The left refuses to be honest about their intentions. They masquerade as the protectors of tolerance, but refuse to tolerate differing perspectives. They preach the need for diversity, but abhor diversity of thought and various backgrounds. They push an agenda to combat “climate change,” understanding that “green” industries are Democrat supporters; “big oil” is considered a Republican-backing industry.
However, no half-truth and manipulation is as egregious as the left’s anti-Second Amendment crusade. Though, when pressed, they readily admit that their proposed measures to curtail Americans’ freedoms will not stop mass shootings, they push ever onward with an agenda to disarm Americans while they claim that they do not seek civilian disarmament but, instead, want “commonsense” gun control measures.
The question they refuse to answer, however, is: “How much gun control will be enough?”
At what point will the left finally feel comfortable with the Second Amendment? Once they secure universal background checks, will they then feel content? When they have effected a national registry? When they have banned all but bolt-action rifles?
Where is the finish line for their anti-Second Amendment vendetta?
They conspicuously avoid this topic for a deceptively-obvious reason: the true aim of liberals is not to create modest, “commonsense” gun control laws; their aim is to boot-strap their way to civilian disarmament- a notion that is sure to frighten even centrist Democrats and militarize the patriotic right.
In the wake of the San Bernardino terrorist attack, liberals have seized-upon a win-win opportunity. By working to reframe the discussion as a discussion about guns in America, the left has worked to switch focus from the very-real danger of Islamic terrorism to the fictitious danger of guns in America.
However, one far-left liberal professor evidently did not get the memo about the left’s commitment to incremental tyranny.
Amitai Etzioni, a professor of international relations at George Washington University, recently penned a nauseating op-ed for the Huffington Post and claimed that increased gun control efforts would not be enough and posited that “domestic disarmament” is the solution to America’s gun violence.
Good progressive people may well respond that they must start with small, incremental measures, because the really big, effective ones do not have a prayer. But neither do the tiny ones, at least on the national level. The NRA will not yield an inch….
Most progressives seem unaware that whatever laws are finally enacted will have very little effect because the NRA and its allies in Congress have found powerful ways to prevent their enforcement. The Firearms Owners’ Protection Act of 1986 bans the ATF from inspecting gun dealers more than once in any 12-month period, even if violations are uncovered, and it reduces record-keeping violations from a felony to a misdemeanor offense, the result being that gun dealers are very rarely prosecuted.
The 2003 and 2004 Tiahrt amendments, named for their sponsor Rep. Todd Tiahrt, require that records from the background checks of gun buyers be destroyed within 24 hours, bar requiring gun dealers to conduct inventory checks to monitor gun thefts, and prevent crime gun trace data from being used in court, even when a dealer has broken the law. In addition, Congress has barred the ATF repeatedly from creating a computerized database, so when a gun is recovered at a crime scene, agents must manually search through boxes of paper records to trace the firearm to dealer or purchaser.
Advocates of gun control frequently cite the much lower levels of gun violence in other developed nations — such as Canada and the UK — in support of the measures they promote. However, these very low levels of gun violence have not been achieved by gun control but — by domestic disarmament.
Most people have no guns in these fully democratic nations and have no way of getting them, legally or otherwise. It is hence at best naïve, sometimes disingenuous, to imply that if several gun control measure would be enacted — and somehow enforced — the U.S. would gain what these other nations take for granted. (By the way, Black Lives Matters may wish to take note: In these blessed nations most cops, most of the time, have no guns either.)
Given that even micro gun control measures will be effectively blocked by the NRA and its allies, and that promoting mini measures as potentially effective is misleading, progressives may as well go for the big enchilada: Call for domestic disarmament.
One may say that the Supreme Court, after 250 years in which the Second Amendment was read as allowing only a well-regulated militia to have guns, recently reinterpreted it to mean that there is an individualized right to own guns. This suggests that we may have to get to domestic disarmament through the back door.
Make the gun manufacturers liable for harm done with their products. Ban the sale of ammunition. And vote for a president that will add to the Supreme Court those who will read the Second Amendment as written.
Above all, domestic disarmament is a true, compelling vision which cannot be said about the small gun control measures that are currently promoted by some of the most enlightened people among us.
Eztioni’s ignorant rant should chill each and every American to the bone. His contention not only presupposes that the reader vehemently agrees with his narrow view that our civil rights are a danger to society, but further calls for embracing a breed of tyranny that has led to countless human atrocities committed by tyrannical governments with nothing to fear from an unarmed population.
Further, comments such as these should not hold a place in any kind of media. They should not be banned, mind you, but should be weeded-out by editors who scoff at such radical and dangerous notions. Should the Huffington Post also publish op-eds written by people calling for a repeal of the First Amendment? What about Holocaust deniers who spout nonsense? Government should not ban such speech, but a media entity as large as the Huffington Post should have more common sense than to dedicate a minute of time or a smidgen of effort to promote such tyrannical nonsense.
However, Extioni’s ravings do hold a certain unintended value; they paint a clearer picture of the liberal mindset and emphasize the unspoken goal of the left.
They are not after “gun control”; they are after civilian disarmament and “people control.”