So, Mr. Noble wants to continue sparring over my membership in the Mayors Against Illegal Guns organization because he feels they are working behind the scenes to destroy, or at least greatly diminish, the second amendment.
First off, as I said in my last post, whenever you are a member of any organization, there are times when the organization does things that you don't generally agree with. You state your mind. You can quit the organization anytime, but if the prevailing goals of the organization are something you still feel are valid, then you continue on.
I'm guessing that your church or a club that you are a member of has from time to time taken a stance that you don't necessarily agree with. Do you quit or continue on after stating your feelings on the matter?
A simple search through the Wikipedia entry on Mayors Against Illegal Guns finds a few interesting facts.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mayors_Against_Illegal_Guns
From Wikipedia:
The coalition is composed of mayors from both major political parties, the Progressive Party, and the Green Party,[5] and its statement of principles has received the endorsement of the U.S. Conference of Mayors and the National Conference of Black Mayors.
In April 2008, Wal-Mart—the largest retailer of firearms in the U.S.—voluntarily adopted a number of new sales practices at the behest of Mayors Against Illegal Guns to "help ensure that guns do not fall into the wrong hands." [36] Senior Vice President J.P. Suarez stated that Wal-Mart signed the 10-point code of the "Responsible Firearms Retailer Partnership" to help the corporation "fine tune the things we're already doing and further strengthen our standards." He added, "We hope other retailers will join us in adopting the code."[37]
The "Responsible Firearms Retailer Partnership" has since become a model for Heeding God's Call, a coalition of faith organizations in Philadelphia that has encouraged local gun dealers to adopt the 10-point code.[38]
I'm still baffled by why Mr. Noble and the NRA would take the position that keeping guns out of the hands of criminals is wrong. Why in the world would any responsible, law abiding gun owner feel that this is an infringement on their rights?
As I said in my last post, I own guns myself. I used to hunt (when I was younger and had time) and still enjoy shooting for recreation. I would never support any effort to prevent citizens from owning guns of any kind. As I said in a much earlier post, if you want to own a Howitzer, feel free...shoot it to your hearts content on the weekend, I think that's great.
Advocating for the sharing of information between government agencies is, in my opinion, a no-brainer. Anyone remember 9/11? One of the biggest things we learned was that information was not shared between government agencies leading up to those attacks. Why should ATF records be off limits to law enforcement officers who are trying to break up a gun traffic ring? (Tiahrt Amendment)
Speaking of the Tiahrt Amendment, did you know that one of the dumbest things that has been done in the recent past by our federal government (and yes, this is a criticism of the Obama Administration) is to allow the sale of guns to drug lords in Mexico in an effort to trace them back so they could figure out where the guns (and therefore, the drugs) were going (Google Operation Fast and Furious)? Guess where they found the guns? On the streets of the good 'ol U.S. of A. It would seem that because the ATF was in charge of this "let's sell them guns and see what happens" debacle, that it would be easy to track these guns down and get rid of them. You'd be wrong.
The Tiahrt amendment prevents the ATFs records from being shared with local law enforcement. Our police could encounter one of those guns on the street today and not know that it is part of this "experiment" and that it was potentially used in the commission of a crime, possibly one against you or your family...and the supplier was Uncle Sam.
Moving on, I'm still confused by a few things...
Why is it that when the Federal Government passes a law that Joe Citizen supports (doesn't matter if he/she is a Republican or a Democrat) those who disagree are "unpatriotic", "don't respect the constitution", or some other dribble that is meant to try and discredit their view; but if the federal mandate/law is something that citizen doesn't like, then the Federal Government is accused of creating a "Nanny State"?
It's just like how local politicians dance with the use of the words "tax" and "user fee". If you don't know the difference, here it is. If we are talking about a payment for something....and I support that payment as the means to fund the activity (maybe it is a tool booth, or fee to use the public swimming pool), then I call it a "user fee". If I don't like it, then I call it a "tax".
Mayors Against Illegal Guns opposes Federal Laws that require states to adopt standardized laws. There was a lot of discussion when our country was founded about the rights of individual states. That is something that most conservatives used to scream at the top of their lungs..."don't tread on me", "States Rights", "Local Control". I really liked those conservatives...
Thune Amendment). I guess he is advocating a "Nanny State" and doesn't believe local residents are able to create their own laws that take into account traditions and culture and must be told what to do by the Federal Government (so long as the Federal Government mandates something he agrees with).
He would further have you believe that I am part of the problem and that I want to take away your guns. Read my other posts. Simply not the case. I support every ones right to own guns. I take the obligation of protecting the public seriously; and illegal guns in the hands of criminals is a problem.
At the end of the day, I realize that Mr. Noble simply needs another conspiracy theory to keep life interesting, and that is fine. I will maintain that my interest in the organization is for the purpose of supporting efforts to reduce the proliferation of illegal guns and prevent criminals from giving guns a bad name. No more, no less.
That's just the liberal in me...get the bad guys, leave the good guys alone...and don't tell us what to do.
"One legislator accused me of having a nineteenth-century attitude on law and order. That is a totally false charge. I have an eighteenth-century attitude. That is when the Founding Fathers made it clear that the safety of law-abiding citizens should be one of the government's primary concerns". - Ronald Reagan
No comments:
Post a Comment