BS Rationalizations from Jon Tester re: gun control votesSubmitted by Blue Republic on Sat, 04/20/2013 - 07:07
OK - on the plus side, Tester did vote against the assault weapons ban and hi-cap magazine ban.
Also on the plus side, he is not Denny Rehberg.
However, he is sure spouting BS in trying to rationalize his vote for Toomey-Manchin:
(from Tester's mail to constituents and those like myself who somehow ended up on his mailing list)
"Yesterday, two Senators, a Republican from Pennsylvania and a Democrat from West Virginia, put forth a plan to make our communities safer while protecting our Second Amendment rights. It’s the kind of responsible solution that I hope can be a model for how we can solve our nation’s biggest challenges. Unfortunately, their proposal, while receiving a majority of votes, did not receive enough votes in the Senate to pass.
Let me be clear: the proposed legislation would not have prevented a law-abiding citizen from purchasing a gun. It would not have taken away anyone’s gun. It would not create a national gun registry. And it would not ban assault weapons or limit magazine clips. I would not support legislation if it did any of these things.."
Well, Jon - what about a law-abiding medical marijuana user - or recreational user where that is legal?
Toomey-Manchin basically said all marijuana users should be either A, disarmed and/or B, prosecuted as felons if they possess a gun or ammo so perhaps you would care to explain that little discrepancy?
At least Tester is willing to say something about the issue - I cannot get *any* sort of response from my (Oregon) Senators on this - although I'm not ready to give up trying. These people should have to come clean about their supporting the prosecution/disarmament of tens of millions of Americans:
Language of the bill Tester supported and a comment from the GOA - (to be fair, Tester has shown some concern about the situation of veterans on this):
(2) SECTION 102, Finding 3: "Congress believes the Department of Justice should prosecute violations of background check requirements to the maximum extent of the law."
GOA COMMENT: You understand that 18 U.S.C. 922(d)(3) and (g)(3) make a person a prohibited person if they are "an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance," right? And you understand this would subject every gun owner who smokes marijuana (medical or otherwise) to a ten-year prison sentence (under 18 U.S.C. 924(a)(2)), right? And you understand that records of medical marijuana use, drug diversion programs, etc., are in the possession of many state governments and are, technically, required to be turned over to the FBI under the NICS Improvement Act of 2007, right? So are you still so enthusiastic about throwing 20,000,000 gun owners in prison for ten years for smoking pot -- not to mention the thousands upon thousands of military veterans who have also been thrown into the NICS system without any due process whatsoever?
Full article at: