The Democrats’ mania for the restriction of Second Amendment rights followed the Orlando massacre committed by a maniacal Muslim devotee of ISIS. The Democrats urgently advocated gun control legislation that would limit the rights of suspected terrorists listed on secret government databases that include more than 1,000,000 individuals, although the Americans on it number in the low thousands depending on the list involved.
We don’t know who they all are or how they got there, but insofar as Americans are concerned, we can be sure that the list disproportionately includes individuals of Arab and African descent and — dare I say it? — Muslim faith. Not that there’s anything wrong with that! You have to play it as it lays.
For Democrats, however, such disparate impact on minority groups constitutes a decisive consideration. As the parody New York Times headline has it, World To End Tomorrow: Women, Minorities Hardest Hit. The whole campaign against “mass incarceration” is a glorified variation of such wisdom.
The purported civil rights group CAIR takes up this point with respect one of the proposed gun control bills:
“We oppose the Terrorist Firearms Prevention Act of 2016 because it appears to limit the ban on firearms purchases to American Muslims…”
“It would seem the Senate is willing to only apply constitutional limitations on the American Muslim community, which is disproportionately impacted by federal watch lists.”
Good point!
Now why would that be? President Obama won’t say. Democrats would prefer to suck their thumbs on the House floor rather than address the underlying reason for such disparate impact in this case. It’s no accident their friends in the media haven’t asked them about it.
Has anyone asked thumb-sucking Rep. Keith Ellison or any other Democrat about it now that the moronic House sit-in has ended? Ellison’s CAIR buddy Nihad Awad must be deeply disappointed in Ellison’s insensitivity.
The disparate impact argument has disappeared from view in the case. It’s almost funny.
Notice: All comments are subject to moderation. Our comments are intended to be a forum for civil discourse bearing on the subject under discussion. Commenters who stray beyond the bounds of civility or employ what we deem gratuitous vulgarity in a comment — including, but not limited to, “s***,” “f***,” “a*******,” or one of their many variants — will be banned without further notice in the sole discretion of the site moderator.