StudyGrowKnow

A National Gun Database? Yeah, That’ll Help…

January 12, 2013 at 9:43 AM Leave a comment

In recent days, we have learned via Biden that Mr. Obama may use the infamous Executive Order to further his anti-gun agenda.  This may include creating a national gun database and possibly the ban on so-called hi-capacity magazines.

Mark Levin asked (and answered) the question regarding a national gun database.  His question – what possible good could such a database do? – was firmly answered in one word:  nothing.

If one stops to consider it, there is absolutely NO good reason for having a national gun database.  Having one would not stop or decrease crime at all.  It would not keep weapons out of criminals’ hands.  The only thing a national gun database would do is provide our government with the names and addresses of everyone who owns a gun.  That’s it.  There is nothing more that such a database would do.

Oh but you say that if we had a national database, all guns would have to be registered and all sales tracked.  Whoopee.  Do you think that criminals are all of a sudden going to start doing that?  Do you think when they buy a gun off the street (that’s been illegally imported or even stolen) that they are going to take it to their local FFL dealer and register it?  So, those guns that are already illegal will not suddenly become part of a national database.  This means that only the guns of law-abiding citizens will become part of such a database.

So, you say that’s a good thing?  How?  Knowing who has what will not stop a crime.  It will simply allow the Feds the ability to say, “Yep, that gun was indeed registered to Joe Blow, whom we believe shot those people.”  We will be no better off than we are now.  Of course, to create such a database, the government will have to spend tons of taxpayer dollars to get it up and running and maintain it.  The government wins.

What about guns that are part of this national database, but are then stolen?  End of the trail, until the gun turns up after it was involved in a crime.  Were the Feds able to stop that crime?  No, they lost sight of the gun once it was stolen.  So much for the national database.

Giving our government the names and addresses of anyone who owns a gun would simply benefit our government if it came to the point where our government decided to attempt an overturn of the 2nd Amendment.  They would be able to go door-to-door demanding that law-abiding citizens turn in their weapons.

A national gun database would have nothing to do with the prevention of any gun-related crime at all as noted.  That could not possibly be its purpose at all.  A national gun database would simply further erode the law-abiding citizen’s right to privacy and it would spend money where money does not need to be spent.  It would wind up being another government boondoggle, where tons of money is spent to create something that the government could wind up using against the people of America.

Our government has gotten so large and so powerful and so wasteful that it is difficult to rein things in, yet it continues to spend money as if it has it.  With a national database, we can be assured that more money will be spent to create something that will require hiring more people to oversee and maintain it.  Whenever the government hires anyone, it does so with taxpayer dollars and because of that, it simply takes money without really giving anything back.  This is unlike a private company that creates jobs that actually fuel the economy.  Government jobs tend to do the opposite.  They repress the economy.

Is a national gun database a good idea?  No, unless of course you tend to think that the government knowing who owns what is a good idea.  While you might be in favor of such a database because you might possibly not like guns or think that people should own them, that’s really too bad because the 2nd Amendment guarantees that my right (and yours) to own a gun shall not be infringed.  Yet, every time I turn around, my 2nd Amendment rights are being infringed, whether it’s through this legislation or that, more and more restrictions are being placed on law-abiding citizens that have routinely proven that they do nothing to lessen crime.

Regarding so-called hi-capacity magazines, we have to ask the question, what exactly constitutes such a magazine?  Some people believe any magazine capable of holding more than six bullets qualifies as a hi-capacity magazine.  Others say anything holding more than ten bullets is a hi-capacity magazine.  Certainly, something holding 20 or 30 bullets qualifies in most people’s minds as a hi-capacity magazine.

The women who shot the intruder in North Georgia recently ran out of bullets after shooting her unwelcome “guest” five times.  As far as I am aware, he is still alive, after being shot five times in the torso, neck, and face.  Is five bullets too many?  Six?  Ten?  How do we measure it?  Sometimes, one well-placed shot can kill someone.  Other times, it takes more bullets than the gun carries.

Most gangbangers and criminals carry guns and most of the guns they carry have hi-capacity magazines.  Why?  Because they obtain them on the street and they want to make sure that when they need their gun, they will have plenty of ammo, since they are not known for their accuracy.  So when one of these individuals breaks into your home and you have a five-shot revolver (because as hi-capacity as our government may say you can have), you’d better be able to make your five shots count against their ten, fifteen, or more bullets.

So our government is considering banning hi-capacity magazines.  Will that help?  It will only help the criminal who will still have his hi-capacity magazine and as much ammo as he needs.  Any Executive Order(s) Mr. Obama plans to use to create a national gun database, ban hi-capacity magazines, or limit ammo purchases will have no effect on the criminal.  There is actually nothing any government can do that will eradicate crime or make it harder for criminals to obtain weapons.  If they could, they would have done it a long time ago, I would think.

