“What Ifs?” on Gun Laws
Gene Lalor | April 4, 2013
Jumping the gun on at least half the liberal states in the Union intent on infringing on Americans’ constitutional right “to keep and bear arms,” Connecticut legislators passed the most restrictive gun control law in the country despite very vocal opposition from gun owners and Republicans in the lower house.
The Dems can now sit back and reflect on the self-satisfied delusion that they have done their utmost to protect the Nutmeg State from a recurrence of last December’s horror in Newtown when 20 defenseless children and 6 educators were massacred inside the Sandy Hook Elementary School by deranged madman, Adam Lanza.
The Connecticut lawmakers have also done their utmost to insure their re-elections in a state traumatized by Sandy Hook and terrified over guns by exploiting the deaths of those innocents with feel-good legislation which will have absolutely no substantive deterrent value on future Newtowns.
The comprehensive Connecticut statute bans high-capacity ammunition magazines similar to those used by Lanza, requires registration of gun magazines containing 10 or more rounds, creates America’s first statewide dangerous weapon offender registry, establishes an “ammunition eligibility certificate,” imposes immediate universal background checks for all firearms buyers, extends Connecticut’s assault weapons ban, prohibits the purchase or sale of any banned weapons within the state, and mandates that owners of all currently legal firearms register them with the state.
The chief problem with the Connecticut law is that it is essentially useless, except insofar as winning votes, a reality well-realized by members of the Connecticut legislature,
Similar to gun legislation pushed by New York’s Democrat governor Andrew Cuomo and already in place in Democrat Maryland and Colorado, Connecticut’s misbegotten law would ban Adam Lanza-type bullet magazines yet overlooks a slew of unintended consequences:
–What if gun owners switch to magazines that hold a mere nine rounds? Would a ban on ten or more really make much of a difference to a maniac bent on murder?
–What if those laws are passed and another massacre takes place in a school or elsewhere? Will Democrats revise their gun laws to incorporate every weapon known to mankind, including those frequently used for self-defense?
–What if the next mass killing–and there will be more–doesn’t involve guns at all but a fertilizer bomb such as that built by Timothy McVeigh? Will naive gun control Dems abolish the production of Scott’s lawn-enhancing products?
–What if purchasers of firearms manage to falsify or conceal their criminal backgrounds as Freeport, N.Y. middle school principal John O’Mard allegedly did? Will Democrats be able to insure that such gross errors will never happen again?
–What if forbidden weaponry is transported from neighboring states and used to kill people? Will Connecticut erect East Germany-like checkpoints to stop, frisk and sometimes shoot anyone attempting to cross its border?
–What if politicians like gun-advocate Sen. Harry Reid, or celebrities like home-intruder-shooter Maya Angelou, or anti-gun, armed-body-guarded simpleton Michael Moore want to stop by with their rifles, their shotguns, and pistol-packing bodyguards? Will Democrats disarm them or just exempt them and hope they won’t go berserk?
–What if–and this is less a “what if ” than a probability chiseled in stone–career and novice criminals choose to ignore any and all state or federal restrictions on the purchase, distribution, and use of lethal weapons and go on their merry way?
Will knee-jerk, anti-gun, gun-owning Democrat liberal-leftists finally concede that the obvious keys to curbing violence, to ending the mayhem, to restoring civil sanity in Chicago and other liberal bastions are strict enforcement of laws now on the books nationwide, lengthy incarcerations of those found guilty of violating those laws, forced institutionalization of recognizable screwballs such as Adam Lanza, Jared Loughner, James Holmes, and Seung-Hui Cho before they go on muderous rampages?
Of course not! Legislating is much easier than enforcing legislation and cheaper than incarcerating anti-social lawbreakers and institutionalizing potential psychopaths.
Liberal-leftist feel good laws only make lib-leftist legislators feel good. When reality kicks in, when their foolishness becomes apparent, they will claim they were misinterpreted, that their ill-considered legislation was misrepresented, and that they are being unfairly criticized by some non-existent vast, right wing media.
Someone should ask lib-leftists what they would do if they had a gun available during a confrontion with a snarling, mouth-breathing, knuckle-dragging thug. Would they shoot him or dial 911 and pray he makes nice while waiting for the police to show up?
Contributor's website: http://www.genelalor.com/
Content posted by users from other sites is posted for commentary and news purposes under fair use and each author is responsible for their own postings and a particular posting should not be construed as being endorsed by this site or its owner.