I have yet to see a gun-control proposal that persuasively purports to do this or even one that would have stopped any of the recent high-profile events.
…
Usually, policymakers prescribe proposals that apply to a recent policy failure, but in the case of gun control, the proposals don’t even address the margins.
Cynthia M. Allen
December 10, 2015
Please, please convince me gun control will work
[Yup. And the only answer I can come up with for this behavior is that they have some other motivation than stopping the high-profile events we are seeing.—Joe]
When the only tool you have is a sledge hammer, and all you want to do is knock things down, well, you’re happy proposing the use of the sledge hammer for any and all problems.
Example: Barry Sanders has seen the failures of socialism worldwide for the past 50 years of his adult life, yet still insists it is what he wants to do to the US. Yes, he wants to destroy the US using his only tool, socialism. It is what he does; it is who he is.
Same with gun control: the goal is not to reduce crime, it is to control the law abiding part of the populace.
In any case, the one thing Progressives want off the table is any talk of the protection of human rights for purely moral reasons. The Progressive mind sees itself as superior for having rejected the concept of morality. It gets something of a thrill when discussing the wholesale violation of rights on the premise that there may be some benefit to it down the road.
Moral constructs are to be seen as guilty until proven innocent. But no, they’re guilty anyway because they are moral concepts. Rejecting morality out of hand is the Progressive imperative (they’ll find a reason for it later), because morals are stupid and backward whereas Progressives are in all matters superior to the concept of morality.
Morality is to be seen as self-limiting, and so it is for fools and push-overs only. Thus when we hear the calls from Progressives for more “tool and resources” it invariably means a call for the rejection of morality in favor of coercion and extortion.
Of course they’ll be opposed to an armed society. Self defense and defense of liberty are purely moral concepts, and of course an armed society stands as a threat, if even only a symbolic threat, to the Progressive dream of total control and total elimination of the limits placed on them by moral standards and by reason.
This, by the way, is what a Progressive (communist, Fascist, jihadist, authoritarian, et al) thinks of as freedom; the elimination of all the limits (which they see as arbitrary, old-fashioned, stupid and unfair) imposed on them by morality and reason.
A few years ago, every little incremental restriction that the gun banners achieved was touted as “a good first step.” Now, after a few years of seeing restrictions on open and concealed carry, etc. being eased in many cases, and other proposals for additional restrictions being rejected, their frustration about getting to their ultimate end game has reached epic proportions. That’s why we’re seeing major media outlets just coming out and calling for full-on bans and confiscations – their “good first steps” didn’t work, so they dropped the facade. But hey, no one is coming for your guns.
Yup.
See my QOTD for tomorrow. It’s even more shrill than the NYT and others.
After the Oregon Shooting the antis continued their call for Universal Background Checks, despite Oregon not only having that law, but the killer complied with it.
Really I think it simply boils down to this: The antis see the world one way. They see what they want, and the blood of people killed is the currency they see to achieve this.
They don’t care about violent crime or public safety, because they have gone to great lengths to conceal the crime rates in this country at large, that are falling, or in gun control capitals like LA, Maryland, and New York, which are going up.
They’re ghouls who single-mindedly want to disarm us all….possibly not even for more sinister goals than they simply hate us for who we are and want to take from us what we protect.
I suspect many anti-gun politicians and activists DO indeed want us disarmed because they plan horrible things for us that might induce us to take up arms in resistance….but I think many just hate the idea of American gun owners, possibly with that blackface-like caricature of fat knuckle-dragging racist idiots that we see in their political cartoons, and want to take us down a few pegs.
The lefties want you/us disarmed. Any pretense will do. No lie is too big, or cover-up too small if it advances that goal. Why?
There are men, EVIL men, who covet what you have. The things you take for granted. The dirt under your feet, your house, the roadways, your national resources. They have no qualms about killing you to get them. None.
If you give up your guns they ‘might’ let you live, but they’ll own you, and you will own nothing. They’ll eventually get what they want. The plans are already well underway and most of the goals achieved. But the guns, the guns… The cost of directly confronting you to take what they want. Oh the cost… Some of the “elite” might actually die. So they import devout muslims to do what their holy books says to do… Then screech “gun violence”! Aauuugh! We have to DO something. I’ve always been suspicious when gubmint wants to step in and “fix” a problem IT created… Fast and furious anyone?
And the people go out and set a new record for gun sales.
This will not end well.