Boston and Gun Control

boston mapWe are all, as a nation, in shock over the horrific bombing that took place at the Boston marathon this past Monday. At least three people have died, and over 170 are injured. Many people have had to have limbs amputated, and others are similarly maimed by some terrorist miscreant or miscreants.

Today, in an unrelated event, the Senate took up the Manchin-Toomey-Schumer amendment that would have set up permanent government registration of firearms. There were many problems with this proposed legislation. First, although it was ostensibly only supposed to close the non-existent “gun show gap”, its requirements would have actually covered almost any firearms transfer, unless it was strictly word of mouth. if you had ever talked about your gun or let it be known you wanted to sell or buy a gun on the Internet, it would have covered you. Even unknowing transgressions could have landed you in jail for 15 years.

Another way the government would have used health care legislation to take away your rights would have been that under an amendment in the bill to HIPAA (Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act), you could have your guns taken away because your mental health practitioner decides that you are “dangerous” and sends your name to the FBI Instant Check system. In addition to the 150,000 military veterans that were added into the NICS system because they’d seen a VA doctor about their PTSD, you and thousands if not millions of Americans would be barred from buying a gun. To add incentive for doctors to report you, they would be sued every time some whacko committed a crime if they hadn’t turned him in previously, so they would err in the direction of protecting themselves and hurting you.

Perhaps the worst part of the amendment, after the creation of federal gun registration, would have been virtual repeal of the provision in the 1986 McClure-Volkmer Act that would allow you to take an unloaded, locked-up gun through states like New York without being stopped. Under subsection (c), the Toomey-Manchin-Schumer bill would require you to “demonstrate” to the satisfaction of New York police where you were coming from and where you are going. If you don’t do that to their satisfaction, they could arrest you.

Last week this phony “compromise”, this “reasonable” legislation, was put forward and a proposed filibuster was made impossible by a by a supposedly bi-partisan group, consisting of the democrats and the usual crowd of RINO’s. The bill was ominously moving toward debate in the Senate and probable passage.

But something happened. Today, the plan to extend background checks to online and gun-show sales failed on a 54-46 vote, six short of the 60-vote hurdle needed to clear the Senate. Additionally, gun grabber Democratic Senator Dianne Feinstein’s amendment to ban assault weapons drew support from only 40 senators. Of course, bad ideas die hard, so although Harry Reid supported the measure, he predictably 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.

Why this change? I wonder if the mendacity of the left became more apparent due to the horrific bombing. I wonder if at least the Senators who were not completely blinded by leftist ideology realized the insanity of the concept that we are safer if we are unarmed. Since so much nowadays is decided too quickly on the basis of emotions rather than common sense, we can be thankful that the Boston incident was not a shooting. Instead it reinforced the truth that there are bad people all over the place, and although we may be in the wrong place at the wrong time, if we have a gun, we are generally going to be in a more favorable position that if we don’t. Additionally, it shows how impotent the government is to protect us and that in the end, it is up to us, and we’d better have a gun!

About the author: Pat Henry

Pat Henry is a columnist and a patriot from Hanover County, Virginia, a state that resisted ratification of the Constitution until the Bill of Rights was added to protect the people’s individual rights, which shall not be infringed.

View all articles by Pat Henry
Share Your Comments
Trending Now on GJWHG