Newt Has A Monstrously Bad Idea
Newt Gingrich is a smart guy, Washington insiders will tell you. He's certainly smarter than Donald Trump, based on nothing more than vocabulary and the complexity of ideas he is able to comprehend. Newt is currently on Trump's vice-presidential shortlist, which makes sense if you believe what Trump's been saying about his veep pick for months now -- he wants someone with experience dealing with Congress. Newt, being a former Speaker of the House, certainly fits that bill better than most.
But Newt Gingrich's supposed smartness is rather indiscriminate, when examined closely. Newt has what he considers ten or twelve brilliant ideas each day, which he is in the habit of just tossing out for discussion. These ideas are presented in scattershot fashion, and most of them never go anywhere (even Newt admits this, when he's being honest with himself). However, every once in a while Newt will follow through on one of his proposals, so you can't just discount everything that comes out of his mouth.
Newt apparently woke up and just had what he considers another brilliant idea. Let's hope this becomes one of those that wither on the vine (rather than grow in influence), because it is truly a monstrously bad idea. Here's Newt, on Fox News, explaining his idea:
Let me go a step further, because remember, San Bernardino, Fort Hood, and Orlando involve American citizens. We're going to ultimately declare a war on Islamic supremacists and we're going to say, if you pledge allegiance to ISIS, you are a traitor and you have lost your citizenship. And we're going take much tougher positions. In the late 1930s, President Franklin Roosevelt was faced with Nazi penetration in the United States. We originally created the House Un-American Activities Committee to go after Nazis. We passed several laws in 1938 and 1939 to go after Nazis and we made it illegal to help the Nazis. We’re going to presently have to go take the similar steps here.
For those unfamiliar with the name, the House Un-American Activities Committee, or "HUAAC" (sometimes spelled "HUAC") was one of the most disgraceful episodes in all of American history. In fact, I consider the entire concept of the committee to be one of the most un-American and tyrannical overreaches of the federal government of (at the very least) the entire twentieth century. I'm not alone in this, either, as in 1959 none other than Harry Truman (after he left the presidency) called HUAAC the "most un-American thing in the country today." If you never learned about HUAAC in school, think Joe McCarthy and all the red-baiting anti-communist fervor. Think Hollywood blacklists. Think Japanese internment. Some of the most shameful events of the century either came straight out of HUAAC or were closely linked to the hysteria it generated.
The committee and its predecessors all were born out of war fever. The first came into being in 1919, to investigate German-Americans. Other early forerunner House committees investigated such "enemies of the state" as the American Civil Liberties Union. In 1938 the committee was revived to look into the Nazi threat. A report on Japanese-Americans soon followed (called the "Yellow Report," in those pre-politically correct days). This report argued the case for internment, based partly on the fact that Japanese-Americans had suspect loyalties due to their Buddhist faith. Anyone who is astonished that Donald Trump would go after an entire religion doesn't really know their own history, to put it bluntly.
Post-war, the committee (now officially named HUAAC) pivoted back to red-baiting. Communists were everywhere, apparently. They even might be (gasp!) lurking under your bed! This is not a gross overstatement of the hysteria which gripped the country in the days of Joe McCarthy. Red-baiting on HUAAC not only created the Hollywood blacklist, but also (just for good measure) served as the launchpad for Richard Nixon's political career. Notable Hollywood stars such as Charlie Chaplin and Orson Welles had their careers destroyed by HUAAC.
Of course, they were discerning about which threats to American-ness they chose to target. From Wikipedia:
In 1946, the committee considered opening investigations into the Ku Klux Klan but decided against doing so, prompting white supremacist committee member John E. Rankin (D-Miss.) to remark, "After all, the KKK is an old American institution."
The desire to root out un-American influences wasn't limited to just HUAAC, it's worth noting. Joe McCarthy was a senator, and his hearings were held on the other side of the Capitol. In the 1950s, the Senate also had a committee that investigated the pernicious effects of comic books on America's youth (you just can't make this stuff up). It's kind of a stretch from Nazis (or even Commies) to comic books, but that stretch was indeed made, complete with testimony about how comics were a worse influence than even Adolph Hitler's propaganda machine.
