A few days ago, while I was researching an essay on Gun Control (what else?), I ran across an article from some Progressive guy who claimed to be an ex-NYC policeman. I was surprised by the content, because I always figured that the police were fairly well-grounded in the real definition of "common sense measures". But since the article was almost four years old, I didn't give it more than a casual reference.
But it popped up on my screen today because I had saved the link, and I actually read it in detail even though I had found it on SLATE dot com:
I thought would present a few of the opinions ... presented as either facts, or assumptions that "everybody knows" ... if only to demonstrated how ignorant some of these rabid Moon Bats can be:
How Obama can use government procurement regulations to control guns. - Slate Magazine (2009):
What is striking is that the government buys guns from manufacturers who also sell them to criminals—either knowingly or by willfully overlooking the behavior of the retail outlets that the gun companies use as their distribution system. Those of us who were in law enforcement in New York City in the late '80s and early '90s remember how drug dealers pioneered the use of 9-mm guns. We heard over and over from our friends in the police department that they were outgunned, that their service revolvers were no match for semi-automatics in a shootout. So what did the police do? The New York City Police Department finally bought 9-mms, too. It was a classic arms race, with the gun manufacturers in the economically enviable position of selling bigger and better guns to both sides. This prompts a simple question: Why do we buy guns from companies that permit their products to be sold to bad guys?
[NB: All quotes included emphasis not included in the original article.]
I didn't think I had read that right, or perhaps the guy was toking while he was writing and had merely mis-spoken. But when I reread the article, I saw that he said it again:
What is striking is that the government buys guns from manufacturers who
also sell them to criminals—either knowingly or by willfully
overlooking the behavior of the retail outlets that the gun companies
use as their distribution system.
And then, to confirm his inability to get a clue, he presented his own modest proposal to influence free trade without directly challenging the Second Amendment:
Nongun manufacturers across the nation routinely control how their
product is distributed and impose contractual obligations on wholesalers
and retailers. Gun companies should have to use a similar approach.
They should sell their product through only authorized dealers. And the
authorized dealers should have to keep track of how many times they got
"trace" inquiries from law enforcement—that is, how many guns they sold
were later used by criminals
One might get the impression from this article that (a) firearms manufacturers sell directly to criminals on a retail basis, and/or (b) the firearms manufacturers, unlike "nongun manufacturers across the nation", are completely unregulated and can sell directly to private citizens.
And also, that "authorized dealers" are not accountable for checking that their customers are not criminals. Perhaps they think that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives don't audit licensed dealers?
Apparently, this experienced ex-cop has never, during his years on the Mean Streets, heard of the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (
NICS) .
According to the FBI, which has been running these background checks since 1998:
Mandated by the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act of 1993 and
launched by the FBI on November 30, 1998, NICS is used by Federal
Firearms Licensees (FFLs) to instantly determine whether a prospective
buyer is eligible to buy firearms or explosives. Before ringing up the
sale, cashiers call in a check to the FBI or to other designated
agencies to ensure that each customer does not have a criminal record or
isn’t otherwise ineligible to make a purchase. More than 100 million
such checks have been made in the last decade, leading to more than
700,000 denials.
Here's the thing: Suppose you were a Progressive, and suppose you were an Idiot. (But then, I repeat myself.) This contributor to Slate has presented his credentials ... more or less ... as a knowledgeable authority on the subject. If anybody knows anything about guns, it should be a cop in a major city. Especially where they're about the only people authorized to carry a gun.
So any of those "
Useful Idiots" (or "utter simpletons") who are so gullible as to take his comments at face value may be instantly convinced of the validity of his assertations. After all, they read it in "
Slate", so it must be true!
This is a perfect example of the way the Ignoramousity of America have been duped by their "trusted sou
ed on an unwarranted assumption Or a misunderstanding of the FEDERAL laws regarding firearms purchases.
One can't help but wonder if this was a deliberate piece of "misdirection: on the part of the author. Surely he should have been aware that Congress passed the Shield Law in October of 2005 ... 3-1/2 years before this article was poison-penned. The announcement was
published in the New York Times, the most trusted publication in all Christendom!
Well, perhaps the N.Y. Times is not as trusted as Slate.
