Charles C. W. Cooke, an ex-pat Brit and newly minted citizen of the United States squarely hits the nail that the hammer-headed American public seems to be missing more and more recently. As he writes in the National Review,
As a result, the question here shouldn’t be ‘why does the NRA oppose using this [terrorism watch] list in a civil context?’ but ‘why doesn’t everybody oppose using this list on a civil context?’
Why indeed? Why do so many people fail to see that our constitutionally protected rights to due process are nowhere to be seen in the President’s proposal to deny Second Amendment rights to anyone found on that secret list? The mind boggles.
I’ve read more than once, in reaction to the recent tragedy in Oregon, that we need to regulate guns. Of course, we do regulate guns–at the federal and at the state level. If you’re interested, here’s the most recent version of the ATF Federal Firearms Regulations Reference Guide, all 233 pages of laws, regulations, Q&A’s explaining the morass of laws, and more. A full 9 1/2 pages of just the Gun Control Act of 1968 is devoted to Section 922: “Unlawful Acts.” The phrase “It shall be unlawful” is used 22 times in that section, usually leading off long lists of unlawful acts. And that’s just one act. The Guide also contains the National Firearms Act, the Arms Export Control Act, and a section of the law governing the Postal Service as well as four different “Parts” of the Code of Federal Regulations.
And that’s just Federal Law. Each state and many cities have their own laws, many of which are much more restrictive than the Federal Law, which essentially sets the minimum standards. For example, the assault weapons ban is no longer on the federal books. But don’t tell that to California or Connecticut. The NRA provides a handy guide of state law if you’re interested.
Finally, none of this takes into account the fact that it’s crime punishable by imprisonment and even death to kill someone with a firearm. Use a firearm in the commission of a crime, and generally the punishment for the underlying crime is enhanced. Etc. etc. etc.
Could more be done? More laws? More regulations? Reasonable minds differ–and they’re not all on the anti-gun crowd.
Fiorina struck it rich at the second Republican debate, while Trump sunk. Carly has her problems–many point to her time at HP, for example–but she’s quick on her feet. Only Rubio holds a candle to her when it comes to words.
I’m a fan of Florin and disappointed that she wasn’t on the main stage in the first Republican debate. Nevertheless, she made the best of her opportunity as part of the “warmup” debate.
I don’t know, but the thought occurred to me Monday.
I don’t know what I have to remind myself constantly of the thought stated in my headline. People are complex. Too often we tend to peg people based on very little evidence or evidence from just one sphere in their lives. I do it. I’m confident you do it.
I did it with Vice President Joe Biden, who sometimes in his many gaffes becomes a caricature of a caricature. But you know what? Joe is a complex man, a man with more than one side. I saw another side of Joe today when I read this, and in an instant, he changed before my eyes.
Now you’ve read the linked-to story, what do you think?
Panorama Theme by Themocracy