Monday, February 11, 2013

The legislature:confusing motion with action.

Well, we're hearing about it.  Right now, the only bill that seems to be under consideration that will actually make a difference... that could have actually resulted in a different outcome for Sandy Hook, is Rep, Liz Pike's "Safer Schools Act of 2013" HB 1788 a bill that would give districts the option of arming teachers.

Let me make this clear: armed teachers at Sandy Hook would have saved lives, had that slimeball attacked the hard target of a school at all.  Or was it just coincidence that he chose a target knowing they couldn't shoot back?

Meanwhile, others on both sides of the aisle are stuck on stupid, confusing motion... with action.

No bill restricting weapons or the ability to buy weapons or ammunition should be passed in the wake of Sandy Hook that would not have positively impacted the outcome of the Sandy Hook episode.

Unfortunately, none of the other bills offered would have made a damned bit of difference... but those shilling these bills sure seem to want you to think so.

First, there's the idiocy of democrat power grab HB1588, a bill that among other idiocies would attempt to regulate the private sale of guns.

It won't, of course.  What it WILL do is add another layer of government.

Other abortive efforts that will make no difference include SB5445, a make-work feel good bill by Sen. Jim Honeyford (R-15th District) and a "silent alarm" bill (SB5197) by Sen. Bruce Dammier from R-Puyallup.

These bills are classic cases of confusing “motion” with “action.” Those behind this steaming pile appear to believe in this effort, unintended consequences notwithstanding, or they wouldn’t be doing it.  Unfortunately, except for punishing those of us who obey the law for the actions of those who do not, and in the case of the silent alarm nonsense, providing a completely false sense of security, these bills accomplishes absolutely nothing positive.

Sandy Hook is yet another name that will live in infamy.  The question I have is this: what in this bill would have stopped it?

That these bills, had they been fully implemented, would have made no difference in Sandy Hook is the thing.

That these bills would do nothing to improve the security of soft targets like schools is the thing.

That these bills punishes those of us who follow the law for the actions of those who break the law is the thing.

That these bills will make no impact on street sales where guns are sold to those who are not supposed to have them (Felons, for example) is the thing.

That these bills will do nothing to stop anyone from, say, buying a gun in Oregon or Idaho without undergoing this nonsense is the thing.

In fact, I offer you one word that sums up the ultimate aim of the democrats you are joining with: Chicago.

That these bills accomplishes absolutely nothing except to increase the bureaucracy (always a democrat goal) and provide revenue to the state (always a democrat goal) while making it more difficult for those who obey the law to purchase weapons is the thing.

It's difficult to see where THAT isn't the real goal of this private sale background check idiocy: and why would government want it to be more difficult for the law-abiding to buy weapons?

We have a Constitution. It sets limits on government. HB1588 appears to cavalierly violate those limits.  The other two bills will make no real difference where the rubber meets the road.

Those who obey the law will suffer. Those who break the law won't even notice... or care. And it seems to me that government's priorities are just the tiniest bit screwed up here.

I don’t doubt their sincerity.  But I would wish that in this instance, like all others where legislation is proposed or supported, those doing the proposing or supporting would stand back and see what the outcome would be BEFORE this (or any other bill) is passed into law.

A few amendments won’t help this fundamental flaws of these bills.  There are many other options available that would not be offensive to my rights… such as mandatory life sentences for anyone using a weapon during the course of committing a crime.

After all, if you want to stop the use of a weapon for an illegal purpose, what better way to do that then actually holding the perpetrator accountable instead of further restricting those of us who follow the law because of the actions of others?

What a novel concept.

If the goal is to get weapons out of the hands of criminals then we must make the cost so high that they would never consider using them.  And these bills do nothing to achieve that.

No comments: