Check Out Our Sports Photo Galleries Contact Us
Sandoval: favorite political pet tricks
by David Farside
Jun 17, 2013 | 1423 views | 4 4 comments | 94 94 recommendations | email to a friend | print
Gov. Brian Sandoval chose to pay homage to NRA PAC money rather than protect Nevada’s children from possible massacres on our streets, on the playground and in our schools. Vetoing the gun-check law approved by the legislature, the Republican Governor conveniently turned a deaf ear on our elected lawmakers, 90 percent of Nevadans who favored the new law and prominent members of his own party.

Sandoval said he vetoed the bill because it was “Imposing unreasonable burdens and harsh penalties upon law-abiding Nevadans, while doing little to prevent criminals from unlawfully obtaining firearms.” Governor, wake up! If the new legislation was passed and future gun owners refused to obtain a background check and circumvented the new law, they would no longer be law-abiding citizens. That’s the point — create a law with harsh penalties and protect us from criminals, ex-felons, terrorists and the mentally ill who choose to use hand guns and assault weapons to massacre the innocents for no reason other than their own.

Governor, why is a background check unreasonable? If a gun owner is a law-abiding citizen, there is no reason he would break the law by not getting a background check. And why is getting a background check a burden? The real burden falls on the shoulders of the victims of violence. Tell the families of the four people who were randomly killed in 2011 at a local IHOP IN Carson City — not too far from where you live — that it’s more of a burden to get a background check to own a gun than it is to burry the dead victims of violence. Tell the families of the 20 fatally wounded children and 6 adult staff members at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn. that somewhere in the vacuum of your mental reasoning; getting a background check to own a gun is more burdensome than protecting our children’s lives.

Sandoval joined the NRA Mantra opposed to gun control of any kind, saying that expanding background checks represented a ”Constitutional erosion of Second Amendment rights.” Amending our Constitution reflects periodic political, economic, environmental and philosophical changes in our expanding democracy. Changing and amending laws to meet the needs and concerns of the times is not an erosion of our Constitution — it’s the preservation of democracy. Governor Sandoval should be reminded of that.

It was reported that Sandoval’s office received overwhelming support for his veto on an automated call system. No names were given and one person could call in as many times as he wanted to skew the count. No doubt, there were just a small group of NRA members and a few of Sandoval’s political pets doing what they do best —deceive the public. Sandoval made no mention of the call records during his veto message. I wonder why?

Sandoval had his named mentioned as a possible Vice Presidential candidate during the previous election. Could be he thinks he might have a better chance next time around with support from the NRA. He should forget about it though. Chris Christi has his own compound of political animals that perform their own political pet tricks.

David Farside is a Sparks resident and political activist.
Comments-icon Post a Comment
Dave J
June 17, 2013
What those who push the background check will not admit is that every background check is a de facto gun registration. It is not a simple "yes" or "no", it is a gun registration, requiring make, model and serial number of every gun being purchased. Said background check to be available at all times to the ATF and to be turned into the government when the gun dealer retires. Remove the gun registration and there is no problem with background checks.
June 22, 2013
What's wrong with gun registration?

If you choose to own a gun, what is your objection to taking ownership and responsibility for that firearm? Where in the second amendment is it stated that you are guaranteed privacy for owning a weapon?

Taking responsibility: Isn't that what adults/citizens do?

Do you have the same concerns about registering your automobile?

This all sounds like thinly veiled paranoia to me.
October 16, 2013
“What's wrong with gun registration?”

Because firearms registration often leads to confiscation, like it did in the United Kingdom, Australia, California, New York City, and Washington D.C.

As Nelson "Pete" Shields, chairman of Handgun Control Inc. which later renamed the Brady Campaign To Prevent Gun Violence, stated in the July 26, 1976 New Yorker Magazine,

“We’ll take it one step at a time, and first is necessarily – given the political realities – very modest. We’ll have to start working again to strengthen the law, and then again to strengthen the next law again and again. Our ultimate goal, total control of handguns, is going to take time. The first problem is to slow down production and sales. ****Next is to get registration.**** The final problem is to make possession of all handguns (with a few exceptions) totally illegal.”

Of course, many citizen disarmament zealots, their organizations, and their media allies don’t want to stop with handguns.

“Do you have the same concerns about registering your automobile?”

Owning an automobile is not a Constitutional right, but the right to keep and bear arms is. Furthermore, auto registration is a tax and was not intended and is not a means to prevent the illegal or unsafe use of motor vehicles, and an automobile is not required to be registered it is going to be used only on private property. For example, a farm truck that is only going to be used on a farm and not on public roads is not required to be registered.

In addition, firearms registration does nothing to prevent crime. Say I have three firearms and those firearms become registered with the government. How is that going to prevent crime? Answer: it does not.

Mike B
October 21, 2013
Dave J, you have blood on your hands now. So does Sandoval.
Featured Businesses