Rabid leftist Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee said on the House floor she was going to tell the National Rifle Association to attend one of her meeting to talk about compromising on our Second Amendment rights:
Let’s look at her wording for a second here:
Tell the NRA to come and sit down with all of us, that this Congress can work in an effective manner, that we can begin to look at issues such as buying 6,000 rounds of ammunition on the Internet. Not against the Second Amendment, but the fact that the Internet sellers did not even have to give notice that one person was buying 6,000 rounds of ammunition. There’s not federal law on that issue. There’s not even a federal law to give notice on that issue.
We can find common ground. Something has to be done, whether it is a disturbed person or not.
Whether it’s a terrorist act, and for me this issue was a terrorist condition because of what happened.
But I want us to come together as one. We can do so and we can come together to do what is good for the American people, respect the Second Amendment, but find ways to protect the American people, whoever they are, wherever they live, from these dangers.
First, the word “tell.”
Not exactly a word someone looking to compromise uses, is it?
Tell them what again? To come to Congress so we can talk about creating a federal law that forces private businesses to report to the government the purchases of private citizens because a government busy body feels they are buying more ammunition than they need.
She upset there isn’t a federal law that mandates the reporting of legal activity.
In an article at The Hill, she said this:
Jackson Lee said she hoped to understand whether the NRA could agree to new rules that would require retailers to notify authorities whenever one customer is buying excessive amounts of weapons or ammo, a reference to the Colorado shooter, who is now known to have bought thousands of rounds in preparation for the shooting.
“I want an explanation on why someone can buy 6,000 rounds of ammunition on an Internet without any oversight whatsoever,” she said. “Why is there no basis of giving notice?
She wants an explanation? How about this:
I had a similar conversation recently with a person on Facebook, who couldn’t understand why a person would be allowed to own 6,000 rounds of ammo.
Here’s why: the purchase and possession of ammunition does not infringe on the rights of anyone else.
Firing ammunition into people violates their rights.
A free man should not be restricted from possessing something solely because someone else feels they don’t need it.
It wasn’t the purchase of ammunition that killed those people in Aurora. It wasn’t the amount of ammunition purchased.
It was the wanton disregard for their right to life and the taking of that life.
And murder is already illegal.
Finally, Lee said this:
“If they’d given notice to the local police, maybe someone would have knocked on the door and found out what was going on,” she said. “We can find a way to come together. This is not rocket science to determine why you’re getting 6,000 rounds.”
What reason would they have to knock on his door? Did he break a law? Would they have reason to search his apartment? And what does she think they would have had the right to do? Would they have assigned a pre-crime unit to him, or would he just be locked up?
And where’s the Fourth Amendment in all of this? Should police have the right to search your place based on your purchases?
Don’t pretend that’s too far. We both know it isn’t.
This is the slippery slope anti-gun advocates put us on when they push for a greater government role in firearm ownership.
Given the choice between dealing with problems that arise from too much freedom, and those that arise from too little, I’d prefer to deal with those associated with too much.
How about you?