Why There Will Always Be Gun Ban Efforts and What To Do About It

[TGO David]

Note:  This article is being re-posted with permission of the author from an original posting on M4Carbine.net

 

 

 

Why There Will Always Be Gun Ban Efforts and What To Do About It

Posted by SteyrAUG on January 19, 2013

 

This post will prove academic for some here and for those who read it and think to themselves "Yeah...I know that" I apologize for restating the obvious but sadly it isn't obvious to everyone in light of many of the discussions we've seen lately.

The issue seems simple: See a problem, fix the problem.

And as reasonable, intelligent and rational people we always assume we can fix almost any problem. Sadly criminal misuse of firearms isn't one of them, especially if you try and approach it from the "firearm" part of the equation.

We need to recognize that those with a specific agenda to disarm US citizens are actually a minority. There are the Feinsteins, McCarthy's and Boxers who have built their entire careers around the issue but mainstream America isn't really behind them. The typical "reasonable American" doesn't want to ban guns...BUT they also don't want to be shot and much more importantly they don't want their kids to be shot. This is of course entirely reasonable, we also don't wish to be shot and we most certainly wouldn't want our kids to be shot.

So we have a natural impulse to consider "reasonable gun control" efforts that might prevent such things. Just one problem, they don't work. If gun control "worked" it would have been solved the first time we tried it and more importantly laws against shooting innocent people, especially children would also be preventing such tragedies.

Even more absurd are laws that seek to differentiate "good guns" from "bad guns" as if being shot by a deer rifle is in any way preferable to being shot by an AR-15.

Back in the 1920s the streets roared with the sound of the Tommy Gun. Gangsters ran major cities and profits from prohibited alcohol purchased corruption in all areas of enforcement and even Joe Kennedy managed to earn enough for a political career for himself and his sons. In 1934 we passed a gun control measure that put guns such as the Thompson, BAR and sawed off shotguns out of the reach of the average citizen. Did it solve the problem of 1930s gangsters? Not really, the Commission formed from the Five Families was still going strong and the mafia dominated organized crime well until the 1970s. Not surprisingly, they still could get Thompsons and any other machine gun anytime they wanted.

The late 1960s and early 70s were a powder keg of revolutionary violence. Groups like the SLA, Black Panthers, The Weather Underground and other marxist inspired militant groups regularly shot it out with the police on the streets. SWAT was created for the specific purpose of dealing with these extremist groups who often employed select fire weapons despite the 1934 NFA. These incidents and several high profile political assassinations led to the 1968 Gun Control Act. And while it may have ended mail order firearms, it certainly did not end criminal misuse of firearms by organized crime or radical political activists.

Small caliber handguns with short barrels may have been banned from importation (which is why you can't get a .380 Glock) by the 68 GCA but that hardly stopped gun violence in the 60s and 70s, especially in urban areas with a booming narcotics trade. The heroin dealers seemed to have little difficulty finding a means of protecting their product, profits and enforcing their territorial boundaries despite existing bans.

By the early 1980s cocaine had largely replaced heroin and the cocaine cowboys of the "Scarface era" much preferred the Ingram Mac-10 to any low powered .380 import handgun. As the $200 NFA tax wasn't as cost prohibitive as it was in the 1930s an amendment to close the machine gun registry was duly added to the Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986 as a "reasonable restriction" to address gun violence. Despite the fact that by 1986 not a single incident of criminal misuse involving a NFA weapon existed (this would change in the late 1980s when a off duty LEO shot a man with a registered machine gun that he found in bed with his wife) the closing of the registry became law with the passage of FOPA.

For organized crime, cocaine dealers and LA gangs it was business as usual and they discovered they could import Uzis and AK-47s as easily as a kilo of cocaine. Despite the fact that the domestic machine gun ban found within FOPA (a machine gun ban regulating imports was part of the 68 GCA) seemed to have little or no impact on criminals, that didn't prevent then Drug Czar William Bennett from declaring that "only drug dealers use semi automatic weapons like HK-91s and FN FALs" so they were promptly banned by Executive Order in 1989. This of course actually changed nothing as criminals continued to obtain unregistered Uzis as easily as they obtained cocaine.

