by Bob Adelmann
It looks like Washington DC is going to have more trouble passing gun control (people control) laws than Denver, Colorado.
Alan Fram, a writer for AP, says so, and AP is the “approved” establishment mouthpiece for such pronouncements:
President Barack Obama’s prospects for winning near-universal background checks for gun purchases seemed shaky as the Senate Judiciary Committee prepared for Congress’ first votes on curbing firearms since December’s horrific shootings at a Connecticut elementary school.
“Seemed shaky” is code for “not a chance.” It’s the opposition from that nasty right-wing extremist political pressure group, the National Rifle Association:
The shootings [in Newtown, etc., etc.] elevated guns to a top-tier national issue, though many of Obama’s proposals have encountered opposition from the National Rifle Association and many Republicans.
And just who “elevated” gun control to a top-tier national issue, pray tell? Did these “issues” just bubble to the surface like street tar on a hot summer’s day? The question answers itself. And with that answer we know the purpose of the media. It is not to explore and report on the news (although there was a day in the past when that was what it did), but to promote and elevate propaganda – the statist type – on current themes that involves the expansion of government control over people.
But the beat goes on, for those who are still reading his comments:
Besides expanding background checks, the other measures would ban assault weapons and ammunition magazines carrying more than 10 rounds, make gun trafficking and the purchase of firearms for people barred from owning them federal crimes…
Yup, there it is: federal crimes.
The left wants to expand federal government over what should be (and is, under the now totally ignored and irrelevant Constitution) concerns of states exclusively. In fact, I challenge anyone to find where in Article I anything that is said that remotely relates to taking away the right guaranteed in the Second Amendment.
I find it fascinating that even though this was not one of the enumerated powers there was such resistance to the possibility that someday someone might construe one of them to include such a power that some states demanded the Bill of Rights be included as a condition of ratifying the Constitution. People in those states didn’t buy the argument that since such powers weren’t specifically granted the national government that therefore the national government wouldn’t try to exercise them anyway.
History now shows (and proves) the amazing foresight those folks had.