I will give the Dems credit on this one, though, as their gun control amendment sounds reasonable. Under its provisions, nobody on a terrorist watch list would be able to purchase a firearm of any kind. How, in light of the events in Paris and Mali the past ten days, could anybody object to that?
How you know that it isn't reasonable begins with how they laughably oversell it:
“As we speak, a terrorist on the FBI’s terror watch list can walk into a gun show in your hometown and buy as many AK-47s and explosives as they need to commit the kind of mass, heinous slaughter of innocents we witnessed in Paris and which we know terrorists want to perpetrate here in America,” [Senate Minority Chisler Harry G]Reid said Friday.
“I think this is a no-brainer,” said the sponsor of the bill, Senator Dianne Feinstein, D-CA. “If you’re too dangerous to board a plane, you’re too dangerous to buy a gun.” [emphasis added]
I'm pretty sure that (1) you can't buy AK-47s and explosives at gun shows now and (2) it's illegal for gun shows to carry those particular items already. (G)Reid ridiculously exaggerates like that because (1) he can't help it, whether due to his bilious personality, encroaching dementia, or both and (2) most Americans know more about the Kardashian sisters' bra sizes than they do the firearms business and thus buy every sneering word Dirty Harry blithers.
But still, jihadists could do a lot of damage with the guns they could obtain at gun shows. But that presupposes that (1) ISIS operatives will scrupulously follow all federal, State, and local gun laws (the federal ones being, of course, unconstitutional), and (2) everybody on a government terrorist watch list is a jihadist. Not only has that proven to be far from the case, but nobody seems to know quite what the criteria is for winding up on said lists:
The Intercept (which isn’t exactly a conservative or libertarian publication) got hold of the National Counterterrorism Center guidelines for putting people on watch lists last year. Some of these guidelines includes social media and what “walk-ins” say, even if government employees are told not to use hunches.
So, yes, you might be on a terrorist watch list if you tweet, Facebook, or use other social media sites to post an article someone doesn’t like. The rules are so vague that even those who might be criticizing or pointing something out for others to see could end up on the list.
Government terrorist watch lists are, in other words, tailor-made for leftwingnut politicization. We know who the Obama Regime consider to be the REAL "terrorists"....
\
....and it seems that once you wind up fingered as a terrorist suspect by this bunch, it's well-nigh impossible to clear your name:
Indeed, it’s terrible for law-abiding Americans with no ties to terrorism to end up on some sort of government-run list of people under suspicion. Of course, that’s precisely what has already happened; I wonder if Iftikha knows Ted Kennedy and the Weekly Standard’s Stephen Hayes ended up on terrorism watch lists. This is one of the reasons many Republicans don’t want to ban gun sales to people on the “terror watch lists,” because there’s little public disclosure about just how someone ends up on the “terror watch list” or “no-fly list,” and once you’re on it, it’s exceptionally hard to get off. There is no independent or judicial review; once on it, you are guilty until proven innocent. [emphases added]
Long story short, this is just another weasly Democrat gun control angle hiding under the cover of "fighting terrorism". Which, as I say, is deftly opportunistic on their part, but is still the same old unconstitutional gun-grabbing fetish that has been unpopular for decades, and isn't going to gain any popularity from being used as a poison pill to keep the flow of ISIS-infested Syrian "refugees" pouring into this country.
But there is one impediment they lack the ability to overcome:
The Senate could take up the House-passed refugee bill as early as the week of November 30th. At that point, Democrats will likely try to attach the gun control provision as an amendment, although it will be up to Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-KY, to decide whether he’ll allow it. [emphasis added]
That ought to be a no-brainer for Mitchie The Kid, both policy-wise and politically. In essence, Senate Donks have declared that gun control is their price for not catastrophically degrading U.S. internal security against enemy infiltration and attack. McConnell should stick their despicable amendment someplace anatomically impossible and force them into the optically horrific position of filibustering the popular, true "no-brainer" House bill that cuts off ISIS from easy access to U.S. soil.
Could six Dems be split off from the minority party herd to attain cloture? Quite possibly. In which case Barack Obama will have to veto it, thus inflicting those same horrific optics on all Dems instead of just those in the Senate, punctuated by the inevitable enemy-inflicted mayhem to come.
The moral of the story? Jihadists can't buy AK-47s and explosives at gun shows if they're not in the country in the first place.
No comments:
Post a Comment