Saturday, March 30, 2013

Rand Paul’s Important Concession on Guns

When it was reported that Rand Paul, Mike Lee, and Ted Cruz might filibuster a gun control act, I commented:
At this point, we take a wait and see attitude on everything Rand does. Let's see how his gun control opposition develops.
Sure enough problems have emerged with Rand's "anti"-gun control stance. Greg Sargent at WaPo hails Rand's position in a post titled, Rand Paul’s important concession on guns:
Senators Rand Paul, Ted Cruz, and Mike Lee all appear set to mount a filibuster to prevent any Obama gun control proposal of any kind from being debated on the Senate floor — on Second Amendment grounds. Senator Paul went on Fox News last night to explain his thinking.
In the process, however, Paul inadvertently made an important concession. Here’s what he said: 
“I haven’t heard one proposal from him or Harry Reid that would have saved one life. And I’m all for saving lives….We plan on making them have at least 60 votes to pass any legislation that may abridge the Second Amendment. So we will fight tooth and nail, and use every parliamentary procedure to stop that from happening. We have a lot of things on the books that the president says he wants to enhance, many of these could be enhanced without any legislation.Background checks already do workWe already have rules that say mental health statistics need to come from the states to the data bank.”[...] 
 Shouldn’t the possibility that expanding gun background checks could save lives — which Paul himself says he wants — be enough for him to actually give the idea serious thought? 
It’s also important that Paul claimed that current background checks “already do work.” Here’s why: He’s effectively allowing that the current background check law is not a threat to people’s Second Amendment rights. The current compromise on expanded background checks being negotiated would simply expand the current system to cover most private sales. It would maintain the prohibition against any national gun registry. It would maintain the current system of record keeping — in which dealers keep records of sales, and the feds destroy any record of a valid gun transfer within 24 hours. By Paul’s own lights those things, in the context of the current law, are not a threat to Americans’ constitutional rights. There is no logical way, then, that the new proposal threatens them, either. This is an important concession.
I consider background checks exceedingly dangerous, as they alert the government to who is buying guns. That is the last thing any person, who understands how dangerous totalitarian governments are, would want. We aren't completely totalitarian yet, but background checks would make it easier for a future dictator. Thus, Rand, again by micro-managing things, takes a view that would result in more government, not less.

(Felix Bronstein)


  1. Expanded background checks will be abused.

    First instance of abuse is where the background checks are used to create in illegal national gun registry.

    The powers that be... can also lower the bar so that a person with a small misdemeanor for a bar fight back when they were in college is considered a prohibited person. In some states / cities excessive speeding or downloading a lot of music can get you a felony charge. Felonies are no longer restricted to violent crimes. How long before spitting on the sidewalk prohibits you from owning a gun?

    Then there is whole domestic violence side where they are trying to stretch to include just grabbing someone's wrist or shoving someone out of your way as you walk out the door. No end to the amount of abuse that background checks will eventually lead to.

    In NYC if you have a gun permit, the police randomly call your house and ask your family members if you every display any signs of stress or great anger... and then pick at that. The wrong answers by your family will get your permit revoked. Gun control advocates will use every opportunity and excuse to disarm as many citizens as possible.

    The purpose of the Second Amendment is to prevent future tyranny.

    "When the govt fears the people there is liberty. When the people fear govt there is tyranny" - Thomas Jefferson

    ”Those who would trade liberty for some temporary security, deserves neither liberty nor security.” -Benjamin Franklin

  2. The purpose of the Second Amendment is to arm people in order to prevent future tyranny. They need the tools to do this.

    The term "Well Regulated" in the Second Amendment meant "Well Manned and Equipped " in 1791 as was determined in the 1939 United States v. Miller case after referencing the autobiography of Benjamin Franklin. The concept of Government Regulation, as we understand it today, did not exist at the time.

    United States v. Miller also determined that the term "Arms" refers to "Ordinary Military Weapons" (not crew operated). American Citizens have the right to Keep and Bear, which means Own and Carry, any weapons that a soldier carries into battle. That includes past, present and future weapons. A Militia consisted of armed volunteers willing to fight with their personal arms and not under government control.

    The 2008 Heller v. Washington DC decision reaffirmed that the Right to Bear Arms was an Individual right. The 2010 McDonald v. Chicago decision reaffirmed it yet again and made it clear that it applies to every state, every city and every town in the United States.

    To limit the Second Amendment to muskets would be the equivalent of limiting the First Amendment to writings in quill pens.

    Liberty is worth the risk of death!