could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United
States for an outright ban, picking up every one of
them, Mr. and Mrs. America, turn them all
in, I would have done it." -
Senator Dianne Feinstein
(D-CA), discussing the 1994 "crime bill", one of the
largest gun control bills of the last 30 years.
Don't think you'd ever need
a gun? Ever? Ever?
Tell that to the Korean
merchants who rode out the Los Angeles riots without
protection from the police or the military. Your
average Korean merchant isn't a "gun nut", and he doesn't
belong to the NRA. But when the riots erupted into
indiscriminate looting and arson, the Koreans knew that
they were a target. With the civil authorities
overwhelmed (and in some cases deliberately not
suppressing the riots), it was up to them to defend their
persons and their property. Out came the weapons
from their closets, and they saved themselves.
Try telling it to the
Floridians after Hurricane Andrew, when once again civil
order was shattered, and looting began. And try
telling it to the "Central Park Jogger", assaulted and
raped by multiple men while out for a run.
None of these people
belonged to a militia group. They weren't White
Supremacists. Most of them weren't even hunters or
shooting enthusiasts. But they all knew, or learned
the hard way, the truth of the old adage: "You never need
a gun until the moment you need it more than anything in
The 1994 ban on so-called
"Assault Weapons", which accomplished exactly zero with
respect to reducing firearm crime, will sunset this
September. The predictable cast of characters have
mobilized not only to renew it, but to expand it. As
Senator Feinstein's words above make clear, for the gun
control movement the ultimate goal is complete disarmament
of all private citizens. Charles Krauthammer wisely
pointed out in 1996 that while the Assault Weapon ban
clearly would do nothing about crime, "Its only real
justification is not to reduce crime, but to desensitize
the public to the regulation of weapons in preparation for
their ultimate confiscation."
Now consider this fact: not
long ago, Sarah Brady—yes, that Sarah Brady—purchased a
high-powered rifle as a gift for a relative. What
does this tell us, if not that our politicians consider
themselves and their families trustworthy and responsible,
while the rest of us common citizens would unquestionably
embark on killing sprees if we were allowed to own guns?
The underlying principle of
all gun control is a vicious elitism. Gun control is
the classic political cause for a group of people who
really believe that they know better than you.
People like Senator Feinstein, deep inside their
hearts, don't really see themselves as elected to serve.
They think they are selected to rule. A public
servant can—must—trust the populace with power, including
arms. A ruler can never do so. And these
people would never be benevolent despots, because a
benevolent despot who disarmed his people would consider
himself responsible for their safety. But the courts
have already made clear that the police have no legal
responsibility to protect citizens from criminals.
So there you have it.
We can't be trusted with guns, and we don't deserve
protection from criminals. And every day somewhere
in America, some innocent person needs a gun more than
anything in the world. Senator Feinstein thinks
that's just too bad.