmanageably high backlogs of handwritten paper records submitted by the nation’s gun dealers. This is Congress’s handiwork — at the behest of the gun lobby and to the detriment of public safety. . . .

Meanwhile, one Virginia Republican candidate gets pummeled by the media for suggesting something quite reasonable:
"I think that at Virginia Tech, if one of those kids in those classrooms was packing heat, I think that would not have happened." While he has backed away from his position, I truly hopes that he wins just so that other politicians aren't scared away from this discussion.

Labels: ,


Blogger Chas said...

The New York Times may bemoan government employees having to soil their fingers by actually having to touch real paper records instead of using a computerized database, but the commie libs at the New York Times wouldn't object too strenuously to gun owners being lined up against a wall and shot either.
The bottom line is that there shouldn't be any government records against gun owners, paper or otherwise. It's a matter of the constitutional right to keep and bear arms being safeguarded by the right to privacy, as it should be.

11/03/2010 6:26 AM  
Blogger LB said...

The Brady Act was enacted in response to John Brady being shot in the failed attempt to assassinate Reagan.

Federal law prohibits the following categories of persons from buying or possessing firearms: "those under indictment for, or convicted of, a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year; fugitives from justice; users of controlled substances; persons adjudicated as "mental defective" or committed to mental institutions; illegal aliens; individuals dishonorably discharged from the military; those who have renounced their United States citizenship; persons subject to a court order restraining a person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner or the child of the intimate partner; or, those convicted of a domestic violence misdemeanor."

If you are classified as one of these people, you do not have a right to own a gun.

11/16/2010 10:25 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home