20 years ago, there was a fad called "Magic Eye" pictures. If stared at long enough, they produce a 3D effect; an image or a message hovers over the lines and shapes of the original picture. I decided to "stare" at the President's gun initiatives and see what comes into view.
Tighten existing laws. Background checks on every transaction. Assure health care providers they can share information about "potentially" dangerous people who may have access to guns? This treats law-abiding individuals as suspect, and begins a reduced right of privacy to all gun owners. Obviously, if we followed every one of these orders and the Congress somehow enacted the laws he is requesting, it would have done nothing to prevent the shootings used as window dressing. Many of these shootings were committed by individuals in the 16-25 age group. How do you distinguish between "potentially dangerous" and normal immaturity and emotionally growing?
Congress is not likely to make any moves. Speaker Boehner wont consider legislation which wont pass and the subject makes it uncertain, at best. Senate Majority leader, Harry Reid appreciates this gift. The legislation would be initiated in the Senate. Six senators from primarily conservative states up for re-election next year become extremely vulnerable voting for new gun laws. Democrats could lose their majority; but Reid assured everyone he wont bring the bill to the floor because it wont pass in the House. Nobody has to be "on the record".
Still, if security for our children and society is not the goal, why make the proposals the President made? I was watching CNN and as they moved from gun control to another story, it became obvious, like the "Magic Eye". The Supreme Court of Maryland ruled on the liability for a dog owner, who owned a pit bull that attacked and killed a child. The dog had no history of violence or aggression, so the debate was whether or not the owner was responsible. The ruling of the court suggests any dog owner is legally accountable for the actions of their dog, regardless of the history, breed, or temperament.
That's when the gun mandates started to come into focus. Given his goals, the President wants every gun sale recorded, every person who buys a gun put into a national registry, and cross-referenced with mental health professionals and evaluations to determine potential violence. The goal is not security, but liability. One constituency of the Democrats is trial lawyers. They avoided consequences from the health care debate, so they can continue to sue doctors and insurance companies without limits. When we track every gun sale, if we place every gun owner in a database, and every health care professional contacts the CDC, we will not prevent Sandy Hook; but find a laundry list of potential sources for malpractice. A new brand of commercials will appear on cable television, naming lawyers who specialize in "getting you money" if someone you know was shot, injured, or impacted in any way by a random public shooting. Violation of the Second Amendment will not come from the government; but from attrition as manufacturers, insurance companies, and other businesses connected to gun ownership shut down from liability claims and lawsuits. Gun ownership is the new cigarette smoking, coal burning, petroleum industry, dog owning member on the list of, if we can't legally legislate it, we'll regulate it away. I wonder what industry, or personal freedom, is next on the agenda?
Comments