Actually, Wayne has gotten a lot of things right. I have disagreed with the NRA, and Wayne La Pierre, (even so, I am a member) but on this particular topic, he is correct, and I am glad he is taking a no compromise stand. The Blaze has the story at Wayne La Pierre's Bold Claim about Universal Background Checks: 'That Registry Will Be Used to Confiscate Your Guns'. Right now, if you wanted to pass on a gun to your children or grand children, well, that is your right. It is your property, and you are free to dispose of it as you like. I hear from some that they are purchasing their M1911 style pistols as collectors items, putting them in the safe, and saving them for their kids. While I personally think that guns are tools to be used, people are free to do as the wish. I should also not that many of us got our first .22 rifle while in our youths, and learned safe gun handling early on from our fathers. But under the Universal Background Check, in order to follow the law, and thus protect both yourself and your children or grand children, you must get permission from the Government first, before giving the gun away. This is yet another prior restraint on the exercise of a Constitutionally guaranteed right. Its like a journalist having to get permission from the Government before he can publish an article.
Meanwhile, the felon in possession of a gun will not have to register that gun, or to obtain a Universal Background Check. What, you say? Yes, its true. Because attempting to register his gun would subject him to prosecution, the Supreme Court has ruled that this would be a violation of his right against self incrimination. So, the very people of whom you want to have a registry, will not be required to register. Only you and I will be required to register, the law abiding peacefully armed citizens.
Well, what about this notion that registering guns will lead to confiscation. Nobody is talking about taking guns away, they just want to know who has them, and where they are. After all, if you had a fire at your house, say, wouldn't it be a good idea if the fire department knew that before they stormed into your house, only to have an explosion? Well, theoretically, perhaps. But such a scenario is rare indeed. But confiscation is not. Jews for the Preservation of Firearm Ownership (JFPO) has an interesting graph showing the relationship between registration laws and confiscation of firearms, and later genocide of hated minorities in that country. Can you imagine who might become a hated minority in future years? Business men are currently being demonized, as are gun owners, Constitutionalists, and conservatives.
Steve Chapman is a big government guy, and I don't often cite his writings, but if the Democrats were truly interested in crime control, Mr. Chapman has some useful advice over at Townhall.com entitled The Right Way to Combat Gun Violence, and I would argue, any crime. Criminals start small. If they don't have any consequences from the small stuff, they move on to bigger and bigger crimes. Mayor Giuliani had it right when he started going after people who, for instance, broke windows. Nip it in the bud while its small. But, overall, national violent crime rates have been on a downward trend since around 1990, as shown by this WaPo article on Mayor Giuliani. More police, and especially, more effective policing certainly had something to do with it. During this time, shall issue concealed carry spread nation wide, and I believe had something to do with it. Noting that the AWB started in 1994 and ended in 2004, it seems pretty clear that that law had no discernible affect on crime at all. And, of course, we have not had a gun registration program except for machine guns, and yet, the crime rate has fallen. Maybe it is time to try something other than banning yet another inanimate object, that is if crime control is what this current gun control push is all about. If its about something else, something the gun grabbers don't want to talk about...well...Molon Labe.
We're the Only Ones Losing It Enough
5 minutes ago