Trenna Meins, San Bernardino Widow wants to change gun policies
The San Bernadino Sun talks a little bit about Trenna Meins, the widow of San Bernadino terrorism victim Damian Meins.
She talked to a class of students at Cal State San Bernardino. She intends to use her status to forward legislation for good gun violence policy. The bad news, for her California audience, is that she wants to keep guns from criminals, but not from the rest of us;
Meins doesn’t want to upend the Second Amendment.
“This isn’t a gun thing,” she said. “I don’t want to ban guns or ammunition.”
One cousin owns a gun shop, she said. Other relatives are hunters.
But she favors stricter regulations “so that people who don’t deserve a gun don’t get a gun.”
I’m right there behind her as long as she stays on that course. The problem, of course, is that she’ll be dealing with people who want to take everyone’s guns. I hope she’s mindful of that in her new journey.
Category: Guns
She will be pissing in the wind with all of the “gun haters”.
Unless she makes herself a useful idiot a la Sheenan (sp?) she will, unfortunately, find herself relegated to obscurity by the leftists.
yeah…that’s gonna go over like a fart in church. Cali isn’t interested in compromise.
WTF is wrong with actually enforcing laws that already exist before bawling for more?
ah….common sense. Thass raciss.
Wake me when they pass “common sense” anything in Commiefornia.
How about common sense unvetted muslim immigration control?
Note that the articles do not furnish any more info than Jonn posted… nfortunately, “we’re not against the 2nd Amendment but we want to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and terrorists” is pretty much the way the current crop of popular gun controls (100% background checks, criminalizing not reporting gun thefts, no-fly/no-buy lists, Australian confiscation) are introduced by the Clinton/Pelosi/Sanders/Schumer/Giffords bloc 100% of the time. I’m not buying in until I hear her full stance. If she were Barbara Boxer she would use the same language.
They are not against the second amendment as they interpret it. The last part of the statement is silent but understood.
This is a weak story. The reporter, Laurie Lucas, apparently put it together for The Riverside Press-Enterprise, and it was then picked up by the San Bernardino Sun on what could have been a slow news day.
Lucas missed an opportunity in a least two ways. In the first place, she spends a lot of time on the emotional aspect of Trenna Meins being a survivor, but offers almost nothing in the way of detail about Meins’ ideas about policy change. What also seems to go right past Lucas is the idea that Meins was talking to a class of criminal justice students. She had a chance to get a perspective from other than the garden-variety SJW gender-studies crowd, but instead decided to blow it off.
Literally no new gun laws will change anything except infringe on clearly defined civil rights of Americans.
She is an idiot.
I just hope that the new Trump administration does start enforcing the gun laws that are already on the books.
In my mind, any possession of a firearm by a felon could be if not a federal offense but something pushed at state AG’s to stem the flow of crime in our cities by repeat offender felons let out of jail by bleeding heart liberal judges.
The issue concedes that gun-grabbers’ point that the federal gov’t must do something to stem the violence. This is their ruse to attack the 2nd A when, in point of fact, the issues you describe are actually state matters. That is, when a Chicagoan shoots another Chicagoan in the bad streets of Chicago, the crime is a state crime. If the shooter is given a light sentence, that, too, is a state matter. If the parole board cuts the shooter loose early and then, when the shooter violates parole, declines to return him to prison, those are state issues as well. I earnestly believe that couching the wildass shootings as a national issue that needs to be addressed by the national government plays into the gun grabbers’ hand and is wrongheaded.
Speaking of Chicago, the numbers were 8 and 62 this past weekend. That’s killed and just wounded. Range time is sorely needed.
When I was in college back when we had to chisel our papers out on stone tablets, there was an article in the paper about a survey that asked people if they were for or against “reasonable gun control”. The problem of course is how they asked the question. If something is “reasonable” how can you be against it? But what one person sees as reasonable, another may not, and there lies the rub. (FYI the survey in question was done by anti-gun people who then presented the result as showing a high percentage of people were for gun control)
I see this as the same problem. Of course we don’t want criminals, crazies, terrorists, etc. to have guns, but all of those terms can be massaged to include just about anyone, and that is what I would expect to happen. It will shift from whether provably shouldn’t have a gun to can you prove you are provably safe to possess one? And guess who gets to make the standards? It’s like concealed carry permits where I live; by law they can only be denied for good cause, but it just so happens the sheriffs all seem to find problems with anyone who requests one and very few ever get issued.