Using International Fear to Steal Our Freedom

The headline on the story at ABC News today reads Obama to Seek New Assault Weapons Ban.

While stopping short of blaming a factually non-existent out of control weapons use on cowardly white folks, race-baiting fear-monger Eric Holder does take it upon himself to let us know that the reason behind wanting to ban assault weapons is all those damn Mexicans:

I met yesterday with Attorney General Medina Mora of Mexico, and we discussed the unprecedented levels of violence his country is facing because of their enforcement efforts.

The ABC News article reports that the Obama Administration is seeking to "cut down on the flow of guns going across the border into Mexico, which is struggling with heavy violence among drug cartels along the border."

Isn't it nice to know that the more things (Hopen)Change, the more they stay the same?

Let's continue to expand federal government authority and shred the constitution here folks.

Putting aside the obvious fact that if Mexican drug cartels want automatic weapons, they are going to get them whether from a legal store in the United States or from the black market, the purpose of the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution was so that the people would be able to remain armed sufficiently to protect themselves, not only from violent criminals on their own, but also from an oppressive government. While it may seem difficult for many people to believe that assault rifles are necessary for the common person to be able to procure, the fact of the matter is that if the people of the United States ever wish to be able to protect themselves from the imposition of martial law that will eventually be implemented to stem the tide of a fear created and spread by the Federal Government, we need to be allowed access to the same level of weaponry that the military possesses.

After inheriting a tidy economic crisis, Barack Obama is playing the Politics of Fear as we have never seen before. Rest assured he intends to stoke the fire as long as possible until what may now seem like a few glowing embers of crisis has become a raging inferno of panic and catastrophe.

The 2nd Amendment was put into place in order to ensure that the citizens of this country could rise up with vengeance and furious anger to overthrow an overreaching and overly oppressive government. As our President does nothing but expand the size of the Federal Government almost exponentially on a daily basis, now is the time, more than ever, that we must fight for our right to keep and bear arms.

Staring Down the Barrel of a Gun

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

--2nd Amendment to the Constitution of the United States

In Illinois, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, is about to be egregiously infringed.

The bill seeks not to ban guns, but to make it virtually impossible to be eligible to own one.

Provides that any person who owns a firearm in this State shall maintain a policy of liability insurance in the amount of at least $1,000,000 specifically covering any damages resulting from negligent or willful acts involving the use of such firearm while it is owned by such person.

The question of whether or not an gun owner ought to have insurance on his or her gun is, I think, probably a good one. However the issue here is the size of the policy in comparison to the cost of owning a gun. As a comparison, a car costs, say $20,000, and minimum liability insurance only, no collision, probably runs around $500/year. A $1,000,000 insurance policy for the privelege of even owning a gun in the first place, would probably cost on the line of $1,000 per year if not more, compared to the purchase cost of a gun of about, say $500.

The amount of insurance required in this bill is completely disproportionate to the value of the goods. One could easily make the argument that we're effectively talking about injuries and deaths and property damages, but one could make that same argument about driving vehicles, as well.

Ultimately, the main problem with a value like this, is that it's going to be a gigantic punishment to gun owners that are responsible. Chicago has a ban on guns but maintains the highest rate of gun violence and the highest murder rate in the country. Washington, D.C. is in a similar position. If these two cities, and the history of prohibition of alcohol have taught us nothing, it is that when people want to do something, they're going to do it whether the activity is legal or not.

Responsible gun owners learn gun safety, and utilize their guns, when not hunting, only as a last resort in self defense. This bill will only limit the actions of the people who are capable of being responsible gun owners to those levels of economic success who can afford the insurance. Further, the bill goes on to hold said responsible gun owners liable no matter what accidents may befall them:

Provides that a person shall be deemed the owner of a firearm after the firearm is lost or stolen until such loss or theft is reported to the police department or sheriff of the jurisdiction in which the owner resides.

This means that if you're away on vacation, and somebody breaks into your house and steals your gun, then robs a liquor store and kills the manager, guess who's liable for the costs? Congratulations, you and your previously hefty, now mountainous insurance premiums! Genius!

Provides that the Department of State Police shall revoke and seize a Firearm Owner's Identification Card previously issued under this Act if the Department finds that the person to whom such card was issued possesses or acquires a firearm and does not submit evidence to the Department of State Police that he or she has been issued in his or her name a liability insurance policy in the amount of at least $1,000,000 specifically covering any damages resulting from negligent or willful acts involving the use of such firearm while it is owned by such person.

Since they don't want to go directly after guns, because that would too easily infringe on the 2nd Amendment, they go after the regulations on being allowed to own a gun. If you can't prove you have the insurance, you can't have the license, hence you can't have the gun.

But how about those gun bans in Chicago and D.C. again? Obviously there are a lot of people that have guns that aren't "allowed" to have them. This bill, again, will not stop those people from getting their hands on those guns.

Insurance sure as hell would not stop me from obtaining an illegal gun if I wanted to.

This bill is nothing more than yet another way for the government to reach into our pockets and steal more of our money, increasing revenues to the government, to the insurance companies and to the lawyers.

If this bill were to pass, your desire to own a gun would require that you stare one down the barrel first.