"From the wild Irish slums of the 19th
century Eastern seaboard to the riot-torn suburbs of Los Angeles, there is one
unmistakable lesson in American history: a community that allows a large number
of young men to grow up in broken families, dominated by women, never acquiring
any stable relationship to male authority, never acquiring any set of rational
expectations about the future - that community asks for and gets chaos.”
- Daniel Patrick Moynihan, Family and Nation, 1965
- Daniel Patrick Moynihan, Family and Nation, 1965
By Peter Ferrara
If Obama & Co. are helpless to prevent gang warfare, what are they doing trying to disarm the law-abiding?
Aside from a few, brave, truth-tellers, all of the discussion in
Washington boils down to one theme — Why More Power and Money
Should Be Transferred from You to Me.
Of course, the sophists never say that directly. They always say it is for the children, or the poor, or the middle class, or the elderly, or the sick. But watch what they do, not what they say. In the end, every Washington Establishment initiative, proposal, or campaign is always aimed at the same result — power and money taken from you, to be given to them.
Of course, the sophists never say that directly. They always say it is for the children, or the poor, or the middle class, or the elderly, or the sick. But watch what they do, not what they say. In the end, every Washington Establishment initiative, proposal, or campaign is always aimed at the same result — power and money taken from you, to be given to them.
The money doesn’t have to go to them to be spent by them. It
enhances their power if the money goes to them to distribute, and
so determine who spends it. They will siphon off money enough for
themselves in the process. But all the talk in Washington is really
about who gets the power.
And so it is with Barack Obama’s traveling gun control salvation
tour.
The Limits of Barack Obama’s Power
Whenever Barack Obama talks, he tells us that whatever he believes
is just common sense. And what anyone who disagrees with him says
is just politics. That’s actually the open communist Saul Alinsky
talking, worshiped by every true Democrat (see, e.g., Hillary
Clinton). It is just more sophistry and deception.
President Obama could just be talking Marxist trash, which the
whole 20th century was devoted to proving hopelessly foolish, at
the cost of hundreds of millions of lives. But if Barack Obama says
it, it is just plain common sense. And if you disagree with his
Marxist precepts, you are just talking politics.
But let me give you some actual common sense about gun control.
Barack Obama, and the entire federal government, and all the state
governments, and all the city and county governments, COMBINED, do
not even have the power to take guns away from criminals. That
includes so-called “assault weapons” (more sophistry and deception,
go into a gun store and ask to see the “assault weapons”).
All that government, and Barack Obama, even have the power to do
is take guns away from the victims of criminals. Is that
common sense? To disarm the victims of crime, but not the
criminals?
The same applies to government policies to limit the number of
shots in gun magazines. Government, even Obama the Magnificent
himself, does not even have the power to limit the number of shots
available to the criminals. They can only limit the number of shots
available to the victims of crime.
Is that common sense? To leave the criminals with unlimited
shots, but limit the shots available to the victims of crime? Can
liberals and Democrats even reason?
The answer is yes, they can reason. Because what we are talking
about here is not gun violence and how to limit it. What we are
talking about here is the power of Barack Obama. It increases his
power and the power of the government to disarm the citizenry. That
is why the Second Amendment is in the Constitution, to protect the
power of the people.
Fatherlessness and the Roots of Gun
Violence
As everyone knows, in the tragedy of
Newtown, Conn., 20 children and 6 adults were slaughtered in a hail
of bullets. But as Lee Habeeb brilliantly explained in National
Review Online on January 17 (“The
War Against Black Men”), in Barack Obama’s Chicago, which
suffers the strictest gun control laws in the country, the same
tragedy happens every month!
Habeeb writes, “In the first few weeks of January in
Chicago, 25 people have already been murdered. Most were young
black and Hispanic men, murdered by other young black and Hispanic
men.”
He adds, “You don’t know their names because the real racism
that exists in the media is this: A young black male’s life is not
worth reporting when it is taken by another black male.” That is
because such gun violence cannot be used as an excuse to increase
the power of government, yet. When it is, you will hear all about
it.
