Firearm sales are up around 50% since Election Day, even in Chicago's suburbs, according to this story. That makes a lot of sense, given that Illinois residents are quite familiar with President-Elect Barack Obama's extreme anti-gun voting record.
One local activist is pooh-poohing the idea that citizens are justifiably afraid of losing their right to buy certain firearms:
"'It's simply paranoia,' said Thomas Mannard of the Illinois Council Against Handgun Violence"
And yet, in the very next paragraph, comes this:
"Mannard worked with then-state Sen. Barack Obama to pass Illinois' ban on assault weapons. Obama also helped close a loophole that allowed gun shows to sell weapons without doing background checks on buyers. Mannard now hopes for a national law."
A national law accomplishing what? A renewed ban on "assault weapons"? Forcing citizens to pay $50 or more if they wish to sell that old rifle they no longer need, or get rid of that pistol in order to obtain the funds to buy a nicer one? Both? Both plus a whole lot more, which is probably closest to the truth?
That sort of slippery ambiguity is precisely why folks are currently flooding gun stores, buying everything that isn't nailed down.
By the way, there is no "loophole", and gun shows do not sell weapons. The law requiring licensed gun dealers to perform background checks on purchasers at gun shows specifically exempted private citizens who wish to sell their personal property to another private citizen, so long as they do not make it a business. There is but one reason to force all sales records to go through a central database - registration and then eventual confiscation. Just ask people in Great Britain or Australia, where that precise scenario recently happened. Canada is currently attempting to impose mandatory registration of all firearms, but is running into significant compliance problems, to their citizens' credit.
Should private automobile sales also be forced to go through a dealer? How about electronics or jewelry? After all, those items are often stolen, and the proceeds used to fund criminals. If the Imperial Federal Government forced sales of all these items to be centrally recorded as well, many crimes could undoubtedly be solved or prevented.
The question is, do we as a country really wish impose freedom-sapping limitations on our citizens, schemes that have already been proven to be utter failures at controlling violent crime in countries where they've been implemented?
Of course not, which is why President-Elect Obama champions them at his political peril.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
1 comment:
While jewelry or electronics are stolen, there's a far bigger consequence if one uses a weapon to hold someone up than if someone uses a diamond bracelet or a DVD player. Not saying your wrong in your overall argument but this particular portion is incorrect and poorly based.
Post a Comment