P
Patriot Games
Guest
http://blog.nj.com/njv_scott_bach/2007/10/antigun_extremism_in_the_garde.html
Anti-gun extremism in the Garden State
Scott L. Bach, Esq.
October 10, 2007
Can drunk driving be reduced by selling fewer cars? Can arson be reduced by
selling fewer matches?
The obvious answer to these questions is no. The criminal misuse of any
lawful product is not a function of the number of units sold; it's a
function of how effectively society deals with the criminals who misuse
them.
To reduce drunk driving, we should enforce strict laws punishing drunk
drivers. To reduce arson, we should enforce strict laws punishing arsonists.
Selling fewer cars won't reduce drunk driving, just like selling fewer
matches won't reduce arson. That's just common sense.
Unfortunately for gun ban advocates like Bryan Miller (Executive Director of
CeaseFire NJ), the same principle also holds true for firearms. Selling
fewer firearms to law abiding citizens who have passed government background
checks will not reduce gun crime, because they are not the cause of gun
crime to begin with.
But when it comes to anti-gun extremism in the Garden State, common sense
and logic go out the window.
Case in point: Miller thinks that New Jersey gun crime can be reduced by
rationing guns to law-abiding Pennsylvania citizens. When I pointed out the
absurdity of this notion in a recent post, Miller dedicated an entire blog
post to attacking my integrity, revealing a typical distraction technique
of gun ban extremists when confronted with a principle of truth that exposes
the absurdity of their agenda: attack the messenger.
Miller's group characterizes itself as a leader in the fight against gun
violence, but a more apt description might be a leader in the fight against
lawful gun ownership. The group seems to support any scheme whose net effect
is to interfere with the rights of honest citizens to exercise their Second
Amendment freedoms, instead of targeting their efforts at criminals, who are
the real source of gun violence.
At a hearing last year in Jersey City, Miller actually argued that laws that
get tough on gun criminals are ineffective, yet advocated for an ordinance
that rationed firearms just to law-abiding citizens who have been
pre-certified by the state as non-criminals after passing a 13-point
background investigation. The ordinance passed but was soon invalidated by a
Court, which found that the law was not rationally related to its intended
purpose of reducing gun crime. Now Miller is pushing similar laws at the
state level in both New Jersey and Pennsylvania, citing manipulated
statistics purporting to show that Pennsylvania's gun laws are responsible
for New Jersey gun crime.
Earlier this year, Miller advocated passage of New Jersey legislation to ban
guns based on the size of the hole in the barrel, citing the supposedly evil
properties of one particular firearm costing as much as $10,000 apiece and
in civilian use primarily by wealthy target shooters. Members of the
legislature who believed Miller were embarrassed to discover that the
legislation also banned hundreds of common hunting and historical firearms,
including the flintlocks and muskets that won the American Revolution and
the Civil War. A clear solution to the urban problem of drive-by
musketeering, no doubt...
Miller's latest scheme to ration guns to law abiding citizens would not only
fail to impact illegal gun trafficking (already a felony for which no new
laws are needed), but it would actually interfere with law enforcement
monitoring of bulk gun sales by thwarting the reporting of multiple handgun
purchases to authorities currently mandated by federal law. In what universe
does a scheme like that do anything to reduce gun crime?
Based on actions like these, it is not unreasonable to conclude that Miller
and his group have as their unspoken agenda the extremist goal of
incrementally eliminating all lawful gun ownership by honest citizens. The
only question is, if that's their true agenda, why not just say so? It would
make a lot more sense than trying to explain how laws that disarm only
honest citizens solve gun crime.
Until recently, Miller and his group have been given a free pass in the
media and by many public officials, who have accepted their "solutions"
without question. By challenging them in courts of law, principle, logic and
truth, law-abiding gun owners have forced them to become more accountable,
which may explain why they have now taken to personal attacks on Second
Amendment advocates like me.
Unlike some, I am not compensated for the advocacy work that I do. I am
motivated only by the conviction that good people should have both the right
and the ability to defend themselves when the unthinkable occurs, and that
the unique firearms freedoms we have inherited need to be defended,
preserved, and protected from those who do not comprehend their
significance.
On any given day, I would gladly stand shoulder to shoulder with Miller to
support laws that severely punish violent gun crime rather than targeting
the tool. But that's not likely to happen any time soon, because Miller has
a different agenda. To Miller, I have this to say: it's time to get real and
be forthright about what you're really trying to do. If you don't, honest
gun owners like me are going to be right there to do it for you.
