Typically, as with any debate over gun rights, rational viewpoints are hard to find. Sen. Loretta Weinberg, D-Bergen, said the new standards could lead to “every cabdriver, every pizza delivery driver, and anyone else living or working in a high-crime neighborhood to qualify for a firearms permit.”
That sounds a little extreme, but is that any more hysterical than the gun-rights activists sounding alarms about government conspiracies and widespread gun confiscation every time government wants to ban an assault rifle or expand background checks?
In general terms, however, Weinberg’s warning should be heeded. The gun-rights crowd is trying to exploit the death of Carol Bowne, a Berlin Township woman allegedly stabbed to death by an ex-boyfriend while she was awaiting a permit to carry a gun for protection. Would Bowne’s life have been saved by an easier permitting process? We’ll never know. But as tragic as her death was, we can’t allow politicians to use the anger and grief over that death to advance an unnecessary and dangerous relaxation in the state’s gun controls.
Asbury Park Press
May 13, 2016
EDITORIAL: Don’t loosen grip on gun control
[This is almost material that could have come from The Onion.
The thought of people living or working in a high-crime area being allowed to defend themselves is considered “extreme” and “hysterical”? Wow!
They say, “We can’t allow politicians to use the anger and grief over that death…” Interesting. We should remember that the next time some activist wants to use anger and grief over the tragic death of someone murdered by a criminal with a gun. But of course that’s not how it works with these people. They have zero problem with their own hypocrisy.
Of course it may not be hypocrisy. It could be the sky is a different color in their universe.—Joe]
The article apparently didn’t finish his sentence for him:
“…every cabdriver, every pizza delivery driver, and anyone else living or working in a high-crime neighborhood to qualify for a firearms permit…” “…which would then render it a lower-crime neighborhood.”
I made up a phrase several decades ago that went, “Never attribute to conspiracy what can be accounted for by stupidity.” This is somewhat akin to your “crap for brains” as well. The problem with discerning whether it’s conspiracy or stupidity is that the end results are durned near identical. I’m starting to lean much more towards the “…neither blind nor innocent” route myself.
Their utopia does not allow for self defense.
There are only good little meek citizens, and criminals. That’s it.
The cynical view is that they are in league with criminals — protecting them from having to face the consequences of their lifestyle choices.
I’ve seen that claim made of Sullivan (of NY Sullivan Law infamy) — that he represented a high crime district of NYC and his bosses resented the risk that armed citizens posed to their predatory lifestyle. Not sure if that is true, but it certainly seems plausible.
” Big Tim” Sullivan was indeed a gangster, and the overall idea of his support of it was it would disarm rival gangs, while his posse was legally strapped because they were “politically connected”.
And even today, only the politically connected (or those wealthy enough to buy said connection through bribes we’ve been reading about) get the permit.
The quote has another example of cognitive dissonance, rank ignorance, or outright deception.
“government conspiracies and widespread gun confiscation every time government wants to ban an assault rifle”
Yes, how dare gun owners think that the government wanting to make purchasing/owning X illegal would be lead to confiscations of X.
But that’s how they think. Note the misuse of terms. It’s “assault rifle” not “Guns we think look scary” and it’s “an” not “the most popular rifle in the country.
And there’s “widespread confiscation” as in confiscation on a small scale would, what, be okay?
And also “government conspiracy” as opposed to the open endorsement of confiscation regimes by gun control advocates both in and out of government.
And then there’s “A ban is totally different than confiscation”. Nevermind that the *point* of a ban is exactly the same as confiscation. Namely to get X out of the hands of the public. One just works faster than the other.
Very nice The_Jack. I was having similar thoughts. We have examples of governments never allowing citizen ownership or banning and then confiscating firearms and then bad things happen (e.g. Nazi Germany, USSR, communist China).
We are entirely correct to fear any attempts, no matter how mild, to reduce us to unarmed serfs. It is a zero sum game where every gun control law diminishes our natural right to self defense.
The converse is not empirically true. Removing gun control laws (e.g. Constitutional Carry, open carry) does not lead to blood in the streets so the premise for gun control laws is cut off at the knees.
“We are entirely correct to fear any attempts, no matter how mild, to reduce us to unarmed serfs.”
I agree, except for the use of the “F-word”. We’re not correct to fear at all, for as has been said; “fear is the mind-killer…” And so we might rephrase;
“We are entirely correct to oppose any attempts, no matter how mild, to reduce us to unarmed serfs.”
Once you’ve begun to embrace this concept, you’ll soon notice the now wide-spread (epidemic?) and altogether inappropriate use of the “F-word”. I say “epidemic” for fear is a disease as deadly as any other, and we need strong immune systems against it.
I would hope that we’re not afraid and becoming more afraid every time we see the news of the day. A nation of the fearful is worthless.
“Semantics” you might say, and I get that, but words are important. We might think to replace “fear” with “concern”, or with “oppose” as I’ve done above. “Oppose” is a good one because it recommends action. “Concern” is good because it suggests thought of the ramifications. “Fear” sucks because it implies wilting in retreat, or paralysis.
I prefer use of the other “F-word” when confronting those who would restrict my rights. As in “F-word you.”
Agreed. I could have used one of your better words.
Concerning grandfathered bans vs confiscation, we can point out what is currently happening in California. Over 15 years ago, California banned the sale/transfer/import/repair of magazines that hold over 10 rounds. Now there are two separate efforts to repeal the grandfather clause on possession. Not that grandfather bans are acceptable, but we can keep an eye on the heavy gun control states (which are further along than at the federal level) to call the antis out on their bullshit. Another example was three years ago when the national gun control folks were trying to reinstate their “two feature” assault weapon ban. Meanwhile, in the gun control paradise of California, they passed a law to change their “one feature” ban to be a “zero feature” ban (vetoed by brown). So while one group is arguing about how deadly pistol grips and flash suppressors are, the other finally agreed with what we’ve been telling them for years- that those features don’t matter.
The moral is that antis will always ban what they can.
But as tragic as that person’s death was, we can’t allow politicians to use the anger and grief over that death to advance an unnecessary and dangerous infringement of the citizen’s right to keep and bear arms.
There, I fixed it for you.