Todd:
Ill address more later, I dont have time to create a well-crafted thoughtful essay. Right now I am writing a technical report for a client, and therefore must be brief here.
Suffice it to say - They will come get the Purdeys and Elsies after they have sucessfully gotten the AR's, the plastic shotguns, and black rifles. And the "battle" rifles such as Mauser 98's, Enfields of various Marks, and 1903 Springfields- after all those rifles were created only as battlefield killing machines... and oh my they shoot POWERFUL cartridges capable of killing more than a mile away and penetrating body armor to boot.
The point is , a gun banner can ALWAYS come up with a reason why YOUR particular arm is a threat to the public safety. The reason is, ultimately, some people DO NOT like firearms, and believe that having deadly force in private hands is a bad thing. Of course, this flies in the face of practical experience as well as Anglo-Saxon civic culture going back to Magna Charta, but , what the hey, the modern elites who want to create a safe and perfect world, where only the state has power, dont pay much attention to that sort of thing.
The claims that this is to reduce crime is specious, and it is tedious to the extreme to keep having to address it. Gun Control is NOT about crime, as it has never been demonstrated to work, anywhere. My guns , for instance, do not contribute to the crime rate. Why? Because I am not a criminal, therefore, whether I have black rifle or a bazooka, it totally doesnt matter to the crime rate. So- arms in the hands of non-criminals are a non-issue. And criminals will always have guns. Always. Do you think a rapist who is staring at 20 years to life, or a drug dealer who regularly kills his competitors, will be dissuaded by another gun law? Nope, I didnt think so. The only reason the "Restrict them Ban them" cabal makes these ridiculous and unsupportable "crime control" claims, is that there is out there in the general public, a lot of people who think like sheep and cannot reason logically. Or perhaps they are just uncomfortable with the idea that their neighbor is armed. Since they are unwilling to protect themselves, they feel everyone should be in the samje boat - they prefer all sheep be toothless. I would suggest that THAT is a significant and crippling neurotic condition best addressed by professional help, but I am not licensed to practice psychology or psychiatry, so I will remain silent on that one.
The folks who dont like firearms dont care whether or not the arm in question is a two shooter or a muzzleloader or a black rifle. For example, several years ago, there was a serious legislative move in Ohio to ban the US 1863 Rifle-Musket as an "assault weapon". It was a military arm, and mounted a bayonet. It didnt succeed, but folks, that is a stark example. This is NOT about crime, its about CONTROL. In order to be logically consistent, these folks must have them all, someday. Your Purdey and your Elsie are no different. It is just easier, right now, to attack .50 Caliber rifles, black guns, sidearms.
Like most Fabians, these folks are very very patient. They figure accomodationists like Zumbo will roll over and give them, piece by piece, in the name of compromise, everything they want. Oddly enough, though, the reasonable compromise only ratchets one direction- toward more and more and more restrictions.
The accomodationists say "We will give you black rifles, plastic pistols, 11 shot auto-pistols ( here insert a gun the accomodationst doesnt really care for) , if you promise to leave my double barrel, classic Colt SAA, muzzle-loader ( here insert the accomodationists favorite hobby or using gun) alone."
The Feinsteins and Schumers of the world say "Yess indeed. we will agree to that." The bill is passed, horns blow, we are all safer and crime plummets 30% as those evil guns are destroyed. But that isnt what happens. Nothing happens except for some types of guns are now proscribed. And then, next session, Feinstein, Schumer, Kennedy and the anti-liberty lobby are back again. Wanting more. More. More. Always.
Lastly, the Second Amendment describes a "Right" , not a privilege based on someones "discretion". As soon as a "Right" becomes "discretionary, it's no longer a "right", but a privilege. And privileges last only as long as the King thinks we should have them.
By golly- I could'a SWORE that the first Ten Amendments were called the "Bill of Rights"... not the "Bill of Privileges".
I call attention to my signature line, and close for now.
Regards
GKT
Last edited by Greg Tag; 02/22/07 12:47 PM.
