Violence Policy Center starts losing it on NICS bill
Josh Sugarman, head of VPC, posts under the title of Trojan Horse Gun Control: The NRA Wins on the NICS Bill:
"Much has been made of the bill's bi-partisan, triangulating support: Democrats! Republicans! The National Rifle Association! The Brady Campaign! Beyond this cheery bon temps, little public attention has been paid to what the bill actually does beyond its title. And that's because if you start looking at the details of the bill--especially after NRA-backed changes made by Oklahoma Senator Tom Coburn--it becomes clear that the measure is nothing less than a pro-gun Trojan Horse. That's why my organization, the Violence Policy Center, and other national gun control groups, have voiced their strong concerns about the version of the bill that was passed by Congress."
"So why's the NRA so in thrall with an alleged gun control bill? Here are some of the reasons why.
"The bill would resuscitate a failed government program that spent millions of dollars annually to allow persons prohibited from buying guns to regain the ability to legally acquire firearms. The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) would be required to establish a "relief from disability" program to allow persons now prohibited from possessing a firearm because they have "been adjudicated as a mental defective" or "committed to a mental institution" to apply to have their bar on firearms possession removed. As a result of the bill, more than 116,000 individuals would be eligible to apply. States would also be required to establish such "relief" programs to restore the gun privileges of those with mental health disabilities in order to be eligible for potential grant money to upgrade records submitted to the NICS."
"Once a solution, the bill--hijacked by the gun lobby--is now part of the problem. Intended as Congress' response to the mass shooting at Virginia Tech by focusing on improving the current laws prohibiting people with certain mental health disabilities from buying guns, the bill is now nothing more than a gun lobby wish list. It will waste millions of taxpayer dollars restoring the gun privileges of persons previously determined to present a danger to themselves or others."
And of course, the obligatory hit at those who... shudder... have served their country:
"The concerns over these aspects of the bill are not abstract. According to research published earlier this year, male U.S. veterans are twice as likely to commit suicide as men with no military service and are more likely to kill themselves with a gun than others who commit suicide. .... Veterans with mental health problems may present special risks for gun violence. In 2000, the New York Times examined 100 rampage shootings and found that the majority (52 percent) of such killers had been in the military."
Hmm... Cho, the Columbine killers, others ... I can't recall a vet among them. Discipline and duty are not things that a violent narcissist seeks out.
And we've never seen an anti-gun "trojan horse" have we? I can suggest the FOPA of 1986 as one just off the top of my head.
Posted by: RKV at December 20, 2007 07:29 PM
I think the beltway "sniper" had been in the military.
Posted by: Kirk Parker at December 20, 2007 09:02 PM
Didn't C Whitman of the Texas Clock tower shooting in 64, have a military BG?
I would say though, those that have been in the military are a minority in "rampage" shootings
Posted by: The Duck at December 21, 2007 03:51 AM
Well, with both sides displeased with it, it must be quite a bill.
Posted by: Flighterdoc at December 21, 2007 07:17 AM
I'd say, if we can keep Brady, VPC and LCAV fighting among themselves, we've done a good job.
Posted by: jdberger at December 21, 2007 10:51 AM
Of course rich jet-setting limousine liberals like Josh are upset they can't take our rights and freedom away. Look at Cuba, thats the social model they have planned for us.
Posted by: The Mechanic at December 21, 2007 11:16 AM
They also pretty well twisted that SCOTUS decision into a knot.
But overall, the article amounts to:
Posted by: Jim at December 21, 2007 02:31 PM
jdberger said: "I'd say, if we can keep Brady, VPC and LCAV fighting among themselves, we've done a good job."
I agree Sir, but what is "good for the goose is good for the gander." Have you seen the way GOA, JPFO, etc. are HARSHLY criticizing the NRA for supporting the bill? The parallels here on both "sides" is really very interesting. But we really need to encourage concilience and agreement among firearms owners and supporters of the 2A. It's difficult, but very important. And I am a bit saddened, because some advocates and opponents alike don't even know what the bill says.
Posted by: Carl in Chicago at December 23, 2007 08:06 AM