Anti-gun extremism in the Garden State
Scott L. Bach, Esq.
October 10, 2007
Can drunk driving be reduced by selling fewer cars? Can arson be reduced by
selling fewer matches?
The obvious answer to these questions is no. The criminal misuse of any
lawful product is not a function of the number of units sold; it's a
function of how effectively society deals with the criminals who misuse
them.
To reduce drunk driving, we should enforce strict laws punishing drunk
drivers. To reduce arson, we should enforce strict laws punishing arsonists.
Selling fewer cars won't reduce drunk driving, just like selling fewer
matches won't reduce arson. That's just common sense.
Unfortunately for gun ban advocates like Bryan Miller (Executive Director of
CeaseFire NJ), the same principle also holds true for firearms. Selling
fewer firearms to law abiding citizens who have passed government background
checks will not reduce gun crime, because they are not the cause of gun
crime to begin with.
But when it comes to anti-gun extremism in the Garden State, common sense
and logic go out the window.
Case in point: Miller thinks that New Jersey gun crime can be reduced by
rationing guns to law-abiding Pennsylvania citizens. When I pointed out the
absurdity of this notion in a recent post, Miller dedicated an entire blog
post to attacking my integrity, revealing a typical distraction technique
of gun ban extremists when confronted with a principle of truth that exposes
the absurdity of their agenda: attack the messenger.
Miller's group characterizes itself as a leader in the fight against gun
violence, but a more apt description might be a leader in the fight against
lawful gun ownership. The group seems to support any scheme whose net effect
is to interfere with the rights of honest citizens to exercise their Second
Amendment freedoms, instead of targeting their efforts at criminals, who are
the real source of gun violence.
At a hearing last year in Jersey City, Miller actually argued that laws that
get tough on gun criminals are ineffective, yet advocated for an ordinance
that rationed firearms just to law-abiding citizens who have been
pre-certified by the state as non-criminals after passing a 13-point
background investigation. The ordinance passed but was soon invalidated by a
Court, which found that the law was not rationally related to its intended
purpose of reducing gun crime. Now Miller is pushing similar laws at the
state level in both New Jersey and Pennsylvania, citing manipulated
statistics purporting to show that Pennsylvania's gun laws are responsible
for New Jersey gun crime.
Earlier this year, Miller advocated passage of New Jersey legislation to ban
guns based on the size of the hole in the barrel, citing the supposedly evil
properties of one particular firearm costing as much as $10,000 apiece and
in civilian use primarily by wealthy target shooters. Members of the
legislature who believed Miller were embarrassed to discover that the
legislation also banned hundreds of common hunting and historical firearms,
including the flintlocks and muskets that won the American Revolution and
the Civil War. A clear solution to the urban problem of drive-by
musketeering, no doubt...
Miller's latest scheme to ration guns to law abiding citizens would not only
fail to impact illegal gun trafficking (already a felony for which no new
laws are needed), but it would actually interfere with law enforcement
monitoring of bulk gun sales by thwarting the reporting of multiple handgun
purchases to authorities currently mandated by federal law. In what universe
does a scheme like that do anything to reduce gun crime?
Based on actions like these, it is not unreasonable to conclude that Miller
and his group have as their unspoken agenda the extremist goal of
incrementally eliminating all lawful gun ownership by honest citizens. The
only question is, if that's their true agenda, why not just say so? It would
make a lot more sense than trying to explain how laws that disarm only
honest citizens solve gun crime.
Until recently, Miller and his group have been given a free pass in the
media and by many public officials, who have accepted their "solutions"
without question. By challenging them in courts of law, principle, logic and
truth, law-abiding gun owners have forced them to become more accountable,
which may explain why they have now taken to personal attacks on Second
Amendment advocates like me.
Unlike some, I am not compensated for the advocacy work that I do. I am
motivated only by the conviction that good people should have both the right
and the ability to defend themselves when the unthinkable occurs, and that
the unique firearms freedoms we have inherited need to be defended,
preserved, and protected from those who do not comprehend their
significance.
On any given day, I would gladly stand shoulder to shoulder with Miller to
support laws that severely punish violent gun crime rather than targeting
the tool. But that's not likely to happen any time soon, because Miller has
a different agenda. To Miller, I have this to say: it's time to get real and
be forthright about what you're really trying to do. If you don't, honest
gun owners like me are going to be right there to do it for you.
