Thursday, January 31, 2013

On the Dishonesty of Gun Control

Katie Pavlich notes that the ATF Screwed Up Royally again. The nation's keystone kops have made a mess out of a drug sting operation that went down in Wisconsin, going to the extent of indicting a man who was already in prison, and letting a fully automatic assault rifle get out on the street and into criminal hands. Yet these are the people that Senator wants to put in charge of enforcing a gun ban that won't do a thing to stop crime like that at Newtown, Connecticut, according to Bob Barr, former Georgia Congressman and Libertarian Party Presidential Candidate.

Indeed, the emphasis on hardware has always fascinated me.  The idea that removing certain objects from peaceably armed citizens' hands will somehow keep violent criminals from plying their trade is monstrous.  Criminals, by definition, don't obey the law, and since they are preparing to commit morally reprehensible acts, disobeying a malum prohibidum law is hardly a consideration.  The criminal, if he thinks of getting caught at all, would say "add it to my tab."

I recently read about sword hunts that took place in feudal Japan. Of course, the "nobles" (actually savage war lords and their soldiers, called samurai) made no bones about the reasons. They didn't try to persuade the people that is was for their own safety. They did it to get rid of any competition, as any good tyrant would do. Since the samurai had the swords, and peasants did not, the samurai went around meting out justice like feudal Judge Dredds.  They didn't merely enforce the law, they WERE the law.  Incidentally, a hat tip to the American Thinker for pointing out that Wikipedia site. What are the chances that Senator Frankenstein..e.r...Feinstein has the same thing in mind. The good Senator famously carries a concealed weapon for herself. So, she clearly recognizes the value of guns for herself. Her bill allows for both military and law enforcement to have not just the semiautomatics she is banning, but fully automatic weapons as well. These fully automatic weapons are the "weapons of war" so famously spoken about, which are only designed to kill large numbers of people. Who are law enforcement officers supposed to be killing in large numbers?

The dishonesty of the "debate" on guns has also fascinated me. Katie Pavlich again: NYC Candidate: It's OK to Bully Gun Manufacturers with Government Power. Megan Kelly, who was interviewing Mr. De Blasio posed a question for the candidate: If a pro-life mayor came to power in New York, would it be alright to bully landlords into not renting to women who had had an abortion? The candidate would not concede the point. Kelly pointed out that 55 million unborn citizens had been aborted, so that the reasoning was the same. But Mr. De Blasio would not concede the point, or even consider it. This is the dishonesty of which I am speaking. The facts don't matter to these people. They are not negotiating in good faith.

Starting in 1934, with the National Firearms Act, which was supposed to make us safer, but didn't seem to have any affect on the criminals at the time, the gun grabbers have offered us compromises, which are not really compromises at all.  Each time the gun rights movement gives up some of its rights for...well...nothing.  Because each time the gun laws became tighter, crime increased. Crime only began to decrease when states began issuing "shall issue" permits. Suddenly, criminals did not know who might be armed at any time. And guess what? Criminals fear an armed citizen more than the police! Indeed, I bet some criminal types look upon the police as mere Keystone Kops.

Meanwhile, if you want to reduce school shootings, and who doesn't, let teachers and administrators who want to go armed do so.  Yes, they will need special training above and beyond what an armed citizen needs, and to be included in drills with law enforcement.  I understand some don't want to, but I bet at least one can be found for every school in the nation, and probably more than that.  Let us finally get rid of the idea that "guns don't belong in our schools."  The truth is guns in the hands of those who aim to protect belong anywhere an armed criminal is likely to show up to do harm.  Unfortunately, as we have seen, that is just about anywhere.    

Tuesday, January 29, 2013

Gun Control Won't Stop Gang Violence

Michael Geer had a piece up yesterday at the American Thinker that touches on a topic I have not heard so far discussed in the current debate on gun control, namely Gang violence and Gun Control. Mr. Geer points to Justice Department statistics that show a significant amount of gang activity throughout society, because there is a significant amount of money to be made from violating the law. Michael Geer also points out the fact that if drugs can be smuggled into this country, then what prevents semiautomatic weapons from also being smuggled into the country? Indeed, if the average man or woman can not obtain semiautomatics, what prevents gangs from smuggling in far more capable select fire weapons and setting up an untraceable black market? Indeed, gang members, like other criminals, don't obey laws, but many are very smart about pouncing on a demand for illegal merchandise, and will exploit it with a vengeance. Let's look at how the debate is being framed, though:
Reports about you and me and our AR-15s and AKs? All over the front page. Gangs with rocket launchers and grenades in the gun control newspeak? Bupkus. You and I and our Glocks? Terrified reporters breathless with passion for gun control. Gangs with Glocks? Nada. You and I, presuming you may be religious, a veteran of armed service or a defender of the Second Amendment are now listed with Homeland Security as a threat to National Security, a potential terrorist. Lumped in there with the likes of Hamas, Shining Path, MS-13 and the Hells Angels. But right now we're not hearing anything about trying to take guns away from the Mongols. No. You're not hearing some rip and read talking head demanding MS-13 be disarmed. You and me, yes. Insanely violent drug gangs? Shhh. No gun control for them, they might do something.
Put like that, it becomes pretty clear that the stated purposes of this law will have no effect on the proposed perpetrators, because, as has been pointed out ad nauseum, criminals do not obey laws. So, the law would disarm the peaceably armed citizen, who is not committing crimes, while leaving the criminals who are committing crimes armed. One has to wonder if our supposed rulers are dumber than a bag of rocks.  Hmmmm.

