Revising the Assault Weapons Ban of the Clinton administration, or proposing anything similar, is foolish. The ban did nothing to curb violent crime committed with firearms, whether with assault weapons or more conventional firearms. Further, “assault” weapons are used in such a minority of firearms crimes as to be statistically insignificant. Then, too, the banning of “assault” weapons does not ban “weapons that belong on a foreign battlefield”; it bans their semi-automatic, less robust and capable civilianized clones. This is why the Clinton ban was allowed to die, with even John Kerry refusing to back renewal, when it came up for renewal in 2004.
Most of the uproar regarding the use of “assault” weapons comes from a very few incidents in which weapons of this type were used, but the uproar misses the point. The weapons used in these incidents were most typically not the banned assault weapons, but illegally acquired fully automatic military arms or illegally modified and/or obtained “assault” weapons. Issues of definition aside, the “assault” weapons ban was a failure. Such a ban is a visible way to indicate being tough on crime and violence without actually doing anything about crime and violence. The ban was and would be pointless and did and would have about as much effect on crime as limiting the ownership of straight-razors to licensed barbers.
I, having lived in the Chicago area myself, understand and appreciate the concerns of those worried over this year’s apparent free-fire attitude on the parts of criminals and gangbangers. But, remember, most of those shootings were not committed with “assault” weapons; in fact, few of them were committed with even semi-automatic handguns. Also, the rash this year seems to be more likely gang-related than gun-related, although the police officials want both to carry equal portions of the blame, as this helps absolve their culpability and put it on the legislature. As you may recall, in the 1970’s gang related violence did not necessarily rely upon firearms, but would occur regardless of the weapons available. This truth continues today; those prone to violent behavior are going to use whatever means are at their disposal and only sufficiently forceful opposition will stop them.
This brings me to my next point. Concealed carry laws have been demonstrably proven to reduce crime in those areas where they have been enacted. No gunfights in the street, no disputes blowing out of proportion due to the presence of a firearm, and many lives saved, crimes prevented, and criminals apprehended by the law-abiding armed citizen. Of the fear of criminal acts perpetrated by the now hundreds and thousands of licensed carriers, there have been less than 10 in several years, nationwide, and those mostly misdemeanors.
Part of the support that Barack Obama has received comes from the lack of connection to Rebecca Peters and her mentor/benefactor George Soros, both of whom were behind the Clinton era ban, and whose known relationship with her was a factor in Hillary Clinton’s loss in the primaries. George Soros, acting in concealment through Rebecca Peters and other activists and the UN, seeks to eventually relieve all citizens throughout the world of their firearms. Without firearms in the hands of private citizens, the US would not exist. Our governmental model of self-determination for the world would never have come into being. This fact is so fundamental, that the Founding Fathers made it the second member of the Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights was formed in order of importance, and that the people’s right to keep and bear arms was placed in front of property rights and rights to fair trial and due process indicates its importance to the men who started this country. What did the fascists, Nazi’s, and communists do as a first act to ensure their control and consolidation of power? They restricted the rights of private gun ownership to a privileged, known to be loyal, few. Mr. Soros, being an industrial and shipping magnate, knows that under his proposals, his right to keep arms would remain intact. Mr. Soros and his allies have a strange view on what it means to be a citizen. Per Ancient Greece and modern America, a citizen must possess two rights: a voice in government and the right to arms, the lack of either makes one a subject. Those who would disarm citizens remove the second qualification outright, and thereby greatly impede the first.
Most of the problems gun control seeks to prevent can be better addressed through other means. Crime, and violent crime in particular, goes up as the economy goes down bringing desperation and despair out of those worst hit. Many of your other plans to improve our US economy and standing in the world are workable, and these plans will have the side effect of reducing the tension among those likely to commit crime as a result of lack of other resources. The Clinton ban has expired, and yet violent, gun-related crime has continued to decrease nationwide, excepting the areas always troubled with the problems of poverty and unemployment. Doing something about the poverty and unemployment levels in these continually repressed areas will see far more progress towards civil peace than another restriction on American citizens.
No comments:
Post a Comment