Newsday’s Slippery Slope to Civilian Disarmament

(courtesy newsday.com)

“It must be much harder for people who shouldn’t have weapons to get them,” newsday.com’s editorial board opines. “That would make it a bit harder to purchase weapons even for people who can be trusted with them. And far harder for anyone to get the most dangerous military-style weapons. When liberties such as the right to bear arms and the right to not be slaughtered conflict, a balance must be found.”

The right not to be slaughtered? I guess I must have missed that one when I read the Constitution. Now that I think about it, if there’s a right not to be slaughtered, isn’t that covered by the Second Amendment? Anyway, how’s this for balance:

  • No one should be able to buy a gun without a background check, not from a gun show, the internet, a buddy or a family member. On average, Chicago has a gunshot victim every three hours and a gunshot homicide every day. About 10,000 Americans are killed by someone else with a gun every year. A lot of the guns are availabile because of background-check loopholes and lax state gun laws.
  • No one with a known mental illness, like Virginia Tech shooter Seung-Hui Cho, should be allowed to buy a gun.
  • No one who has been on a terrorist watch list, like Orlando killer Omar Mateen, or a no-fly list, should be able to buy a gun unless fully cleared.
  • Semi-automatic rifles with military-style accessories of the type banned from 1994 to 2004 should be placed under the same restrictions as weapons covered by the 1934 law.
  • No one should be able to buy huge magazines like the ones used in the Sandy Hook school killings.
  • There should be a waiting period of at least several days for gun purchases, which could help prevent impulse attacks and 20,000 suicides a year committed with guns.
  • The law should demand that anyone whose gun is stolen report that theft.

See anything Constitutional? Me neither. And why’d they stop there? Once you support removing due process with the “No Fly, No Buy” law, why not make the 4th and 5th Amendment-trampling California Gun Violence Restraining Order a federal law? Oh, hell, just come out of the disarmament closet and be done with it. So we can be done with you.

Meanwhile and in any case, we could shoot holes in each of these items on Newsboy’s civilian disarmament wish list, lovingly titled Higher costs on the most dangerous guns could reduce bloodshed. Suffice it to say, the right to keep and bear arms doesn’t depend on arguments based on social utility. And it’s good to see all the bad ideas gathered in one place!

Even without considering the [lack of] merit for each proposal, firearms freedom fence straddlers can see that gun control advocates support any law degrading or destroying Americans’ natural, civil and Constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms. Even if it makes gun rights just “a bit harder” to exercise, like, say, the de facto ban on concealed carry in New York City? Absolutely.

comments

  1. avatar Nanashi says:

    “No one with a known mental illness”

    What a great way to ensure nobody ever goes to a psychologist!

    1. avatar Keystone says:

      Also a great way to ensure Veterans with PTSD don’t go for much needed treatment and end up killing themselves.

      Ah silly me though, I’m expecting these “journalists” to actually care about folks in uniform who defend them and the rest of us 24/7.

      1. avatar JasonM says:

        As long as they don’t use guns to kill themselves, it’s okay.

    2. avatar Evaris says:

      Yeah… would kinda suck for me, what with having gender dysphoria and all. Would mean I’d be barred from buying firearms because I’m… transgender?

      … Think if they passed something crazy like this I could sue?

      1. avatar Nanashi says:

        You already aren’t supposed to get fire arms if you’re a junky.

      2. avatar Wade says:

        You might could. You guys are the purple unicorns right now. I am southern, conservative, veteran, white male, and I am pro gun. No hope here I am just told to deal with it.

    3. avatar KRP says:

      The Communists never needed a ‘psychologist” to declare enemies as psychologically unfit. They just grabbed them and imprisoned them in their “re-education camps”!! The “No-Fly List” is an bureaucratic device that results in some unknown person putting your name on that list and no ability to get off without any presumption of innocence but rather an inability to confront those who condemn you! Violation of the 6th Amendment and 14th Amendment. Then they don’t have to worry about the 5th because you are already guilty so the 4th amendment is worthless too!! Boy oh boy how many our our Bill of rights could be washed away by this entire process? Write a blog representing dissent…No fly list so you can’t leave the country. You are guilty of being unsavory and psychologically unfit all based upon the assumptions of bureaucrats!! The Constitution is and will forevermore be dead and America no more.

