St. Louis Gun Rights Examiner is a frequent and vocal critic of the NRA (see here andhere for recent examples), often wondering if the organization’s leadership is merely naively optimistic, à la Neville Chamberlain, in its dealings with the forcible citizen disarmament extremists, or actively collaborationist, à laVidkun Quisling. Honesty requires, however, acknowledgement of effective steps the NRAdoes take in defense of gun rights.
A new ad, released in response to the Obama’s openly announced agenda of banning so-called “assault weapons” and “high capacity” magazines, and banning private gun sales, is just such a step. In it, Chris Cox, executive director of the NRA’s Institute for Legislative Action (NRA-ILA) examines a recent document, produced by the Obama administration’s own National Institute of Justice (part of the Eric Holder-run Department of “Justice”).
This memo (pdf file) explores these top three elements of the forcible citizen disarmament advocates’ agenda, and explains what additional, even more draconian, infringements on that which shall not be infringed would be necessary for the currently stated agenda to succeed in having any real effect on “gun violence.”
Thus, regarding an “assault weapon” ban:
Since assault weapons are not a major contributor to US gun homicide [interesting admission right off the bat] and the existing stock of guns is large, an assault weapon ban is unlikely to have an impact on gun violence. If coupled with a gun buyback and no exemptions [meaning no "grandfather clause"] then it could be effective.
Ignoring for the moment that what is being discussed here is not a “gun buyback,” since we are not discussing guns that the government once owned, sold to private citizens, and now wants “back,” the “with no exemptions” language means that the government would be requiring the “sale” (and, of course, setting the price). That’s not “buying”–it’s taking, and a mandate to turn them over to the government, enforced by armed agents of the government, whether the owner is compensated or not, is forcible taking.
Similarly, on “high capacity” magazines:
An exemption for previously owned magazines would nearly eliminate any impact. The program would need to be coupled with an extensive buyback of existing large capacity magazines. With an exemption the impact of the restrictions would only be felt when the magazines degrade or when they no longer are compatible with guns in circulation. This would take decades to realize.
Again, the Obama regime is openly stating that the proposed magazine ban can only “work” (and even this is ignoring the fact that magazine bans are rapidly becoming irrelevant) if the currently legally owned supply is “collected” by the government. And again, mandatory “buybacks” are not “purchases,” any more than a rape victim is a “prostitute,” if her rapist gives her a $20 bill when he’s done.
As for a private sales ban (or in today’s popular parlance, “universal background checks), the study found that (emphasis added):
Effectiveness depends on the ability to reduce straw purchasing, requiring gun registration and an easy gun transfer process.
There was another interesting admission in this section (bold emphasis added):
However, this ["this" being a "perfect" universal background check system] does not address the largest sources (straw purchasers and theft), which would most likely become larger if background checks at gun shows and private sellers were addressed.
So to sum up, banning regime change rifles (“assault weapons,” according to the gun haters, except when they’re “patrol rifles,” or even “Personal Defense Weapons“) will be ineffective without also confiscating the millions of them already in private possession. Similarly, banning 11-round and larger magazines will be useless, unless the tens of millions in private hands are also forcibly taken (a nearly impossible task, even if owners do not resist by force–and we will–given the fact that the vast majority are owned with no paper trail), and again, that’s without even getting into the arrival of technology to “print” them.
Finally, “universal background checks” will not help (and will indeed exacerbate the problems of straw purchasing and theft) unless guns are registered. California’s rulers love gun registration, because when they later ban the registered firearms, without a “grandfather clause,” they know just where to go to confiscate them (earning the state “extra credit” from the Brady Campaign).
The forcible citizen disarmament lobby has for decades heaped scorn on the “slippery slope”scenario, in which each new round of gun laws forms the foundation for the next round, until private possession of firearms is outlawed completely. That this ridicule is a lie has rarely been more apparent than it is now, as the NIJ memo illustrates.
This memo proves that the Obama regime is either lying when it says that these three “Intolerable Acts” will significantly reduce “gun violence,” or lying when Obama says, “I am not going to take your guns away.” Then again, it could also be said that both of those statements are lies. If the Obama regime wants to “buy” our guns, it had better be prepared to pay in blood.