Now that President Obama has released his proposal for gun control in America, those of us who care about our constitutional liberties should reflect on what will happen if his policies become law. Among the proposals Obama is calling for are a ban on certain semi-automatic rifles and the limiting of ammunition to just ten rounds. This latest attempt at gun control is in response to the Newtown, Connecticut shootings, where a mentally disturbed young man, Adam Lanza, shot and killed his mother and more than 20 innocent people at the Sandy Hook Elementary School.
You would think that current gun laws failed to stop Adam Lanza from obtaining a firearm and that explains the reason for a new push for gun control laws. As it turns out, Lanza was turned down from buying a firearm when his background check revealed his mental state. Furthermore, Connecticut has one of the strongest gun control laws in the nation. In fact, Adam Lanza broke over 20 laws when he committed his crimes. It’s obvious that the laws did not stop the shooter as laws can’t change what’s in a person’s mind or heart.
There is significant evidence that Obama’s plans will have no effect on gun violence. A ban on certain semi-automatic weapons and the limiting of ammunition went into effect after President Bill Clinton advocated for such a policy in 1994. During the time the ban on semi-automatic weapons was law we endured school shootings in Jonesboro, Arkansas, Paducah, Kentucky and the infamous Columbine High School shootings in Columbine, Colorado. The Clinton gun law did not stop these crimes from occurring and neither will Obama’s gun ban if enacted.
So what is the real objective behind these gun control measures? Knowing that a ban on certain rifles will not stop crimes from occurring, why even try to pass the legislation? Rahm Emmanuel, Obama’s former Chief of Staff, gives us a clue into what is behind the latest push for gun control. Emmanuel once stated, “You never let a serious crisis go to waste. And what I mean by that it’s an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before.” So there you have it. Exploiting a tragedy like the one that occurred in Connecticut this past December seems to be the motivation for a power grab that will disarm law abiding people. Obama alluded to such a power grab when he stated that the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) does not prohibit doctors from asking their patients about having guns in their homes. So now that the federal government has taken over the healthcare system in our nation, Obama will coerce doctors to spy on their patients. Will this information be placed in the medical records of patients? Will this information be used by our federal government to track who has a firearm? Whatever happened to the right to privacy?
Consider columnist Froma Harrop. Reacting to the Newtown, Connecticut tragedy she showed a blatant disregard for the constitutional liberties guaranteed us as Americans. In her op-ed written not long after the Connecticut shooting Harrop stated, “Given the realities, a background check on a gun buyer’s mental condition would logically include relatives and friends.” Just what is the motive behind this notion? Why does there need to be a background check on the family and friends of those who attempt to purchase a firearm? Is this a guilt by association phenomenon at work or does Harrop just enjoy violating the privacy rights of innocent people? Such irrational responses to a tragedy like that in Newtown, Connecticut do not solve a single gun crime. Prejudging the guilt of gun owners and their families and friends violates the 5th Amendment of the Constitution which guarantees that we are treated as innocent until proven guilty. Reactionaries like Harrop would rather turn due process of law on its head. The Constitution of the United States is not a Christmas wish list where we get to pick and choose which rights we keep and which we neglect.
When unveiling his gun control proposals, Obama stated, “if there’s even one thing we can do to reduce violence, if there’s even one life that can be saved, then we’ve got an obligation to try it.” Here we see the tug-at-your-heart language that allows manipulative politicians like Obama to arouse emotions so that the public will not understand that their freedoms are being threatened. If the real objective is to save “even one life” then banning all automobiles will accomplish much more than banning semi-automatic rifles. Currently, no such ban on automobiles has been proposed by the Obama administration.
