“They that would surrender essential liberty for a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.”
Fake Hispanic Beto O’Rourke has managed to anger pretty much everyone. Normal Americans are angry because he has openly expressed Democrat/Socialist/Communist gun grabbing desires in a way that will no longer allow his brethren to deny they really want to seize the guns of law-abiding Americans. The more honest—to the degree any of these people can be said to be honest—among them fear O’Rourke may have handed the White House to Mr. Trump in 2020. “Damn it Beto, you told the rubes what we really intend to do! How could you do that?!” To be sure, the occasional Democrat of the past said essentially the same thing, like Senator Diane Feinstein, who, back in 1995, said:
If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them, ‘Mr. and Mrs. America, turn ‘em all in,’ I would have done it.
That particular marker had been laid down long before, but she made it explicit: if Democrats ever won the House, Senate and Presidency, they’d ban every privately owned firearm. They had the chance during Obama’s first term, but because his presidency was all about him, and they couldn’t get such a bill through the Senate due to their 60 vote rule, they missed that chance. Should they again seize the Senate, they’ll eliminate that unfortunate rule oversight once and for all. To be entirely fair, their Clinton “assault weapon” ban (1994-2004), which accomplished nothing at all for public safety, was absolutely deadly to Democrats of the time, and made them all, so to speak, gun shy, as this NRA ILA article reveals:
Recalling the 1994 election in his autobiography “My Life,” Clinton explained,
On November 8, we got the living daylights beat out of us, losing eight Senate races and fifty-four House seats, the largest defeat for our party since 1946….The NRA had a great night. They beat both Speaker Tom Foley and Jack Brooks, two of the ablest members of Congress, who had warned me this would happen. Foley was the first Speaker to be defeated in more than a century. Jack Brooks had supported the NRA for years and had led the fight against the assault weapons ban in the House, but as chairman of the Judiciary Committee he had voted for the overall crime bill even after the ban was put into it. The NRA was an unforgiving master: one strike and you`re out. The gun lobby claimed to have defeated nineteen of the twenty-four members on its hit list. They did at least that much damage….
Hillary Clinton reiterated this point in her 2017 book, ‘What Happened.’ Hillary wrote,
In the 1990s, my husband fought hard to pass both a ten-year ban on assault weapons and the Brady Bill, which, for the first time, required background checks on many gun purchases at federally licensed firearms dealers… The NRA funded an intense backlash to the new safety measures and helped defeat a lot of Democratic members of Congress in the disastrous 1994 midterm elections. Then, in 2000, the NRA helped beat Al Gore.
Bill Clinton himself admitted Gore’s gun control stance helped defeat him. Gore—and Democrats in general–has yet to admit he lost the election.
Memory of the 1994/2000 debacles surely restrained Democrats during the Obama years, particularly those in Republican leaning districts. In any case, Barack Obama proved to be the most effective gun salesman in American history, making AR-15 like rifles and all manner of ammunition scarce and expensive primarily because Americans knew what he wanted to do. With the election of President Trump, and the resumption of the rule of law, this has changed dramatically. O’Rourke’s gambit hasn’t paid off. He was hovering in the 3-4% range before he proclaimed his gun grabbing intentions, and is still there.
Let us, gentle readers, look at a fact or two. I know Former Vice President, who said he’s still Vice President, Gropin’ Joe Biden has said Democrat/Socialist/Communists believe in truth over fact, but normal Americans, upon occasion, still find facts handy. According to the FBI’s Uniform Crime Report for 2017, these are the numbers of weapons used in homicides:
Guns Of All Types: 10,982
Knives, etc.: 1691
Fists, Feet, etc.: 696
There are no entirely accurate figures for AR-15-like rifles used in such crimes, but various studies put that number at from less than 1% of the 403 total to a bit more. In other words, AR-15-like semiautomatic rifles account for a miniscule portion of the total of weapons used in homicides (about 60% of all firearm involved deaths are suicided). While anti-liberty/gun cracktivists love to scream that mass shooting attacks are on the rise, this too is false. They remain rare but highly publicized and politicized, and AR-15-like rifles are not, in fact, the guns of choice even for those attacks. The most deadly school attack committed with guns to date, Virginia Tech–32 dead, 17 wounded–was carried out with two common handguns, one in .22 LR caliber with a 10 round magazine. The Fort Hood attack–13 dead, 32 wounded–was done with a single handgun.
According to the FBI, more than 17 times more homicides were committed with handguns than rifles, and when AR-15 type rifles are considered, the numbers make attempts to demonize such rifles farce. Far more people are killed with knives and other edged weapons, and fists and feet, than are killed with AR-15-type rifles, but it is AR-15s that must be banned?
Why the AR-15? It has been used in several recent, highly publicized shootings, so it presents a political opportunity. Many D/S/Cs are suggesting it will be a significant part of their Get Trump campaign for the 2020 cycle. And there is this long-time tactic often used just as Josh Sugarmann did in 1988:
The public’s confusion over fully-automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons — anything that looks like a machine gun is presumed to be a machine gun — can only increase the chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons.
