Why is the Left willing to settle on just closing the “gun show loophole” by demanding universal background checks? It seems silly, until you recognize what the long game is. Remember, this has happened before in many different nations. The idea is first demonize weapons by saying THEY are the cause of violence. Then training the upcoming generations not to want to own firearms. This is being done as we speak. But the problem facing the people who want to disarm us (and then intensify the abuse of us by controlling our lives and stealing our wealth to feed their government) is there are hundreds and hundreds of millions of weapons in the U.S. MOST OF THEM not registered- thus “location unknown.”
So how to solve this problem? Well, it is not simple but it is possible by forcing people to start registering guns when they buy them, have states demand registrations and licensing at the state level, insist on reporting all sales and transfers and loss/thefts and then at some point you’ll get a pretty good idea who has what- of those who comply.
Then the government can refuse to allow the guns to be transferred to surviving members of a family or sold as an asset and demand they be turned in, under penalty of law. The government will also eliminate, under penalty of law, your right to give or sell your asset to another. Not only will they demand the ability to record it, they will also demand the ability to monitor it, approve it and license it. Unconstitutional?? Sure as shit, but this is about guns don’t you know.
Then they will demand different “independent” sources to record your activities. (think Walmart)
You will be asked in your physicals, as will your children, whether or not you have a gun. You say yes, but don’t have a record of a license, expect a visit from your feds or state people.
Your kids will be asked in school if “daddy as a weapons” as a “safety measure” and if they say yes- expect a visit from the feds or state police.
In addition, if you buy ammunition, they will want to record the transaction and compare it against your “registered guns.” And when they find out you don’t have a gun that uses that ammunition, expect a visit- and a warrant- from the feds or your state police.
Your insurance will ask, your employer may ask. And it goes on.
Soon you’ll be hiding your 2nd amendment rights in the attic. Your friends will be able to rat you out, former spouses, children, etc. You will become the bad guy. And many of you, much like the character, Winston Smith, in Orwell’s 1984 , will submit.
In one generation, you will have been able to successfully remove at least half the weapons in America- or drove them underground. A great step forward for the anti-gun, big government people who want to be able to control you without your ability to resist.
Will it work?
At some level yes, sadly.
“The people of this state are crying out for help on gun violence. We don’t need another tragedy,” Gov. Andrew Cuomo said Monday night. “I think this is one of the greatest problems facing our state. If this proposal is enacted it is one of the most comprehensive approaches to the problem.”
Sources told CBS 2′s Marcia Kramer the deal worked out by the Legislature is wide ranging, but it starts with assault weapons.
“To basically eradicate assault weapons from our streets in New York as quickly as possible is something the people of this state want and it’s an important thing to do. It is an emergency,” Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver told CBS 2’s Kramer.
“We are going to ban assault weapons. We are going to eliminate all of the loopholes that existed previously,” Silver added.
The new state legislation will:
* Limit ammunition clips to seven. It’s now 10
* Force gun owners to renew their licenses every five years
* Stiffen penalties for using a gun in the commission of a crime
* Stiffen penalties for bringing a gun on school property
* New restrictions on the assault weapons already owned by New Yorkers
“They will be basically not permitted to be transferred. They will be grandfathered in but not in terms of a transfer. There will be a registry,” Silver said.
“It’s not about people who use a shotgun to hunt. It’s about high-capacity magazines, and that’s what the bill addresses,” Gov. Cuomo said.
Of course Cuomo starts his argument at a false point. As the people on the Left always do. False point 1- people are clamoring for something to be done. That’s not true. The “people” he is talking about are his people, not the people of America. False point 2. - This is about hunting rights. It is not a hunting Amendment. It is about having the same type of weapons the government has access to so at some point people can defend themselves against foreign threats, domestic threats and crime.
Cuomo is a “Cardinal” just like Feinstein. We allow him and his ilk to have power in government. Why? I have no earthly idea, but we do, or at least the people of New York do. As I have said before that is their right. If they want to be led to slaughter, it is my job to warn them not stop them. I’ve warned them, but frankly I have very little faith in the people in the Northeast, they have been dumbed down by liberal agendas for generations. It is now like watching a football game filled with special ed. kids when I see them maneuver within their own lives. Hurricane Sandy exposed just how dependent on government, weak in spirit and initiative, and ignorant the good people up there are.
Over in Chicago, a city rife with gun violence, the liberals are once again choosing to ignore the problem and attacking the tool instead.
Two teenage boys were murdered over the weekend, and guns were the weapons used by the killers. One victim, 14-year-old Rey Dorantes, was reportedly shot while sitting on the front porch of his home. Fifteen-year-old Victor Vega was reportedly walking with another male when they were approached by an armed man who opened fire, killing Vega. In separate incidents, four other people were wounded via gunfire, and all but one of them were under the age of 17. There have been 21 homicides in Mayor Rahm Emanuel’s Chicago since the start of 2013. At least 15 of the victims were shot to death, and more than half were under the age of 30. It’s not known yet whether either boy’s murder was gang related, but Chicago police believe that the majority of murders committed within the city are the result of gang wars and gang violence.
