An editorial in The Ellsworth American promises us “rational gun control.” Unsurprisingly, to anyone who understands that for “progressives,” every day is Opposite Day, it’s anything but that. In typical bipolar fashion, noise is generated to make it sound like the right to keep and bear arms is recognized, but that’s just lip service as the author tries to convince us that “bans on semi- automatic and assault-style weapons and high capacity ammunition clips,” along with all the other obligatory infringements shoved at gun owners ad nauseam, are just the ticket for giving the public what it wants.
The problem, according to the editorial, is that the “gun rights lobbyists” outspend “gun control lobbyists.” It must be true, because Time Magazine says the NRA and others have a 17 to 1 advantage of $4.2 million to $240,000. And they wouldn’t lie, would they? Never mind that Michael Bloomberg has thrown $50 million into the pot. Never mind all the free media the antis get every time a handful of Disgruntled Moms decide they need some attention. Never mind the slick media propaganda campaigns by left-wing ad agencies. By deceptively limiting things being counted to what Time deems “lobbying,” the low-information reader will be manipulated into indignation.
Mission accomplished.
Then we have G. Allen Smith in the Danbury News Times, and he’s offering us “a solution to regulate gun sales.” Just to make sure the dialog he wishes to have is sufficiently inclusive, G. Allen endears gun owners with references to “the NRA and everyone else whining about their Second Amendment rights.”
Now there’s a guy I want to sit down and have a respectful conversation with. And that “solution” he promised us?
“In order for a first-time buyer to purchase a handgun or rifle there would be either a $500 to $1,000 fee or a 60-to-90-day waiting period,” G. Allen proclaims. Then add registration and mandatory training – not to mention the police being able to deny applications – and, oh, by the way, if you need to hire a lawyer to exercise your rights, good, because that will further “delay the process.” And in order for it to really work, we need to make it nationwide.
Thanks, G. Allen. That was fun.
At least the “editorial editors … of the editorial board” at the Department of Redundancy Department, I mean, The Miami Student, have an excuse for cranking out sophomoric opinions, although I suspect many are simply slow-learning juniors and seniors. They announce their intent at “arming criminals with preventable weapons,” whatever the hell that means (it’s amazing though, what headlines you can produce with all those editors).
Rather than try to wade through all the incoherent thought and faulty logic, there’s one point made that puts everything in perspective:
“For some, including most members of our Editorial Board, a world with one gun is a world with too many,” they admit. “The United States would be better off without them…”
So much for the oft-repeated “No one wants to take your guns” lie. Of course they do. They just can’t figure out how to swallow the elephant whole, so they’ll settle for taking a piece here and a piece there, hoping they can find quislings on the gun rights side dumb and cowardly enough to “compromise” with them.
Speaking of pieces, we had all the talking points consolidated today, courtesy of former Maryland Governor and Democrat presidential hopeful Martin O’Malley, hopelessly behind in the polls and hoping to gain at least a little media attention.
“As a nation, it is time for sensible gun safety laws that save lives,” O’Malley tweeted Monday. “Read my full plan…”
Note these characters always represent their “gun safety” rants as “sensible, although there is absolutely nothing in O’Malley’s background to show he knows the first thing about true gun safety. As their constituents generally don’t have a clue themselves, the utter lack of qualifications and competence never stops these frauds from passing themselves off as experts on whatever subject can accrue more power to control.
Still, he’s given us a wish list that sets the stage for, but stops just short of the Miami editorial editors’ goal. It includes intolerable acts such as universal registration and … TTAG’s Robert Farago gives us a breakdown of O’Malley’s scheming, so no need to recount the details here. Suffice it to say, based on noncompliance examples we’ve seen in Connecticut, New York, and elsewhere, attempts at nationwide enforcement will soon become a self-evident joke.
In this case, though, O’Malley is throwing a “Hail Mary.” With Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton using up all the electoral oxygen in the room, and even undeclared Joe Biden drawing four time his numbers, O’Malley is currently coming in at three percent. That’s no small coincidence when you consider the number of estimated gun owners who will not go quietly into that good night.
The bottom line – for the “rational” Ellsworth, for G. Allen, for the editorial editors and for O’Malley – is there’s really only one response to their proposals. It’s the same answer for everyone who is under the delusion that if only they can trick enough ignoramuses, they’ll have a claim on our rights, and we must then surrender and obey: No. Your move.
In O’Malley’s case, I wouldn’t worry overmuch. After having his “tweet” out since morning and despite all the media coverage, this ostensibly national figure presuming to run for president has only managed to attract a few dozen “retweets” and “favorites.” Compare that to the numbers another professional narcissist generated when she shared her “Puss ‘n Boots” this afternoon. That’s why America’s First Freedom probably overstated the case: After all, how much of a menace can a guy whose “gun control” plan draws less interest than a Kim Kardashian selfie be?
That’s about how seriously he deserves to be taken by men and women who will never comply with ridiculous power junkies and who will do #whateverittakes to repel moral defectives demanding their submission.