In the 1960s, HUAAC also widened its scope. Suddenly the "enemies of America" became America's own youth. College campus organizations were targeted, anti-war groups were targeted, and the Youth International Party (the "Yippies") was targeted (both before and after the 1968 Democratic National Convention in Chicago). Abbie Hoffman was, in fact, on his way to a HUAAC appearance when all the panic over him "wearing a U.S. flag" happened (he was actually wearing a flag motif shirt, not an actual flag, but this quickly got lost in all the hysterical outrage).
The concept of HUAAC was born of wartime fears. But when the wars were over, it conveniently became a tool to grill any person or any group that right-wingers disapproved of as being "un-American." This smear was a lot more potent than you might think -- not only were the person or group's ideology examined under a very skeptical public microscope, but their patriotism and national loyalty were also deemed suspect.
This is what Newt Gingrich thinks we need, right now.
HUAAC was renamed in 1969, and disappeared altogether by 1975. It deserves to stay dead. It should not be revived under any circumstance. We already have plenty of antiterrorism laws on the books, and if more are needed then Congress can pass them without the aid of a committee dedicated to political witch-hunting.
Newt is no fool -- he knows his history. So he likely knows full well what would happen to such a committee, especially if Republicans retain control of the House (and get to appoint committee chairs and members). First, it would focus on Islamic terrorist infiltrators in America. Then it would broaden its scope to include any "fellow travelers" (a phrase right out of the red-baiting era). This would likely lead in short order to investigating every mosque that was deemed suspect by its neighbors, anywhere in the country (remember the "Ground Zero mosque" hysteria?). If America ever got back into a boots-on-the-ground war again, with hundreds of thousands of U.S. soldiers in a Muslim land (a distinct possibility no matter who becomes president), then the committee would easily shift gears to begin investigations of any groups opposed to such a war (remember Code Pink and other anti-war groups being targeted, roughly 10-15 years ago?). Who knows where a new HUAAC would stop? Again, if controlled by Republicans, they could easily make the case that pretty much any liberal group they didn't agree with was, by their definition, "un-American."
This is why a new HUAAC is such a monstrously dangerous idea. Its very existence -- right there in the name of the committee for all to see -- would be to determine what was acceptably "American" and what was "un-American." That very concept is about as un-American as can be imagined. What gives some right-wing politician (or, for that matter, some left-wing politician) the right to determine what is acceptably "American" and what is not? You won't find that anywhere in the text of the Constitution, that's for sure.
America has cycled through this debate many times, almost all of them with a war threat looming or an actual war being fought. The first was in a war fever in the 1790s, in fact, and led to the Alien and Sedition Acts (the very first of several such monstrously un-American and shameful pieces of legislation in our history). One draft of these acts would have given the president sole discretion over which immigrants would be allowed into the U.S., and which should be summarily deported. Again, Donald Trump's immigration ideas are not exactly unprecedented in our history.
We've already got several House committees dedicated to witch-hunts. Trey Gowdy's investigation into Benghazi springs immediately to mind. These would be a walk in the park compared to a permanent committee designed to ferret out "un-American activities." Imagine who would chair such a committee -- Steve King, maybe, or Jeb Hensarling? No matter who got the plum assignment, it's easy to see that whatever the stated reason for the reinstitution of the committee would almost immediately be overreached. The committee would soon be targeting anyone it had a mind to, and it's a pretty safe bet that wouldn't include the Bundy family out West, or any other right-wing group that openly defied federal law or advocated for the overthrow of the current national government.
The country is already divided politically. Giving the House of Representatives a mandate to harass anyone they feel like certainly isn't going to help. The very concept of a "House Un-American Activities Committee" is about as un-American as you can get. I would urge all who value the Constitution and who also remember the days of Joe McCarthy to speak out forcefully against Newt Gingrich's idea of reviving HUAAC. Let's all hope this is one of those ideas Newt continually spews forth which will die before it even gains any traction. HUAAC is not going to stop a single lone-wolf terrorist attack. It's not going to solve the problem Newt identified. And it most certainly will expand its scope almost immediately to include anyone Republicans take a dislike to -- Planned Parenthood, for example, or ACORN, or any number of other organizations they don't agree with. Journalists printing stories from documents leaked by whistleblowers would almost certainly be on that list, somewhere.
