How Do We Attack Second Amendment Rights

Filed under: Toivo Etelamaki |
Elections 2012

That’s what we should do. Let our congressman know.

February 1, 2013 – Washington –

Senate Holds First Hearings of 2013 on Gun Rights

The way I see it from my La-z-boy recliner at my home in Republic is on January 30, the U.S. Senate Judiciary committee held a hearing entitled, “What Should America Do About Gun Violence?”

But it should have been called, “How Do We Attack Second Amendment Rights?”   That’s my take on it, that’s my story,  or my name ain’t Toivo Etelamaki.

The hearing (which can be viewed here) consisted of a single panel that included NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre, Second Amendment scholar David Kopel, attorney Gayle Trotter, Baltimore County, Md. police chief James Johnson, and Mark Kelly, the husband of former Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords. (Rep. Giffords made a brief opening statement to the committee before the other witnesses took their seats.)

Anti-gun politicians such as Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), and Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) all made the same emotion-laden arguments they have made for decades on why government should infringe the Second Amendment rights of the American people. As always, they failed to provide any rational evidence that the so-called solutions they are proposing–a massive new gun and magazine ban and banning the private transfers of firearms–would reduce ordinary street crime, let alone stop the kind of tragedies that have recently shocked our nation.

The NRA’s Wayne LaPierre stood firm in the face of repeated calls for more gun laws.

In his testimony, he made clear that the NRA would not go along with any new restrictions of the rights of law-abiding Americans. “Law-abiding gun owners will not accept blame for the acts of violent or deranged criminals,” he said, “nor do we believe that government should dictate what we can lawfully own and use to protect our families.”

In particular, LaPierre made the point that the new restrictions being proposed would not affect criminals or madmen. While the law-abiding would submit to the laws, criminals simply would not. In response to a question, he pointed out that “even if you turn up someone on an instant check that’s a mentally ill person, or a felon, as long as you let them go, you’re not keeping them from getting a gun.”

Do you think about more gun control?

Is more control going deter the criminal element?

Share 103 Fxd & WFXD.com Content with the World!
  • Print
  • Digg
  • StumbleUpon
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Yahoo! Buzz
  • Twitter
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Add to favorites
  • BarraPunto
  • Bitacoras.com
  • Fark
  • LinkedIn
  • Live
  • Mixx
  • MySpace
  • PDF
  • Reddit
  • RSS
  • Slashdot
  • Tumblr

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>