On That "Gun Control" Vote

There are a lot of upset people out there over the failure of the most recent attempts to blame and infringe on law abiding gun owners pass something called “gun control” through the Senate yesterday.

There are a number of reasons why this latest attempt failed but I'd like to point out the ones I saw that were paramount to the failure.

1) Insulting The Opposition: I have never heard the term “common sense” thrown about so much as I have since the Newtown killings. Apparently people don't realize that when you preface your position with “common sense” you are actually calling your opponent “stupid”. It is never a good idea to insult the very people whom you need to make a deal with. But if we're going to use the term “common sense” then lets look at it in relation to the next point.

2) Criminals Don't Abide By The Law: No matter what law one passes, so long as guns are available criminals will get them. Criminals and those who are legally barred from possessing firearms do not go through “regular channels” to get those guns. Furthermore; restricting certain guns, ammo type and magazine capacity, does not deter the criminal. It's not like the criminal says “well I can't have a big magazine when I go off these folks.” If you're going to have a “common sense” conversation this is where you start.

3) Colorado and Newtown Would Not Have Been Stopped: Lets be clear. The gun that Adam Lanza brought to the school was legally purchased by an adult that passed all the background checks and waiting periods. Adam Lanza did not care that killing was wrong. Adam Lanza did not care about the law. Adam Lanza was concerned with Adam Lanza.

The same goes for the gunman in Aurora Colorado. He purchased his guns legally. He did not care about the law, his victims or anyone else besides himself.

So how is more of the same supposed to prevent these types of events?

4) Put The Burden On Who? Given the facts (not emotion) presented above who are these laws actually going to affect? The law abiding citizen. Why is it that the law abiding citizen must be punished for the actions of the few criminal minded? The left press (and some moderates) spent way to much time making a mockery of gun owners and Republicans (see point one). Sorry folks but you don't insult me and then expect me to play ball.

5) The Original Presentation Was Too Wide: I for one think universal background checks is a great idea. That was the ONLY thing that I agreed with. Most people, including most gun owners agree with that. However yesterday that was an amendment to some other piece of legislation. Most likely something to cover up some unconstitutional mess in the original bill (you'd be surprised how often THAT happens). Once the public was presented with spectres of eliminating “rights” to certain guns and magazines, the prospects for legislation was done for. Couple that with NY State's quickly drafted, backroom legislation that made a mockery of the so called “democratic process” which allows the state to take guns away from owners who have so much as been prescribed Ambien, the opposition, rightly or wrongly, saw any legislation as a sneaky end run around the 2nd amendment.

What should have been done was to not speak of any gun type restriction AT ALL. No discussion of magazine size restrictions or any of that constitutionally questionable and emotionally driven ideas. There should have been one piece of legislation on background checks or at the most one legislation on background checks and mental health funding etc. . On further thought, that should be two different bills.

5) Attempted Emotional Blackmail:

In my opinion the families of Newtown should have been left in Newtown. The president ought not have brought them to D.C. To trot them about for political gain. Yes, it's unfortunate what happened to their kids but first and foremost they are not the first set of people to ever lose children. It smacks of self-importance to me to see these folks on the television practically weeping when mothers and father across the country have had to deal with violence from guns for years and years and nobody gave a damn.

I asked at the time of the Newtown shooting where the outrage was when 33 people were shot in Chicago in a single weekend. I was told “that was different”.

I suppose so: Black young men. Primary difference I see. Why should “where” or “to whom” the violence occurs be the test of outrage? Either you are horrified by gun violence or you're not.

The families were used as a form of emotional blackmail. That is not how legislating should be done.

Lastly based on some commentary I've been seeing, folks apparently have forgotten that the minority have rights. The entire reason that Senate does not operate on a simple majority for a majority of it's decision processes is to make sure that the majority does not run roughshod over the minority. It's convenient to talk about how those who voted against the amendment represent the minority population of the country, but anyone familiar with history will know that the there are plenty of cases where the majority ran over various minority groups. You so do not want to make an argument about the minority being ignored or should be overridden. Today it's something you agree with, tomorrow it may not be.

Right now the Newtown people and Representative Giffords (and her straw purchase attempting husband) are throwing their tantrum now that they didn't get their way. My suggestion: Calm down and go over this list for things you did wrong in approaching the people who's assistance you wanted. And stop with the name calling and the underhanded insults and the snark. It is not cute.