The '06 midterm election can fairly be called the most spectacular congressional ass-whuppin' in recent history. The People swept the incumbents out of power as the inevitable consequence of hubris, ineptitude, lack of accountability, lack of oversight, and the complete disregard for the Constitution.
Out with the old and in with the new, right? Well...not necessarily. You see, Pelosi and company were granted the authority to step in, but with that authority they were also charged with a responsibility: To right the wrongs foisted upon us by the Bush administration and to re-establish the checks and balances necessary for responsible leadership.
Unfortunately, they haven't chosen to honor their mandate, but they have found the time to further their own Authoritarian agenda.
There's a well-known adage about those that fail to learn from history.
read on...
Today's entry is about the Long-range sniper rifle safety act of 2007 and the practical consequences of it's proposal.
The Barrett .50BMG sniper rifle in the hands of yours truly
What is Bill S. 1331?
It's a bill to classify all rifles firing .50BMG rounds as "destructive devices", subject to registration. It was authored by Dianne Feinstein, and co-sponsored by the following senators:
Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Levin, Mr. Menendez, Ms. Mikulski, Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Durbin, Mrs. Boxer, Mr. Lautenberg, Mr. Schumer, and Mr. Dodd.
Why do we need Bill S. 1331?
In her own words, the .50BMG (and other rifles of similar power) are a threat to us because they are capable of shooting down aircraft, puncturing chemical storage tanks, armored vehicles, armored limousines, and are simply too easy to acquire by "terrorists and others"
Sounds pretty dangerous. So what's the problem?
Several problems with this:
#1, A "sniper rifle" isn't really capable of shooting down low-flying aircraft, particularly one that she admits weighs 28 pounds. You see, hitting a flying aircraft requires pointing a rifle up. Sniper rifles have very powerful scopes, and as a direct consequence, very limited field of view. The idea of acquiring and engaging an airborne moving target at long range with a 28 pound rifle equipped with a high power scope and hoping to connect with a single shot is patently absurd.
#2, Any rifle is capable of puncturing a chemical storage tank. Or engaging an aircraft for that matter so long as it's got open sights and is light enough to pick up. We used to lose helicopters in 'Nam all the time to this, and we're still losing them in Iraq. The weapons doing this? Plain old hunting rifles.
#3, The .50 BMG is a large, bulky, and incredibly loud weapon. As such, terrorists simply have no interest in using the thing. And since....
#4 While the .50BMG is capable of penetrating pretty much anything that's in it's path, this really doesn't matter to us as civillians. We are unprotected from the fire of any rifle from insanely long distances. therefore...
#5 Since when do "terrorists" directly attack armored personnel carriers? I thought we were yelling at Dubya for conflating insurgents with terrorists.
#6 These rifles have been around for the last couple decades. Know how many Americans have been killed by one of these monsters in the hands of criminals and terrorists? Zero. So exactly where's the threat here?
So here's the real deal when you boil it down:
The government wants to keep track of who owns these .50BMG rifles because they pose a threat to the government, not us. And while many who read this will no doubt find that enough justification in and of itself for registering (and eventually confiscating) them, I find it very odd that after the last six years so many Dems would still embrace policies to protect the government from the people.
This is precisely the point of the second amendment; the government must have a deterrent from turning it's weapons against us. Very telling that Sen. Feinstein mentioned the "armored limousine" scenario; no doubt she feels the threat to her life that her armored limo can't stop. I submit that that's just as it should be. She has not been shot in all these years, and so long as she doesn't turn despot things will remain that way.
Combat-style weapons (and indeed, that's exactly what they are) such as the .50 BMG in the hands of civillians are the ultimate protection of our right to vote, and that authority is our say in what our government may and may not do.
So what are the practical consequences of this bill?
For the American people:
Nothing. This bill isn't going to pass.
For Hillary:
She has just publicly undermined her claim of "respecting the second amendment". The disenchanted Republicans, Independents, and Libertarians have not let this fact go unnoticed.
For Dianne & the rest:
She has just publicly reneged on her responsibility of tabling her partisan agenda to repair the damage done during the last 6 years.
In summary:
This is a grossly unconstitutional and cynical exercise that accomplishes nothing but disillusioning the very people who voted them into office. "Out with the old and in with the new" has, at a stroke, been replaced with "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss".
So this is just a little reminder to the Dems in the Senate: You have not yet gotten in good with us. You can be replaced. And for their supporters: The political landscape can change overnight when you get so focused on your grand vision that you stop caring about the rule of law and the will of the people. Take heed and choose your battles wisely; The next Congressional ass-whuppin' may be your own.