RSS

100 years of Gun Control…the Progressive’s “Long Con”

30 Nov
100 years of Gun Control…the Progressive’s “Long Con”

Socialist Progressive’s have patience, I’ll give them that, and it is that patience that has given them so many victories in their long con.  They are the architect masters of the slippery slope.  They are so good at what they do that for the past 100+ years they have continued to chip away at the Second Amendment, the only thing that truly keeps them at bay, and yet the majority of Americans think they have more gun rights than ever before.

In fact, this past 100 years have crippled the 2nd Amendment to the point that it hardly resembles what our founding fathers intended.  Do you think that Adams and Jefferson, Franklin and Paine, Washington and Hancock, who had all resisted and fought against tyranny would actually require a free citizen to ask permission in order to exercise a right?  But yet, in most states that is exactly what is required if you wish to carry a firearm.

The Continental Army used the most advanced firearms of the day to defeat the British, yet the right to bear arms has been gelded in modern times to limit any ability to resist oppression.

Yet in the past 100 years, slowly…ever slowly…the rights have been eroded one at a time.  Every time these infringements were passed off as necessary to protect people, to protect the children.  Guns were demonized even though they were inanimate objects while the right to bear them was undermined.

Bypassing the post Civil War’s racist orgins of gun control that I previously touched upon, we’ll start in the Act that has been called the death of inalienable rights; The Sullivan Act of 1911.

New York state senator Timothy Sullivan, a corrupt Tammany Hall politician, represented New York’s Red Hook district. Commercial travelers passing through the district would be relieved of their valuables by armed robbers. In order to protect themselves and their property, travelers armed themselves. This raised the risk of, and reduced the profit from, robbery. Sullivan’s outlaw constituents demanded that Sullivan introduce a law that would prohibit concealed carry of pistols, blackjacks, and daggers, thus reducing the risk to robbers from armed victims.

The criminals, of course, were already breaking the law and had no intention of being deterred by the Sullivan Act from their business activity of armed robbery. Thus, the effect of the Sullivan Act was precisely what the criminals intended. It made their life of crime easier.

The Sullivan Act basically dictates that a US Citizen is required to ask the government for permission before they are allowed to exercise their rights.  If something requires permission then permission can be denied.  This is akin to asking the government permission to vote every election and the politician in charge denying you because he doesn’t like who you are going to vote for.

Twenty years later, the Federal Government passed the National Firearms Act of 1934.  Where the founding fathers declared independence based heavily on the unfair and punitive taxes levied by the king, the Act of 1934 created a whole new tax burden on the public.  In general, imposes a statutory excise tax on the manufacture and transfer of certain firearms and mandates the registration of those firearms.  The hope was that the Act would tax these weapons out of existence.

Thirty some years later, the government was at it once again when they passed the Gun Control Act of 1968.  This gun control measure would not only infringe upon the 2nd Amendment but would also dictate to businesses how they would run and force them to operate under the auspices of the Federal Government.  Hence the creation of the Federal Firearms Licence and the formation of the ATF as a wing of the Internal Revenue Service.  They would become autonomous in 1972.

Just shy of 20 years later, the Progressive’s learned a new trick and used a ludicrous euphemism when they passed the Firearm Owners Protection Act.  The only way that this act protected firearm owners was in the twisted minds of the gun control zealots who thought to protect firearm owners by denying them firearms.  By outlawing a number of firearms including automatic weapons made after the signing of the Act, the law basically made a de facto ban on them as older guns would eventually breakdown and become useless. The act further limited the firearms available to the general public as well as bolstering the ATF’s ability to track firearm owners.  The ATF Firearms Tracing System (FTS) contains hundreds of millions of firearm tracing and registration records, and consists of several databases.

A scant 8 years later in 1994 the Federal Assault Weapons Ban was passed.  Like the 1986 Act, this ban outlawed any so called “assault weapon” manufactured past the date of its signing.  Fortunately for the millions of gun owners in America who like these weapons and liberty in general, this is where the tide began to turn.  The pro gun contingent in Congress put a 10 year sunset ban on the bill.  In 2004, the bill was not extended and a small taste of liberty was returned to the land.

It was also around this time that gun owners as a whole started to wake up and see the long con that was being run on them by gun hating progressives who thirst for control.  Below is a graphic depicting the rise in the Right to Carry firearms in America starting in 1986.  It was in 1994, after the AWB that things really started to pick up.

In the past 26 years we have went from a country in which it was ILLEGAL to carry a gun in 15 states (an additional 26 states could deny you for no good reason at all) to being allowed to carry in 49 states with only 8 states who could arbitrarily deny you your right.  There are even 4 states that allow their citizens to carry freely without any need to seek permission from the Government.  These Constitutional Carry states are the archetype that I hope the rest of the country will follow in due time.

http://i701.photobucket.com/albums/ww15/TempJim2009/CCW_Map2.gif

 

It is not only in carrying that people have begun to wake up.  But with the passage of Firearms Freedom Acts in a number of states.  By passing this Act States are trying to undo the damage and infringements that the gun control progressives have slowly insinuated through the country these passed 100+ years.

Despite the resurgence of the 2nd Amendment, remember, the Right to Keep and Bear Arms has been bludgeoned over the passed 100 years and it was only recently in 2008 with the Supreme Court Decision in Heller v DC that the Government first acknowledged judicially that the 2nd Amendment was an individual right.

That ruling, I remind you was 5-4.  That is how close we were to losing and the progressive gun control zealots from winning.  But don’t think for one second that the long con is over.  As I said, the enemies of liberty are patient.  And if one avenue is closed to them such as the passing legislation, then they will seek out others.  These can be found in Obama’s militantly anti gun judicial nominees and his full on support of the UN’s gun control measure, the UN Arms Trade Treaty.

In order to maintain America as the Land of the Free we must continue to be vigilant against the con men who would try and convince us that our rights are negotiable or are up to compromise.  The fight may seem never ending…but that doesn’t mean it can’t be won.

 

About these ads
 
3 Comments

Posted by on November 30, 2012 in Uncategorized

 

3 responses to “100 years of Gun Control…the Progressive’s “Long Con”

  1. paradox

    November 30, 2012 at 8:22 pm

    “There are even 4 states that allow their citizens to carry freely without any need to seek permission from the Government. These Constitutional Carry states are the archetype that I hope the rest of the country will follow.”

    It’s really weird that one of those four states, Vermont is a progressive state. What’s up with that? Maybe support for gun rights isn’t always a sign of one’s politics, but an indicator of who is an American and who is not. Because, to be anti-gun is to be anti-American.

     
    • Daniel Kenoyer

      November 30, 2012 at 9:23 pm

      Vermont’s status is a result of a state court case that affirmed the right a long time ago…
      Litigation, not legislation.
      It’s the only thing that has worked consistently.

       

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

 
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 358 other followers

%d bloggers like this: