Sunday, December 30, 2012

Gun Ignorance of the Liberal Left: Case in Point - Daily KOS

By Douglas V. Gibbs

If a conservative doesn't like guns, they don't buy one. If liberals don't like guns, they don't want anyone to be able to buy one.  Liberal prejudices against guns are primarily born from their ignorance - not only about human nature, but the firearms themselves.

Also, The United States Constitution's Second Amendment restricts the federal government from regulating guns at all. Technically, it is a State issue, but a concept like State Sovereignty normally flies high above the heads of today's American Liberal.  The Liberal Left believes that a strong, centralized federal government is what we need. . . except when someone like George W. Bush is President.  Then they think it is a bad idea.

In Mexico gun control is in full swing, and as a result the drug cartels are practically running the country.  Notice that the criminal element could care less about the laws, and found ways to get their hands on guns.  In Britain and Australia, after instituting gun control laws, the occurrence of violent crimes went up.

Criminals love unarmed victims.

Tyrannical governments love unarmed victims even more.

The American Liberal Left is salivating over the current talk about gun control.  These people have been waiting for this for so long, and now their dream of disarming the "gun nuts" has come to fruition.  Sites like the Daily KOS are not shy about proclaiming they support bans on not only "assault" weapons, but all guns.

The liberal left can't stand the fact that guns are considered a right, and that owning guns is even allowed in our country.  The conservative "right wing" extremists, as they like to call us, are rebellious against their version of America, and the private property of firearms must be confiscated.

The first plank of the Communist Manifesto is the abolition of private property.

The fourth plank of the Communist Manifesto is the confiscation of all the property of emigrants and rebels.

Sporks, a writer for the Daily KOS, recently wrote a piece titled: How to Ban Guns: A step by step, long term process.

The writer is not shy about stating that they believe all guns should be banned.  However, this person speaks from an incredible position of ignorance.  Let's use the article to explain my point.

Paragraph 1: The vast majority of firearm deaths occur with handguns. Only about 5% of people killed by guns are killed by guns which would be banned in any foreseeable AWB.

- The words "killed by guns" are used twice.  Understand, there is a person behind that trigger.  Guns are tools.  A greater number of people are killed by automobiles.  Should we ban cars, too?  The problem in shootings is not the guns, but the individuals that used the guns in these tragedies.  As Ronald Reagan once said, "We must reject the idea that every time a law's broken, society is guilty rather than the lawbreaker. It is time to restore the American precept that each individual is accountable for his actions."

- Handguns are used in the vast majority of firearm deaths because though they are 34 percent of the total number of firearms (Cook, P. and Ludwig, J. Guns in America. Police Foundation, 1996), they are easier to handle, conceal, and carry.  Of those firearm deaths by handgun, we have to consider how many were by suicide (someone who is suicidal will use whatever is available, so gun control will not decrease that number, but will simply alter the method of suicide), and self-defense.  Gun control will decrease the number of gun deaths by suicide and self-defense, but will not decrease the number of deaths caused by assault and criminal activity.  People willing to act criminally will not only fail to follow any gun laws in place (after all, they are law-breakers), but that number will increase because now they are assured that the victims have been disarmed by gun control laws.

Paragraph 2: Furthermore, there seems to be no talk about high powered rifles. What gun nuts don't want you to know is many target and hunting rifles are chambered in the same round (.223/5.56mm) that Lanza's assault weapon was.

- The term "high powered rifles" is interesting.  The media's definition of "high powered" seems to be anything above .22 caliber.  For others, "high powered" might mean "center-fire," as opposed to "rim fire".  In other words, the term "high powered" seems to be at the discretion of the individual.  The term "high powered" is used to make the guns sound scarier.

