It is clear that the Editors have not really read the bill on which they are trying to opine: HB 1589. But that is not the bigger weakness of their editorial. Their words (emphasis mine, reformatted):
…Other bills such as House Bill 1589 seem to overreach but raise issues worth legislative discussions. This bill would extend the reach of background checks to online gun sales and those by private individuals.
Seem to overreach? Well now, buckos, you show your ignorance well before throwing the stones of that ignorance.
- Have you folks bought a gun online? Sure, you may pay for it, but all the reputable gun stores on the web will not send it to you. Instead, they will only send it to an authorized FFL dealer who will then run that background check before the transaction is completed. Fail the test? No gun for you! They seem to not wish to discuss this.
- They diminish the Right of Private Property by blithely saying “by private individuals’ without the “journalistic discussion” of the ramifications going forward. If it is my property, why should I not be able to sell a firearm to a decades long friend that I know to be responsible? Why is it that Fosters, along with all of those of the gun-grabber mentality, believes that only the “Mommy Government, may I?” is to be used? Is Fosters that willing to help move the needle of traditional American jurisprudence to declare that normal, law-abiding citizens are to be immediately declared to be guilty, not when they sell a piece of Private Property such as gardening equipment or an underused piece of electronics, but when they sell a piece of Property Property that happens to be a firearm?
Foster’s continue:
Unfortunately, there are some who are so close-minded they don’t even want to have these discussions. Tea Party leader and former State Republican Chairman Jack Kimball reportedly told a House hearing on HB 1589: “I don’t intend to abide by this bill … I am sick and tired of having to come here to these hallowed halls to continue to defend the God-given rights we all have.”
I guess they are oblivious to the happenings (or is that NON-happenings?) in Connecticut where law-abiding citizens are going exactly what Jack said – they are not abiding by their legislators’ laws either:
Historically speaking, 90-percent or more of those required to comply with gun registration laws in the U.S. refuse to do so, and there is no reason to suspect that this registration attempt in Connecticut is any different. I’ve seen estimates of 1,000,000 firearm magazines that should have been registered under the law, but the state reports registering only 40,000… just 4 percent.
Government exists only by the consent of the governed – and many law-abiding citizens are beginning to push back on their elected officials for what they see as a demonization campaign against them simply because they are gun owners. They are beginning to withdraw their consent. They DO see that those officials are ignoring what they see to be the plain language of the US and NH Constitutions:
Second Amendment:
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
Articles 1 through 2-A:
Article 1. [Equality of Men; Origin and Object of Government.] All men are born equally free and independent; therefore, all government of right originates from the people, is founded in consent, and instituted for the general good.
[Art.] 2. [Natural Rights.] All men have certain natural, essential, and inherent rights – among which are, the enjoying and defending life and liberty; acquiring, possessing, and protecting, property; and, in a word, of seeking and obtaining happiness. Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by this state on account of race, creed, color, sex or national origin.
[Art.] 2-a. [The Bearing of Arms.] All persons have the right to keep and bear arms in defense of themselves, their families, their property and the state.
So what’s Foster’s problem – blinded by their own newsroom liberal ideology? As Ian Underwood (“A right for which you have to ask permission isn’t a right at all.“) points out, either words mean something or they mean nothing – something that the Journalists at Foster’s should know well. Not only that, I would ask them to defend
To applause from fellow opponents, reports the Union Leader newspaper, Kimball called on the bill’s sponsors to “step down today” from their elective officers. “You don’t belong here,” he is quoted as saying. Those such as Kimball are outliers. That is why the GOP ousted him from his post and why he cannot be considered a responsible spokesman for gun rights.
No, that is not why he was ousted and Foster’s does the public a major disservice by claiming such. I’m quite sure that they are well aware of the civil war within the GOP at the national level and here in New Hampshire within the NH GOP. Jack was the one of the first of the TEA Partiers to suffer the stones from the Establishment. Go ahead Foster’s, do your homework instead of the trite denigration – how well is the current NH GOP Chair Jennifer Horn doing against the same metrics and still holds the title? Ditto for Fergus Cullen who was “leading” the NH GOP when it suffered its biggest electoral shellacking EVAH?
No, it is clear that Foster’s has decided that it can decide – but it is also clear that it is out of touch with the community it writes about. But again, the editor(s) show their hand in an uneducated fashion:
Whether any gun legislation is passed in this session of the Legislature, the discussion which has resulted from incidents like Aurora, Colorado, is important. The democratic process requires it; and those such as Kimball should prize having the ability to appear before the Legislature to argue their right to keep and bear arms — not shun the notion in carte blanche fashion.
Freedom is oft lost in very small, incremental steps – imagine the rage that Foster’s would show if there were any limiting of their right to Free Speech ([Art.] 22)?
Sidenote: so by the way, Foster’s, where is your outrage when others’s political speech is curtailed – when are you going to march for less red tape so that the ordinary guys can band together to make their stances known to the public? Or like any media oligarchy (ok, you’re really small potatoes, but being in a small state, you still count), are you happy with the rent-seeking rules that make it easier for you versus the little guy that has to hire either a well – versed political operative or a lawyer to make heads or tails of it?
“Prize having the ability”? You make it sound SO special – like a privilege or something. No, it is not a mere “privilege” but that of a Constitutional Right:
[Art.] 32. [Rights of Assembly, Instruction, and Petition.] The people have a right, in an orderly and peaceable manner, to assemble and consult upon the common good, give instructions to their representatives, and to request of the legislative body, by way of petition or remonstrance, redress of the wrongs done them, and of the grievances they suffer.
So, on what basis, Foster’s, do you come up with that “prized” idea that you believe countermand’s that Right? Any person, either of High or Low standing is imbued with that Right. No, the current notion of Political Correctness (or your’s) plays no part of it.
And in that Article, we all have the Right to tell our legislators off (regardless of the “Honorable” honorific) when we believe them to be in the wrong. All too often we see the political discourse driven only by the current political atmosphere. It is a good lesson that what SHOULD drive the discussion is not primary current events but by the Foundational Laws and therefore, THE written Social Contract(s), the NH (& US) Constitutions. The level of our discourse would be far better if we all went back down to our political roots. Good for the Public.
Good for Foster’s, too. In fact, I invite the Editors at Foster’s (or their representative) to come on GrokTALK! – let us have such an open and transparent discourse, shall we?
