LA Times : Hillary’s Wrong on Gun Control. Well, About One Idea

Let’s start with the last line of George Skelton’s latimes.com‘s piece Why Hillary Clinton and L.A. County supervisors are wrong on gun control: “Even the NRA isn’t always wrong.” That dear reader, is about as good as it gets for both the LA Times and Mr. Skelton. By his own admission, the “contact reporter” loves him some gun control . . .

There aren’t many gun control proposals I don’t like, as any regular reader knows:

Universal, substantive background checks for guns and ammunition? Yes.

Ban possession of ammo magazines that hold more than 10 rounds? Certainly. But government should be fair and buy back the magazines. A November ballot measure sponsored by Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom would outlaw those high-capacity devices used in so many mass shootings but offer no buyback.

However, repealing lawsuit immunity and requiring insurance?

Despite his obvious enthusiasm for pissing on the Second Amendment (from a great height), Mr. Skelton reckons Hillary Clinton’s call to repeal the Firearm Owners Protection Act is a bridge too far. As is the LA County Supervisors’ plan to force gun owners to buy insurance.

One would amount to a full-employment act for lawyers. The other would be merely a market-builder for insurers.

We should be trying to stop the carnage before there are dead bodies all over the floor, not just mopping up afterward. Shootings aren’t headed off by encouraging lawsuits and allowing insurance payouts after the fact.

That said, there is merit in making it easier to sue the few rogue gun dealers who carelessly — maybe even willingly — sell to suspected bad guys. Too many of those suits are dismissed. But going after the manufacturers seems pointless.

Question: if  Mr. Skelton rejects these measures as ineffective, why does he support other measures which are even more draconian and equally ineffective? Because guns!

The longest journey starts with a single step. Mr. Skelton’s final admission — the NRA”s call to enforce existing gun laws is a good idea — puts him on the road to the salvation of Californians’ natural, civil and Constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms.    He might not get there with you, but he has seen the promised land.

comments

  1. avatar TravisP says:

    Can he point me to one gun manufacturer or dealer who willfully sells to the bad guys without the ATF telling them too.

    1. avatar Cliff H says:

      Somebody is supplying the BATFE.

  2. avatar Anonymous says:

    Skelton is not a proponent of “live and let live.” He is a proponent of “I have this opinion and I would like you to live by it.”

    So – If he is on the right path now – he’ll soon be off it.

  3. avatar FortWorthColtGuy says:

    Buy back magazines? I had no idea the government owned my standard capacity magazines before I did.

    1. avatar Publius says:

      Well the Democrat / Communist party of the US believes that he government owns (or SHOULD own) all property…

      1. avatar Lost Down South says:

        Property is theft!

        (French: La propriété, c’est le vol !) is a slogan coined by French anarchist Pierre-Joseph Proudhon in his 1840 book What is Property? Or, an Inquiry into the Principle of Right and of Government.

    2. avatar Wiregrass says:

      We all need to take every opportunity presented to correct this “buy back” phrase and replace it with “mandatory turn in”. If enough of the unopinionated have to consider what is really being advocated, it might make them start to think about what is really happening around them.

      1. avatar Illinois_Minion says:

        “Partially compensated forfeiture”

        FIFY

      2. avatar T-DOG says:

        eminent domain? This term fits what they are doing and has fallen out of favor in resent history due to abuse by the government. What better way to bring a basic understanding to what they are doing in a way the general public can relate too. No one likes to be told they have to sell something they own for a BS reason. Just ask the businesses of Seattle that had to sell their property to the Monorail project under eminent domain that never got built.

    3. avatar Ron E says:

      Sure they can have mine, but I will set the price at 5 – 10K each.

  4. avatar MamaLiberty says:

    Someone please tell me how “enforce existing gun laws” is a good idea, and how any of them would prevent bad people from using guns to hurt others.

    1. avatar HandyDan says:

      People who make straw purcheses for others usually just get a slap on the wrists. There have been multiple cases where someone buys a gun for someone else, and that second person goes on to murder somebody. Now, I’m no law expert, but if you are knowingly providing a gun to someone who can’t own one, I am of the opinion that it should be prosecuted as if you killed that person. Sort of like how if you are involved in the commission of a felony and someone dies, you are prosecuted as if you killed that person.
      Also, firearm charges get dropped all the time, something like 87% of gun charges are never prosecuted.
      The vigorous prosecution of these charges would serve as a deterrent.

      1. avatar MamaLiberty says:

        “The vigorous prosecution of these charges would serve as a deterrent.”

        I seriously doubt that.

        The most rational response to a life threatening attack is the death or grave injury of the aggressor at the hands of his/her intended victim – or their guardian.

        How about the person who sells a knife, a pen, a screwdriver or any of the millions of things that can be used as a weapon and harm others? People buy these things for themselves and others millions of times a day. With your logic regarding guns applied to those (and more foolish “laws”) everyone would be in jail in a short time. If a “prohibited person” designation is appropriate for guns, why not for matches, or power tools?

        A gun is a tool, just like any other tool.

      2. avatar Stinkeye says:

        “knowingly providing a gun to someone who can’t own one”

        That assumes the government has the authority to decide who can and can’t own a gun, based on whatever rules they decide are appropriate. The last four words of the Second Amendment would seem to disagree quite clearly with that assumption.

    2. avatar Bruce says:

      Another part of this is that most felons cannot legally own or possess firearms. Many are arrested for such, but rarely do they serve time for breaking this sort of law. And, yes, convicted felons with guns are more likely than almost anyone else to use such illegally (etc) and violently, and putting them in prison for possessing firearms will most likely reduce gun violence.

      1. avatar LarryinTX says:

        I saw figures a week or so ago (maybe here?) saying our country had 12-odd million convicted felons, 1.2 million of whom were on NICS. Wait, now, I thought they were ALL on NICS, and if they aren’t, why not? I agree the system should just be eliminated completely, but if it isn’t, why is it so difficult to even understand?

  5. avatar Sixpack70 says:

    Statists gonna state.

  6. avatar Jim Bullock says:

    That said, there is merit in making it easier to sue the few rogue gun dealers who carelessly — maybe even willingly — sell to suspected bad guys. Too many of those suits are dismissed. But going after the manufacturers seems pointless.

    Why “sue” them. Selling to suspected bad guys is already illegal. So is being a “rogue gun dealer” if I take his meaning. (There are stats flying around that the vast majority of sales to straw purchasers are made by a tiny known minority of gun dealers. Being those guys is already illegal, several different ways.)

    I think the word he wants is “prosecute.” There is merit in actually prosecuting the known rogue gun dealers. Too many of those prosecutions are never undertaken. No new laws needed. If My Favorite Martian-guy wants that done, he has an issue with the federal prosecutors and local D A’s, I think.

    1. avatar Curtis in IL says:

      It’s always comical to watch someone who knows nothing of our current gun laws suggest that we need more gun laws.

  7. avatar Another Robert says:

    Ha–I actually e-mailed Mr. Skelton some time back to call him out on one of those “nobody wants to confiscate your guns” statements. And since he also mentioned the San B shooting and said that kind of carnage couldn’t be done with ball bats, I pointed out that blunt instruments–including ball bats–do in fact figure in more homicides than “assault weapons”. He challenged me on that, said he would be interested to see the proof but didn’t think I had it. So I spent a couple of minutes on Google and sent him the link to the FBI stats showing murders classified by weapons. He has not responded.

  8. avatar Matt N. says:

    If these hypocrites enforced the existing law, they wouldn’t have anyone left to throw in jail. I mean, can you prosecute yourself?

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email