- In Paragraph 2, Sporks states that Adam Lanza's firearm was an "assault weapon." Sporks couldn't be more wrong. An assault weapon is a rifle with a fire selector switch that can select between single shot, a three-round burst shot, or full-auto fire. These kind of guns are not readily available, are not sold in gun shops, and was not what Lanza had.  Adam Lanza had semi-automatics, which only means that they fire one shot at a time, but do not need to be reloaded by hand.  For example, two of my revolvers and my 9mm Spanish Astra 1921 are semi-automatic because the round automatically loads, so all I need to do to fire the next shot is pull the trigger again.  My Ruger Single-Six revolver, however, is not a semi-automatic, because I have to pull back the hammer before I can fire it again.  Most of my rifles require me to pull back the bolt action to dislodge the shell, and for the next round to be put into place, which means that they, also, are not semi-automatic.  My 7mm rifle, however, automatically kicks out the used shell, and the next round from the clip slides into place.  All I have to do is pull the trigger.  There is nothing sinister about these guns.  The semi-automatic feature is simply a convenience, and saves a fraction of a second.  Sporks assumes Lanza's rifles were "assault weapons" because they look scary.  However, the firepower he assumes those guns have, which would classify them as "assault weapons," are reserved exclusively for the U.S. military.

Paragraph 3: I like that we're talking about assault weapons, machine guns, and high capacity clips. But it only takes one bullet out of one gun to kill a person.

- Machine Guns? Really? Sporks watches too many movies. He is assuming what is being used in these shootings is some gun with a spinning carbine and a belt of a hundred rounds being fed to it.  Once again, that kind of firepower is reserved exclusively for the U.S. Military.

- Banning high capacity clips do nothing to slow down a shooter.  If my smaller clip empties out, I can change magazines pretty fast.  The difference of having a bunch of smaller-capacity clips, and fewer high-capacity clips is a matter of a second, or two.

- It only takes one bullet out of one gun to kill a person. However, often it only takes the knowledge that the potential victim is armed to stop the shooting altogether.  While the writer is suggesting banning all guns, we must once again remind ourselves that banning gun ownership by law-abiding citizens simply disarms those citizens. It does not disarm lawbreakers, or governmental tyrannies.

Paragraph 4: The only way we can truly be safe and prevent further gun violence is to ban civilian ownership of all guns.

- The best way to respond to this ignorant statement is to throw some numbers out.

Mexico has strong gun control laws, and as a result the unarmed populace is at the mercy of the drug cartels.

The Turkish Ottoman Empire established gun control in 1911. It then proceeded to exterminate 1 and a half million Armenians from 1914 to 1917.

The Soviet Union established gun control in 1929. Subsequently, from 1928 to 1953, 60 million dissidents were imprisoned and then exterminated.

China enacted gun control laws in 1935. After the communist takeover, from 1948 to 1952, 20 million Chinese, unable to defend themselves, were murdered.

Nazi Germany fully established gun control in 1938. That helped the government to round up 13 million defenseless Jews, Gypsies, homosexuals, mentally ill and impaired human beings. Many were imprisoned in concentration camps, then destroyed.

Guatemala passed gun control laws in 1964. Then, from 1964 to 1981, 100,000 defenseless Mayan Indians were exterminated.

Uganda established gun control measures in 1970. Predictably, from 1971 to 1979, 300,000 defenseless Christians met a similar fate.

Cambodia established gun control measures in 1956. Subsequently, from 1957 to 1977, 1 million Cambodians met their deaths.

Paragraph 6: The very first thing we need is national registry. We need to know where the guns are, and who has them.

- The Weimar Republic instituted a gun registry, primarily to stop the Nazis and the Communists in Germany.  The action did little to stop the Nazis.  In 1938, the Nazis passed a weapons law adding restrictions to the previous law, especially for Jews and other "non-citizens."  The national registry was the first step towards stronger gun control laws, which helped the Nazis suppress political dissidents and round up German Jews for extermination. The Nazis benefited from the inability of their victims to fight back.

