Scare Tactics, or Experience?

The weeping and wailing and gnashing of teeth continues in the wake of gun control defeat. What gun control advocates characterized as the "weakest measure possible," went down to defeat in the US senate and Obama was pissed. He was not pissed because the law was defeated, he already knew that was a certainty. But he didn't get it sent to the House for a vote and that was where he wanted it go down in flames. That way, he could have targeted specific Republican congressmen who would have faced a tough choice. Ther targets would have been easily identified: any Republican who voted against it where the polls say his district is close to 50-50 on the issue.

The gun haters like Michael Bloomberg, or our own former mayor, don't seem to realize that their latest talking point is more revealing of their true agenda than it is useful as a tool to damage the opposition, which is how they appear to be using it. It goes something like this.

"We are not trying to take guns away from anybody. We are simply trying to bring COMMON SENSE and REASONABLE measures to what has become an INSANE and UNREASONABLE system that does not control guns at all. Laws to restrict assault weapons, high capacity magazines and extended background checks are the minimum measures we need to pass. Nobody is going to do anything beyond that, we even put that in the law itself."

That last part is a reference to a provision that said it would be a felony for anybody to use the information gathered on gun background checks, to start or maintain a gun registry. Of course changing that provision would be no more difficult than passing a law to supersede it. So we might be OK until the next legislative session.

But they don't seem to realize that most people see that argument as evidence that they are lying. And if you just get one of them in a candid moment they will virtually admit it. When pressed on the actual impact of such a law,  thoughtful liberals will admit that these changes would not have prevented any of the high profile shootings that gave rise to the law (Arizona, Colorado, Newtown.) But then they will say something to the affect that "At least it's something." And if they are really unguarded they will add, "It's something we can build on." And THAT is what reveals their duplicity. The American people have been observing how government operates all their lives. And one does not have to be the greatest observer to see that no government program gets smaller. No remedy is ever regarded as adequate. Social Security and Medicare did not arrive on the scene completely discombobulated and bankrupt. It took a lot of work to do that. There was a famous quote from one of the original promoters of Social Security, whose name escapes me. He said something along the lines of, "It will only be 1% of the first $3,000 that you earn each year. You will never pay more than $30 per year."

He was right about everything except the "never" part.  In short order they began lifting the cap and the rate and expanded benefits and expanded the groups to whom those benefits were paid. Of course today, that $30 per year has turned into $7,049 per year for those who max out at $113,700 at 6.2%. Medicare nolonger has a cap. So don't even suggest that this measure would satisfy any gun control advocate for a length of time longer than it would take to sign the bill. It's the camel's nose under the tent and any gun control advocate who says otherwise is lying. And I say the proof is in the fact that they are willing to accept the smallest action possible while admitting that it will also be ineffective. You wouldn't accept that deal, unless you thought you could change it later.