We have historically supported bans on automatic weapons.

But those elected to represent us do shit like this instead.

And, last year, this. 1

“We’re here today to try to resolve the question of how best to strike the proper balance between ensuring our national security and protecting our civil liberties,” Quigley said in a statement.

“Surely, we cannot look our constituents in the eye and tell them in good faith that we have decided to enact public policy that restrains some of their civil liberties for the greater good but that we refused to ask the same of suspected terrorists. I know we are smarter than that.”

The Judiciary panel approved the overall Patriot Act bill 22-13, largely along party lines.

Under current law, licensed gun dealers must screen potential buyers to weed out those ineligible to purchase or possess firearms, including illegal immigrants, felons, the severely mentally ill and those convicted of domestic violence.

Appearance on the FBI’s terrorist watch list, however, does not alone disqualify people from buying guns. That database is designed to track those “known or appropriately suspected to be or have been engaged in conduct constituting, in preparation for, in aid of, or related to terrorism.”

Neither of the above actions 2 would have remade America into that rosy, sunny imaginarium of those who misremember the ’50s. Nor would they have necessarily forestalled recent or future tragedies. However by severely limiting access to arms, and certainly banning sale of automatic weapons, we could dampen the damage.

Folks, in 2009 alone there were 31,347 gun deaths in this country. There were only 4,500 casualties in Iraq from 2004 through 2009.

Pay no attention to those who would have you believe that stricter gun laws in America would do nothing to avert mass killings, this is easily disproved. In 2004:  New Zealand suffered 5 gun deaths, Sweden 37, there were 56 in Australia, 73 in England, 184 in Canada and 11,344 murders in the United States.

The difference? Stricter and rigorously enforced gun laws.

It is also worth noting…

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.

How many current weapon owners belong to a ‘militia’?

WNBTv - Good TV!

Show 2 footnotes

  1. Which was a negative 2-fer; yes, we’ll still sell semi-automatic weapons to suspected terrorists, but by gum we’ll nab ’em in the nick of time, thanks to our New Improved Patriot Act!
  2. Or failures to act.

4 thoughts on “The NRA”

  1. Maybe people in NZ or Sweden (for sure!) are just not big on shooting. Imagine a country where the majority of people are like me, who don’t care to own guns even if they are legally avalaible. I guess my point is that attributing the rates of gun violence just to the weapon regulations is not entirely correct.

    1. I understand and agree, but there is a direct correlation between stricter gun laws and lower homicide rates: British soccer hooligans, for example, would send many American drug gangs crying for their baby mommas…

  2. I think you’re on to something with that militia comment. Why not just leave gun laws the way they are, with the exception that in order to get your gun, you HAVE to be a member of a militia.

    Surely that would provide for some “well” regulation as well as appease the NRA types.

Something to say...?