The Realities And Dangers Of Gun Control

If there is one thing that can be counted on, without fail, it is how liberals react to crisis. Their favorite response to any tragedy is to enact more legislation. That stems from the misguided belief that all things good must come from the government. Therefore, it stands to reason, at least to them, that legislation has to be passed to prevent said tragedy from happening again. Thus it was after the terrible tragedy at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, CN. It would be hard to count the legislation that has been proposed to make sure another Sandy Hook could not transpire. All the way from the Congress of the United States, to various state legislatures, liberals are ramping up their efforts to enact stricter gun control measures.

For some reason, those who are in favor of stricter gun control seem to defy logic with their suggestions. Because the AR-15 was the weapon used by Adam Lanza at Sandy Hook, an all-out attempt is underway to demonize the rifle, with many in favor of banning it altogether. As if banning a particular weapon is going to fix the problem. We are told no one really needs a high-capacity magazine (anything over ten rounds is considered to be high-capacity), therefore they should be banned. That would effectively ban many semi-automatic handguns, including some very popular plinking handguns, such as the Ruger and Sig Sauer .22 Long Rifle handguns.

The only measure I have seen that may have an effect on the illegal purchasing of firearms is the closing of the gun show loop-hole. In my estimation, those who buy a firearm at a gun show should have to undergo a background check, just like the people who choose to buy their weapons at a sporting goods or any other seller of firearms. Even then, those who want to buy a firearm will be able to do so. It may not be at a gun show, but it can be done and it is not all that hard. Other than the closing of the gun show loop-hole, all other attempts to pass stricter gun control laws will do nothing to impede or deter a violent person who is intent on using a gun for unlawful purposes. What they will do is restrict the rights of law-abiding citizens that are guaranteed to them by the 2nd Amendment.

By all means, let’s close the gun show loophole. That will stop some illegal gun purchases. After that is accomplished, what is next. Be sure, they will soon be coming after the private sale of firearms. In Gun Controlother words, they do not want a private citizen to be able to sell, or otherwise transfer ownership of a gun, without the prior approval and consent of the federal government. That is what many liberals are after. If the federal government knows who owns which firearms, confiscation will be that much easier. If you doubt that, take a look at some of the proposed legislation, both on the federal and state levels. Much of this has little chance of passing, but it is troublesome enough that it is even being proposed. Stop and think about what would happen, were the liberal Democrats gain complete control of the House of Representatives in 2014. Democrats in control of the House, the Senate, and the White House, especially with this current crop of liberals, is not a pleasant thought and one that should keep us awake at night.

All this week, Vice President Joe Biden and his task force on gun violence (public relations tells them they should stop using the term “gun control”, but that’s what they are really after) have met with various victims groups and other advocates of stricter gun control laws. Today, they will meet with representatives of the video game industry. They met yesterday with the NRA, after which the NRA says nothing has changed. They accuse the current administration of being more concerned with attacking the 2nd Amendment than they are about really stemming the violence that has killed or hurt so many of our children. The Vice President has said he will present his proposals and suggestions to President Obama on Tuesday and you can be sure, the screws are about to be tightened. Biden even suggested that the President was considering using his executive authority, ie. executive orders, to implement certain gun control measures.

I doubt I am the only person in America who isn’t the least bit surprised that this President would be considering using an executive order to attack the 2nd Amendment. After all, he has stated, more than once, that he doesn’t like dealing with Congress, that it is easier to just go it alone. If you are surprised that he would consider such a flagrant violation of the Constitution, then you haven’t been paying attention for the past four years. Be therefore warned, this current battle we are in over gun control has little to do with stopping the violence that has caused tragedies such as Sandy Hook and Aurora, CO. It is all about strictly controlling the access to guns we were granted when the Founding Fathers wrote the 2nd Amendment.

If you have followed my blog for any length of time, you may remember the fear I have expressed over the coming second term of Barack Obama as President of the United States. Even during his first term, I have always had a fear of what his second term would look like. He was bold enough during his first term, but with the need to run for reelection no longer pressing, Obama will almost assuredly be more emboldened than ever. I am not an advocate of violence or insurrection against our government, but the direction I see a second Obama administration about to take leads me to believe we should be ready for anything. The liberals have their crisis and as Rahm Emanuel so famously suggested, they aren’t about to let it go to waste.

