1160X130 HeaderFP  

Digital Daily Gun News Website

BREAKING :
HOW CAN YOU TELL GUN CONTROL ADVOCATES ARE DISINGENUOUS—ASIDE FROM THEIR LIPS MOVING AND THE UNINTELLIGIBLE SOUNDS SLITHERING OUT OF THEIR MOUTHS? BY THEIR DOGMATIC DEVOTION TO INEFFECTIVE “SOLUTIONS.” FOR EXAMPLE, EVEN THOUGH STUDIES HAVE FOUND “UNIVERSAL BACKGROUND CHECKS” HAVE MADE NO DIFFERENCE IN STATES SUCH AS DELAWARE, WASHINGTON, AND COLORADO WHERE THEY’VE TRIED IT, GUN CONTROLLERS CONTINUE TO ADVOCATE FOR THEM AS IF THEY’RE A PANACEA FOR ALL GUN CRIME.THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE EACH YEAR TRY TO BUY GUNS NATIONWIDE EVEN THOUGH THEY ARE PROHIBITED BY FEDERAL OR STATE LAW, BUT RARELY ARE THOSE CASES ELEVATED TO A PROSECUTOR’S DESK FOR CHARGES. THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT REFERRED 23,777 FEDERAL BACKGROUND CHECK DENIALS FOR INVESTIGATION BUT ONLY 95 OF THOSE WERE REFERRED FOR PROSECUTION AND EVEN FEWER — 25 — RESULTED IN PROSECUTIONS, ACCORDING TO FISCAL 2016 AND 2017 FEDERAL DATA.STARTING THURSDAY, ANYONE WHO CAN LEGALLY POSSESS A GUN IN KENTUCKY CAN CARRY IT AROUND UNDER A COAT, IN A PURSE OR HIDDEN IN A HIP HOLSTER — NO PERMIT REQUIRED. SENATE BILL 150, WHICH WAS SIGNED INTO LAW ON MARCH 11 AND TAKES EFFECT JUNE 27, ELIMINATES THE SIX-HOUR GUN-SAFETY TRAINING COURSE, BACKGROUND CHECK AND $60 APPLICATION FEE THAT KENTUCKY PREVIOUSLY REQUIRED. A DIVIDED SUPREME COURT RULED MONDAY THAT A FEDERAL LAW REQUIRING LONGER PRISON SENTENCES FOR USING A GUN DURING A "CRIME OF VIOLENCE" IS UNCONSTITUTIONALLY VAGUE. THE COURT VOTED 5-4 STATING THE LAW "PROVIDES NO RELIABLE WAY" TO DETERMINE WHICH OFFENSES QUALIFY AS CRIMES OF VIOLENCE.MULTIPLE ANTI-GUNNERS IN THE SENATE ARE MOVING TO BAN SUPPRESSORS FOLLOWING THE TRAGIC SHOOTING IN VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA. THE HELP EMPOWER AMERICANS TO RESPOND (HEAR) ACT IS BEING INTRODUCED BY DEMOCRATIC SENS. BOB MENENDEZ (NJ), DIANNE FEINSTEIN (CA), RICHARD BLUMENTHAL (CA) AND TIM KAINE (VA).

Save Us From Ourselves?

Steve Comus

Thursday, November 1, 2018 — There is the old joke: “I’m from the government and I am here to help you.”

There is a new socialist (small “c” communist actually) anti-handgun proposal afoot that is based on the assumption that the government is efficient and equitable. The entire plan is based on the Democrats taking over and controlling everything.

If there is one thing about gun grabbers: they are tenacious. A recent proposal to solve the “gun problem” opines that there are simply too many handguns, and that by reducing their number, the world will be a peachy place.

What we actually have is a “people problem” that sometimes involves guns. The only gun problems we have are things like malfunctions, rust and that sort of thing.

Recently, the Washington Monthly published a piece by William V. Glastris Jr. entitled “A Real Long-Term Solution to Gun Violence.” He suggests that it will take a Democrat-controlled White House and Congress to create a government-owned holding company that, after swallowing-up all of the handgun makers and blocking imports of handguns, can make the prices of handguns high enough that there won’t be as many, and that with fewer handguns, there will be less gun violence.

Wow! That’s a whole lot of social engineering and draconian overreach, all in one move.

It is important to pay attention to these lamebrains because all too often their babblings actually get traction. The author of the article admits certain things, however.

“The stalemate on gun legislation will not last forever,” he states, referring to the situation that he explains as existing because of the National Rifle Association and its ties with the Republican Party.

“In that spirit, I would like to float such an idea,” the author continues. “It is not one that comes from deep expertise in gun policy, which I cannot claim. Rather, it emerges from my experience in the private equity business.”

Okay, so what we have here is a guy who suggests he’ll solve the gun debate on a ledger sheet.

“To bring down the level of gun violence, we need to have fewer handguns in circulation,” he states. “To that end, I propose that Congress pass legislation directing the federal government to take three major steps: purchase the entire domestic handgun manufacturing industry; ban the import of all handguns; and offer cash buybacks for all handguns in circulation. Over time, this would allow the government to significantly lower the supply—and thereby raise the price—of handguns, all without infringing on Americans’ right to bear arms.”

