Don's Tuesday Column

         THE WAY I SEE IT   by Don Polson  Red Bluff Daily News   12/05/2017

         Hypocritical, fanciful gun beliefs

It really is remarkable that anti-gun partisans can so blithely toss about bromides, and castigate those they disagree with, over hypothetical and speculative scenarios; they have no apparent regard for actual history and experience. Example: In spite of fervently held beliefs by anti-gunners, citizens exercising their natural, God-given—and constitutionally confirmed—right to self-defense reportedly have over ten thousand defensive uses of guns per year.

That is a statistic that includes much more than the actual firing of a weapon in self-defense, which is invariably found justifiable by law enforcement. Included beyond actual discharges in self-defense are the display, and verbal threat via statement of possession, of a firearm for purposes of deterrence of an attack.

Apropos my first sentence, writer Heather Wilhelm summarized the point after the Texas church massacre, in “Gun Control and Magical Thinking—Liberals’ perspective on the issue is just as warped as they imagine conservatives’ to be.” Liberals foolishly clamor for more restrictions, new laws, longer waiting periods and expanded background checks. On the last one, no gun rights advocate objects to arms length transactions between private, non-related people going through a federally licensed gun dealer for the same vetting a buyer would otherwise get.

A law-abiding citizen should be given the benefit of expedited processing; family members shouldn’t be subject to such delays if a threat occurs and they can legally own guns. That still left the Texas and Rancho Tehama murderers free to acquire and keep guns due to (in Texas) failure by the Air Force to report disqualifying crimes, and (in R.T.) the deputies not getting permission for a warrant search of his premises. No new laws are needed!

That brings us to the next issue about which we should all agree: Enforce existing laws against the possession and use of firearms by criminals and, as importantly, prosecute to the fullest extent, federal laws against felons that lie on forms to try to buy guns. See “The Real Consensus on Gun Control,” by John Hinderaker at Powerlineblog.com. The irrefutable case is made that—considering the “hundreds of federal and state laws and regulations” already restricting gun ownership and use—two-thirds of voters polled by Rasmussen “think the United States needs stricter enforcement of existing gun control laws.” Do the anti-gun advocates agree?

That leads to this statistic that sums up the hypocritical partisan disingenuousness of Democrats: “More than 100,000 convicted felons or other ‘prohibited persons’ tried to buy guns each year during President Barack Obama’s administration by lying on their applications, but the Justice Department only considered prosecuting about 30 to 40 people each year,” according to a Daily Caller investigation. In “Obama Rarely Prosecuted Criminals Who Sought To Buy Guns Illegally,” Richard Pollock states that the Obama administration “consistently turned a blind eye to prosecuting known criminals who tried to buy guns.” If Trump and A.G. Sessions reverse that, will liberals applaud the fact that people will be alive that, under Obama’s policy, would be dead because a violent felon wasn’t behind bars for trying to buy a gun?

Here’s a bit of relevant history: In “The American Indian foundations of American gun culture” (a lengthy but informative Washington Post piece by David Kopel), a technological development speaks to one of the arguments of the anti-gun crowd. Matchlock guns were the standard around the time of the American Revolution; they required that a lighted fuse be carried with which to ignite the charge that propelled the round. European warfare conducted by rows of soldiers in open fields had no use for stealth (or accuracy). It wasn’t practical when carrying a lighted, smoking tinder; neither was stealth possible when hiding behind trees or rock walls.

With the development of the flintlock, it was possible for American fighters to use the striking of flint on steel to spark the charge that propelled the musket ball. Hence, a patriot’s position was concealable; together with accuracy of aim, that resulted in revolutionaries regularly killing the British officers. Without officers, their soldiers had no idea what to do or where to shoot. Advances in gun technology were incorporated into the immutable right to self-defense.

Now, the possession and use of firearms was so basic that the Carolina colony induced immigration “by offering freehold land ownership, along with strong guarantees of religious liberty (but required that) an immigrant had to bring six months worth of provisions…provided always ‘that every man be armed with a good musket full bore, 10 pounds powder and 20 pounds of bullet.’

“The Massachusetts Bay Colony ordered parents to arrange for arms training for all their children aged 10 or above, both boys and girls…Arms carrying was often mandatory for travel outside of towns and for attendance at large public events, particularly church services. Then, as now, unarmed church services were favorite targets for attack, because there would be lots of people gathered in a small space. So one effect of the Anglo-Indian encounter (due to colonists learning the Indian methods of individual warriors in battle) was to foster a culture of widespread household gun ownership and widespread arms carrying.”

I’ll close by noting the news media contribution to obfuscation about guns. In the Texas killer’s case, the rifle he (Devin Kelley) used was essentially the same as the rifle used by the NRA-instructor neighbor, Stephen Willeford, to shoot him through his bulletproof vest. News stories, however, insisted that mass-murderer Kelley used a “military-style assault weapon.” Good guy Willeford was simply described as using “a rifle” or “a gun.” Slanted reporting, as I see it. I also doubt that I’ll ever see gun-hating liberals post signs at homes or stores, “No guns here.”