So now we're banning toy guns

Gun control activists built their anti-liberty agenda around a simple theme: Guns kill. Never mind that firearms -- like any weapon or tool -- can accomplish neither good nor evil without an operator. Firearms are so evil that children shouldn't even play with toy replicas. But banning toy guns is ridiculous, isn't it? Not so fast.

In Michigan, toy guns have apparently replaced the so-called assault rifle as the criminal's weapon of choice. Republican Senator Rick Jones explained, "People are taking imitation guns that look real, cutting off the orange end and then threatening people." But do criminal acts with toy mock-ups warrant a ban? Quite the contrary, it would seem a reason to further liberalize right-to-carry laws. Toy gun toting gangbangers will think twice before pointing airsoft pistols at people who might be sporting the genuine article.

Gun control advocates will argue that armed citizens prompt criminals to use real guns, escalating the danger. Yet criminals already have that option. So why do they choose toy guns? Modifying toy guns is cheaper than obtaining real ones, and using them carries a lesser sentence upon conviction.

If S.B. 779 becomes law, brandishing a modified toy gun would be punishable by up to 18 months in prison. Why only 18 months, and why aren't such offenders treated as armed criminals now? The perpetrator who misrepresents a toy gun as the real McCoy is selling the threat, not the gun. Since the intimidating affect is real to the victim, the threat is the same as if a real gun were used. And should the victim unlimber their own firearm and kill the perpetrator their act would be just as much self-defense as if the perpetrator's gun were genuine. What's more, the aggressor would be just as dead.

Such a law is ambiguous, too. Jacksonville, FL police killed a robber who confronted them with a modified toy gun. But San Jose, CA officers appear to have overreacted when faced with a toy gun. Regardless the situation, no one finds joy in wounding or killing another person. But does either shooting validate criminalizing the possession of a modified toy? In the first example the robber received exactly what he requested. Thinning the herd, it's called. Why shed tears on his behalf? In the second incident, officers perceived a danger. But the gun wasn't presented in a threatening manner. Why should the wounded man face charges?

Rather than criminalizing toy guns for lacking orange muzzles we should recognize violent behavior for what it is and treat it accordingly. The last thing we need is another impotent gun law.

When one person threatens another the real crime isn't the presence of a gun, whether genuine or imitation. The crime is the aggressor's attempt to gain advantage through the threat of bodily harm, or even death. The criminal is telling the victim that their right to life and property exists only at the criminal's discretion. Isn't that crime's true nature?

So now we're banning toy guns

Gun control activists built their anti-liberty agenda around a simple theme: Guns kill. Never mind that firearms -- like any weapon or tool -- can accomplish neither good nor evil without an operator. Firearms are so evil that children shouldn't even play with toy replicas. But banning toy guns is ridiculous, isn't it? Not so fast.

In Michigan, toy guns have apparently replaced the so-called assault rifle as the criminal's weapon of choice. Republican Senator Rick Jones explained, "People are taking imitation guns that look real, cutting off the orange end and then threatening people." But do criminal acts with toy mock-ups warrant a ban? Quite the contrary, it would seem a reason to further liberalize right-to-carry laws. Toy gun toting gangbangers will think twice before pointing airsoft pistols at people who might be sporting the genuine article.

Gun control advocates will argue that armed citizens prompt criminals to use real guns, escalating the danger. Yet criminals already have that option. So why do they choose toy guns? Modifying toy guns is cheaper than obtaining real ones, and using them carries a lesser sentence upon conviction.

If S.B. 779 becomes law, brandishing a modified toy gun would be punishable by up to 18 months in prison. Why only 18 months, and why aren't such offenders treated as armed criminals now? The perpetrator who misrepresents a toy gun as the real McCoy is selling the threat, not the gun. Since the intimidating affect is real to the victim, the threat is the same as if a real gun were used. And should the victim unlimber their own firearm and kill the perpetrator their act would be just as much self-defense as if the perpetrator's gun were genuine. What's more, the aggressor would be just as dead.

Such a law is ambiguous, too. Jacksonville, FL police killed a robber who confronted them with a modified toy gun. But San Jose, CA officers appear to have overreacted when faced with a toy gun. Regardless the situation, no one finds joy in wounding or killing another person. But does either shooting validate criminalizing the possession of a modified toy? In the first example the robber received exactly what he requested. Thinning the herd, it's called. Why shed tears on his behalf? In the second incident, officers perceived a danger. But the gun wasn't presented in a threatening manner. Why should the wounded man face charges?

Rather than criminalizing toy guns for lacking orange muzzles we should recognize violent behavior for what it is and treat it accordingly. The last thing we need is another impotent gun law.

When one person threatens another the real crime isn't the presence of a gun, whether genuine or imitation. The crime is the aggressor's attempt to gain advantage through the threat of bodily harm, or even death. The criminal is telling the victim that their right to life and property exists only at the criminal's discretion. Isn't that crime's true nature?

Guest appearance on the G. Gordon Liddy Show

Click on the link below to listen to my appearance on the G. Gordon Liddy Show. A special thanks to Mr. Liddy for allowing me to be his guest.
GGL_H3_031510

Don’t let anti-gun silence breed complacency

What should we make of a recent editorial arguing that the Obama White House has made no attempt to infringe upon the Second Amendment and that Obama openly declared his respect for the right to bear arms during his presidential campaign?

It’s true that President Obama hasn’t advanced the gun control agenda. He hasn’t even sought a renewed ban on “assault” weapons. However, the idea that President Obama has more in common with Wayne LaPierre than with Sarah Brady is misleading. Remember the “bitter clingers” comment? Therefore, if eternal vigilance is freedom’s price complacency must be its worst enemy. The Second Amendment is under assault even as the Supreme Court seems poised to recognize the individual right it protects.

Rep. Bobby Rush’s Firearms Licensing and Record of Sale Act (H.R. 45) would require a license to possess a firearm. That license would also be required to transfer a firearm and a tracking number would be assigned to each sale. Most ominous is H.R. 45’s prohibition on storing firearms and ammunition in any manner that a child could access.

Rep. Rush’s bill assaults the basic notion of a right. Free people need no government license to exercise a right. This bill would also create de facto gun registration and render firearms inadequate for self-defense. Unloaded guns are rather poor clubs.

Rep. Sheila Jackson-Lee produced the Gun Safety and Gun Access Prevention Act (H.R. 257). Section Three in Rep. Lee’s proposal would impose 10 year prison sentences upon firearm sellers if they have “reasonable cause to know” their customers intend criminality. Section Four criminalizes the sale of a firearm without an approved security device. Section Five effectively forbids keeping a loaded firearm for self defense whenever a child is present, much like H.R. 45. Section Six requires adult chaperones for minors at gun shows. Under Section Six (b)(8) the offending parent can be charged with child abandonment.

Since a defensive firearm must be kept loaded and most homes contain children at least periodically it’s clear that Rep. Rush and Rep. Lee intend to abolish the use of firearms for personal defense. They also require dealers to be clairvoyant. To deny sales opens dealers to civil rights violations while approving sales opens them to prosecution. It’s a catch-22 for gun sellers.

Sen. Frank Lautenberg’s Denying Firearms and Explosives to Dangerous Terrorists Act (S.1317) denies firearms to “dangerous” terrorists (is there another kind?). What Sen. Lautenberg has authored is a clever ruse. No one can argue that denying guns and bombs to terrorists violates the Second Amendment, right? Let’s see.

Section 922A(1) of S. 1317 grants the Attorney General discretionary authority to deny access to firearms. The AG, under Section 922B(g)(1) can also withhold information used in the denial from the aggrieved party. Should gun owners feel secure if Eric Holder wields such authority?

What about Pres. Obama’s stated respect for gun rights? Well, politicians will say just about anything to get elected. Obama is on record as supporting a ban on “assault” weapons. Furthermore, his administration is backing a U.N. treaty that would regulate the small arms trade worldwide. Don’t scoff. The President can constitutionally enter such treaties under Article 2, Section 2. Said treaty would become law under Article 6, at least temporarily.