There is perhaps no better example of the futility of these efforts as the North Hollywood Bank Robbery where two bank robbers took on the LAPD with an HK91 modified to select fire and AK-47s that were either illegally imported full autos or modified semi autos almost a decade later in 1997. Laws regarding importation and illegal modification to select fire didn't prevent that incident any more than laws against bank robbery and murder prevented those things from happening.

But despite the obvious, politicians still keep trying to find a way to prevent these incidents by regulating inanimate objects that they believed, or simply tried to convince others to believe, facilitated these kinds of crime and that the problem could be controlled if only the specific firearms in question could be controlled.

So with the problem still unsolved Bill Clinton signed into law the domestic Assault Weapon Ban which came with a ban on high capacity magazines for a period of 10 years starting in 1994.

Not only did it fail to prevent the North Hollywood Bank Robbery and shootout it also did not prevent the Columbine shooting in 1999, the DC snipers in 2002 nor did it prevent any other significant criminal misuse according to FBI statistics.

And it still seems that not only politicians, but even some gun owners, remain unable to figure out that you can't control crime by controlling an object. Otherwise we wouldn't have an illicit drug problem. People also can't seem to figure out that simply denying a gun to a violent person doesn't make them safe. Violent people will always find ways to do violence, the BTK Killer, Danny Rolling, Jeffery Dahmer, Richard Ramirez and John Gacy managed quite well without firearms let alone semi automatic assault rifles and high caps. And while the Zodiak Killer and David Richard Berkowitz were known to use firearms, they were the kind deemed socially acceptable in the form of a revolver.

So there is NO reasonable restriction be it Saturday Night Specials, sawed off shotguns, street sweepers, tommy guns, semi automatic assault rifles, cheap military surplus or sniper rifles. If you took us all the way back to muzzle loading flintlocks criminals would still misuse them and obtain illegal "regulated" firearms. The only people who would actually be "regulated" are those law abiding individuals who by definition are not the problem. The end result is potential victims are those who lose access to the best means of defending themselves and their families. These are exactly the people who NEED the advantage of modern firearms to attempt to counter the determination of violent criminals.

As a result gun owners need to STOP making these "reasonable concessions" because they didn't work the first time they were tried and they haven't ever worked.

Now some will say the unique situation of school shootings (which most believe started as a new phenomenon with Columbine) create a special need situation. But really that isn't true either. School shootings are hardly new. The earliest known school shooting was July 26, 1764 and the list is quite comprehensive.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of..._United_States

Furthermore Sandy Hook still isn't the worst school massacre, that is still the Bath School Massacre.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bath_School_disaster
 

 

No guns were involved and 38 elementary school children and six adults were killed, at least 58 other people were injured. This happened on May 18, 1927 and all because Andrew Kehoe, the 55-year-old school board treasurer, was angry after his defeat in the spring 1926 election for township clerk.

So what do we do?

First we stop making concessions that do nothing and we tell people why. Email everyone the list of school shootings that starts in 1764 and continues on through the 1800s and then through every decade despite ongoing efforts to regulate killers through inanimate objects.

Second we stop bickering this pointless stupidity among ourselves as if getting rid of Lorcins, Jennings and Ravens will really make criminals stop shooting people. As if sacrificing 30 round magazines will prevent tragedies or banning cheap AKs will stop crime. Before you agree to any concession ask yourself "Would I deny this to a family member or loved one if they were forced to defend themselves from a violent attacker?"

Third we stop with the notion that we must "meet in the middle" concerning our rights and instead focus on taking back what has been lost. In the last 20 years many states have made tremendous strides with respect to conceal carry laws and castle doctrine laws and we have watched crime rates adjust accordingly. We need to focus our efforts on eliminating the "sporter clause" of the 1968 Gun Control Act which allows politicians a "qualifier" never mentioned in the Constitution regarding what is a "civilian acceptable" firearm.

And lastly we need to start looking for better ways to control violent people in our society, especially those who would kill us and our children if given the opportunity. Because taking "our guns" simply isn't fixing it.

 

 

[RED333]

After reading this, we need to pressure our Government to enforce the laws that are on the books.

They say they dont have time or man power to do so.

 

http://www.nraila.org/news-issues/articles/2013/1/biden-says-administration-doesn%27t-have-time-to-prosecute-people-who-lie-on-background-checks.aspx

 

3rd paragraph down, read the hole page please.