HUAAC, thankfully, is dead -- and therefore wasn't involved in these recent political battles. Bringing it back would be monstrously dangerous to American democracy. Newt's suggestion, to me, is even more horrifying than anything Donald Trump has yet proposed -- and that's a low bar indeed.
-- Chris Weigant
Cross-posted at The Huffington Post
Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant
Testing comments.
testing, testing....
-cw
Woo hoo! Looks like we're back in business!!!
-CW
huzzah!
Newt is a crafty one who knows how to play the political game very well. He is one of the masterminds behind the GOP's strategy of never saying anything positive about the opposition so that their supporters will only think negatively about anything associated with the Democrats. He's wanted to be President for a while, but he's not popular enough to ever stand a chance of winning an election as a presidential candidate. Trump is the perfect vehicle for Newt to achieve his dreams! The likelihood of Trump lasting four years in office, if he were somehow able to win the election, is not very good. Either Trump will be impeached or he will resign soon after taking office simply because he doesn't want to do the work required if can't sell the Trump brand products at the same time. That means whoever is Trump's VP will most likely become President if he is elected. Heck, I wouldn't put it past Trump to sell the VP position to the highest bidder with every intention to resign immediately after taking office. All he wants are the bragging rights that he was so popular that he got elected even when he didn't truly want the job!
Why just concentrate on the bad side of those actions??
Why not acknowledge that there WAS an up side??
It's entirely possible, even LIKELY, that interning hundreds of thousands of Americans of Japanese descent DID prevent a massive sabotage campaign..
Maybe Joe McCarthy's anti-communist campaign DID prevent communism from taking hold here in this country..
Has anyone ever considered that??
It's exactly this point that is my biggest beef with Captain America-Civil War..
Don't worry.. No spoilers...
The SecState goes on and on about all the bad things that happened in New York, Washington DC and Sokovia...
But what the moron DOESN'T realize if that the Avengers HADN'T been there to "cause" all that destruction, then the ENTIRE planet would have been destroyed (in the case of Sokovia) or subjugated (in the case of New York and DC)..
In the areas we are talking about, the ends *DO* justify the means...
A concept that the entirety of the Democrat Party has taken to heart since 2008...
Michale
The SecState goes on and on about all the bad things that happened in New York, Washington DC and Sokovia...
What IS it about SecStates that the are brain dead morons of late???
Michale
Woo hoo! Looks like we're back in business!!!
Good!!! I was having withdrawal pains...
My whole routine was disrupted!! :D heh
But I DID get a lot of work done, so.... :D
Michale
Michale wrote:
"It's entirely possible, even LIKELY, that interning hundreds of thousands of Americans of Japanese descent DID prevent a massive sabotage campaign..
Maybe Joe McCarthy's anti-communist campaign DID prevent communism from taking hold here in this country..
Has anyone ever considered that??"
YES, and I will use one of your own favorite lines Michale: ASSUMES FACTS NOT IN EVIDENCE. Also: Whatever happened to: THE END DOES NOT JUSTIFY THE MEANS? that you yourself so recently used to criticize someone else's statement recently.
YES, and I will use one of your own favorite lines Michale: ASSUMES FACTS NOT IN EVIDENCE.
I was extrapolating..
Are you saying that it's IMPOSSIBLE that NONE of those hundreds of thousands of Japanese interred were spies or saboteurs??
Whatever happened to: THE END DOES NOT JUSTIFY THE MEANS? that you yourself so recently used to criticize someone else's statement recently.
I think you have me confused with someone else..
I am a BIG fan of The Ends Justifies The Means...
It's funny you should bring that up... I am on a gun control debate on HuffPoo...
