Washington, D.C (TFC) – The story has been played out over and over again. Whenever a criminal murders innocent people with a firearm, the president, and many in the media call for gun control. The tired argument was regurgitated once again when a man and wife opened fire in a state with strict gun control legislation. That debate continues on as gun control advocates are pulling at straws in their desperate attempt to end gun violence.
In a 2013 ranking; California was given an A+ rating by The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence. In a press release published by the organization, Robyn Thomas was quoted as saying, “There is no doubt that gun laws matter to the safety of our communities.” Those measures were circumvented by a man and wife team who killed 14 innocent people.
California’s gun laws require potential gun owners to pass a background check; and wait ten days to take possession of the firearm. The handgun must also be micro stamped, and the new owner must pass a gun safety test. All sellers must be licensed dealers, and residents of California can only buy one gun per month. Syed Rizwan Farook and Tashfeen Malik, legally purchased two handguns, and a friend of Farook’s purchased two rifles; the large capacity magazines banned by California law were found in their SUV.
The failure of the law in preventing the killings in San Bernardino has been noted by progressives, who insist more restrictions, and more legislation will work to prevent more tragedy. California’s Lt. Governor Gavin Newsome has proposed a ballot initiative that would include immediate background checks for people purchasing ammunition, and the banning of possession of large capacity magazines. Speaking to the Associated Press, Newsome admitted his proposal wouldn’t have prevented the mass shooting, but insisted, “that doesn’t mean they’re not appropriate proposals to address the next circumstance and the next moment.”
Instead of proposing solutions that would actually prevent gun violence, progressives like Newsome are simply proposing more restrictions in an attempt to show that they responded to tragedy. It doesn’t matter if the laws work; the only point is to show the voters that they reacted to the tragedy. Now with California’s gun control laws being shown as a failure; progressives have gone fully tyrannical.
Writing or Bustle, S.E Smith also bemoaned California’s gun laws or not preventing the San Bernardino shooting by claiming, “-the laws are patently not strict enough.” According to Smith, the United States needs to follow the lead of Britain, Australia, and Japan where, “gun ownership is so tightly controlled that in many cases, it is functionally impossible to legally own a firearm.”
American progressives love to use other countries as examples as to how screwed up America is, and how much better the country can become. America has a strong history of gun ownership. Generations upon generations have owned firearms, and have done so without killing innocent people. Americans also own more guns than Australians. As Matt Purple argued in Rare; Australia’s gun buyback program; which liberals adore; took in up to one million firearms; a drop in the bucket in comparison to the estimated 300,000,000 guns in America. Progressives also fail to recognize that 52% of Americans are against further gun control measures. America is a gun nation, and that will not change despite any gun crime, gun owners will not hand over their firearms; even when gun grabbing progressives suggest it.
Like Smith; one blogger for The Huffington Post has taken the realization that gun control will not work, and has gone full fascist. George Washington University Professor Amitai Etzioni argued gun control is not enough, and disarmament is the only way to curb gun violence. The second amendment shall be damned. Americans no longer need self defense, nor should they defend themselves against tyranny. The New York Times famously published an editorial claiming Americans should turn in their guns for the betterment of the country; all of this is derived from a blatantly dishonest argument gun grabbers are using to scare Americans into believing America is a war zone.
After the events of San Bernardino, many liberal outlets published a statistic that claimed 355 mass shootings have occurred in the calendar year. Spewing that number is the perfect way to convince scared and fed up Americans that gun possession is the root of all evil. The statistic which gun grabbers have cited every time a shooting occur comes from a graph that lists every known gun attack, that doesn’t always meet the criteria of a mass shooting. A simple; and quick evaluation of the source material shows the events listed in the spreadsheet that shows shootings where no one was killed, was listed alongside shootings that killed fewer than four people. Included in the spreadsheet are shootings outside bars, home invasions, and house parties; they were not San Bernardino type events, but are being portrayed as such. The very definition of a mass shooting varies. As noted by the CBC, it has been argued mass shootings are defined as “indiscriminate mass murder,” that doesn’t include cases of “armed robbery, gang violence and domestic violence in a home.” Mother Jones’ estimate is four mass shootings in the calendar year of 2015; a number that doesn’t scare Americans; according to Mother Jones’ definition; 73 mass shooting have happened since 1982.
The definition of mass murder, as defined by Mother Jones; a publication that can’t be defined as a conservative rag, are too small to argue for further gun legislation. Gun grabbers use the laughable 355 number because they are blatantly dishonest and over exaggerate the issue in order to play the emotional card. Gun murders continue to drop, as do violent and property crimes, but those realities don’t fit the narrative.
The dishonesty was exposed again, when an amendment to ban those on the no fly list from purchasing guns, failed in the Senate. The Hill posted a headline titled, “Senate blocks effort to keep guns from terrorists,” and Rolling Stone followed suit by proclaiming, “Hours After San Bernardino, GOP Candidates Voted to Preserve Terrorists’ Gun Rights.” The problem with such headlines is the difficulty in proclaiming that everyone on America’s no fly list is a terrorist.
The reasoning for people being included on the list is never revealed, but some have suggested that drug use and social media postings have been used as excuses to place Americans on the list. According to the Patriot Act, supporting, or taking part in a protest defines you as a terrorist. As The Intercept reported in 2014; almost half of the people listed on the Terrorist Screening Database have no known affiliation with any terror group. Furthermore; the Obama administration has increased the number of people on the no fly list more than his predecessor. The no fly list prevented an 18-month-old child from boarding a flight, and included military veterans.
Branding people on the no fly list as terrorists is a massive stretch, and preventing those on the secretive list from owning firearms is tyrannical. Americans are secretly placed on the no fly list. A court even found the difficulty for a person to be removed from the list to be unconstitutional. Relying on the list to single out people who shouldn’t be able to purchase guns is a sickening thought.
It is one thing to be anti gun, but it is another to push lies and dishonesty when presenting your argument. They can’t accept the desire for people to want to defend themselves, and simply can’t understand why someone would own a gun. Truth is to be damned when the gun grabbers are out to destroy your constitutional rights.