I know, it's absurd. It's ridiculous that I have to correct the record because of those who claim that gun laws and restrictions imposed upon law abiding citizens would prevent terrorists from committing mass murder. After all, murder and terrorism are already illegal, right? We have already told murderers and terrorists that they can't be here in California, that they can't murder people, and they can't commit acts of terrorism. That's the point isn't it? It doesn't really matter how they murder or terrorize. The point is it's illegal and immoral to do either. Adding another ban to how someone may commit murder or an act of terror is just silly because if someone decides they are going to act that way, they are going to do so in direct defiance of any existing law or moral code that exists. There. Argument over, right? Sadly no. There are those among us, including elected officials who actually have the power to author and vote on law, who believe that by adding more laws and restrictions on firearms, that they can stop murders and terrorists.
Now, I get it that making it harder for someone to commit these actions by restricting their access to the tools they may use has merit. But is creating new law that only law abiding citizens will follow the right solution? There's also only so much we can do in a free society. We allow people to purchase and drive motor vehicles, and we do so trusting that they will operate those vehicles in a safe manner. But sometimes people don't. They abuse that freedom and a tool for transportation can suddenly become a deadly weapon. We can't take away cars in general because a few people abuse that right. We simply cannot prevent people from doing bad things if we want to live in a free society. Here's the deal, we cannot keep firearms out of the hands of criminals and terrorists and we cannot prevent them from using firearms. Once firearms were invented, they became part of our reality. Look at illegal drugs. Our nation declared a "war on drugs," and we've done everything from legislation to education to direct disruption to prevent people from obtaining and using illegal drugs. Has it worked? No. That's because in this world we live in, there will always be a black market supply for those who want to obtain banned substances. Criminals will always be with us and they will do criminal things. Firearms are no different in this respect. They are here and will always be here. I'm not advocating for legalizing drugs, please don't think that. I'm simply using drugs as an example of a banned substance that still finds it's way into the fabric of everyday life. I've personally never used any illegal drug. I don't exactly know how to obtain drugs, nor do I have any idea on how much they cost, nor how much to buy (quantity). I'm totally ignorant on the topic. However, I guarantee you that if you gave me 48 hours, I could find and buy illegal drugs. Guaranteed.
Here's another example. It is illegal to buy, sell, import, or manufacture standard capacity magazines in California. By standard I mean magazines that hold more than 10 rounds. However, that ban does not exist in our border states. Arizona and Nevada are a quick few hours drive from where I live. If I wanted to, I could easily cross that state boundary, purchase standard capacity magazines, and keep them at my house. By California law, I would be committing a felony. But murders don't care about felonies and terrorists aren't planning on being captured and prosecuted. I could also cross the international border to the south and obtain illegal materials that way. The only thing that a magazine ban does is restrict access to law abiding citizens, granting the upper hand to murders and terrorists. They will get them and will use them, guaranteed.
My point is, laws only work for those who want to obey them. Firearm ownership in America is a civil right enumerated within our Constitution. It's to be held in the same regard as all other civil liberties. It is a reality that we have the right to life and the right to defend our lives and liberty using an effective tool such as a firearm accordingly. It is perfectly legal to use a firearm in self defense situations (as defined by the law), yet Democrats are constantly placing restrictions upon the tools that would enable law abiding citizens to execute their rights under that legal protection. It's absurd. Firearms exist. They are part of our reality. We cannot change that. No one would advocate that we as a nation dissolve our military to slow down the international arms race and conflicts that arise. Doing so would make us an instant victim. So it is on the personal level with firearms. Once they came into existence and criminals could obtain them, it became necessary for individual citizens to be able to use the same platform for defense.
Here's a quote from liberal Democrat and California State Senator Loni Hancock from Berkeley who voted in favor of new firearms restrictions in 2016 that would ban owning standard capacity magazines, citing the San Bernadino terrorist attacks as justification. As I mentioned before, purchasing, selling, importing, and manufacturing standard capacity magazines is already illegal, but if you owned one prior to the enactment of that ban, you still can. However, Democrats are trying to change that. This quote comes from the Los Angeles Times on in an article posted on May 19, 2016, again where Senator Hancock tries to relate the San Bernadino terrorist attack as justification to impose new restrictions.
