The liberty
principle for this Freedom Friday concerns gun control and its effect on rights
and privacy. The Obama Administration
continues to push gun control, and the Democrats controlling the U.S. Senate tried
to shove through an amendment supporting the President’s desires. In spite of evidence that gun control does
not reduce violence, liberals continue to push gun control. In spite of testimony that the bill would not
have prevented the tragic shooting in Newtown, Connecticut, the President and
other liberals continue to believe that they must “do something” about guns.
Reuters reported that
the Senate rejected a bipartisan plan to expand background checks for gun
buyers on Wednesday. The plan to extend
background checks to online and gun-show sales failed on a 54-46 vote when 60
votes were needed to clear the Senate.
The amendment was sponsored by Joe Manchin (D-WV) and Pat Toomey (R-Penn)
and represented President Obama’s “best chance” to pass “meaningful gun-control
legislation.”
I am pleased that both of my
Senators voted “no.” They both obviously
understand that Alaskans do not want gun control. “Four Democrats who will face re-election in
conservative, gun-friendly states opposed the Manchin-Toomey background checks
amendment – Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota, Mark Begich of Alaska, Mark Pryor
of Arkansas and Max Baucus of Montana.
“Senate Democratic Leader Harry
Reid supported the measure, but changed his vote after it was apparent it would
lose in order to preserve his option to bring the measure back up in the
Senate.
“Four Republicans backed
it: Toomey, Susan Collins of Maine, John
McCain of Arizona and Mark Kirk of Illinois.”
I hope that conservative voters
remember the Republicans – RINOs – who supported expanded background checks for
gun buyers and vote them out of office.
I also hope voters – particularly Alaskans – are not fooled by the
Democrats who voted against the measure. They are still Democrats who must be
defeated!
Senator Charles Grassley
(R-Iowa) tried to replace the existing gun-control bill with an amendment that
would put the “focus on prosecuting gun crimes, improving mental health records
for gun owners and funding improved school safety measure,” but his amendment
was rejected on a 52-48 vote.
Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) said of
Grassley’s measure, “Rather than restricting the rights of law-abiding
Americans, we should be focusing on keeping guns out of the hands of violent
criminals, which this legislation accomplishes.”
Senate Majority Leader Harry
Reid and the Democrats decided to “shelve” the gun control bill because of the
failure to get enough votes to pass it; they plan to bring it back later if the
political climate improves for it.
The President was confident that
he could “shame and bully Republicans into submitting to his agenda of tax
increases and sweeping gun reform.” When
he realized that his tactics were not working, he began to “court” Republicans
and “take on his own party” by calling for “modest reductions in entitlement
spending.”
“Obama, regardless
of the personality and political approach he displays on any given day, keeps
running into the same wall of insurmountable opposition. The cold, hard reality is that the president
is trapped in a very frustrating box: He
realizes that the vast majority of Congress is as impervious to his pressure as
it is to his charm. He is damned if he
does, damned if he doesn’t – and he knows it….”
This gun control amendment did
not pass because there were enough Senators who understand that Americans do
not want more gun control. They know
that Americans are beginning to “wise up” and “see” the dangers imposed by the
regime. One of the reasons for this
increased awakening is The Heritage Foundation and the information it provides
to members of Congress. The Heritage Foundation
claimed that the current bill would erode our “rights and privacy” and urged
the lawmakers to consider the many “complex factors that
contribute to violence.
Heritage published a report
entitled “The Newtown Tragedy: Complex Causes Require Thoughtful Analysis and Responses.” The abstract to this report stated: “In responding to horrific crimes such as the
massacre in Newtown, Connecticut, individuals, families, civil society, and
possibly government must channel their concerns into effective measures that
are consistent with the Constitution. As
we try to make society safer and stronger, constitutional and complex cultural factors
must be taken into consideration, and sound policy must be based on a serious
study of the data and other evidence.
Policymakers should avoid a rush to judgment on prescriptions that
violate first principles, ignore the real root of these complex problems, or
disregard careful social science research.
Any federal government role must be limited and constrained by
constitutional principles. The most
important solutions lie at the state and local levels, in the community and
within the family.”
The Foundry, a blog published
by the experts at The Heritage Foundation, weighed in on the Senate bill. “Since the tragic shooting in Newtown,
Connecticut, President Obama and many in Congress have pushed a `do something’
mentality on gun control. Heritage
experts urged lawmakers to consider the host of complex factors that contribute
to violent outbreaks and to steer away from untested ideas that would restrict
the rights of law-abiding citizens. But
the plan facing a vote in the Senate today would have much broader effects on
law-abiding citizens than it would do anything to curb gun violence.
“The plan … gives Attorney
General Eric Holder the power to write countless regulations affecting gun
laws.” [What could go wrong with Holder
writing the regulations?]
The article quoted David
Addington, legal expert at Heritage, who outlined three dangers that the “shelved”
gun-control bill would bring to Americans:
“1) It sets `a trap for the innocent.’”
People at gun shows could be sent “to jail up to five years for a crime
they did not even know was a crime.” “2)
It allows firearms dealers to do secret background checks on job applicants.” “3) It `reduces existing privacy protection
for mental health records relevant to background checks’ … ‘leaving only what
privacy protection the Attorney General cares to provide.’”
“We
need to address the underlying problems that lead to violence and fix any
outstanding issues with the current system. But encroaching on the rights of
Americans and eroding privacy laws is not the way to do it.”
No comments:
Post a Comment