Seed Newsvine
Reuters reports this afternoon that:
The Democratic-led U.S. House of Representatives on Wednesday responded to the deadliest shooting rampage in modern American history by passing legislation to help keep guns out of hands of the mentally ill.On a voice vote, the House sent the measure — which would be the first major gun control bill enacted since 1994 and bolster background checks for gun buyers — to the Democratic-led Senate for needed concurrence.
The bill was drafted in consultation with the 4 million-member National Rifle Association, the nation’s biggest gun-rights group, after a deranged gunman killed himself and 32 others in April at Virginia Tech university.
“I think the chances are very strong that we can get this passed in the Senate,” said Democratic Sen. Charles Schumer of New York, provided the legislation is not laden with amendments that gun rights backers find objectionable.
It is a start. Interestingly the NRA apparently participated in the drafting of this bill–has the leadership of the NRA finally come to their senses. Gun control does not mean depriving Americans of the right to own weapons. It does not mean that Americans cannot hunt or participate in the infantile sport of shooting at paper targets. Gun control doesn’t even mean that one is deprived of the right to join the militia. As I have blogged many times before, making it more difficult to place weapons in the hands of those that are likely to to harm to themselves and others reduces the probability that another Virginia Tech is imminent. Hooray for the courage of the House. Now will the Senate follow suit? Will the lame duck sign legislation that limits placing guns in the hands of the mentally incompetent? All I know is that it is a beginning. I for one will be watching for the outcome.
Technorati Tags: gun control, Virginia Tech, Congress, NRA
You know that I gotta chime in on this one. I am all for keeping guns out of the hands of crazy folk, but I was wondering. If they should not be having guns b/c they may hurt someone, why are they even allowed to walk the streets? Shouldn’t they be locked up in a mental institution?
What I am saying is if the gov’t thinks that you should not own a gun, because you may harm someone with it, why isn’t the gov’t protecting us (the public) from you just in case you can get a knife and do harm to people.
Now to the bill… I am usually against most new gun legislation, because I think that it infringes on the 2nd amendment. At the same time I don’t think that crazy folk should be able to have guns or even walk the street.
I already know that I will be reading the stories about the horrors of this bill. Anti0-gun states like California, New York, etc will expand what they call “crazy folk.” People that just go to marriage counseling may end up in the federal database and not be able to buy a gun. Folk that may suffer from mild forms of depression may get put in the database. I could go on and on, but I think that you know what I am talking about.
Sure the NRA was involved in writing this bill. They knew that the Democrats were going to try and pass some kind of bill in response to the VT killings, so they wanted to be involved in the crafting to make sure tha thte Democrats didn’t go overboard. The NRA is just oe of many 2nd amendment organizations out there. the Gun Owners of America (probably the best organization but smaller) are against the bill because they know what the folk on the state level are going to do.
Now I wonder if this bill is even constitutional. People are always talking about medical privacy and how the gov’t should not be sticking their nose in people’s private medical decisions. OK I accept that on 4th amendment grounds. We also have the 2nd amendment that guarantees you the right to bear arms. Combine these two and how can this be constitutional?
On top of that why aren’t medical privacy folk going crazy over this bill. I think that they should be outraged b/c that the federal gov’t will have more access to their medical records. The state will have to report the folks to the feds, so what’s to stop the feds from using the database for other reasons?
It does not mean that Americans cannot hunt or participate in the infantile sport of shooting at paper targets.
You know, it’s the fact that so many people who are in favor of gun control make snide remarks like this that those of us who enjoy, and want to keep enjoying, the shooting sports, refuse to listen to what, in many cases, are legitimate concerns. Engage us, don’t mock us.
You know, it’s the fact that so many people who are in favor of gun control make snide remarks like this that those of us who enjoy, and want to keep enjoying, the shooting sports, refuse to listen to what, in many cases, are legitimate concerns. Engage us, don’t mock us.
Sebastian,
First off I have heard of your blog before. Pretty nice read. I have loaded you up in my RSS reader for future readings…
I have been hanging out here are Roger’s blog for a while now. He’s an OK guy. Sure he takes jabs at gun owner/ownership, but I don’t think that he means any harm. I don’t even know if he knows what an “assault weapon” is. As a matter of fact, I don’t even know b/c it changes with each new piece of legislation that is written. It’s a 12rd mag this week or a rifle with a folding stock next week.
Now Roger I missed that little comment that Sebastian called you out on. That was a little below the belt. I would expect that from some of the other blogs that I read, but not here. You’re better than that.
I am one that actually like shooting at paper targets and I don’t consider it an infantile sport.
Is shooting at paper targets (or clay pigeons, for that matter) any more infantile than golf?
Hitting a little ball with a club, walking after it, and hitting it again seems pointless to me.
On a serious note, Sebastian’s right. There aren’t a whole lot of anti-gun arguments out there that hold any weight, but if you want real discourse, don’t talk down to the opposing view.
Okay, so my attempt at humor failed. I should have anticipated that gun owners and supporters of free ownership and use of lethal firearms are really serious people. So target shooting is as infantile as golf–That I could agree with.
I must say, however, that as usual most of the comments made here miss my point entirely. I support gun control. I support registration of ALL guns and strict enforcement of that requirement. I favor stiff, seriously stiff, penalties for those convicted of using a weapon in the commission of a crime. I favor punishment not retribution so I do not favor the death penalty.
All that being said, I don’t have anything against one that would own a weapon for purposes of hunting, target shooting (although I still don’t see the point), skeet shooting (I don’t get that either). But many people take pleasure in those activities, even calling them sporting, although if you are the deer or the duck I would hardly think they see the sport in it all. I like automobile racing, open wheel, Formula 1 road racing not NASCAR. Many of my friends don’t get that. My point was that if you take pleasure in shooting and you have a qualified weapon have at it. No one should or ought to block your action. Since one no longer needs a gun to join the militia (last I looked the military provided all the guns one needs) I take that role out of the discussion.
So I’ll try not to be humorous when speaking to anti-gun control folks (except maybe LLR who seems to get my humor most of the time).
So I’ll try not to be humorous when speaking to anti-gun control folks (except maybe LLR who seems to get my humor most of the time).
I understand that you don’t understand guns. That’s cool. I can’t understand a lot of things, but that doesn’t mean that I am going to call for strict registration and other regulations of them.
This got me to thinking. A lot of people on the left (and right too) have this view that the gov’t should provide us with a lot of stuff. They say that abortion is constitutional under the 4th amendment. Some go as far as to say that the gov’t should pay for it.
Now even some of the most liberal folk recognize that the 2nd amendment recognizes an individual’s right to own a gun. If I put some of the leftist thinking together, that would mean that the gov’t should be buying some of my guns. If the gov’t is going to pay for abortions, I know that they can get me at least a revolver, pistol, rifle, and shotgun.
Last time I check there was no right to healthcare, food, etc, but the gov’t is paying for that stuff for millions of people. I know that they can get me a few guns for my collection. They also need to provide nice shooting ranges, targets, etc. I think that I need to be writing my senators and reps.
Now on to the article… Ron Paul was the only dissenting vote. As usual he is the only real person in DC that actually stands for the constitution. This is just another step toward more gun control measures. If the Dems keep power in 08 and Lord forbid a Democrat gets elected president, all kinds of gun control stuff may come out of DC. I gotta stock up on guns now in anticipation of the gun laws that will be coming down.
Roger…can you write something on the Parker vs. DC decision that the federal court recently ruled on? In case you don’t know, it was the case that said that DC can’t ban guns.
Now be nice to us pro-gun folk. One of us may have to save your life one day.