One of the people said with regards to creating gun owner lists...
And I quote "I know it's a breach of privacy, but so what?"
You see?? The Left Wingery are BIG fans of TEJTM.....
When it suits their agenda...
Michale
I am surprised no one has brought up KODOS THE EXECUTIONER and Tarsus IV...
:D
Michale
Michale,
I fully support a national gun registry in this country. No one believes that people with mental illnesses should have access to guns. But as it stands right now, we have no idea who owns what guns in order to make sure those that shouldn't have access to guns have them removed. A gun registry allows police and medics to know whether there are guns at an emergency they are responding to, and it allows them to remove guns from homes of individuals being taken in for psychological evals until they are cleared to have their guns returned to them. If we ever hope to prevent guns from being accessed by people with mental disorders, this registry is a must. Last winter, a man with dementia was killed by police because he was firing his rifle at his caretakers. This man should never have had access to guns, but his children didn't know he had purchased one.
Michale,
I fully support a national gun registry in this country. No one believes that people with mental illnesses should have access to guns. But as it stands right now, we have no idea who owns what guns in order to make sure those that shouldn't have access to guns have them removed. A gun registry allows police and medics to know whether there are guns at an emergency they are responding to, and it allows them to remove guns from homes of individuals being taken in for psychological evals until they are cleared to have their guns returned to them. If we ever hope to prevent guns from being accessed by people with mental disorders, this registry is a must. Last winter, a man with dementia was killed by police because he was firing his rifle at his caretakers. This man should never have had access to guns, but his children didn't know he had purchased one.
Michale,
I fully support a national gun registry in this country. No one believes that people with mental illnesses should have access to guns. But as it stands right now, we have no idea who owns what guns in order to make sure those that shouldn't have access to guns have them removed. A gun registry allows police and medics to know whether there are guns at an emergency they are responding to, and it allows them to remove guns from homes of individuals being taken in for psychological evals until they are cleared to have their guns returned to them. If we ever hope to prevent guns from being accessed by people with mental disorders, this registry is a must. Last winter, a man with dementia was killed by police because he was firing his rifle at his caretakers. This man should never have had access to guns, but his children didn't know he had purchased one.
Crap! My bad CW! I didn't realize it went through.
The record's stuck.... The record's stuck.... The record's stuck....
heh :D
Michale
Listen,
What about privacy laws?? You know that Democrats are really REALLY big on personal privacy..
How do you reconcile these two diametrically opposed issues??
Personally, I think the solution is simple...
Gun ownership is a constitutionally protected right...
So is voting...
Constitutionally speaking, owning a gun is the same as the right to vote..
I suggest we mirror ALL gun-ownership requirements with voting requirements...
Any hoop that an American has to jump thru to own a gun, they must jump thru an exact same hoop to vote...
If you have to disclose medical history to own a gun.. Then you have to disclose medical history to vote...
If you have to have insurance to own a gun.. Then you have to have insurance to vote...
Who's game???
Michale
How do you reconcile these two diametrically opposed issues??
Different amendments. Privacy is the 4th...
All kinds of things are registered with the government. Cars, houses, property, businesses. Not only are guns not different, a register system is even mentioned in the amendment: A well regulated militia. If you want to own guns, register with a local/state/national militia. List all your guns. I don't see how a militia could be "well regulated" without some idea what weapons it's members have access to...
Different amendments. Privacy is the 4th...
So??? That makes a difference???
Because they are different amendments, one is a LESSER amendment??
One is absolute and one is "eh, whatever"..???
If one is going to argue the text of the Constitution, one doesn't get to pick and choose which parts supports their agenda and ignore the rest...
Personal privacy is either absolute or it is not...
If you want to own guns, register with a local/state/national militia.
The right of a citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed
It doesn't say The right of a citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed unless citizen doesn't register with a militia
You can argue what the definition of IS is til the cows come home..
But The right of a citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed is pretty cut and dried with no ambiguity whatsoever..
Michale
So??? That makes a difference???
It does.
Because they are different amendments, one is a LESSER amendment??