When Obama and his friends in the media describe semi-automatic weapons as “military style assault rifles,” it causes one to shriek as we are led to believe that anyone can purchase the same rifles as the ones used by our military. This is a fraud and a bald faced lie. The hyperbole is repeated over and over until it becomes accepted as if it were fact. It is not. By law, all military style rifles sold on the commercial market (such as the AR-15) are modified so that they are semi-automatic, meaning they can only fire one round at a time. They work just like a hunting rifle; they only fire one round at a time. Gun control activists would like us to think that the automatic function that allows these rifles to fire multiple rounds per second, much like a machine gun, is included in the commercial versions. This is totally false. Federal law already prohibits automatic rifles and machine guns from being sold in the commercial market.
So what is the purpose in framing semi-automatic rifles as if they were automatic rifles? By creating an emotional response to a tragedy, the power grabbers create consensus for their policies. Were they to level with us and demonstrate that an AR-15, sold on the commercial market, works just like any other rifle that fires one round of ammunition at a time, most people would see no cause for alarm and no cause for confiscation.
Second Amendment hyperbole is the tool used to exploit gun crimes when they occur. Total gun confiscation is the end game. If banning some rifles for now gets our nation closer to that goal, then convincing the people that they are in danger of a military weapon that fires like a machine gun, even though such weapons are already illegal, serves the agenda well for the time being.
Consider these sobering facts from the Center for Disease Control (CDC): 67% of all gun violence in the USA occurs in the 50 largest cities. 73% of all firearm murders that occur in those large cities are committed by teenagers between the ages of 10 and 19 years old. In other words, gang violence is the largest contributor to gun crimes in America today. Knowing these facts the Obama administration should focus on gang violence in the inner cities of America. Instead, Obama and his cohorts in the media target law abiding citizens when tragedies take place. Yet, the failure of the political left to address their own role in allowing such tragedies to occur is perhaps the greatest tragedy of all.
First of all, all of these school shootings have one thing in common – they occurred in so-called
“gun-free zones.” These are places where guns are not allowed. Thinking these gun-free zones will
protect children, the political left pushes the policy of banning guns on school property and then posts signs outside the schools announcing to the whole world that they are defenseless. Well, guess where a sociopath will look first for easy prey when wanting to commit a mass murder? That’s right -- a gun-free zone where all people in the school are unable to defend themselves.
Second, the failure of gun control laws is hidden by gun control advocates on the political left. Consider the city of Chicago for example. Chicago has some of the strictest gun control laws in the nation
and the worst gun crime rate as well. All of the Chicago gun control laws have done nothing to stop gun
crimes from occurring. Instead, those gun control laws have kept law abiding citizens defenseless as the gang related crime rages on.
Speaking of the inner cities like Chicago, where the gang violence contributes to the overwhelming majority of gun crimes, isn’t it interesting that these are the same places where the welfare state is in full swing? It is no coincidence, really. Replacing a father with a welfare check has done major damage
to the family unit within the inner cities of America. An unstable family environment is one of the major reasons that young people join a gang in the first place. They are looking for a sense of belonging within a group or organization.
If we want to stop gun violence then we must stop the largest contributing factor in crimes as a whole: the breakdown of the traditional family unit. Nothing works better than a mother and a father raising children. 6,000 years of human history proves this to be true. Those who say social issues can be separated from fiscal issues are not seeing the big picture. Fiscal and social issues are intrinsically linked as the rise of gang violence in the inner cities of America demonstrates.
In the meantime, while we wrestle with the matter of restoring the traditional family in our nation, let us remember that disarming our people will do more to harm us than protect us. In fact, the more law abiding citizens are armed, the safer we will be as a nation. This explains why Switzerland’s government arms all of its adult citizens with guns and then trains them in the proper use of those guns. The result is the lowest gun related crime rate of any civilized nation in the world.
If we go down the road that leads to total gun confiscation, then we will not only see more crime but less freedom, and finally the end of America as we know it. Without the ability to defend our right to life, liberty, and property, we really have no right to life, liberty, and property.
Bernie Sanders and Robert Reich Are Confused by Economics. And Government. And Reality | Seton Motley