It Looks Like the Stupid Party Is About To Act Stupidly

On Wednesday, Mark Overstreet had a very long article telling Republicans not to cave to the Democrat demands for universal background checks and red flag laws.  The reasons include that it would be another stupid move by the stupid party, and would virtually ensure a Democrat victory in the Senate and White House.

More importantly though, these laws are terribly Unconstitutional.  Further, they wouldn't do anything to stop crime, because criminals, by definition, do not obey laws.  So, what in the heck or Democrats, who are not giving up their guns, trying to do.  Mark Overstreet has the answers in  Why Republicans Shouldn't Cave To Democrats On Guns:

‘Universal’ Checks Are Really About Gun Confiscation

...snip...

However, almost all mass murders with guns are committed by people who pass background checks to get guns. As Professor James Alan Fox, the nation’s leading criminologist in the study of murder, has explained, “Most mass murderers do not have criminal records or a history of psychiatric hospitalization. They would not be disqualified from purchasing their weapons legally.”

Furthermore, “universal” checks would not be universal, because most other criminals—who commit the vast majority of murders with guns—get guns by methods to which a background check requirement is irrelevant. The federal Bureau of Justice Statistics has repeatedly found in surveys of state prison inmates imprisoned for gun crimes that most—90 percent, in the most recent survey—got guns by stealing them, by buying stolen or illegally trafficked guns on the black market, or from acquaintances such as “straw purchasers”—people who can pass a background check, who illegally buy guns for people who cannot pass checks, and who would still be able to do so if a “universal” checks requirement were imposed.

So, if all this is true, and I have written about for as long as I can remember, what is it the Democrats are really after? Again, after a long rehashing of the history of American gun control, he finally gets to the real goal:

Democrats are going after guns for two reasons. First, since the advent of the big-government Democrat Party under President Franklin D. Roosevelt, they have increasingly opposed people having arms with which they might most easily defend themselves against government overreach.

After imposing the NFA and GCA, primarily to restrict guns particularly useful for defensive purposes, Democrats in the late 1970s and 1980s supported campaigns to get handguns banned. In 1986, when most members of the House of Representatives were not present, Democrats snuck into the otherwise favorable Firearms Owners’ Protection Act an amendment banning newly manufactured fully-automatic firearms. In 1989, they began campaigning to ban various semi-automatic firearms. Democrats also signed amicus briefs supporting the District of Columbia’s handgun ban in Heller.

Second, midway through the Obama administration, “progressives” decided to use “guns” as a core issue around which to rally their voter base.

The next point that Overstreet makes is that the Second Amendment does not protect sporting weapons, except as those may be useful for war, but it does protect the individual possession and carrying and use of weapons of war.This is something I have argued in these pages, as well as David Codrea and others. The Second Amendment is designed to produce a population armed with the latest small arms carried by the most recent soldiers into battle. That would probably be something like the M4 carbine and the M9 Pistol.

***Rant***As an aside, here is one way to ensure it happens: At age 18, an   able bodied person is drafted into the Army, Navy, Marine Corps or Air Force for two years. They are trained, and, at the end of their two years, take home with them their M4 and M9. Every 6 months for the next twenty years, they muster out with their weapon to receive additional training, including marksmanship. If someone is a conscientious objector, or otherwise doesn't want to be drafted, they also can never vote. There would of course be provisions that our current standing forces would necessarily be reduced.  There would also be provisions for those disabled, or not able to be trained.  But many of the disabled can none the less perform as communications, clerks, or other functions in the armed forces, and who says that a person can not defend themselves, so many of them would have to go through weapons training.***/Rant***

Please go read the whole article.  Federalist articles are longer than is typical at other sites, but they are also more informative.  Oh, and please write or call your Congressman and Senators and tell them you do not want them voting for further gun control.  If anything, they should be putting in legislation to repeal what is already illegally in the law.