That would be the 9th amendment...
You can argue what the definition of IS is til the cows come home..
And you do often, but this is a reading issue, and like most of the gun rights advocates, you like to leave out half the amendment.
But The right of a citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed is pretty cut and dried with no ambiguity whatsoever..
It would be if that was how the amendment was written, but it's not, so it doesn't.
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
Mountainous amounts of ambiguity there...
All kinds of things are registered with the government. Cars,
Ahhhh But if you have a car that is stored in a garage or a show room, you don't HAVE to register it..
Besides..
How is REGISTRATION going to PREVENT Crowd-Based Mass Shootings????
Michale
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
Mountainous amounts of ambiguity there...
Only to someone with an agenda...
Back at the time that it was written, you were part of a militia when you showed up at a group gathering with your gun..
In other words, anyone with a gun was part of a militia...
The gun beget the militia.. The militia didn't beget the gun...
Michale
I'll be waiting around for an answer to the ALL IMPORTANT question..
How is GUN REGISTRATION going to PREVENT Crowd-Based Mass Shootings????
Michale
Back at the time that it was written, you were part of a militia when you showed up at a group gathering with your gun..
In other words, anyone with a gun was part of a militia...
The gun beget the militia.. The militia didn't beget the gun...
Think about it..
Do you HONESTLY believe that, back in those days, if you weren't part of an organized militia, you couldn't own a gun!??
Michale
Do you HONESTLY believe that, back in those days, if you weren't part of an organized militia, you couldn't own a gun!??
"Sorry, bub... You're heading out into dangerous territory... You won't be part of an organized militia... Turn over your guns, bub...."
Yea. THAT is how it must have been.. :^/
Michale
I was offering a method of registering guns that would likely pass constitutional muster.
Back at the time that it was written, you were part of a militia when you showed up at a group gathering with your gun..
Generally speaking, militias were organized into regiments ready to be called up from long before the revolutionary war. What you describe is closer to a posse. Hence the "well regulated" part.
I was offering a method of registering guns that would likely pass constitutional muster.
But what PURPOSE would it serve???
Would it stop or prevent crowd-based mass shootings??
How???
Generally speaking, militias were organized into regiments ready to be called up from long before the revolutionary war. What you describe is closer to a posse. Hence the "well regulated" part.
So, you are saying if you weren't part of a "well regulated" militia back then, you couldn't own a gun??
How would that work, exactly??
Michale
So, you are saying if you weren't part of a "well regulated" militia back then, you couldn't own a gun??
No, I am not.
So, you are saying if you weren't part of a "well regulated" militia back then, you couldn't own a gun??
No, I am not.
OK, so you agree that a well regulated militia has NOTHING to do with gun ownership..
It seems you forgot to address this:
I was offering a method of registering guns that would likely pass constitutional muster.
But what PURPOSE would it serve???
Would it stop or prevent crowd-based mass shootings??
How???
Michale
I outlined in a previous thread, probably around the time of the San Bernardino attack, how using the militia section of the second amendment could be used to reduce these types of attacks. I have no intention of finding and reposting, but you are welcome to look for it yourself...
OK, so you agree that a well regulated militia has NOTHING to do with gun ownership..
Nope, did not say that either.
Nope, did not say that either.
I know it's going to be useless to ask, but what the hell...
Exactly what ARE you saying...???
And you forgot to address how having a gun registration will prevent crowd-based mass shootings..
Michale
And you forgot to address how having a gun registration will prevent crowd-based mass shootings..
I was not the one currently advocating therefore do not see the need to answer beyond what I posted in [30]...
I was not the one currently advocating
But you were "offering' a method of registration that would likely pass constitutional muster..
Do you think that such a registration would prevent or help prevent crowd-based mass shootings??
If you do, then how exactly would it do that??
Michale
Ya know, Bashi...
It won't KILL you to agree with me... :D
Michale
Do you think that such a registration would prevent or help prevent crowd-based mass shootings??
It can be part of the solution.
If you do, then how exactly would it do that??
See [30]...