About LD Jackson

LD Jackson has written 2013 posts in this blog.

Founder and author of the political and news commentary blog Political Realities. I have always loved to write, but never have I felt my writing was more important than in this present day. If I have changed one mind or impressed one American about the direction our country is headed, then I will consider my endeavors a success. I take the tag line on this blog very seriously. Above all else, in search of the truth.

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

  • http://www.whatwouldthefoundersthink.com Martin

    With all due respect, it doesn’t seem like you understand the what you’re calling the gun show loophole. Basically, it is just what you are saying you’re worried about with the ban on private sales. You are correct:

    “they do not want a private citizen to be able to sell, or otherwise transfer ownership of a gun, without the prior approval and consent of the federal government.”

    But that is precisely what the loophole you’re talking about is! People who attend the gun shows sometimes bring their guns – they are checked, zip-tied and flagged before they enter, and then walk around with signs on their backs or on dowels sticking out of rifle barrels advertising what they have to sell and for how much. ==> PRIVATE SALES. Vendors at gun shows do the background checks as required. It is only private sales that don’t.

    Gun shows are refreshing examples of what a responsible America used to look like and a great example of free enterprise in action. This loophole stuff is garbage.

    Other than your misapprehension of this, you’ve written a great piece.

    • http://www.ldjackson.net LD Jackson

      Actually, I have a gun shop owner who is a personal friend and customer of mine, has been for years. He tells me it is a common practice for people who know full well they can not purchase a gun legally to go to a gun show and do it there, with no background check. It would seem to me that some tightening of the background restrictions is in order.

  • Robert

    LD “gun show loophole” is a scare tactic like “assault weapon”. Pers Morgan said “47% of all guns sold at gun shows are not subject to background checks”. How does he know? Is that something he can prove?

    How about closing the “classified ad” loophole? I mean why would you need to sell a car without going through a dealer?

    Or “for sale by owner” without a realtor? might be buying substandard plumbing if there are not background checks on home sellers.

    Why not ban all private communication?

    Unapproved assembly?

    Does the concept of liberty mean nothing to you?

    • http://www.ldjackson.net LD Jackson

      Thanks for commenting on Political Realities. See my reply to Martin about the gun show loop hole.

      I actually have a good idea about the concept of liberty. Or least, I think I do. ;) That’s why I cringe when I see someone mentioning how we need stricter gun control measures. Well meaning or not, there is no way those stricter measures will end well for any of us.

  • Mike

    You won’t be surprised to know that I am more inclined to look for ways to make it harder for the bad guys to get guns and I do think there are ways to do that without infringing on the Second Amendment. Martin is correct in his assessment of the gun show “loophole” but I think you’re both wrong about requiring “private sales” to be outside the background check requirement. I can sell you a car in a private sale but that sale must be registered with the state. Why not do something similar with private gun sales? If you agree to buy a gun from me then together we go to a licensed dealer, we pay a nominal fee for him to run a background check on you and, assuming you pass, the transaction is completed. By law the government erases all background checks within 24 hours so this would fall under that same requirement. Same thing at gun shows — have a table where private sales can undergo a background check for the buyer. Why is this a problem and how does it interfere with anybody’s Second Amendment rights?

    I also think there needs to be action taken on high capacity magazines. Your argument about the impact on some existing semi-automatic handguns is the first thing that makes even a little sense but I’m just not convinced. It’s abundantly clear that eliminating them will make things significantly harder for bad guys and better for the good guys trying to stop them. The argument I’ve heard made before, that it takes just a couple of seconds to reload, is probably correct for the first reload and perhaps the second but not for the third, fourth, fifth, etc when you have to start digging into pockets. Plus reloading provides a small window for response and the opportunity for mistakes. There is no argument on the other side that I’ve heard that approaches the logic of eliminating these high capacity magazines. The gun makers can’t sell product fast enough right now — they will do just fine with adjusting their products to accept 10 round clips only and no gun owners rights will be violated in the least.

    Please explain to me where I’m wrong because I can’t understand the counter argument to either of these proposals.