Quite to the contrary, the monthly Chicago tragedy just further
illustrates the fallacy of the assault weapons ban that Obama is
promoting nationally to counter gun violence, and the limits of
government power. Not only do these monthly massacres continue in
the face of the strictest gun control laws in the country. But the
murders Chicago is suffering are gang-related violence. All the
guns used by gangs are already held in violation of the law. But
that is not stopping the monthly Newtown massacres in
Chicago. Nothing Obama is proposing will have any effect
on these gangs. They have no respect for the law whatever it
is.
Obama said in Minneapolis on Monday, “But we also know that if
we’re going to solve the problem of gun violence, then we’ve got to
look at root causes as well.” Obama then went on to talk about more
power for Washington. More government spending for mental health,
more federal spending for the local government responsibility for
cops on the beat, and confirmation of a director of the Bureau of
Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms. Ah yes, the need for another federal
bureaucrat is really a root of the problem of gun violence.
Rather, Habeeb explained the roots of gun violence in
America:
But the breakdown of the family in America is the result of too much government — liberal welfare policy giving away a trillion dollars every year to single mothers with children. And the answer to that is more limited government, providing welfare assistance only in return for work from the able bodied. Oops, that was a Reagan idea. Can’t have that.
About 20,000 people
live in my hometown of Oxford, Miss., and there are probably twice as many
guns. Folks own handguns, shotguns, rifles, and all kinds of weapons I’ve never
even heard of. But I can’t remember the last murder story in the local paper.
That’s because my
town has lots of guns, but lots of fathers, too.
Chicago doesn’t have
a gun problem; it has a father problem….
When young men don’t
have fathers, they don’t learn to control their masculine impulses. They don’t
have fathers to teach them how to channel their masculine impulses in
productive ways.
When young men don’t
have fathers, those men will seek out masculine love — masculine acceptance —
where they can find it. Often, they find it in gangs.
In my little town,
if some boys tried to form a gang and do violence on our streets, the fathers
wouldn’t bother calling the sheriff. Those boys would face a gang of fathers
hell bent on establishing order in our community. And if that meant using
physical force, so be it.”
But the breakdown of the family in America is the result of too much government — liberal welfare policy giving away a trillion dollars every year to single mothers with children. And the answer to that is more limited government, providing welfare assistance only in return for work from the able bodied. Oops, that was a Reagan idea. Can’t have that.
Reducing Gun Violence — More Freedom, Not
Less
President Obama in Minneapolis also
talked about Senate hearings to address gun violence, where former
Congresswoman Gabby Giffords and her husband were the first to
testify. Obama complained, “if we still had a 10-round limit on
magazines, for example, the gunman who shot Gabby may never have
been able to inflict 33 gunshot wounds in 15 seconds. Fifteen
seconds, 33 rounds fired. Some of the six people who lost their
lives that day in Tucson might still be with us.”
But if someone in that parking lot crowd where Giffords was shot
by another crazed gunman had a concealed carry permit, and was
armed, some of the six people who lost their lives that day would
have been far more likely to still be with us. For the gunman could
have been shot in self-defense far more quickly than waiting for
him to run out of more limited magazine reloads, or more guns to
pull out, or counting on him to follow the law on gun magazine
limits. Murder was already illegal that day, to no effect.
Obama referenced in Minneapolis an ongoing “epidemic of gun
violence.” But that is another Obama delusion. Gun violence is in
long-term decline, with the homicide rate cut in half since the
early 1990s. That is due to the explosion of conceal and carry
permits, increased prison terms for violent offenders, and the
aging of the population, as the more mature commit far fewer crimes
than the young. Moreover, mass shootings as in Newtown, having
peaked in 1929, are in even longer term decline.
If we want to reduce gun violence further, more concealed carry
permits are the answer, as John Lott demonstrated in his
breakthrough book, More Guns, Less Crime. Mass school
shootings would be further reduced by paying teachers bonuses to
take concealed carry permit training, and bringing their concealed
guns to school to be available for self-defense.
And extending welfare reform to all federal means tested welfare
programs, requiring work by the able bodied for welfare, would
begin to address fatherlessness as the root cause of gun
violence.
No comments:
Post a Comment