But back to the money for a moment, because that is the new piece of information in this article.
Gangs are a huge problem Congress ignores. And I have to ask the question: if I follow the money, will I discover why? Because no decent law abiding self-respecting power center would allow gangs like these to exist in their body except that there were a reason to tolerate their presence. If we follow the money will we uncover why violent gangs are allowed to coexist side by side with decent law abiding citizens?
The implication, of course, is that one, or both of our political parties has a monetary interest in keeping criminal gangs operating. Its an intriguing idea, but one that will be incredibly difficult to prove.

Update: The Blank Slate makes an important point.

Friday, January 25, 2013

The Real Motives Behind Current Gun Control Efforts

President Obama is doing what his former Chief of Staff, Rahm Emanuel suggested: "Never let a crisis go to waste." While no one who matters has been indicted or convicted for, as this author notes, "gifting" drug cartels in Mexico with guns, Obama wants to disarm you and me. More about that later. First let me have you read Too Fast, Too Furious at the American Thinker yesterday by John Griffing. The highlights include this:
It is also known that criminals do not walk into gun stores or attend gun expositions and submit to background checks, obtain licenses, and expose themselves to criminal investigations. Criminals are criminals because they have an innate disdain for the law. Why would they voluntarily submit to background checks?
Indeed, and you better believe that Sen. knows it too. Interestingly, the Supreme Court has noted that a felon doesn't have to register his weapon, because to do so would lead to his own self incrimination.  So, why does Ms. Feinstein's law call for registration when the only people who must obey are people who are already law abiding?
The question then becomes, why would Obama want to make it harder for citizens to defend themselves? Perhaps Obama is afraid that his actions might prompt a violent response from the citizenry, or he may want to identify people who are likely to oppose his radical policy moves, assuming a correlation with gun ownership. Or Obama may simply want a greater degree of control over individuals -- irrespective of the reason. Whatever his stated rationale, we know his motives are neither noble nor well-intentioned.
The key words here are "neither noble or well-intentioned." The fact is that the young man who entered a school at Sandy Hook with a stolen gun and shot a number of defenseless students and teachers had already committed several illegal acts in the process of committing murder, none of which even gave him pause. The fact is that millions of peaceable armed citizens did not do the same thing. How does the banning of 120 different weapons somehow stop another crazy young man from doing the same thing somewhere else? The fact is it doesn't.  One more law will make no difference, so why enact it?

An author writing in a publication like American Thinker is not allowed to speculate on what politicians may be thinking, but as the editor and writer of this blog, I am.  So, I will.  The milestone to be achieved here is to carve off a group of gun owners, demonize them, and then ban their style of weapons.  Next, they will of course be coming for your deer rifles and your M1911s, but that is later, after another crisis.  Eventually, they want to ban all firearms, reducing the Second Amendment to irrelevancy, so that they have free rein to dictate how and where you live, what you eat, how much you can make...or, to put it another way, your life.   They find honoring your rights to be too pesky, and want to be free to trample your rights, and your freedoms.  The goal is Tyranny.  That is why I believe they are doing this.  It must be opposed, whether or not you personally see a "need" for these military style semiautomatic weapons or not.  We can not allow the gun grabbers one more inch.    

Wednesday, January 23, 2013

On Why I Have Not Been Posting

Regular readers may have noticed a lack of posting of late.  That has been very deliberate.  In my regular life, I have spoken to a number of people, attended a few gun shows, where I talked to the public, and of course, constantly bounced ideas off Mrs. PolyKahr.  I have come to the conclusion that I was preaching to the choir, and that the choir doesn't need preaching to.  I can find better things to do than constantly harangue the choir that our liberties are disappearing faster than the last prescription pill disappears down the drain on a Saturday night.  I haven't given up the fight, I just feel that I can be more productive in other ways.

I have also concluded that we have reached the tipping point electorally.  The fact is that a majority of people who vote now want to get "free" stuff (at the expense of those who have worked to be able to have it.)  This conclusion disheartens me, but I feel it must be faced.  There are not enough of us left who believe in the idea of personal responsibility and working for a living.  Too many just want to be taken care of, and liberty be damned.  Too many are willing, even eager to be subjects rather than citizens.  To them, I repeat Benjamin Franklin's admonition:  Those that are willing to trade essential liberty for a little security deserve neither liberty nor security.  And as this President continues to shred the Constitution, they will find that they indeed have neither liberty nor security.

I will continue to post occasionally here, as time permits, and if I have something to say that is not being said by others with more facility with words than I have.  For the most part, though, I think I have said it all several times.

I can confirm Mike Vanderboegh's observations at Sipsey Street Irregulars that panic seems to have set in in the gun owning community. The first item is the attendance at the last gun show here in Raleigh, where lines are reported to have been wrapped around the building 3 times to get in. Vendors apparently did a land office business, particularly in ammunition. The second item is a conversation I had with a young lady at the Barnes and Noble book store. It turns out that she and her husband run a business selling reloading components and presses online. They have had a run on ammunition components, and can't keep anything in stock. The third item is an auction Mrs. PolyKahr and I attended yesterday where they had up for auction an AR pattern rifle, a shotgun, and two handguns. After looking at the condition of each of these items, I determined in my head where I would stop bidding. In a sane world, these items were realistically used, but not abused. They were serviceable, but hardly collectors' items. All three items were bid up to prices that exceeded cost to buy them new. The Mrs and I never even had a chance to bid.  I kept shaking my head in wonderment at people who are just now getting the message.  You should have been prepared all along, but welcome to the party.

Update:  The Antigun Movenent's Bridge Too Far by William A. Levinson at the American Thinker today offers a little hope. Go read it, then act. Make these people's words the equivalent of "Remember the Alamo."