I guess poor folks are just not full-blown citizens in this guy’s mind because if the prices of handguns are artificially increased enough via government intervention, then those without much money are essentially priced out of being able to exercise their rights. Gun grabbers do tend to be elitists.

The basis for his entire argument is that the socialist offensive against gun ownership should start with the takeover by one political party, and then that party should force handgun manufacture to go from the private to the public sector while banning the import of handguns from offshore. Talk about a choke point on steroids!

He figures it would take about $5 billion to buy-out the entire handgun production in the U.S.

“Then bring in a smart, highly experienced team of managers from the industry to pull the new federal handgun manufacturing holding company together,” he suggests. “Maintain brands and models, run some of the divisions independently, but create efficiencies at the same time—just as is done in private industry.”

When has the government ever done anything efficiently? If the government owns it, politics will run it and if politics run it, it will be perverted.

How perverted? The author notes that the government gun company would have to be a legal monopoly.

“Of course, if new domestic companies were allowed to jump back into the handgun manufacturing business, they would flood the market, undercutting the government’s prices and spoiling the entire effort,” the author notes. “So the legislation would also have to grant the government a monopoly on the manufacturing of handguns. Constitutionally, this would be controversial…. But that would be true of almost any ambitious progressive policy one can think of. Eventually, the more conservative reading of the Second Amendment will have to be overcome.”

The quote above admits to being an “ambitious progressive policy” and it observes, “the more conservative reading of the Second Amendment will have to be overcome.”

Right back to basics. Even this guy admits that such a plan can’t work if the Second Amendment is interpreted to mean what it actually says. So, what do we have? A situation where a plan calls for government takeover of private business and scuttling of the Second Amendment.

And by the way, all of this, he notes, will be done on the fly.

“Once in place, the system would necessarily be managed, through trial and error, with an eye toward its market effects.”

The author does, however, allow that his idea might not fly.

“The politics of a federal purchase of all handgun manufacturers, an import ban, and a federal buyback will obviously play badly with the gun rights movement and its standard-bearing organization, the NRA—which would face losing a major source of funding and thus a loss of political power,” he states. “These politics could well stop the idea in its tracks.”

One would hope that such insanity is stopped in its tracks.

Download
Our Mobile App

and get our latest news and featured videos instantly

Download Now

BREAKING :
HOW CAN YOU TELL GUN CONTROL ADVOCATES ARE DISINGENUOUS—ASIDE FROM THEIR LIPS MOVING AND THE UNINTELLIGIBLE SOUNDS SLITHERING OUT OF THEIR MOUTHS? BY THEIR DOGMATIC DEVOTION TO INEFFECTIVE “SOLUTIONS.” FOR EXAMPLE, EVEN THOUGH STUDIES HAVE FOUND “UNIVERSAL BACKGROUND CHECKS” HAVE MADE NO DIFFERENCE IN STATES SUCH AS DELAWARE, WASHINGTON, AND COLORADO WHERE THEY’VE TRIED IT, GUN CONTROLLERS CONTINUE TO ADVOCATE FOR THEM AS IF THEY’RE A PANACEA FOR ALL GUN CRIME.THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE EACH YEAR TRY TO BUY GUNS NATIONWIDE EVEN THOUGH THEY ARE PROHIBITED BY FEDERAL OR STATE LAW, BUT RARELY ARE THOSE CASES ELEVATED TO A PROSECUTOR’S DESK FOR CHARGES. THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT REFERRED 23,777 FEDERAL BACKGROUND CHECK DENIALS FOR INVESTIGATION BUT ONLY 95 OF THOSE WERE REFERRED FOR PROSECUTION AND EVEN FEWER — 25 — RESULTED IN PROSECUTIONS, ACCORDING TO FISCAL 2016 AND 2017 FEDERAL DATA.STARTING THURSDAY, ANYONE WHO CAN LEGALLY POSSESS A GUN IN KENTUCKY CAN CARRY IT AROUND UNDER A COAT, IN A PURSE OR HIDDEN IN A HIP HOLSTER — NO PERMIT REQUIRED. SENATE BILL 150, WHICH WAS SIGNED INTO LAW ON MARCH 11 AND TAKES EFFECT JUNE 27, ELIMINATES THE SIX-HOUR GUN-SAFETY TRAINING COURSE, BACKGROUND CHECK AND $60 APPLICATION FEE THAT KENTUCKY PREVIOUSLY REQUIRED. A DIVIDED SUPREME COURT RULED MONDAY THAT A FEDERAL LAW REQUIRING LONGER PRISON SENTENCES FOR USING A GUN DURING A "CRIME OF VIOLENCE" IS UNCONSTITUTIONALLY VAGUE. THE COURT VOTED 5-4 STATING THE LAW "PROVIDES NO RELIABLE WAY" TO DETERMINE WHICH OFFENSES QUALIFY AS CRIMES OF VIOLENCE.MULTIPLE ANTI-GUNNERS IN THE SENATE ARE MOVING TO BAN SUPPRESSORS FOLLOWING THE TRAGIC SHOOTING IN VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA. THE HELP EMPOWER AMERICANS TO RESPOND (HEAR) ACT IS BEING INTRODUCED BY DEMOCRATIC SENS. BOB MENENDEZ (NJ), DIANNE FEINSTEIN (CA), RICHARD BLUMENTHAL (CA) AND TIM KAINE (VA).