      When Howard Stern sees the stupidity of the anti gunners it says something!!

    4. avatar JohnF says:

      California has a great solution for that. “Friends” and family can drop a dime on you for being mentally unstable, they go before a judge and tell that story (without your knowledge), the judge pounds his gavel, cops get dispatched to your house and you lose your guns and gun rights for up to a year. No psychological professionals involved. All amateurs deciding if you are sane. The professional associations have refused to play in that scheme, for the reason you mention.

    5. avatar Henry Bowman says:

      “for people who shouldn’t have weapons to get them,” IE anyone who wants one…

  2. avatar full.tang.halo says:

    Ban “HUGE GUNS!!!”

    1. avatar Red in CO says:

      I honestly can’t tell if that’s condescending or Smosh’s usual brand of absurd randomness.

  3. Gun show loophole? Last time I bought a firearm that required a background check at a gun show, I had to pass said background check to leave with the gun. Also to sell inside a gun show you MUST be an FFL, thus follow the law that all FFL’s must follow. So there is NO loop whole. It’s the gun shows they want to stop. They want to stop the ability to shop around and get the best price.

    1. avatar Cliff H says:

      For the record, and clarity, the so-called “gun show loophole” no doubt refers to non-FFL sellers wandering the parking lots with a sign on their backpack offering gun(s) for sale. In most states such transactions are fully legal and outside the requirements of background checks.

      Since background checks are an unconstitutional infringement of the Second Amendment anyway this entire argument is a red herring.

      1. avatar Another Robert says:

        I think you are giving the “journalists” too much credit. The term “gun show loophole” is used, either through ignorance or deceitfulness, to foster the erroneous idea that gun shows are essentially unregulated firearms black markets like the bazaar in “Black Hawk Down”. Similarly, “internet gun sales” is a phrase used to spread the idea that anyone can buy any gun from anywhere with no more than a laptop and a credit card, delivered to his door no questions asked. The whole purpose being to spread the scary notion that the country is awash with secretly-trafficked high-powered military weapons just waiting to jump out and mow down crowds of innocent children.

  4. avatar gs650g says:

    Snoozeday is yet another hapless rag heading for extinction

    1. avatar Peter Charles says:

      It has been a joke for 50 years…….now, like the Woolly Monmouth, it is seeking a place to lie down and pass into extinction.

  5. avatar No Soup 4 You says:

    Today was a win. But they will be back , in as little as 14 days. Amendments were ‘ Tabled ‘ not removed.
    The NRA and Second Amendment Foundation really dropped the ball here. By IGNORING ” No FLY ” laws passage in New Jersey , and executive actions by Gov. Malloy in CT. , they encouraged the use of ” SECRET ” Lists.
    Tell N.R.A and 2AF to get off their ASS and Stop this garbage at the State level. Call 703-267-1141 , NRA let us down…….. Again.
    http://ctmirror.org/2015/12/11/n-j-already-using-u-s-watch-lists-to-screen-gun-buyers/

  6. avatar 33AD says:

    Ahhhh, how sincere and comforting.

    I can have my liberties, as long as [insert appointed bureacrat, at best] “trusts” me with them.

    And here I was concerned about having my rights restricted or lost.

    1. avatar gs650g says:

      Yeah who gets to decide who the undesirable people are?

      1. avatar Flapp says:

        Wanting to possess a firearm for any reason is insane = Liberal-Progressives.

  7. avatar silverwarloc says:

    I thought the 1934 law was struck down by the Supreme Court as unconstitutional.

    1. avatar Nanashi says:

      Nope. It was “upheld” by the same super corrupt supreme court that passed Wickard v. Filburn

      The case itself in particular was a corrupt farce. The guy tried to plead guilty but his government assigned legal council forced him to appeal the case all the way to the supreme where he threw the case to establish “precedent” that it was legal.

  8. avatar Pascal says:

    Why oh why do these people not do the slightest bit of research. Why is it so much easier to assume and be blatantly wrong than to do a bit of research and have at least a correctly reasoned argument. So wrapped in emotion they get even the simplest of those items wrong.

    1. avatar TyrannyOfEvilMen says:

      1. Leftists don’t actually give a Shiite about the truth.

      2. They know that most of their liberal audience members stop reading at the headline, if they can read English at all.

      3. They are corrupt, vile socialists themselves and wouldn’t know what liberty or personal responsibility were if both of them became incarnate and bit them on the ass.

    2. avatar boardsnbikes says:

      Research? No need when all their like-minded leftist publications repeat the same lie from a single original source. “108% of gun owners support UBC”. Sounds great–it must be true.

  9. avatar pwrserge says:

    Liberalism is cancer.

    That is all.

    1. avatar John in Ohio says:

      Statism is the cancer. It always ends in tyranny.

  10. avatar TyrannyOfEvilMen says:

    Wait… You can’t carry in New York City?

    Really? Oh! I mean, of course not.

  11. avatar js says:

    I’m sorry, but which part of this is “slippery”. It’s all intentional to name us “bad guys” because we own guns, and take them away due to an ever increasing list of thought crimes.

    Nothing “slippery” about it– very obvious, and intentional.

  12. avatar JohnF says:

    “No one who has been on a terrorist watch list, like Orlando killer Omar Mateen, or a no-fly list, should be able to buy a gun unless fully cleared.”

    I think any gun sold should be fully cleared first! All guns should be empty when they’re sold!

  13. avatar Sixpack70 says:

    I was wondering when someone would come out and say this gem.

    “Semi-automatic rifles with military-style accessories of the type banned from 1994 to 2004 should be placed under the same restrictions as weapons covered by the 1934 law.”

    So would my M1 garand fall under this? It has military features. Or my M1 Carbine? That dangerous bayonet lug on the M1 Carbine makes me faint sometimes because it is so scary.

  14. avatar BDub says:

    “the right to bear arms and the right to not be slaughtered” …ARE THE SAME RIGHT!!! – The right of self-defense. There is no conflict.

  15. avatar JoshuaS says:

    “No one should be able to buy a gun without a background check, not from a gun show, the internet, a buddy or a family member. ”

    That is stricter than California! If a family member is willing to give a gun to a prohibited person, he is already breaking the law. If he doesn’t know his immediate family is prohibited, then likely it is not for a serious enough reason to be prohibited.

    “No one with a known mental illness … should be allowed to buy a gun.
    No one who has been on a terrorist watch list. or a no-fly list, should be able to buy a gun unless fully cleared.”

    Who HAS been? And what constitutes fully clear? I thought that deprivation of constitutional rights could only be through due process, conviction for a crime.

    Should they have to be fully cleared before protesting? Writing journalism?

    “Semi-automatic rifles with military-style accessories of the type banned from 1994 to 2004 should be placed under the same restrictions as weapons covered by the 1934 law.”

    Military style accessories? Like a shroud to avoid burns?

    “No one should be able to buy huge magazines like the ones used in the Sandy Hook school killings.”

    What constitutes huge? And why emotionally prime every proposal rather than give reasoning?

    “There should be a waiting period of at least several days for gun purchases, which could help prevent impulse attacks and 20,000 suicides a year committed with guns.”

    Okay, let us assume a waiting period might prevent a suicide here and there, for the sake of argument. Should someone who already possesses a gun have to wait? He is already able to act with the one he has…. oh I see, that was just the canard given to justify the nose under the tent….

    “The law should demand that anyone whose gun is stolen report that theft.”

    Make the victim criminally liable? Governor Brown, in his second veto of such a law, noted that there was not evidence that such would help identify gun traffickers, catch prohibited persons or change irresponsible behavior

    When you make California look reasonable by contrast….

  16. avatar Ozzallos says:

    So in summary, because drunk driving killed 10,076 people in 2015, the rights of every driver should be curtailed even thought the majority are generally law abiding citizens.

    ◾No one should be able to buy a car without a background check, not from a used car lot, the internet, a buddy or a family member.
    ◾No one who drinks alcohol should be able to buy a car unless fully cleared.
    ◾Cars with the ability to store alcoholic beverages should have restrictions placed on their ownership.
    ◾No one should be able to buy a car capable of high rates of speed like the one used in that drunk driving incident somewhere.
    ◾There should be a waiting period of at least several days for car purchases, which could help drunk drivers sober up.
    ◾The law should demand that anyone whose car is stolen report that theft.

    That wasn’t hard, was it? Because curtailing the rights of the law abiding masses is always the laziest solution one can reach for.

    1. avatar ATTAGReader says:

      If you pushed this point, you would probably find that high on the “auto safety” whiner hit list would be a permanent breathalyzer installed as OEM on every car, with the goal that no-one could start a car without passing the breathalyzer test as the old cars aged out. Not only would that further the “auto safety” goal, but it would further the ancillary collectivist goal of forcing people who don’t want to use public “mass” transit into using it anyway (unarmed because these are city-owned vehicles and the city will make its own rules.) As others have said here and elsewhere, it is not only about guns. It is about the nanny state’s overreach into every aspect of life in the name of “safety” and “public health”.

  17. avatar PeterK says:

    “No one should be able to buy a gun without a background check, not from a gun show, the internet, a buddy or a family member. On average, Chicago has a gunshot victim every three hours and a gunshot homicide every day. About 10,000 Americans are killed by someone else with a gun every year. A lot of the guns are availabile because of background-check loopholes and lax state gun laws.”
    You don’t actually know anything worth knowing about gun laws and calling features loopholes shows just how stupid you really are.

    “No one with a known mental illness, like Virginia Tech shooter Seung-Hui Cho, should be allowed to buy a gun.”
    Well probably not, no.

    “No one who has been on a terrorist watch list, like Orlando killer Omar Mateen, or a no-fly list, should be able to buy a gun unless fully cleared.”
    He was cleared. And removed… Soooo we good?

    “Semi-automatic rifles with military-style accessories of the type banned from 1994 to 2004 should be placed under the same restrictions as weapons covered by the 1934 law.”
    Let’s do a thing that does absolutely nothing! Just like last time! Pass.

    “No one should be able to buy huge magazines like the ones used in the Sandy Hook school killings.”
    Trust me. They get way more huge than that.

    “There should be a waiting period of at least several days for gun purchases, which could help prevent impulse attacks and 20,000 suicides a year committed with guns.”
    What impulse attacks? And since when has a waiting period been a cure for depression?

    “The law should demand that anyone whose gun is stolen report that theft.”
    Ah, because victims should always be further victimized by the state. Great idea.

  18. avatar Silver says:

    You know what they say about opinions, who has them, and what they smell like.

    In this narcissistic age of the internet, people feel the need to speak loudest about subjects they know nothing about. Guns are just another one. I couldn’t care less what this pissant little drip has to say, he’s just one of many ignorant fascists screaming at the wall.

    1. avatar JR_in_NC says:

      The problem is what you mentioned in your last statement…he is one of many authoritarian Statists screaming about this stuff.

      1. avatar Raoul Duke says:

        And they vote too.

  19. avatar notalima says:

    “No one who has been on a terrorist watch list, like Orlando killer Omar Mateen, or a no-fly list, should be able to buy a gun unless fully cleared.”

    And therein resides the problem. THERE IS NO DUE PROCESS FOR WHICH YOU CAN BE “CLEARED” (yelling intentional)

  20. avatar Ralph says:

    “No one who has been on a terrorist watch list, like Orlando killer Omar Mateen, or a no-fly list, should be able to buy a gun unless fully cleared.”

    I don’t know what “fully cleared” means (is it different from “partially cleared?), but Mateen name was removed from a watch list after he was “cleared” by the Feebs. So I guess that, under Nooseday’s brilliant proposal, he would be good to go.

    After reading this load of donkey dung, I’m guessing that there’s an upper IQ limit for newspaper “journalists,” just like there is for a lot of cops.

  21. avatar LHW says:

    Better yet, why not ban journalists because after all isn’t the pen mightier than the sword?

  22. avatar John says:

    I call it Hitler’s Gun Control.

  23. avatar RustyTheBoyRobot says:

    This is the most insidious part of the whole proposition:

    “No one should be able to buy a gun without a background check, not from a gun show, the internet, a buddy or a family member.”

    They are now proposing that the government knows more about us than our BUDDIES AND FAMILY! They are saying that families no longer need to raise their children correctly because the ATF can do a better job of preventing them from committing homicide.

  24. Remarkable! Its in fact remarkable post, I have got much clear
    idea on the topic of from this article.

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email