Failure to listen?

One could imagine the Los Angles Times just hasn’t been listening when they say things like this when referring to requiring a background check for all firearm transactions:

None of these measures would restrict the 2nd Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens; their intent is solely to keep guns out of the hands of dangerous individuals. Though the gun lobby raises a hue and cry whenever such proposals arise, it has yet to explain why it wants to make it easy for murderers, armed robbers and other criminals to obtain the tools of their trade. Bloomberg’s gun-show expose has the whiff of a political stunt, but if it gets politicians and the public talking about gun control again, it’s a stunt we can applaud.

The gun lobby “has yet to explain” why they oppose such restrictions? That is total B.S. The reason we don’t want all transactions to go through licensed gun dealers is because it leaves a paper trail of each and every gun. When makes confiscations like those that happened in New York City, New Jersey, and California (not to mention England, Cuba, and Nazi Germany) more likely and much easier. I have to conclude that it’s not about a failure to listen on their part. I believe it is because what we are concerned about is precisely their goal.

We need to put the challenge to them instead of allowing them to challenge us. We are the ones that are defending a specific enumerate right against their proposed infringements.

The way to do it is to demand they justify the restrictions. Do people have to register with the government before they can exercise their rights to free speech or exercise their religions? Government registration and oversight of the exercise of a right is a chilling effect on that right. In addition the proponents of such paper trails have yet to show where the proposed laws have made people safer. They cannot answer Just One Question.

4 thoughts on “Failure to listen?

  1. Joe,

    The gun lobby “has yet to explain” why they oppose such restrictions? That is total B.S. The reason we don’t want all transactions to go through licensed gun dealers is because it leaves a paper trail of each and every gun.

    Don’t forget the extra cost involved. Adding 1 to 10% extra cost for every firearm transferred means that some people won’t be able to afford them.

  2. What gun confiscations in California? The only gun confiscations I’m aware of are from people who have illegal guns.

  3. Here, ubu52, let me Google that for you.

    Coincidentally, you are right, though… The firearms confiscated were legal for civilian ownership one day, declared illegal the next, and confiscated on the third. But given your mental gymnastics in the past, maybe you can explain how that was The Right Thing To Do (TM).

  4. And don’t forget that the harder it becomes to get something legally, the more of a black market we create. Black markets not only provide said restricted product to anyone willing to break the law, they also grant a profitable enterprise to the most aggressive criminals in a society. We didn’t learn this during Prohibition, so we have to repeat the mistake in every way possible I guess.

    In short; when guns are outlawed, only outlaws have guns. But then I suppose that is the whole point with some people, isn’t it?

    So if you’re anti gun rights, which are you– one of the perpetrators, or one of the duped?

Comments are closed.