So why would there be such opposition to simple measures like extending mental health background checks to private sales? It seems innocuous enough, though it does add lots of extra paperwork and annoyance to someone who wants to sell his shotgun to his neighbor. It added extra tracking. Potentially the information would accumulate in a federal database of owners.
Such tools can be misused. New York or Chicago have rules that nominally allow people to buy handguns, but in practice you don’t get permission. But who trusts New York or Chicago anyway?
I think the answer to my question about opposition is simply that a large fraction of us don’t trust the federal government to do the right thing; that we expect it to abuse any power we give it.
At one level that’s quite reasonable. The nation was designed with the principle that you can’t trust any group very much.
But on another level it could mean that a large fraction of us don’t think the federal government is working for the common good anymore. That’s edging pretty close to losing the consent of the governed. That’s not a good direction.
We’ve a little ways to go before we get that far. Most people still trust and respect the police and the firemen. But the more we go down the "Chicago Way" the less even that will be true. Although I wonder how bad things have to get before Illinois gets rid of their government. Maybe it now reflects what they want. That would be even worse.
4 comments:
Could it be that something important and real is being missed here?
The progressive socialists do not understand, can not understand the concepts of "loyalty", "patriotism" and so forth.
All they can cogitate with is the concepts of "bought" and "paid-for".
If they did not get what they bought and paid-for, the ONLY possible explanation is that somebody paid more.
I don't really care if NRA bought the Senate. Winning to keep my guns unregistered is one of the things I pay them for. Victory requires no explanation, while defeat allows for none. There is also a rather accurate piece from the WSJ that is worth taking a look at, if you haven't:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324493704578430672176449846.html?mod=opinion_newsreel
I am interested in why the Senate backed off. Anybody with even a passing familiarity with firearms knew the magazine restriction was stupid; and I gather our reporters are uninformed on this as on far too many other topics. But the background check question was being promoted as merely the voice of sweet reason and it sounded convincing; but the Senators got the fear of the electorate in them for a change.
I interpret their backpedaling as meaning that too many voters didn't trust them or the bureaucrats their laws would empower.
The detailed content of the bills wasn't part of any media debate I saw. That was for people who drill down for the details--and most of us don't on most stories. (I do for some science stories, and I can testify about how time consuming that can be.)
So what are the proportions of those who want to do major reining-in at DC, and those who want the bread and media circuses, and those who can't be bothered?
James said...
I am interested in why the Senate backed off. Anybody with even a passing familiarity with firearms knew the magazine restriction was stupid; and I gather our reporters are uninformed on this as on far too many other topics. But the background check question was being promoted as merely the voice of sweet reason and it sounded convincing; but the Senators got the fear of the electorate in them for a change.
Could it be that the senators-who-fear-for-their-free-ride are worried that us Joe Smucks have figured it out? Consider this scenario:
"Let's see.....Sam Goes Tochurch filled out the background thing in connection with buying an AR15."
"And here is one for when he bought a Glock...."
"And another....Berretta 9mm...."
"Oh, and here is one on Dangerousdan McRetired Marine for when he bought Tochurch's 1911...."
And you can tell Mind Control SWAT that we have seen Tochurch buy around a 100 rounds of ammunition for each of these weapons, plus several boxes of .410 grape-shot shells for a shotgun we didn't now he had."
I interpret their backpedaling as meaning that too many voters didn't trust them or the bureaucrats their laws would empower.
Would certainly be a good call showing an uncommon intelligence for a lot of them.
The detailed content of the bills wasn't part of any media debate I saw. That was for people who drill down for the details--and most of us don't on most stories. (I do for some science stories, and I can testify about how time consuming that can be.)
I don't even bother looking for it in the captive media--if it is there it will have been doctored and sanitized.
So what are the proportions of those who want to do major reining-in at DC, and those who want the bread and media circuses, and those who can't be bothered?
As near as I can tell the priorities (in order) are "maximizing the efficiency of the Margret Sanger final solution to the defective 'human' problem". "a steady or increasing flow of Free Stuff", "Gorebal Warmening", "no limits 'marriage'", and "politically correct indoctrination of their children" (what we used to think of as 'schooling of OUR children'.
Post a Comment