Slant

US legislators, gun lobby strike deal: report

As you're reading your daily paper, remember that you can't tell the players without a program.

One of the players is "Breitbart", which is essentially Reuters crossed with AP -- Incest, squared.

When you look at the headline of this article, the first impression is that the two organizations (The National Rifle Association and The U.S. Congress) have been conspiring in congressional cloak rooms for ... whatever purpose. In fact, this may be the most honest part of the entire article.

The article iss illustrated by a close-up photo of a table full of firearms, including a sawed-off rifle, and one person handing what appears to be either a MAC-1o or a Uzi to another.

Well, that's illustrative of a legislative process!

The text of the article (see the link above) includes the following content:
The deal could lead to the first federal legislation on gun control since 1994 and was negotiated after a mentally ill student went on a shooting rampage at the Virginia Tech university in April, the Washington Post

Leading US Democratic lawmakers have struck a deal with the powerful National Rifle Association to authorize stricter background checks on people who purchase guns, US media said Sunday.

I'm not going to fisk this to death, but I note the phrases "Democratic Lawmakers" and "powerful National Rifle Association". In the first paragraph, the article establishes the Democratic dominance (see below) and the NRA as a 'gun lobby'.

Second paragraph:

The deal could lead to the first federal legislation on gun control since 1994 and was negotiated after a mentally ill student went on a shooting rampage at the Virginia Tech university in April, the Washington Post reported.

No mention of the fact that the 1994 "Assault Weapons Ban" was a compromise deal with a sunset after 10 years, or that after the 10-year testing period the "federal legislation on gun control" was determined to have absolutely NO effect on criminal acts which involved firearms ... which was purportedly the purpose of the failed law.

There is, however, great emphasis on the idea that the 'deal' was 'negotiated' in response to the mass murders at Virginia Tech, which reveals that the entire exercise was an effort to demonstrate that "Democratic Lawmakers" are Dedicated to Preventing Another Virginia Tech Massacre!"

(We could only wish they had been so dedicated a couple of months ago -- it may not have been a "No Gun Zone" and someone may have had the means to counter the no-gun-zone madman.)

And the NRA -- what were they doing? Hey, they were "negotiating".

Why?

We'll never know from this article. Maybe they were just overcome by the sheer eloquence of the Democrats.

Moving right along to Paragraphs 4, 5 and 6:

According to the terms, states would get cash incentives to keep the federal background database up to date and would face penalties if they did not comply, the report said.

In exchange, Democrats conceded that people with "minor infractions" would be deleted from the database, military veterans who were entered in the system for mental health reasons could appeal to clean their records, and the government would not charge buyers or sellers a fee for background checks.

"The NRA worked diligently with the concerns of gun owners and law enforcement in mind to make a ... system that's better for gun owners and better for law enforcement," said House Democratic John Dingell, who led the talks.

Okay, we have the carrot and the stick. We have an 'exchange' (where the Democrats graciously give up their stance on an issue which should never have been an issue), and the NRA given a nod for their willingness to accede to an issue which never WAS an issue.

Here's a nice quote:
" ... with the concerns of gun owners and law enforcement in mind to make a ... system that's better for gun owners and better for law enforcement ..."

No, this doesn't do anything for gun owners, nor does it do anything to gun owners. What it does is add a layer of governmental oversight to the process of vetting the National Instant Check system so that people who are mentally dingbatish are filtered even though their mental health practitioners (read: professionals who don't really have any idea just how crazy their patients are) can't buy a gun even though their psychiatrists don't think they're a danger to "other people".

Now, I'm not saying that this is a bad bill. I'm not even saying that the Egregious Cho shouldn't have been stopped before he started. I'm just saying that the DemocRats are feeding at the trough, and The Press is acting as if this is the solution which will forever stop madmen from shooting students.

Here's the bottom line:

It ain't gonna work.

Madmen will always be with us. Same as criminals. And they will shoot sheep in any paddock they find ... and there are a lot of them here in Democratic America. The sheep are also known as "unarmed targets" and the paddocks are known as "University Campuses".

Did anyone realize that you don't need a gun to kill people? How about driving your car through a crowd. As Jeff Goldblum said in Jurassic Park, "Nature will find a way".

As is the NRA, I'm all for disarming maniacs. But I suspect the NRA is working the political side of the fence rather than standing fast for defending the right of law-abiding citizens to be armed on, for example, a University campus.

Just one more reason why I stand fast against paying an annual fee for the NRA to represent me. They're not paying attention to Job One.

This entire arrangement between the DemocRats and the NRA is bogus. It won't make any difference in the number of innocents killed. It doesn't advance the cause of American citizens to arm themselves in self-defence.

It isn't enough.

As such, it isn't anything.

It's only politics.

Just thought you ought to know.