The gun control movement is heating up. For instance, the New York Times has put an editorial on its front page (Fri. Dec. 4) since 1922. This one is calling for more gun control, esp. of "assault rifles." One of the things about this editorial that troubles me is the following:
"Certain kinds of weapons, like the slightly modified combat rifles used in California, and certain kinds of ammunition, must be outlawed for civilian ownership. It is possible to define those guns in a clear and effective way and, yes, it would require Americans who own those kinds of weapons to give them up for the good of their fellow citizens."
Just what we need, a war on thousands of people who own such weapons but refuse to turn them in. The left loves to complain about Prohibition and the 'war on drugs,' yet they want to start their own war.
Do we really want to start down this slippery slope? Terrorist also regularly use semi-automatic handguns. One commentator wrote:
"I suspect liberals imagine, at some level, that a Prohibition-style campaign against guns would mostly involve busting up gun shows and disarming Robert Dear-like trailer-park loners. But in practice it would probably look more like Michael Bloomberg’s controversial stop-and-frisk policy, with a counterterrorism component that ended up heavily targeting Muslim Americans. In areas where gun ownership is high but crime rates low, like Bernie Sanders’ Vermont, authorities would mostly turn a blind eye to illegal guns, while poor and minority communities bore the brunt of raids and fines and jail terms."
Many years ago I published an article titled "Law Enforcement Problems of Gun Control: A Victimless Crimes Analysis." Criminal Law Bulletin, vol. 16, No. 2 (Mar.-Apr. 1980), pp. 131-149. Sorry I don't have a free link to t his.
No comments:
Post a Comment