Earlier this month, the infamous gun control bill (S 150) slowly making its way to the Senate floor for a vote was stripped of its key “assault” weapons ban provision. Reportedly, Democrats with potential 2014 reelection woes might have had something to do with that. The main bill still retains nonsensical restrictions on arbitrarily designated “high-capacity” magazines and “universal” background checks (code for national firearms registration), however. The national registry would not be a concern for gun owners, I would posit, if the government had a well-established history of supporting and defending individual rights rather than destroying them, but that simply is not the case.
Nonetheless, this political move will allow Senate Democrats to independently vote against the so-called “assault” weapons ban as a probable Feinstein amendment while voting for the magazine restrictions and background checks (federal registration) requirement. Apparently political posturing is still far more important than proudly and straightforwardly supporting a partisan pillar, as one would expect if strength of conviction were a relevant factor. Such legislative gamesmanship demonstrates that these types of gun control measures do not and cannot credibly stand on their own merits.
To be sure, the principled struggle for individual freedom against the statist gun grabbers is certainly not waning; the opposite is far more likely. The diversely characterized collection of firearms opponents – Republican and Democrat statists, ignorant hoplophobes, misguided do-gooders, and devious tyrants alike – will try and try again until they strip the individual American of his/her right to keep and bear arms for any and all just reasons, or until they are neutered of the ability to implement such policies via a mass movement to embrace individual liberty once and for all and the people vigorously apply constitutional restrictions on unethical government behavior.
In a related update, the Tucson firearms dealer that previously sold an “assault” weapon to Gabrielle Giffords’ husband, Mark Kelly, has since rescinded that sale. Apparently, the dealer did not appreciate being unwittingly made party to a supposed political stunt, even at direct profit, and decided that since Kelly’s intent was not righteous he would not participate in the exchange. Ironically, Kelly’s alleged point regarding how easy it is to obtain an “assault” weapon was demonstrably proven false, in this case at least. Based on the timings of the original report and this latest one, Kelly waited well over two weeks without actually ever receiving the weapon – and now never will. Apparently, it is not quite as easy to obtain firearms for devious purposes after all. Thank you for that practical demonstration Mr. Kelly, lawful and ethical gun owners across America salute you.
Coincidentally, around the same time Kelly presumably learned that the Tucson firearms dealer interfered with his desire to make political hay from his wife’s tragic misfortune, his daughter’s dog (a bulldog no less) reportedly killed a young sea lion in Laguna Beach, California. Kelly had to intervene in the dog’s vicious and unprovoked attack but was unable to prevent its killing the sea lion. Perhaps he should found another lobbyist group and petition the Congress to ban “dangerous” dogs. Where is the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals organization when you actually need them? But I digress…
If the man truly cared about mass murder in general he would be on the Hill lobbying to implement restrictive gun control and behavioral measures on the State. It is laughable to me that hoplophobes of his ilk fight tooth and nail to restrict the possession and use of so-called “assault” weapons to the State alone, banning their ownership by individuals who have no demonstrable risk of aggressive (only defensive) use, yet have absolutely nothing to say about the administration’s aggressive use of air-to-surface missiles to execute American citizens and their families without due process. How they reconcile such a contradiction – if indeed, it even registers – is simply beyond me. As with the president and other political gun grabbers, Kelly is either counter-intuitively unintelligent – thus he is unable to comprehend the demonstrable ineffectiveness of such legislation on criminal actors (something at least Joe Biden can grasp) – or is actively working to achieve an ulterior motive(s). Based on his obvious credentials as a former astronaut and naval aviator, his dishonest pursuit of an “assault” weapon this month (or dishonest explanation of his actions after-the-fact), and blatant violation of his own sworn oath to uphold and defend the Constitution, as with President Obama there is at least some reasonable justification to question his personal integrity.
For my part, I would love to see the nation’s private firearms and ammunition manufacturers collaborate to collectively demonstrate their presumed support of the individual’s right to keep and bear arms by sending a message of principle and conviction even at the (temporary) expense of profit. It would sure be something to see the federal and state governments unable to outfit their law enforcement and security agencies with firearms and ammunition whilst they continue to pursue and implement policies erosive of individual liberty and rights, the security of which are the very purpose behind these institutions’ existence in the first place.