Let me make it easier for you.. I won't play games and I'll tell you straight, where I am coming from..
Gun registration or gun insurance WON'T prevent or help prevent crowd-based mass shootings..
The ONLY purpose it would serve is to make gun ownership onerous for law-abiding Americans...
Anyone who is psycho enough or committed enough will jump thru ALL the hoops to get their weapons..
Or they will just steal them...
Either way, gun registration or gun insurance or any other hair-brained scheme cooked up by the Hysterical Left Wingery won't do DIDDLEY SQUAT to prevent or help prevent crowd-based mass shootings..
These hare-brained ideas are NOTHING but Wouldn't It Be Nice laws... Nothing more...
Michale
Do you think that such a registration would prevent or help prevent crowd-based mass shootings??
It can be part of the solution.
How??
How would it be part of the solution??
Michale
How??
How would it be part of the solution??
[30]...
Yea, just what I figured..
You got nuttin'...
The simple fact is, any form of registration or insurance WON'T prevent or help prevent crowd-based mass shootings...
Unless someone has ACTUAL data and not a lame non-existent referral...
This stands as factual...
Michale
This stands as factual...
Or lazy as the case may be...
Don't get me wrong..
I see the value of gun registration.. And drone registration and all sorts of other registrations..
It will help LEOs solve crimes AFTER the fact..
And that's great... Peachy keen wonderful..
But don't bullshit the American people and try and claim it will PREVENT crowd-based mass shootings...
Because it won't...
Bashi's phantom "I SOLVED THIS A WHILE AGO/I HAVE A LOT OF SUPPORT IN EMAIL"-type comments notwithstanding...
Gun registration WILL NOT prevent or help prevent crowd-based mass shootings and it SURE AS HELL won't stop any terrorist attacks...
Dinner time.. :D
Michale
Michale,
I think I was pretty specific with what I believe will be the biggest benefit the registry would provide: allowing authorities to know when someone with mental issues needs to have the guns removed from their homes until they are medically cleared to be in possession of a firearm. And it is foolish to think that two different and unique rights must have the same exact set of rules for how they are exercised -- we already have different rules that are specific to each that do not apply to other rights.
So, you are saying if you weren't part of a "well regulated" militia back then, you couldn't own a gun??
No, I am saying that the right only extends to guns owned for the purpose of maintaining a well regulated militia. Guns don't need to be outlawed entirely, but we definitely need to go back to banning assault rifles and clips that hold over 15 bullets. When that ban was in effect, we didn't have mass shootings like we have experienced since the ban was lifted. It's really not asking too much if it can make mass killings a rare event again instead of a common occurrence!
And you are right, a registry wouldn't have prevented this most recent shooting spree; but it was not intended to prevent it. What it will prevent are possible future shootings by letting the authorities know when a person they encounter that has mental issues has access to fire arms. There are no perfect solutions. Nothing can cover every possibility, but we have to do something. We did nothing after Newtown. Doing the same thing (doing nothing) repeatedly and expecting a different outcome is the definition of insanity.
Another benefit of a registry will be to open the door to gun insurance, similar to car insurance. Thus if a gun is used in a crime the registered owner will be financially responsible for the damage. The need to get insurance will quickly (thanks to capitalism) result in different levels of insurance for different classes of gun and gun owner (just like a 17-year-old Ferrari owner will pay more than a 50-year-old Camry owner). Somebody who is willing to install and use a gun safe will have a lower rate. Somebody who has one gun will have lower insurance than somebody with a small arsenal, and the insurance companies will flag, and refuse to insure, somebody who is quickly building an arsenal, especially if they have restraining orders etc. against them.
The free market approach is perfectly constitutional since nobody will be refused the right to own a gun, only the need to qualify for insurance for the gun.
Objections will include:
1. Poor people will not be able to afford the insurance - rebuttal: a low cost gun plus insurance will cost little more than they are already paying
2. If guns are registered then the Government will be able to confiscate guns and overturn the constitution - rebuttal: apart from being extremely paranoid, this argument fails the common sense test - the Government has a military who pledge to uphold the constitution (despite that Trump thinks it will be his own personal security service), and even if the military did go rogue, they have tanks, Apache Gunships, etc., so even the heaviest armed gun nut would last five minutes.