    • http://www.ldjackson.net LD Jackson

      I understand your point and your comparison of private gun sales and private car sales. I would contend, however, that because of the importance of the 2nd Amendment to our fundamental rights as Americans, there is a vast difference between the two. You have an optimism about the government that I do not. I do not trust them to not misuse their authority, especially when it comes to restricting the rights of law-abiding citizens to keep and bear arms.

      That same lack of trust towards the government is why I do not believe it is a good idea for an assault rifle or high-capacity magazine ban to be passed and implemented. To start with, neither would deter criminals from carrying out their evil deeds. The only thing such bans would accomplish is to turn a lot of law-abiding Americans into criminals because they have no intention of giving up their weapons. Once the door is opened to a ban of a particular type of weapon or accessory, those who carry evil designs in their heart towards the 2nd Amendment will have an easier route to achieving the end result they so desire to see. I prefer not to give them that open door.

  • Dragonconservative

    If it was last term, I would have believed that Obama would refrain from using executive order in such a blatantly partisan fashion. But now, he’s practically untouchable due to the results of the election. He’ll do anything to advance his anti-gun agenda. And I’m seriously worried abou the right to bear arms under this administration.

    • http://www.ldjackson.net LD Jackson

      I couldn’t agree more. I have zero trust that President Obama will do the right thing.

  • Pingback: Guns and freedom and the right to shoot tyrants | BLOGGING IOWADAWG STYLE

  • http://americaswatchtower.com Steve Dennis

    Barack Obama always intended to come after guns and Sandy Hook provided him with the excuse he was trying to create with Fast and Furious and he has no intention of letting this crisis go to waste. I wonder how far he would dare to go with an EO but I think he is such an arrogant man that he thinks he could get away with it, and you know what? He just might with this Congress.
    I wouldn’t be upset if the gun show loophole was closed but we do know it would eventually expand from there. Good catch on the subtle change in terms away from the word ‘control,’ I never even caught that. But I have noticed they are moving away from the term ‘assault weapons’ and are moving towards calling them ‘military style’ weapons. These people are sly, aren’t they?

    • http://www.ldjackson.net LD Jackson

      They are very sly, yes. They seem to believe they can change the language and shift the discussion in a direction that will be favorable to their end goals. I do believe that they are making a miscalculation about the resistance they will encounter, if they should attempt to place serious restrictions and infringements on the 2nd Amendment rights of Americans. Such actions will not be viewed in a good light by the vast majority of people I know. It will be looked upon as a threat to our liberties, rightly so, I believe.

    • Mike

      I understand your mistrust and I won’t argue that Obama wants stricter gun control; but there is an enormous and loud percentage of the electorate that will view complete intransigence on this issue as further “proof” that the conservative element of the GOP cannot be trusted. Eventually the GOP came around to agreeing that raising taxes on the top 1% would be okay but by then it was too late and we got a VERY bad deal — much, much worse if that view had been adopted a few months earlier. I see the same thing happening here if there is no give. People will not accept your personal fears about government encroachment on 2nd Amendment rights if you can’t argue proposed laws on their merits. A high capacity magazine restriction or ban does not, in any way, infringe on anybodys rights and there is significant support for doing away with them.

      I also think you vastly underestimate the support for 2nd Amendment rights on the left. The hue and cry if Obama/Biden overreached would shut down the debate. That doesn’t mean they won’t try but I would be surprised if it passed.

      Defining the terms of an argument is what politicians do. “Death panels”, “paying their fair share”, “Pro-life”, “It’s not a revenue problem it’s a spending problem”, etc. It’s not “sly” — it’s politics.

      • http://www.ldjackson.net LD Jackson

        Yes, the GOP came around to raising taxes and yet they still received no real spending cuts in return for their concessions. That didn’t work out so well and the country is not better because of the higher taxes.

        As for arguing the proposed laws on their merits, that’s easy enough. I have yet to see a single gun control law that will do a single thing to prevent gun crimes. They will only restrict the rights of law-abiding citizens and to me, that is unacceptable.

  • Pingback: George Washington’s first Inaugural Address now on display | BLOGGING IOWADAWG STYLE