Just because the vehement anti-gunners in the former Clinton administration have left Washington, D.C., don’t imagine for a moment that Washington’s most vociferous anti-gun lackeys have left with them.
During Clinton’s reign of corruption, anti-gun bills blew through Washington like a tornado through a small Kansas town. On Clinton’s watch, socialist-minded lawmakers — unencumbered by cowering Republicans — passed the Brady Act, numerous “assault weapons” bans, and pushed the federal agencies responsible for enforcing gun control laws.
Now, a new bill has been introduced in the Senate by notorious anti-gun lefties Dianne Feinstein of California, Chuckie Schumer of New York, and that lush from Massachusetts, Teddy “Kill ’em with your Car, Instead” Kennedy.
Suddenly, these “leaders” say, America has a huge military sniper rifle problem, if you believe the text of their bill, The Military Sniper Weapon Regulation Act of 2001.
According to the bill, these anti-gunners want to “amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to regulate certain 50 caliber sniper weapons in the same manner as machine guns and other firearms and for other purposes.”
“Certain 50 caliber sniper weapons”? Which ones — the 50-caliber rifles that are commonly used to snipe at and kill American citizens on a daily basis?
I suppose it doesn’t matter to these buffoons that nobody’s using these rifles to snipe at and kill American citizens on a daily basis in the first place.
That begs the question: “Then why do we ‘need’ this law?”
With increasing frequency, Congress is becoming less an entity representative of the people and more an entity for consolidating power in Washington, D.C. This “anti-military sniper rifle” bill is a classic example.
Feinstein, Schumer and Kennedy have a demonstrable disdain for the Second Amendment; their past actions, words and deeds prove that.
Specifically, they appear to have a healthy disdain for a well-armed citizenry that is capable of, shall we say, “holding the scoundrels accountable,” should they try to take too much power. That is what is behind their motivation to continually offer bills that restrict or ban a citizen’s right to own any kind of weapon he or she chooses.
Are Feinstein, Schumer and Kennedy just worried that even an armored limo is no match for a 50 caliber round?
“Whoa, Dougherty,” you shriek, “what are you implying?”
I’m not “implying” anything but these lawmakers sure as hell are. They the ones implying that these 50-caliber weapons are allegedly being stockpiled for some sort of offensive against them, the federal government, or both.
I’m not kidding.
The bill’s language says one of the reasons why this measure simply must pass is because “the intended use of these long-range firearms, and an increasing number of models derived directly from them, is the taking of human life and the destruction of materiel, including armored vehicles and such components of the national critical infrastructure as radars and microwave transmission devices.”
Says who? Where’s the proof of that, because it sure isn’t in the public domain? In fact, I can’t think of a single shooting incident in recent memory in which a murderer used a 50-caliber sniper rifle to do the deed, can you?
But the implications that these weapons are indeed being stockpiled for future action is right there in terms like “armored vehicles,” “national critical infrastructure,” “radars…” and “microwave transmission devices.” I guess, using this “logic” we could add tanks, aircraft carriers, F-15s and, of course, armored limos, to that list too.
Are Feinstein, Schumer and Kennedy really worried about people shooting up “armored vehicles” and radar dishes, or have they simply had too many hits on the water bong and too many nips at the whiskey flask?
Sadly, they do believe it, and that’s the tragedy of this bill. These are your “leaders,” you folks who live in their states. Aren’t you lucky?
California has an acute, widespread power crisis and Feinstein is worried about 50-caliber rifles. Massachusetts has a tax rate that surpasses most socialist countries, and Kennedy is worried about 50-caliber rifles. New York has both Clintons, and Schumer is worried about 50-caliber rifles.
But there is no rash of 50-caliber sniper rifle shootings and, hence, no urgency to this measure. So, there is no real reason for it. And yet, there it is — sitting in Senate committee — awaiting consideration or, in this case, legitimacy.
That means, then, that this bill is a “preemptive strike,” if you will. A sort of, “Let’s ban those damned things before they use ’em on us!” measure. There simply is no other rational explanation for it.
Now, do you know why the Second Amendment was made the second amendment to our Constitution, right after the freedom to inform citizens about the authoritarian tendencies of our leaders?
Despite the crazy language of this bill — which was written specifically for a weapon that almost nobody owns — I wouldn’t look for the immediate destruction of the “national critical infrastructure” if I were you, because it’s not going to happen, and it sure as blazes won’t happen because a few well-off Americans can afford to own and shoot 50-caliber rifles.
Rather, if I were you, I’d worry more about the damage being done to our Constitution and our country by unscrupulous lawmakers who sanction corruption at the highest levels of power while they try to force us to live by a different, more stringent set of rules.
