We Won a Battle, But Not the War
December 3, 2004
By Howard Nemerov
Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty. Thomas Jefferson
Okay, so we had a good election cycle for the pro-liberty movement. I hope it gave you a reason for a celebratory mood at Thanksgiving. Now its time to get back to work. The people who fought so hard against your Second Amendment rights are still in Congress. They intend to maintain their course, as declared by their erstwhile presidential nominees:
"You can be disappointed, but you cannot walk away," Edwards said. "This fight has just begun."
To his supporters and volunteers, Kerry said, "Don't lose faith. What you did made a difference. The time will come when your work and your ballots will change the world ... It's worth fighting for." (1)
The Democrats intend to maintain their partys direction, believing they merely didnt get their message out quite right, that its merely a matter of comfort level.
"We've got to make voters for whom traditional values are paramount more comfortable with the Democratic Party," said Steve Murphy, a Democratic strategist. "We're not anti-religion, anti-church and anti-gun. They think we are." (2)
I will leave Mr. Murphys first two protestations to my esteemed compatriots, but lets look at the veracity of the claim the Democrats are not anti-gun, focusing on the Senate for a concise discussion.
S. 1805/6, the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, states at the beginning Citizens have a right, protected by the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution, to keep and bear arms. (3) The bill clearly states that lawsuits are still allowable when there was malfeasance on the part of the manufacturer or dealer, or if the manufacturer sold a defective product. The Acts only goal was tort reform, doing away with nuisance lawsuits wherein a criminal used a properly manufactured firearm to commit a crime, or a person misused a non-defective firearm in a negligent manner that resulted in death or injury to an innocent party. These nuisance suits have been brought by individuals and municipalities with the intention of somehow proving that manufacturers of firearms are responsible for the improper use of their product. While the cases have been consistently dismissed or resulted in a finding for firearms manufacturers, the legal costs alone threaten this relatively small industry, and could result in bankruptcy. As these companies go out of business, the gun banners get their desired outcome via attrition: stopping the sale of civilian firearms.
So how did the Democrats, who claim to not be anti-gun, behave on this bill? Well, they didnt exactly vote against S. 1805. What they did was to load it with poison pill amendments that rendered it unacceptable in its final version, resulting in it being pulled from the floor.
The entire anti-gun leadership remains in the Senate: Dianne Feinstein, Ted Kennedy, Charles Schumer, Frank Lautenberg, John Kerry, and Hillary Clinton. You will find their names on all the anti-gun amendments added to S. 1805/6 that resulted in its dismissal.
Senator Feinstein added an amendment renewing the assault weapons ban. (4) All the Democrat anti-gun leadership voted for this amendment. (5)
John McCain added the gun show loophole amendment that could have created such a load of additional red tape and costs to gun show promoters as to put them out of business, effectively closing gun shows. (6) All the Democrat anti-gun leadership voted for this amendment. (7)
Such additions resulted in the entire bill being voted down as amended. (
Frank Lautenberg submitted S. 1431, the Assault Weapons Ban and Law Enforcement Protection Act of 2003, a permanent enactment and expansion of the assault weapons ban, and the anti-gun leadership signed on as cosponsors. (9) The bill would ban a list of semi-automatic assault weapons and strengthen the ban on magazines over 10 rounds capacity. The intent remains to reauthorize a ban on semi-automatic firearms that a stroke of a pen turns into assault weapons, despite the fact that the Department of Justice found that the 1994 ban had no impact on crime. (10)
Conclusion
Mr. Murphy is correct; the Democrats are not anti-gun. They believe that governments should have free and unrestricted access to any firearms they desire. You, on the other hand, do not deserve the same privilege. This is because guns kill people, and in the interests of public health and safety, your guns are a danger to society.
Why do governments never hold themselves to the same standards to which the private citizen is held? History is replete with horrifyingly similar tales of government-condoned genocide and wars which slaughtered well over 100 million people in the 20th century alone. Yet they never ban the guns that enabled these horrors. Has any government ever disarmed itself because guns killed?
History also shows that once governments have total control, they revise history to promote their goodness. Then they make similar claims about the freedom of speech, so that discourse such as this paper are banned as well, in the interests of protecting society from the danger of questioning the government that needs us to believe it is taking care of We the Inept Subjects.
Every gun banned is a nail in the coffin of liberty. The battle lines are clearly drawn, and the enemys leadership is intact. The troops are being actively recruited from the ranks of those well-meaning Americans who are ignorant about firearms and shooting sports. The war is still on. The enemy will never stop with so much power at stake.
Arm yourself with the facts and educate people enough to at least reduce the enemys support. Take a new shooter to the range and introduce them to the fun of shooting sports. As an ounce prevention is worth a pound of cure, preemptive actions on your part now will save much wear and tear during the next election cycle.
Footnotes
(1) Kerry Concedes, Vows To Keep Fighting For Americans, KTVU.com, November 3, 2004.
http://www.ktvu.com/news/3887635/detail.html (2) Social conservatives turn out in force to fuel Bush, GOP victories, Matt Stearns and Charles Homans, Knight Ridder Newspapers, November 3, 2004.
http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/10091652.htm (3) Library of Congress, Legislative Information on the Internet.
http://thomas.loc.gov (Enter S. 1805 in Bill Number search box)
(4) Bill Summary & Status.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d108:SP02637 (5) U.S. Senate Roll Call
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=108&session=2&vote=00024(6) Text of Amendment SA 2636.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/R?r108:FLD001:S52007 (7) U.S. Senate Roll Call
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=108&session=2&vote=00025 (
U.S. Senate Roll Call
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=108&session=2&vote=00030 (9) Library of Congress, Legislative Information on the Internet.
http://thomas.loc.gov (Enter S. 1431 in Bill Number search box, then select Congressional Record References, and search for additional co-sponsors.
(10) Impacts of the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban: 1994-1996. National Institute of Justice, March 1999.
http://www.ncjrs.org/pdffiles1/173405.