WE HAVE TO STAND AS ONE

[TripleDigitRide]

Awesome! Thanks for sharing.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

What I got out of that article, in my mind, anyway, is that every time the federal government gets involved in "trying to do something",

it only erodes liberties, and does nothing, when they should have done nothing to begin with. It never was part of the government's

role to put any of the gun laws on the books, by that meaning "enumerated powers" were violated, but that's what happens when

showboating politicians get on an issue and "try to do something".

 

None of them has contributed to crime reduction, just made more criminals. When that keeps going on for decades, all it does is

usurp powers and has a negative impact on society. The courts don't enforce the gun laws against criminals when there are other

crimes being committed at the same time, and instead use those laws against the rest of society. They clog up the court system with

more criminals who were otherwise just normal citizens.

 

Nah, a bunch of laws need to be nullified and convict the real criminals.

[mikegideon]

Well written, and yes, "I knew that". We have had these sane arguments all along, delivered with varying levels of skill. It does little good with our grabber friends.

 

The media is doing their best to bury us this time. If we don't come up with better ways to fight it, we will lose by numbers.

[1gewehr]

"this would change in the late 1980s when a off duty LEO shot a man with a registered machine gun that he found in bed with his wife"

 

I have to admit I find this appalling.  I do not see how the fact that the machine gun was in bed with his wife is relevant.

 

All joking aside, no 'gun control' has ever been implemented for the benefit of law-abiding folks.  I challenge anyone to show me where any gun control has resulted in a reduction in crime.  So, if they are not using it to reduce crime, what IS the purpose?  It is done solely to make politicians feel safer about there phoney-baloney jobs.  The more desperately they cry for 'gun control' the more deeply they know that what they are doing is wrong.

[Guest SteyrAUG]

What I got out of that article, in my mind, anyway, is that every time the federal government gets involved in "trying to do something",

it only erodes liberties, and does nothing, when they should have done nothing to begin with. It never was part of the government's

role to put any of the gun laws on the books, by that meaning "enumerated powers" were violated, but that's what happens when

showboating politicians get on an issue and "try to do something".

 

That is the typical outcome.

 

By its very nature a government, no matter how well designed, will always move to usurp the liberties of its citizens, if for no other reason than the benign belief that government knows best.

Edited January 20, 2013 by SteyrAUG

[TGO David]

Welcome to the forum, SteyrAUG.  Thanks for taking the time to pen that original article and to sign up here.

[Dennis1209]

It all boils down to this:

 

(1) You can not legislate an inanimate object to do anything. No one to my knowledge has ever been harmed by a gun, hammer, knife or ax laying harmlessly on the table without human intervention.

 

(2) When was the last time in human history a government legislated morality successfully?

[mikegideon]

Welcome SteyrAUG. Very well done! I wish the real facts were getting more than 10% of the air time compared to made up "facts" and emotional button pushing. Our enemies aren't playing fair.

 

Your post will help me adjust my talking points. In a lot of cases, I wind up trying to use them with folks that have severely impaired hearing.

[Dennis1209]

That is the typical outcome.

 

By its very nature a government, no matter how well designed, will always move to usurp the liberties of its citizens, if for no other reason than the benign belief that government knows best.

 

Through the course of human history, each and every time, that's an indisputable fact! And that begs the ultimate question...

 

Of such major importance, why isn't that being taught in public schools and common public knowledge?

 

Off the top of my head I could quote dozens or examples, with a few of my books, hundreds. It's as repeatable as the sun rising in the East daily.

Edited January 20, 2013 by Dennis1209

[Links2k]

Note:  This article is being re-posted with permission of the author from an original posting on M4Carbine.net
 
 
 
Why There Will Always Be Gun Ban Efforts and What To Do About It
Posted by SteyrAUG on January 19, 2013
 
And lastly we need to start looking for better ways to control violent people in our society, especially those who would kill us and our children if given the opportunity. Because taking "our guns" simply isn't fixing it.

Very good article. For me, this is where our efforts should be concentrated. I recently spoke with an anti-gun co-worker who agrees that banning guns is not the answer. Banning guns is just a placebo to keep from addressing the issues of Violence in the home, inner city crime, mental issues and the "victim" mentality.

