The Left Finally Declares it's Elitist/Progressive End Game

[M]

Source; http://www.huffingtonpost.com/amitai-etzioni/needed-domestic-disarm...

by; Amitai Etzioni Professor of international relations, George Washington University

Needed: Domestic Disarmament, Not 'Gun Control'

Posted: 12/07/2015 11:45 am EST Updated: 12/07/2015 5:59 pm EST

(You can see by this article from the Raging Leftist Rag, the Huffington Post, that the left has increased it's Blind Blathering rally behind the real agenda of the Elite Progressive Left, "Disarmament". My Opinion of the article! Let's deconstruct this article piece by piece. My Opinions will be interspersed within the article in bold italics and parenthesis.)

In response to the almost daily mass shootings in the United States -- which could be expected to rise now that they are also promoted by ISIS -- good progressive persons are calling for some measure of gun control. They may well know, in their heart of hearts, that even if these measures are enacted, they will do little to reduce gun violence.

( In my opinion, I have to agree that gun control measures will not potentially affect the senseless shootings of innocent victims who by law are divested of their natural rights to self defense by way of imposed Gun Free Zones that act like miscreant magnets for shooters who want to ply their sickness without danger to themselves.)

Universal background checks of gun buyers is a fine idea, but of limited value in a nation in which citizens already own 250 million guns, more than one for every adult. Providing more mental health treatment is always a good idea. But if you believe that one can tell which mental patients will resort to mass shootings, and that most of these can be stopped by therapists, there are several bridges in Brooklyn I would like to sell you.

( Strangely I again must agree with the distinguished Professor in his conclusions. This is becoming embarrassing agreeing with the Left's arguments. In fact regardless of how many guns are legally owned by law abiding citizens, it is predominantly the Illegal guns that are used in the shootings and other criminal acts that almost totally negate the use of legally obtained guns used in these endeavors. The legal firearms used approach almost ZERO Statistically.)

Slowing the speed by which magazines can be reloaded (by requiring a tool to reload) would help, but gun manufacturers already found a way to circumvent this regulation -- by declaring that a bottom on the gun is a tool.

"It is at best naïve, sometimes disingenuous, to imply that if several gun control measure would be enacted -- and somehow enforced -- the U.S. would gain what these other nations take for granted."

( This Professor is really getting my goat with these statements, most of which so far have originated by the Conservative gun owning right. Of course it's Naive to believe that, especially when you look to what is happening in these implied Utopian Gun Free, 'other countries'. The Left does not report nor acknowledge the dissent of the law abiding citizens who were disarmed by governmental mandate, and the automatic increase in crimes of violence in the aforementioned countries against the disarmed and defenseless populations. It's something the Left will never acknowledge. More on this theme later.)

Good progressive people may well respond that they must start with small, incremental measures, because the really big, effective ones do not have a prayer. But neither do the tiny ones, at least on the national level. The NRA will not yield an inch.

(God, this guy is good at the Alynsky method of twisting facts to fit his theories. Thank god we have organizations that stand up for our Constitutional rights, or we would be back under the thumbs of the Elitists who want a total Oligarchy for them to be the unassailable rulers of everything under the sun.)

One needs no better evidence than to note that Congress just refused to ban people on the no-fly list, those strongly suspected of being terrorists, from buying guns legally in the U.S.! Moreover, the NRA is moving the needle in the opposite direction, getting more and more states to allow people to carry concealed weapons, in more and more places.

( Ah, finally a bit of mis-direction and spin from the left agenda. He totally ignores the fact that the "No Fly List" is rife with errors concerning innocent people being placed on it by mistake or through political contrivance. The Professor states that NRA is pushing for more states to allow concealed carry without going into the extensive background checks and training requirements that each State has before the permit is issued. By his statement he implies that all a person has to do is apply for a permit to get one.)

Most progressives seem unaware that whatever laws are finally enacted will have very little effect because the NRA and its allies in Congress have found powerful ways to prevent their enforcement. The Firearms Owners' Protection Act of 1986 bans the ATF from inspecting gun dealers more than once in any 12-month period, even if violations are uncovered, and it reduces record-keeping violations from a felony to a misdemeanor offense, the result being that gun dealers are very rarely prosecuted.

