Clinton misses target with new gun laws |

Clinton misses target with new gun laws

In the first few days after the Colorado school shooting, it appeared that reason would prevail in the search for answers – that our government might take a look at the reasons behind the growing violence in our society, rather than immediately jumping on the gun-control bandwagon.

However, as soon as Hillary Clinton set Bill’s agenda for him this week, it became apparent that reason was being pushed to the wayside.

“It is criminal how easy it is for children in America to obtain guns,” Hillary told an assembly of lawmakers in Washington Tuesday, prior to Bill announcing his latest omnibus anti-gun package.

That’s an easy statement to make – but it would be a hard one to prove. There have never been more restrictive gun laws in America than those currently on the books.

And yet, in the late 1940s and 1950s – even the 1960s, when many different types of military ordnance could be purchased through the mail, mass murder atrocities like the Littleton shootings did not happen. Back then, there were no background checks, no waiting periods, no assault weapons bans, no hi-capacity magazine bans – and you could purchase a 20mm self-loading cannon mail order for $100 if you wanted one, not to mention a plethora of other surplus wartime ordnance.

The children of my parents’ generation didn’t go on killing rampages through their high schools, despite the ready availability of high-powered weaponry. Even the kids of my generation (raised in the 1970s and ’80s) did not commit such crimes with the disturbing regularity we see today.

But history is irrelevant to Clinton’s agenda – and that of all gun-control proponents, which is to heavily regulate and eventually remove all firearms from the hands of the American people.

Bill may not have much self-control in some personal matters, but you can count on him to skillfully use the word “children” for political gain whenever possible. And he’s proven his prowess time and time again at inserting the phrase “for the children” whenever it will gain him the most votes on a bill of dubious value.

Doubtless at the advice of his wife, he waited a whole week after the tragedy in Colorado before assembling a number of restrictive gun control measures into a proposal to pass “for the children,” using the massacre to advance his agenda.

Lawmakers should beware when they hear those three words – it means Bubba’s counting on their knee-jerk reaction to make them pass a bad law.

Sen. John Chafee, a Rhode Island Republican, scoffed in a national news story at those who say school violence is a cultural problem – an attitude which flies in the face of the facts.

If school violence is not a cultural problem, why didn’t it happen more when gun laws were less restrictive? The weapons themselves, which have been here for generations, are obviously not to fault for the increased violence now in the hearts of some of America’s children – they are merely the tools sometimes used to express it.

The blame has to be placed somewhere else – and a good portion of it should be placed with the parents of any child who slaughters his classmates. Some have tried to blame the entertainment industry and the video game industry for the shootings in Colorado – and the teens may have received some of their ideas from those sources. However, it is a parent’s place to know what his or her children are watching, to monitor what video games they are playing, and, in the Littleton case, to ask why their teenage son has black powder bombs in the garage and a sawed-off shotgun barrel on his dresser.

It is up to parents to make sure that children know the difference between reality and fantasy, to ensure that children have a basic grasp of morality and know that crime has consequences. Children have to know that violence is not an acceptable way to solve problems. They have to be raised to value the sacredness of human life, not as selfish little sociopaths who believe the world revolves around them.

Some portions of Clinton’s latest proposal aim to make parents accountable, while other parts of it are repressive gun control measures that were too unpalatable to make it into other .”anti-crime” bills.

To tick off a few elements of Bill’s “anti-crime package,” and their relevance to the Colorado case:

— A background check on buyers for all gun show sales. (Clinton has been trying to curb the rights of gun collectors to sell their private property since he took office – and holding private citizens who seek to sell a single gun to the same standard as dealers will probably accomplish it. This provision would probably also require a background check and a waiting period on all rifles).

— Limiting individual handgun purchases to one per month (No relevance – this is a bit of legislation Clinton and Sara Brady’s Handgun Control, Inc. have had waiting in the wings, hoping for a chance to pass it “for the children.” One handgun was used in the Colorado shootings).

— A ban on juvenile possession of semiautomatic assault rifles (since the guns in Colorado were apparently purchased by a person of legal age, this would have had little effect. Typical “feel good, accomplish little” legislation).

— A halt of imports of high-capacity magazines (there are hundreds of thousands of such magazines on the market now, and all constructed after the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban are already banned from import. Both high-capacity weapons used in the Colorado shooting were manufactured in the USA – where no high capacity magazines have been manufactured for legal civilian sale since 1994).

— Mandatory child-safety locks on all guns sold (Hmm, this would have really helped in Colorado. If you figure out how, let me know. That’s not saying it’s a bad idea – just something any caring gun owner with children should buy anyway – if not an actual gun safe).

— A three-day waiting period for all handgun purchases, with an additional two days if law enforcement needs them to complete their investigation (Last year, the government was forced to implement the instant background checks promised as a result of the expired Brady Bill. Handgun Control members ever since have been chafing at the thought that a person can walk in, have their criminal history thoroughly checked via computer, and walk out with a legally-obtained firearm. They want to make it as inconvenient as possible. Note that this would be the first federally-mandated waiting period; the expired Brady Bill gave authorities up to five days to check up on handgun purchasers if needed).

— Mandatory prison sentences of three to 10 years and $10,000 fines for adults, including parents, who allow children access to guns (This sounds like a good idea, but beware the implementation. In the Jonesboro shootings last year, the children allegedly stole the guns from their grandfather’s residence, and also stole a car. This law should make it clear that available means leaving guns where a juvenile can obtain them without breaking a law).

— A lifetime ban on firearms ownership for people who commit violent crimes as juveniles (This is perhaps the one good provision in the proposed bill. Felons are already prohibited from owning firearms, and it seems logical to extend the restriction to those with a violent juvenile record, rather than giving a violent criminal a second chance to own a gun legally).

Support Local Journalism


Support Local Journalism

Readers around Lake Tahoe, Truckee, and beyond make the Sierra Sun's work possible. Your financial contribution supports our efforts to deliver quality, locally relevant journalism.

Now more than ever, your support is critical to help us keep our community informed about the evolving coronavirus pandemic and the impact it is having locally. Every contribution, however large or small, will make a difference.

Your donation will help us continue to cover COVID-19 and our other vital local news.

Start a dialogue, stay on topic and be civil.
If you don't follow the rules, your comment may be deleted.

User Legend: iconModerator iconTrusted User


See more