Background Check First Step To Registration And Confiscation
BY Herschel Smith
10 years, 2 months ago
Understanding that much of the electorate reacts based on impressions gleaned from the media, a detailed fisking of the dry proposal seems unlikely to change many minds. That said, there are some “bullet points” that have the benefit of being true which could be persuasive, providing gun owners take it on themselves to be force multipliers and do what they can to pass them along to everyone within their spheres of influence.
The first point is, a background check bill is impossible without creating registration data. That was admitted by no less an authority than Greg Ridgeway, Deputy Director of the National Institute of Justice, who wrote a summary report on gun violence prevention strategies in which he concluded “Effectiveness depends on the ability to reduce straw purchasing, requiring gun registration…”
[ … ]
You can further move open-minded people with another documented reality: Gun registration only applies to the law-abiding. Many people don’t realize that criminals don’t have to register their guns …
You can also tell them a way exists to ensure prohibited persons are excluded from lawful gun sales, and no information identifying either gun buyers or what they purchased needs be collected.
This is perhaps the most important piece David has ever penned. His insight into the issue is outstanding, and his logical connections from one point to the next impeccable. If you have ever involved yourself in political action, do it now. This is the first step in a multi-state strategy with lots of dollars behind it.
We may not vote ourselves out of the problems that we face, as the saying goes, but it is a moral imperative that we do everything we can to avoid the violence and turmoil to surely follow if universal background checks leads to a national gun registry, like I think it will, and a national gun registry leads to confiscations, like I think it will.
On October 13, 2014 at 11:45 am, Burk said:
Insight … or Freudian paranoia?
On October 13, 2014 at 12:33 pm, Herschel Smith said:
Freud was a kook. His history as an abused child led to his world view dominated by the abusive father. His theories come from an abusive childhood, and are directed at (and alleged to be useful for) those who had an equally abusive childhood (although not really useful at all, and destructive more than anything else). I am not an abusive father and did not have an abusive childhood. I have no need of Freud. I’m sorry that you do. But of course that’s a subject for an entirely diffierent time and not on point with the post.