It’s said the only things certain in life are death and taxes. To that I would add it’s certain the Left will call for strict gun control that guts the 2nd Amendment every time a mass shooting occurs. After all, as Rahm Emanuel put it: “never let a serious crisis go to waste.” So it’s no surprise the friendly fascists at moveon.org already have a petition up for “commonsense gun control:”
* Ban civilian ownership of weapons designed for warfare.
* Close the gun show loophole.
* Create certificates of ownership for firearms, similar to automobiles, which should be governed by similar regulations, including the need for training, testing, and insurance.
Let’s take these one at a time, shall we?
First of all, who would decide whether a weapon was “designed for warfare?” I’m sure they have in mind the spooky black rifle of their feverish nightmares known as the AR-15. Never mind that civilians can only own semi-automatic versions of this, which makes it no different from most hunting rifles. There are also many people who are proud owners of Springfield M1911 handguns. These were originally designed for war, but are now commonly owned by civilians. Would that no longer be permitted? Maybe they’re thinking about automatic weapons (which the ignorant on the Left often claim AR-15s are). Here’s the problem: it’s been illegal for more than 30 years to own an automatic weapon without a specific federal license that is extremely difficult to obtain.
That’s right, kids: our shooter in Las Vegas was in possession of more than a dozen weapons that were just as illegal for him to have as it was for him to kill people with them. But feel free to cling to your fantasies that laws will prevent this kind of thing. Just don’t drag me or my legally owned weapons into your unworkable utopias.
Second: “close the gun show loophole.” This ridiculous phrase is used after every shooting, as though these killers are buying their weapons at the local Shriners show before going on a rampage. There are no specific loopholes in federal law that apply to gun shows. None. Those who engage in the business of selling firearms, whether at a gun show or at a private business, must run a federal background check before completing a sale. Period. The only way around this is personal resale (for instance, if I sell a weapon to a relative). To be accurate, what gun control advocates need to say is they want to require everyone to get Uncle Sam’s permission before selling their own legally owned property. That sounds much more infringing on personal liberty than “closing a gun show loophole,” though, doesn’t it?
Third: ownership certificates with various requirements attached. This is where I may part company with some. I believe the 2nd Amendment is a crucial liberty and non-negotiable. Every law-abiding citizen has the inalienable right to self-defense, and that includes the mechanical means to enable that defense. That said, every right carries a responsibility, and it’s clear many people don’t take that seriously. So just as I would advocate a citizenship exam before allowing people to vote, I do not necessarily object to requiring citizens to pass a safety and qualifying course before receiving a certificate to own personal weapons. The only issue here is one of degree. There are plenty of gun controllers who would use such a concession to create a process so onerous that nobody would be willing/able to complete it and thus obtain a firearm. If such a process were permitted, it would have to be under the guidance that the burden is on the State to show why someone should NOT be issued a weapon, rather than on a citizen to show why they should. (This is similar to the difference in “may issue” versus “shall issue” for concealed permits.)
So of the three items in the petition the first is deliberately ambiguous, the second is a tired sound bite, and the third may — MAY — have some merit if done correctly. Instead of putting enormous effort behind such an ill-thought petition, here’s a better use of your time:
Ask why it took police SEVENTY-TWO minutes to respond and breach the shooter’s room in Las Vegas. (This is the first of many odd things that stand out about the Las Vegas attack.) Then ask yourself if you want to outsource your personal defense to institutions that have, at best, a questionable ability to actually protect you in the event someone has murder in mind. (As the saying goes, when seconds count the police are only minutes away.)
No civilian crowd should ever be under (illegal) automatic weapons fire for more than an hour. And none should ever face such a situation without recourse to their own ability to defend themselves. Granted, concealed carry weapons at the concert likely wouldn’t have done much against a madman firing from the 32nd floor. Remember, though, the reason this is news is that such an event is an outlier, not the everyday experience. In many crises there are often plenty of veterans (both of the military and police) and brave lifelong civilians present who, given the tools, would be willing to respond much faster to such a public emergency. The public should not have to depend on someone else to save them when they are capable of saving themselves.
I’ll close by pointing this out: many of those yammering about gun control the past couple of days were fully on board both with the Obama administration’s “Fast and Furious” gun running scheme to Mexican cartels, as well as his release of billions of dollars to Iran — a known terrorist-supporting government openly determined to obtain atomic weapons. Given this, their pleas of “give me your guns so we can make you safe” sound more than a little hollow and self-serving. Besides, if Trump is “literally Hitler,” isn’t calling for public disarmament self-defeating? (Never try to look for consistency in Leftist arguments — it isn’t there.)
We live in an increasingly dangerous world, where terrorists maim with weapons as varied as automatic weapons and automobiles. At the same time our governments seem determined to allow a continued flood of strangers from violent lands to settle among us. Between terrorists and the mentally ill, there is simply no way to predict when the next incident will occur. As someone who carried a weapon and defended this nation–including the Constitutional right to carry firearms–for 24 years in uniform, I’m not about to give up my legally acquired weapons or the right to defend myself and my family.