The crusade to undermine the Second Amendment has become more and more covert. Even the staunchest liberal pretends that they are uninterested in outlawing guns. Instead, they use phrases like “commonsense gun control” or they try to frame the discussion as a sporting consideration by asking questions with a centrally erroneous premise like, “Why do you need an AR-15 to hunt?”
The battle against our Second Amendment rights has moved largely to individual states and on a federal level, the left is framing the issue as a mental health issue, insisting that the government should be entrusted with deciding who is and who is not mentally capable of retaining their Second Amendment rights.
For the most part, the left has stopped with the full-frontal attacks…
The New York Times, the former newspaper of record that now serves as an American Pravda, recently opined about how we as a nation could create real gun control that works.
The ludicrous article’s author, Alan Berlow, cites the National Firearms Act of 1934 (NFA) as an example of sweeping gun control reforms that are allowable by law and insists that the NFA could be expanded to include hurdles to obtain any gun.
The NFA is widely derided by constitutionalists as an example of legislative tyranny as it was a measure that was forced through as a tax on certain firearms and firearm accessories like fully-automatic weapons and silencers. The true intent of the taxation, however, was always meant to make the obtaining of such weapons cost-prohibitive. Berlow insists that the kind of restrictions provided by the NFA could and should be expanded to include gun owners of any firearm.
Berlow insists that the NRA cannot logically oppose such a measure because the measure is both “practical” and “constitutional.”
Leaders of the National Rifle Association rarely talk about the [NFA], and that’s probably because it imposes the kinds of practical — and constitutional — limits on gun ownership, such as registration and background checks, that the NRA regularly insists will lead to the demise of the Second Amendment.
Yes, because nothing says “you’re irrationally afraid of some conspiracy to erode the Second Amendment” like registering all firearms and fingerprinting and photographing all gun owners.
Berlow’s argument is exactly the inverse of everything that has made America great. The notion that a citizen ought to apply to exercise his God-given constitutional rights is not merely absurd, it is a dangerous notion.
Further, the idea that innocent, law-abiding citizens should acquiesce to being treated as criminals without ever having committed a crime is contrary to our understanding of due process.
Using the NFA as an example as to why this could work is also a ludicrous notion as the NFA has been repeatedly augmented since its passage. Democrats used the slippery slope in 1968 to further restrict Second Amendment rights while harping, “Well, since the NFA already exists, why not add to it?…”
In 1986, liberals pulled the same scheme and augmented it further.
Now, like giving a mouse a cookie, the left is circling-back for more and painting those who warn of incremental tyranny as paranoid or otherwise unreasonable.
It is not merely our option to resist tyranny; it is our duty as Americans to resist it. That means refuting unjust ideas, defying unjust laws and using all means necessary to preserve our essential liberties.
If Mr. Berlow thinks that American gun owners will ever line-up in any significant numbers to acquiesce to measures that can only be to facilitate future gun confiscation, he is sincerely mistaken.