Sugarman was a prominent anti-liberty/gun cracktivist of the time. Circa 2019, they’re still trying to trick the public into thinking common semiautomatic rifles are battlefield weapons, hoping that emotion, rather than fact and logic, will carry the day. Banning any class of firearm will, they hope, open the door to total citizen disarmament. Considering AR-15s are no different in function than any semiautomatic firearm that accepts magazines, that class will be very large indeed, comprising the most common contemporary arms in widespread use.
But no one needs an AR-15! Considering the right to keep and bear arms is a fundamental, unalienable, express constitutional right (see Heller and McDonald ) this issue should be off the table. But just how far do we want government to go in telling us what we “need”? And where do D/S/Cs get off telling us which unalienable, express rights we’re allowed to retain? This is particularly familiar to those that have read The Federalist and other writings of the founders. They wrote the Second Amendment, which bestows no right, but merely acknowledges one, with the intention that an armed populace would deter future tyranny, and if necessary, overthrow it. To that end, one might reasonably argue that law-abiding Americans should possess the weapons most effective to that purpose: fully automatic military firearms, and without restriction.
O’Rourke’s “buy back” scheme is a misnomer. The government has never owned the guns he intends to “buy back.” They are the personal property of their owners. It must be observed that D/S/Cs consider all money and property theirs. The only issue is how much their benevolent leadership, in their infinite wisdom and mercy, will allow Deplorables to keep. One can also be certain any buy back scheme would never fairly compensate anyone for their property.
D/S/Cs are also proposing various registration schemes, which are absolutely necessary if arms are to be seized. How else would the government know where to go to seize them? There is, however, a very good reason never to allow any registration scheme: the 1968 Supreme Court US v. Haynes Decision.
In that case, the Supreme Court ruled, by an 8-1 margin, that convicted felons cannot be prosecuted for failing to register a gun, or for possessing an unregistered gun. It’s a violation of their Fifth Amendment rights against self-incrimination. D/S/Cs would insist honest, law-abiding Americans register and surrender their arms, knowing criminals cannot be required to do either, or prosecuted for disobeying the law, which is what they, by habit and vocation, do.
There’s an old maxim that legislators should never enact any law they’re not willing to enforce with deadly force. D/S/Cs are more than willing to enforce their anti-liberty/gun laws with deadly force, just not against actual criminals who form a substantial portion of their natural constituency.
But what about the police? They’re paid to protect you! They’re the professionals; leave it to them!
They’re paid indeed, but most are hardly experts with firearms, and they have no actual duty to protect anyone. Not only that, they can’t be held liable if they fail to protect anyone. The relevant case is Castlerock v. Gonzalez, and I wrote about it years ago for PJ Media.
Briefly, Jessica Gonzalez had a restraining order against her estranged husband. He took her three young daughters out of her yard and fled with them. She, over many hours, begged the Castlerock, CO police to find her daughters and enforce the restraining order, but they continually blew her off. Finally, he attacked the police station, firing on it with a handgun. The police finally did their duty and helped him commit suicide by cop. Nearby, they found his pickup, and in it, the bodies of his daughters. He murdered them hours earlier.
Jessica sued, and the case went all the way to the Supreme Court. They ruled the police have a duty only to the public at large, not to any individual. They have a duty to enforce the law, and to deter crime by their presence, nothing more. They can’t be held liable for failing to protect any individual.
Sound outrageous? It’s absolutely rational and necessary. There are few police officers, many more criminals, and far, far more of us. They can’t be everywhere at once, and the old axiom that when seconds count, the police are minutes away, is undeniably accurate. What of rural areas, where a deputy sheriff will commonly be an hour or more away from a call for help? In major cities, particularly those ruled by Democrats, police response time is best measured with a sundial. Besides, who would become a police officer knowing they would be sued every day of the week?
The truth is the police cannot protect anyone, and have no general duty to do so. Government has no conscience, and will never allow itself to be sued. Government has only priorities and powers, and neither are focused on the individual. D/S/C government is scornful of individual rights because those rights are limitations on its powers. Thus do they wish to disarm the law-abiding, and care little for disarming criminals, who help keep normal Americans in line.
Politicians know this. They know no one can hold them responsible for their indifference to the welfare and lives of others. All normal Americans can do is turn them out of office at the next election—if D/S/C election fraud allows it. They know they’re not going to hold criminals responsible for their crimes, unless they’re so stupid as to victimize them. They know exactly what will happened if they disarm the law-abiding, and they salivate at the prospect.
We’re on our own. We are all responsible for defending our lives and the lives of those we love. Refusing to recognize that reality and refusing to take the steps necessary to save lives does not change reality, because evil exists and it may confront anyone at any time and any place. An additional reality is an AR-15, or similar rifle, might well be necessary to save lives, and it will surely be necessary if fake Hispanic Beto O’Rourke, or anyone like him, takes power.
The founders felt this the most compelling reason for normal Americans to keep and bear the most powerful military weapons of their day. Arguments that if they knew about AR-15s, they would never have written the Second Amendment are nonsense. The tool/technology was never the point; the principle was and ever will be. They would have been delighted to have that kind of technology, and would have thought and done no differently if they did.
If it’s good enough for them, and if Beto hates it, it’s more than good enough for normal Americans. Not only will his desires fail to provide even temporary safety, they will absolutely deprive Americans of essential liberty, specifically, the ability to vindicate the rights of self-government and self-defense. For D/S/Cs, that’s the entire point.