3. Who will pay for the registry - rebuttal: a small ammunition tax would easily cover the costs
4. "shall not be infringed" - rebuttal: we already have gun control laws - no fully automatic weapons, felons, etc.
Listen,
And you are right, a registry wouldn't have prevented this most recent shooting spree;
It won't prevent or help prevent ANY shooting spree or terrorist attack..
but it was not intended to prevent it.
And yet, that is EXACTLY what it is being billed as..
We ONLY hear about gun registry in the immediate aftermath of a crowd-based mass shooting or, more recently, a terrorist attack..
Let's face the facts...
The *ONLY* gun control action that would have ANY effect is a complete gun ban...
And to do that, the Left Wingery would have to get rid of the 2nd Amendment and gut the 4th and 5th amendments..
Good luck with that. Let me know how it works out.. :D
Michale
Neil,
How will a gun registry prevent or help prevent crowd-based mass shootings or terrorist attacks??
Answer: It won't...
Until you can address this fact, a gun registry simply will not happen..
Michale
Let's face the facts...
The *ONLY* gun control action that would have ANY effect is a complete gun ban...
And to do that, the Left Wingery would have to get rid of the 2nd Amendment and gut the 4th and 5th amendments..
Good luck with that. Let me know how it works out.. :D
That smart-ass tone was directed more towards the Left Wingery in general rather than you specifically..
My apologies that it did not come off that way...
Michale
How will a gun registry prevent or help prevent crowd-based mass shootings or terrorist attacks??
Answer: It won't...
Until you can address this fact, a gun registry simply will not happen..
Nor will gun insurance prevent or help prevent crowd-based mass shootings or terrorist attacks..
If it won't help, it's not needed...
Michale
There are no perfect solutions. Nothing can cover every possibility, but we have to do something. We did nothing after Newtown. Doing the same thing (doing nothing) repeatedly and expecting a different outcome is the definition of insanity.
I am all for solutions..
But I want solutions that actually ADDRESS the problem...
NONE of the proposed "solutions" will address the problems that precipitated these "solutions"...
You say you want to have mental health determination as part and parcel to gun ownership. Fine.. I like that. Makes sense..
But you have to convince the Democrat Party to give up their PERSONAL PRIVACY crusade...
But even with a mental health proviso, it wouldn't have prevented Sandy Hook... The scumbag there murdered his mom and STOLE her guns...
We need REAL WORLD solutions..
I am in complete agreement with you.. :D heh
Sorry, just couldn't resist.. :D
But all we seem to have right now is Democrats just wanting to check a box on a partisan unpopular and USELESS agenda...
The ONLY effective gun control is a gun ban...
Michale
The ONLY effective gun control is a gun ban...
And I say that, tongue in cheek, because Chicago has a gun ban.. New York has a gun ban.. California has a de-facto gun ban...
In and of themselves, guns are not the problem..
Michale
While the precise motivation for the rampage remains unclear.....
-New York Times
This is what passes for "journalism" these days..
The precise motivation was CRYSTAL clear..
"ARE WE CLEAR!!!??"
"Crystal"
-A FEW GOOD MEN
The scumbag pledged allegiance to the Daesch...
How could the motivation NOT be clear??
A perfect example of pushing a Left Wingery agenda that is at odds with the reality of islamic terrorism...
Michale
Why Speaking the Truth About Islamic Terrorism Matters
https://pjmedia.com/rogerkimball/2016/06/15/whats-in-a-name/?singlepage=true
Everything that is wrong about Obama and the Democrat Party's response to the Orlando massacre...
Michale
“He pulled everybody out of Iraq, and I predicted at the time that ISIS would go unchecked, and there would be attacks on the United States of America. It’s a matter of record, so he is directly responsible.”
-'War Hero' John McCain
^^^^ "He" being President Obama....
Michale