Gun Control Foolishness from Illinois Senator Dick Durbin as Shooting Breaks Out at Taft Union High
I received an email today from Illinois Senator Dick Durbin about gun control. Like most libs at this point, he is frothing at the mouth like a rabid dog on the issue of stealing your Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. Never letting a good crisis go to waste, Durbin and the extreme leftist wing of the Democrat party are jumping with joy at the thought that these dead school children from Newtown, CT might weaken your resolve to protect the Constitution and your rights.
Interestingly, at about the same time I received this email from Durbin, yet another school shooting took place. This time at Taft Union High School, in the Central Valley of California, Kern County. In this case, a student with a shotgun injured two other students. This caused a lot of panic, but yet again, this is not a shooting that could have been prevented by ANY proposed anti-gun legislation.
In his email Durbin says, "Have we really reached a point in this nation where the shooting of a congresswoman point blank in the face or killing a roomful of first grades in Connecticut no longer moves us?"
What a foolish statement. Who in this country was not moved by the scene in Arizona that left Gabby Giffords wounded and many others dead? Who in this country did not feel the devastating loss of the young school children in Sandy Hook Elementary School? Every rational person in this country felt the pain of these and other incidents, but that does not mean they are ready to lay down their rights to stop it. Perhaps we should just start locking up all the mentally unstable and autistic people in this country? Are you ready to give up those people's rights as well? This is just insanity.
Here is Durbin's proposal for changing our gun laws...
We advocate for simple, commonsense solutions:
• Bar those with a history of serious mental instability or violent crime from owning weapons;
• Outlaw the sale of weapons that are strictly for military use and have no useful purpose in sport, hunting, or self defense;
• Ban magazine clips with more than ten rounds from civilian use;
• Restrict the number of firearms a person can buy in a month;
• Require firearms within the reach of children to have protective locks.
These are neither simple nor commonsense. Let's take a look at these bullets one at a time... (pun intended):
- Bar those with a history of serious mental instability or violent crime from owning weapons - Sorry Senator, this is already against the law. Convicted felons and people who have been placed in mental institutions cannot purchase firearms legally.
- Outlaw the sale of weapons that are strictly for military use and have no useful purpose in sport, hunting, or self defense - Sorry again Senator, the military does not use Glock 9mm pistols like the one used in the Giffords shooting and they don't use semi-automatic weapons like you are proposing be banned. Just because a gun is scary looking and looks similar to a military weapon doesn't make it a military weapon. And just who are you do define what a citizen can use as a "self defense weapon"? And, what is a useful purpose in sports or hunting?
- Ban magazine clips with more than ten rounds from civilian use - Sorry again Senator. The difference in time it takes to discharge 20 rounds from a weapon with a 20 round magazine versus two 10 round magazines is about 2 seconds. While this proposal might make you "feel good", like much legislation from the left, it does nothing to actually stop the problem you are trying to address.
- Restrict the number of firearms a person can buy in a month - Again Senator, I am sorry but this is yet another "feel good" proposal that would do nothing to solve the problem you are talking about. But perhaps it might have some impact on your President's Fast and Furious debacle. These shooters typically enter their "gun free zone" target area with one or two guns. Does it really matter if they bought them both on January 28th versus if they bought one on January 28th and the second on February 2nd? Besides, the Sandy Hook shooter didn't buy his guns at all. He stole them. Please show me an example of any person purchasing a large number of guns in one month and then going on a shooting rampage.
- Require firearms within the reach of children to have protective locks - Sorry again Senator... This, once again does nothing to stop mass casualty shootings. And this is not a federal issue. Many communities have laws like this in place and if gun owners are not securing their guns properly and securely, they should be held accountable under existing laws.
Dick Durbin is a senator from a state (Illinois) with some of the toughest gun control laws in this country. Yet his state, like most states with tough gun control laws, leads the nation in gun related fatalities. Dick doesn't get it. You can't stop criminals from breaking the law by writing new laws. It just doesn't work. That is why they are "CRIMINALS!"
Not one of his proposals would have stopped any of the mass casualty shootings from occurring nor would they have reduced the loss of life. Not a single one. There are already laws on the books that prohibit lots of things related to the sale and improper or illegal use of firearms. Many of those laws go unenforced and some are even deliberately broken by our own government.
This is "feel good legislation" that does not look into the real problems in these shootings. Problems that have much more to do with the shooter than the weapon, how he obtained it, or how many rounds it carries. The shooter is the problem and until you are willing to have the tough discussion about that, leave my guns and my rights alone.