Do you believe the national database will have the names of criminals in their who legally own weapons?  Obviously not.  In fact, criminals (anyone with felonies) cannot legally own a gun as I’m sure you know, yet many do, don’t they?  So, the national gun database will have no effect at all on the illegal transport or sales of weapons.  Again, it will simply inconvenience the law-abiding citizen.

Banning hi-capacity magazines will have no effect on the criminal who obtains his weapons, his ammo, and his hi-capacity magazines illegally on the street.  Banning hi-cap mags will only affect the law-abiding citizen.  I don’t hear the government discussing this though, do you?

While Mr. Obama and the rest of the liberals in DC believe they are doing something wonderful for our country, they are ultimately only doing something that further erodes rights of law-abiding citizens.  That’s the end of their efforts.  There is nothing they are going to do that will have any impact at all on the people who need greater policing:  the criminals (including those who are mentally unstable).

Let’s say the government also shores up the alleged gun show loophole, will that make any difference?  Not at all.  Eliminating this so-called loophole means that it becomes illegal to sell (or give) a gun to someone in a private sale, whether they do this in the parking lot of a gun show or at home.  As such, two people then who wanted to sell/buy a gun would be required by law to go to a FFL dealer, pay to transfer the gun from one party to the other and thereby have a paper trail.  Sounds like a good idea to you?  Again, if you’re opposed to guns, then it probably does sound like a good idea.  But does it really solve anything?

Again, ask yourself how would this affect the criminal?  Do you truly believe that this restriction would eliminate or even curtail the ability of criminals to obtain weapons?  Do you honestly believe that the criminals would be affected by such a rule?

This is the law in California, yet there is greater gun violence in California than where I now live in the state of Georgia per capita.  It is a sad fact that people who want to circumvent the law will circumvent the law because laws make no difference to them, except to know what to avoid doing.  For the criminal, life goes on unhindered.  It will only be different for the law-abiding citizen.

There are many laws already on the books related to guns that are not completely and consistently enforced by our government.  Yet, we are told that to make society safer, there must be more laws and rules.

The Old West has been idolized as a land where gunslingers dueled it out at Noon on nearly every day of the week.  We read of the alleged lawlessness, the gunslinging, the shootings, the lynchings, and everything else that supposedly went with the Old West.  The truth of the matter is that while there were several lawless places like Deadwood, generally speaking, the Old West was not as lawless or wild as many people tend to think and certainly not as wild and lawless as is too often portrayed by Hollywood.

Regardless of whether people like to hear it or not, an armed society is a polite society.  When people know other people (might) have guns, they tend to act differently; more politely, more responsibly.

No one goes to a gun shop to steal guns during the time the shop is open.  They know there is an excellent chance that they will be shot!  Criminals (and the mentally unstable) go where they are less likely to be shot, like private homes, grocery stores, even banks (where there may only be one armed guard if that), or small stores like 7-Elevens, or weapon-free zones like schools.  Criminals are not going to go to places where the chances of being shot are greatly increased.  Criminals are not stupid (generally speaking).

So with all the talk of more gun-control, the sad reality is that a national gun database will do nothing to make society safer.  In the end, that is actually not the intended purpose of such a database.  The purpose is to give the government a greater measure of control over what law-abiding citizens buy and the government does not need to know that.  Such a database will simply inconvenience law-abiding citizens and make it easier for the government to know who has what.  If/when it comes time for our “dear” government to remove what law-abiding citizens legally own, it will be much easier for them to do so.

Banning hi-capacity magazines will also do nothing to make society safer.  People who want to go on a killing spree will find what they need on the Black Market.  Simply banning hi-capacity magazines or “assault” rifles will not necessarily translate to being completely unable to obtain those items (except for the law-abiding person).  Banning something does not mean it is no longer available.  Banning something means it is generally not available to those who obey the law.  Those who live outside the law have little problem obtaining whatever they want to obtain.  A ban does not equate to a complete eradication.

The saddest part of all this is that people continue to erroneously believe that guns kill people.  Because of that, they focus on the weapon itself.  A loaded gun hanging on the wall has no ability to shoot itself.  It cannot magically go off.  It simply sits there waiting to be used.   If an earthquake occurred and the guns were knocked off the wall, yes, they could go off if they were loaded, as they hit the ground.  However, that might be the least of someone’s problems in an earthquake like that any way.

Guns can no more shoot by themselves than cars can put themselves in DRIVE and start moving.  There has to be an outside force on the weapon (or car) in order for it to shoot (or drive).