According to a story published in March 2012, Chicago’s gang-related statistics are alarming:
Chicago is home to the largest gang population in the country, Fox Chicago reported in January. The Chicago Crime Commission reports 73 active gangs with 68,000 to 150,000 gang members in the city.
Territory issues are bound to happen with such large numbers of gangs chasing after the same profit. Uptown’s Wilson and Broadway cross section exemplifies this competition
“You look at the [Latin] Kings that tried to move into the area here,” said Pat Gordon, supervisor of the Uptown neighborhood branch of ONE/CeaseFire. “It didn’t come to fruition because there were too many gangs already in the area.”
Gordon said that the intersection is a war zone between the Black P. Stones on the West and the Vice Lords on the East – two gangs that take the profitability of that corner very seriously.
The unusual alliance between the Stones and another Chicago super gang would incite tension with the Kings, who are a cousin gang of the Stones under the Peoples Nation, according to Gordon.
ONE/CeaseFire intervened before conflict escalated. The Kings returned to their turf on Lawrence and Ashland.
“Just like a business, if you can’t bring in a profit to make ends meet at the end of the day, then it’s going to fall through,” he continued.
The primary business that the gangs engage in is illegal drug trafficking. Most illegal drugs are shipped into the U.S. from outside the country, with numerous paths crossing the border from Mexico. Mexico has seen far more than its share of gang-related violence over the past few years, with an estimated 60,000 killed in the drug cartel wars there in the past few years. That number is almost surely too low, because it does not take into account many killings that have taken place on the north side of the U.S.-Mexico border. There is strong evidence that at least some law enforcement on the U.S. side downplay cartel violence in their jurisdictions in order to make their crime statistics look better, so they can get re-elected, and keep federal crime grant money flowing their way.
The truth, and I don’t like it, is revealed over at American Thinker.
In addition to getting these simple facts wrong, the statistics he chose to concentrate on were themselves misleading. First, why the obsession with “gun murders”; why not all murders? (Do we care how many arson fires are started with Bic lighters as opposed to matches?)
Secondly, Morgan used absolute numbers, yet the population of the U.S. is about 5.6 times greater than England and Wales.
The more proper comparison is the total murder rate. The murder rate in the U.S. in 2011 was 4.7 per 100,000 inhabitants. (Source, FBI, Crime in the United States Table 1.) The rate in England and Wales was 1.15 per 100,000. (Source: Home Office, Table 1.01.)
So, yes, the murder rate is higher in the U.S. than in the UK. But the ratio is 4:1, not the 314:1 that Piers Morgan suggested on national TV. That Morgan chose to emphasize the latter ratio demonstrates that his method is sensationalism, not fact and reason.
As Reality Check pointed out, the rate of violent crime is higher in the UK than in the U.S. The U.S. rate in 2011 was 386.3 violent crimes per 100,000 inhabitants. Conversely, “there are over 2,000 crimes recorded per 100,000 population in the UK, making it the most violent place in Europe.” Source: the Telegraph, 2009, under the headline “UK is violent crime capital of Europe.”
So the U.S. has 4 times more murders than the UK, but the UK has 5 times more violent crime than the U.S. But I’ll play along and concentrate on murders only.
Unlike Piers Morgan, I am unwilling to simplify the cause-effect relationship of the difference in UK and US murder rates to guns. I think it is a rather complicated subject. But we do know that the UK banned handguns starting in 1998. How did that work out? As the BBC put it in 2001: “Handgun crime ‘up’ despite ban.” Or as Joyce Lee Malcolm put it in the Wall Street Journal more recently:
“After a school massacre, the U.K. banned handguns in 1998. A decade later, handgun crime had doubled.”
Why? Further into the article the hard truth is revealed, a truth nations who have reduced the homogeneous population by allowing unrestricted immigration have learned the the hard way (especially Britain).
I’m sure there’s more. As I said, I think it’s complicated. For people who pride themselves for their sense of nuance and their use of science and reason, a whole lot of liberals sure seem to want a simple answer based on a knee-jerk response against guns.
Here are more statistics that Piers Morgan might want to look into: more than half the murders in the U.S. are committed by blacks, who make up just 13% of the population. And the majority of those are committed by black males aged 17-29.
The jives with my two percent of the thirteen percent of a certain subculture in America statement. (Add in a small percentage of whites and a slightly larger percentage of Hispanics in the same age group and you’ve got most of the crime in America covered.)
I said, either in a blog or a conversation, that Charles Krauthammer, who I adore, made a basic misstatement when he compared gun violence in Japan to that of America. Neither are connected nor can they be. The chasm between them is too great.
In fact, I’ll counter argue if we could Star Trek-like transport South Chicago or part of Detroit to the south side of Tokyo and then take that part of Tokyo and send it to South Chicago two things would happen. 1. Crime in Tokyo would sky rocket; including robberies, murders and assaults with guns. 2. South Chicago would be quiet, except for the sounds of cars being driven by armed gangs from east Chicago heading to south Chicago with the intent of robbing a bunch of confused, and unarmed, Japanese.
It is and has always been basic prey/predator sheepdog relationships from the beginning of time, and will always be.