Inaction on gun control doesn’t make President Obama a Second Amendment loyalist. Inaction doesn’t mean that politicians and bureaucrats hostile to private firearms aren’t at work. Gun owners will benefit from a dose of extra vigilance now, even while the gun control waters appear still.

This column originally appeared at American Thinker.

The Beltway Zone: where minds turn to mush

The beltway surrounding the nation’s capital must comprise some paranormal force capable of melting a person’s mind. Nearly all life that ventures inside loses memory, common sense and contact with reality.

Politicians forget their campaign pledges and how to reconcile financial accounts. Business leaders who become lawmakers forget the most basic principles of economics, like the implausibility of borrowing one’s way out of debt. The worst examples--or the most piteous--are journalists.

Once journalists join the beltway media they exit the atmosphere of planet Earth. Washington Post columnist E. J. Dionne isn’t the only example; he just happens to be the latest.

Mr. Dionne has a problem with guns at healthcare forums, especially Obama’s. He wonders why conservatives excuse the gun-toting protesters at a black president’s appearance and what they might’ve said if leftists had brought guns to Reagan or Bush appearances.

First of all, the presence of guns--right or wrong--has nothing to do with race. People have brought guns to white representatives’ forums, too. It’s not just the president. Also, someone did bring a gun to a Reagan appearance. He was shot, if you’ll recall. Furthermore, there were movies and books about assassinating George W. Bush.

Drop the race-baiting, Mr. Dionne. It’s an empty argument and beneath the dignity of a serious commentator.

Another of his peeves is the “jackboot politics” that opponents of government healthcare employ. If you’re a vocal opponent of socialized medicine you’re part of an “angry minority engaging in intimidation.”

Mr. Dionne, your memory is short.

When Bill Clinton was president and his administration botched the Branch Davidian raid, federal agents were called “jackbooted thugs.” Leftists came unglued. They fully supported Clinton and Attorney General Janet Reno, heaping scorn upon the “jackboot” comments. As for the “angry minority”, support for the plan to “reform” healthcare is trending downward. The “minority” you lament is actually a majority, one that’s weary of being ruled rather than represented.

Guns aren’t the basis of American liberty, Mr. Dionne argues. It is discussion, debate and free elections that produced our liberty; violence bypasses the rule of law.

Really? Try selling that notion to the Founding Fathers.

The Colonists presented the British Crown with petition after petition and grievance after grievance. All were rebuffed. The Declaration of Independence is the epitome of reasoned and rational argument. However, if I remember my history, King George ignored the Colonists’ complaints. Monarchal tyranny was halted only at the barrel of the Colonial gun.

Freedom doesn’t exist if mankind has no fundamental rights. It is the natural course of government to steal those rights one authoritarian necessity at a time. Without the ability to defend liberty our rights become privileges that can be granted or repealed at the ruler’s whim. Sorry, Mr. Dionne, but armed citizens are the basis of freedom, if freedom is to have meaning.

As for violence, it’s the totalitarian government’s favored tactic. The Romans made sport of killing Christians. Oppressing the rule of law and human liberty drove Nazi Germany to exterminate six million Jews. The Soviet Union was even worse. Mao Zedong, Pol Pot, the Viet Cong, Islamic revolutionaries, Castro, all have used force to suppress freedom.

Those rulers stripped people of all legitimate means for defending their rights. And if armed citizens make America appear “foolish and lawless” to the rest of the world, let’s remember that the majority the world’s governments are themselves authoritarian regimes of some sort. The idea of limited government and personal liberty often makes America look foolish to worldly tyrants.

Visions of a right-wing armed revolution are premature. We can peacefully overthrow our government at the ballot box. However, bearing arms against enemies both foreign and domestic is the cornerstone of liberty. Failing to recognize that fundamental truth proves that Mr. Dionne has been inside the Beltway Zone too long.