As suspected, given the gravity of the mass shooting in Las Vegas over the weekend, the predictable push for more gun control measure has considerable legs this week. The push actually started before all of the blood at the scene had begun to coagulate.
Again, the proponents are being intentionally-nebulous as to their goals. We’re at the stage now where they are asking for “a conversation” on gun rights. They often include the modifier “Common Sense” when talking about it. There are a few who are more honest and up-front about their plans. They are already calling for the outlawing of “assault weapons.” Again, they are vague on the specifics of what constitutes such weapons. That’s understandable. These are the same people who passed a sweeping health care reform without knowing everything that was in it. The substance of the proposal means FAR less than getting it passed. THEN they can mold it in any manner which they see fit.
Before I go any further please understand that when I am talking about “gun control proponents” I am talking about the vanguard…those in power…those who have the ability to heavily influence debate and draw up legislation. I have many good-hearted friends who are understandably distraught over this week’s event whom I do NOT think have a hidden agenda when they suggest something should be done. I believe them when they say they don’t want to impact law-abiding gun owners.
Because of the nature of the debate, those like me who are robust supporters of the Second Amendment would have to enter such a “conversation” convinced of the good faith of those sitting on the other side of the table. I do not. That’s because of many factors. Chief among them is their willful/intentional ignorance. They have shown no real effort to educate themselves about the subject of the debate and rely purely on emotion and misrepresentation to fuel their arguments. Quite often the proposals they offer have little or nothing to do with the tragic event that they are using as a springboard for legislative action.
After the Orlando shooting last year, the ancillary push was to prevent people from the “No Fly List” from buying guns. Never mind that the Pulse shooter was NOT on such a list. Also, to the best of anyone’s knowledge, no one on a No Fly List has ever committed an act of domestic terrorism. If that HAS been the case, we do not know because of the secrecy of the list. All the more reason it should not be used to deny Second Amendment Rights. That is a gross violation of our Due Process protections.
Earlier this year, the Trump administration rescinded an Obama Executive order concerning the mentally ill and access to guns. Gun control proponents quickly spun it in “Trump wants crazy people to have guns.” In actuality, the measure would simply require that someone be adjudicated as mentally ill before they could have a Constitutional right stripped away. That is fundamentally different. Even the left-leaning ACLU saw the measure for what it was and supported Trump’s Executive Order.
The latest red herring is on the use of suppressors. Luminaries like Hillary Clinton and Senator Chuck Shumer have brought up the issue this week. As fate would have it, the House was slated to vote on a measure this week lifting restrictions on the purchase of such devices. The gun control crowd, using semantics as their friend, only refers to them as “silencers.” The argument goes that if the Las Vegas shooter had been using a ‘silencer” no one would have heard the shots and he would still be up there shooting. That is a blatant misrepresentation.
First off, they’re called “suppressors” and not “silencers” for a reason. They suppress sound, not eliminate it. A suppressor on an AR-15 still carries the same decibel level as a jackhammer. Gun control aficionados would have you believe they operate like they do in the movies—when Anton Chigurgh in “No Country For Old Men” can fire multiple shots from a high-powered rifle in one hotel room, while not alerting the guests in the next room. It simply doesn’t work that way.
When a group spends as much time and energy pushing such obvious falsehoods and misrepresentations, I have to conclude that they are not interested in bargaining in good faith. I learn not to take what they say at face value. I assume that there are ulterior motives behind even the most seemingly-benign offer they make.
It is amazing to me that the same people who think Donald Trump is Hitler—who think every white male conservative is a fascist and racist redneck—and who think police officers are bloodthirsty Stormtroopers looking for young black men to shoot; those are the same people who want such strident gun regulations that only the Government would really have access to guns. That is like thinking your neighbor is a homicidal maniac while handing him your nine millimeter.
Identify the gun control measure that would have prevented the Las Vegas massacre. Caveat: It has to be Constitutional. If you cannot answer that question and STILL support more gun control, then you are being fueled by emotion…and that is the genesis for a LOT of bad ideas.
My personal political philosophy of ceding as LITTLE power and authority as possible to the Government is doubly crucial where the Second Amendment is concerned. The price of being wrong is simply too steep.