( Still more Alynsky spin and mis-direction tactics here. Yes and the reason among others was;  The Senate found that “75 percent of ATF prosecutions were aimed at ordinary citizens who had neither criminal intent nor knowledge, but were enticed by agents into unknowing technical violations.” and "There is a caveat that the ATF may inspect a second time that year if there are multiple record-keeping violations upon the first inspection." Furtheremore,  "FOPA clarified some of the restrictions on firearms ownership (i.e. the questions you answer on the Form 4473 when you purchase a firearm at an FFL). I will not go into detail on this list, but the FOPA made definitions clearer than they were with the passage of the GCA in 1968." )

The 2003 and 2004 Tiahrt amendments, named for their sponsor Rep. Todd Tiahrt, require that records from the background checks of gun buyers be destroyed within 24 hours, bar requiring gun dealers to conduct inventory checks to monitor gun thefts, and prevent crime gun trace data from being used in court, even when a dealer has broken the law. In addition, Congress has barred the ATF repeatedly from creating a computerized database, so when a gun is recovered at a crime scene, agents must manually search through boxes of paper records to trace the firearm to dealer or purchaser.

( Here again he misleads the public because the records of gun sales must be kept by the dealer for 20 years and turned over to the ATF when the dealer retires or goes out of business. That means the ATF has all the sales records and while not being allowed to create a computerized data base of gun owners, there is nothing to prevent them from creating a computerized data base of their own records for say Book keeping or filing purposes.)

Advocates of gun control frequently cite the much lower levels of gun violence in other developed nations -- such as Canada and the UK -- in support of the measures they promote. However, these very low levels of gun violence have not been achieved by gun control but -- by domestic disarmament.

"Make the gun manufacturers liable for harm done with their products. Ban the sale of ammunition. And vote for a president that will add to the Supreme Court those who will read the Second Amendment as written."

( This one scares the crap out of me. do you see the subtle implication that the Supreme Court should interpret the Second Amendment other than it has been by slanting it to the Left's agenda for keeping firearms out of the hands of the people? His implication here is basically the same as Obama's proclivity for ignoring the 235+ years of known and acknowledged intent on Constitutional issues and interpreting them to bolster the current agendas of the Elitist Progressive ruling class wannabee's)

Most people have no guns in these fully democratic nations and have no way of getting them, legally or otherwise. It is hence at best naïve, sometimes disingenuous, to imply that if several gun control measure would be enacted -- and somehow enforced -- the U.S. would gain what these other nations take for granted. (By the way, Black Lives Matters may wish to take note: In these blessed nations most cops, most of the time, have no guns either.)

( This is belied by the fact that Only in Britain the run of the mill officer does not have guns and here's the rub,  UNLESS THEY REQUEST THEM FOR DUTY. It totally ignores the manifold Socialist Dictatorships where the citizenry has been decimated by armed minions of the Dictator's Government and at one time the dissenting citizens were exterminated in Government sponsored Pogroms. This goes to the Heart of the Intent of the Second Amendment's purpose, To allow the Citizenry of the United States of America to have the means to defend themselves from their own Government should it become necessary. That "FACT" is never spoken of by the minions of the Elitist/Progressive Left.)

Given that even micro gun control measures will be effectively blocked by the NRA and its allies, and that promoting mini measures as potentially effective is misleading, progressives may as well go for the big enchilada: Call for domestic disarmament.

( This is the first time I have seen in print from a National Liberal News Media, a Progressive actually openlt advocate  for Disarmament of the public in spite of the Second Amendment, and SCOTUS Rulings to the contrary. They have always couched their terms to try and deceive the public about their end game.)

One may say that the Supreme Court, after 250 years in which the Second Amendment was read as allowing only a well-regulated militia to have guns, recently reinterpreted it to mean that there is an individualized right to own guns. This suggests that we may have to get to domestic disarmament through the back door.

( This is just ridiculous in the assumption that the Supreme Court has always held that guns were only allowed to a well regulated Militia. By the way, the "Militia" inferred in the Second Amendment was considered in the time period the Constitution was written as EVERY Able Bodied Male in the Community. So now as then that is a hollow argument that basically is meant to twist the recent declaration of SCOTUS as a reversal instead of a Re-affirmation of our ongoing unalienable rights for self defense against all comers protected by the Constitution.)

Make the gun manufacturers liable for harm done with their products. Ban the sale of ammunition. And vote for a president that will add to the Supreme Court those who will read the Second Amendment as written.

