The Great Gun Debate: New Laws?

It's easy to fall into the trap that ensnares liberals, that of thinking we can legislate ourselves to utopia. This occurs to me when pondering Mr. Brett Joshpe's response to my last debate piece. In his response he very graciously states that my article contains many reasonable points, yet he also claims it has a deficiency: "[I]t never actually proposes measures - whether specific new regulations or repeal of specific existing ones - that would improve the current system," he writes.

Now, I did address remedial measures in an earlier piece, ones that would reduce the chances of school shootings without any Second Amendment infringement. I'd also suggest having armed guards - or trained, armed teachers - on school premises; if we do this to safeguard jewelry stores, pawn shops, and armored cars, it's the least we can do for our children. In the same vein, we must eliminate the suicidal and quite moronic "Gun Free Zone" signs at schools, which are nothing but an invitation to criminals. Yet all this misses the point. For Mr. Joshpe is correct: I didn't propose specific remedial measures in my debate piece. There is, however, an even larger point.

William F. Buckley once wrote, "A conservative is someone who stands athwart history, yelling Stop, at a time when no one is inclined to do so...." Why is a conservative thus disposed? Because sage souls understand that it isn't just doctors who must be mindful of the Hippocratic principle "First, do no harm." Sure, the temptation to "do something" in the heat of a tragic moment can be great; after all, it lends the illusion of remedial action, gives the impression that leaders care, and provides palliatives for people's fears - even if the "something" is a cure worse than the disease.

“and again you cede a percentage”

Dane-Geld
A.D. 980-1016It is always a temptation to an armed and agile nation
To call upon a neighbour and to say: —
“We invaded you last night—we are quite prepared to fight,
Unless you pay us cash to go away.”

And that is called asking for Dane-geld,
And the people who ask it explain
That you’ve only to pay ‘em the Dane-geld
And then you’ll get rid of the Dane!

It is always a temptation for a rich and lazy nation,
To puff and look important and to say: —
“Though we know we should defeat you, we have not the time to meet you.
We will therefore pay you cash to go away.”

And that is called paying the Dane-geld;
But we’ve proved it again and again,
That if once you have paid him the Dane-geld
You never get rid of the Dane.

It is wrong to put temptation in the path of any nation,
For fear they should succumb and go astray;
So when you are requested to pay up or be molested,
You will find it better policy to say: —

“We never pay any-one Dane-geld,
No matter how trifling the cost;
For the end of that game is oppression and shame,
And the nation that pays it is lost!”

And to think, in 1962 Thomas J Dodd and Emaual Cellar proposed the first federal law on common firearms.

1962; “We don’t want to take away your guns, we ONLY want to register handguns! Rifles and shotguns will not be affected”.

1964: “We only want to register all your guns, not ban them! Only Army surplus guns will be banned.”

1968: “We only want to register your guns, and ban “Saturday Night Specials” and small foreign handguns along with army surplus rifles!” (They got the ban on 5 shot army surplus rifles and handguns and small foreign pistols)

1970: “We only want to ban Saturday night specials! Large handguns and rifles will not be affected!” There was also a call at this time to ban all private possession of ALL GUNS.

1976: “We only want to ban all handguns! Long guns will not be affected!”

1981: “The NRA should give up their handguns, and they can keep their rifles!”- Lee Grant on GMA

1984: “We must ban “assault Rifles, unsuitable or hunting!”

1989: George Bush bans import of some foreign made “assault rifles”.

1992: Assault rifle ban passed by Clinton.

2000: first calls to ban single shot .50 cal rifles...

Nelson T. ‘Pete’ Shields
Founder of Handgun Control, Inc.

“I’m convinced that we have to have federal legislation to build on. We’re going to have to take one step at a time, and the first step is necessarily — given the political realities — going to be very modest.

Of course, it’s true that politicians will then go home and say, ‘This is a great law. The problem is solved.’ And it’s also true that such statements will tend to defuse the gun-control issue for a time.

So then we’ll have to strengthen that law, and then again to strengthen that law, and maybe again and again. Right now, though, we’d be satisfied not with half a loaf but with a slice. Our ultimate goal — total control of handguns in the United States — is going to take time.

My estimate is from seven to ten years. The problem is to slow down the increasing number of handguns sold in this country. The second problem is to get them all registered. And the final problem is to make the possession of all handguns and all handgun ammunition — except for the military, policemen, licensed security guards, licensed sporting clubs, and licensed gun collectors — totally illegal.”

-Pete Shields, Chairman and founder, Handgun Control Inc., “A Reporter At Large: Handguns,” The New Yorker, July 26, 1976, 57-58

“Yes, I’m for an outright ban [on handguns].”

-Pete Shields, Chairman emeritus, Handgun Control, Inc., 60 Minutes interview

Handgun Control Inc (The Brady Center) has modified their goals to include a ban on certain rifles and shotguns.

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.