Logic and Gun “Control” – Part 2


English: August 26: Congressman Rahm Emanuel a...

English: August 26: Congressman Rahm Emanuel announces the Juvenile Gun Crime Reporting Act at a meeting with youth and staff from the Uhlich Children’s Advantage Network upon the release of their annual Teen Gun Survey. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

In part one of this series I looked at two of the possible reasons the administration would advocate a gun control method such as strengthening background checks, considering that these will do nothing to curb the tide of gun crime and will create more such crime. One of the primary reasons such checks would not work is that current background check failures are not even being investigated. A lax enforcement policy now ensures the same would continue when there are even more laws to enforce.


The first two possible reasons for current lack of enforcement were that either the administration was overwhelmed by the magnitude of the problem, or they were simply incompetent. The third possible reason is that this administration is deliberately not enforcing the law. It could be asserted that there is a fourth possibility which is that the government is both incompetent and is deliberately not enforcing the law. Incompetence could be a large part of what is wrong, but it would largely surface on the lower levels of authority. Because if there is a deliberate attempt to not enforce current gun law, it would certainly rest with those in the highest seats of authority. Such a large amount of non-enforcement would have to be driven and directed from those in high station. So to the extent that this is deliberate, it would be directed from higher ranks which effectively makes this the third possibility. If that is not the case, we fall back to gross incompetence on behalf of the administration.

What would be the reason for deliberate non-enforcement of current laws? In order to discover the most likely reason we must make a few reasonable assumptions. First, we assume that the administration knows about the lax enforcement. Second, we assume they are also aware that current gun laws, including background checks have not helped reduce gun crime and the numbers show that in fact gun crime has increased. Third, we assume that their immediate goal is a reduction in gun crime. With these in mind there is one logical course of action which will reduce gun crime. That is confiscation of all guns from Americans.

One of the features of background check law is that the details of the purchase, including the name and address of the purchaser, are recorded. The proposed change in strength and scope in the new law would record many more of those details. Together, along with information already obtained about current gun owners, these could be compiled into a national registry of gun owners. This registry would enable federal officials to commence confiscation of guns nationwide. This would reduce at least one large portion of current gun crime, suicide. It would also create a situation where only the authorities, and other criminals, would have firearms and the populace would be helpless. When the state owns the effective and powerful weapons, it is inevitable that the state will “own” us as well. Could it be that this is the real, long term goal of the administration? I do not claim that is the case. I do claim that it is a likely possibility. I base this on the fact that actual confiscation of guns from law-abiding Americans has already taken place, back in 2005 during Hurricane Katrina. Police went house to house in areas not affected by the flooding and confiscated guns without any warning at all. The state was not hesitant to do this as soon as opportunity provided a chance. I do not think they will hesitate to attempt confiscation if justified by the failure of a new, supposedly better set of gun restrictions such as increased background checks. A look at recent comments by three Democratic senators will offer more evidence.

Second Amendment rights advocates are fuming today over words from three Democratic state senators caught on tape after Thursday’s hearing on the upper chamber’s gun control package. The three female senators, who sound from the recording to be Sen. Loretta Weinberg, Sen. Sandy Cunningham and Sen. Linda Greenstein, are heard discussing the just-closed hearing. “We needed a bill that was going to confiscate, confiscate, confiscate,” said an unknown voice.

I believe there is a kind of ‘logic’ being employed by the administration in this situation. It is the logic of deception and slight of hand. The logic that says while we the people are occupied with the fear of mass shootings and violent gun crime, the administration will use this fear to push through restrictive gun control which will eventually be used to justify gun confiscation. The proposed increased background checks law is a key part of this strategy. That is why proper logic on the behalf of supporters of the 2nd Amendment dictates we vigorously oppose even these so-called ‘sensible’ new gun restrictions.


One Response to Logic and Gun “Control” – Part 2

  1. john September 4, 2013 at 2:37 am

    I read all the article, Your thinking is really great thanks for sharing with us your post. If you have more ideas against guns please update us.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

Spam Protection by WP-SpamFree

Have a conservative business, group or cause? Why not advertise with the Daily Pamphlet? Spread the word about your organization to like-minded conservatives! We have a host of options sure to fit your budget and you will benefit from our ongoing promotional efforts!

What we offer:

Banner Ads

Featured Backlinks

YouTube Video Ads


Have questions? send us an email at: