http://www.examiner.com/article/pa-...nd-their-families?CID=examiner_alerts_article
The Writer/Blogger David Codrea has been a friend of CCDL since its inception.
He will be the guest speaker at our rally on the steps of the state capitol, April 5
March 3, 2014
One of the more outrageous and offensive citizen disarmament proposals that has come to light in recent days and is being discussed on gun boards is a screed by Pennsylvania Rep. Ronald G. Waters, representing the 191st Legislative District in Delaware and Philadelphiacounties, titled “Responsible gun owners should welcome sensible gun laws.”
“Sensible,” in this case, means whatever Democratic Caucus Secretary Waters wants to include on his gun grab wish list.
“A sensible approach to gun laws dictates that firearms with reasonable recreational, self-defense and sporting uses be protected, but military-style guns are proven to be nothing more than killing machines in the hands of irresponsible civilians,” he asserts, as if doing so means he knows what he’s talking about. Still, his use of the word "dictates" says much.
“As a public servant, it is my duty to be inclusive and to address any issue from a position that encompasses the interests of many, so it is clear to me that the ‘people’ at the heart of this gun debate must include the victim and the criminal; the individual and the public,” Waters proclaims.
He’s saying criminals, as part of “the people,” have an interest in disarming the whole population. And it appears they do.
“Whether it is illegal ownership, ownership with criminal intent or with negligence, irresponsible gun ownership is the problem,” Waters pronounces, not explaining how “ownership,” which is a legal and moral term, can be applied to possessors of stolen/illegally obtained property. That, of course, is exactly what anti-gun “researchers” and their media cheerleaders do when conflating possession with lawful ownership in order to pollute the pool and manipulate results to make it look like everyone shares in collective guilt for the actions of a few.
“While most of the uproar over gun safety and gun control has centered on restriction versus Second Amendment rights, I believe that real change will happen only when we reframe the argument in the context of public safety,” Waters declares. Note that by couching it as a one-sided proposition, Constitutional impediments disappear entirely from his calculations. Yeah, here's a guy we want to give carte blanche to in terms of "reframing" our rights.
“There are responsible gun owners out there,” Waters acknolwedges, now presuming to be as much the sole arbiter of what is responsible as he is of what’s sensible.
“As their own personal health changes, they assess their ability to handle their guns responsibly,” he explains, setting the stage to introduce a proposal that has less to do with people assessing themselves and everything to do with the state taking over that pesky detail.
“This includes improved, thorough background checks; detailed, regular mental health evaluations for gun owners and potential gun buyers and similar evaluations for family members who share residency; improved methods of documenting private gun transfers; and, perhaps the most controversial, restrictions on high-capacity ammunition magazines,” he advocates.
Sorry, Rep. Waters. While unacceptable, meaning “Come and take them if you dare try,” the magazine restriction is hardly the most controversial of your many subversive schemes. Back up to that bit about mandatory mental health evaluations.
How about “No”? How about anyone suggesting that ought to have his head examined, and anyone trying to impose it warrants being repelled?
It’s revealing that mental health blanket dragnets are among the “reforms” being touted as “common sense” by more “moderate” voices. Waters has actually done us a favor here by showing where the antis want to drive us after they’ve secured a beachhead on that front, which they’re amassing for now.
So much for probable cause and due process. Hey, we're reframing the argument in terms of public safety, remember? (And doesn't the fact that you even want a gun for protection make you suspect in the first place?)
It’s also telling to see that the political leadership Waters and his ilk have provided over the decades has resulted in Philadelphia being given a crime index rating of “9” (with “100” being the safest) by NeighborhoodScout.com.
As with all things “progressive,” every day is Opposite Day, so naturally, the “City of Brotherly Love” is now a place where extreme violent crime dwarfs state and national medians, and the “Cradle of Liberty” is a place where collectivists would impose tyrannical disarmament edicts requiring citizens to continually prove themselves innocent before the state before exercising "privileges" will be allowed.
Still, Waters may at least have a partial point. Perhaps anyone irrational enough to trust him with political power is too irresponsible to be trusted with a gun.
The Writer/Blogger David Codrea has been a friend of CCDL since its inception.
He will be the guest speaker at our rally on the steps of the state capitol, April 5
March 3, 2014
One of the more outrageous and offensive citizen disarmament proposals that has come to light in recent days and is being discussed on gun boards is a screed by Pennsylvania Rep. Ronald G. Waters, representing the 191st Legislative District in Delaware and Philadelphiacounties, titled “Responsible gun owners should welcome sensible gun laws.”
“Sensible,” in this case, means whatever Democratic Caucus Secretary Waters wants to include on his gun grab wish list.
“A sensible approach to gun laws dictates that firearms with reasonable recreational, self-defense and sporting uses be protected, but military-style guns are proven to be nothing more than killing machines in the hands of irresponsible civilians,” he asserts, as if doing so means he knows what he’s talking about. Still, his use of the word "dictates" says much.
“As a public servant, it is my duty to be inclusive and to address any issue from a position that encompasses the interests of many, so it is clear to me that the ‘people’ at the heart of this gun debate must include the victim and the criminal; the individual and the public,” Waters proclaims.
He’s saying criminals, as part of “the people,” have an interest in disarming the whole population. And it appears they do.
“Whether it is illegal ownership, ownership with criminal intent or with negligence, irresponsible gun ownership is the problem,” Waters pronounces, not explaining how “ownership,” which is a legal and moral term, can be applied to possessors of stolen/illegally obtained property. That, of course, is exactly what anti-gun “researchers” and their media cheerleaders do when conflating possession with lawful ownership in order to pollute the pool and manipulate results to make it look like everyone shares in collective guilt for the actions of a few.
“While most of the uproar over gun safety and gun control has centered on restriction versus Second Amendment rights, I believe that real change will happen only when we reframe the argument in the context of public safety,” Waters declares. Note that by couching it as a one-sided proposition, Constitutional impediments disappear entirely from his calculations. Yeah, here's a guy we want to give carte blanche to in terms of "reframing" our rights.
“There are responsible gun owners out there,” Waters acknolwedges, now presuming to be as much the sole arbiter of what is responsible as he is of what’s sensible.
“As their own personal health changes, they assess their ability to handle their guns responsibly,” he explains, setting the stage to introduce a proposal that has less to do with people assessing themselves and everything to do with the state taking over that pesky detail.
“This includes improved, thorough background checks; detailed, regular mental health evaluations for gun owners and potential gun buyers and similar evaluations for family members who share residency; improved methods of documenting private gun transfers; and, perhaps the most controversial, restrictions on high-capacity ammunition magazines,” he advocates.
Sorry, Rep. Waters. While unacceptable, meaning “Come and take them if you dare try,” the magazine restriction is hardly the most controversial of your many subversive schemes. Back up to that bit about mandatory mental health evaluations.
How about “No”? How about anyone suggesting that ought to have his head examined, and anyone trying to impose it warrants being repelled?
It’s revealing that mental health blanket dragnets are among the “reforms” being touted as “common sense” by more “moderate” voices. Waters has actually done us a favor here by showing where the antis want to drive us after they’ve secured a beachhead on that front, which they’re amassing for now.
So much for probable cause and due process. Hey, we're reframing the argument in terms of public safety, remember? (And doesn't the fact that you even want a gun for protection make you suspect in the first place?)
It’s also telling to see that the political leadership Waters and his ilk have provided over the decades has resulted in Philadelphia being given a crime index rating of “9” (with “100” being the safest) by NeighborhoodScout.com.
As with all things “progressive,” every day is Opposite Day, so naturally, the “City of Brotherly Love” is now a place where extreme violent crime dwarfs state and national medians, and the “Cradle of Liberty” is a place where collectivists would impose tyrannical disarmament edicts requiring citizens to continually prove themselves innocent before the state before exercising "privileges" will be allowed.
Still, Waters may at least have a partial point. Perhaps anyone irrational enough to trust him with political power is too irresponsible to be trusted with a gun.