Sounds familiar doesn’t it?

In his most recent “study” published by the New England Journal of Medicine, anti-gun shill researcher Dr. Garen Wintemute* apparently strays from the approved anti-gun talking points and admits that the “gun show loophole” is fictional:

In fact, there is no gun-show loophole as such. Federal law is silent on the issue of gun shows and permits private-party gun sales to occur anywhere. As a result, such a limited measure might well have no detectable effect on the rates of firearm-related violent crime. Gun shows account for a small percentage of all gun sales in the United States — between 4 and 9%, according to the best estimates available.1 Similarly, they account for just 3 to 8% of all private-party gun sales. Legislation to close the gun-show loophole would not affect the great majority of private-party sales, and motivated illicit buyers could simply find private sellers elsewhere. (In addition, closing the alleged loophole would not necessarily reduce, by more than a small amount, the importance of gun shows as a source of guns used in crimes. Most sales at gun shows — more than 80%, according to unpublished data3 — are made by licensed retailers, not private parties, and data from gun-trafficking investigations indicate that two thirds of the guns used in crimes that have been linked to gun shows were sold by licensed retailers.2)

Of course, his “solution” is not to drop the issue completely, but to expand the proposed prohibition to cover ALL private sales, no matter where they occur.

His blatant admission may seem like a slam-dunk win for our side, but I’m not so sure.

You see, Prior to Heller and McDonald, the anti-gunners felt that they had to mask their agenda and take it in baby steps in order to mislead the public about their true end goal.

This very well may be the first indication of a new tack.  Helmke, Horowitz, Hennigan et. al. are singing the praises of the McDonald and Heller decisions because of the ramifications to the “slippery slope” argument.

Do they now feel safe to press ahead with their agenda more openly since the claim that their true end goal of total civilian disarmament is now ostensibly “off the table”?.

Well, I’m here to tell you, the danger is still here and it’s still real.

When we have a population which seems convinced, through years of media and educational malfeasance, that rights are granted by government and can be taken away simply by amending the Constitution, that proverbial slope still has plenty of lubrication.

In the current climate, it may seem unrealistic to think that they could actually achieve a repeal of the Second Amendment, but what about decades or even generations from now?

If they are allowed to incrementally reduce the numbers of gun owners, the types, quantities and calibers of firearms we’re “allowed” to own, to continually add to the list of “prohibited persons”, to reduce the right to keep and bear arms to a licensed, taxed, and registered privilege for the rich and connected, how long will it be before they, with the full collusion of a willing media, after significantly reducing the numbers of gun owners and users, convince a majority of the remaining public that the Second Amendment is outmoded, archaic and should be repealed?

Wait! you say.  It takes a three-fourths majority of the states to pass a Constitutional Amendment doesn’t it?  Why yes, yes it does…but it only takes 50.000000001 percent of the population of each state to convince that state to ratify.   In other words, an amendment could easily pass with significantly less than 75% popular support.  Theoretically, it could pass with 100% support from the states while only garnering the tiniest margin over 50% popular support among the people.

This may not be a real danger today, but if we become complacent.  If we rest on our laurels.  If we fail to take the threat seriously enough, will we be condemning our children, grand-children or great-grandchildren to lives of servitude and serfdom?

“We defend freedom here or it is gone. There is no place to run, only to make a stand. And if we fail, I think we face telling our children, and our children’s children, what it was we found more precious than freedom. Because I am sure someday — if we fail in this — there will be a generation that will ask.””
 –Ronald Reagan

The bottom line is:  They will never rest…so neither can we.

Hat tip to Turk Turon

*Corrected the spelling of his name.  Noticed the mistake thanks to Uncle’s post and link.

Crossposted on The Sentinel

2 thoughts on “Sounds familiar doesn’t it?

  1. When we have a population which seems convinced, through years of media and educational malfeasance, that rights are granted by government and can be taken away simply by amending the Constitution, that proverbial slope still has plenty of lubrication.

    Indeed.

    And they don't even need to go to that trouble, when they openly seat Supreme Court Justices that, by all indications, believe that old pesky Constitution shouldn't stand in the way of the Progressive Agenda.

  2. And they don't even need to go to that trouble, when they openly seat Supreme Court Justices that, by all indications, believe that old pesky Constitution shouldn't stand in the way of the Progressive Agenda.

    Absolutely.

    What's even more scary is that the Republicans roll over for even the most blatantly out-of-the-mainstream liberal appointees when there is a Democrat in office, but when a Republican President is making the nominations, half the time we end up with milquetoast "moderates" or outright "legislate through judicial fiat" liberals.

    Which isn't really surprising when you think about it. The Republicans are no more eager to have a Supreme Court that would routinely undermine their legislative power on Constitutional grounds any more than the Democrats do.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *