but to desensitize the public for their ultimate confiscation

[Nukes]

... the assault weapons ban will have no significant effect either on
the crime rate or on personal security. Nonetheless, it is a good idea,
though for reasons its proponents dare not enunciate ... Its only real
justification is not to reduce crime but to desensitize the public to
the regulation of weapons in preparation for their ultimate confiscation
... Yes, Sarah Brady is doing God’s work.

-Charles Krauthammer


It’s about confiscation
By Dan Gifford*
Film producer
The Washington Times
March 17, 2013
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013...ing-smoke/


If no serious crisis is to be wasted as a chance to sneak laws onto the
books that fail the rational reflection test, all “gun control”
proposals hastily put forward after the Connecticut elementary school
slaughter by a mentally disturbed young man should be seen for what they
actually are. They are gradual steps toward the confiscation of firearms
from private hands, the “Holy Grail” of “gun control” activism.

Should that assessment seem overly distrustful of legislator and
anti-gun activist bloviation about reducing gun violence and preventing
mass shootings “from ever happening again” (mass shootings will happen
again no matter what laws are passed), conservative Fox News pundit
Charles Krauthammer must have surprised many fans in 1996 when he
articulated and justified the gun free society case for confiscation in
his Washington Post column while the Clinton administration’s law
banning “assault weapons” was up for repeal.

“[E]ven a cynic must marvel at the all-round phoniness of the debate
over repeal of the assault weapons ban. … The claim of the advocates
that banning these 19 types of ‘assault weapons’ will reduce the crime
rate is laughable. … In fact, the assault weapons ban will have no
significant effect either on the crime rate or on personal security.
Nonetheless, it is a good idea, though for reasons its proponents dare
not enunciate. I am not up for reelection. So let me elaborate the real
logic of the ban. … Its only real justification is not to reduce crime
but to desensitize the public to the regulation of weapons in
preparation for their ultimate confiscation. … Yes, Sarah Brady is doing
God’s work. Yes, in the end America must follow the way of other
democracies and disarm.”

Whether you agree or disagree that Mr. Krauthammer’s statist
confiscation goal is a desirable objective, it is the actual goal of
those seeking to sacrifice the Second Amendment for a phony notion of
public safety. This means the Second Amendment needs to be gutted on the
same public altar for all to see, and candidly discussed, even if most
of our First Amendment-protected media refuses to do so.

A major part of that discussion needs to focus on the tangled web of
ill-conceived gun law creations that entrap good people. It particularly
needs to address gun law enforcement. More federal gun laws mean more
power for the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms and its
“jackbooted thugs,” as Democratic Rep. John Dingell of Michigan aptly
called them, for the ATF’s well known string of deadly debacles that
were intended to scare the public into giving it more power via more gun
laws.

Illinois Democratic Rep. Jan Schakowsky agrees the current “assault
weapon” ban bills before Congress and state legislatures are “just the
beginning.” “We’re on a roll now,” she says, “and we’re gonna push as
hard as we can and as far as we can.” How far is that? “I’m against
handguns,” Ms. Schakowsky said.

That’s an admission of the slippery slope concern American gun owners
have long voiced. It’s also the concern Ms. Schakowsky’s convicted
federal bank fraud felon husband, Democratic Party strategist Robert
Creamer, has poo-pooed in the Huffington Post and elsewhere as an NRA
conspiracy theory.

California Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein has at least openly stated
that she wanted to confiscate all “assault weapons” (and all other guns
too?) during the mid-1990s but didn’t have the votes. So her current
bill titled “To Ensure That the Right to Keep and Bear Arms is Not
Unlimited” is a refreshingly candid statement of her intention.

Not so with Nevada Democratic Sen. Harry Reid’s “Sandy Hook Elementary
School Violence Reduction Act.” Its title implies strict Second
Amendment restrictions can actually reduce violence. Yet if Mr. Reid
really thought violence could be reduced by paring Amendment rights, he
could easily do so by proposing to reduce or eliminate the rights of due
process that often make the arrest and conviction of criminals so difficult.

Could a Reid-Feinstein bill “To Ensure That the Right to a jury trial or
a Miranda warning or against unreasonable search and seizure is Not
Unlimited” get backing? How many lives could be saved if police were
empowered to search anyone or place they wished? Yale constitutional law
professor Akhil Amar has openly questioned whether there is any
constitutional requirement for a search warrant at all.

It’s a very slippery constitutional slope some of our high-minded
idealists have put us on. And it’s one Benjamin Franklin warned us about
long ago. “Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a
little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.”


*Dan Gifford is an Emmy-winning, Oscar-nominated film producer.
http://brentwood.patch.com/users/dan-gifford

[Variable]

Yes, it's good that you brought that up. A lot of people don't/didn't know that Krauthammer was a gun ban fan. I didn't know either until recently when I saw him talking about Sandy Hook. I liked him-- before I found out what kind of scumbag he really is.

