However, that doesn’t mean you have to be paranoid about everything because at some point, it’s beyond irrational. I noticed another blogger who wrote about the NRA supporting the NICS legislation that requires more records on disqualified individuals to be submitted while also creating more opportunities for those who have been unfairly disqualified for years to clear their names. But he asks some really strange questions and even though I know there are plenty of folks who won’t trust this legislation, theirs tend to be more based on more rational concerns of politics.

I Smell a Rat

There’s more to this than meets the eye. And my NRA is involved. What’s going on?

Seems straighforward enough, doesn’t it? An agreement has been reached whereby the federal instant check system will be better maintained.

Not straightforward by a long shot.

Why would the NRA, a gun rights group, involve itself if a database of criminal and mental illness records were all this was about?

That would be because these records are used for people trying to buy guns. If these records are tampered with or the database is somehow modified, it will affect millions of law abiding gun owners. Perhaps this blogger is fortunate in never having met a person who is in the database for something that’s not a disqualifying offense, yet they still have to wait 3 days each and every time they want to make a lawful gun purchase. While I’m lucky enough to have a fairly unique name and don’t have to put up with problems like similar names that turn up results, I still take note of the problems others have with it and want to see that the database is kept up in its best working order so that people aren’t denied their rights to own firearms based on bureaucratic FUBAR mistakes.

Why is this referred to as “gun-control legislation?”

Because it’s the WaPo writing. They don’t dare admit that their favorite little Dems have created a bill that will actually allow more people to clear their names and get guns as a result of the concessions that had to be made. Not to mention, they tend to not know what they are talking about 90% of the time when writing about existing gun laws or gun legislation. It’s funny how gun bloggers tend to recognize that fact most of the time when it’s an attack on their pet guns, but they forget about in the rest of the articles dealing with guns especially when it’s not a frothing at the mouth anti-gun editorial.

If Democrats (including my congressman, Rick Boucher, who here is referred to as “a pro-gun Democrat” but who is not to be trusted on this or any issue) are negotiating with the NRA, what exactly was negotiated away?

It’s not that something was negotiated away on our part. Jesus, did you not get the memo that from a political and PR perspective, gun owners could have been taken to the cleaners after Virginia Tech? Given the beating gun owners could have taken in this situation and PR nightmare it provided (prohibited person, internet purchases, “high cap” magazines, etc.), the compromise is that we convinced them not to add more gun control to the bill. The Democrats in Congress felt that they had to do something, anything. So we could either get in the game and play ball to make sure gun owners don’t get screwed or sit on the sidelines and let them submit a bill that would ban magazines, guns, add waiting periods, create federal one gun a month, ammunition limits, etc. It would not have been a hard sell to make to the general population. Instead, we acknowledged that something was going to be introduced and to get something good out of this. We did. And the addition of the types of records they want to NICS doesn’t change a thing about prohibited person status. This means we spared many gun owners. It’s simply referred to a compromise because the other side didn’t get all the bans and crap they wanted while we didn’t get the complete overhaul and near eradication of unconstitutional gun laws we wanted.

Chris W. Cox, the NRA’s chief lobbyist, is quoted as saying that if the legislation becomes a wish-list for gun ban types in Congress, the NRA will withdraw its support. But the very fact that the rabidly anti-gun Washington Post gives this story such prominence, and in describing it, refers to it as gun-control legislation, can this become anything other than a wish-list for those who work diligently to disarm the American public?

A wish list would be what I described above. If you honestly believe that this is a wish list, make your argument. You don’t. Other than the fact that a news outlet you don’t like covered it. Back it up with evidence to prove that anti-gun people got exactly what they wanted in a way that screws over people who aren’t already prohibited under current laws. I’m open to rational argument here.

Look, if you want to argue that you see gun controls being added on in the legislative process, that’s a legit concern. Like I’ve said before, until there’s something on paper with votes recorded, we don’t know what it will officially become for gun owners. But just saying that because the WaPo wrote about it means it’s bad is not an argument based in reason. Especially coming from an NRA member blogger who has ads promoting the rabidly anti-hunting HSUS in his sidebar. I know gun rights aren’t about hunting, but hunting is a big part of our culture and if a gun ban went far enough to restrict what the anti-hunting forces would perceive as hunting guns, they would support it.

No obviously related posts.