"If the shooters had a 10-round magazine, 4 [out of 14] of the victims would still be alive." - Loni Hancock (D)
I didn't realize the Senator was clairvoyant. That myth has been busted so many times it's silly that Democrats are still citing it, and yet they are. Anti-gun laws do not prevent murderers from murdering people. The Senator is forgetting the fact that these terrorists obtained the firearms via an illegal method and used them to commit illegal acts including mass murder and terrorism. They also had constructed or were in the process of constructing explosive devices at home, likely with the intent and in the process of breaking several other laws. Why would they break all those laws only to accept and submit to a 10 round magazine restriction? According to this Senator, the implication is that these terrorists would obey magazine restriction laws and would have stopped after firing 10 rounds. This Senator's statement is so absurd that I can't believe I just typed that. How did this person get elected? They obtained and modified their firearms illegally!!
Another blatant lie from a California Democrat in the same article can be found from State Senator Isadore Hall (D-Compton) who's deception and/or ignorance led to a proposed bill that would enact restrictions and bans on center fire rifles that accept detachable magazines, effectively defining them as "assault rifles" and making them illegal to purchase and forcing owners to register them with the state DOJ. Here's this Senator's lie, also taking advantage of terrorist activity to push their personal agenda:
"These types of firearms have no legitimate use for sport hunters or competitive shooters. They have been designed to facilitate the maximum destruction of human life." - Sen. Isadore Hall
Sigh. Where do I begin? Dear Senator Ignorant, have you ever heard of predator and varmint hunting? Yeah, those are entire categories of hunting which ammunition manufacturers and gun companies design products to enable. As one such example, the Mossberg MVP line of rifles stands for Mossberg Varmint and Predator. That bolt action center fire rifle accepts detachable magazines and is chambered in the same caliber as AR-15s. The AR platform itself is extremely popular for varmint and predator hunting due to it's reliability and ergonomics. Another example comes from ammunition manufacturer, Hornady, who makes a line of ammunition called "varmint express" in the caliber these modern sporting rifles are optimized for. Modern sporting rifles are used to dispatch varmints and predators for many purposes including to protect life and property. These AR-15 and the Mossberg MVP platforms and others like them are perfect for the job because the caliber is right, and they are effective. Seriously Senator Hall, before writing and voting for legislation, do some basic homework to understand the issue, the industry, and the people you are impacting.
Secondarily, there is an entire world of competitive sport shooting called "three-gun" in which shooters leverage three platforms (pistol, shotgun, and sporting rifle) to see who can shoot the most accurately and quickly under pressure. Look it up. It's an extremely popular competitive sport. The AR platform is the sport rifle of choice among law abiding three-gun shooters. It's an exceptional platform for competition shooting. The assertion from this Senator that there is no legitimate competitive use for these rifles is just a blatant lie. The Senator can't be that ignorant, so I have to assume they are a liar trying to mislead and manipulate the public.
Finally (for this Senator at least), the idea that a modern sporting rifle is designed for the "maximum destruction of human life" is another absurd statement. Nuclear weapons were designed for the maximum destruction of life. Bombs are designed for the maximum destruction of life. Legalizing abortion is designed for the maximum destruction of life. Chemical weapons are designed for the maximum destruction of life. Shotguns are far more destructive than center fire rifles. A rifle that fires one small caliber bullet at a time is NOT designed for massive destruction. It's designed for moderate distance, mass production, and cost effectiveness. Let's not forget, this is a small caliber rifle that the Senator is speaking of. It's on the lowest end of the scale of legitimate "hunting calibers." Go look it up. Google "hunting caliber" and check for yourself. In fact, many in the hunting world dismiss the 5.56/.223 round these modern sport rifles are optimized for, as an illegitimate, underpowered, glorified .22 rimfire round. How can this bullet, so scrutinized by the hunting world for it's lack of caliber and range, be described as "maximum destruction of human life?"
Finally, let's look at the place in the nation with the highest murder rate: Chicago. That city has some of the most restrictions on firearms in the country. Chicago is notorious for suppressing civil rights defined by the 2nd Amendment. Yet that city leads the nation in murders committed using firearms. In fact, news headlines just yesterday stated that May broke records in Chicago for the number of shootings and murders committed using firearms. How can it be that in that city where firearms are basically outright banned, that murderers continue to use them? Because legislation doesn't prevent law breakers from breaking the law. In fact, it appears based on the Chicago experience, that the more restrictions on firearms that a community imposes, the more murders are committed using them.
Look, I get it Democrats, you want to ban firearms. Ok, just admit that and make that your agenda. Let's battle over removing a civil liberty from the US Constitution and put this issue to bed. Stop intentionally lying to the public and enforcing all these restrictions that do nothing but put the community at risk. Do your homework. Learn reality, embrace it, and then act.
If you don't like living in a society where firearms are a civil liberty, then move to a society where they aren't. In Canada for example, firearm ownership is a privilege, not a right. Go there. It's close and you can still visit us.
2A Safely
No comments:
Post a Comment