The Public Safety and Second Amendment Rights Protection Act of 2013, S. 649 (also known as the Toomey-Manchin Background Check Amendment) is now out and ready to be acted on. However, it begs a few questions and comments. I don’t claim to be an expert on anything, let alone on deciphering legislative baloney but here are my thoughts.
Transporting ammunition across state lines. The bill says that ammunition can’t be loaded into a firearm, can’t be directly accessible from the passenger compartment of a motor vehicle, and if it’s transported in another way other than a motor vehicle, it must be in a locked container. So, first guns were inanimate objects with magical powers to act all by themselves, now apparently ammunition is as well. I won’t even go into the stupid argument about the uselessness of not having your loaded pistol in your possession while driving your car to make sure you aren’t a victim of a carjacking or kidnapping.
Then there’s the blackmail sections, the “penalties for noncompliance.” The first year a state refuses to participate in this charade, the feds will cut off 10% of their funds for “the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, then on and on up to 15%. What this looks like to me is the feds are saying, “You’ll do as we say or you wanna see crime? We’ll make sure you see crime.” They must have modeled this idea after closing the White House tours and blaming sequestration, to make sure people are hurt just to make a point. They know all this garbage in this bill won’t help, but they are sure willing to make sure it can hurt.
Then there’s the phony Sec. 142, “National Commission on Mass Violence” which is supposed to “study the availability and nature of firearms, including the means of acquiring firearms, issues relating to mental health, and all positive and negative impacts of the availability and nature of firearms on incidents of mass violence or in preventing mass violence.” Firearms are the only weapons used in mass violence? Oh, wait, later on in Sec. 143, Duties of the Commission, they finally say they’re also supposed to look at non-gun incidents of mass violence. Who really believes that a commission will actually study any mass violence not related to firearms?
And who really believes that the commission will look at the positive impacts of firearms? If there was any intention to do that at all, the White House would have asked people to write in their stories of survival from self-defense, but all they did was ask people to write about their tragic stories. They also say they’re going to look at the media. Right. Like they initially questioned the impact of violent video games and films and then Obama visited Hollywood and now any time it’s mentioned it gets shot down like it’s not PC to even discuss.
They say they will consider the testimony of victims and survivors. But they certainly don’t mean the survivors who protected themselves with guns, or else some of those folks would have been flown to the White House with the Sandy Hook parents. But they have no intention of listening to those “survivors,” only the survivors who fit their anti-gun agenda.
Who believes the Commission on Mass Violence will have any outcome or recommendation that doesn’t come out the way they want? Forgive me for thinking this is all BS to look like they are being respectful and compromising. No matter what pretty, “compromising” words they put in a bill, no matter what assurances they give us, like the beginning of the bill where they state, “Congress supports, respects, and defends the fundamental , individual right to keep and bear arms guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States” they cannot be trusted. Actions always speak louder than words and Obama and the Democrat’s actions having been absolutely screaming at us. Asking Fox not to air the NASCAR race because it was sponsored by the NRA? That’s their idea of respecting our Second Amendment rights? The Democrat’s idea of compromise is when they get most of what they want, and while this bill looks somewhat ok on the surface, I don’t believe it for a minute. No, even though this is supposed to be a so-called compromise bi-partisan bill, it’s just the same lies, different day.