Just Ban Everything
Please visit Robert's editorial sponsor.
Laws banning murder haven't stopped murder. Laws banning drug use haven't stopped drug use.
On the cover:
"Jane got a gun"
Natalie Portman in "Jane got a gun" directed by Gavin O'Connor (2015).
A Problem Government Cannot Solve
More laws are not going to help anything. The last "assault weapons" ban didn't move the needle on gun crime. California has 1,001 (or more) different restrictions on sporting rifles, and none of them did anything to stop the San Bernardino terrorists from violating them. Frankly, the mantra that adding more laws will somehow stop people from violating the law is reaching the level of extreme stupidity.
Laws banning murder haven't stopped murder. Laws banning drug use haven't stopped people from using drugs. Talking on a cell phone while driving is against the law in California, yet nearly every day I see someone chatting away with a phone to their ear while driving.
The government has a pretty bad history when it comes to banning things. When the government banned booze, they ended up creating a black market, enabling the rise of the mafia crime families. When the government banned drugs like marijuana, cocaine, etc., they created a black market that brought the rise of the drug cartels.
The cartels are already bringing drugs across the border...why not guns, too?
The problem with adding more laws is that only the law-abiding will follow them, and adding a multitude of laws, restrictions, and regulations just creates circumstances where non-violent, otherwise law-abiding citizens end up on the wrong side of the law simply because there are more laws than any reasonable person could possibly keep track of. Banning guns means leaving law-abiding citizens disarmed and at the mercy of criminals and terrorists who don't care what new laws some bleeding-heart legislators just passed. What's more, protecting our 2nd Amendment rights is more important now than ever, when we're faced with politicians and bureaucrats in high places who are more than willing to ignore the Bill of Rights. And frankly, I don't trust politicians who don't even understand the very basics about the guns they want to ban to craft laws that even remotely approach "common sense."
Instituting any kind of gun ban will not stop terrorists that are intent on violence any time in the future. France has very strict gun laws, yet terrorists were able to execute a horrible attack there (using guns and bombs) - after which French authorities found that several mosques in Paris were being used to hide weapons caches. Israel faces knife and bomb attacks from Palestinian terrorists on a regular basis. A couple of years ago, a group of men with knives killed 29 and injured 130 people in China. The Tsarnaev brothers used pressure cookers to attack the Boston Marathon. Al-Qaida terrorists used airliners to bring down the World Trade Center. Timothy McVeigh used a rented truck and fertilizer to attack a federal building. Those intent on violence will find ways perpetrate violence. No amount of laws will change that.
It's also important to note that the vast majority of mass shootings in the United States happen in so-called "gun free" zones. Even the ultra-left anti-gun "Everytown" group, notorious for using false & misleading statistics to back up their 'arguments,' don't even try to deny that. As we place further restrictions on gun ownership, we just open up more opportunities for those intent on committing acts of violence to do so unabated.
Our nation (and Western society in general) has spent the past several decades moving away from any kind of a moral center, to the point that during the current election cycle, many Christians shunned the very thought of choosing a God-fearing Christian as their presidential candidate, because "we're elecing a president, not a pastor." It is impossible for a society to abandon all moral principles without consequences, and there is no legislation in the world that will exempt us from those consequences. Today, we live in a society where unborn babies are slaughtered by the millions, and that is euphemistically called "women's health" or "choice." If a white cop shoots a black criminal, riots and protests break out in the streets, yet black-on-black gangland violence is ignored.
The most important thing we can do is be vigilant and protect our liberty as we try to spread the message that a moral foundation is the real solution to many of our nation's problems. If we're constantly going back to more government and more laws in an attempt to solve problems that government can never solve, all we will end up with is a government that will truly teach us the value of the Second Amendment. Americans who actually defend the Second Amendment for this reason are looked down on as crazy paranoids, yet the ever-increasing power of the government to micromanage every aspect of our lives, down to what we can eat or drink, or say, or even think, proves that we really aren't all that far away from the type of government the Second Amendment was written to protect us from.
