I thought about predicting this right after the drive-by shootings took place, but I decided to wait. After all, where's the fun in predicting the utterly predictable?:
Members of both major political parties are calling for laws to make it tougher for the mentally ill to buy guns after the Friday rampage in California that left six people and the gunman dead — four of them from gunshot wounds.
Republican Representative Peter King of New York-2 told the Washington Post that stronger background checks are needed and that he is pursing legislation to get more help for the mentally ill.
Friday's killings near the University of California at Santa Barbara campus were carried out by 22-year-old Elliot Rodger, who had a history of mental issues. Still, he was able to buy his guns legally since he had no criminal history and had never been involuntarily committed to a mental health facility.
"This tragedy demonstrates once again the need to keep guns out of the hands of the mentally ill," King told the Post.
Yeah, Pete, except who gets to define the term "mentally ill"? Your "friends" on the Left have already sought to have veterans categorized as "mentally ill" on the grounds of allegations of post-traumatic stress disorder. How slippery is the slope to stripping Second Amendment rights from people who "might" go berserk, as appears to have been the case with, er, Mr. Roger?
King's position is a minority view in his party, which has largely resisted attempts to toughen gun laws.
"Even though this issue may not be popular in particular congressional districts, if we want to be a national party, we ought to be looking closely at it," King said.
If "we" want to be a national party, we should cave to the Democrats on every emotional issue they play up and exploit as distractions from the across-the-board wrecking ball they've been taking to the country for most of the past decade? Or should "we" stand for what we claim to believe in - which, last I checked, included the Second Amendment - especially when that is the side of the gun issue on which the American public still staunchly resides, almost miraculously, despite decades of anti-Second Amendment media demagoguery?
The bottom line problem with your demand, Congressman, is that we simply do not trust those on the other side of the aisle to keep their word that this is and will remain only about background checks only for people with objectively determined and documented mental illness. Even that proposal is debatable, charitably put, but there are simply no grounds on which to believe that it would stay so limited. And your ready willingness to be panicked and stampeded by their Agenda-driven faux indignation is, quite frankly, why the GOP grassroots do not trust RINOs like you, Mr. King. You're a pawn, a useful idiot and propaganda prop, lending a veneer of dubious "bipartisanship" to yet another attempted hand-waving distraction from the economic and social destruction Barack Obama and the Democrat Party have wrought on the formerly fruited plain, which has them headed for a crushing defeat in November at the hands of "our" party. Why would you want to help them, Congressman?
On the bright side, perhaps this means he's going to abandon his silly, quixotic presidential ambitions - gangland style.
No comments:
Post a Comment