Email to a small mailing list

I have a friend who includes me in a group of like-minded people who discuss politics and current events. On recent thread has been "gun violence".

Recently, a list member asked me to give examples of liberals trying to ban guns - I obliged. This morning I received his reply. 

Here's my answer, with names omitted.

I'll address them one at a time, inline. Again, post to the list if you want - I run my own email server and haven't the time to figure out where the fix for sending to big mailing lists is.

On 3/29/2013 1:29 AM, (redacted) wrote:

Hello.  I only have time to address the Pelosi quote for now.

++++++++++++++++++
the quote in question:

Again, post to the rest, if you want.

Nancy Pelosi:

The measures, which largely reflect recommendations by President Obama and Vice President Biden, include universal background checks, "high capacity" magazine bans, an "assault weapons" ban, a "crack down on gun trafficking," laws against "straw purchases," and mandatory gun safety training programs. It should be noted that none of these would have prevented the tragic Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting.  
++++++++++++++++++

 

I must ask, do you really have a problem with these items?  If so, which ones and why?

 

universal background checks?  Wouldn’t that keep firearms out of the hands of people who shouldn’t have them?

No, it wouldn't. History teaches us that criminals do not obey laws, and that government bans on items create black markets in those items.

There is a more fundamental problem here - the Second Amendment, which prohibits the federal government and the states from imposing such and infringement. If the Constitution was amended to allow them, I wouldn't be happy, but then they would be legal.

One problem here is that Ms. Pelosi has unequivocally told us that she intends to keep pushing until she helps her comrade Ms. Feinstein reach HER objective.

Another is that "universal background checks" is unenforceable unless there is also "universal registration", which history tells us leads directly into "universal confiscation" sooner or later. Happened in Britain, happened in so many European and Asian countries I can't even start listing them. In too many cases, it led to genocide.

 

A "crack down on gun trafficking?”  Much of the bloodbath in Mexico is accomplished with firearms smuggled from the US.

Please supply supporting evidence that this is true - aside from "Fast and Furious".

Of course, actually prosecuting criminals rather than plea-bargaining away the weapons charges to get an easier conviction would not hurt.

 

Laws against "straw purchases?”  People who can pass a background check buying firearms for people who can’t.  Really?

See first comment. Criminals do not follow laws. This is the first lesson you need to internalize. No law ever prevented a crime - they only allow punishment after the fact.

If people like Gabby Gifford's husband, who loudly and publicly proclaimed his intent to buy a rifle just so he could give it to another owner were quickly and sternly punished, or at least brought to trial, I might feel a bit less prickly on this one.

There have been good write-ups on why the law against "straw purchases" is a bad law. Like "hate crime" laws, it can easily be used to prosecute someone who allows a neighbor to shoot a gun at a public range if it turns out that neighbor is a "prohibited person", for instance. Never propose a law you wouldn't want your worst enemy to have at his disposal.

 

Mandatory gun safety training programs?  Seems as if this would make everyone safer.

Definitely! Schools should at a minimum teach the NRA's Eddie Eagle course starting in kindergarten. Marksmanship and school shooting teams would help, as would teaching real American history, and not Fabian-inspired revisionism.

My bottom line is that if a person is judged fit to be loose in society, that person has all the rights - and responsibilities - of every other person. That includes the right to travel, vote, marry, live where they would like, work at whatever job they can find, take into their bodies whatever substance they desire, again remembering that they are responsible for their acts if "under the influence", and to purchase and own whatever items are legal for any other free person to have. If there is some reason to think that this person is a danger to society, why on Earth are they not in custody?

No law ever prevented a criminal act, or there is no such thing as bank robbery. Or murder.

Laws exist to hold people responsible for their actions - and if not enforced from the get-go, those laws lose all meaning, as we are seeing in our country today, where it is impossible for anyone to get out of bed in the morning without violating at least one law, regulation, or ordinance, somewhere.

Chuck Kuecker