Many gun grabbers challenge us by asking why we don’t want more gun control laws. After all, why wouldn’t we want to make the nation safer?
Many of them just don’t understand the unintended (or intended) consequences.
Background checks. Fingerprint technology. Onerous licensing requirements. These things all require money – whether it’s funding for a bigger bureaucracy, databases, research, resources for investigators. It is resources the government has to spend on new databases for background checks. It is resources it has to spend on funding new research and technologies. It is resources gun shops (many of which are small businesses) have to expend on paperwork, legal bills, etc.
These are cost increases they invariably pass on to their customers.
Guns are already fairly expensive – several hundred dollars for a basic pistol. It’s a fairly sizeable investment – especially for people who are struggling in this economy. If faced with the choice of armed self defense, or food on the table, I’m betting most would choose food.
Making guns even more expensive through regulation makes them cost prohibitive for many poor folks, who may live in neighborhoods that don’t have the gates and the armed guards that people like Bloomberg and Shannon Watts can afford.
By making self defense tools cost prohibitive to poor people, we are depriving them of their ability to defend themselves with the most effective tools on the market today.
Meanwhile, the background checks, the technology, the bureaucracy, and research do nothing to deter criminals from getting their hands on guns. Most get guns illegally, or from a family member or friend, according to the Bureau of Justice Statistics.
In 2004, among state prison inmates who possessed a gun
at the time of offense, fewer than 2% bought their firearm
at a flea market or gun show, about 10% purchased it from
a retail store or pawnshop, 37% obtained it from family or
friends, and another 40% obtained it from an illegal source
So while gun controllers make tools of defense more inaccessible to people who truly need them, criminals continue to purchase them with impunity, and there’s not a single law that will prevent a criminal from violating it.
As a good buddy of mine, who just happens to be a sheriff and 30-year law enforcement veteran says, “Laws are for the law-abiding.”
Indeed. As usual you make an excellent point.
However, I no longer consider the term “law-abiding” to be the compliment it once may have been, and is often still intended as. “Law” has already gone so far past the Rubicon, that abiding by it is hardly any indicator of decency, integrity, or moral authority–in fact sometimes it is precisely the reverse. (And frankly, I think that everything you say in this article fully supports that idea.)
I think the point your friend is trying to make is a valid one, but would be better stated as: law is completely unnecessary for the decent, and fails to restrain the indecent. And actually, I think it could be summed up best by saying that law is not for the little people at all–it is purely and only for the State.
So it is with this victim disarmament thing. It seems pretty clear that the primary motivation behind “gun control” is “ZOMG! Plebes with gunz!” which rather neatly explains why every disarmament scheme is a move not toward any improvement in personal safety or security, but rather toward diminishing the capacity of the little people to resist authority.
Which brings up an observation that I probably heard first from one of the Partisans: the only reason someone would insist on removing peaceable people’s means of resistance, is if they intend something that peaceable people would naturally resist.
Heres the thing.
When grabbers attempt to make the case that “gun control” makes us safer, what they are trying to do is place you on the defensive, by portraying you as an opponent of what they deem the soloution to what they call “gun violence”.
First off, we should all know that “gun violence” is an absoloute misnomer, it denotes that guns are the only means of acting out violently. They are most certainly not, violence does not exsist in a magical vacuum where only the presence of a firearm can ignite it. Only people who have never been exposed to actual violence would attempt to argue any different, a determined agrssor will use anything available, and this includes the box cutters that were used to perpetrate the most deadly act of violent mass murder this nation has ever seen- 9-11; where not a single firearm was involved.
Secondly, but primarily, the next time a grabber insists that their pet agenda will solve “gun violence”, ask them:
” Wasn’t that supposed to happen with the passage of the NFA34, or maybe the GCA68? Or maybe the Brady bill, or maybe the “gun free zones” act? ”
When, exactly, is this supposed to work the way YOU PEOPLE say it should?
This nation has had “gun control” on a federal level since 1934,
and each and every time a major act has passed, it was done so with grand promises of how it would end violence.
But we still “need more”?
And lastly, I would like to remind those that still throw around the moniker “law abiding”, that Jews in nazi germany abided each new law the evil national socialists aimed at them to deprive them of their rights, including when they amended the wiemar gun laws to specifically target them and had registration lists from those laws that tols them which Jews had guns.
They were “law abiding” all the way up to abiding the authorites as they marched them into gas chambers.
I will not abide any law that is odious to the natural law, and will happily be condemned by my “betters” in society as a “criminal” for doing so.
What we need, are less spineless cowards chortling about their little hall pass permission slip CCW lcences, crowing about how their rights are so great to excersize while accepting they can be “taken” by government for any little infraction, so thusly they remain “law abiding”.
What a crock of BS………
This natio was founded on the day our forbears decided to BREAK tyrannical laws, and it will not be saved until those of us who still want to have our rights respectd start doing the same.
It might not be “time to shoot the bastards” just yet, but it is most certainly time to break a few of their BS “laws”.
they don’t just attack the second amendment, they also attack the first, “You can’t say that, it’s hate speech”, and the fourth, “If you have nothing to hide”. these people are afraid of freedom.