|
Let me preface this short piece by stating that I am by no means a republican. In fact, even seeing the faces of D*** Cheney, John AsKKKroft, and the rest of the Shrub Gang makes me almost physically sick. I’m no libertarian either – my support for public education, income taxes, welfare and Medicaid has turned me into a black sheep among die-hard Emerson Ngu wannabes. I personally identify myself as liberal – or, as the die-hard Hillarites designate this particular model of liberal, a left-libertarian. (Whatever… ).
I raise the ire of my fellow liberals by many things (I might be the universal champion in the art of annoying people), but mainly by my total and blanket opposition to almost any forms of gun control. I would be totally fine in a land where any sane adult could walk into a gun store and purchase a machinegun, a pair of grenades, pay for them with his credit card (or cash) and walk out and carry them around town. There’s a lot you should learn about gun control, but here’s two facts you should know:
1)In 2003, the Center for Disease Control published a study in which they said that none of the previously published studies has been able to prove that gun control causes a reduction in gun crime or gun accidents. Other studies, published by researchers in Russia, the UK, Australia, Canada and the USA have pointed out the very same thing previously – namely that gun control did not decrease violent crime, and some even claimed that gun control increases it. Up to the date of this article (December 5th, 2003), no research upholding gun control has survived peer correction. That means that even if you disagree with those who claim gun control increases violent crime, there’s still no proof whatsoever it decreases it. Therefore, we must agree that, as far as current research goes, gun control has no proven benefit.
2) “On January 8, 2003 the BATF conducted a search at the residence of Mark S. Lancaster in Mt. Juliet, Tennessee (located just outside of Nashville). Lancaster was arrested after they found several machine guns that had been assembled from parts kits (mainly WWII era). That was all...nothing more. He had not been selling these machine guns, using them in a crime, and he had not been involved with drugs or terrorism. He simply had them in his home.“ Mark Lancaster was then indicted with “One count of possession of NFA firearms (machine guns), one count of knowingly engaging in a business as a manufacturer of NFA firearms, one count of possessing NFA firearms without paying the special occupational tax required for the business, and another possession of NFA firearms charge. The indictment states that he had 15 machine guns, but it was apparently also counting guns that didn’t work and/or weren’t even put together.” The “engaging in business” part is certainly the most idiotic, being that even according to the ATF he didn’t sell even one machinegun.
Lancaster was therefore simply collecting exotic weapons. That was his crime, for which he was facing charges that could bring about up to 40 years of imprisonment, huge fines, and, finally, a total loss of all gun rights. Mark Lancaster, a gun collector, will never be able to own a .22 rife – till the end of his life, even if he’s only sentenced to one day in prison – just the same as a violent criminal.
It is said that there were several violations of due process in the procurement of his search warrant. It doesn’t matter. Let us assume for a moment that Mark Lancaster is guilty as charged. Maybe what Wylie says is untrue about them machineguns. Maybe he did in fact have 15 new-in-the-box M2 heavy machineguns in his basement, ready to roll. Even then, however, the fact stays that he was accused of no violent crime or intent to commit one.
Now, here’s the question: It is known to us that there’s no proven benefit to gun control. None. Zilch. Nada. What, then, is the moral justification for doing that? Why put a man in prison for fourty years? And what is the moral justification for doing that to hundreds of other Mark Lancasters every year?
Remember, a ban is always violence. Every law banning something has a cop or ATF agent enforcing it. A person who supports a ban, supports its enforcement - otherwise, what’s the point? So if you support gun control, you support Mark Lancaster being put away, the ATF going on kitten-stomping sprees, and all them other “excesses”. And for some people, the excesses get very violent. Remember that minor incident in 1993 when over 70 people got burned alive? The search warrant on the Branch Davidians was on charges of letting a non-US citizen have access to a firearm. Was it worth it to lead an all-out assault on Waco, guns blazing? And I don’t care how crazy Koresh was. Crazy people have a right to life, too, you know.
And you support banning people from having machineguns. You support giving ATF more and more power to do those things. You support the imprisonment of Mark Lancaster. You support Waco. Now would you please tell me why you’re supporting those things?
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(227 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