The latest "compromise" position seems to revolve around removing the 2nd Amendment rights of anyone that has been placed on the No-Fly List (aka the Terror Watch List). This sounds nice and reasonable, until you actually think it through. "Common-sense" gun control now means revoking the 2nd Amendment rights of Americans based on a secret list. The government doesn't even release the criteria they use to put people on the list! If we're going to throw out the 5th Amendment to revoke people's 2nd Amendment rights, we may as well just throw out the Bill of Rights altogether, because it will no longer hold any meaning. Senator Ted Kennedy ended up on the No-Fly List because "T. Kennedy" had been used as an alias by some people on the list. It reportedly took Kennedy and his staff three weeks to get his name removed. How many other Americans has this happened to - and how many don't even know it, simply because they rarely, if ever, fly?
We live in an age where government power is increasingly wielded for political ends; if the IRS can target conservatives and conservative organizations, who's to say that politically motivated people in the Justice Department won't adjust the secret criteria for their secret list so their political opponents will have their rights taken away? We've already seen President Obama's Justice Department sending out warnings to state and local law enforcement agencies across America, labeling conservatives and former military as potential "domestic terrorists" (a sentiment that, it seems, it was revealed that an Inspector Generals' investigation found that there were 72 people on the Terror Watch List working at the Department of Homeland Security.
If the Justice Department can't keep suspected terrorists out of their own ranks, why should we rely on them to determine who can and cannot purchase firearms?
Besides the blatant unconstitutionality of revoking Americans' rights with no due process, why should we believe that this measure would change anything?
Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, who tried to detonate explosives he'd smuggled onto a plane in his underwear in 2009, was allowed to board a plane, so he presumably wasn't on the No Fly List.
American authorities were warned about the Tsarnaev brothers' connections to terrorists, yet a mis-spelled name in a database (Tsarnayev instead of Tsarnaev) allowed Tamerlan Tsarnaev to travel to Russia in 2012, and it is believed that he received some kind of terrorist training while on that trip.
The Sandy Hook shooter stole his mother's legally-purchased firearms.
Dylan Roof, who shot up a church in Charleston, was able to pass a background check and purchase a gun due to a clerical error.
The San Bernardino terrorists used guns that they got from a friend. After that attack, a former DHS employee blew the whistle on investigations into radical Islamic elements within the U.S., which were shut down over concerns within the DOJ that focusing on Muslims was too politically incorrect. The mosque attended by the San Bernardino terrorists was under scrutiny as part of that investigation; it's enough to make one wonder whether the attack in Orlando could possibly have been prevented as part of that same investigation.
The Orlando terrorist was investigated by the Justice Department multiple times - he was even reported to authorities by his coworkers for making terroristic threats, yet nothing was done. He kept his job as a security guard, and his gun permit.
President Obama became indignant over Republican criticisms of his continued refusal to allege that attacks by violent Islamists were committed by violent Islamists...and I will say this for him, the president is a master at knocking down the straw men he constructs for himself...though his record in addressing real issues leaves much to be desired. And in his (un)righteous indignation and rush to condemn Republicans, the NRA, and millions of American gun owners for crimes that they didn't commit, he completely missed the point.
How do you fight an enemy if you can't even name them?
How do you stop the bloodshed if you blind yourself to its source?
How are you not a dictator if your constant focus is on diminishing the rights of your subjects...er...citizens?
How will passing more laws stop those who are intent on violating the laws we already have?
Robert Cleveland, Senior Conservative Editor: Robert Cleveland is the IT Director for a document management services company. When he isn't working on computers and scanners, he's spending time with his wife and kids, or writing about just how jacked-up Washington politics is. He is a strong believer that hard work and freedom are what make America the greatest nation on the planet, and it is of the utmost importance that we never lose those values. Robert's other writing can be found at his blog, more...)