Attention: AWB trying to come back!

[NSR500]

It seems like this has not made it onto our forums yet, but I saw it tonight on arfcom.

http://biden.senate.gov/newsroom/details.cfm?id=286107&

[Librarian]

It's probably S.2237.

S.2237
Title: A bill to fight crime.
Sponsor: Sen Biden, Joseph R., Jr. [DE] (introduced 10/25/2007) Cosponsors (None)
Latest Major Action: 10/25/2007 Referred to Senate committee. Status: Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.

Thomas does not yet have the text; maybe next week. Without text, there's not much to talk about.

[RP1911]

Classic election year politics. Vote no and it can be used against you in campaigns.

[oaklander]

Whenever you see the phrase "gun-crime" - replace it with "inner-city crime" and you will be more accurate.

Most gun crime happens in the inner cities.

We as responsible gun owners pay the price for the stupid actions of drug dealers, gang bangers, and wannabe thugs.

[M. Sage]

*Sigh* As if gun show sales don't already have to comply with federal law. If it's a non-dealer who's selling at a gun show in a free state, it's just like a PPT there. Heck, it is just a PPT in that case.

[Scarecrow Repair]

It's all about controlling an unruly populace

We as responsible gun owners pay the price for the stupid actions of drug dealers, gang bangers, and wannabe thugs.

The War On (Some) Drugs was not to control drugs, but to control the hippies who didn't like Nixon and the Vietnam war, just as the original 1800s gun control was expressly for the purpose of keeping the darkies in their place. It's amazing how modern gun control has the same effect, just indirect this time. I doubt very many of the gun grabbers actually are racist, merely elitist and afraid of those who have the means and the will to not rely on the government.

Note very carefully that I do NOT believe that gun owners as a group have less desire for government; they are as human as those who don't own guns, and just as likely to want the government to mind other people's business and leave them alone, except for doing things their way. A classic example of people with two faces is the Confederacy, or rather, those who nowadays think of the confederacy as the last great bastion of states rights, when it was the slave states that wanted the federal government to enforce federal laws on slavery and not leave it up to individual states. These same southern states had been ruthless in their condemnation of the New England states' desire to discuss secession during the War of 1812, and actually did the deed when it was their ox being gored.

But I digress.

Drugs may be idiotic, but trying to control them is a lost cause; the real goal is another club to maintain the status quo. The fact that the War On Some Drugs leads to increased crime is music to their ears, as it gives them a ready excuse to introduce yet more crime-control legislation, this time guns, which also will increase crime rather than reduce it, and is really just another way to harass those who pose a threat to their power in maintaining the status quo.

Every bureaucracy wants to expand without limit. Thus all government seeks to be a monopoly, just as every bureaucracy within any organization attempts to take over every other bureaucracy. And how best for a government to grow? Why, naturally, by making the citizenry dependent on them, not just for nanny state moral guidance, but in reducing citizens' independence, such as forcing them to rely on police for protection instead of themselves. Same as wanting all students to go to state schools; the school boards and teachers' unions don't give a whit about educating students, only about controlling that education. It's got nothing to do with actually wanting to protect citizens or educate students. It's got everything to do with making citizens clamor for more government assistance, useless or not.

Thus it always was, thus it always will be.