Thursday, March 28, 2013

Grandfathering Guns

Assume for a moment that less guns in public hands means higher levels of public safety. I know that studies have not shown this and there are few data points that even support this, but for the moment, pretend this is so.

Grandfathering is a tool of scoundrels when it comes to gun restrictions.  The point of putting gun restrictions in place is usually touted as being for public safety. "It's for the children." "If it saves one child's life its worth it." However, the politicians that propose these laws and then include a grandfather clause show their true colors.  The 1994 AWB had a grandfather clause, the SAFE Act and the Colorado laws have grandfather clauses.

As an aside, "grandfathering" got its start as a technique used by Democrats in conjuction with other laws to ensure that whites could vote (because their grandfather did) while blacks couldn't (because they couldn't pass a reading test or pay a poll tax).  Since gun control has its roots in racism, I find it appropriate that the technique of grandfathering would be included.

Back to the topic at hand.  What are the true colors of politicians who propose such laws?  Well, just take a look at what is said to pass the law and what the law does.  The law is said to increase public safety because these guns or magazines that are being banned are so much more dangerous than "safe" guns.  Yet because of the grandfather clause, the public is allowed to keep the ones that they already own.  Furthermore, since many laws don't get enacted for 30 days to 180 days after passage, people are allowed to stock up on the items that will be banned, but aren't yet.

So which is it?  If the guns and magazines that are being restricted are so dangerous and public safety will be increased so much more by passage of these restrictions, then why would you allow people to continue to own the firearms in question. If the public is still allowed to own them and stock up on them in the days before the ban starts, then why bother with the ban in the first place?

Put simply, if the politician really cared about public safety and they really thought that restricting certain guns would increase that safety, then they would call for a confiscation.  Except they have said they aren't going to confiscate anyone's guns.  Which means there is no reason to restrict them in the first place.

Any gun law that has a grandfather clause in it should be voted down by gun control supporters, because it obviously isn't going to increase public safety.  However, if control of the populace and not public safety is the chief concern, then vote for it. Vote for everything that restricts the people.

No comments:

Post a Comment