Quote of the day—Robert K. Corbin

The gun debate isn’t just about waiting periods, semi-automatic bans, licensing, registration, handgun bans or the Second Amendment; it’s about liberty, and the fundamental beliefs that make democracy possible.

Robert K. Corbin
From My Cold Dead Fingers–Why America Needs Guns, Third Edition (“Final Chapter”), page 116.

2 thoughts on “Quote of the day—Robert K. Corbin

  1. Anybody who even thinks that waiting periods, background checks, or various weapons bans are even relevant to the gun-control argument hasn’t really thought about it.

    Federal (and my State) AWB bans semi-auto rifles with a detachable magazine with two “evil” features. Of course California updated it to one. Why should any be allowed at all? Why are fixed magazines so safe?

    Waiting periods. I don’t even know what various states ask for. A week? Why not two weeks? Why not a Month? a Year? All make as much sense as the simple 10-min NICS check I do at the shop.

    I could go on. But let’s face it the “Common Sense Gun Laws” the antis propose today, are viewed as overly permissive, and are simply stepping stones for more draconian (and just as illogical)laws to be proposed tomorrow.

  2. Well, I can answer the question about waiting periods. This is the most easily demonstrated example of a blank slate argument. The blank slate in this case is the mind of the target audience who must be terrorized about “gundeaths”. A waiting period only makes sense arguing from a position of ignorance since it requires visualizing a fictional situation where two people have an argument; one of them, in a fit of rage, goes to the nearest convenience store and and picks an item off the handgun rack near the counter (next to the gum rack I’m sure), throws a few crumpled dollar bills on the counter, tells the cashier to keep the change, then goes back and shoots the other person to death. (Presumably the other party to the argument has been standing in one place all this time, impatiently eyeballing his watch and waiting to be shot to death.)

    However, a more accurate portrayal is that gun stores aren’t so conveniently placed, on account of the fact that guns are precision machines made of high-priced alloys and are therefore an expensive specialty item. So our would-be perpetrator of a crime of passion first has to visit his bank during normal business hours, or go home and grab his checkbook, drive to the nearest gun shop, wait in line to pick something out of the case, pick out a box of ammunition (also pricey), present identification, fill out federal and state transfer forms, make a payment, /then/ drive back to the scene of the argument where the other party to the argument has been standing in one place all this time, impatiently eyeballing his watch and waiting to be shot to death.

    The third (and only) option is reality, where an agitated purchaser is likely to be turned down. A crime of passion is an immediate decision, where the perpetrator uses whatever is available. If there’s a gun present, it was already in the possession of the assailant. That’s a problem for the disarmers who promote the brain-dead “easy access to guns” slogan, because all of this displays the uselessness of background checks, waiting periods and forced rationing. Mandating criminal background checks, waiting periods and rationing has no effect on crime, but it sure keeps central, state and local “public safety” employees busy on the taxpayer’s dime.

    So where are the studies based on the reams of transfer data collected, which accurately predict–let’s say with 95% confidence–all the future criminals? What’s that you say–there aren’t any? We’re just chasing hobgoblins, and pretending that the violation of minor process crimes are the equivalent of crimes against others’ property or lives? Gee, you think that has something to do with the fact that all these restrictions have no effect on crime or public safety? Oh and no one has every successfully defended a life with a weapon a criminal has used. No–no, you don’t understand, that sort of thing /MUST NOT/ exist.

Comments are closed.