The “Progressive” Bi-Partisan Gun Law DEBACLE

Calling these ridiculous proposed measures “bi-partisan” does NOT make them “common-sense. Let’s examine some of these claims:
1. “…the legislation would make background checks for gun buyers more thorough and precise by enforcing measures that strengthen the existing National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS).”
Oooh! That sounds nice! It MUST be good if it tickles my ears that well!
Not so fast. Couple of points:
a. The U.S. already has mandatory FBI background checks. The federal government gives the states the option to perform their own, IF they meet or exceed federal requirements. Here in Colorado, for example, the SBI (state background investigation) costs a “whopping” $15 because the state keeps very good records on whose been naughty and whose been nice.
b. While backgrounds do catch the idiotic 15% of gun-buyers whose criminal past prohibits them from buying, owning/possessing, and carrying firearms, they have done nothing to stop mass shootings. Indeed, nearly all mass-shooters have no criminal or psychological record at all. Therefore, if someone things increased background checks will do anything to curb mass shootings, well, they’re ignorant, misinformed, or otherwise just sadly wrong.
c. Aside from keeping a few of the dumbest criminals from getting their hands on firearms through the front door, background checks don’t actually solve anything. They don’t stop mass shooters. The smarter criminals simply obtain firearms by other means, of which there are plenty.
2. This bill aims to help fix what’s become a nationwide, systemic problem so we can better prevent criminals and domestic abusers from obtaining firearms.”
a. Only a very tiny fraction of domestic abusers are ever likely to commit murder or a mass shooting. If you want to argue about statistics, let’s talk about race and location, as the odds are far, far greater those known segments of society will commit murder. If you find that “offensive,” then stop talking about the far less statistically likely group of domestic abusers.
3. “…a shift in public sentiment…”
a. Shifts in public sentiment may very well drive members of Congress to change their votes. Neither they nor changes in Congressional votes, however, will do ANYTHING to solve the problem, when the proposed solutions DO NOT WORK.
4. “Moreover, National Rife Association endorsements ended up hurting rather than helping Republican incumbents and frontrunners in critical races.”
If this were true, then Democrats would have increased seats in the Presidency, the Senate, the House, gubernatorial races, state legislatures, and city/town councils. Instead, the opposite is true in all areas save one: Mayoral races. That’s the only area where Democrats gains seats in 2016. They lost seats in all other areas.
5. “Following the election, I conducted a poll with 600 voters in Virginia with Everytown for Gun Safety on the role that gun-related issues played in the campaign…
This “poll” is biased three ways.
a. First, 600 voters is not enough respondents to achieve a sufficiently high Confidence Interval or reduce the Margin of Error to acceptable thresholds. It also tells me this article is a piece of ignorant, journalistic trash.
b. Second, the poll was take only of voters in Virginia, hardly representational of the other 49 states in our 50-state Union.
c. Third, the selection was highly biased by asking questions of a very one-sided group, namely, “Everytown for Gun Safety.” Along with “Moms Demand Action” and “The Brady Campaign,” they have repeatedly perjured themselves in the court of public opinion by floating every repackaged Democrat/liberal anti-gun idea on the planet, NONE of which have EVER worked no matter where they were implemented.
Thus, the remainder of Douglas E. Schoen’s “study” and “conclusions” have absolutely zero merit whatsoever in the decision-making pipeline and should be ignored, UNLESS legislators really WANT to be lead by the nose to slaughter.
6. If you REALLY want to put a dent in both murder and mass shootings, do the following, all of which are based on verifiable, proven measures which ACTUALLY and GREATLY reduce gun violence in other countries:
a. Mandatory two-year federal service upon graduating from or dropping out of high school. People can opt for local or state service. The room and board would be spartan, but the knowledge, experience, and the discipline to be gained is invaluable. Besides, it’s an excellent opportunity to identify who is psychologically fit to keep and bear arms and who is not. Countries like Bermuda, Kuwait, Singapore, Switzerland, Switzerland, Austria, Denmark, Finland, Norway, and Israel (and many others) ALL have some form of mandatory military service, along with a mandatory civilian, unarmed, or non-combatant service option.
b. Adhere to the Second Amendment in every iota: “the right of the people to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.” Obviously, just as you wouldn’t hand a loaded gun to a toddler, those who don’t have the mental capacity to safely keep and bear arms shouldn’t be allowed to keep and bear arms, either. But everyone else would, and sooner or later, the 5% of society who are criminals would LOOSE to the 95% of the rest of society who OBEY THE LAW.

Author: patriot

It was a distinct honor, as well as my pleasure, to serve my country for more than twenty years. I love my country, but sometimes I'm not too happy with its leaders. I'm working to change that, and I could use your help. Please join me! Thanks. : ) - Patriot

Leave a Reply