This article was published by The McAlvany Intelligence Advisor on Wednesday, October 4, 2017:
Supporters of the Second Amendment typically blow off proposals offered by anti-gun politicians to solve gun violence like that in Las Vegas on Sunday as insanity: doing more and more of the same thing that hasn’t worked in the past but expecting it to work in the future. Albert Einstein was much more elegant: he said insanity is “doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.”
Some would claim that Democrats in general are lacking in mental acuity, with bumper stickers expressing the opinion that they are “stuck on stupid” or “You can’t fix stupid” and the like.
But what if they aren’t? What if they have a much longer view of history and their fight to subvert the United States and change the whole country into a gun-free zone?
A little history is appropriate: The decade of the 1920s looks awfully much like our current times: stock market hitting new highs, unemployment at record lows, unbounded investor optimism, new inventions making life easier and raising people’s living standards. Even the calm assurance that stocks will continue to make new highs as a result of Trump’s tax reform plan abound nearly daily.
Irving Fisher, the Yale economist who preceded John Maynard Keynes in his thinking, said, just prior to the stock market crash in late 1929:
Stock prices have reached what looks like a permanently high plateau. I do not feel there will be soon if ever a 50 or 60 point break from present levels, such as (bears) have predicted. I expect to see the stock market a good deal higher within a few months.
Within five years, one out of every four Americans was out of work. Stocks had lost 90 percent of their value. And the communists who had insinuated themselves into Roosevelt’s administration saw their chance and they took it: the National Firearms Act of 1934. It was the camel’s nose under the tent and remains in place today. It not only foisted a gun registration system upon the formerly free people of the United States, but today’s modest attempts just to remove suppressors from under its draconian jurisdiction are meeting with heavy resistance.
At the moment, everything appears to be on the side of supporters of the Second Amendment. National reciprocity is gaining traction in Washington. Court cases expanding gun ownership freedoms are piling up at the doorstep of the Supreme Court with expectations that the Second Amendment’s guarantees will be expanded further in the near future.
And so why would anti-gun politicians use the Las Vegas massacre as the right time to press for more regulations? Why would Connecticut Democrat Chris Murphy once again roll out efforts for “universal background checks”? Why would the New York Times, in what appeared to be a pre-written opinion piece just waiting for something like Las Vegas to happen, offer up the following useless and silly proposals:
- Universal background checks (even though the shooter, Stephen Paddock, passed background checks in purchasing those rifles);
- Impose a minimum age limit of 21 on gun purchasers (even though Paddock was 64);
- Enforce a ban on possession of guns by anyone subject to a domestic violence protection order (even though no such order has been found during the police’s initial investigation into Paddock’s background);
- Limit gun purchases by any one person to no more than, say, two a month (even though Paddock had at least 10 rifles in his hotel room, and presumably more at his residence, which he likely acquired over many months or possibly years);
- Adopt microstamping of cartridges (even though independent experts have concluded that the technology doesn’t yet exist for such microstamping and others remain unpersuaded that it would prevent attacks like Sunday’s from occurring in the future);
- Invest in “smart gun” technology (even though such technology hasn’t been shown to reduce violent crime);
- Require safe storage, to reduce theft, suicide, and accidents by children (even though Paddock had no children and his weapons weren’t stolen, at least he relieved society of the burden of finding him guilty and incarcerating him for the murders of nearly 60 innocent people); and
- Invest in research to see what interventions will be more effective in reducing gun deaths (even though even Paddock’s family had no idea that he was even considering such a deadly rampage).
Why would anti-gun outfits like the Times and people like Murphy go back again and again to the well that never produced any water? Do they have a death wish?
Or are they just waiting for another opportunity to complete the task begun in 1934? Is it possible that today’s increasingly overvalued stock market could be a harbinger for a future crash that would once again put a quarter of Americans out of work, sufficiently distracted by the need to feed themselves and their families that closing the door on the Second Amendment would occur with nary a whimper?
Are they insane? Most Democrats are too smart to play this dumb.
New York Times: Preventing Future Mass Shootings Like Las Vegas