And so Fox News reports “White House In Gun Control Sprint.” President Obama wants to fast-track a stack of new gun laws before the lingering pain and horror of the Newtown, Conn., massacre fades.
According to the Washington Post, Obama’s task force has already blown past the return of the so-called “assault weapons” ban and a ban on high-capacity magazines. They’ve moved on to “regulations that would require universal background checks for firearm buyers, track the movement and sale of weapons through a national database, strengthen mental health checks, and stiffen penalties for carrying guns near schools or giving them to minors.”
I thought the point of this White House task force was to “prevent more tragedies” like Newtown, as the president said when he announced it. If so, please re-read the last paragraph. Am I missing something?
“Universal background checks” — whatever that means — might or might not be a good thing. They certainly sound reasonable to me. But how would they have prevented Adam Lanza from shooting up that elementary school? He took a rifle that belonged to his mother.
The same with “tracking the sale and movement” of guns. I’m not sure about the constitutionality of forcing me to report to the government when I pass down my father’s shotgun to my son one day, but once again — this prevents another Newtown … how?
And sure, I’m all for “strengthening mental health checks,” but unless you’re going to make your local gun store owner a licensed therapist, how does he stop a guy like Lanza — with no diagnosis of mental illness — from buying a gun?
Most laughable (and this is no laughing matter, which makes the White House’s position even more angering) is the “stiffened penalties for carrying guns near schools.”
So Joe Biden’s telling me that Lanza, overcome by his mental condition to the point that he’s murdered his mother and is headed to an elementary school on a killing spree, is going to stop 1,000 yards from the playground and think, “Hey — I don’t want Obama to take away my student loan subsidy. I better keep these guns away from school!”
These are the thoughtful, well-reasoned ideas from the Obama brain trust?
And we haven’t even mentioned the fact that gun laws are utterly meaningless to criminals, anyway. Don’t believe me? Ask the families of the 506 people fatally shot in Obama’s “gun-controlled” hometown of Chicago last year.
Tell us why the gate is bad before we can allow you tear it down. In the comments to my homage to Ace of yesterday, I wrote:
The brilliance of Chesterton’s paradox and Ace’s use of it here is its simplicity. This is what I have been trying to get at for a couple of years when talking about root causes and getting liberals to stop dealing with symptoms and get on to the real issues.
If they want more taxes because they want to spend more, we should be able to understand why the see the need. If they want to push the progressive tax system to a more progressive point, they should expect to explain why.If they say that our system isn’t fair, then they should be expected to define what “fair” means and how much it costs.
If they wan to ban guns, it needs to be for more of a reason than they don’t like or understand guns because they don’t like or understand guns.
The common phrase is “we don’t need guns any longer” but it isn’t a matter of “need”, it is a matter of CHOICE, a choice born of individual freedom. I don’t need another Glock but when I get back to the States in less than 12 days, my first major purchase will be a new Glock 23 Gen 4 in .40 caliber. Not because I “need” another weapon, because it is my choice to own one.
There is also the converse to Chesterton’s example and it has a greater impact because it applies to all, Assume that the same road has no gate and the liberals decide to build one and lock it. While they may want the security and protection of a locked gate, it prevents the rest of us without a key from walking through even though we use that road every day. That is what gun control is – building a gate and locking it on a road that the liberals share but do not own. The should not be allowed to build the gate unless there is a compelling reason to do so and one that all users of the road agree to…and there better be a shit load of keys handed out.
But they won’t recognize this because facts simply do not matter to them if those facts exist outside their experiences. They want to tear down the gate just because it is there…or build one – simply because it isn’t.