Thursday, February 14, 2013

Paul Valone, Grass Roots North Carolina, Speaks Out

Paul Valone of Grass Roots North Carolina, to which I belong, sent out an alert recently with a YouTube video attached entitled Out of the Mouths of Leftists. I urge you to watch it, and send it around to your friends and family. The debate features Paul, of course, and several gun grabbers "debating" current gun control issues.

The following are excerpts from Paul's alert that give you a flavor for how he perceived the debate to go. First, why he is worried:
Held in the ritzy “Southeastern Center for Contemporary Art” by WXII-TV, what GRNC volunteers found when we arrived was a cabal of limousine liberals, aging hippies, and hard-core “community organizers.”

When WXII created the panel, producers did their best to stack the deck in favor of gun control, but we knew that going in and we certainly didn’t expect to win them over. We did it to show you exactly what you face; the lengths they will go to and the lies they will tell in order to take not only your guns, but your freedom. Make no mistake: They want to control you!
When I noted that facts should underpin rational public policy, I was branded a “hater.” When a pro-gun panelist tried to make a point, he or she was shouted down not by one, but rather three of the opposition. When I pointed out that the “facts” they used to support their arguments were, in reality, fabrications, I was told: “You are the exact reason I worry about these firearms.”

When a panelist pointed out that guns owned by law-abiding citizens are not the problem, Gail Neely, director of North Carolinians Against Gun Violence bleated: “They’re law abiding ‘til they’re not.”

You see, Neely considers you a ticking time bomb. Because you own a gun, you could “go off” at any time. What she won’t say is that no number of “reasonable gun laws” will change that: As long as you own a gun, you’re a threat. And whether Neely is self-aware enough to realize it or not, the only solution to that “threat” is a complete end to private gun ownership.

When asked what the Framers intended in drafting the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, Neely replied: “To prevent insurrection.”
Now look what happens when I call out Gail on the phony statistics she is spouting (and which she failed to corroborate): First, “community activist” Ric Marshall calls me dangerous, and then he puts it all out there when he replies: “We have a government to protect us.”

As even liberals in the audience laugh at the absurdity of Marshall’s assertion, we see liberalism stripped of its camouflage: Marshall looks around the room like a deer in the headlights, utterly baffled why anyone would find this funny.
But, Valone is also energized. Here's why:
The lesson we need to take from this is that no amount of reasoning or education will dissuade them. They don’t care what the truth is. In their twisted minds, they are the anointed and society – including you – must, as Marshall opined during the debate, “be saved from itself.”

That leaves one clear alternative: You must beat them at their own game. You must beat them in the editorial pages, on public forums and, most importantly, in legislative chambers...
One problem with this particular debate is that it was held on the Leftist turf in that fundamental principles were not discussed, but instead it was a debate between utilitarian arguments, and whose facts do you believe?  Fortunately, the facts and the principles line up in the gun debate, and both are on our side of the debate.  But since principles are so seldom brought up, people are not aware of them.

For instance, our legal system presumes the innocence of everyone until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, as judged by a jury of the defendants peers.  But the background check system is in fact a prior restraint on buying a gun that forces you to prove your innocence, as judged by a faceless bureaucrat, before you may buy a gun from a dealer.  It would be like a journalist having to submit an article he wrote to the government, and getting its approval before he may publish it.  The existence of private sales with no background check makes this, if not acceptable, at least tolerable since you have a choice.  I have bought guns both ways.  And if a felon doesn't have to register a gun in his possession because that would require him to self incriminate, forcing him to submit to a background check does the same thing.  So a felon who wants a gun won't get a background check and will instead seek a gun through the black market.  There is always a market for things in demand.  Furthermore, if a crazy individual tries to buy a gun, and is turned away by the background check (a dubious thing given recent history) he can also seek out a weapon on the black market.

Many feel that having a national registration scheme is necessary to mandatory background checks.  Never mind that we already have a virtual registration system in the form of the 4473s that must be filled out and kept by the dealers.  According to Rev. Paul, the Seattle office of ATF has been going around copying all of a dealer's 4473s.  A little magic with a Neat Desk Organizer, and voila, a searchable database. Of course, even if they copied and scanned every 4473, that still wouldn't take care of those guns that were in existence before 1968, which is why they want national registration. Unfortunately, or fortunately, depending on your perspective, there has never been a registration scheme that has not eventually resulted in confiscation. Its like night following day.  Many will resist of course, and many fellow citizens will be killed for possessing an inanimate tool.  So, in the name of keeping blood out of the streets, the government will then be making blood to run in the streets.  It is worth getting an answer to the question: "How many of your fellow citizens are you willing to see killed to bring about your so called Utopia?"

Leftists like to pretend that they don't know why the founders wrote into the Constitution the protection of the pre-existing right to keep and bear arms.  Pretending to be confused on this issue allows them to ban so called "assault weapons."  If they admitted to an understanding of the Second Amendment, they would be forced to actually allow fully automatic M4 rifles and such, as these are the modern equivalent of colonial muskets and long rifles.  But true assault rifles, like the M4 are already effectively banned, so that what we are actually talking about are semiautomatic rifles, of low caliber and limited power, that look like scary assault rifles.  They are the equivalent of the repli-racers in the motorcycle world, but they are very popular weapons for hunting small game, varmints, and target shooting.  Since these weapons are only used in about 1% of crimes, the likelihood that the ban will be effective in stopping criminals is practically nil.  What it would do is take guns that are seen as scary, and set a precedent for eventually banning all guns.   That is the real, but often unspoken goal.  Instead, they wrap their rhetoric, their falsehoods and lies in the name of making everyone safer.  But gun control has never made anyone safer.  Indeed, gun control only controls the law abiding, and thus makes everyone less safe.   

No comments:

Post a Comment