Mr. Huffman reminded me of this and while I have been postponing writing about it, I guess I should go ahead and bite the bullet… What I am about to say will probably surprise a few people, but that is all the fun of weblogging, right?
Simply and specifically put, I oppose the carry-in-national-parks amendment that was tacked on to the “credit card bill of rights” bill.
More generally, and by way of an explanation, I oppose any unrelated amendment that is attached to another bill for no good reason other than to ensure the amendment’s passage, or the bill’s untimely demise.
Make no mistake – I will be very happy when I am, once again, capable of equipping myself to better defend my family when we decide to visit National Parks, however, I see absolutely no reason why this amendment should be attached to a bill pertaining to credit cards.
Yes, I understand that is how the government works currently, and has been working for quite some time. Yes, I understand that attaching the carry amendment to a bill that Representatives/Senators cannot vote against without potentially being demonized/ostracized was a masterful tactical decision. Oh, and yes, I am not too sure about the credit card bill to begin with.
I am just sick and frakking tired of these kinds of stupid-assed political games, where people vote against a bill because of nonsensical and unrelated amendments someone else has attached to it, and then that someone else calls out the nay-sayer, claiming they voted against this uber-important bill (when, in fact, the nay-sayer was voting against the nonsensical and unrelated amendments). I have no idea how you would go about drafting legislation that would require Congress to only attach related amendments to bills, but that is something I could support.
Will I carry into a National Park assuming this credit card bill (and its carry-related amendment) are signed by the President? Sure. Will I laugh in the face of the Brady Campaign and their pathetic “environmental impact” canard? You bet your ass I will.
And, from current appearances, it looks like I might be laughing soon.
However, would I be happier if this amendment was voted through as a bill of its own, and did not become law just because Senators and Representatives could not bring themselves to vote against a different, politically- and publicly-charged bill? Absolutely.
Update: And while I might have broken one rank, I seem to have joined another. That works.
Have some sausage while we redraw the election district to look like a salamander.
Do you truly oppose the amendment, or object to the manner in which it may become law?
As far as I’m concerned, I remember FOPA ’86, the amendment screwing we got, and am totally fine with payback in kind.
I too would like to see bills not get other crap attached, but I don’t see any way around it. I’m not willing to give up our crap, especially when we will still get anti-crap attached.
Standard Mischief: Yeah, well, it probably goes without saying that I hate that kind of nonsense as well ;P.
Dock: … Yes? I do not oppose the purpose of the amendment, and I would very much like to be able to legally, effectively defend myself when I go visit the Great Smokies, but I hate this particular amendment. Attach it to a bill about the National Parks (I am sure there was one), or, better yet, make it a bill of its own… But this kind of strategery is underhanded, at best, and more than a little indicative of a government that thinks it can do anything… just because.
Sevesteen: I am quite certain there are ways around it, but I am likewise certain that since those ways around it would require constraints on the politicians doing this gos-se, those ways around it would never see the light of day. Yeah, it sucks when antis resort to this kind of nonsense to get their stuff passed, but us doing the same does not make us look any better.
Linoge, it’s nice to know I’m not the only one that feels this way.
http://hsoiblog.wordpress.com/2009/05/13/guns-in-national-parks-amendment/
Hsoi, I must have missed that post – thanks for pointing it out. I really, really like the amendment, I just hate how it is being handled. Of course, I am not going to look a gift horse in the mouth, but still.
Linoge, that’s how I feel about it. We get all p.o.’d when unrelated crap gets tacked onto bills, and so how is this any different? Oh right, it benefits us.
*sigh*
Sorry folks. If we shouldn’t stick unrelated stuff onto bills then we shouldn’t stick unrelated stuff onto bills. We’re no better than the people we bitch about if we carry on in this way.
Thanx for the link.
Exactly so. Of course, when our glorious President does sign this bill (and I cannot imagine that he will not), I will definitely make a point of rubbing it in the face of every anti-firearm organization and individual I can think of – after all, this guy was supposed to be the champion of “gun control”!
Another dilemma for congress