Far-left Democrats used to try to hide their longing for gun confiscation and repealing the Second Amendment (which, FYI, cannot be done because it’s a God-given right, not a government-granted right) behind such fuzzy euphemisms as “common sense gun laws.” But as with their longing for socialism and other failed ideas from the past (Bernie Sanders even wants to abolish all fracking and get energy from windmills, which he calls being “progressive”), the mask is now off. Several of the Democrat's presidential candidates and other pols are being aggressively in-your-face about their plans to take away Americans' guns, even if they don’t know enough about guns to figure out which part of one to point at the thing you want to shoot.
Yesterday brought a widely publicized exchange between Reps. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Dan Crenshaw, which was appropriately headlined on the Gateway Pundit site as “29-year-old Communist Bartender AOC Lectures Navy SEAL on How to Handle Firearms.” You can read the exchanges here:
I don’t know what’s the most irritating part: the presumptuousness of AOC lecturing about guns to a decorated veteran who lost his eye and nearly his life defending her right to spew ignorance into the public discourse, or her assumption that his friends and family members to whom he might loan a gun without a background check “have likely abused their spouses or have a violent criminal record” (she must think that he hangs out in the same social circles that she does), or just the arrogance of her condescending remark to him: “Try to keep up.”
Okay, here are a few concepts for her to “keep up” with. Guns are the great equalizer, allowing women to protect themselves against larger, abusive men, like the spousal abusers AOC described. How does she know that his friends asking to borrow a gun for self-defense aren’t victims of domestic abuse, and that having to wait around for a background check before being armed could spell the difference between life and death for them? Why does AOC want to disarm women and leave them defenseless against abusers and criminals, as this woman would have been?
I recall reading that the late Charlton Heston once said his liberal friends in Hollywood all condemned him for owning guns and opposing a waiting period to get a gun, but when the L.A. riots broke out, they called him and begged to borrow weapons to defend their homes. He said he told them he’d love to help, but he knew they were strong believers in a 10-day waiting period, so call back in 10 days and he’d see what he could do then.
But it’s usually not very productive to spend too much time or effort trying to respond to AOC. Instead, let’s take a look at the Democrat Presidential candidates, such as “Beto” O’Rourke, and their claims that if elected, they’ll enact mandatory “buyback” programs (actually confiscation with some remuneration; the government can’t “buy back” what it never owned in the first place.)
J.D. Tuccille at Reason.com took a deep dive into those pipe dream promises and examined how attempts to register, confiscate and “buy back” guns have worked out in various places throughout recent history. Short answer: not well.
For instance, in the early ‘90s, New Jersey passed one of America’s toughest-ever laws against so-called “assault weapons.” Even with a threatened penalty of felony charges, out of an estimated 100,000 to 300,000 privately-owned weapons in the state, police managed to confiscate 14 and a grand total of four more were turned in.
This pattern of citizen refusal to comply held steady in other places that tried similar laws, including California and New York, which had to be sued before revealing that compliance with its gun registration law was a pitiful 5%.
Americans already own millions of guns, and the vast majority aren’t going to register them because Democrats have made it clear that if they know who has guns, their next move will be to try to take them away. As Tuccille notes, without registration, the government doesn't know where the guns are to confiscate them. So the people calling for these draconian gun laws know they are unenforceable and will only make the government look weak and impotent, but they are pushing for them anyway. Why? Because of the hoped-for short-term political benefits of (ironically, since this is what they love to accuse conservatives of doing) firing up their base by demonizing or “othering” an entire class of people, in this case, blaming the actions of a tiny handful of homicidal lunatics on millions of law-abiding gun owners.
Or maybe I should say gun owners who abide by all laws that aren’t unconstitutional.
And continuing our theme of Democrat politicians demanding bans on things they know nothing about, Sen. Elizabeth Warren just demanded a ban on bump stocks five months after the Trump Administration banned them. Are we sure it’s just Joe Biden whose brain we should be worried about?
I will happily criticize the Democratic presidential candidates when I think it’s deserved, but a story went viral yesterday that seems to me to be making a Mount Vesuvius out of a molehill. The Internet and cable news stations went berserk after Joe Biden’s left eye apparently filled with blood during CNN’s climate change townhall on Wednesday. A photo of it on the Drudge Report set off more alarms than the Chicago fire, and speculation ran rampant about whether it was a dangerous sign that Biden was falling apart due to his age and shaky health.
Well, chill out, everyone. It was likely just a broken blood vessel, or a “subconjunctival hemorrhage.” One of my staffers had the same problem last week and researched it. It’s very common, sometimes caused by coughing or blowing your nose too hard (he was getting over a bad cold.) It’s harmless and usually goes away by itself – his was already fading after two days.
There are many reasons to be concerned about Joe Biden’s fitness for the presidency, but a little red eye isn’t one of them. Maybe he just understandably burst a blood vessel from trying to hold his eyes open throughout CNN’s interminable seven-hour marathon of Democratic politicians telling us how they plan to spend your money to change the weather.