They're again chipping away at the Second Amendment.
Two traitors in Washington D.C. have introduced a bill to further place restrictions on firearms ownership. And can you believe that their arguments are that guns might not be safe?
All I have to say is, DUH! Isn't that the whole idea of owning a firearm? Gee, I thought people owned guns because they were dangerous — not because they were safe. Are we going to keep making the guns so "safe" that we are unable to fire them at a moment of needed use?
Capitol Hill (CNSNews.com) — Federal legislation introduced Tuesday would subject firearms to heightened scrutiny, similar to consumer safety standards for products like teddy bears, nightlights and pancake makers. ... The Firearms Safety and Consumer Protection Act, introduced by Sen. Jon S. Corzine (D-N.J.) and Rep. Patrick Kennedy (D-R.I.), would give the Department of Justice authority to regulate the design, manufacture and distribution of guns. ... Supporters of the bill, including the Violence Policy Center and Consumer Federation of America, complained that teddy bears and toy guns have to meet safety standards, while firearms do not.
Let me see here... A "safe" gun. That's an interesting concept.
Consider how some states are requiring the use of trigger locks on guns. That makes them safer, because they are not able to be fired until the trigger lock is removed. But what if an intruder breaks into your house and shoots you while you are fumbling with your safe, trigger-locked gun? I suppose getting shot by an intruder is safer than getting shot with your own gun.
But Corzine said despite the divisiveness of gun control, tougher safety standards make sense for gun owners. He said the bill would ensure that safety features like magazine disconnects and load indicators were standard on every gun.
"Owning a shotgun that explodes in your hand when you're using a weapon is a real issue of consumer safety," he said. "We need to have someone overseeing this so that real guns are treated the same way toy guns are. I think we will be able to appeal to the common sense of those who believe very strongly in the Second Amendment."
I wouldn't count on that, Mr. Corzine. And, by the way, there is no common sense in government. Government is what you do instead of common sense.
Let me ask you readers a question: How often does it happen that a shotgun explodes in someone's hand? I know that I've never heard of it happening. Perhaps a homemade rifle or something of that nature might explode. But not a professionally-manufactured firearm.
And even if it had happened, does it happen often enough to warrant the attention of government regulators? Do we need more government oversight?
There is no question that this is just another way to further create more red tape for the firearms manufacturing industry, and those of us who wish to own firearms. This is another attempt at slicing away more of your freedom.
Kennedy, whose Rhode Island district includes toymaker Hasbro, said the company's fake guns are scrutinized by the Consumer Product Safety Commission, while a firearms manufacturer faces no safety checks.
There is a huge difference between Hasbro's guns, and your Smith & Wesson. Hasbro has to make certain that they're end-users don't choke on parts. The gun industry's products — and patrons too, for that matter — are already very heavily regulated.
The only way that a professionally-manufactured gun is going to be unsafe, is if an idiot points it at you, while it is loaded. And the more government regulations and red tape that are passed, making it difficult for you to own one, the greater the likelihood that guns will be unsafe. Because when the criminals have them, and you don't, then guns are unsafe.
"If you're going to have guns, at least make sure they're manufactured properly," Kennedy said. "Part of the legislation we're introducing ensures that we're able to track and thereby determine which guns have the greatest accident rate, just like you would with any other product."
They already do track your firearms, through ATF, FBI, and Justice Department databases. But that is not good enough. They're not going to quit.
The gun industry needs no regulation as far as safety is concerned. The safety of firearms is regulated very effectively by the free market. What do I mean?
Most lawful firearms owners, take their safety very seriously. In fact, that is the exact reason that they own a firearm in the first place. Because it is safer owning one, then not owning one.
If a gun proves to be defective in any way, you can guarantee the anti-gunners in the media will be all over it. And sales of that particular company's products will dissipate rapidly. No one is going to buy guns from a company that doesn't know how to produce safe guns.
Hence, when a gun manufacturer's sales drop, due to the exposure of their defective products, they'll either be forced to make them safer, or forced out of business. In this way, the gun industry is already regulated for safety.
Besides giving the Justice Department authority to collect data on gun-related deaths and injuries...
The Justice Department needs no authority to collect data on gun safety. Anyone can do that. But the traitors in our government would like to take away your firearms. We'll call it a "product recall."
...the bill also would allow the government to issue product recalls and warnings and limit the sale of firearms when no other remedy was available.
There you go! That is the goal in a nutshell. That is the whole reason for the legislation.
In other words, we'll track your gun, so that we know who owns them, and where the weapons can be found. Then, when we're ready, we'll declare them "unsafe," and "recall" them. And we'll limit the sale of them, so that no more "unsafe" weapons are in the hands of people who might take the law into their own hands. Because we at government-house don't want any vigilante justice out there.
Gary Mehalik, spokesman for the National Shooting Sports Foundation said, "The only foolproof way to make sure a firearm does not accidentally shoot is to keep it unloaded and your finger off the trigger."
Or to make sure we freedom-minded "fools" don't own them. And that's really the idea, here. Let's not kid ourselves.
Don't believe me? Then read:
Now are you conviced?
As U.S. District Senior Judge Norman Roettger said, while arguing for his right to be able to carry a firearm: "...In the long run you are the first line of your own defense."
Well said, Mr. Roettger. Now, make certain your rulings from the bench reflect that philosophy.
