political rant on guns
I don’t know how it happened, but somehow I got signed up for receiving emails from a Republican senator. And after what happened earlier this week, he decided to write an email to explain WHY he voted against the gun laws. The senator in question is Mike Lee from Utah.
Unfortunately, the proposals offered in the Senate - including the expansion of background checks and bans on certain semiautomatic weapons and high-capacity magazines - served primarily to restrict the rights of law-abiding citizens, while doing little, if anything, to prevent the kind of tragic crimes that took place in Newtown, Connecticut, and Aurora, Colorado.
Great to know. So taking guns out of the hands of crazy nut jobs would not have prevented the shooting at Newtown and Aurora? Could you explain why not, in more detail? Are you suggesting that someone else would have taken the shooter’s place?
The plan created more questions than it answered about which types of transfers are lawful without a background check and might ensnare law-abiding gun owners simply exercising their constitutional rights.
It would only ensnare them if they decided to go out and buy a gun without a background check. It’s not like there aren’t a billion other places where you can legally buy a gun. If you’re unsure whether you’re doing something illegal, don’t do it. We’re talking about adults here, not 5-year-olds.
Admittedly, the Toomey-Manchin plan prohibited a national registry. Yet it required a massive expansion of gun ownership data collected by federally licensed dealers to which the government has access.
I recently found out exactly what this “data” is: pieces of paper collected by the gun stores kept in boxes because they’re not allowed to digitize them. You cannot possibly be afraid that the government is going to bother checking every single paper in every single gun store across the entire United States. I would doubt if even 1 in a million of these papers are ever read or used.
But the government has no business monitoring constitutionally protected activity, like gun ownership, any more than it has any business tracking what books Americans read or how often they attend church.
I loved this one. The government obviously DOES have business monitoring constitutionally protected activity. What it DOESN’T have business of doing is preventing you from doing this activity. For example, you cannot buy ingredients to a home-made bomb without being monitored afterwards. This makes sense, because we want the government to act in a preventable manner. However, they cannot prevent you from buying these materials, many of which are just simple household items.
Therefore, it would be completely all right for the government to keep track of who buys a gun. But since you guys are so effing afraid of having “your guns taken away” (which would be completely unconstitutional, and therefore obviously is not going to happen unless you have a dark skin), they added this prohibition for a gun registry.
Gun-control advocates point to polls that show support for expanding background checks. But members of Congress do not get to vote on broad poll questions. They have to vote on specific legislation.
Great bullshit excuse for not representing your constituents. 90% of Americans supported the expansion of background checks, why is this not reflected in the senate? I am really disturbed by this giant gap between the people and THEIR government. Because let’s not forget for one second, that the government is here for us and not the other way around.
Ok that’s enough rambling from me. XD as you can tell this week has been insane over here.
Unfortunately, the proposals offered in the Senate - including the expansion of background checks and bans on certain semiautomatic weapons and high-capacity magazines - served primarily to restrict the rights of law-abiding citizens, while doing little, if anything, to prevent the kind of tragic crimes that took place in Newtown, Connecticut, and Aurora, Colorado.
Great to know. So taking guns out of the hands of crazy nut jobs would not have prevented the shooting at Newtown and Aurora? Could you explain why not, in more detail? Are you suggesting that someone else would have taken the shooter’s place?
The plan created more questions than it answered about which types of transfers are lawful without a background check and might ensnare law-abiding gun owners simply exercising their constitutional rights.
It would only ensnare them if they decided to go out and buy a gun without a background check. It’s not like there aren’t a billion other places where you can legally buy a gun. If you’re unsure whether you’re doing something illegal, don’t do it. We’re talking about adults here, not 5-year-olds.
Admittedly, the Toomey-Manchin plan prohibited a national registry. Yet it required a massive expansion of gun ownership data collected by federally licensed dealers to which the government has access.
I recently found out exactly what this “data” is: pieces of paper collected by the gun stores kept in boxes because they’re not allowed to digitize them. You cannot possibly be afraid that the government is going to bother checking every single paper in every single gun store across the entire United States. I would doubt if even 1 in a million of these papers are ever read or used.
But the government has no business monitoring constitutionally protected activity, like gun ownership, any more than it has any business tracking what books Americans read or how often they attend church.
I loved this one. The government obviously DOES have business monitoring constitutionally protected activity. What it DOESN’T have business of doing is preventing you from doing this activity. For example, you cannot buy ingredients to a home-made bomb without being monitored afterwards. This makes sense, because we want the government to act in a preventable manner. However, they cannot prevent you from buying these materials, many of which are just simple household items.
Therefore, it would be completely all right for the government to keep track of who buys a gun. But since you guys are so effing afraid of having “your guns taken away” (which would be completely unconstitutional, and therefore obviously is not going to happen unless you have a dark skin), they added this prohibition for a gun registry.
Gun-control advocates point to polls that show support for expanding background checks. But members of Congress do not get to vote on broad poll questions. They have to vote on specific legislation.
Great bullshit excuse for not representing your constituents. 90% of Americans supported the expansion of background checks, why is this not reflected in the senate? I am really disturbed by this giant gap between the people and THEIR government. Because let’s not forget for one second, that the government is here for us and not the other way around.
Ok that’s enough rambling from me. XD as you can tell this week has been insane over here.