LF: NRA-Republican Backed Bill Makes It Easier For Feds To Disarm Citizens

Title: NRA-Republican Backed Bill Makes It Easier For Feds To Disarm Citizens
Source: Zero Hedge
URL Source: http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017- ... it-easier-feds-disarm-citizens
Published: Dec 11, 2017
Author: Tyler Durden
Post Date: 2017-12-11 11:16:19 by Deckard
Keywords: None
Views: 887
Comments: 23

On Wednesday, the Republican controlled house voted to further federalize gun laws in this country.

While Ryan McMaken has noted the danger in further centralizing gun legislation, there is another deeply troubling aspect to this bill: it expands the ability of the Federal government to restrict Americans’ right to bear arms.

During the legislative process, the NRA supported merging the bill aimed at nationalizing concealed carry permits with another piece of legislation aimed at “fixing” the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS.) Obviously this legislation was inspired by the failure of the US Air Force to report the criminal record of Devin Kelley, who went on to commit a horrific shooting in Sutherland Springs, Texas. While the motivation to do something after this atrocity is entirely natural, unfortunately this bill is simply another example of the Federal government using its own failure to justify expanding its own power.

After all, the “Fix NICS” bill doesn’t seek to punish the US Air Force for its failure to properly process paperwork. Instead, it provides $760 million in additional funding for the Department of Justice to establish new guidelines to ensure compliance among Federal agencies. That funding can also be used “to ensure maximum coordination” between State government and Indian tribes with the NICS.

While the idea of bolstering the already existing Federal gun registry may strike some as relatively benign, it’s important to understand how it has been used in the past.

As Congressman Thomas Massie noted in his own criticism of the bill:

When President Obama couldn’t get Congress to pass gun control, he implemented a strategy of compelling, through administrative rules, the Veterans Administration and the Social Security Administration to submit lists of veterans and seniors, many of whom never had a day in court, to be included in the NICS database of people prohibited from owning a firearm. Only a state court, a federal (article III) court, or a military court, should ever be able to suspend your rights for any significant period of time.

While Republicans and supporters of the NRA may not fear the Trump Administration coming after their guns, it is obviously reckless to grant additional power and resources to future administrative states that may be quite hostile to the right to gun ownership. To put it simply, there is never a good reason to give Federal agencies the power the revoke an individual's ability to lawfully purchase a weapon without due process.

Further, if one needed an example of how dangerous it is to centralize gun legislation in Washington DC, look no further to what gun owners in states like Ohio and Hawaii are currently facing. Both states, having recently legalized the use of medical marijuana, have placed those who need it with the choice of either owning a gun or receiving life-improving medicine.

In 2011, the Federal government sent a letter to licensed gun dealers reiterating that marijuana users were prohibited from owning a gun – even if it they have a medical prescription. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld this decision last year. Hawaii, which requires gun registration, has gone as far as to sending letters to permitted gun owners with marijuana prescriptions requiring they turn over their weapon. While the state is currently asking for “voluntary cooperation,” it could be a matter of time before it turns into compulsory compliance.

While the simplicity provided by nationalizing laws is an understandable appeal, especially if you’re a gun owner who frequently travels, political centralization is never the answer. By supporting this flawed attempt at “National Concealed Carry Reciprocity,” the NRA and their supporters in the House have sided with the power of Federal agencies over the Second Amendment rights of Americans.

Disclaimers: (1) I am an independent. I oppose major aspects of both the Democrat and Republican platforms, although I am supportive of other aspects of both.

(2) I have always been personally uninterested in the gun rights fight. To my eyes the 2nd Amendment clearly establishes a federal, personal right to keep and bear arms, which is subject to the same sort of time, place and manner regulation that speech or political activity or religion or voting or any other right is.

On THIS site, where most people are Republicans, I go after the Republicans more than the Democrats, because HERE there are so many rah-rah Republicans that I feel the need to point out Republican hypocrisy and serial dishonesty. They blow sunshine up the electorate's ass in election after election, but the only thing they ever FIGHT for or DO is to advance the cause of the very rich. The other stuff, they never manage to get done, and always have excuses. And their Stockholm-Syndrome-affilicted middle and working class supporters always seem to have an excuse for them.