- Knowing where the guns are, and who has them, enables the government to know who to confiscate the guns from.  Criminals will not participate in the national registry, and since their guns are largely obtained illegally, they have no fear of the firearms being traced to them.  Therefore, the only guns you would know where they are, and who has them, is those owned by law-abiding citizens, which are not the ones behind most of the gun deaths in America.  Also, this sets up the opportunity for a tyrannical government to disarm the public, and for a totalitarian system to rise up.  Before you scoff at that possibility, remember that the Germans didn't think that could happen in their country, either.

Paragraph 7: Along with this, make private sales illegal.

- Is this really a Pandora's Box Sporks wants to open?  The author of the Daily KOS piece wants to ban private sales because if the gun is not registered, nothing needs to be done.  An individual, who is not engaged in the business of firearms sales, and who wishes to sell his own personal firearm to another individual, has a right to do so freely. This person-to-person sale does not require a background check because it is a non-commercial, non-dealer transaction founded on the fundamental right to engage in personal commerce.  Is Sporks suggesting that the federal government should regulate person-to-person sales?  Once you begin with one thing, the government will take a mile.  Well, there is that, in addition to the unconstitutionality of the federal government getting involved in such a manner.  Perhaps the Constitution means nothing to Sporks.

Paragraph 11: I would suggest an immediate, national ban on concealed carry. A ban on internet sales of guns and ammunition is a no brainer.

- Aside from the unconstitutionality of a national ban on concealed carry, it is also a very dangerous proposition. Studies have shown that "allowing citizens to carry concealed weapons deters violent crimes and
it appears to produce no increase in accidental deaths."

- The myth believed by people like Sporks is that Online sales allows people to actually buy guns Online, which is not entirely true.  You can PAY for a gun online, but gun dealers cannot (and will not) ship a firearm directly to any customer. All guns that are PAID FOR online must be shipped to FFL dealers, which are federally licensed and regulated by the ATF.  The requirements for a background check, and anything else that accompanies buying a gun in a gun store, still applies, and must be done before the buyer can pick up their gun at the FFL dealer.

Paragraph 12: A national Firearms Owner Identification Card might be good, but I'm not sure if it's necessary if we have a national database. We should also insist on comprehensive insurance and mandatory gun safes, subject to random, spot checks by local and federal law enforcement.

- This paragraph has Big Brother written all over it.  The part about mandatory gun safes is especially disturbing.  Does Sporks realize the cost of gun safes?  Is he saying that the federal government should be able to require someone to buy something?  Remember, that was the same concern over the Obamacare mandate.  Besides, responsible gun owners, who can't afford gun safes, already take other actions, such as using trigger locks.  The problem, in truth, is not the gun, in this case, but the responsibility of the gun owner as an individual.

- Random, spot checks by law enforcement?  I wonder if Sporks would also support random, spot checks by law enforcement to make sure we aren't smoking in our homes, or to make sure we aren't eating trans-fats.  Maybe Sporks would also suggest random, spot checks by law enforcement regarding the literature we are reading, or the people we associate with?  Again, aside from the unconstitutionality of Sporks' suggestions, it also creates a dangerous opportunity for the government to be the very tyranny the American System was created to avoid.  I am not thrilled by Sporks' suggestion that we be some kind of Orwellian Dystopia.

Paragraph 13: We must make guns expensive and unpopular.

- You mean like Mexico did?  Now that the populace is unarmed, the drug cartels have control of the country, and the people live in fear.

Paragraph 14: I know this seems harsh, but this is the only way we can be truly safe. I don't want my kids being shot at by a deranged NRA member.

- Being truly safe is impossible.  In China, just recently, 23 children were attacked by knife at a school.  Also  note that all of the shootings we have seen in the last few years have happened at locations considered to be "gun-free" zones.  The shooters chose these locations because they knew they would be met with no armed resistance.  As Wayne LaPierre of the NRA said, "The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun."  Oh, and none of these shootings were by "deranged" NRA members.  Members of the NRA tend to be responsible gun owners who recognize that their guns are tools that must be respected, and used responsibly.

Thanks, Sporks, for your ignorance. People like you are entertaining to the rest of us who have a bit of common sense.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

No comments: