Posted on 05/01/2003 12:19:18 AM PDT by kattracks
Capitol Hill (CNSNews.com) - New Jersey's Democratic senators moved Wednesday to tie their long-standing gun control agenda to homeland security and terrorism fears. Second Amendment advocates compared the proposal to the actions of Adolf Hitler's regime in Nazi Germany.
Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.) announced his plans Wednesday to introduce legislation he calls the "Homeland Security Gun Safety Act," along with fellow New Jersey Democrat Jon Corzine, Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.) and Sen. Jack Reed (D-R.I.).
Lautenberg claimed the proposal would close "loopholes" in current gun laws "that allow terrorists to access weapons and explosives inside our borders.
"As our government confiscates toenail scissors at airports, secures power plants, and increases domestic surveillance," Lautenberg said, "we're ignoring the most obvious threat that's out there, and that is the ease in [sic] which terrorists can access weapons in virtually any town across the country."
Under Lautenberg's proposal, any time the Homeland Security Threat Level rises to "elevated" or higher, law enforcement authorities would not be required to complete mandatory background checks on firearms purchasers within the current three-business-day limit. Unlike current law, which mandates near-immediate destruction of records of background checks if the sale is approved, Lautenberg's proposal would allow authorities to maintain the registry of new gun owners "indefinitely."
The Homeland Security Threat Level has been at the "elevated" level - or higher - since it was created following the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.
Supporters of Second Amendment protections for armed citizens warn that the proposal would allow law enforcement agencies to block all gun sales in their jurisdictions by simply refusing to complete background checks. They note that Lautenberg's plan to maintain a registry of gun owners sounds very familiar.
"These are the very laws that were used by the Nazis to register everybody's guns, to confiscate the Jews' guns and then to commit genocide," said Larry Pratt, executive director of Gun Owners of America. "Why the senator would want to do something as horrible as that, I can't understand."
Germany's "Law on Firearms and Ammunition" required all firearms to be registered with the federal government. Although the law was passed in 1928, prior to the Nazis coming to power, Hitler's regime used the registration lists to confiscate firearms belonging to Jews and suspected "sympathizers."
The bill would also impose nearly a dozen new restrictions on federally licensed firearms dealers, already the most heavily regulated industry in the U.S. The legislation would:
- Allow unlimited, unannounced inspections of gun dealers by federal agents. Because of past abuses, federal authorities are currently limited to one unannounced inspection per year. Inspections by local authorities are not currently limited;
- Create a federal felony charge against a gun dealer if a lost or stolen gun is recovered by authorities before the loss or theft is discovered and reported;
- Revoke a gun dealer's license immediately upon conviction for any felony - even if the conviction is under review by a higher court or being appealed.
- Suspend a gun dealer's license if, before the dealer files a report, authorities discover a gun that has allegedly been "missing" from inventory; and
- Suspend a gun dealer's license immediately upon being charged with any crime. Under current law, gun dealers are allowed to keep their licenses until and unless the government can prove its charges against them in court.
Lautenberg claims the changes will also reduce criminal violence.
"This bill will not affect the vast majority of honest, law-abiding Americans who want to purchase guns," he said. "The bill focuses on preventing weapons from getting into the hands of terrorists and criminals."
But Pratt noted that regulating legal purchases of firearms by law-abiding citizens has no positive impact on crime.
"And we know that there's no way it ever will because the English have a gun ban on an island, and all they got for their trouble is more crime with guns," Pratt noted. "The senator is absolutely wrong. He's lost the argument."
Closer to home, Pratt's organization notes that the District of Columbia enacted one of the strictest gun control laws in the nation in 1976. Since that time, the murder rate has dropped by two percent nationwide, while D.C.'s murder rate has increased by 134 percent.
Gun control supporters blame easy access to firearms in Virginia for the crime in the nation's capital. But Pratt pointed out that Arlington County, Virginia - which is just across the Potomac River from Washington - had a murder rate of 2.1 per 100,000 in 1999, compared to a murder rate of 46.1 per 100,000 in the District of Columbia. Even including all of the Virginia suburbs outside Washington brings the Virginia murder rate up to only 6.1 per 100,000.
'Gun Availability Changed This Person into a Criminal'
Nonetheless, Lautenberg still believes that the source of the problem is the availability of guns, not the violent intentions of those who use them criminally.
"We've had so many experiences where a criminal act suddenly erupted in a moment of outrage with a perfectly well-behaving citizen," Lautenberg charged. "The fact is that the gun availability changed this person into a criminal."
Pratt wondered aloud if Lautenberg wasn't voicing subconscious concerns about himself.
"He may be the kind of person that would go nuts with a gun," Pratt charged, "but most sane people have control of themselves, unlike the senator who apparently has no self-control.
"Normal people have no problem carrying a gun, bearing insults, suffering someone cutting them off in traffic and going on," Pratt added, "never pulling their gun."
Research Disputes Lautenberg's Claim
According to research published in the FBI's Uniform Crime Reports between 1972 and 1995, firearms ownership increased by more than 100 percent, while the overall rate of both murders and murders committed with guns remained fairly constant.
In a 1996 study, researchers at the University of Chicago discovered that, contrary to Lautenberg's claim, the possession of guns by law-abiding citizens actually reduced violent crime.
John Lott and David Mustard found that states with laws allowing citizens to carry concealed firearms reduced murders by nearly nine percent, rapes by five percent, aggravated assaults by seven percent and robbery by three percent.
If states without concealed carry laws had adopted them in 1992, the pair estimated that approximately 1,570 murders, 4,177 rapes, 60,000 aggravated assaults and more than 11,000 robberies would have been avoided annually.
Pratt pointed to those statistics and again questioned the motives behind Lautenberg's latest gun control bill.
"He and everybody else who supports that kind of legislation are just absolutely wrong," Pratt concluded. "There is no empirical basis for gun control, and the only reason you could be advocating it is because you must have the same objectives that the Nazis had."
E-mail a news tip to Jeff Johnson.
Send a Letter to the Editor about this article.
"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." --Benjamin Franklin
"Germans who wish to use firearms should join the SS or the SA - ordinary citizens don't need guns, as their having guns doesn't serve the State." -- Heinrich Himmler
"Arms discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property . . . Horrid mischief would ensue were the law-abiding deprived of the use of them." --Thomas Paine, Thoughts on Defensive War (1775)
"....a state that deprives its law-abiding citizens of the means to effectively defend themselves is not civilized but barbarous, becoming an accomplice of murderers, rapists, and thugs and revealing its totalitarian nature by its tacit admission that the disorganized, random havoc created by criminals is far less a threat than are men and women who believe themselves free and independent, and act accordingly." --Jeffrey R. Snyder, "A Nation of Cowards"
"Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in possession and under our direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?" --Patrick Henry, 3 J. Elliot, Debates in the Several State Conventions 45, 2d Ed. Philadelphia, 1836
Just a few quotes for any letter writers out there.
A lot of great info in the article:
Closer to home, Pratt's organization notes that the District of Columbia enacted one of the strictest gun control laws in the nation in 1976. Since that time, the murder rate has dropped by two percent nationwide, while D.C.'s murder rate has increased by 134 percent.
Gun control supporters blame easy access to firearms in Virginia for the crime in the nation's capital. But Pratt pointed out that Arlington County, Virginia - which is just across the Potomac River from Washington - had a murder rate of 2.1 per 100,000 in 1999, compared to a murder rate of 46.1 per 100,000 in the District of Columbia. Even including all of the Virginia suburbs outside Washington brings the Virginia murder rate up to only 6.1 per 100,000.
According to research published in the FBI's Uniform Crime Reports between 1972 and 1995, firearms ownership increased by more than 100 percent, while the overall rate of both murders and murders committed with guns remained fairly constant.
In a 1996 study, researchers at the University of Chicago discovered that, contrary to Lautenberg's claim, the possession of guns by law-abiding citizens actually reduced violent crime.
John Lott and David Mustard found that states with laws allowing citizens to carry concealed firearms reduced murders by nearly nine percent, rapes by five percent, aggravated assaults by seven percent and robbery by three percent.
If states without concealed carry laws had adopted them in 1992, the pair estimated that approximately 1,570 murders, 4,177 rapes, 60,000 aggravated assaults and more than 11,000 robberies would have been avoided annually.
It seems that liberals are fine with people dying as long as they remain/regain power. Very similar to dictatorships. Say anything to supress and control the people but in the end let them die to stay in power.
As we all knew from the beginning, Lautenberg is a senile old liberal wanker.
Can anyone tell me the last time terrorists used guns in a terrorist action here in the U.S.? The only people who will be restricted will be honest citizens.
OK, who's got the BS Meter?
Maybe it would be more practical to close the borders and keep terrorists and criminals away from America?
"This bill will not affect the vast majority of honest, law-abiding Americans who want to purchase guns," he said. "The bill focuses on preventing weapons from getting into the hands of terrorists and criminals."
So when did criminals start giving a fiddlers F about firearms laws... The only reason to have restrictions on firearm is so that the government can control the masses and they will do that with firearms...
Modern mythology holds that the political spectrum can be neatly defined, with communists on the far left, socialists and liberals to the left of centre, conservatives on the right, and Fascists and Nazis on the far right. This is a convenient piece of fiction, since it allows liberals to place themselves nearly at the opposite end of the spectrum from Nazis. In truth, Nazism and Fascism are not right wing philosophies at all. They are types of socialism. If there is any political philosophy today which comes close to matching the beliefs of Hitler, it is not neo-conservatism, but modern liberalism. I believe it was Mark Twain that said "History does not repeat itself, but it rhymes." When we examine history for recurring patterns, it would be naive to expect things to repeat exactly. Instead, we find patterns do repeat, but in a form sufficiently altered so that most people do not recognize the parallels with previous events. Thus, it would be foolish to expect twenty-first century Nazis to follow exactly the racial or ethnic biases of their twentieth century forerunners. (Of course, there are still some of these old style bigots remaining, but their numbers are declining, and they are dwindling in importance.)Indeed, liberal bigots are scrupulously careful to avoid any hint of bias based on race or ethnicity. Instead, they direct their hatred at those who possess certain cultural characteristics. Consider the above illustration, which accompanied an anti-gun editorial in the September 4, 1997 Toronto Star. The implication is clear: Gun owners are members of a sub-human species, dull witted, brutish, and prone to violence.
Imagine the furor that would erupt if a paper were to publish the Neanderthal picture with an article about Somalian refugees. Every liberal in Toronto would be howling like a pack of wolves. Human rights commissioners would be huffing and puffing with indignant outrage, and the paper would probably be taken to court for publishing hate literature. Yet, because the illustration maligns only gun owners, no one complains.
There is a rather striking parallel emerging between the liberal campaign against gun owners, and the Nazi plan to eradicate Jews. As I have already stated, this parallel is not exact, but there are numerous similarities.
1. Both Nazis and liberal bigots characterize their target group as a sub-human species. American anti-gun columnist Gary Wills refers to "the sordid race of gunsels", "gun fetishists", and "traitors, enemies of their own patriae." To an Atlanta newspaper editor, gun owners are simply "bulletbrains." A Miami Herald article declares "Gun Lunatics Silence the Sounds of Civilization" and describes gun owners as: "urban trash from the North, dangerous yokels from the South, van gypsies, half wits, and losers of every other stripe imaginable."[1] An anonymous anti-gunner, in a letter sent the former president of the Sporting Clubs of Niagara says "I wonder if you are simply further down the evolutionary ladder than most of us. Check and see if your knuckles drag on the ground."
The December 1989 Yale Law Journal contains an anti-gun article by political science professor Wendy Brown. Her piece is remarkable, not because of its simplistic analysis, but because it provides a perfect example of liberal bigotry. Ms. Brown concludes by relating an adventure she had while hiking in the Sierra Nevadas. After a week in the wilderness, she and three female friends emerged from the forest to find their car would not start. Luckily, they were able to find a disgusting hunter "making his way through a case of beer" in a nearby Winnebago. "Not feeling particularly discriminating" she persuaded this low life to spend the next two hours fixing her car. Her feeling "then and now" is the fear that if she had run into him alone in the woods he would have used his gun to overpower and rape her. Nowhere in her writing does Ms. Brown provide any evidence that she or her friends were actually in danger. It was merely her intuitive feeling, based on the fact he had a gun (or more precisely, an NRA cap, since she never actually saw any firearm.) Just as remarkable as the story itself, is the fact it was accepted for publication in a prestigious law journal.
2. Both Nazis and liberal bigots seek to eradicate the target group. Remember the famous quote from our former Justice Minister "I came to Ottawa in November of last year with the firm belief the only people in this country who should have guns are police officers and soldiers." Needless to say, without guns, there can be no gun owners and no gun culture. Here are a few more examples: U.S. Senator Joseph Bidden: "[Banning guns] is an idea whose time has come." U.S. Senator Diane Feinstein: "[Banning guns] addresses a fundamental right of all Americans to feel safe." U.S. Representative Mel Reynolds: "If it were up to me, we'd ban them all."[2]
3. Legislation is passed which affects only the target group. Bill C-68 allows police to enter the homes of gun owners without evidence of a crime, something they can't do to sex murderers, pedophiles or anyone else. It abrogates the right of gun owners to remain silent, to legal counsel, and forces them to incriminate themselves. It places a reverse onus (guilty until proven innocent) on gun owners charged with registration violations. Canadians were recently treated to the bizarre spectacle of Clayton Ruby, who calls himself a civil liberties lawyer, appearing in court in support of C-68. How can someone who professes to be a civil libertarian support measures which override nearly every right possessed by citizens in a free society? Because the legislation affects only despised gun owners, not robbers, rapists, murderers, and other mascots of Mr. Ruby, he can sleep at night without his conscience bothering him.
4. The target group is said to be responsible for a wide range of social and economic problems. Nazis blamed Jews for Germany's loss in WWI, the hyperinflation of the twenties, the reparations payments, and for the depression. Canadian gun owners are blamed for violent crime, murders, suicides, and the deaths of children.
5. A massive propaganda campaign is directed at the target group. Anti-gunners have expertly copied Hitler's first rule of effective propaganda: Take a few simple statements and repeat them over and over.
"No one in a civilized country needs a handgun."
"No one in a civilized country needs an assault rifle."
"Handguns are only made for one thing: killing people."
"Assault rifles are only made for one thing: killing people."
"We register cars so what's wrong with registering guns?"
"Every illegal gun was once a legal gun."
"If guns made you safer, the US would be the safest country in the world."6. Members of the target group are required under penalty of criminal code sanctions to identify themselves to government officials. Germany in 1938 passed legislation requiring all Jews to carry an identification card. By 1940, Polish Jews were required to wear a yellow star of David. Canadian gun owners will be forced to register themselves (by means of a firearms possession permit) by the year 2001.
7. The government confiscates the property of the target group. (Jews were eventually deprived of all their property, whereas gun owners have thus far, only lost some of their guns. Again, the parallel is not exact, only uncomfortably close.)
8. Members of the target group are restricted to certain areas of the country. By July of 1940 the Nazis had proclaimed that most of the area under their control was to be free of Jews (Judenfrei).[3] Jews would be confined to work camps or to walled off areas of large cities, such as the Warsaw ghetto. Similarly, there has been much talk among anti-gunners about establishing 'gun free zones'. It is probable this will be their next move, after the registration program is completed. If we end up with a hostile (Liberal) government at both the federal and provincial levels, it is entirely possible all of southern Ontario could become a gun free zone. Gun owners living in this area would then be forced to dispose of their firearms or move to a gun owners' ghetto.
9. The government devises a complicated set of rules governing how members of the target group are to be classified. Nazis regarded anyone with three or four Jewish grandparents as a full Jew. Someone with no Jewish grandparents was Aryan. Those with a Jewish great-grandparent, or great-great-grandparent, who were consequently one eighth or one sixteenth Jewish, were also Aryan. Those with one or two Jewish grandparents were classified as Mischlinge (mixed race). Mischlinge were broken down further into two sub-groups: first degree - two Jewish grandparents, second degree - one Jewish grandparent. First degree Mischlinge could be reclassified as Jewish if they participated in Jewish religious ceremonies. Marriage licenses were issued on the basis of whether the outcome of the union would be Jewish, Aryan or Mischlinge. For example, two second degree Mischlinge would not be permitted to marry, since their children would also be Mischlinge. However, an Aryan could marry a second degree Mischlinge since the children in this case would be Aryan.
The classification system for Canadian gun owners is just as outlandish. There are currently at least five degrees of grandfathered owners, full auto, converted auto, semi-auto prohibited under Kim Campbell's Orders in Council, semi-auto prohibited by Allan Rock's OIC, and short barreled handgun. New firearms possession certificates will come in several different levels as well, long gun possessor, long gun with acquisition rights, restricted possessor, and restricted with acquisition rights. The regulations governing the transfer of firearms between different classes of firearms owners holding various categories of FAC and FPC, are just as bizarre as the Nazi marriage laws.
10. A specialized branch of law enforcement will be formed whose purpose is to 'deal with' the target group. In Nazi Germany this police agency was the Gestapo. Here in Ontario we have recently witnessed the creation of the Provincial Weapons Enforcement Unit. When this group was formed we were told its purpose was to interdict gun smuggling. Instead, it appears they spend most of their time hanging around gun shows and raiding the homes of gun collectors. Needless to say, the modern American version of the Gestapo, is the ATF.
11. Both Nazis and liberal bigots lie through their teeth about their true intentions. After the invasion of Warsaw, military commanders in the Wehrmacht told Jews that "they need not be worried about their well being."[4] Jews who were being marched to their death in gas chambers were told they were to be given showers. The sign above the entrance to Auschwitz proclaimed "Work Will Set You Free". In a similar mendacious vein, most governments that have registered firearms have done so claiming they "only want guns to be registered" or "Registration does not mean confiscation." These same governments (New York City, New Jersey, Canada, Great Britain, Australia) have subsequently reneged on their promises and confiscated many of these registered guns.
12. The government will attempt to coerce members of the target group to perform much of the dirty work associated with their own demise. Jews were forced to remove the bodies of their comrades from gas chambers, dig mass graves, and police the ghettos. The Canadian government has attempted to set up a network of gun owners to assist with firearm registration by acting as volunteer 'verifiers'. Fortunately, it appears the only gun owners who have volunteered are dealers who need to verify their own sales.
13. After the state begins the systemic massacre of members of the target group, it will justify this action by claiming these people had weird beliefs, bizarre religious or sexual practices, and were a threat to the established social order. For example, Hitler writes of the "nightmare vision of the seduction of hundreds of thousands of girls by repulsive, crooked-legged Jew bastards."[5] Compare this to press reports during the Waco siege which alleged there was widespread child abuse in Mt. Carmel and that David Koresh had sex with numerous teenage girls. As author Dick Reavis reported in "The Ashes of Waco", the government's description of the residents of Mt. Carmel was built on four concepts: Texas - child molester - gun cult - crazies.
I have always marveled at the fact modern liberals honestly believe they are the antitheses of Nazis, when in reality they are simply a more genteel version of that breed. Like Nazis, they are always in favour of increased regulation and restrictions on the activities of citizens. Like Nazis, liberals believe the state should have a monopoly on the use of force. Like Nazis, liberals view the word "individualism" as a profanity. Like Nazis, they speak constantly of collective responsibilities, and the need for community efforts. Like Nazis, they have a blind faith in the ability of the state to correct social and economic problems. Finally, like Nazis, they do not hesitate to use the power of the state to crush a culture they regard as foreign.[6]
Endnotes.......
[snip]
Yes, if anyone had any doubts before about Lautenburg, this should certainly take away any ambiguity.
She will probably tap Schumer for that position.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.