Chris Cox, executive director of the NRA-ILA on gun control
It's short but it's worth a read.
Gun control has worked for criminals and against law-abiding citizens elsewhere. California has a waiting period on firearm sales; prohibits private sales, trades and gifts of firearms between family members and friends; prohibits buying more than one handgun in a 30-day period; and has an "assault weapon" ban. But California's murder rate is 24 percent higher than the rest of the country.
Studies for Congress, the National Academy of Sciences and Health and Human Services have found no evidence that gun control reduces crime, at home or in foreign countries.
Whenever I've tried to use the example of Washington DC's handgun ban and the resulting increase in crime, my Liberal friends have countered with, "but DC is surrounded by places where you can buy guns". While this may be true, it still doesn't negate the fact that disarming citizens will increase crime.
A great example of this is Jamaica. You would think that a tiny island nation would be a great place to experiment with stringent gun control. Ban all the guns, the logic goes, and the criminals wouldn't be able to arm themselves. Alas, even on an island the black market prevails. The results of Jamaica's gun control has been staggering.
The UK's gun control has resulted in them having the highest knife crime of any country in Europe. There can be little doubt that eventually enough guns will be smuggled into the country to supply the criminal demand, and that violent crime rates will continue to increase.
posted by The Green Gun @ 10:51 AM
5 Comments:
If gun rights special-interest groups would just tone down their usual rhetoric about gun justice, and, instead, underscore the constitutional reasons for owning firearms, maybe people like me would be more willing to listen to reason.
Like you, I'm against most forms of gun control, but not because I was scared into a paranoid and individualistic psychosis, rather because I'm witnessing our government's despicable and expeditious fall into tyranny.
I'm sickened by this rhetoric that wantonly plays on our fears of "petty" crime (and I say that with all due respect). High-crimes, such as treason and political negligence should be our utmost concern -- and the primary reason why we own guns.
Although I agree that the 2nd Ammendment is partially to protect against high crimes and constitutional treason, it's hard not to sound a little nutty to folks when you make that your main talking point.
I had a liberal uncle of mine say, "but you can't fight men in tanks!" when I tried to make a 2nd Ammendment argument for owning assault weapons.
That said, you're right in that the NRA, like many other groups, uses hyperbole and fear to regularly milk their members for cash. They're seriously just as bad as the Brady Bunch. I get junk mail from the NRA all the time asking for money, and they usually blow everything out of proportion.
And yes, the NRA should be pushing the constitutional reasons harder, and they don't. That said, groups like the JFPO, the GOA, and the VCDL do push the constitutional reasons, and they push them hard. I'm currently an NRA & a VCDL member, and I'm thinking of expanding my membership to include the JFPO & the GOA. I'm also thinking about joining the ACLU because they do a nice job of protecting my other constitutional rights.
it's hard not to sound a little nutty to folks when you make that your main talking point.
Eight years ago I would have agreed with you. But now, in the face of such contemptible leadership, our popular expediencies have changed. True, when I mention that I am pro-gun to other liberals I am met with incredulous stares. But when I explain my position on constitutional grounds, and ask them how they intend to defend their liberties if the Bush Administration somehow subverts the democratic process, they light up and listen intently. Maybe it's because I'm a fellow liberal and not already maligned like the NRA is; but whatever it is, they listen and, more often than not, agree with me.
I think another reason pro-gun special interest groups subordinate the constitutional grounds for gun ownership is because to do so would be to devalue and, in the long run, denunciate the military industrial complex. This is an unwieldy predicament: in today's political environment conservatives control both the pro-gun and the pro-military discourses. To openly acknowledge the right of the people to overthrow the government by force means to admit that the military is an obstacle to that end.
A standing army is at worst unconstitutional and at best highly dubious -- this is why the 2nd amendment exists: to forestall an overt use of force by a standing army on its own people. A well regulated militia was to be our saving grace, but we messed it up along the way; and now we are at risk, with little recourse to our name.
It's not like the people in power actually need our votes to stay in power. Your point that the so-called conservatives represent both the pro-military and pro-gun lobby is yet another weakness of our two party system.
Well Jim, you do make a really good point.
That said, from time to time I do read the NRA making the firearms as a defense against tyranny argument, but it's rare. And I think you're right why they don't. The NRA itself was founded not so much as to encourage the citizen militia, as to provide a base of already trained marksmen for the standing army. So I can see why they would minimize the arguments in favor of a militia.
Post a Comment
<< Home