ABC recently aired an interview between anti-gun Senator Chris Murphy (CT-D) and ABC’s Jon Karl. During the interview, Sen. Murphy showed his hand and explained why the anti-Second Amendment crowd pushes so hard on legislation that seems unrelated to the current event, mass shooting, or otherwise high profile shooting that caused the uproar. By Dean Weingarten Quite simply, they use it as an emotional vehicle for other legislation they normally could not pass. In the interview, ABC’s Jon Karl is questioning Senator Chris Murphy from Connecticut. From the ABC transcript:
KARL: — there’s these proposals. Your proposal would’ve done nothing in the case of Orlando. It would’ve done nothing to stop the killing in San Bernardino, and, in fact was…is, unrelated to Newtown. So why, I mean why, I mean, why are we focusing on things that have nothing to do with the massacres that we are responding to?
MURPHY: Well, so first of all, we can’t get into that trap. I disagree. I think if this proposal had been into effect, it may have stopped this shooting. But we can’t get into the trap in which we are forced to defend our proposals simply because it didn’t stop the last tragedy. We should be making our gun laws less full of Swiss cheese holes so that future killings don’t happen. That trap is an impossible one.
No, it is not an impossible one. If the Senator were dealing honestly, he could explain it. If it would have helped somewhere else, he could make the argument elsewhere.
The argument of the anti-Second Amendment lobby is that if the government controlled all access to guns, and strictly limited them, then terrorists could not get them, or at least it would be harder. But that kind of control has failed, massively, all over the world, just as it did in France, in Norway, in Belgium, in Brazil, in Mexico, in Jamaica, in South Africa, in Puerto Rico, in the UK.
The plan guts Second Amendment rights, allowing for incremental confiscation over time, just as has happened in England and Wales.
Murphy continues, explaining that the Sandy Hook massacre is being used to push for unrelated infringements on the Second Amendment.
The Sandy Hook families lobby for background checks. You know why? Because they’re just as concerned with the young men and women who are dying in our cities because of the flow of illegal guns as they are about a ban on assault weapons or high magazine clips that might have prevented Newtown. So, this has to be broader than just responding to the tragedy that happened three days ago.
Except, there are no facts to support that contention.
The terrorist Watch list legislation is particularly dangerous. It sets the precedence that a person’s Second Amendment rights can be stripped from them without due process by bureaucratic fiat. There is no appeal process. You do not know your rights have been lost until you attempt to exercise them. It is an anti-Second Amendment schemer’s dream because anyone they dislike can be put on the list, secretly. The list can be expanded overnight to include whole groups of people. It is a Constitutional nightmare.
The components that the anti-Second Amendment plotters are attempting to put in place are all peices of a machine that ends up destroying Second Amendment rights.
Ban people on the Watch List from owning guns. That establishes the power to strip people’s Second Amendment rights from them without due process or even notification. This is being done by: Universal Background Checks – Make it illegal for anyone to obtain a firearm without asking government permission, which is subject to the Watch list.
Universal Gun Registration – No gun to be legally owned unless the government knows who has it, who is allowed access to it, and where it is stored.
Mandatory notification of lost or stolen guns – Makes it legally difficult to resist incremental gun confiscation. Incremental gun confiscation has been common where universal registration has been implemented. It has already taken place in California and NY.
If you are not able to turn the registered gun in, you will have committed a crime and be subject to prosecution. As more atrocities happen, more guns are declared illegal, and/or it becomes more expensive to keep them, until there are none left. It might take decades, but it happened in England and Wales.
All of Senator Murphy’s pieces of legislation fit into an overall scheme to destroy Second Amendment rights over time. He cannot argue for them all together. The intent would be too clear. The package could never pass the Congress.
Incrementally, bit by bit, using the latest crime to push for unrelated legislation, they could be put in place. That has been the plan for 50 years. Precursor legislation, such as the 1968 Gun Control Act, and the national instant background check system are already there. They do nothing to actually reduce crime, but they enable future incremental steps to destroy Second Amendment rights.
50 years ago, anti-Second Amendment plotters were open about their strategy. Now they know they have to use lies and subterfuge.
How do you feel about Weingarten’s analysis of Murphy’s interview? Did he get it right? Share your opinion or analysis in the comment section.
©2016 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice and link are included. Link to Gun Watch