Here's another article by Krauthammer:

http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2012-...s-gun-laws

"I have no problem in principle with gun control. Congress enacted (and I supported) an assault weapons ban in 1994. The problem was: It didn’t work. (So concluded a University of Pennsylvania study commissioned by the Justice Department.) The reason is simple. Unless you are prepared to confiscate all existing firearms, disarm the citizenry and repeal the Second Amendment, it’s almost impossible to craft a law that will be effective."

[Nukes]

Ask him if he would disarm Israelis. He sings a different tune on that one. Another fan of double standards.

[cory]

Ask him if he would disarm Israelis. He sings a different tune on that one. Another fan of double standards.

Nukes, what do the Israelis have to do with any of this? Do we really want to side track this thread with this endless argument?

[JASmith]

So, we see why the NRA takes a hard-line stance on ANY gun-control. Any new law merely sets a precedent and lowers the bar for the next one.

Cory -- The Israelis, like the Swiss, encourage a huge fraction of their citizens are armed. As such their experience with crime is relevant. External politics and ongoing strife with neighbor is not what Nukes called to my mind from his post.

[Trooper]

So, we see why the NRA takes a hard-line stance on ANY gun-control. Any new law merely sets a precedent and lowers the bar for the next one.

Cory -- The Israelis, like the Swiss, encourage a huge fraction of their citizens are armed. As such their experience with crime is relevant. External politics and ongoing strife with neighbor is not what Nukes called to my mind from his post.

Look at the feminists with respect to abortion. They will not allow any regulations over abortion.

[JASmith]

...and those of us who are pro-life feel like they are seriously misguided.

Yours is an excellent point because it illustrates the difference in point of view.

Another thought is that the feminist and other liberal factions seem to experience a remarkable tolerance for noisy and sometimes violent protest while the conservative groups seemed to get chastised for almost any demonstration.

We saw how counterproductive the "open carry" movement in California was. Everyone who participated was polite and threatened no one, but it took only a few months for a law banning open carry to be enacted.

I think the difference is that we who understand firearms know how quickly things can get out of hand. The liberal followers tend to think that politeness can be regulated so assume that their protests won't go over the top with violence. The fact that they are wrong in the regard doesn't make their tactics any less effective.

Hence, we need to take those two lessons to heart and ensure that any pro-gun demonstrations don't have firearms in them.

[Trooper]

The problem is that it would be nearly impossible to disarm the American people. Look at the demand now. Bullets are selling at 500% more than the cost to make. That is in the profit margin that makes it interesting to smuggle (ie drugs). A total ban would mean that the Mexican cartels would be smuggling guns and ammunition as it would be hugely profitable. As the left refuses to shut down the border, anything can get across.

What the establishment and the left do not seem to understand is that the American people have known real freedom. Europeans went from the Monarchy to the Oligarchy. Russians went from the Czar to the Commissar. But we have known real freedom. Much harder to enslave us.

How well did Prohibition work? Or the 55 mph speed limit? We do not tend to obey laws that we dislike. And we love outlaws.

[Nukes]

Older (ahem) Americans have known real freedom. Younger Americans have not. In fact, they are quite acculturated to intrusion and control.

[bow shot]

+1. and sheltered all their lives from anything that might upset them.

Funny, we can't get our money back now that the kooks (Spock, Jung, Freud, and their disciples) have sired a generation of helpless idiots.

[Trooper]

Older (ahem) Americans have known real freedom. Younger Americans have not. In fact, they are quite acculturated to intrusion and control.

Oh, the young may have been sheltered, even babied. But they have known more freedom than anyone in Europe has ever known.

As for intrusion and control, you never lived in a small town, have you? In the past we have had control over people via social norms, gossip and family. One is never totally free (such being hedonistic). If the kids have any problem they have been given the pleasures of adulthood with little responsibility. In other words, hedonism.

[Deer Hunter]

Older (ahem) Americans have known real freedom. Younger Americans have not. In fact, they are quite acculturated to intrusion and control.

Unfortunately you are all to right. Kids nowadays act like Zombies or are hoodlums, just look at these kids with the Flash Mobs ( Thug is a more fitting description).

[Deer Hunter]

Oh, the young may have been sheltered, even babied. But they have known more freedom than anyone in Europe has ever known.

As for intrusion and control, you never lived in a small town, have you? In the past we have had control over people via social norms, gossip and family. One is never totally free (such being hedonistic). If the kids have any problem they have been given the pleasures of adulthood with little responsibility. In other words, hedonism.

Trooper : I to live in small town USA so we are somewhat isolated from alot of whats happening but just watch the local t.v.stations like Jacksonville, FL or Savannah GA, Charleston S.C.
The World has gone to Hell and a hand basket my man. Yove got Countries own Govt stealing money from Banks customers, States trying to take away our Constitutional rights and yet our kids are oblivious to how our Rights are being ripped from us. Hell, 1/2 of the adults dont know it. We're going to need much luck in our endeavors.