I know guns rights are a HUGE thing for many on this site. So come on out, you Republican LF'rs, and explain and justify your precious party's actions here regarding your precious gun rights!

I am eager to see the tortured logic by which a Republican move in a Republican- controlled House of Representatives is the Democrats' fault.

So come on you rock-ribbed Republicans, come out and defend your party! From where I sit it looks as though they have lied to you gun nuts once again - got your votes in the election (didn't they) because those Democrats are gun- grabbers, but now that they're in power, well, down go your panties again for them to have their way with you as they do what they always do - which is represent the desires of the country club rich elite (and the country club elite don't like guns in the hands of yahoos like you, so the Republicans are obliging them).

Republicans, come out and play! Republicans, come out and play! Come on, Republicans, cat got your tongue?

Will you go ad hominem and attack ME for pointing out what YOUR party is doing to your gun rights?

Will you call ME ignorant, etc? OF COURSE YOU WILL. You always do, because you can't defend what your party does to you, so you scream at the kid who says the emperor's got no clothes.

Anything to distract from the fact that YOUR party's leaders are lying shitstains about EVERY SINGLE ISSUE THAT YOU CARE ABOUT, and you're a duped rube for following every time.

Come next election cycle, you'll be dripping foam at your mouth again against Democrats, even as you no longer can deduct your home mortgage interest, or your state income taxes, and your gun rights have been squeezed, all by your guys, again.

You Republicans never learn. Which makes it fun to ridicule you for being the duped fools that you are.

To your credit, you have thicker skins and are more able to handle criticism. Democrats on their sites just ban me and don't let me speak. You let me tweak you.

Now if you just WOKE THE FUCK UP and walked out of the GOP en masse into a NEW party of YOUR making, you could actually save your guns rights, readjust the tax code to something fair, get that Wall built and stop shipping your jobs to China. Because the Republican Party is NEVER going to give you want you want - the rich DON'T want any of that. YOU exist in the party to provide the plebian votes that keep the GOP in power, so they can pass laws beneficial to the guys down at the country club. But hey, they'll let you come onto the country club to...you can caddy for them, and cook and clean and tend the lawn, dontcha know?

The republicans must be punished - all of them - every office, every election, without end.

I personally think the concept of a "new" party is as pointless as the last dozen or so attempts, but I'll certainly have your back on the "walk out en- masse" movement! You can do it!!

But while I think the Republican Party needs a dressing down, the problem with "every office, every election, without end", but no "new" party MEANS that the Democrat Party will win every election and rule the roost from here on out.

And that means no end to the babykilling, religious rights ridden down under the feet of transsexualism, very heavy taxes on the upper middle class and striving managerial class, but not the connected super-rich, a wide open border and replacement of the American population with Latin Americans, hate crime and discrimination crime and sexual harassment laws that effectively impose apartheid on white males, and on and on it goes.

We already let the Democrats have everything and run the show for a little while under Obama. That was not a pleasant situation. What we need to see happen is a new party, or a revolt and full takeover of the Republicans.

Sure - IF the Republicans could change. But they don't. Trump won, and that's great. But the GOP Congress has blocked his agenda, and advanced theirs.

They have until the end of next summer to pull through and deliver the people what we elected him for. So far, not good.

There are a lot of Republicans willing to go with Trump. None of the democrats though.

The Establishment exists for the rich, and they doggedly serve their interests. Doggedly, and very consistently.

The rank and file vote for the social issues the Establishment dangles to enflame the base, but the rich skew left and have no intention of allowing conservative moral principles to restrict them, so they put a brake from the top on any movement to the right.

And the Establishment has been very effective at deflecting all blame to the Democrats. Part of this is because the smart members of the rank and file realize that Democrats are easier to defeat than rich insiders in their own party. You can vote the other guy out of power, but how do you dig out the bosses in the place where you're a peon?

I know several Democrats, New York City "liberals", who voted for Trump and who like him because he makes the Right AND the corrupt Left insane.

