It goes to an article in The Trace so I am not giving them any link love:
Legislation introduced last week by Republican Senator John Cornyn of Texas would incentivize states to better report psychiatric records to the federal background check system. The bill drew praise from both the National Rifle Association and the National Alliance on Mental Illness. But some mental health experts warn that the proposal would actually reduce the effectiveness of the current background check system by limiting the number of records FBI inspectors can draw upon when deciding if someone can safely purchase a gun.
Here is the funny thing: S.2002, Mental Health and Safe Communities Act might have been introduced but as of today, the text has not been published yet.
So what are the Opposition bitching about? My guess mostly rumors and even some second-hand copy of a proposal, who knows? But I go back to my usual warning: Get the source, not what somebody else is telling you. I already seen some Chest Bumpers on our side decrying the bill because ‘squirrel!’ and the deep need to be outraged for no damned reason.
Let’s wait for the text to be published and keep an eye on the bill as it moves forward (or doesn’t) with the usual changes it may have.
That is all. You can continue to Tuesday.
9 thoughts on “Preemptive strike on Cornyn’s Mental Health and Safe Communities Act.”
OK, agreed, we don’t have the text of the bill.
But when have members of Congress EVER willingly removed infringements on the right to keep and bear arms? Very, very seldom. And, as in the FOPA of ’86, there is always, ALWAYS a “poison pill” hidden in the bill (that time, the machine gun ban).
We “Chest Bumpers” have a long, long history of getting our freedoms taken away by these sons of bureaucrats. I think our skepticism, distrust, and outright accusations are entirely justified, based on that history.
And sorry to say a bad record avoiding bad legislation.
And we not only learned from it but actually used it re: Sunset provision of Clinton’s AWB.
There is little to no chance that Background checks are going to be eliminated any time soon. Now, we can huff and puff and yell “Hell No!” or we can get involved and wither create a bill that favor us or makes such a mess of things, it renders itself null and void. I much rather have the Opposition waste time fighting the Cornyn bill than concentrating their resources on an unopposed bill of their own.
“And sorry to say a bad record avoiding bad legislation.”
And how do you “avoid” bad legislation, when the Republicans are just as interested in infringements are the Democrats are? There is no political party in America that is interested, as a whole, in the right of the people to keep and bear arms. Almost all our gains lately have been in the states, and in the Supreme Court before Obama got enough blackmail on them to keep them from taking 2nd Amendment cases.
If I sound discouraged, it’s because I am. I think we are a few short years from civil war.
If you count on the kindness of politicians, you will always lose. But what you do is to force them to work your way or gum up their works.
I don’t see a civil war but more like a secession: DC the North East, half California and a few other urban areas will be isolated from the rest. And since they do not produce anything but services, they will collapse in due time. It will not be the North v. South and pray it does not become a standard civil war.
Why let a little thing like not knowing what’s written stop anybody from discussing any bill? Remember how well “You’ll have to pass it to read it” worked last time?
Wait, I’m confused. How is it possible to reduce the effectiveness of the background check system any further from a system that’s already never enforced and doesn’t work?
You and they are using different meanings what effectiveness means. To cut to the chase, in their view, a system that denies 99.9% of people is effective. So obviously if this bill prevents them from denying people for what ever meaningless petty reasons they’ve cooked up, that bill reduces the system’s effectiveness.
You on the other hand likely view effectiveness in terms of denying dangerous people and approving people who haven’t been shown to be dangerous.
And as history clearly shows, neither view is effective and both are destructive to a heck of a lot more than our right to keep and bear arms.
Try this on for size, Miguel:
Do we have a right to keep and bear arms? Or do we have a privilege to keep and bear arms?
What’s the difference?
The difference is,
• Rights are beyond the reach of government. No one has to ask government for permission to exercise a right that does not interfere with anyone else’s right.
• Privileges are issued or denied by government, and may be revoked by government.
Do we have a right to be secure from interrogation, search of our persons, houses, papers, and effects, and seizure of anything (including other rights) in the absence of a warrant founded on probable cause of criminal conduct?
The 4th Amendment, U.S. Constitution, says we do.
Do we have a right to be secure from being deprived of our rights without due process by a Court of Criminal Law?
The 5th Amendment, U.S. Constitution, says we do.
Do we have a right to be secure from the federal exercise of power not delegated, and the State exercise of power prohibited to the States?
The 10th Amendment, U.S. Constitution, says we do.
Then why do we allow the federal government to compel violation of our 4th, 5th, and 10th Amendment rights so it can issue or deny us permission to exercise our 2nd Amendment rights? Why do we allow the federal government to even license firearm dealers?
We are sovereign citizens of the first nation in fifty centuries (in forever!) to establish the principle that private individual rights trump the arbitrary whim of kings and princes and neighborhood warlords and even majority rule by voter initiative. If we want to restore our Constitutional Republic, take it away from this rogue occupation government not deriving every scintilla of its Power from the Consent of the Governed (The U.S. Constitution), then we had better stop asking government permission to exercise our rights; we’d better stop the Bloomberg Universal Background Check Initiative, and we had better repeal The Brady Act of 1993, the Gun Control Act of 1968, and the National Firearms Act of 1934. There isn’t much time left to save our country.
Comments are closed.
Login or register to comment.