Borderfire Report

Illegal Immigration News And Political Commentary

 
  • Increase font size
  • Default font size
  • Decrease font size
  • default color
  • green color
  • blue color

The Gun-Grabbers are on the Move Again

E-mail Print PDF

By Alan Caruba

Every despotic regime in the last century favored gun control laws. Today, the gun-grabbers are on the Alan Carubamove again and are being led by the Obama regime.

During last year’s campaign both Hillary Clinton and John McCain tore into Barack Obama for saying that residents of small-town America "cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them out of bitterness over lost jobs.”

Obama quickly retreated from that statement, but it revealed his real thinking and real feelings about people who own guns for any reason, as well as his contempt for people whose religious values are an important part of their lives. In both cases he was condemning large segments of the nation’s population.

In America today, the figure I hear most often is an estimated ninety million people who own guns. No matter the source one cites, there is no question that most Americans have no qualms about owning guns for hunting, sport shooting, or for protection. It is no coincidence that, since Obama’s election last year, gun and ammo sales have been off the chart.

Look back at what history teaches us regarding the right to bear arms. The Soviet Union established gun control in 1929. Unable to defend themselves, the regime killed an estimated twenty million Russian dissidents.

Turkey established gun control in 1911 and, from 1915 to 1917, an estimated 1.5 million Armenians were rounded up and killed.

Germany established gun control in 1938. Prior to and throughout World War II, the Nazis systematically murdered an estimated six million Jews and another five million others deemed “enemies of the state.” This pattern was repeated in China which outlawed gun ownership in 1935. Gun ownership was outlawed in Guatemala, Uganda, and Cambodia.

It is estimated that 56 million people were killed by their own governments in the last century. Despite that, both England and Australia passed laws prohibiting gun ownership. The result has been a surge in deaths of people who were killed because they were left defenseless against criminals. In Australia, armed robberies increased 44 percent.

As this is being written, there are proposed laws in the House and Senate that would strip Americans of their Second Amendment right to “to keep and bear arms.” A right the Constitution says “shall not be infringed.”

Recently, Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) introduced S.1317 that would give the Attorney General the discretion to block gun sales to people on terror watch lists. The government’s consolidated watch list, used to identify people suspected of links to terrorists, has now grown to more than a million names since 9/11.

In Lautenberg’s New Jersey, one must have a government issued certificate to purchase a firearm and undergo a difficult process to secure the right to carry a weapon, concealed or otherwise.

A similar law, the Blair Holt Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale Act of 2009 would make it illegal to own a firearm unless you are fingerprinted and can provide a current driver’s license along with your Social Security number. It requires people to submit to a physical and mental evaluation each and every time a firearm is purchased.

In addition, Blair-Holt would require that guns must be locked away and inaccessible to any child under age 18. It would empower law enforcement officers to come into your home to inspect whether or not you are in compliance. Failure to comply includes a fine and incarceration up to five years in prison. In a case of criminal home invasion this law renders the gun owner defenseless.

This replicates the 1938 German Weapons Act that restricted ownership of firearms to “persons whose trustworthyness is not in question and who can show a need for a (gun) permit.”

These proposed laws also abrogate the Fourth Amendment that says “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures” shall not be violated without a warrant.

To learn more about these “under the radar” efforts to restrict gun ownership and the right to carry firearms, visit http://www.saf.org/, the website of the Second Amendment Foundation and http://www.ccrkba.org/, the website of the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms.

What I have described are incremental steps taken to ultimately render the Second Amendment null and void.

If you oppose these efforts, you need to write your representatives in Congress and let them know. A donation to the Second Amendment Foundation and/or the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms will assist their efforts on your behalf.

Despite the anti-gun attitude of the current White House I have always found it incongruous that the President is surrounded by men and women in the Secret Service, all of whom carry firearms to protect whoever holds that office. Members of Congress are protected by a Capitol Hill police force, all of whom are armed. We all know that a gun is an essential part of what every police officer wears daily while enforcing the law.

When writing the Constitution, the Founding Fathers first protected free speech, freedom of the press, and the freedom of citizens to peaceably assemble and petition the government for a redress of grievances.

The Second Amendment gave priority to the right to own and bear arms because you cannot have the freedoms enumerated in the First Amendment without those protected in the Second.

Alan Caruba writes a popular daily blog "Warning Signs". We invite you to visit his popular website

Alan Caruba Archives


 

Comments  

 
0 #2 Sean OToole 2009-09-09 13:25
Mr Smythe,

I think you are missing the point. I'm sure you can show cases of countries that have instituted gun control without immediately turning on their citizens. However, its more difficult to identify countries that have slaughtered their citizens without first taking aware their means of self defense.
Quote
 
 
0 #1 Phil Smythe 2009-09-06 11:21
Mr Caruba seems to think that because "Every despotic regime in the last century favored gun control laws" then any move to control guns means that a despotic regime is doing it. That is patent nonsense, akin to stating that every despotic regime in the last century made the trains run on time and deducing that such an act indicates a despotic regime.

Mr Caruba also makes a patently false claim when he writes, "Australia passed laws prohibiting gun ownership. The result has been a surge in deaths of people who were killed because they were left defenseless against criminals. In Australia, armed robberies increased 44 percent."

Here are the facts. Australia instituted toughened up gun control measures in 1996. In the 4 years up to that point the number of murders was 296, 286, 326 and 312. The population in 1996 was 18.3 million. The latest data is 2008 and the number of murders? According to Mr Caruba it should have surged. Luckily he's dead wrong. The actual number was 260, that's a 15% decline on the average of the 4 years leading up to 1996. Maybe 2008 was just a lucky year? Not so, the average of the 4 years up to 2008 was 264. And this doesn't even factor in that the population in 2008 was 21.4m, a 17% increase.

So we have a 15% decline in actual murders while at the same time the population grew by 17%. The only surge there is a backwards one.

As for Mr Caruba's claim on armed robbery, well that's just as misleading. In 1996 there were 6,256 armed robberies. In 2008 there were 6,716. That's an increase of 7%. Of course that was in a population that increased 17%, meaning a decline in the armed robbery rate.

This data comes from the Australian Bureau of Statistics publication 4510.0 www.abs.gov.au

Mr Caruba appears to be only able to make his point by a combination of hyperbole and outright untruths.
Quote
 

Add comment

* Keep comments on topic – any comment that appears to be off-topic will be edited or deleted.


Security code
Refresh

Disclaimer:  This website has no responsibility for the views, opinions and information communicated here.The contributors and news providers are fully responsible for their content. Views are those of authors and not necessarily those of Borderfire Report.

nafbpo

moveoff

Border Sheriffs

126391687404630_132211_394554_n

Please make a donation today to protect our border, the American people and the law enforcement officers who work every day to protect us.

Donate to BorderSheriffs.com

The sheriffs who stand on the front line in Arizona's fight against illegal immigration are being put in a position of spending taxpayer dollars on mounting a legal defense - instead of buying the equipment and weapons they need to keep up with the firepower of the drug cartels.



No Amnesty "Ever"

change