I'm not advocating locking away people with special needs and mental issues, but I'm old enough to remember a time when we did. I believe that one of our societal issues is that we force feed people mind altering drugs, tell them that they are ok and then reintroduce into them into society before they have their act together. There has to be a better way.

[Wingshooter]

Excellent article, SteyrAUG. That should be required reading for politicians, journalists and voters alike.

 

I agree 100% that talks of concessions have no place at the table. The constitution is not negotiable, and we need to take back what has been lost.

[Links2k]

Excellent article, SteyrAUG. That should be required reading for politicians, journalists and voters alike.
 
I agree 100% that talks of concessions have no place at the table. The constitution is not negotiable, and we need to take back what has been lost.

I also agree that there should be no concessions. Our approach should be well reasoned and tastefully presented. The hot head approach, million gun rallies and scaring soccer moms at the mall will not win this battle.

[mikegideon]

I also agree that there should be no concessions. Our approach should be well reasoned and tastefully presented. The hot head approach, million gun rallies and scaring soccer moms at the mall will not win this battle.

 

I agree too. Unfortunately, any concessions will be made by our politicians based on what they think will actually pass. In case you haven't noticed, they ain't real good at their jobs :)

[Wingshooter]

I agree too. Unfortunately, any concessions will be made by our politicians based on what they think will actually pass. In case you haven't noticed, they ain't real good at their jobs :)

 

That's true. They need to continuously hear from their bosses (We The People) about what decisions they should make.

[Dennis1209]

Very good article. For me, this is where our efforts should be concentrated. I recently spoke with an anti-gun co-worker who agrees that banning guns is not the answer. Banning guns is just a placebo to keep from addressing the issues of Violence in the home, inner city crime, mental issues and the "victim" mentality.

I'm not advocating locking away people with special needs and mental issues, but I'm old enough to remember a time when we did. I believe that one of our societal issues is that we force feed people mind altering drugs, tell them that they are ok and then reintroduce into them into society before they have their act together. There has to be a better way.

 

I agree with you, however...

 

If there's one common denomanator with our societies ill's, what would you suspect it is?

 

I propose it's the Federal Government itself! I invite you to name just ONE thing the Fed's stuck their nose into that didn't result in failure and being worse off than had they stayed out. Welfare entitlements (I'm retired and it's a benefit) and kicking the man out the door and the "yous owes me" mentality, social security, gross wasteful spending, VA Health Care system, Section 8, NAFTA, GATT, WTO, etc. etc.

 

The ills of our society will cost lots of money. Would anyone actually want the government to efficiently run another failed program? And, who's going to pay for more treatment and help the increasing mentally disturbed individuals? The governments only source of money is to tax, borrow and print our fiat currency and looky where we're at?

 

The solution is to first get the government out of our daily lives and return to Constitutional law and the powers granted the Federal Government and a return to states rights, then it trickles down to the county and local communities.

[RED333]

How long can a democracy last?

In 1887 Alexander Tyler, a Scottish history professor at the University of Edinburgh, had this to say about the fall of the Athenian Republic some 2,000 years prior:
"A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government.
A democracy will continue to exist up until
the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority
always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse over loose fiscal policy, (which is) always followed by a dictatorship."

"The average age of the world's greatest civilizations from the beginning of history, has been about 200 years. During those 200
years, these nations always progressed through the following sequence:

From bondage to spiritual faith;
From spiritual faith to great courage;
From courage to liberty;
From liberty to abundance;
From abundance to complacency;
From complacency to apathy;
From apathy to dependence;
From dependence back into bondage."
The Obituary follows:

 

Born 1776, Died 2012
It doesn't hurt to read this several times.
Professor Joseph Olson of Hamline University School of Law in St. Paul, Minnesota, points out some interesting facts concerning the last Presidential election:

Number of States won by: Obama: 19 McCain: 29
Square miles of land won by: Obama: 580,000 McCain: 2,427,000
Population of counties won by: Obama: 127 million McCain: 143 million
Murder rate per 100,000 residents in counties won by: Obama: 13.2 McCain: 2.1

Professor Olson adds: "In aggregate, the map of the territory McCain won was mostly the land owned by the taxpaying citizens of the country.

Obama territory mostly encompassed those citizens living in low income tenements and living off various forms of government welfare..."