Truth is, thinking Democrat rank and file have be jarred awake by the Trump phenomenon and Hillary's loss, and realize that they really have been thralls to SCUMBAGS (the Clintons) and have compromised their own moral souls in the service of shady people.

They like Trump for the same reason that Jameson, in his current anger, might vote for Bernie Sanders: to give a giant middle finger to the Republicans he has come to see as utterly corrupt.

My politics are those of FDR. I am a militaristic nationalist who, however, is not hot for war. I recognize that war is inevitable, and when it comes, as it will from time to time, I only believe in total victory and unconditional surrender of the enemy. FDR would never have fought to a stalemate in Korea. He would have nuked China, if that's what it took to win. And then there would have been no Vietnam War in the first place.

I believe in total victory and unconditional surrender, and declared wars, and waiting and building up a massive military while you provoke your enemies by an aggressively biased neutrality in favor of who you perceive as the good guys.

I am not a hot-head like John McCain. McCain should know better, but he's really a stupid, stupid man. I believe that he was third from the bottom in his class at Annapolis. I graduated with honors. He destroyed five navy aircraft in his career. FIVE. I didn't even scratch the paint on one. I don't question McCain's patriotism. But then, I don't question Al Sharpton's either. Being a patriot is only common sense: we've only got one country. People who just hate America because men, including American men, sin - well, if they're religious puritans then why are they agitating on the streets? They're just bilious bastards, and I discount them: they are unwise. We're Americans, whether we like it or not. The nation has certainly done some shitty things - as has every nation, and religion, and club, and individual: we're all sinners. If we threw out every sinner out of our lives we'd have to blow our own brains out.

Endless self-flagellation is not my deal. Like FDR, I am an optimist about America, not a pessimist.

Like FDR, I very firmly believe in strong social welfare structures: Social Security, Unemployment Insurance. I note that the full-on welfare and medical welfare structures that are so problematic were NOT FDR institutions. They were LBJ developments. Like FDR, LBJ took us to war, and brought in various social programs (Welfare, Medicare). Unlike FDR, LBJ did not intelligently fight the war or design his programs. FDR won World War II, including by pressing forward with the atomic bomb. LBJ bobbled and lost Vietnam. FDR's Social Security and Unemployment Insurance worked, and his TEMPORARY, FOR THE CRISIS WPA programs and bank holidays pulled the country out of the depression, along with rearmament. LBJ's PERMANENT welfare and his ramshackle Medicare, have left us constantly having to readjust.

It's impossible to imagine FDR signing a "Don't ask, don't tell" bill opening the military to sexual perversion, or standing for universal abortion. FDR was a religious man, an Episcopalian from back in the day when they were essentially Anglo-Saxon Catholics. Gay marriage? FDR is said by the Left to have a "dark" legacy, as he - a former Secretary of the Navy - insisted upon strong enforcement of the anti-sodomy statutes in the military codes. FDR was a Christian from a different era.

The Republicans in that era were like some of the posters on LF today: refusing to acknowledge that the US needed a military buildup, refusing to consider the trials of other free nations as being of our concern. Of course, had we stood with France, England and Poland at the beginning of the war, it would have been over before it started. But we didn't. That was not because of FDR. He kept seeking to outfox the isolationists. Unable to commit us to rolling back the Nazi tide, he at least got the military built up.

I'm sure you're not going to extol the virtues of FDR, but if you want to understand my politics, you have to look back well before the Republican Party since Ike, or the Democrat Party since LBJ.

My primary problem with LBJ is that he was so incompetent. I AGREE that health care needed to be addressed, and that the Communist enemy should not have been allowed to overrun Vietnam. But LBJ botched all of that. Incompetence doesn't win points with me. FDR was competent. So was Ike. Ike is my kind of Republican.

Truman is a big hero of the left, but I view the Korea fiasco as evidence of his incompetence. FDR died shortly before the end of World War II, but he won it. Nobody can doubt that he would have nuked Japan, or Berlin if that's what it took.

Nor can anyone think that FDR, or Eisenhower, would have ever gotten far apart from MacArthur in Korea and just left the Marines hanging at Frozen Chosen. Truman was an amateur, and we paid for that in many ways.