It is the person who wields the gun that is a potential danger to society.  If they did not have access to a gun, they could use a bomb (as in the Oklahoma City bombing), a knife, a hammer, their own hands or whatever else they could find that would do the job for them.  How many serial killers have been arrested who did not use guns?

Why does society continue to blame the gun for the deaths that might occur from someone using it, as if the gun has a mind of its own?  Guns can and do save lives as in the case of the mother in north Georgia recently.

When some moron sets a forest on fire, we do not blame the matches that sparked the fire, do we?  We blame the individual and arrest that person when they are found.  There is no talk of the need to ban matches.  The purpose of the match is to start a fire.  Fires can be used for warming, for cooking, and for destroying through arson.  Guns are used to take life and save lives.  To believe that any time a gun is used, the gun is evil is ridiculous.  It is the person who uses the gun and how they use that gun that determines the result.  The gun is merely a tool.  In the right hands, it can save lives.  In the wrong hands, it can take life in murder and massacre.

I guess the most troubling thing for me is that every day, in just about any large city, young people shoot other people or are shot themselves, dying on sidewalks, curbs, in cars, and in empty lots.  It’s been going on for years, but apparently, when some terrible tragedy (and it was terrible) occurs in Sandy Hook, our government decides it’s time to get serious about wanting to do something about the “proliferation” of guns in society.  What about all the young people who die every day in too many cities throughout America where the weapon of choice is not some AR-15, but a pistol or revolver?  What about those kids?  Guns have been with us for decades and they are used daily on the streets of large cities between gang factions.  Where are all those civil rights protestors who try to tell me that they care about the deaths that occur because of guns?  You never hear them speak about all of the young people that are victims of gun violence, do you?

The problem is not the gun.  It’s the person that carries the gun.  It all goes back to the problem that humanity suffers from that has to do with our rebellion against God.  We are corrupt, finite, sinful human beings.  As such, many live outside the boundaries of the law and there is no set of laws that can be made which will force people to live within the bounds of law.  For too many people, it goes against their grain to live the life of law-abiding citizens.  They prefer the darkness.  They want to live outside the law because it’s where they are most comfortable.  They do what they can to ensure that they will not be encumbered by laws.  Laws only affect law-abiding people and that is the truth that people do not like to hear.

Our government cannot keep us all safe.  I refuse to allow the government to even try to keep me safe.  They can do what they can do, but the truth of the matter is that even the Supreme Court has stated that the police officer’s job is to uphold the law, not keep people safe.  Police are normally called during or after a crime has been committed, not before.  The police officer’s job is to solve the mysteries surrounding each crime, not keep crime from happening.

Our government believes that making it more difficult for me to obtain the items necessary to keep myself and my family safe is what they are supposed to do.  Whether it’s limiting my ability to purchase ammo, buy hi-capacity magazines so that the field is evened out when it comes to the criminal element (who likely has a gun with a hi-capacity magazine), or banning certain types of weapons altogether, the government thinks it’s doing me a favor.  It’s not.  It’s simply making it more difficult for me – as a law-abiding citizen – to give me the tools to adequately go up against the criminal element that roams generally unhindered in our society.

It’s not any different from being able to buy Claritin-D, as I’ve mentioned before.  Because those who live outside the law are irresponsible and abuse over-the-counter medications, the government decided that law-abiding citizens like me should be more encumbered with greater restrictive legislation.  Has it stopped the problem?  No.  The only thing that has curtailed the abuse of this type of drug is a new generation of people who are not interested in abusing over-the-counter medications like that.  If they are into drug abuse, they are into a different type of drug and are not impacted by the restrictions surrounding the purchase of medications like Claritin-D.  Greater restrictions do nothing and people who really want to obtain these types of medications do what they always do – steal them.

There is nothing that our government has talked about doing with respect to guns since the Sandy Hook incident that will make it more difficult for the criminal; not one thing.  If that is the case, then the government needs to drop its plans to make it more difficult for me since I have done nothing wrong and am being penalized for what criminals and mentally-disturbed people do.

Entry filed under: 9/11, alienology, Atheism and religion, Communism, Demonic, dispensationalism, Eastern Mysticism, emergent church, Gun Control, Islam, Islamofascism, israel, Judaism, Life in America, Maitreya, new age movement, Posttribulational Rapture, Pretribulational Rapture, Radical Islam, rapture, Religious - Christian - End Times, Religious - Christian - Prophecy, Religious - Christian - Theology, Romney, salvation, Satanism, second coming, Shadow Government, Sharia Law, Socialism, temple mount, Transhumanism, ufology. Tags: banning hi-capacity magazines, limiting ammo purchases, making it more difficult for law-abiding citizens, national gun database, obama may use executive order for gun control.