Olson believes the United States is now somewhere between the
"complacency and apathy" phase of Professor Tyler's definition of democracy, with some forty percent of the nation's population
already having reached the "governmental dependency" phase.

If Congress grants amnesty and citizenship to twenty million criminal invaders called illegal's - and they vote - then we can say goodbye to the USA in fewer than five years.

Pass this along to help everyone realize just how much is at stake, knowing that apathy is the greatest danger to our freedom..

This is truly scary

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20120623195959AACx8EF

 

WE HAVE TO STAND AS ONE

[Spook]

 
The media is doing their best to bury us this time. If we don't come up with better ways to fight it, we will lose by numbers.

Precisely. The media collusion with the Obama agenda is the main reason he was re-elected, imo, and why so many issues that don't agree with the liberal crowd never see the light of day. Or, they are unfairly critized and factual information is not presented.

Excellent article by SteyrAUG that should be read by every elected official. Thanks.

[mcurrier]

We seem to be more in between the apathy to dependence stage.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

How long can a democracy last?

In 1887 Alexander Tyler, a Scottish history professor at the University of Edinburgh, had this to say about the fall of the Athenian Republic some 2,000 years prior:
"A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government.
A democracy will continue to exist up until
the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority
always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse over loose fiscal policy, (which is) always followed by a dictatorship."

"The average age of the world's greatest civilizations from the beginning of history, has been about 200 years. During those 200
years, these nations always progressed through the following sequence:

From bondage to spiritual faith;
From spiritual faith to great courage;
From courage to liberty;
From liberty to abundance;
From abundance to complacency;
From complacency to apathy;
From apathy to dependence;
From dependence back into bondage."
The Obituary follows:

 

Born 1776, Died 2012
It doesn't hurt to read this several times.
Professor Joseph Olson of Hamline University School of Law in St. Paul, Minnesota, points out some interesting facts concerning the last Presidential election:

Number of States won by: Obama: 19 McCain: 29
Square miles of land won by: Obama: 580,000 McCain: 2,427,000
Population of counties won by: Obama: 127 million McCain: 143 million
Murder rate per 100,000 residents in counties won by: Obama: 13.2 McCain: 2.1

Professor Olson adds: "In aggregate, the map of the territory McCain won was mostly the land owned by the taxpaying citizens of the country.

Obama territory mostly encompassed those citizens living in low income tenements and living off various forms of government welfare..."

Olson believes the United States is now somewhere between the
"complacency and apathy" phase of Professor Tyler's definition of democracy, with some forty percent of the nation's population
already having reached the "governmental dependency" phase.

If Congress grants amnesty and citizenship to twenty million criminal invaders called illegal's - and they vote - then we can say goodbye to the USA in fewer than five years.

Pass this along to help everyone realize just how much is at stake, knowing that apathy is the greatest danger to our freedom..

This is truly scary

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20120623195959AACx8EF

 

WE HAVE TO STAND AS ONE

We can start by quitting using that word "democracy". Every time it is used, it becomes a little more real, and it should never be used.

[Dennis1209]

We can start by quitting using that word "democracy". Every time it is used, it becomes a little more real, and it should never be used.

 

Amen!

 

A democracy is mob rule that feels good for the moment and never lasts, as 6.8 AR has eluded too and acknowledged by our founders.

 

A Constitutional Republic has been and is the best form of a civilized society and government ever established by human kind, IMHO.

 

Those politicians that continue to espouse "democracy" have an agenda to change U.S. from Constitutional law to dictatorship and national subjects to the Crown.

[RED333]

We can start by quitting using that word "democracy". Every time it is used, it becomes a little more real, and it should never be used.

I will agree to this.

[mikegideon]

Excellent article by SteyrAUG that should be read by every elected official. Thanks.

 

May take awhile. Right now, they're stuck on page 27 of the Obamacare bill :)

[Dennis1209]

May take awhile. Right now, they're stuck on page 27 of the Obamacare bill :)

 

You bring up another point I wanted to mention.

 

Does anyone realize the bills / laws that gets voted on and passed, that have not even been read? It's common knowledge the politicians seldom read them because they are hundreds and / or thousands of pages long. Many times they are introduced to the floor in pounds and not pages. Think I'm kidding?