--------------------
HELENA — Supporters of expanded background checks for gun buyers brought their multi-state tour to Montana on Tuesday to ask Democratic U.S. Sen. Max Baucus to change his stance and help Congress reconsider the issue.
But the small rally at the Capitol (Although the writer notes it was small, he doesn't get around to telling us until a few paragraphs later that the number was "a few dozen." Given the insignificant participation, we might ask the writer why he reported on the event at all. We could at least ask him to count the attendees instead of providing us with the inelegant "a few dozen."
Here's a picture of the "few dozen," more like "a handful of supporters" to be honest:
Of greater interest to me was the composition of the crowd. How many were Montanans? How many were were activitists? How many were politicians? In other words, in this sparsely attended rally, how many people were there solely to prop up the event in order to enhance its image?) didn’t seem to budge the state’s senior senator, who is retiring at the end of 2014.
A group called Mayors Against Illegal Guns, founded and funded by New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, organized the event as part of a tour through 25 states. Another rally is scheduled for Thursday in Missoula.
The organization has also aired television advertisements in Montana and other states represented by U.S. senators who in April voted against a failed bill to expand background checks for gun purchases.
State Rep. Amanda Curtis of Butte told the crowd to stand up for “reasonable” gun control legislation. (Once again I note the tendency of the Left to approach their issues as if today is a new day and nothing has ever been done before. Montana law alone has dozens of firearms laws, let alone the Feds. There are already many laws restricting firearms, but Ms. Curtis wants more, under the smokescreen of it being "reasonable.") The Democrat — who is considering a run for the U.S. House — says she thinks the state is largely supportive off the idea.
“I don’t think in any way it is an unreasonable or outrageous thing to ask,” Curtis said in an interview after the event.
Curtis said during the rally that when she was 17, her brother killed himself with a gun at a party playing Russian roulette. (So her position is based on an emotional response to something that happened to her, an event that has nothing to do with "reasonable" gun control legislation. Her trauma, while tragic, is no basis to make determinations about what is "reasonable.") She argued more can be done to prevent gun deaths, and told a few dozen gathered at the rally to stand up to fictitious counter arguments. “When someone says the government is going to come and take your guns, that is crazy. That is not going to happen,” Curtis said. (It's one thing to assert this, but another thing entirely to engage in systematic restraint of government to ensure it won't happen. What basis do we have to believe her? Does she have a track record of protecting the ownership of guns? Besides an empty reassurance coupled with a pejorative describing her opponents as "crazy," how does her assurance give us any confidence at all?
A group called Mayors Against Illegal Guns, founded and funded by New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, organized the event as part of a tour through 25 states. Another rally is scheduled for Thursday in Missoula.
The organization has also aired television advertisements in Montana and other states represented by U.S. senators who in April voted against a failed bill to expand background checks for gun purchases.
State Rep. Amanda Curtis of Butte told the crowd to stand up for “reasonable” gun control legislation. (Once again I note the tendency of the Left to approach their issues as if today is a new day and nothing has ever been done before. Montana law alone has dozens of firearms laws, let alone the Feds. There are already many laws restricting firearms, but Ms. Curtis wants more, under the smokescreen of it being "reasonable.") The Democrat — who is considering a run for the U.S. House — says she thinks the state is largely supportive off the idea.
“I don’t think in any way it is an unreasonable or outrageous thing to ask,” Curtis said in an interview after the event.
Curtis said during the rally that when she was 17, her brother killed himself with a gun at a party playing Russian roulette. (So her position is based on an emotional response to something that happened to her, an event that has nothing to do with "reasonable" gun control legislation. Her trauma, while tragic, is no basis to make determinations about what is "reasonable.") She argued more can be done to prevent gun deaths, and told a few dozen gathered at the rally to stand up to fictitious counter arguments. “When someone says the government is going to come and take your guns, that is crazy. That is not going to happen,” Curtis said. (It's one thing to assert this, but another thing entirely to engage in systematic restraint of government to ensure it won't happen. What basis do we have to believe her? Does she have a track record of protecting the ownership of guns? Besides an empty reassurance coupled with a pejorative describing her opponents as "crazy," how does her assurance give us any confidence at all?
As far as it "not going to happen, it does in Connecticut, New York, Indiana, and many other places. Indeed, in some jurisdictions it isn't legal to even possess a firearm. Yet Ms. Curtis patronizingly calls people crazy for thinking firearms seizure could happen here.) “We wouldn’t ever let that happen.” (Who is "we," and why should we believe this? Quite simply, it isn't for her to decide what can happen or not happen regarding the possession of firearms. "Shall not be infringed" is pretty simple.)
A retired California police officer who now lives in Montana said expanded background checks are needed to ensure there are no loopholes allowing guns to fall into the hands of violent offenders, the mentally ill or others who shouldn’t own them. (There are always loopholes. It is naive to think otherwise. It is beyond naive to think that simply passing another law will solve the problem.)
“It’s a moral issue, not a political issue,” said Scott Swanson. (Which translated, means it's a political issue. The hubris of the Left knows no bounds. Who is Mr. Swanson to tell us what morality we should follow? And why is it now permissible to encode morality into law? I thought we couldn't legislate morality?)
U.S. Sen. Jon Tester, D-Mont., voted in favor of the failed measure. Although it never reached the House, the state’s lone congressman, Republican Steve Daines, has said he opposes it.
Mayors Against Illegal Guns argued the issue could be brought back up in the Senate.
Baucus’ office, in a statement, pointed out the senator has supported other measures such as increased funding for mental health care and improved school safety.
“At the same time, Max understands that what works in New York or California doesn’t necessarily work for Montana. Instead of a one-size-fits-all approach, Max voted to boost gun prosecution in inner cities and high-crime areas without adding burdens on law-abiding folks in Montana,” said spokeswoman Jennifer Donohue. “The fact is we aren’t enforcing the laws already on the books — under the Obama Administration federal weapons prosecutions have fallen to the lowest levels in over a decade.” (Wow, a startlingly honest and direct statement from the Senator's office. I guess the Senator's impending retirement has released him from toeing the line imposed by the democrat power structure. The fact that he finds himself in opposition to the talking points promulgated by the Leftwing elites makes one wonder about how much of his career was spent kowtowing to things he did not believe.)
“It’s a moral issue, not a political issue,” said Scott Swanson. (Which translated, means it's a political issue. The hubris of the Left knows no bounds. Who is Mr. Swanson to tell us what morality we should follow? And why is it now permissible to encode morality into law? I thought we couldn't legislate morality?)
U.S. Sen. Jon Tester, D-Mont., voted in favor of the failed measure. Although it never reached the House, the state’s lone congressman, Republican Steve Daines, has said he opposes it.
Mayors Against Illegal Guns argued the issue could be brought back up in the Senate.
Baucus’ office, in a statement, pointed out the senator has supported other measures such as increased funding for mental health care and improved school safety.
“At the same time, Max understands that what works in New York or California doesn’t necessarily work for Montana. Instead of a one-size-fits-all approach, Max voted to boost gun prosecution in inner cities and high-crime areas without adding burdens on law-abiding folks in Montana,” said spokeswoman Jennifer Donohue. “The fact is we aren’t enforcing the laws already on the books — under the Obama Administration federal weapons prosecutions have fallen to the lowest levels in over a decade.” (Wow, a startlingly honest and direct statement from the Senator's office. I guess the Senator's impending retirement has released him from toeing the line imposed by the democrat power structure. The fact that he finds himself in opposition to the talking points promulgated by the Leftwing elites makes one wonder about how much of his career was spent kowtowing to things he did not believe.)
No comments:
Post a Comment