(THIS IS THE CLARION CALL OF THE MODERN DAY PRE-DICTATORIAL ELITIST/PROGRESSIVE AND THEIR HOLY GRAIL AGENDA FOR AMERICA IN MY OPINION)

Above all, domestic disarmament is a true, compelling vision which cannot be said about the small gun control measures that are currently promoted by some of the most enlightened people among us.

( Again he makes it abundantly clear where the Elitist Left is really coming from, what their End Game is, without all the mis-direction and Bull.)

--

Amitai Etzioni is a University Professor and Professor of International Relations at The George Washington University. His latest book, Privacy in a Cyber Age, was recently published by Palgrave. You can follow him on Facebook, Twitter, andYouTube. To subscribe to his monthly newsletter, send an e-mail with the subject line "Subscribe" to [e-mail]. 

 

(I might add that he is one of the twisted Communist/Elitist oriented professors that actually believe all the drivel and sanctimonious crap pushed by the Left, In My Humble Considered Opinion. I think we all should contact him and let him know that we strenuously and peacefully disagree with his ideology!)

[M]

As an afterthought, I really believe this supposedly educated Professor believes we should disarm ourselves in hopes that ISIS and our other enemies will play nice with us like the shooters in mandated "Gun Free Zones" are 'supposed' to do with their victims. See the 9 dumbest quotes about gun control from Left Leaning fools. http://www.outdoorlife.com/blogs/gun-shots/2013/07/9-dumbest-gun-co...  Remember this; Feb 11, 2013 - Did Feinstein & Boxer Make The Claim 'Turn In Your Weapons and ... is armed, he will lay down his weapons and turn himself in…. No they didn't. Neither did Feinstein say  'All vets are mentally ill and the government should prevent them from owning firearms. . No again, she actually used Politico speak to say was express her opinion that creating an exemption in an assault weapons ban (not a general firearms ban) for retired military personnel might be inadvisable due to both the prevalence of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) among that group and the difficulty of verifying that a potential gun purchaser was in fact a veteran, and that the proposed amendment should therefore include a provision for screening out "mentally incapacitated" veterans: 

If I understand this, this [amendment] adds an exemption of retired military. As I understand our bill, no issue has arose [sic] in this regard during the ten years the expired ban was in effect and what we did in the other bill was exempt possession by the United States or a department or agency of the United States. So that included active military. The problem with expanding this is that, you know, with the advent of PTSD, which I think is a new phenomenon as a product of the Iraq War, it's not clear how the seller or transferrer of a firearm covered by this bill would verify that an individual was a member, or a veteran, and that there was no impairment of that individual with respect to having a weapon like this. So, you know, I would be happy to sit down with you again and see if we could work something out but I think we have  you're going to do this, find a way that veterans who are incapacitated for one reason or another mentally don't have access to this kind of weapon." source of that is Snopes;  http://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/feinstein.asp  Read the whole article there.

[Rhodes]

I had to edit this a bit as frankly these clowns would have named the battle of Lexington-Concord as workplace violence and insist the Americans disarm to end gun violence.

There are few words strong enough to put this in it's rightful place that I can use in polite company. Therefore :

I would change this thread name to:

"Collectivist further confirms what should be obvious to even to a bag of hammers"

Too nerdy?

how about:

"Useful idiot demands idiotic civil war"

Too dark?

hmmm lastly how about this:

"See how far you can get reading this commie claptrap before your brain explodes"

heh now that has a ring to it... what does the winner get though...

[DE]

Rhodes this is one of your FINEST posts...They are all winners...LOL...I know one thing ..We have certainly got ourselves some fine Patriot Men on this Tea party..God bless 'em one and all....

[M]

I like all of them Rhodes, maybe I can farm out supplying the titles for my posts to you occasionally.

M

[Frederick L Neff]

I will try to be very clear for any and all out there,

I WILL NOT LIVE ON MY KNEES!

If you want them, I DARE YOU TO COME AND TAKE THEM!

My promise....

I WILL GIVE YOU THE AMMO FIRST, ONE SHELL AT A TIME!

Lefty's are all about action when its someone else risking life and limb.

[DE]

Ahhh...Mr Neff.......You are back..WOW ..What a statement....Agree with every word....Welcome Welcome..!!!

[Frederick L Neff]

Never gone DE, like the eyes of a crocodile stalking its prey, always watching.......

[DE]

Good for you!!!....Sooo glad to have you posting....